34 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

The electoral college was created because small states were worried about being dominated by large states and because communication and transportation were no where as fast as what we have today.  The states would then send their electors to DC or NY to cast the decision for their state.

I for one don't want NY and California deciding national elections.

I think you are confusing the rationale for the Electoral College with the Connecticut Compromise. The apportionment of Senators (2 for each state) was a compromise to small states to safeguard that they would not be dominated by large states.

Of course now it is completely out of wack. California has two senators representing a population of approximately 40,000,000 while Wyoming also has two senators representing approximately 600,000.

7 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

I suspect the majority of Americans would support that too but not the politicians at the state level necessary for ratification. 

This would take some work.  I think some of the support for the amendment may come because politicians in non= battleground states may get more money from National PAC's if the question is total vote.   

10 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

My experience, which is extensive, is that these bigger cases tended to settle quicker than other cases.  I agree that the fees in class actions tend to be less, usually averaging around 24%.  The firms that make it on the  plaintiff committee in the bankruptcy tend to get more than the firms that don’t. I imagine in the case of the Paradise fire, there isn’t a lot of expert work at this point and there probably won’t be a lot of discovery.  There was an agreement in principle in April that seemed to fall apart because PG&E stock was part of the deal for a $13.5 billion fund. I imagine this plea was part of the demand to push through the deal.  I am sure there is an opt out provision. The biggest cost will probably be fund administration.  I imagine the deal is all of the insurance money PG&E may be able to get (issues abound with that that might interest you or me but unlikely any others) plus a payout from PG&E that allows it to emerge from bankruptcy.  It is in the interest of CA for PG&E to emerge.   Frankly being an electric utility in the western states would be a nightmare. At some point the risk will be uninsurable and we will see something like Price Anderson that brought us nuclear power.  I can understand why they cut power when facing Santa Ana winds last year.  

This one may be unique but there tends to be a lot of client work on these things. I mean especially in a wrongful death claim where you are track down beneficiaries, open an estate, track down medical and funeral expenses.  There are likely liens on the recovery.  Even when the funds are in the disbursal can take awhile.  

 

14 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

If that's the issue, then the people should support an amendment limiting what the president is capable of via executive order.  Getting rid of the electoral college won't do anything in regards to what the president can or cannot do via executive order. 

It's not executive Orders.  It's his compliance with subpoenas and the willingness of Congress to enforce statutes.  

4 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

I think you are confusing the rationale for the Electoral College with the Connecticut Compromise. The apportionment of Senators (2 for each state) was a compromise to small states to safeguard that they would not be dominated by large states.

Of course now it is completely out of wack. California has two senators representing a population of approximately 40,000,000 while Wyoming also has two senators representing approximately 600,000.

Right.  And now California has 52 representatives in the House and Wyoming only has 1.  

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

If I was allowed to grow my own meat stock in the backyard I'd do it.  I've talked to my wife about moving out to Chester or Lancaster County when we retire and set-up a little homestead... nothing fancy, just enough to keep me busy while I can still be busy like that.  And she's unequivocally told me that's not happening.   (But, I've got another 15-20 years to work on her.   This coronavirus outbreak opened her up to me getting to do pretty much whatever I wanted garden wise in the backyard.  So... who knows what the future will bring?  If this thing lingers, I just might get my wish on that.)

 

You've just stated the main reason we moved here. Low land prices, low taxes, and as long as you're not cooking Meth you can do just about anything you want on your own land

3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Right.  And now California has 52 representatives in the House and Wyoming only has 1.  

Wyoming also has more cows than people.

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Right.  And now California has 52 representatives at the House and Wyoming only has 1.  

California has approximately 66.6 (must be the Devil's work) times the population of Wyoming.

9 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

I think you are confusing the rationale for the Electoral College with the Connecticut Compromise. The apportionment of Senators (2 for each state) was a compromise to small states to safeguard that they would not be dominated by large states.

Of course now it is completely out of wack. California has two senators representing a population of approximately 40,000,000 while Wyoming also has two senators representing approximately 600,000.

yeah lol, they have not really adjusted proportionally to mirror the consensus population

2 hours ago, Desertbirds said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The Electoral College was created because the Founders did not trust the judgement of the average American to select a President. They were worried that the masses could be hoodwinked by a lying, narcissistic, egomaniacal con-man.

Oh, wait...

Well I mean we could have had a "suicider" in office. Maybe this year we can elect a senile old man. 

28 minutes ago, QBhunter58 said:

yeah lol, they have not really adjusted proportionally to mirror the consensus population

I thought representation  was adjusted after every census.

1 minute ago, Asg 15 said:

I thought representation  was adjusted after every census.

The House is, the Senate is fixed at two per state.

3 minutes ago, greend said:

Well I mean we could have had a "suicider" in office. Maybe this year we can elect a senile old man. 

If we are lucky.

32 minutes ago, QBhunter58 said:

yeah lol, they have not really adjusted proportionally to mirror the consensus population

The census not consensus:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3

2 hours ago, Desertbirds said:

California has approximately 66.6 (must be the Devil's work) times the population of Wyoming.

And California should have 52 representatives in the House, based off population. 

Now imagine the senate was also based off of population.   A state like California could essentially rule the country.  45 out of 52 of their representatives are democrats.  If they had say the same % of senators in the senate, and a democrat was president, they would rule the country.  They could draft and ratify legislation and no one could stop them.  There would be no checks and balances.   That’s great if you’re a democrat but good luck explaining The United States of California to a red state. 

 

Again, the US government system isn’t perfect but it’s the best in the world when it comes to a system of checks and balances. 

9 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

The House is, the Senate is fixed at two per state.

If we are lucky.

Yeah I graduated High School. We even had civics classes back in the stone age.

12 minutes ago, greend said:

Well I mean we could have had a "suicider" in office. Maybe this year we can elect a senile old man. 

The thing with Biden is that he's likely a one-term candidate.  I don't think he's going to run again. I would think that part of Biden's appeal to moderate Republicans is that you get rid of the current guy and have the opportunity to replace Biden 4 years from now with a better Republican candidate.  

14 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

The House is, the Senate is fixed at two per state.

If we are lucky.

Uh Huh

17 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

The House is, the Senate is fixed at two per state.

If we are lucky.

When the Dems put up a decent candidate they'll have a chance of winning. Last time was a dishonest unlikable woman who thought she was entitled to the office so she didn't bother going to battleground states.. This year it's an old man in the early stages of dementia whos handlers are keeping away from the public.

Anybody but Trump is not a winning strategy.

BTW I could have seen myself voting for Webb vs Trump

5 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

The thing with Biden is that he's likely a one-term candidate.  I don't think he's going to run again. I would think that part of Biden's appeal to moderate Republicans is that you get rid of the current guy and have the opportunity to replace Biden 4 years from now with a better Republican candidate.  

Question is. Why can't we come up with better candidates to run for President, America has a lot of people in it.

1 hour ago, Desertbirds said:

I think you are confusing the rationale for the Electoral College with the Connecticut Compromise. The apportionment of Senators (2 for each state) was a compromise to small states to safeguard that they would not be dominated by large states.

Of course now it is completely out of wack. California has two senators representing a population of approximately 40,000,000 while Wyoming also has two senators representing approximately 600,000.

And that is exactly how the Founders wanted it because they believed in states rights. It isn't out of whack at all. Don't worry though, the liberals are leaving the failed socialist experiment called California and invading Idaho, Utah, Texas, and a few other red states, so the crying over the electoral college won't be for long.

Brandon Brooks is going to eventually have to be labeled a WMD

2 minutes ago, greend said:

Question is. Why can't we come up with better candidates to run for President, America has a lot of people in it.

The political machine... It squashes the candidates with good ideas and takes innovators and conforms them to toe the party line. It is all about power and $... I feel like even children can see how corrupt our reality is

3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

And California should have 52 representatives in the House, based off of population. 

Now imagine the senate was also based off of population.   A state like California could essentially rule the country.  45 out of 52 of their representatives are democrats.  If they had say the same % of senators in the senate, and a democrat was president, they would rule the country.  They could draft and ratify legislation and no one could stop them.  There would be no checks and balances.   That’s great if you’re a democrat but good luck explaining The United States of California to a red state. 

 

Again, the US government system isn’t perfect but it’s the best in the world when it comes to a system of checks and balances. 

I don't know if it's the best in the world in terms of checks and  balances.  I think the best that can be said is that it has been a stable form of government that has generally allowed for people to retain civil liberty.  I think there's an argument that the biggest strength of our system is open access to courts.  The courts have been the real limitation on the powers of the Executive and Legislative branches.  

 

 

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

And that is exactly how the Founders wanted it because they believed in states rights. It isn't out of whack at all. Don't worry though, the liberals are leaving the failed socialist experiment called California and invading Idaho, Utah, Texas, and a few other red states, so the crying over the electoral college won't be for long.

It’s all part of a secret plan to flip those states into the Democratic column.

10 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Brandon Brooks is going to eventually have to be labeled a WMD

He's such a freak that I think he can play until he's 35-37 at a high-level. 

9 minutes ago, QBhunter58 said:

The political machine... It squashes the candidates with good ideas and takes innovators and conforms them to toe the party line. It is all about power and $... I feel like even children can see how corrupt our reality is

Well then we get what we deserve. 

11 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Brandon Brooks is going to eventually have to be labeled a WMD

Should he be doing that?

33 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

When the Dems put up a decent candidate they'll have a chance of winning. Last time was a dishonest unlikable woman who thought she was entitled to the office so she didn't bother going to battleground states.. This year it's an old man in the early stages of dementia whos handlers are keeping away from the public.

Also that pesky virus...

13 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

And that is exactly how the Founders wanted it because they believed in states rights. It isn't out of whack at all. Don't worry though, the liberals are leaving the failed socialist experiment called California and invading Idaho, Utah, Texas, and a few other red states, so the crying over the electoral college won't be for long.

The founders believed in Federalism and the system that came about was definitely one that was designed to favor the Federal government over the states.  It was really seen as a check on the Executive and to limit the power of a popular election.  In large part, it was a compromise.  In that sense, the system has created stability.  I don't think it is creating stability now.  I think we have a system with a much more powerful executive branch.  I think electing a President with popular support lends itself to believing in the legitimacy of the office.  I don't think there's a good argument for keeping it.  Popular support for elected officials is important for the long-term stability of the country.