Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Electoral

Berning Trumpeters vs The Establishment
User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:18 pm

Godjira, just in case you actually believe in the hacking: Neither the voting machines in Pennsylvania nor the equipment used for tabulating votes are connected to the Internet. I think that is true everywhere, but I know it is true in Pennsylvania.

Kirrabi: A twenty-year term limit or a minimum age of 55 is not "swapping justices in and out." Without looking anything up, I am willing to bet that the majority of justices on the court have been over 55 when appointed and have served less than 20 years.

User avatar
5waldos
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 15781
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:58 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by 5waldos » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:56 pm

VinnyD wrote:Godjira, just in case you actually believe in the hacking: Neither the voting machines in Pennsylvania nor the equipment used for tabulating votes are connected to the Internet. I think that is true everywhere, but I know it is true in Pennsylvania.

Kirrabi: A twenty-year term limit or a minimum age of 55 is not "swapping justices in and out." Without looking anything up, I am willing to bet that the majority of justices on the court have been over 55 when appointed and have served less than 20 years.



Maybe not Vinny- of the 9 (including Scalia) currently or recently around, 5 have served for more than 20 years already.

"Over the history of the Supreme Court, the average length of service is 16 years, but since 1970, the average tenure has increased to 26 years. Justice Scalia has been on the court for more than 27 years. The longest serving justice of all time was William O. Douglas at more than 36 years.Mar 22, 2014"

User avatar
Herc
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 5499
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:50 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Herc » Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:44 am

Higgs Bossom wrote:
korgy wrote:Ped, the reason the shoe-other-foot metaphor is meaningless because Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 out of the last 8 elections. and there has not been a Democratic President who won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote.

this is a problem for Democrats, not Republicans.


What has all that popular support garnered for the Democrats? Very little which is why people have and are abandoning them.


No one likes them because they're too popular.

User avatar
Godjira
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 66484
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:52 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Godjira » Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:56 am

People are abandoning them because of their popular support?
That's the kind of bold flavor they enjoy in Albuquerque!

ACommonLoon
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by ACommonLoon » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:27 pm

VinnyD wrote:Godjira, just in case you actually believe in the hacking: Neither the voting machines in Pennsylvania nor the equipment used for tabulating votes are connected to the Internet. I think that is true everywhere, but I know it is true in Pennsylvania.


Vinny, here's a "link" for my other OP.

ACommonLoon
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by ACommonLoon » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:30 pm

5waldos wrote:Why do you care? We can choose our candidates any damn way we want. As well as it being a state's decision. We are now as a country choosing a president and you would be screaming blue murder if the situation was reversed and Trump was 2 1/2 million American's votes ahead and losing.


A: I didn't vote for Trump and don't want teh Donald to be president.

B: The Dems will be screaming "blue murder" if ever the popular vote determines the presidency and a narrow band of conservative states lifts some candidate they don't like to victory.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Maxwell » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:43 pm

The democrats want to change the rules until the rules work against them, then they'll want to change them back.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:09 pm

Waldos, I still haven't looked anything up. I said I was willing to bet. Are you willing to bet?

It has to be worth my doing the research. $100, even money?

I am willing to bet that the majority of justices on the court have been over 55 when appointed and have served less than 20 years.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:44 pm

Jim keeps saying that the Electoral College makes it difficult for the Democrats to steal presidential elections with fraudulent votes, but what he actually means is that it makes it more difficult for the Democrats to win presidential elections.

No one disputes that, Jim. The EC gives greater weight to less populated areas, which tend to vote Republican.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Maxwell » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:28 am

VinnyD wrote:Jim keeps saying that the Electoral College makes it difficult for the Democrats to steal presidential elections with fraudulent votes, but what he actually means is that it makes it more difficult for the Democrats to win presidential elections.

No one disputes that, Jim. The EC gives greater weight to less populated areas, which tend to vote Republican.

It gives them a voice. Those founders were very smart guys.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:49 am

They would have a voice in a one-person, one-vote election. Just as much as a voice as they now have in every election except President.

For a state to elect its governor with an EC type system would be unconstitutional, even though -- or exactly because -- it would give rural areas a greater voice.

And have you not noticed that rural states like Vermont, Mississippi, and Wyoming get no attention during the presidentail campaign, while more urban states like Ohio and Pennsylvania get attention?

User avatar
cuchulainn
Instigator
Posts: 30711
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:57 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by cuchulainn » Sat Dec 24, 2016 7:09 am

I'm in favor a 20 year term for Supreme Court justices.

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13246
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lavite » Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:38 am

Electronic voting is all fine and that. But you need a hard paper copy to prevent fraud or software errors. Sorry, computers can be hacked. Even without that, errors happen. We all know that.

When you have President Obama, in an interview, telling illegal aliens they will not be prosecuted for voting. We got a problem.

The U.S. is a republic. We have a electoral college to ensure that all states in the Union get some measure of equal representation in the election of the president. It is no different really that how the legislative branch (senate and house) is apportioned.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

User avatar
Godjira
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 66484
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:52 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Godjira » Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:00 am

Only the Fucktarded believe Obama told illegal aliens to vote. But then, Lavite is a troll.
That's the kind of bold flavor they enjoy in Albuquerque!

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:48 am

What in the world does "some measure of equal representation" mean?

States do not get equal representation in the electoral college.

If you mean that residents of small states have the benefit of unequal representation, then yes, that is true.

User avatar
Godjira
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 66484
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:52 pm

Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Electoral

Post by Godjira » Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:02 pm

I think the original point was to prevent some local hero who gets an overwhelming number of votes from taking over.

It certainly wasn't meant as a tool that would eliminate the importance of all but 10 states or as something to be exploited strategically.
That's the kind of bold flavor they enjoy in Albuquerque!

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:09 pm

The winner-take-rule was not in the mind of the framers.

Lost Soul
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 55804
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:02 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lost Soul » Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:47 pm

VinnyD wrote:The winner-take-rule was not in the mind of the framers.

Yes it was. They all hated democracy at the federal level.
IMPRISON BUSH!

INDICT HILLARY!

"Lost Soul is largely correct"- VinnyD

Lost Soul
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 55804
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:02 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lost Soul » Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:59 pm

VinnyD wrote:What in the world does "some measure of equal representation" mean?

States do not get equal representation in the electoral college.

If you mean that residents of small states have the benefit of unequal representation, then yes, that is true.

And it was done intentionally, and it won't change despite all the Dumbocrats whining about it.

It is how states with different populations share political power in the US.

At the Constitutional Convention it was called the Great Compromise, or the Connecticut Compromise. Under the Articles of Confederation, each state got one vote. At the convention, Virginia, NY and PA wanted proportional representation and the small states of Delaware, RI and GA said fuck you. So the middling state of Connecticut proposed a bicameral legislature with each state getting the same representation in one (the Senate) and proportional representation in the other (the House), and the electoral college vote being the sum of both for each state. Viola.
IMPRISON BUSH!

INDICT HILLARY!

"Lost Soul is largely correct"- VinnyD

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Maxwell » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:06 pm

VinnyD wrote:They would have a voice in a one-person, one-vote election. Just as much as a voice as they now have in every election except President.

For a state to elect its governor with an EC type system would be unconstitutional, even though -- or exactly because -- it would give rural areas a greater voice.

And have you not noticed that rural states like Vermont, Mississippi, and Wyoming get no attention during the presidentail campaign, while more urban states like Ohio and Pennsylvania get attention?

There's a reason some states get more attention. Don't you know why?

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:08 pm

LS: Link to any framer saying anything at all about winner take all within a state.

I agree with you that it won't change as long as it continues to disadvantage Democrats.

If 30,000 Bush voters in Ohio in 2004 had instead voted for Kerry, so that Kerry won the EC while losing the popular vote by over a million votes, then there,would have been some hope for change.

You mean "voilà".

Lost Soul
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 55804
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:02 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lost Soul » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:38 pm

VinnyD wrote:LS: Link to any framer saying anything at all about winner take all within a state.

I agree with you that it won't change as long as it continues to disadvantage Democrats.

If 30,000 Bush voters in Ohio in 2004 had instead voted for Kerry, so that Kerry won the EC while losing the popular vote by over a million votes, then there,would have been some hope for change.

You mean "voilà".

Vinny, the founding fathers set up a federal nation with a federal national government.

Of course the 51 elections every four years were winner take all.

Quit looking at the country through the unconstitutional Dumbocrats, and their anti-Federalist proclivities.
IMPRISON BUSH!

INDICT HILLARY!

"Lost Soul is largely correct"- VinnyD

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Maxwell » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:00 pm

Many on the left don't understand the concept of states.

User avatar
Godjira
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 66484
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:52 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Godjira » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:46 am

It's odd that Lavite would be pro electoral college in the Alabama has never made a significant impact on presidential elections and their votes have been meaningless for generations.

Even during those decades the South went against the grain every time, their gestures were always doomed to failure and irrelevance.
That's the kind of bold flavor they enjoy in Albuquerque!

User avatar
Godjira
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 66484
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:52 pm

Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Electoral

Post by Godjira » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:51 am

Lost Soul wrote:
VinnyD wrote:LS: Link to any framer saying anything at all about winner take all within a state.

I agree with you that it won't change as long as it continues to disadvantage Democrats.

If 30,000 Bush voters in Ohio in 2004 had instead voted for Kerry, so that Kerry won the EC while losing the popular vote by over a million votes, then there,would have been some hope for change.

You mean "voilà".

Vinny, the founding fathers set up a federal nation with a federal national government.

Of course the 51 elections every four years were winner take all.

Quit looking at the country through the unconstitutional Dumbocrats, and their anti-Federalist proclivities.


There were 51 elections when the founders founded the govt?

You're not much of a constitutional scholar.

The electoral college matched the popular vote for more than 100 years prior to 2000. (Prior to that, it was hugely controversial when they didn't match.) Now, 2 times in 16 years? Something is wrong.

States can break down their electors by district. It's not unconstitutional.
That's the kind of bold flavor they enjoy in Albuquerque!

User avatar
ExPat From Hell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 4973
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:37 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by ExPat From Hell » Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:06 am

VinnyD wrote:They would have a voice in a one-person, one-vote election. Just as much as a voice as they now have in every election except President.

For a state to elect its governor with an EC type system would be unconstitutional, even though -- or exactly because -- it would give rural areas a greater voice.

And have you not noticed that rural states like Vermont, Mississippi, and Wyoming get no attention during the presidentail campaign, while more urban states like Ohio and Pennsylvania get attention?


Why would a state level EC system be unconstitutional?
Not gay as in happy. Queer as in Fuck You.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:41 pm

You are not making sense, LS. There have only been 51 presidential elections since 1964, and there has never been a year in which all 51 were winner-take-all.

The framers did not envision a winner-take-all system in each state.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:41 pm

ExPat From Hell wrote:
VinnyD wrote:They would have a voice in a one-person, one-vote election. Just as much as a voice as they now have in every election except President.

For a state to elect its governor with an EC type system would be unconstitutional, even though -- or exactly because -- it would give rural areas a greater voice.

And have you not noticed that rural states like Vermont, Mississippi, and Wyoming get no attention during the presidentail campaign, while more urban states like Ohio and Pennsylvania get attention?


Why would a state level EC system be unconstitutional?

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Baker v. Carr.

Lost Soul
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 55804
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:02 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lost Soul » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:15 pm

VinnyD wrote:You are not making sense, LS. There have only been 51 presidential elections since 1964, and there has never been a year in which all 51 were winner-take-all.

You're being capitol P Pedantic, Vinny. You should try to do something about that for the new year.


The framers did not envision a winner-take-all system in each state.

Yes they did, because every state election is winner take all. You can't have a governor four days a week and another governor three days a week.
IMPRISON BUSH!

INDICT HILLARY!

"Lost Soul is largely correct"- VinnyD

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 54521
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by eric84 » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:17 pm

Yeah, I see the problem is that you don't what winner take all means in this context.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:42 pm

Godjira wrote:I looked at the original document and that's not an accurate interpretation of the stats.

Link?

Lost Soul
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 55804
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:02 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lost Soul » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:44 pm

eric84 wrote:Yeah, I see the problem is that you don't what winner take all means in this context.

Context?

Every state election is winner take all, or was until Nebraska and Maine got stupid. But even there, all the other state offices are winner take all.
IMPRISON BUSH!

INDICT HILLARY!

"Lost Soul is largely correct"- VinnyD

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 54521
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by eric84 » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:46 pm

Yes, popular vote winners win the election. Fancy that!
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:56 pm

There have been 23 presidential elections in which every state used the winner take all method. Not a majority.

User avatar
Godjira
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 66484
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:52 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Godjira » Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:50 am

VinnyD wrote:
Godjira wrote:I looked at the original document and that's not an accurate interpretation of the stats.

Link?


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05478.pdf

I forget where in it exactly because it was so long ago, but you can see that stats have been cherry picked and there are possibilities of different kinds of errors (for example, people falsely claiming to be non-citizens to get out of jury duty).

Anyway, an interesting perusal and better than the "Heritage" Foundation.
That's the kind of bold flavor they enjoy in Albuquerque!

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:57 am

Thanks.

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13246
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lavite » Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:48 pm

Each state can pretty have what ever governmental system they like per their state constitution, barring any blatant contradiction with the federal constitution on certain matters.

And each state can apportion their federal electoral votes the same. Their is no set rule. Although most are winner take all.

But in the end, LS is correct. The President with the most electoral votes wins. So it is winner take all.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13246
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lavite » Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:50 pm

Also, you have to consider that at the conclusion of the American Civil War, you had 13 new sovereign nations. They agreed to Become the United States of America, with a brief failure with the Article of Confederation in the middle.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 54521
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by eric84 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:20 pm

Lavite wrote:Each state can pretty have what ever governmental system they like per their state constitution, barring any blatant contradiction with the federal constitution on certain matters.

And each state can apportion their federal electoral votes the same. Their is no set rule. Although most are winner take all.

But in the end, LS is correct. The President with the most electoral votes wins. So it is winner take all.


Foghorn leghorn also doesn't understand winner take all either.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:11 pm

Lavite, a state doesn't have to have a governor. But if it has a governor, the governor has to be elected on the principle of one person, one vote. You could not constitutionally have winner-take-all within each county. See Baker v Carr.

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13246
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lavite » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:36 pm

VinnyD wrote:Lavite, a state doesn't have to have a governor. But if it has a governor, the governor has to be elected on the principle of one person, one vote. You could not constitutionally have winner-take-all within each county. See Baker v Carr.


How did you figure that is what Baker v Carr implies?

http://www.utm.edu/staff/rchestee/Baker ... mmary.html
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13246
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lavite » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:39 pm

eric84 wrote:
Lavite wrote:Each state can pretty have what ever governmental system they like per their state constitution, barring any blatant contradiction with the federal constitution on certain matters.

And each state can apportion their federal electoral votes the same. Their is no set rule. Although most are winner take all.

But in the end, LS is correct. The President with the most electoral votes wins. So it is winner take all.


Foghorn leghorn also doesn't understand winner take all either.


No, it you who fail to comprehend the brilliance of the United States Constitution.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:49 pm

In the little excerpt you linked to, it is Harlan's dissent that makes the holding most clear.

I can find nothing in the Equal Protection Clause or elsewhere in the Federal Constitution which expressly or impliedly supports the view that state legislatures must be so structured as to reflect with approximate equality the voice of every voter.

He couldn't, but the majority could.

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13246
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lavite » Mon Dec 26, 2016 9:15 pm

VinnyD wrote:In the little excerpt you linked to, it is Harlan's dissent that makes the holding most clear.

I can find nothing in the Equal Protection Clause or elsewhere in the Federal Constitution which expressly or impliedly supports the view that state legislatures must be so structured as to reflect with approximate equality the voice of every voter.

He couldn't, but the majority could.


But that is not what you said. you said that Governors had to be elected by popular vote. How does the decision you cited support that claim?

What if a state changed their constitution to allow each county to have a certain number of electoral votes for governor? That is up to the state how they want to determine a governor. The case you cited wouldn't impact on that all except that is a county had sub-districts they might have to meet some federal criteria.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

User avatar
korgy
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 24956
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by korgy » Mon Dec 26, 2016 9:59 pm

cuchulainn wrote:I'm in favor a 20 year term for Supreme Court justices.
i think this is very dangerous for several reasons. first of all, if justices know they have to retire before 20 years is up, they will be calculating every year after about 14 years when to retire because of the potential Presidential rotation, and experience is a good thing. secondly, you have the revolving door problem: they will often need or want another career after they retire, and their motivations on the court could be tainted -- just like Congressmen or cabinet members.

i think we need one body of Govenrment where officials are there for life. the party system for Presidential elections, as well as approval by Congress, is the check for having it lean too far one way or the other.
"Iranians apparently disagree with korgy"

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:39 pm

Lavite, if it were winner take all in each county, then the election would not be "so structured as to reflect with approximate equality the voice of every voter."

If you think there is some reason why the constitution requires that legislators' elections must be so structured but does not require that governors' elections be so structured, I would like to hear it.

User avatar
Lavite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 13246
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Lavite » Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:12 am

VinnyD wrote:Lavite, if it were winner take all in each county, then the election would not be "so structured as to reflect with approximate equality the voice of every voter."

If you think there is some reason why the constitution requires that legislators' elections must be so structured but does not require that governors' elections be so structured, I would like to hear it.


Thank you, Vinny, for making take the time to go back and re-read the entire U.S. Constitution. Some of your points are valid, well except for "winner take all". I will need to ponder and take a look at the Federalist Papers.
There is no education in the second kick of the mule.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:17 pm

Fourteenth Amendment is what is relevant here. Prior to that the states could have had almost any form of govenment other than a monarchy. (The federal government guarantees that each state will have a republican form of government.)

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 62709
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by VinnyD » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:08 pm

I should probably have citedReynolds v. Sims, not Baker v. Carr.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Democrats need to STFU about the unfairness of the Elect

Post by Maxwell » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:16 pm

The 14th amendment has been twisted like a pretzel. It deals with former American slsves, period.

Post Reply