I don’t think it’s unfortunate. I think the Great Compromise was a reasonable and just compromise in the drafting of the Constitution, and our continuing to honor it is appropriate.
She was a BAD candidate. She may or may not have been overconfident, but she certainly campaigned actively; it wasn’t like she took a vacation in August. I don’t see how she can be legitimately criticized for “not trying hard enough”.
And given that there is no evidence suggesting any correlation between the support a Presidential candidate receives in a given State and the amount of time they spend personally campaigning in that State, can we just please let that one go?
You approve of a law that gives white Americans more votes than non-white Americans. You can imagine my surprise.
Whoa! What?
Meh, the predominantly black population of Washington DC is neck-and-neck with Wyomingites and Vermonters in maximizing the power of their vote, at least in the Presidential elections.
ETA: anyone who cares enough about maximizing the power of their presidential vote is free to move to any of those locations, regardless of their skin tone.
Well, not any of those locations. Some of those locations are still sundown towns.
Anecdotes are not data. The overall pattern is there’s a clear correlation between how white a state is and how disproportionately biased the Electoral College system is biased in favor of the voters of that state. And vice versa.
How about we try a new system. We divide the country into three groups of voters: black voters, white voters, and Asian voters. The members of each group gets to vote for President. Whichever candidate gets the majority of votes in each group is considered to have all the votes in that group. And then whichever candidate wins the majority of the groups (ie two out of three) wins the Presidency.
You might protest that this system is unfair: why should 17,000,000 Asian voters, 40,000,000 black voters, and 245,000,000 white voters all get the same amount of votes? And why should everyone’s votes get lumped into single groups as it they had all voted the same way? Shouldn’t everyone’s vote count an equal amount? And shouldn’t everyone’s vote count towards the person they voted for?
Because this is how our citizens decided to set up our government all those years ago. If you want to change it, they set up a mechanism for doing that too. Get to amending (or at the state level passing laws to change the way electors are chosen / awarded). If you don’t have the popular support to accomplish that, I guess we’ll just keep doing things the way we have been.
In Vermont?
Here’s an idea. Currently the weighted votes are in favor of folks living in the least populous states. But geography is the least relevant thing about most of us these days. How about weighting them in a manner that actually has something to do with governance, like knowledge of the political system. It could all be computerized. The computer asks each voter ten basic questions about civics. (What does the fifth amendment do? How many Justices on the Supreme Court? Stuff like that.) You get all ten right, you get a full vote. You get nine, you get ninety percent of a vote. This could work because if there’s one thing both sides agree on it’s that “We’re smarter than the other guys.”.
God, I hope not. I never really saw myself as a Democrat nor a Republican but voted Democrat anyway. I spent years thinking if voting GOP would ever make sense to me and, honestly, after the last two years, the last eight withstanding, no thank you. I may not vote for a Democrat in 2020, but I’ll vote for anything with a pulse that isn’t as revolting as the GOP.
That aspect doesn’t actually doesn’t really have a huge effect in our current partisan alignment. If the apportionment of electoral votes among the states was exactly proportional, but results were still winner-take-all in 48 states and DC, Trump would have won about 303 electoral votes instead of 306. Big whoop.
(The real weighting is in favor of people living in big-but-close states like Pennsylvania and Florida.)
That sounds pretty abominable.
This is not a good way to think about it. You should vote for whichever candidate you can support WHO HAS A POSSIBILITY OF WINNING. Throwing your vote away to make a point or because you don’t like either candidate doesn’t make a bit of sense.
So, who should be nominated by the Democrats to win the presidency in two years? And does it make a difference whether (s)he is going to go up against Trump or another Republican candidate?
The possibility of a civil war overthrowing the current government and the Constitution isn’t exactly something they’ve set up-- That’s been a possibility in every nation in history. And it’s the only way to change our enshrined system of unequal representation.
We don’t know the answer to either of those questions yet.
This is factually wrong. There are mechanisms in place to PEACEFULLY “change our enshrined system of unequal representation.” At the federal level, you could pass a Constitutional amendment, if your ideas were more popular. At the state level, you could change the way electoral college votes are awarded so that it’s not a winner-take-all system. Some states have already done this. You could also get enough states to pass the NPVIC, once again if your ideas were more popular.
No, it’s pretty much exactly where I think it is.
I do realize that. I was just curious to hear if there was a candidate who had already distinguished him- or herself in the public eye as a viable choice.