Forgot to mention that the whole, alleged city/rural divide is a red herring: half of the country lives in the damn suburbs.
Good lord, again with the stupid “democracy” crap. If you want to live in a “democracy”, go move to one.
We’re a representative republic, a federation of individual polities, called states. I’ve lived in California, Ohio, and South Carolina (among others); they each have their unique individuality. But I’d be very, very unhappy if we ended up living in a country where the head of the Executive branch of government was effectively chosen by voters in LA, NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, etc. And to be blunt, the only reason Democrats here want it is because it would change the result of two recent elections. If the results were the other way around, y’all would be just as vigorously defending the concept of the Electors.
I’ve offered SEVERAL good reasons to keep the EC, both after this election, and on this message board in 2000, the last time this happened. To be blunt, if the only reason you want something different is because you think it’s undemocratic, you’re not advocating much in your favor. As has been pointed out: we’re NOT a democracy. Never have been, and with any luck, never will be.
The cities again. The rest of the country has to be protected from the evil slum dwellers. What a load of horseshit.
I get it. You’re cool with disenfranchisement. I’m not, never have been, long before Al Gore.
States have representatives. They are represented. Presidents are meant to represent all the people. But they don’t. Some are more important apparently.
I passionately hope this happens to a republican. I’ll have the same stand, but tons of folks will be singing a new tune.
I’ve never been in favor of electors upending an election, but now I see it might be the best thing that could happen to this disgraceful relic of white supremacy.
Well, hell, why didn’t you just say so! A ruthless struggle for political power? Well, not my style, truth be known.
But there are plenty of people who will accommodate you! Some of them pretend to share my values, but they really don’t. They share yours, though!
…Yonder stands your orphan with his gun
Crying like a fire in the sun
Look out the saints are comin’ through
And it’s all over now, Baby Blue…
When is Michigan finally going to declare its results?
Do states bother with recounts if it won’t make a difference? I have to think that’s why they haven’t certified anything yet, it’s really close but I’d imagine they’d want to save themselves the trouble and cost.
They could just not send any electors at all, save plane fare.
Oh, goodness, someone’s been drinking the brand new Kool-Aid. The idea that the Electoral College was established to entrench the power of the southern states is not supported by Madison’s notes on the Convention; it’s nothing more than a made-up post-hoc rationalization for a viewpoint that is currently in vogue. The only relationship the two had was that the southern states DID ensure they had more power in Congress than they otherwise would have through the counting of slaves as 3/5 of a person. But the reasoning behind the EC is simple, and it’s been mentioned in this thread, and all the others being posted here at the SDMB again (just like they were in 2000). The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it less true as a reason.
And for goodness sake, how unknowledgeable do you have to be to think that the US has “one person, one vote” for much of anything at the federal level? Wyoming has a population of 586,000, give or take, and gets one Representative. Montana has a population of 1,032,000, give or take, and ALSO only gets one Representative. But Rhode Island has 1,056,000 people, and it gets TWO Representatives. So people in Rhode Island have TWICE the voting power of people in Montana, for no other reason than the fact that we have 435 Representatives, not 436. Where’s your outrage at this injustice??? I mean, poor Montana!! The very thought! :eek:
Get over it. In the absence of sufficient numbers of House Representatives to make the situation truly granular enough to iron out the inequalities, there’s going to be some unfairness inherent in the system, if you think the “fair” result is something based on counting all the votes in the US. But, as I used to tell my students when they whined about something being unfair, “Fair? Fair’s in October.”
When you lose to Trump, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself.
The electors aren’t sent anywhere from Michigan. They’ll meet in, I assume, the state capitol in Lansing. (I guess there could be one or two from the UP, but most will likely be from the southern part of the state since that’s where most of the people are.)
After that, the only cost is postage for the certificates.
Of course you know this already. However, if the copy of the email is not on a government server, the government cannot access it without a warrant. Clintons work product included emails sent to non-government employees.
Additionally searching for emails from Clinton, given the number of government employees, probably requires having a decent idea of where to search. If the emails are archived in a .pst, well, a search on the server won’t show those.
There is a reason this is a stupid idea. What Clinton did is the equivalent of being required to keep a log of all calls. When asked for the call log, Clinton responds with ‘Well, I don’t have a log, check the history on every individuals phone.’ It can be done but there is absolutely no guarantee that you will capture all the information, especially if the some of the phones are outside of the organization.
Slee
Who is, incidentally, updating a bunch of servers with the newest version of Office after migrating my companies email system to a new system. After tonight the mail migration/Office upgrade will be complete. Yay me.
In the year 2191, the very last Clinton e-mail is downloaded from the Akashic Records, and nothing remotely nefarious has been found. The head of Daryll Issa, serving his 133rd term in the House:
"Well, of course not, we knew that. A devious and cunning creature like Hillary, who had been plotting this since her years in the Lesbian Maoist Collective at Wellesley…would never make such an obvious mistake! There is no evidence, whatsoever, of any kind, to suggest illegal or nefarious purpose! What more evidence do you need! Lock her up!
Dead? What do you mean, ‘dead’? When was that? Well, dig her up, and if she refuses to testify, that’s even more proof!"
There are several factors that, altogether, influenced the outcome. Some of these were factors were probably beyond Clinton’s ability to control, but others might have been resolved with a campaign that focused less on fundraising and more on communicating with real people and making Hillary Clinton look more ‘human’. As I repeatedly pointed out during her campaign, the people wanted to see authenticity, and the only time she really and truly delivered that was in her concession speech.
Someone might have mentioned this already but Obamacare was also a major negative influence late in the game. That, by itself, wasn’t a back-breaker, but the fact that she had ignored Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin until very late in the game - while spending time in…Arizona - just shows how disconnected from rural and suburban white voters her campaign had become. When you combine that with the deplorables comment, it reinforced the sense in Rust Belt America that she wasn’t with them.
One area in which Trump really and absolutely kicked Hillary’s ass was in terms of branding. Trump’s Make America Great Again schtick was not just a slogan, but really a political brand. It was a viral sensation. Sometimes meme-ish but viral and catchy nevertheless. “I’m With Her” was so watered down. Safe. Uninspiring. And “Stronger Together” was just an example of Hillary trying to make the campaign about the opponent. It’s very rare that someone can win a presidential election solely on the basis of another candidate’s lack of character. It’s ultimately about the fears and anxieties of voters. Trump tapped into that. Clinton didn’t. Letter or no letter, Hillary would have had her hands full on election night.
Liberty and democracy are the same thing. Liberty with a limited government doesn’t happen, because then people are free to limit your liberty. You need a functional government that keeps your liberty. And the only way that can happen is if the people are the ones in control, since anyone else will give themselves will give themselves more power, and thus reduce your liberty.
That’s not to say there can’t be arguments on the exact size of the government. But it needs to be robust and strong. When a minority can control a majority, then you don’t have liberty.