Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

The Supreme Court doesn't affect us though?

This, again? Is it really that hard to grasp how debate on a politics forum, about the current incumbent, might include his affect on politics, economy, judiciary, whatever? It's literally the point.

You made the claim that it's just a merry go round, it's countered as to why it won't necessarily be, so you don't get to snark about it not affecting us here; to be glib, you started it.

Yes, you find it bizarre Irish folk might debate this into the detail, and you've banged this drum about a half dozen times previous and here we are again. My god. Don't browse this site if you find debate from hurlers on the ditch surreal.

hotmail.com

pixelburp wrote: »

This, again? Is it really that hard to grasp how debate on a politics forum, about the current incumbent, might include his affect on politics, economy, judiciary, whatever? It's literally the point.

You made the claim that it's just a merry go round, it's countered as to why it won't necessarily be, so you don't get to snark about it not affecting us here; to be glib, you started it.

Yes, you find it bizarre Irish folk might debate this into the detail, and you've banged this drum about a half dozen times previous and here we are again. My god. Don't browse this site if you find debate from hurlers on the ditch surreal.

I just think the commentary on Trump is so over the top from people here. It's a valid point.

Timberrrrrrrr

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just think the commentary on Trump is so over the top from people here. It's a valid point.

This may come.as a surprise but people have an interest in things that happen in other countries.

If there was a terror attack in France or Germany tonight should we not debate it? An earthquake in Peru? Should we not talk about Brexit?

weisses

listermint wrote: »

Missing the point ?

I knew what point your were trying to make..

It's utterly nonsense to have the opinion that Bernie would have made it to the White House. You clearly haven't a breeze of the level of money and resources that would have been throw to out him as a commie.

Unfortunately that wasn't the point I was making.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just think the commentary on Trump is so over the top from people here. It's a valid point.

No, that's not what you said in our exchange at all, or times before. You crib that debating international politics in an international politics forum is scornful. You know, I agree some of it might skirt towards hyperbole, but, it's the internet. It's part of the health warning. It's not ammunition for snark.

Trump's judiciary appointments are relevant, and they count against the assertion that his presence is transient. He and Mitch McConnell will have their fingerprints on much of the US for years to come. This is relevant to the topic, it really shouldn't need said, or defended yet again.

Happy Christmas lol

Itssoeasy

As if things aren’t mad enough Rudy gulianni is claiming on Facebook(presuming it’s a real account) is claiming he’s a former attorney general of the United States.

aloyisious

hotmail.com wrote: »

I find the admiration Irish people have for the US Constitution startling and weird.

The future of democracy. What about the present? Over 50% of the US electorate don't vote and corporations/donors give vast and disgusting sums of money to both parties. So let's not lecture about the future.

I have to agree with you in your mention of the present, if less than 50% of the US enfranchised bother to vote, fixing that would be good for the future. Fixing the voting lists as well from gerrymandering would also help. Re the money fix, that's being mentioned here ad infinitum: NRA as an example. Its up to US citizens fix both those problems.

It's the "shining light" that the constitution is supposed to represent that we like, giving people hope. Do you think its all hogwash and something rigged by US politicians to deprive the US public of the freedoms they think they have that are listed in it?

One of the reasons we have a fixation on US politics is its power to affect us and other nations. That's why we look aghast at what the US is allowing Don Trump & the GOP [as the present administration] do to the world. That brings me back to your question about the present, what will you do [assuming you are a US voter] about the way Don is subverting present day US democracy?

Manic Moran

Since the last time this topic came up, I had a look at the national figures.

You will recall that in the swing states, a higher percentage of people came out to vote than in Ireland or Canada (High 60s/low 70s). Nationally, the figure in 2016 was 61.4%, 61.8% in 2012. Lower than Ireland's 65.1%(2016 General), but not by a huge hell of a lot.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Since the last time this topic came up, I had a look at the national figures.

You will recall that in the swing states, a higher percentage of people came out to vote than in Ireland or Canada (High 60s/low 70s). Nationally, the figure in 2016 was 61.4%, 61.8% in 2012. Lower than Ireland's 65.1%(2016 General), but not by a huge hell of a lot.

Has there been any studies done on why the turnout in the non-swing states may have been lower? Is it all down to the candidates not turning up to rouse the presumed faithful? A failure to visit some states, by way of assumption that the crown was a Dem sure thing, was blamed on HRC after the election of Don.

Not been PC here, greeting to all on this day.

pixelburp

aloyisious wrote: »

Has there been any studies done on why the turnout in the non-swing states may have been lower? Is it all down to the candidates not turning up to rouse the presumed faithful? A failure to visit some states, by way of assumption that the crown was a Dem sure thing, was blamed on HRC after the election of Don.

Not been PC here, greeting to all on this day.

My own reckoning, minus anything like stats to back it up, is that the electoral college system has skewed the perception of the swing states to kingmaker levels; in turn creating a resting apathy everywhere else that amounts to "my vote counts less so why bother?" Ohio and the like make the presidency, so a Californian is bound to feel less franchised as a result. An American work colleague of mine is fond of trumpeting the EC system as preventing the "tyranny of the majority", but surely the nature of demographics has made it a tyranny of a minority at this stage - given how much more pronounced the rural - urban divide has become.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Since the last time this topic came up, I had a look at the national figures.

You will recall that in the swing states, a higher percentage of people came out to vote than in Ireland or Canada (High 60s/low 70s). Nationally, the figure in 2016 was 61.4%, 61.8% in 2012. Lower than Ireland's 65.1%(2016 General), but not by a huge hell of a lot.

So lower then .

aloyisious

pixelburp wrote: »

My own reckoning, minus anything like stats to back it up, is that the electoral college system has skewed the perception of the swing states to kingmaker levels; in turn creating a resting apathy everywhere else that amounts to "my vote counts less so why bother?" Ohio and the like make the presidency, so a Californian is bound to feel less franchised as a result. An American work colleague of mine is fond of trumpeting the EC system as preventing the "tyranny of the majority", but surely the nature of demographics has made it a tyranny of a minority at this stage - given how much more pronounced the rural - urban divide has become.

That definitely seems logical if the youngsters, job-seekers and techno-gifted have moved to the cities and places like silicon valley from the swing states and rural areas, giving those lower-numbers voter states an even bigger voter-difference advantage within the E/C system, the metropoles would definitely be done over nowadays within it. Plus the cities have been extending their boundaries into the 'burbs for decades now extending their voting areas and numbers without a pro-rata change to the present voting system inclusive of the E/C.

The Impeachment is a "Hoax" according to Trump:"They're playing games". Christmas games?

https://youtu.be/IPmI206-5Jw

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

The Impeachment is a "Hoax" according to Trump:"They're playing games". Christmas games?

https://youtu.be/IPmI206-5Jw

Keeping himself and his lies in circulation!

Manic Moran

pixelburp wrote: »

My own reckoning, minus anything like stats to back it up, is that the electoral college system has skewed the perception of the swing states to kingmaker levels; in turn creating a resting apathy everywhere else that amounts to "my vote counts less so why bother?" Ohio and the like make the presidency, so a Californian is bound to feel less franchised as a result. An American work colleague of mine is fond of trumpeting the EC system as preventing the "tyranny of the majority", but surely the nature of demographics has made it a tyranny of a minority at this stage - given how much more pronounced the rural - urban divide has become.

Depends on your perspective. The majority of States, which is what elects the President of the United States (the clues being in the name), wins sometimes, and loses sometimes. In 2016 that score was 30-20. The system does balance population with State relevance. After all, just one State alone gets the Democrats 20% of the way to the finish line given current voting trends, so if a couple of swing states went the other way, Clinton could have won 22-28 for example, and folks on the other side would be talking about the tyranny of the minority.

In other words, the system is designed that if it’s close, it weighs towards the States over the State Populations, which is not unreasonable for a Federal Republic.

I am led to understand that your hypothesis is correct, that minority voters in solid States are less inclined to vote on the basis of “why bother?”

On the other hand, even if they did vote, it wouldn’t make much difference at the Presidential level. Why they are not showing up for the plethora of State level issues like referenda, however, is another issue which should be addressed. Since the voters are showing up in above-average numbers where it counts, turnout isn’t really the problem in the American presidential election.

Oh, and Merry Christmas. (Well, it still is here)

Leroy42

In a democracy, with direct election, the EC is nothing more than a distortion of the vLue of a vote.

Each and every vote should carry the same weight, regardless of where it is cast. The EC subverts that, adjusting the weighting of votes.

It says something when we treat the election of our Irish president who carries little to no powers, more democratically that the greatest democracy in the world tm.

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

In a democracy, with direct election, the EC is nothing more than a distortion of the vLue of a vote.

Each and every vote should carry the same weight, regardless of where it is cast. The EC subverts that, adjusting the weighting of votes.

It says something when we treat the election of our Irish president who carries little to no powers, more democratically that the greatest democracy in the world tm.

It's a historic compromise that was necessary (supposedly) to get the fledgling states that were smaller to sign up to the Constitution. Without it, campaigners would only campaign in the 10 or so most populous states - why spend time in South Dakota, Wyoming or Alaska?

Alternatives have been proposed, but any would require a constitutional amendment, a Very Big Deal that doesn't happen too often.

Leroy42

I understand why it happens, doesn't make it right.

As you said it was a compromise, one that disenfranchises millions of voters today.

Each person has equal rights but not an equal vote.

Imagine if they tried to bring in it today? Based on taxes raised or % of minorities, or well anything. Imagine in a local election if votes from certain streets counted more than others!

It's an archaic nonsense that only serves to show that the USA are captives to their constitution rather than enabled by it.

At the very least it should be a split of the total states vote, rather than a winner takes all. That leads to whole sections of the country being ignored as the State is deemed unwinnable and not attention is paid to the voters.

osarusan

I'd guess that if either party had worked out that the Electoral College system consistently worked against them more than for them, they'd have made more attempts to abolish or revise it years ago.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

and folks on the other side would be talking about the tyranny of the minority.

In other words, the system is designed that if it’s close, it weighs towards the States over the State Populations, which is not unreasonable for a Federal Republic.

I am led to understand that your hypothesis is correct, that minority voters in solid States are less inclined to vote on the basis of “why bother?”

On the other hand, even if they did vote, it wouldn’t make much difference at the Presidential level. Since the voters are showing up in above-average numbers where it counts, turnout isn’t really the problem in the American presidential election.

Oh, and Merry Christmas. (Well, it still is here)

As the E/C was birthed to balance the representation rights of voters around the US as a whole, it sounds like a good idea. Do you leave things as they are when the actual balance is skewed to the favour of a minority of voters in the name of voter equality by the voters choosing to leave the minority voter [numerical] states for the majority voter [numerical] states, and it turns out the voters remaining in the minority states don't vote because of their guaranteed advantage?

I'm mindful of the fact, and reckon it should be factored into the equation, that the E/C is the invention of people from 1802 when the voting population within in the different states was completely different to its present-day make-up and maybe it's time to update the model's internal constituency. It's a thing which can be taken advantage of, as shown by the changing opinions of the main players in present-day US politics. What does one do when the result is not close and the minority with a E/C guaranteed swing vote can turn out to be the cause of tyranny?

Sorry about what may seem to be indefinite editing. My scroll-bar freezes mid-type on the page so I can't actually see if what I'm typing is appearing on the page, causing me to post in the blind to see what on the page.

Christy42

aloyisious wrote: »

Has there been any studies done on why the turnout in the non-swing states may have been lower? Is it all down to the candidates not turning up to rouse the presumed faithful? A failure to visit some states, by way of assumption that the crown was a Dem sure thing, was blamed on HRC after the election of Don.

Not been PC here, greeting to all on this day.

Non swing States are largely irrelevant. We know who will win so why bother? You see it in Ireland when people know the result beforehand that voting numbers are down.
Like seriously, CNN make a big deal of calling some states as soon as they close but I will call California for the Democrats in 2020, 2024 and 2028. So why vote? Republicans in California (Dems in Kansas) are irrelevant. No one will encourage them out as there is no benefit


The E/C system was designed to stop smaller states becoming irrelevant in presidential voting. What it did was simply move irrelevance to states with an obvious majority.

States should give ECs proportionally. Unfortunately unless all of them do it then any state that does so is immediately irrelevant.

aloyisious

Christy42 wrote: »

Non swing States are largely irrelevant. We know who will win so why bother? You see it in Ireland when people know the result beforehand that voting numbers are down.
Like seriously, CNN make a big deal of calling some states as soon as they close but I will call California for the Democrats in 2020, 2024 and 2028. So why vote? Republicans in California (Dems in Kansas) are irrelevant. No one will encourage them out as there is no benefit


The E/C system was designed to stop smaller states becoming irrelevant in presidential voting. What it did was simply move irrelevance to states with an obvious majority.

States should give ECs proportionally. Unfortunately unless all of them do it then any state that does so is immediately irrelevant.

Maybe bring in a change to article 2 of the constitution whereby the E/C would only apply to states where the number of voters falls below a ratio which causes a distinct disadvantage to the voters STILL within those states in comparison to the states where the voter numbers are increased year by year? The change would not necessarily have to apply then across all the states as the PR ratio used would make it un-necessary. Given that the whole idea behind the EC is to alleviate the lack of vote representation in the lower vote numericity states, there is NO REASON why the larger vote numericity states should have it applied to them as its for the benefit of the other states. Making it available across the board negates its intended redressal advantage, IMO.

That would be a form of PR and as it's still fluid within change capability of the voter via constitutional referendum it might satisfy all but the most ardent supporters of the political status quo. It could remind people their votes count in swing states. Not all swing states would necessarily have a greater number of one party's voters over the other party. It'd be the enlivening in them of their vote that matters then.

The last 2 sentences in your 2nd para stands out against those in your 3rd Para regarding the lack of importance of the E/C in the large-voter power states as against it in the lower voter-powered states, which is as I see it happening.

Edit' I can see how there's a chance, with the immigrant issue being pursued by people with an "alien" bugbear, that the EC might be given extra importance in some peoples eyes for it to be unchanged, esp where it come to voter registration by existing and new citizens.

aloyisious

On an aside, I was watching Home Alone 2 last night and Donald had a cameo role in it. Now today MSN and The Independent ran a story that the Canadian Broadcasting Company did a bit of editing to its showing of the same film by snipping out Don's appearance. Seeing as how Don and Justin Trudeau are differing in opinion, that editing seems a bit of an own goal when it comes to sealing the trade deal chances between them.

Manic Moran

The E/C system was designed to stop smaller states becoming irrelevant in presidential voting. What it did was simply move irrelevance to states with an obvious majority

This is not true. You cannot say, for example, that California is irrelevant, it contains 55 of the required 270 votes. If it were irrelevant, then it could be dispensed with without any particular change in result. I doubt any Democrat would be enthralled about that. There is a greater argument that Wyoming’s closer to irrelevant with a mere solid three in the R camp, but together with the other small solid red states they also provide a fairly necessary boost to the R totals.
You might well claim that the States are irrelevant to Presidential campaigning given the current state of politics, but the candidate would still have to be vaguely approved of by those States in order to get past the Primary stage.

Imagine if they tried to bring in it today? Based on taxes raised or % of minorities, or well anything. Imagine in a local election if votes from certain streets counted more than others!

The EU’s voting system is a lot more recent than the EC’s entry into service. Have you noticed how Malta has so much more “weight per voter” in the Commission than Germany? I believe the weight ratio is some 30:1. Balancing out the influence of independent states with the realities of population is a concept which inherently requires some form of disproportionality, the argument, such as there is one, needs to be over what that ratio’s top limit is.

As Christy observes, the best solution is to split the votes as per Maine and Nebaska. However, he is also correct that they all have to do it, or nobody will. You will not see a move by Californians to split their huge vote up and give a few small-states’s worth of votes to the Republicans without a guarantee that Texas will do the same thing at the same time.

Aloyoisious, I’m not sure I understand the logic in your proposal and why it can work if not applied to all States.

With regards to the question of voter turnout, there is an issue other than merely a feeling of Presidential disenfranchisement which needs to be addressed. I posit that it is not the case that folks feel disinclined to turn up when their vote isn’t perceived as important for the Presidential election, it’s that they are encouraged to turn out when it is so perceived. Witness voter turnout in 2018 or 2014 in comparison.

The reason being that one doesn’t only vote in the Presidential election. In California, when I showed up in Nov 2016, I was presented with four pages of ballots. Only one line on one page referred to the Electoral College. Even if I felt that my vote would be meaningless at the State level (eg if a Republican was looking at the line for State Governor”), there are still plenty of other issues to vote upon such as taxation levels, city mayor or the county judge, the last few being regional are more likely to give you a chance of your guy winning. Pages of the stuff, and even a Republican’s vote in California will count at the State level. For example, the vote to fast-track executions in CA passed 51-49, whereas background checks for ammunition passed 63-37: Votes can swing far across R and D lines in other than Presidential elections on things which are of importance to the State.

Thus the problem really lies in convincing people that they have a civic responsibility to show up and vote, period, and not only vote for President.

PropJoe10

Deleted User wrote: »

The Impeachment is a "Hoax" according to Trump:"They're playing games". Christmas games?

https://youtu.be/IPmI206-5Jw

I feel that someone should explain to him what the word "hoax" actually means, and that he's actually been impeached - therefore, its not a "hoax" at all. "Sham" might be a better word if he wants to ridicule the process, but I guess its not easy giving English lessons to a narcissistic 73-year-old toddler.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is not true. You cannot say, for example, that California is irrelevant, it contains 55 of the required 270 votes. If it were irrelevant, then it could be dispensed with without any particular change in result. I doubt any Democrat would be enthralled about that. There is a greater argument that Wyoming’s closer to irrelevant with a mere solid three in the R camp, but together with the other small solid red states they also provide a fairly necessary boost to the R totals.
You might well claim that the States are irrelevant to Presidential campaigning given the current state of politics, but the candidate would still have to be vaguely approved of by those States in order to get past the Primary stage.



The EU’s voting system is a lot more recent than the EC’s entry into service. Have you noticed how Malta has so much more “weight per voter” in the Commission than Germany? I believe the weight ratio is some 30:1. Balancing out the influence of independent states with the realities of population is a concept which inherently requires some form of disproportionality, the argument, such as there is one, needs to be over what that ratio’s top limit is.

As Christy observes, the best solution is to split the votes as per Maine and Nebaska. However, he is also correct that they all have to do it, or nobody will. You will not see a move by Californians to split their huge vote up and give a few small-states’s worth of votes to the Republicans without a guarantee that Texas will do the same thing at the same time.

Aloyoisious, I’m not sure I understand the logic in your proposal and why it can work if not applied to all States.

With regards to the question of voter turnout, there is an issue other than merely a feeling of Presidential disenfranchisement which needs to be addressed. I posit that it is not the case that folks feel disinclined to turn up when their vote isn’t perceived as important for the Presidential election, it’s that they are encouraged to turn out when it is so perceived. Witness voter turnout in 2018 or 2014 in comparison.

The reason being that one doesn’t only vote in the Presidential election. In California, when I showed up in Nov 2016, I was presented with four pages of ballots. Only one line on one page referred to the Electoral College. Even if I felt that my vote would be meaningless at the State level (eg if a Republican was looking at the line for State Governor”), there are still plenty of other issues to vote upon such as taxation levels, city mayor or the county judge, the last few being regional are more likely to give you a chance of your guy winning. Pages of the stuff, and even a Republican’s vote in California will count at the State level. For example, the vote to fast-track executions in CA passed 51-49, whereas background checks for ammunition passed 63-37: Votes can swing far across R and D lines in other than Presidential elections on things which are of importance to the State.

Thus the problem really lies in convincing people that they have a civic responsibility to show up and vote, period, and not only vote for President.

By irrelevant people mean that most votes there are. It would take a massive, massive shift for California to be of any interest for the presidential race. A few hundred thousand people could change their mind either way and it would affect absolutely nothing. Trump will not campaign in California. The Democrat will do so only for people with money and vice versa in Republican states. They have votes on other issues but the presidential one is the biggest and no one will care to campaign for their vote. That is a sad state of affairs.

The EU voting system is designed for fully sovereign countries. It is designed for managing pretty heavy international treaties but it is all a set of rules agreed by separate countries. Unless the US wishes to break up (I know there are some minor movements) I don't think it is directly relevant.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Aloyisious, I’m not sure I understand the logic in your proposal and why it can work if not applied to all States.

My understanding of the theory behind the EC was that it was to be a counter-balance to the way the larger-vote number states could outweigh the vote of the smaller-vote number states by numbers so there would be an equality of voting effect in presidential elections. However, the larger vote states having the same usage of the EC than the theoretical advantage of the EC system to the smaller vote states would be lost straight across the board.

I misunderstood the way the actual registered voter's vote was used. Instead of being a personal vote on which nominee for POTUS should get the job, you're voting [by way of party preference] on membership of possible boards of selectors in the individual state you reside in. The party with the resultant majority vote in each state is the one which provides the membership of the state selector panel. The party which then amasses the X amount needed from across the state selector boards - plus the US Senate EC vote - first wins the election.

So its whom the selectors across all the states decide on in the majority, plus the Senate EC vote in each state, that actually decides who is the next president is to be, not the registered voter directly.

Manic Moran

They have votes on other issues but the presidential one is the biggest and no one will care to campaign for their vote

They certainly will, if they want to win the Primary nomination. Look at how many stops Clinton made in California to make sure she didn't lose the State to Bernie, even though it was already accepted by that stage that she was going to win the nomination overall. Then imagine if the Primary nomination were even more competetive.

If you wish to put it this way, California and New York have disproportionate sway compared to other states over who is going to be the Democratic candidate. Once they've made their choice, they sit back and see whether or not the rest of the country agrees with them. In order to even run for the Presidential race, the candidates need to pass muster with the solidly colored States and campaign for their vote. If you wish to advocate the idea that elections are all but won/lost depending on who the candidates are, that selection happens before anyone shows up in November, and nobody takes the solid states populations for granted on that matter.

As an aside, Trump/Pence raised eyebrows over how much time they spent campaigning in New York and California. They clocked up 14 days in New York, Clinton/Kaine 21.

The EU voting system is designed for fully sovereign countries. It is designed for managing pretty heavy international treaties but it is all a set of rules agreed by separate countries. Unless the US wishes to break up (I know there are some minor movements) I don't think it is directly relevant.

You have basically just described the US. Each State has a full legislature, a Constitution which is the foundation of individual sets of laws and legal systems, court systems up to Supreme Courts, police forces, militaries, education systems and curricula, standards certifications... basically, everything a sovereign state needs to operate effectively. A lawyer or cop from California, for example, has no power, recognition or authority in Arizona unless Arizona lets them. I don't think foreigners truly understand how much autonomy a State has in the US. The only thing they are flat prohibited from doing which an EU country can do is international relations. A State cannot enter into treaties with other nations, to include the Indian nations (or States, without the consent of Congress), they do not police their borders, and they cannot make war on other nations. That's basically it. Congress is supposed to handle all the external stuff, and to make sure that the States work and play well together.

I also understand that the EC vote is not cast by the voter but by a select few. Does that not run the risk of partiality by the select few into the bargain?

It does, because of the possibility of faithless electors. They have never yet proven to be so numerous as to upend the final result, but it remains a theoretical possibility. The mechanism of the elector can be replaced, though, without affecting the balance of power between states and their populations.

My understanding of the theory behind the EC was that it was to be a counter-balance to the way the larger-vote number states could outweigh the vote of the smaller-vote number states by numbers so there would be an equality of voting effect in presidential elections. However, the larger vote states having the same usage of the EC then the theoretical advantage of the EC system to the smaller vote states is lost straight across the board.

I don't see why the two cannot both be correct. Given the way that the system was designed from the beginning, recognition was always given to the fact that some States with higher population counts needed to have a bit more weight than smaller States. That California has 55 votes is perhaps a larger number than originally anticipated (I can't imagine 18th century politicians contemplated State populations in excess of 35 million), but maybe I do them a misjustice. After all, they certainly never put a top end cap on it.

marno21

The unrepresentative nature of the Senate poses a bigger risk into the future

https://twitter.com/NormOrnstein/status/1016789064379334656

Having 30% of the country elect 70% of the Senators makes no sense at all - and the level of division is not going to be pretty.

Even more so, half the population is expected to live in 8 states by 2040 (California, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania. Half the population electing 84% of the Senators

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/12/in-about-20-years-half-the-population-will-live-in-eight-states/

Brian?

Leroy42 wrote: »

In a democracy, with direct election, the EC is nothing more than a distortion of the vLue of a vote.

Each and every vote should carry the same weight, regardless of where it is cast. The EC subverts that, adjusting the weighting of votes.

It says something when we treat the election of our Irish president who carries little to no powers, more democratically that the greatest democracy in the world tm.

If you scrap the EC you have to completely restructure the Senate as well. In the senate both Alaska and California have the same representation, which is completely undemocratic.

The simple answer is that the USA isn’t a democracy and was never intended to be one.