Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Congratulations for finally deciphering my simple and obvious point.
Now can you use that new found knowledge to formulate an original idea and respond thoughtfully?
The senate majority has no constitutional duty other than to hold a vote on a president’s nomination.
for how many years have there been than many circuits. be truthful, you dem/libs desperately want a left biased SCHow many Circuits are there?
McConell kept leftie Garland off the court, one thing he did right during his long time in congress.Your point was that McConnell had no power to fill the seat and didn't fill the seat? DURR
The senate majority has no constitutional duty other than to hold a vote on a president’s nomination.
Where does it say he has to hold a vote?
If we didn't, the orange slob would already be in Federal prison.Oh, so all of a sudden everybody cares about the Constitution? lol...
So you admit you have to ignore the Constitution to get Trump in prison.If we didn't, the orange slob would already be in Federal prison.
Of course that's nonsense. Garland has always been a moderate.McConell kept leftie Garland off the court, one thing he did right during his long time in congress.
Well hell, if you twist yourself into a pretzel, then you can say anything…Popular vote is not how we elect a President but it certainly tells you where the country stands. And it’s NOT with the GOP
And if you subtract Cali, then subtract Texas
Popular vote is not how we elect a President but it certainly tells you where the country stands. And it’s NOT with the GOP
And if you subtract Cali, then subtract Texas
A Democrat would put them in and the court power would shift to the left. That’s why they want the number at 13, and not 11.What would be the benefit of 13 over 9?
The court could shift light years to the left and still be right of center.A Democrat would put them in and the court power would shift to the left. That’s why they want the number at 13, and not 11.
It is strictly a power play by the left because they, like the right.
What a bizarre and anti democratic thing to say.
Those states are blue because more democrat voters live there.
And we count votes not states or square miles. When are right wingers gonna get this through their heads?
It's benefit EVERYONE the most. (Except of course those on the political gravy train)
You don't understand how it would benefit people. You seem to think there'd still be a two party system in place, that everything would be the same except Democrats getting more votes.
It wouldn't.
People would have more choice, and they'd use that choice.
Look, Germany vote TWICE on the same day, at the same time.
Once using FPTP and once using PR.
Look at the 2017 German federal election.
2017 German federal election - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The CDU/CSU (one party, the CSU stand in Bavaria and the CDU don't, when I was in Bavaria I saw Merkel who was at the CSU annual conference) got 37.27% of the FPTP vote. That gave them 77% of the seats.
With PR they got 32.93%.
They lost nearly 5% of the vote. Same people voting, same day, same policies.
What's the difference? The system.
With FPTP they know it's a choice between the CDU/CSU or someone else and they vote tactically. With PR they can vote for someone else.
The FDP is a center right party. With FPTP they got 7% and with PR they got 10.75%
They gained 3.75% of the vote, just because the system means people who wanted to vote for them, felt they could, without risking anything, whereas with FPTP they felt the need to mostly vote for CDU/CSU.
It's also interesting to see Nord Rhine-Westphalia.
This Land (or state) makes up 21% of Germany. That's bigger than any US state. California is 11.8% of the US's population. Nearly half the size of Nord Rhine-Westphalia. Does it control German politics? No.
32.6% voted CDU, 26% SPD (the main two parties), that's 57.6% of the vote. The other parties picked up a reasonable amount of votes.
California had more voters for Trump than any other state, the right wing would pick up votes with PR in CA, just as the left would.
I'm perfectly aware of how the US Electoral College works. You don't need to point out basic points. The point I am making is that the system should change because it's crap.
No, the system wouldn't give the Dems permanent anything. In Germany no party gets enough votes to control government. They go into government with other parties, it forces them to have sensible politics.
No, you the US is not Denmark or Germany. Change the system, and everything changes and then the US might better resemble countries that have sensible politics.
People don't know what the issues are because the Reps and Dems have no interest in pushing the issues. Why? Because they only have to defeat the other side. Nonsense prevails. Let's talk about guns and abortion rather than education, rather than infrastructure, rather than things that actually matter.
Colin Powell was asked if he would run for presidency, and he said no, he said he's say what he thought, which would alienate most voters.
It's true. You need a president who can be liked by many, which means not having views on things, it means doing what needs to be done to win the presidency, rather than actually standing for anything.
When you have parties that stand for something, people are more likely to understand because these parties are going to tell people why they think these issues are important.
More choice, more voices, more oversight. It all means people are going to get more reality, more sensible politics, everything is better.
You worry about Dems taking over, but people on the left will vote other parties, people on the right will vote other parties, people in the center will vote other parties.
We count votes, not States or square milesWe count electoral votes…which represent the voice of the states, hence “square miles”..
The reason there are only ever presidents from the two big parties is because those parties want it that way. Having a proportional representation won’t change that. Too much power to give up and dems and repubs alike wouldn’t want to see anyone else enter the race, so they will make sure they get shut out of the process
Yes because that's a fact, just like people see the sunrise in the east.People in the US only see two VIABLE options.
We count electoral votes…which represent the voice of the states, hence “square miles”..
Which is ridiculous when some states have loads of people and others have five.
And I’m correcting you. The popular vote means nothing. The electoral vote count is all that matters. I mean, you can say you “dumb it down” all you like, but the simple fact is, the electoral vote represents each state having a voiceWe count votes, not States or square miles
I already covered that. Thanks.
Your map and claims about it are very stupid, for these reasons.
This is the furthest I can dumb it down.
Why do you keep bringing up France and Germany? Their political systems are completely different than ours.I disagree. Mostly because I understand the difference in how Proportional Representation changes the mindset.
People in the US only see two VIABLE options.
There are people who would vote third party, we saw that when Clinton won and Perot took votes off Bob Dole.
The problem is the right has learned if you have a third party, it merely splits the vote handing victory to the other party.
With PR it depends how you format it. Germany and Denmark don't have a President who is the executive. The executive is someone who is in their parliament.
However in France which has 11 parties in the National Assembly (not with PR) and their last three presidents have been from different parties. Why?
Macron's party was founded in 2016, and he became president in 2017... because third parties are viable in the French system, but the US system is too tight for that.
With PR they wouldn't be able to stop anything. It would happen because people's vote would COUNT, and wouldn't depend on them being in a small area.
