Cite that racism was rampant in the 1950s, and that blacks had no guarantee of a well-paying job?
Hey, dude, cite for me that water is wet.
Jokes aside the actual 1950’s
- Saw top tax rate at IIRC over 80%
- Massive government spending on infrastructure and social programmes.Tbey came close to making universal healthcare a reality!
- USG funding scientific research both for getting improvements (like the Polio vaccine) and for the heck of it
- The Federal Government and Courts saying “ok thats enough of that” and coming down hard on segregation, Brown. The Civil Rights Act of 1957.
- Invention of the Pill
- Powerful Unions
Basically, it was the height of the progressive era. No way in hell any current At-Right or conservative thinks it was awesome. If Obama wore Whiteface (!) and was transported there with his policies; he would be a right winger.
That’s not how debates work. You made the claim, please provide a cite to back it up.
I admit some morbid curiosity as to how regressive the U.S. can become.
Well, yes. As well, your wiki cite points out that the R’s retain a majority of seats out of proportion to their actual popular vote numbers. Actually, the wiki cite doesn’t really point that out, its right there, but you didn’t notice.
And you’ve not heard any of this before?
But anyway, that works for you, them’s the rules, and the rules are what’s important here? Not fuzzy thinking liberal ideas like “one person, one vote”? That whole power sharing by the people idea some of us are so keen on?
But that’s cool by you, then. Suppose that thing with one guy winning with 3 million less votes than the other, that works for you too? In the first instance, of course, the winning party actually got more personal, human type votes, in the second instance, they didn’t, but they win both ways. Mmmmm. Republican poker. We get five cards, they get seven, all ours are dealt face up, and they get to draw twice.
And sometimes, we win anyway. If that’s your notion of equality and power sharing, well, there it is. And you’re welcome to it.
What I noticed was that your assertion was wrong. If you want to make some other assertion, we can evaluate that against the evidence.
“One person one vote” isn’t in the Constitution. Nothing about our federal voting system is set up that way. On purpose. But yea, I’m cool with that.
Keep harping on the popular vote thing if it makes you feel good, but it’s a meaningless argument. As I’m sure you must know by now, the candidates campaign for electoral votes. If we elected presidents by popular vote, they’d campaign that way and the results would be different.
I’m also OK if the World Series is won by the team that wins the most games, not the team that gets the most total home runs.
I really feel sticking to the popular vote as absolute democracy might not pay off 20 years down the line when the masses are all theocratically inclined to frequent televised public executions as Circuses and is more than happy with the ‘No-Bread’ policies of billionaires so long as no undeserving person gets Bread.
If you are in favor of federalism, as I am, you don’t want the federal elections to be a popular referendum. I’m sure the folks in Mississippi are might fine folks, but I live in CA and the less they have to say about how we do things in my state, the better.
There you go.
[1] MacLean, N. (2008). Freedom is not enough: The opening of the American workplace. Harvard University Press.
Only for Democrats, I fear.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Does anyone have figures on potential eligible voters, whether they voted or not?
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Using gain/loss rather than overall seats seems to be a very strange way of comparing these things. In both cases the Rs got more votes, and more overall seats. In 2012, IIRC, the Democrats got more votes, but the Republicans still won more seats.
It was just a way to illustrate that the popular vote for The House is not necessarily tied to any specific outcome. Sometimes it correlates with the results and sometimes not. Whether it does or not is unremarkable. I thought that was obvious since I juxtaposed it with a counter example of a time when the popular vote did correlate and my comments about “democracy” were clearly sarcastic.
Step back and look at the forest. Each tree doesn’t mean much by itself. The “House Popular Vote”, like “The Presidential Popular Vote” is a meaningless number. We don’t play the game by those rules, so judging the game by those rules makes no sense.
I’m sure they have similar feelings in Mississippi, especially as regards to protecting their heritage. Somewhat less now than a generation ago, when those pesky Northern liberals were comin’ down there, getting their good colored folks all riled up.
Our problem is running a marathon race with a back pack, carrying a bowling ball. Your solution is that we should run faster. Thanks. If ever I need some firm avuncular advice or an Afterschool Special seminar on the Electoral College, I will know just who to turn to. If.
Sure, judging it entirely by the popular vote is silly, but if there’s a pattern of one party consistently getting more seats than their share of the popular vote would suggest, then that’s worth looking at and seeing if there is some unfairness that can be fixed.
I’m certainly not a Thomas defender, but this specific criticism has always bothered me. I personally love to see questions by judges or justices during oral argument, but often they are done for reasons that aren’t really necessary. By the time most cases have gotten to oral argument level - you have had - at the federal level (usually) at least two rounds of briefs, plus opinions by lower court judges, as well as often amicus briefs and plenty of time to read and understand what is going on.
Among eight other justices - they almost always are going to have another justice find any week points and play devils advocate- and with different judges having their own personality - it would be pretty rare that you’d need to jump in with a question of your own.
If anything - I would say I admire him for this (again not a Thomas supporter). It’s pretty easy to come up with questions - even witty ones. The fact he hasn’t bowed to the pressure - shows me he’s his own man.
If it was a three judge panel - I might be more sympathetic to this argument, but with eight other justices (most of the time) - you really aren’t going to NEED every justice to participate.
No. My solution is that you should ask yourself why you are carrying a bowling ball in the first place, and not just assume that God put it there.
Again, I thank you for your avuncular advice. Advice like yours will go a long way to keeping things as they are like they are. And I’m fairly sure God does not enter into this, there are fingerprints on that bowling ball, they match a group of people with ® attached to their names.
R, me hearties, R! R!
May I offer some myself? injustice is to be challenged and overcome. Lead, follow or get out of the way.
ETA: To clarify, I’m interested in the number of U.S. citizens represented by each House member, and how those figures break down by party.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
The census apportionment results are available but you would probably have to compile the data yourself and calculate per each representative one state at a time.