31–40 of 90 posts
While I'd like to agree with him here, if John C Dvorak says it's true, you can bet against it nearly 100% successfully. Look at some of these doozies... [1] [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_C._Dvorak
"The severity of the virus from country to country is a reflection of media coverage, not the other way around."
This article says nothing about how it will be banished and is more like a wish. You need 2/3 of states to change and ratify the constitution. Its not even close to being banished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
So banished - no, circumvented - possibly.
Why is the conversation always "abolish vs keep as is?" The EC seems like a good idea that brings equity to a diverse nation but needs some updating as things have changed dramatically since its creation. There are other possible changes that might help, like removing the winner take all situation. But just basing on popular vote alone creates the same problem we're in but from the other direction. We need cities but…
Every house district gets an electoral vote, and then each state's popular vote counts for the two votes provided by the senate seats.
This article says nothing about how it will be banished and is more like a wish. You need 2/3 of states to change and ratify the constitution. Its not even close to being banished.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Though I suspect any changes are likely to happen on the state level. More likely is individual states switch to splitting their electoral votes based on actual vote counts. Thats a bit fraught though since unless you have some kind of parity it would instantly screw up the current balance.
Given that republicans have lost the popular vote in every election since 2000 I don't see them getting on board with going to a straight popular vote anytime in the near future to determine the Presidential election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidentia...
Why is the conversation always "abolish vs keep as is?" The EC seems like a good idea that brings equity to a diverse nation but needs some updating as things have changed dramatically since its creation. There are other possible changes that might help, like removing the winner take all situation. But just basing on popular vote alone creates the same problem we're in but from the other direction. We need cities but…
I had the thought back in the fall that a reasonable compromise could be: Every house district gets an electoral vote, and then each state's popular vote counts for the two votes provided by the senate seats.
Nationalpopularvote.com is the (exhaustive) website for the interstate compact, which has an actual chance of enactment by 2024..
No, zero chance. There is no way you will get states to agree to forever nullify their electoral influence. If you really want perpetual one-party rule, granting DC and PR statehood are also unlikely but far more realistic than abolishing the electoral college, which will literally only happen when the US itself is dissolved.
This article says nothing about how it will be banished and is more like a wish. You need 2/3 of states to change and ratify the constitution. Its not even close to being banished.
I think they are indirectly referring to the NPVIC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... So banished - no, circumvented - possibly.
Why is the conversation always "abolish vs keep as is?" The EC seems like a good idea that brings equity to a diverse nation but needs some updating as things have changed dramatically since its creation. There are other possible changes that might help, like removing the winner take all situation. But just basing on popular vote alone creates the same problem we're in but from the other direction. We need cities but…
While I understand your point, the counter argument to this is "Land doesn't vote, people do." Why does someone deserve to have greater representation because they live on a larger plot of land in a different part of the country? Why does someone in a big city deserve to have less representation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it almost virtually guarantees no more Republican presidents. No, it doesn’t, unless the Republican Party doesn’t adapt to changing conditions as it has continuously since it’s founding. It probably guarantees the Republican Party will realign slightly around some peripheral issues to shift it's geographic focus slightly while retaining it's core economic message, and continue on without breaking stride.
There will always only be Democrats and Republicans, and because the system is a duopoly, when people get sick of one they will exercise their choice to revolve again to the other, round and round and round. Republicans are no more "finished" by Trump than Democrats were finished by Clinton. Dislodging the duopoly (that is, opening the electoral system to 3rd parties) will require proportional representation full sto…
Maybe, but people probably thought that about Democratic-Republicans and Federalists, or Democrats and Whigs. The subsequent realignments have so far been more gradual adaptations within the existing major parties, but a radical and suddenly realignment destroying (and replacing, either immediately or in short order) one of the majors is still possible.
> Dislodging the duopoly (that is, opening the electoral system to 3rd parties) will require proportional representation full stop.
Something like that, yes. (Not necessarily party-list PR, but electoral systems with greater proportionality than FPTP.)