3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

You know nothing about me obviously. 

Bye Felicia.

Nothing more than what you display daily. 

And have displayed here.

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

You're in CVON.  That's pretty much all your looney lefty buddies do.  

dammit dude, i just noticed your avatar and got excited for a second or two. 

5 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

You're in CVON.  That's pretty much all your looney lefty buddies do.  

can you be more specific?

some do for sure. they suck.

but there's no actual intellectual conversation here so I mostly ish-post in between tasks at work because my ADHD doesn't allow me to just enjoy downtime.

there are a few posters here who try to occasionally engage in a good faith manner, but they're far and few between. 

 People that project their biases are the worst.

4 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Just wait until a few of them respond.  They know who they are.  They won't be able to help themselves.  

 

 

I do regard you in a better light than those guys, if that means anything.  

I appreciate that. I'm not above an occasional bit of trolling, though I try to limit that to trolling the trolls. But anybody who has actually attempted to make a good faith argument I will engage with in kind.

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

 People that project their biases are the worst.

I know. Trumptards are the worst, right?

38 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I understand the rules of how a president is elected. 

But the EC has been distorted well beyond its original mathematics. 

In what way? I'm assuming you mean because each state is guaranteed a minimum of 3, and the number of house members is capped at 435? So the population represented by an EC vote in Wyoming is much less than in California?

I'd argue the minimum of three votes was intentional by the framers. The capping of the size of the House came about in the 20th century, but...given the morons already in the House, not sure we should have more of them.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

In what way? I'm assuming you mean because each state is guaranteed a minimum of 3, and the number of house members is capped at 435? So the population represented by an EC vote in Wyoming is much less than in California?

I'd argue the minimum of three votes was intentional by the framers. The capping of the size of the House came about in the 20th century, but...given the morons already in the House, not sure we should have more of them.

Good to note that people upset at the EC, are often ones that would scream in horror, when the saw the results of every election being decided by a few cities.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I'm assuming you mean because each state is guaranteed a minimum of 3, and the number of house members is capped at 435?

 

This is definitely a part of the probelm. House representation has been stuck at the same level since 1910.

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

This is definitely a part of the probelm. House representation has been stuck at the same level since 1910.

Yeah but not the same breakdown

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

This is definitely a part of the probelm. House representation has been stuck at the same level since 1910.

The issue is I can't see adding more house members as desirable. The House is already dysfunctional and filled with imbeciles. Adding more seats doesn't seem to be the answer.

A Constitutional Amendment is off the table. The most effective solution would be for states to stop with the winner take all system, but there's no way that can happen since no one will be willing to go first.  It would have to be all 50 states agreeing to switch and then not switch back...so that's not happening either.

5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

This is definitely a part of the probelm. House representation has been stuck at the same level since 1910.

You mean part of the solution

8 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The issue is I can't see adding more house members as desirable. The House is already dysfunctional and filled with imbeciles. Adding more seats doesn't seem to be the answer.

 

While I doubt it would remedy legislative dysfunctionality, it would help reduce the extreme disproportionality of the E.C. 

20 hours ago, downundermike said:

 

Reading that code would lead me to believe this applies to a judge in a criminal trial

 

What part of this do you not comprehend?

"with the intent of influencing any judge”

6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

You mean part of the solution

 

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

While I doubt it would remedy legislative dysfunctionality, it help reduce the extreme disproportionality of the E.C. 

So we get a "fairer" system (in your opinion), but an even more dysfunctional government?

That's not a win. That's more MTGs and Cawthorns.

The issue with all liberal priorities is the same -- trying to find cute ways to circumvent the Constitution, or complaining about doing things that are hard. It's supposed to be hard...but it can be done. 

24 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

In what way? I'm assuming you mean because each state is guaranteed a minimum of 3, and the number of house members is capped at 435? So the population represented by an EC vote in Wyoming is much less than in California?

I'd argue the minimum of three votes was intentional by the framers. The capping of the size of the House came about in the 20th century, but...given the morons already in the House, not sure we should have more of them.

I'm talking more on the Senate side.

As an imperfect but easy to convey analysis, let's cut the nation in half.

When the Constitution was put in place roughly half the nation's population resided in 4 states (VA, PA, MA, MD). The remaining 9 states had roughly the same population. This meant that the hedge against the tyranny of the majority had 8 Senators representing the four "metropolitan" states (for lack of a better term) and 18 Senators representing the more rural/less populous states. Broken down, this meant that the bottom 69%* (9 of 13) of states in population had a 2.25x (18 / 8 ) multiplier of representation in the Senate.

Currently, the 9 most populous states house half of the population. This means that the bottom 82% (41 of 50) of states in population have 4.56x multiplier of representation in the Senate. MUCH more lobsided.

 

*nice

The above is imperfect and naïve approach, but simple enough. In 1787 the population distribution was actually much more even in general, and our population distribution in 2022 is very top heavy. 

There are better ways I might slice and dice the states up, but however you cut it you have a system where low-population states in 2022 are MUCH more overrepresented in the Senate than they were in 1787. And because the EC is derived from a combination of the house reps and Senators, this legislative advantage passes along in a slightly lesser form electorally, but still strong.

Because the current political parties have coalesced roughly around interests of urban and rural populations, Republicans have a very strong built in advantage that allows them to wield more political power than their numbers suggest.

Which is ok, as long as it doesn't go so far as it has.

I do actually believe that something like the system we have setup is essential to prevent the tyranny of the majority that can come with simple representative systems, especially for a nation with as varied interests as the US has. We could never operate for long in a system where metro areas dominate and the interests of others are shoved aside. The problem now is that we've gone too far the other way.

If you want to have a system that tries to balance these interests it needs to also be responsive to population shifts.

If I could wave a magic wand and fix it, maybe something as simple as a rule that states cannot have more Senators than they have House reps, with those senate seats allocated in reverse order to the largest states. I dunno, haven't thought it through, but that would mean that Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, and Rhode Island lose one senator each and California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia and North Carolina each gain one. I think that would probably strike a better balance than what we have currently. I only like that because it's simple, and we need simple, but it's something.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I'm talking more on the Senate side.

As an imperfect but easy to convey analysis, let's cut the nation in half.

When the Constitution was put in place roughly half the nation's population resided in 4 states (VA, PA, MA, MD). The remaining 9 states had roughly the same population. This meant that the hedge against the tyranny of the majority had 8 Senators representing the four "metropolitan" states (for lack of a better term) and 18 Senators representing the more rural/less populous states. Broken down, this meant that the bottom 69%* (9 of 13) of states in population had a 2.25x (18 / 8 ) multiplier of representation in the Senate.

Currently, the 9 most populous states house half of the population. This means that the bottom 82% (41 of 50) of states in population have 4.56x multiplier of representation in the Senate. MUCH more lobsided.

 

*nice

The above is imperfect and naïve approach, but simple enough. There are better ways I might slice and dice the states up, but however you cut it you have a system where low-population states in 2022 are MUCH more overrepresented in the Senate than they were in 1787. And because the EC is derived from a combination of the house reps and Senators, this legislative advantage passes along in a slightly lesser form electorally, but still strong.

Because the current political parties have coalesced roughly around interests of urban and rural populations, Republicans have a very strong built in advantage that allows them to wield more political power than their numbers suggest.

Which is ok, as long as it doesn't go so far as it has.

I do actually believe that something like the system we have setup is essential to prevent the tyranny of the majority that can come with simple representative systems, especially for a nation with as varied interests as the US has. We could never operate for long in a system where metro areas dominate and the interests of others are shoved aside. The problem now is that we've gone too far the other way.

If you want to have a system that tries to balance these interests it needs to also be responsive to population shifts.

If I could wave a magic wand and fix it, maybe something as simple as allocating states cannot have more Senators than they have House reps, with those senate seats allocated in reverse order to the largest states would work. I dunno, haven't thought it through, but that would mean that Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, and Rhode Island lose one senator each and California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia and North Carolina each gain one. I think that would probably strike a better balance than what we have currently. I only like that because it's simple, and we need simple, but it's something.

I get the rationale and the approach, and I see some merit to it. But the issue remains that this requires a Constitutional Amendment. The left should have spent the last 40 years laying the groundwork at the local levels to try and advance a plan like this. But instead they just complain that the EC sucks (not you, talking about the party in general). It's the same thing as abortion, healthcare, voting...the Democrats are simply incapable of actually working the system.

FWIW, I prefer keeping the Senate the same and pushing for an end to winner takes all for each state. Let's give Republicans a reason to campaign in CA, and Democrats a reason to campaign in Texas. Getting politicians outside of their bubbles and doing more than preaching to the choir to try and drive turnout would have long-term benefits, IMO. 

9 minutes ago, TEW said:

What part of this do you not comprehend?

"with the intent of influencing any judge”

You are taking out the entire context, and when read as a whole, it is referencing a trial judge in the administration of justice, and all parties related to that, jurors, witnessess, court officers.

If this law does apply, which I do not think it does based on its wording, why have those judges not called the authorities and had them arrested ??

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer

10 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

So we get a "fairer" system (in your opinion), but an even more dysfunctional government?

 

I don't think it would necessarily become more dysfunctional, just that it wouldn't necessarily become any better. But you do make a fair point about getting more MTG types.

 

10 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The issue with all liberal priorities is the same -- trying to find cute ways to circumvent the Constitution

 

This wouldn't be circumvention, it would be working within the Constitution's original confines and would be a return to the Framers' intent, if anything. The Constitution did not limit the number of Reps, and if we actually used the original formula for proportional representation, the states would have way more reps per capita than they do now.

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

You are taking out the entire context, and when read as a whole, it is referencing a trial judge in the administration of justice, and all parties related to that, jurors, witnessess, court officers.

If this law does apply, which I do not think it does based on its wording, why have those judges not called the authorities and had them arrested ??

 

 

Jesus Christ, do you know what the word "or” means?

"or with the intent of influencing any judge”

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I don't think it would necessarily become more dysfunctional, just that it wouldn't necessarily become any better. But you do make a fair point about getting more MTG types.

 

 

This wouldn't be circumvention, it would be working within the Constitution's original confines and would be a return to the Framers' intent, if anything. The Constitution did not limit the number of Reps, and if we actually used the original formula for proportional representation, the states would have way more reps per capita than they do now.

Complains about Senate as being tyranny of the minority, but claims "Framers intent" for increasing the size of the House...

1 minute ago, TEW said:

Jesus Christ, do you know what the word "or” means?

"or with the intent of influencing any judge”

If you read it that way, which I don't as I read the entire thing, why have those judges not called the police and has those folks arrested ??

1 hour ago, BBE said:

Moving the goal posts is good!  Always remember to work in Trump/MAGA/Jan 6th to deflect.  Which I believe all involved should be thrown onto the trash heap of history.

Awwww does another trumpbot have the sads because Joe Biden of all people beat him like a drum in the last election?

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I get the rationale and the approach, and I see some merit to it. But the issue remains that this requires a Constitutional Amendment. The left should have spent the last 40 years laying the groundwork at the local levels to try and advance a plan like this. But instead they just complain that the EC sucks (not you, talking about the party in general). It's the same thing as abortion, healthcare, voting...the Democrats are simply incapable of actually working the system.

FWIW, I prefer keeping the Senate the same and pushing for an end to winner takes all for each state. Let's give Republicans a reason to campaign in CA, and Democrats a reason to campaign in Texas. Getting politicians outside of their bubbles and doing more than preaching to the choir to try and drive turnout would have long-term benefits, IMO. 

I totally agree that my suggested solution is politically infeasible, it's purely an academic exercise. But it does demonstrate the issues with how representation is apportioned. There's no way that if the constitutional convention happened today with the states populated as they are that we'd settle on anything close to what we have now. It's completely perverted. 

Ranked choice voting, proportional allocation of EC votes within states rather than winner take all, and open primaries - which I used to be very much against but have come around on - are all reforms I think would be positive for restoring some sense of confidence that the republic can be responsive to the people.