Well, there's always splitting up the larger states (esp California) that could work.
Cal3 is on the ballot this Nov.
2018 US Elections
- Thread starter Red Dreams
- Start date
Cal3 is on the ballot this Nov.
Wouldn't it require 2/3 of senate and 2/3 of all states agreeing on constitutional changes (bar Texas, which is a special case)? Cannot see it happening in the near future.
They’ve been drifting away from that for 150 years though. Does anyone really believe that Wyoming is an equal entity to California any more? Or indeed that any of them are actually sovereign?
I am not familiar with US laws and I don't think it will change either. But it's a crazy situation and it surprises me the people from the most populated states seem perfectly fine with it.
To be fair, the same can be said for European Union, when in some circumstances, Malta has the same power as Germany.
Bear in mind, votes for president and house are roughly proportional. It is only senate when each state is equally powerful. I think that it is a bit of madness nowadays, but it made sense back then.
Not in practice, no. Now I can't imagine how that conversation would be had, and whether the 10000 people in Wyoming and South Dakota would buy into eliminating the senate.
I am not a fan of the EU system either.
Americans seem to have great aversion to political reform.
Neither I am when it comes to EU, but it was the only way to appeal to small countries.
Regarding the bolded one, I think that the problem is US constitution. It needs to totally change and get updated, but instead it is hold as some religious document which must not change. Even making new amendments won't fix many things, it needs a total replacement. However, doing that requires to be done constitutionally, and I think that not only it requires a super-majority in congress but also of states. Actually, this is the process to get a new amendment, I am not sure that there is something about replacing the constitution, so it just can't happen, unless there is a massive political will of people, both parties, and states.
Problem, @Revan, is that doing such today would have too much input from lobbyists, dark money, etc. It would be a total sham.
That's clearly not the case, the electoral college has screwed the world twice in the last 2 decades.
They are roughly proportional by state. You need somewhere between 650k - 750k citizens to get an electoral vote.
The problem is 'the winner takes it all' votes. Imagine two states having the same electoral vote. In state 1, X candidate wins with 70% of votes, in state 2, Y candidate wins with 45% of the vote. Candidates X and Y get the same number of electoral votes, which IMO isn't right.
True to some extent, basically what happened in 2016.
Hillary won most of hers by a clear margin, Trump won all the close calls.
Yep. It can be argued that Trump played the game better, by concentrating on sweep states, instead of the ones he already had though, and both knew the rules of the game before.True to some extent, basically what happened in 2016.
Hillary won most of hers by a clear margin, Trump won all the close calls.
It is still an unjust system, but a farcry from the senate, where California and Texas have the same representative power as Vermont and Wyoming.
He definitely did. In fact Hillary screwed up her strategy badly trying to win big than to secure the so called "blue wall" that fell into pieces.
Hillary screwed up by being a completely corrupt politician. Full stop.
This has been debated to death and there's no point repeating it.
She could and should have won it regardless of your feelings towards her.
The point you clearly do not and never will get is a decent candidate would have beaten Trump.
Nothing to do with my feelings. Its facts.
The point you clearly refuse to acknowledge is your point is a hypothesis with no concrete evidence backing it up.
Wrong again.
Many many voters did not turn up to vote for her in Mid West States she Had to carry. WI,MI PA. Any decent candidate would have carried them and would have won.
The horror we now see is entirely the fault of the Clintons and the DNC pushing a high damaged candidate. It was Her turn.
You have every right to live in your own little bubble and refuse to accept the fact.
Hillary got more than a million more votes than her closer challenger in the primaries, it was the Dem voters who got her the nomination regardless of the preference of the DNC.
For everyone who didn't turn up because of her, there could be just as many Hillary fans who did turn up because of her, or are you going to live in dreamland and claim every Hillary voter would have voted for Sanders?
Address the points being raised please.
Would another Democratic candidate or Sanders have lost WI,MI and PA?
There's every possibility that could have happened, why not?
Don't bother with the so called head-to-head between Trump and Sanders. She's been attacked by the GOP machine for decades. There's no knowing how Sanders would hold up under that kind of attack.
How on Earth something entirely hypothetical is facts?
Her winning more votes than Sanders had a lot to do with DNC helping her heavily and super delegates being for her (heavily discouraging Sanders voters to vote).
I get that, but it’s turned into this internet myth amongst Bernie bros that their man will definitely have won, which is basically BS
berniewouldhavewon
It's by no means definite but he had better polling figures against Trump than Hilary and so would've been starting from a stronger position than her. It's possible he wouldn't have won but reasonably speaking his chances were greater than hers.
That is a reasonable opinion and may well be true. But the post right above yours isn't (and is exactly what I was referring to).
This is completely true.
She wasn't liked even by Democrats. She should have never been a candidate. She should have retired after being beaten by Obama. But no, she did the opposite. Many years of machinations to make sure she will win the nomination this time. And then she messed up the whole thing by trying to win ... Arizona!
Bernie never accepts his nomination as a Democrat . He runs Democrat but wants to remain independent.
She was certainly popular among establishment elites, who control the power structure of the Democratic party, which is precisely why the stacked the odds in her favor with superdelegates.
bernie would have won though
https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
The last a time a Democratic candidate did not win those 3 states was Dukakis in 1988.
All Trump offered was hate. She still lost.
She lost because she was a vacant candidate.
Yes, that's true.
A lot of "average people" did not like Hillary. They didn't like Trump either, so they did not vote. And many of those who did vote for Hillary, did so without much enthusiasm.
What sort of Presidency do you think Bernie would have had with Congress held by Republicans?
Genuine question.
Better than the current one.
He would have come in with a mandate for Medicare for All and free college tuition.
he would have pushed for those but would have made compromises like getting a Public Option for health care for starters.
Nothing becomes law without the President signing it into law. He is a stubborn man.
It wouldnt be a huge success but I think having a nominee and candidate forcefully advocating for things that actually make peoples lives better would have brought our more voters. I think that would pay dividends in Congress both in 2016 and 2018. I think a Bernie presidency could have substantively moved the conversation towards where it needs to be.
A dead-lock so far when not much would have happened (definitely not the multi-trillion tax cut for the wealthy), but with a very good chance of an unifying Democrat government in 2 months, and then a lot of good stuff going on. Garland would have also be confirmed before he would have become president, in fear of him nominating much further to the left candidates.
Would have been interesting to see if the economy would have been as good as it is, probably not.
Mid-terms are often used to put a check on the party with the President. I wouldn't expect the Democrats to do as well as they're going to do now. They very well may have won the House, but I can't see them winning the senate in any case.