then and now
Jun 12, 2019 23:50:26 #
StanMac
Loc: Tennessee
LMurray wrote:
So funny, so true, so sad
No, it’s BS. Meant to gaslight all the angry old white men by feeding their delusions about being marginalized by all the changes in society.
Stan
Jun 13, 2019 00:10:00 #
StanMac
Loc: Tennessee
Tex-s wrote:
True, but EVERY correspondence on-topic indicated that the Framers, for reasons of Union formation, and for reasons of historical knowledge and of foresight, had NO, repeat, ZERO, desire to install a pure democracy. The reasons were clear. With no account for lesser populated states, no Union would form. And, every point on topic noted that pure democracy becomes a permanent victimization of the minority. The old example of two lions and one gazelle voting on what's for dinner.
You don’t have to explain it to me, Tex. I think it sucks because in my state my vote counts for nothing in a presidential election - that’s patently unfair and undemocratic (in a democracy touted as best in the world) no matter how many times you explain it to me.
Stan
Jun 13, 2019 00:26:43 #
StanMac wrote:
You don’t have to explain it to me, Tex. I think it sucks because in my state my vote counts for nothing in a presidential election - that’s patently unfair and undemocratic (in a democracy touted as best in the world) no matter how many times you explain it to me.
Stan
Stan
I've proposed a really interesting alteration to the College. Because it forces politicians to treasure every state, it will likely never be considered.
The College gives 100 electoral votes for the Senate and 435 for the House.
My proposal gives both 'Senator' electors to the overall winner of a State and a proportional allotment of 'House' electors. So, Imagine California. The Democrat winner gets 2 'Senate' votes, but the other 53 are allotted proportionally. So, imagine the Democrat got 55% and the Republican 40% and the other candidates 5%. The GOP would get 21+ electoral votes in CA, and there would be 2.7 electoral votes given to the thord/fourth/fifth parties.
Over the entire nation this process continues, meaning the % count in every state counts, making ALL states battlegrounds.
In this model, a winner coming from a minority vote is far less likely, but still possible. And the best point, a solid third party candidate might keep either major party from reaching 270, meaning it might be a great piece of policy influence for the third place team.
In '92, for example, Bill Clinton would NOT have reached 270, and Perot would have amassed enough electors to choose the President by throwing his policy and electors to one party or the other. Regardless of which party received Perot's electors, Perot's policy of decreasing budgets and increasing scrutiny of government operation would have made a HUGE difference in policy, whether the policy come from Clinton, or whether the Perot electors elected Bush Sr. for a second term.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.