Should SCOTUS be increased to 13?

[dudmuck]

This Court is clearly partisan and dysfunctional

Expanding it just makes sense

Conservatives who have been the beneficiaries of the current Court will sqeak but Fuckem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

States don’t vote

People vote

States don’t vote

Sure, they do. Last time, Illinois voted with 20 electoral votes.

This time, Illinois will vote with 19 electoral votes.

 

[Lesh]

States don’t vote

Sure, they do. Last time, Illinois voted with 20 electoral votes.

This time, Illinois will vote with 19 electoral votes.

Nope. Voters selected those electors

People

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, every state votes.

And we count the votes. Very good!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. Voters selected those electors

People

The state votes with EVs, not with the number of citizen votes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And we count the votes. Very good!

Yes, we do. 19 votes for Illinois.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, we do. 19 votes for Illinois.

Very good!

And Delaware?

 

[Nostra]

This Court is clearly partisan and dysfunctional

Expanding it just makes sense

Conservatives who have been the beneficiaries of the current Court will sqeak but Fuckem.

You are a loser libtard speaking of the current court, so fuck you.

See what I did there, racist?

 

[Lesh]

You are a loser libtard speaking of the current court, so fuck you.

See what I did there, racist?

Told ya that’s squeak

 

[Nostra]

States don’t vote

People vote

You need an education on the electoral college, racist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And you want it changed because popular
vote would benefit you the most, so who’s wrong here?




And that isn’t required to become president, only 270 electoral votes.


sure I do, it would probably give dems a permanent White House. Red states would be left voiceless.



Since dems do generally win the popular vote, it’s not nonsense. If we went that route, they’d at least have a lock on the presidency.



We’re not Denmark or Germany and we will likely never have any other party win the White House other than repubs or dems.



I disagree. I think most people don’t even know what the issues are. They just vote because CNN or Fox News said something and they believed it, and they hate trump/biden so they vote.

Most people aren’t even political. They just vote based on what they think their party stands for.

Go watch some of these “man on the street” interviews, there are a lot of people that don’t even know what their party stands for.



Sure, but he didn’t win the electoral votes, so what does it matter? I’ve heard that a lot of rural California is actually red, which goes back to my original premise that it’s the high density population areas that win give the democrats a lot of their victories.

However, if you can get the cotus changed, I say go for it. That’s how our system works.

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.

 

[Lesh]

You need an education on the electoral college, racist.

You need to not be a partisan troll

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The idiots are just being short sighted and unwilling to accept the current system. If they increase the number then the next administration that comes in with a congress that is sympathetic will simply change it again.

There was no need until McConnell rat fucked the system that had worked fine.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

they don't have a majority, currently, so they consider it broken.

McConnell broke it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So you can stack it with more communists and globalists?


Fuck off.

Nice projection.
McConnell is the only one to have ever done so.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I know but now both sides have that segment who think anytime they don't get what they want it's a travesty of justice.

It’s not about that at all.
It’s about restoring the balance that had been in place for decades. Only one party has rat fucked the SCOTUS and it ain’t the Dems.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nice projection.
McConnell is the only one to have ever done so.

The only one to ever have done what?

 

[Natural Citizen]

The state justice departments will suffice.

Ditch the SCOTUS completely.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We shouldn’t be increasing the size of the court just because one side doesn’t like its make up.

More like how it was made up.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The only one to ever have done what?

Can you read?
Context is king. Start with what I responded to for a clue.