Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What good is a bigger voice when it has to agree with the majority? Answer, not much. The bottom line, though, is that the states elect the president, not the people.
Or ranked choice voting. The electors represent their state and can be directed by their states to cast their ballots in certain ways or are free to vote how they wish, depending on their states' requirements.It has worked in the vast majority of elections.
No, states do not elect the president, electors elect the president. Now, the process would be fairer if we got rid of the 'winner takes all' approach. Let ALL electors be earned.
Again for the slow and stupid at first states didnt even ALLOW a vote half the states until 1824 did not even vote for President the state legislature picked the electors.
Then convince enough people to change the constitution.Well, I say we chuck original intent, because what was true in the late 18th and early 19th centuries doesn't work today. since as you say, they moved closer to more democratic principles in 1824, we should continue with MORE democratic principles and go all the way with one person one vote. It doesn't get fairer than that.
Then convince enough people to change the constitution.
that is unconstitutional and even if it passes will be struck down by the courts. Also it violates the one person one vote you claim to support by denying the people of every state that didnt vote for the person the pact eventually tries to install.Amendments are well night impossible, but this is doable:
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Sure, as long as state administrations are willing to violate the will of their voters. IOW, not a very good idea for the next election cycle.Amendments are well night impossible, but this is doable:
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia
that is unconstitutional the Constitution specifically addresses the form of Government states have.Sure, as long as state administrations are willing to violate the will of their voters. IOW, not a very good idea for the next election cycle.
Even if it was ultimately found Constitutional, the moonbats pushing the idea have no idea how PO'd the voters would be to find that their will would be totally ignored. Apparently, it's bad for the "will of the people" at the national level to be thwarted, but just fine at the state level.that is unconstitutional the Constitution specifically addresses the form of Government states have.
Sure, as long as state administrations are willing to violate the will of their voters. IOW, not a very good idea for the next election cycle.
Maybe, maybe not. I would settle for ridding the US of 'winner takes all' and let all electors be earned electors.that is unconstitutional and even if it passes will be struck down by the courts. Also it violates the one person one vote you claim to support by denying the people of every state that didnt vote for the person the pact eventually tries to install.
I would settle for ridding the US of people that think they know best,,Maybe, maybe not. I would settle for ridding the US of 'winner takes all' and let all electors be earned electors.
The states can choose their own electors, that's the way it's set up. Sure, they could violate the will of the people as expressed through their votes, but they would probably be tossed out of office very quickly. IOW, it's not a good idea to tell the voters of Alabama that their votes will be ignored because the voters of California want to elect a democrat. This way, it doesn't matter if 100% of Californians want a democrat or only 51%, they don't get to dictate that wish to any other state.I'd settle for getting rid of 'winner takes all', and let all electors be earned electors. that would be much fairer.
The states can choose their own electors, that's the way it's set up. Sure, they could violate the will of the people as expressed through their votes, but they would probably be tossed out of office very quickly. IOW, it's not a good idea to tell the voters of Alabama that their votes will be ignored because the voters of California want to elect a democrat. This way, it doesn't matter if 100% of Californians want a democrat or only 51%, they don't get to dictate that wish to any other state.
The individual states would need to take that up because they can allocate electors however they want. Now, if you take the approach that a state goes entirely for a candidate, it makes sense that all the electors vote the same way. Take that away from California, for instance, and all of a sudden democrats go nuts because the state's no longer a slam dunk for them. Proportional allocation brings with it a problem though. How far down the line do you go? If a state has two electors and there are 5 candidates who receive votes in that state, how do you fairly divide the electors? Top two? The guy who finishes third echoes your complaint, it's not fair. Top three? Same thing from the guy who finishes fourth.I didn't say none of that, all I said was electors should be earned. Winner take all takes electors from opponent, that's not fair.
The individual states would need to take that up because they can allocate electors however they want. Now, if you take the approach that a state goes entirely for a candidate, it makes sense that all the electors vote the same way. Take that away from California, for instance, and all of a sudden democrats go nuts because the state's no longer a slam dunk for them. Proportional allocation brings with it a problem though. How far down the line do you go? If a state has two electors and there are 5 candidates who receive votes in that state, how do you fairly divide the electors? Top two? The guy who finishes third echoes your complaint, it's not fair. Top three? Same thing from the guy who finishes fourth.
Rules:
1. No, flaming, name calling, disingenuous, snarky retorts, ad hominem attacks, no 'kill the source/messenger' replies (critique only the text).
2. If you make a claim of fact, offer a thoughtful path of reasoning/logic, AND, if possible, links to authoritative sources that supplement (they don't have to actually prove, but proof is always preferred) your position. If you can't do this, then preface it with 'imo' (in my opinion).
3. Absolutely NO thought-terminating clichés (example; 'fake news', is the main one, but there are others).
So, the source article for this discussion is:
To Save Democracy, We Must Expand the Court
To Save Democracy, We Must Expand the Court
Read the latest by Christopher Kang.www.democracydocket.com
Summary:
So, the key takeaway from the text is a concern over the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court impacting American democracy over the past decade. Some significant actions by the Court include approving voter suppression, allowing unlimited campaign spending, and sanctioning partisan gerrymandering. Essentially, the worry is that even when Democrats win elections, their policymaking ability is being hindered by the conservative Court.
The text mentions that the current Court's conservative composition is itself a product of some anti-democratic strategies. Many of the conservative justices were appointed by Republican presidents who initially took office without winning the popular vote. Moreover, the Senate, when under Republican control, blocked a nomination from President Obama.
It's feared that this could result in a cycle where the conservative Supreme Court continues to make it easier for Republicans to maintain power even with diminishing levels of support, while the Republicans, in turn, protect their Supreme Court majority.
The proposed solution? Expanding the Supreme Court, which is a move Congress has the power to make according to the U.S. Constitution. If President Biden were allowed to nominate four more justices, it could balance the Court and potentially ensure that it respects democracy and the rule of law. Expanding the Court could also increase its diversity and functionality.
There is growing support for this idea among Congress and the progressive movement, with a bill - the Judiciary Act of 2021 - gaining more than 60 co-sponsors. Public polls indicate more Americans support the expansion than oppose it, (though I did find polls that concluded the opposite, but I think when the case is presented as it could be, more people would support the idea).
Still, some are hesitant, worrying about possible repercussions, like Republicans expanding the Court further when they are in power. Others suggest term limits as a preferred reform measure. However, the authors argue that term limits could be challenged as unconstitutional, and they see the immediate solution to be expansion.
In a nutshell, they are arguing that the only way to protect American democracy from what they see as anti-democracy forces on the Supreme Court is through expansion, and they're calling for urgent support to pass the Judiciary Act.
Not mentioned in the article, but my idea:
We got 9 justices at a stage in American history when the population was much smaller. Now the case load for the SC is much greater owing to a much bigger population, and this has resulted in an ever increasing 'shadow docket' which, imo, is not a good thing (google it or click on the link). We could create a two tiered court (9 plus 9) to handle the increased case load, and the Chief justice, on the big issues, would let both tiers rule on it, so it would only be for a much smaller number of cases, the really salient cases, that both tiers would rule on. Also, we need a way to allow both parties to equally nominate justices, and not let just one side appoint them. Also, 'advise and consent' should equal a hearing, at the minimum. What McConnel did against Garland, in my opinion, was not in the spirit of the constitution's meaning insofar a the senate shall 'advise and consent'. We need legislation to further articulate what that means.
Also, Republicans like to accuse dems of 'stacking the court'. My view is that Republicans, with a 6/3 conservative court, have, indeed, 'stacked' the court 6/3 in favor of conservatives. My view is that expanding it, not letting one side dominate the nominations, would serve to UNSTACK the court, and 'balance' it out. (This is semantics, of course, as to what 'stacking the court' means).
Let's discuss.
cheers.
Rumpole
Not only are you stupid Moon Bats butt hurt over not having a majority on the Supreme Court but you little turds can't stand the fact that our Founding Fathers established an Electoral College.Amendments are well night impossible, but this is doable:
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia
