Should SCOTUS be increased to 13?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which is just how the Founders wanted it.

Indeed. People didn't know much about candidates from other States, because communication was in its infancy, and Southern States were worried that they had to carry slaves in the economy, but the slaves didn't get votes. So the Southern States would have a smaller voice.

And they didn't want some strange "cult of personality" candidate being elected, to the detriment of the country. They saw it as a way of forcing such a candidate to get broader support, not just a majority of the popular vote.

I would say it's really not doing very well at any of these things, lately.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And I’m correcting you.

No, you just agreed.

We take the popular vote, turn it into electoral votes, and count electoral votes.

CA candidate wins 270+ to something, not 27 to 23 .

We count votes.

Not States or square miles.

So your map is dumb, as are your claims about it. A more honest person would immediately admit to himself it looks just like a map of population density and would not try to make these dumb points.

Hey, there are a lot of people in that little space!


Uh, yes, we call those cities.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Which is ridiculous when some states have loads of people and others have five.

But then, we all know if the Senate didn't favor you, you'd be complaining about it.

That’s the reason California has 55 electoral votes and Wyoming has 3.

The electoral system technically IS proportional representation, because more populated states have more votes, it’s just that those smaller states add up and can have an impact on elections, hence, each state has a voice.

 

[Benj]

Haha scotus sounds like SCROTUS...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s the reason California has 55 electoral votes and Wyoming has 3.

The electoral system technically IS proportional representation, because more populated states have more votes, it’s just that those smaller states add up and can have an impact on elections, hence, each state has a voice.

Right, see?

I think we're in the same place.

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 911021

I think so! After all, there are 13 circuits now. What do you think?

I think you wouldn't have said so if the Dims had got their way,

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, you just agreed.

We take the popular vote, turn it into electoral votes, and count electoral votes.

CA candidate wins 270+ to something, not 27 to 23 .

We count votes.

Not States or square miles.

So your map is dumb, as are your claims about it. A more honest person would immediately admit to himself it looks just like a map of population density and would not try to make these dumb points.

Hey, there are a lot of people in that little space!


Uh, yes, we call those cities.

We take the popular vote, turn it into electoral votes, and count electoral votes.

Yeah, each state determines how its electors will be awarded by a state polulare vote, but it has nothing to do with a national popular vote which is what dems want. That we agree on

 

[ThisIsMe]

Right, see?

I think we're in the same place.

If you’re suggesting the national popular vote means nothing and it’s electoral votes that determine presidencies, then yes, we are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, each state determines how its electors will be awarded by a state polulare vote, but it has nothing to do with a national popular vote which is what dems want. That we agree on

Correct. But it may be straying a bit too far in that direction. Now candidates only really campaign in a few states.

That kind of looks like the OPPOSITE of the founding fathers' intent. Of course, they only had 13 States to account for.

It's why I encourage democrat voters in solid red states to vote anyway. The more purple state state, the more they will get pandered to. The more resources to that end come into their state to turn it more and more purple.

Could and does work for republicans, too.

 

[Lesh]

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 voice

The popular vote is a window into where the nation is

And it ain’t Republican

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

View attachment 911021

I think so! After all, there are 13 circuits now. What do you think?

 

[Nostra]

Correct. But it may be straying a bit too far in that direction. Now candidates only really campaign in a few states.

That kind of looks like the OPPOSITE of the founding fathers' intent. Of course, they only had 13 States to account for.

It's why I encourage democrat voters in solid red states to vote anyway. The more purple state state, the more they will get pandered to. The more resources to that end come into their state to turn it more and more purple.

Could and does work for republicans, too.

If it was based in the popular vote candidates would spend the bulk of their time in Los Angeles County, which has a larger population than 40 states.

So you really think that is a good representation of the country?

 

[Lesh]

If it was based in the popular vote candidates would spend the bulk of their time in Los Angeles County, which has a larger population than 40 states.

So you really think that is a good representation of the country?

Bullshit. That’s less than 10 million population.

The country is what 340 million?

Do the math asshole

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why do you keep bringing up France and Germany? Their political systems are completely different than ours.

Other parties would likely never win an election. They’d basically be used to just siphon votes off of the two major parties. At the end of the day it would come down to who would experience less fracturing.

Because I'm showing you how it works in other countries.

I'm literally talking about CHANGING THE US SYSTEM and you're complaining I'm talking about other systems?

What?

You keep acting like there can't be any change. And then if there is change, there wouldn't be change.

You're uninterested in learning about other systems... so you have no idea what change would do.

If you're not willing to try and understand, I'm not going to bother.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That’s the reason California has 55 electoral votes and Wyoming has 3.

The electoral system technically IS proportional representation, because more populated states have more votes, it’s just that those smaller states add up and can have an impact on elections, hence, each state has a voice.

So, it's not Proportional Representation then?

When a person in one state has a vote that is many times stronger than a vote in another state, it's not even democracy, let alone Proportional Representation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it was based in the popular vote candidates would spend the bulk of their time in Los Angeles County, which has a larger population than 40 states.

And just hope the rest of the country is "in the bag"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you’re suggesting the national popular vote means nothing and it’s electoral votes that determine presidencies, then yes, we are.

Hmm, I think the national popular vote still has some meaning. Doing something that most people don't want can be fraught.

 

[TheYellowKing]

View attachment 911021

I think so! After all, there are 13 circuits now. What do you think?

Hahahahaha 9-0

 

[Concerned American]

View attachment 911021

I think so! After all, there are 13 circuits now. What do you think?

LOL, still wouldn't have changed the decision, now would it? Probably would have been 13-0 in your scenario, but you would have had four more over inflated salaries to pay for the same result. Sure, let's change it to 13 next year. LMAO

 

[Batcat]

View attachment 911021

I think so! After all, there are 13 circuits now. What do you think?

Nine is just fine. Stop trying to stack the court.

If the Dems start playing that game this nation may split apart. That is the last thing I hope to see happen short of an all out nuclear war.