El Presidente Trump

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You've just completely ignored the example I gave of the Russian Federation, and plenty of other federations, such as Brazil and Mexico.

OK, so we have established, then, that the USA is somewhere on the scale in between the EU and Mexico. The Mexicans have unified to a slightly greater extent than the US, and the US has unified to a slightly greater extent than the EU.

Furthermore, the United States is a noun denoting one whole territory, just like the United States of Mexico, in which the people, and not the states, are sovereign. Even your semantic reliance on the title of the country is easily dismissed.

It is a noun. It is a collective noun. united STATES, not UNITED states. E Plurus Unum, and all that. The Articles of Confederation are quite clear of the intent of the US as a body working together, with phrases like "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated" or "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whateve".

The very first Oath of Office, passed 21 October 1776 started with "I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king"

That Oath of Commissioning that folks like Grant and Lee said? It was "I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve themhonestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States"

My bold, obviously. There is no other way of looking at it. The US was created as a union of independent States. The Army, the Government, represented the thirteen states as a group, not a single body consisting of lesser jurisdictions.

Is there any argument you're unprepared to stick a Call of Duty routine into?

Without needing to downgrade to insults, a defining feature of an independent, legitimate state (depending on which sociologist you read, it may be the -only- defining feature of an independent state) is the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. My 'Call of duty' example is reflective of the legal and moral status of a State as an independent body, which happens to be one which uses myself as the source case.

Laois_Man wrote: »

The problem with the Electoral College system is not the electoral college system itself. It's the fact that 48 of the 50 states (Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions) award all of their electoral college votes to whoever wins the popular vote within their state. It should be done proportionally i.e if Trump beats Clinton in North Dakota by a margin of 2:1 (which he did), the Trump should get 2 EC votes and Clinton should get 1. But instead, Trump gets all 3. I find it crazy that Trump wins Florida by 1% but gets all 29 EC votes from that state. That's madness! These states are not obliged to divide their EC votes as winner of popular votes takes all....they choose to....and it's daft.

Is it daft? I gave this example before:
California is solidly democratic. Near super-majority in the State House. Democratic governor. It provided about 10% of the popular vote for Clinton, but about 25% of her electoral college votes. Under what circumstances would the Democratic government of California, the Democratic representatives in Congress, or the Democratic voters of California voluntarily support a measure which would take a third (or whatever) of those 55 votes and hand them over to the opposition?
It's a nice idea, don't get me wrong, but there's more chance of removing the electoral college at all, which is already hugely slim.

Laois_Man wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is it daft? I gave this example before:
California is solidly democratic. Near super-majority in the State House. Democratic governor. It provided about 10% of the popular vote for Clinton, but about 25% of her electoral college votes. Under what circumstances would the Democratic government of California, the Democratic representatives in Congress, or the Democratic voters of California voluntarily support a measure which would take a third (or whatever) of those 55 votes and hand them over to the opposition?
It's a nice idea, don't get me wrong, but there's more chance of removing the electoral college at all, which is already hugely slim.

By the same logic, under what circumstances will the Democrat electors of West Virginia voluntarily hand over their 5 EC votes to Republican Trump - or any other state that may be now or in the future Democrat controlled but where any Republican now or in the future wins the popular vote in the state?

Forgive me, I'm not sure I understand. WV went for Trump. If you're saying that the electors for WV happen to be Democrats and have no motivation to hand their votes to Trump and will be willing to ignore the mandate from the voters of the State, I would suggest that the motivation is going to be the utter backlash to the party the next time the voters in WV (and possibly other states) go to the polls.