Frosty
Logical and sensible but turns women gay
I mean, he thinks that the answer to rising sea-levels is for people to simply sell their homes and move elsewhere. So he is hardly evidence of high-level logic.
For sure. I have heard one of the Generals, maybe Mark Milley, say the same thing recently. He is a 78 year old child.
So, when you posted this was it through the lens of:
A) Holy shit the Biden Harris administration doesn't care about kids.
B) Holy shit the economy is tanking, even for kids.
C) Holy shit, the reason this is happening is that the GOP refused to make the expanded child tax credit permanent and it expired and Trump should have been nailed for that.
The smart way to beI guess he’s just a hard read lads. Against Biden I thought he coasted as he was up against a barely cogent pensioner.
He seemed to quote global politics and leaders with far higher accuracy than I have seen before.
Maybe I don’t watch enough of him tbf.
Was Harris asked “why did child poverty rise during you administration?” If so, I missed it and you are right, she should have led with that in her answer.If C is the answer harris should've brought it up.
I mean, the irony of someone making a living off telling people how to vote deriding people for following a celebrity endorsement is pretty self evident.I mean, he thinks that the answer to rising sea-levels is for people to simply sell their homes and move elsewhere. So he is hardly evidence of high-level logic.
if she endorsed trump he'd be all over it. the hypocrisy of that side!
Every electoral system has flaws, but the electoral college is the one which probably has the best trade off for the country as a whole.Trump lost by 7 million votes last time. Our electoral college is a flawed mechanism.
In the 19th century.Every electoral system has flaws, but the electoral college is the one which probably has the best trade off for the country as a whole.
How so? It results in citizens in different states have different vote share than each other, it creates swing states that means that candidates need to tailor their policies to a small subset of voters in a small subset of states, and it has resulted all to often in the president elect being the candidate who lost the popular vote.Every electoral system has flaws, but the electoral college is the one which probably has the best trade off for the country as a whole.
Fixed that for you.It’s like ordering a drink and being offered Pepsi or Coca Cola laced with highly potent LSD
Yes.Can Harris win without Pennsylvania? Seems like that’s a crucial state for her.
Because if it was decided solely by the popular vote, then the break up of the union itself becomes much more likely…and I’m assuming that’s something the majority of Americans don’t want to happen.How so? It results in citizens in different states have different vote share than each other, it creates swing states that means that candidates need to tailor their policies to a small subset of voters in a small subset of states, and it has resulted all to often in the president elect being the candidate who lost the popular vote.
Can Harris win without Pennsylvania? Seems like that’s a crucial state for her.
No it would not. Every other office in the country is decided by a popular vote and you don't see states breaking up when the vote is close. Instead what you see is candidates who are forced to craft platforms that are widely popular. And besides, if changing the election of the president to a popular vote is all that it takes to break up the Union, well then it was going to break up anyways.Because if it was decided solely by the popular vote, then the break up of the union itself becomes much more likely…and I’m assuming that’s something the majority of Americans don’t want to happen.
At least winning the presidency closely aligns with winning the popular vote. Prior to the 2016 election, there were only four times in US history when a candidate won the presidency despite losing the popular vote.In the 19th century.
Mollifying rich Southern slave owners to keep the Union intact isn’t on the agenda anymore. Time for a little update at least, if we stick with ‘wisdom of the founders’ then only white males can vote, state legislatures appoint Senators and Presidential candidates are decided by smoke filled room wheeling dealing instead of popular election.
Why is there only two parties? It’s like ordering a drink and being offered Pepsi or Coca Cola - slight difference but deep down it’s basically the same shit.
Because if it was decided solely by the popular vote, then the break up of the union itself becomes much more likely…and I’m assuming that’s something the majority of Americans don’t want to happen.
The Presidency is effectively and symbolically different to every other office in the country though. Significantly different!No it would not. Every other office in the country is decided by a popular vote and you don't see states breaking up when the vote is close. Instead what you see is candidates who are forced to craft platforms that are widely popular. And besides, if changing the election of the president to a popular vote is all that it takes to break up the Union, well then it was going to break up anyways.
All that being said, the reason for the EC was so that slave owning states could get to count their slaves as property but also get them included (well, 3/5's of them) in their vote share. The persistence of the EC is a stain.
Agreed. I think it’s the compromise or trade off that fits that particular country, given both its unique size and diversity of population.Also structurally it theoretically incentives investment and effort in "lesser" states so they don't get left behind. In the UK for example London gets all the investment because London has always had all the investment. It becomes self fulfilling unless you deliberately bias interest towards the more peripheral areas.
I'm not saying the electoral college is the right system, but letting people in (more populous) cities decide what should happen in rural areas has never seemed all that logical to me. Weighting by both population and geographical location is ostensibly a decent compromise if done well.
Unfortunately we do not have national referendums here, so that is not going to happen. According to Pew, 65% of Americans favor the move to a popular vote. Unfortunately, this would require a Constitutional amendment which is highly unlikely.The Presidency is effectively and symbolically different to every other office in the country though. Significantly different!
That aside however, what’s the public appetite on the issue? Ultimately it could be tested by referendum.
Also structurally it theoretically incentives investment and effort in "lesser" states so they don't get left behind. In the UK for example London gets all the investment because London has always had all the investment. It becomes self fulfilling unless you deliberately bias interest towards the more peripheral areas.
I'm not saying the electoral college is the right system, but letting people in (more populous) cities decide what should happen in rural areas has never seemed all that logical to me. Weighting by both population and geographical location is ostensibly a decent compromise if done well.
1 time is 1 time too many, let alone 5, it went directly against the principle of ‘one person, one vote’, which the Supreme Court supported, btw, when they ordered districts to be roughly similar in population in reapportionment.At least winning the presidency closely aligns with winning the popular vote. Prior to the 2016 election, there were only four times in US history when a candidate won the presidency despite losing the popular vote.
By way of comparison…in Britain only one government (outside of the National government around WW2) has achieved a majority of the vote since universal suffrage in 1928.
And the extra investment they do receive doesn’t help, red states that are a net drain on fiscal contribution consistently rank in the bottom tier for education, wage, life expectancy etc. The residents of Louisiana or Mississippi really got a good deal from the EC when no candidate for president will visit their state and push for policies that will benefit them.But that is not how it works, not even close. None of those "lesser" states are swing states and so receive no extra investment whatsoever.
Edit: Actually, I would argue it is worse for the country and the planet the way things work. You think the Dems would be supporting fracking if Pennsylvania wasn't a pivotal swing state?
How about the number of electoral votes per state is standardised against census population data and all of each states votes is assigned to each candidate as it is now (stop it Maine and Nebraska) fisrts past the post style. You then double the number of electoral votes and assign these votes proportionally to the popular vote. If you want to slightly increase the power of each states result you could assign these new proportionally representative votes within states so that (say) California's popular vote wasn't too dominant.How so? It results in citizens in different states have different vote share than each other, it creates swing states that means that candidates need to tailor their policies to a small subset of voters in a small subset of states, and it has resulted all to often in the president elect being the candidate who lost the popular vote.
I’ve no dog in the fight here but it seems obvious to me that changing the electoral system increases (significantly) the chances that the United States in its current form would no longer exist at some point. The choice therefore involves a decision on whether that’s an acceptable trade off.1 time is 1 time too many, let alone 5, it went directly against the principle of ‘one person, one vote’, which the Supreme Court supported, btw, when they ordered districts to be roughly similar in population in reapportionment.
The current British government won 33.7% of the vote. Is that more reasonable?They won by a plurality, the party with the most votes won, pretty reasonable.
Let’s be fair, Megyn Kelly was by no means “semi-attractive”.I think InfiniteBoredom has it right, Kelly was never respected by anyone. She was one of an assembly line of semi-attractive mannequins who were instructed to wear short skirts and to smile more (among other, more sinister things).
Easy solution. Turn the UK system to a Presidential one and allow only 2 choices.By way of comparison…in Britain only one government (outside of the National government around WW2) has achieved a majority of the vote since universal suffrage in 1928.
At least winning the presidency closely aligns with winning the popular vote. Prior to the 2016 election, there were only four times in US history when a candidate won the presidency despite losing the popular vote.
By way of comparison…in Britain only one government (outside of the National government around WW2) has achieved a majority of the vote since universal suffrage in 1928.
But that is not how it works, not even close. None of those "lesser" states are swing states and so receive no extra investment whatsoever.
Edit: Actually, I would argue it is worse for the country and the planet the way things work. You think the Dems would be supporting fracking if Pennsylvania wasn't a pivotal swing state?
No solution is required really. The British public has long been conditioned to accept it.Easy solution. Turn the UK system to a Presidential one and allow only 2 choices.
No, changing it wouldn’t cause the US to cease to exist, because the root cause behind it has already been decided, on the battlefield, and by a subsequent Supreme Court decision. Secession is treason, and there’s no appetite, nor the 19th century citizen militia system that fueled the seditious states to test that question again.I’ve no dog in the fight here but it seems obvious to me that changing the electoral system increases (significantly) the chances that the United States in its current form would no longer exist at some point. The choice therefore involves a decision on whether that’s an acceptable trade off.
The current British government won 33.7% of the vote. Is that more reasonable?
It would be the solution to under 50% of the vote going to one partyNo solution is required really. The British public has long been conditioned to accept it.