A very simple question to ask yourself

[Ron Burgundy]

As mentioned, the Electoral College was set up to prevent large states from running roughshod over small ones. Otherwise candidates would only have to campaign in NY, CA, FL, TX, and maybe PA and they can tell the rest of the country to go to hell, that what you want doesn't matter and your vote doesn't count. That's what disenfranchising means. The system has been the same for over 200 years. Everyone knows what you need to do to win. The Dems' problem is that they figured they'd get enough votes from the coasts and large cities to offset the votes from the people in middle America that they've thrown away and don't really want to have to appeal to. You know, those folks who drive pickup trucks and quads and eat bacon.

Nobody who calls himself a civil libertarian would be wishing that Trump lost to Hillary. She would enact cradle to grave complete federal government control of everything, from daycare to healthcare to higher education to financial institutions.. No matter what he does or doesn't do he won't be worse than her.

SV has greatly moderated his tone since he last posted here. Never go full Libtard.

 

[hamster]

SV has greatly moderated his tone since he last posted here. Never go full Libtard.

Does he have MAGA hat on order, possibly?

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Well, I think I get what you are saying in bold. You mean, I assume, that "no action" means that these problems aren't getting fixed. I haven't seen any implications from DC that actions they DO take fixes much of anything. Therefore, when they all gather and agree on something, it, generally means "we" are getting ****** and actual problems aren't solved or are made worse. As such, I abide by my stance that gridlock doesn't harm us anymore than those ********* "actions" will.

Fair enough. I think we're a long way away from getting serious traction on sensible policies. I have very little faith in Trump. The dude wants to start prosecuting porn stars for ****'s sake. I don't think he'll drive America off a cliff, but I don't think we'll be much better off in 2020.

SV has greatly moderated his tone since he last posted here. Never go full Libtard.

My opinions haven't changed. I'm still an infrastructure and defense libertarian. I'm just not telling you guys to go **** yourselves because... well... that wasn't very constructive, now was it?

 

[deljzc]

Why does anyone think our country was or ever was supposed to be a "True Democracy"?

That's the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard. It's spoken by stupid people that never bothered to understand their 8th grade Civics class or ask WHY?

All votes are not equal. Never have been and never will be (hopefully). So stop with the ******* whining about it. If you want your vote to count more, move to Vermont or Delaware or Wyoming. If you want your vote to MEAN more, move to Florida or Ohio.

But that's the way it's supposed to be, on purpose, in a Republic of States. Our country is not called "America". It is called the "United States of America". States. Collectively. United together under the laws of the Constitution. Separate but equal. To compete with each other for their own best interests. If you don't like the laws in your state (that are still Constitutional), then ******* move. Don't whine to me you can't. That's a lazy excuse. There are plenty of jobs all around the country is every field, in every state for even the most average qualified person.

The founders ALWAYS wanted a form of government that prevented the biggest, most powerful, most populous, richest states from controlling the federal government. ALWAYS. To think otherwise is just stupid.

Now if you want to come out and say you don't agree with our Constitution or the Founding Fathers or the system of government they came up with, that is certainly your prerogative. But you better damn well say it that way. And don't whine about the system only when you didn't get your way in an election.

I am for term limits in congress, but I am for term limits when Republicans win AND when Democrats win. And I have been for going on 20 years now.

But I have heard very few people say we should abolish the Senate because it is not democratically representative and some people's votes count a lot more than others. The Senate is arguably the most powerful body in our government (even more so collectively than the President) and it has never been CLOSE to democratically representative of the populace.

So quit your whining about "all votes aren't equal" bullshit.

 

[Steeltime]

Additionally, relative to the popular vote meme being raised, those who argue the point blithely ignore the fact that if the race were contested as a popular vote contest, then both candidates would have campaigned differently.

Both candidates spent significant time in Ohio, and Florida, and Iowa, and Nevada, and New Hampshire, and Arizona, etc. because those were the contested states. (Trump also very adroitly spent time in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.) The candidates did NOT spend time in states they felt were locked up - the South for Trump, the coasts for Hillary. That approach costs candidates popular votes in their "safe" states.

Now, since Hillary won 62% of the California vote and 58% of the New York vote, it is difficult to envision her getting much more support in those states. On the other hand, if Trump campaigned in California and New York, and spent money advertising in those states, it is reasonable to believe that he could have picked up popular votes.

What effect would Hillary campaigning in Alabama and Louisiana and Nebraska have had? Some, sure - but how many more popular votes would she have gained?

As a result, the popular vote meme simply pretends that the popular vote would have turned out the same if in fact the election were contested on a popular vote basis, rather than an electoral basis, and that presumption is flat-out false.

Look at it this way. The popular vote crowd is arguing that their team gained more yards than the opponent, and the score should not count - while the winning team knew that the freaking scoreboard counted, total yards did not, and ran the game to win the score, not total yards.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Look at it this way. The popular vote crowd is arguing that their team gained more yards than the opponent, and the score should not count - while the winning team knew that the freaking scoreboard counted, total yards did not, and ran the game to win the score, not total yards.

Obviously the scoreboard where the rubber meets the road matters more than style points and splash plays, if you will, and the other guy gets paid too and sometimes plays better situational politics turning over stones back at the lab, if you will, obviously, and maximized his opportunity. Obviously.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Why does anyone think our country was or ever was supposed to be a "True Democracy"?

That's the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard. It's spoken by stupid people that never bothered to understand their 8th grade Civics class or ask WHY?

All votes are not equal. Never have been and never will be (hopefully). So stop with the ******* whining about it. If you want your vote to count more, move to Vermont or Delaware or Wyoming. If you want your vote to MEAN more, move to Florida or Ohio.

But that's the way it's supposed to be, on purpose, in a Republic of States. Our country is not called "America". It is called the "United States of America". States. Collectively. United together under the laws of the Constitution. Separate but equal. To compete with each other for their own best interests. If you don't like the laws in your state (that are still Constitutional), then ******* move. Don't whine to me you can't. That's a lazy excuse. There are plenty of jobs all around the country is every field, in every state for even the most average qualified person.

The founders ALWAYS wanted a form of government that prevented the biggest, most powerful, most populous, richest states from controlling the federal government. ALWAYS. To think otherwise is just stupid.

Now if you want to come out and say you don't agree with our Constitution or the Founding Fathers or the system of government they came up with, that is certainly your prerogative. But you better damn well say it that way. And don't whine about the system only when you didn't get your way in an election.

I am for term limits in congress, but I am for term limits when Republicans win AND when Democrats win. And I have been for going on 20 years now.

But I have heard very few people say we should abolish the Senate because it is not democratically representative and some people's votes count a lot more than others. The Senate is arguably the most powerful body in our government (even more so collectively than the President) and it has never been CLOSE to democratically representative of the populace.

So quit your whining about "all votes aren't equal" bullshit.

1) Show me where the founders expected states to "compete" with each other. I've never seen that quote.

2) "Separate but equal" came from the Plessy vs Furgeson decision which legalized Jim Crow segregation. That concept was STRUCK DOWN by the Supreme Court in the 1954 Brown vs. Board decision.

3) I have argued, repeatedly in this thread, that neither the Constitution nor the Founding Fathers were infallible. They were slave holders, after all. That's why we have an Amendment process.

4) The 14th Amendment challenges your assertion that votes should not be equal. All citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law and the Electoral College violates that protection.

5) The House of Representatives balances out the Senate's state representation. I said earlier in this thread that if their was a balance in our elections between the popular vote and the college it would be more democratic. As it stands you have disenfranchised entire population of Tampa.

 

[Superman]

Obviously the scoreboard where the rubber meets the road matters more than style points and splash plays, if you will, and the other guy gets paid too and sometimes plays better situational politics turning over stones back at the lab, if you will, obviously, and maximized his opportunity. Obviously.

that's some strong pedigree you have above the neck to make such a statement.
better sit down before you get dizzy.

 

[Steelin]

This is just silly. If we start yanking away southern states and their Dixiecrat Republican group think, Hillary wins in a landslide. That blade cuts both ways. I don't think any voter should be discounted based on geography. This is exactly why the Electoral College is undemocratic and broken.

So you remove whole states and not just a couple of liberal hell holes to reach that conclusion. What about Billy Clinton in 92? The left loved the Electoral College then.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

So you remove whole states and not just a couple of liberal hell holes to reach that conclusion. What about Billy Clinton in 92? The left loved the Electoral College then.

Meaning what? Clinton won the popular vote as well. Four times in history has a President won against the will of the people, in all four instances it was a Republican.

 

[Steelin]

I read that he didn't win the popular vote. I must've made a mistake relying on my source.

 

[ark steel]

Clinton never got 50% of the vote.

 

[Troglodyte]

There are plenty of jobs all around the country is every field, in every state for even the most average qualified person..

What? That's not what President Trump said! He pandered to all yokels who refuse to move away from their shithole towns for greener pastures and demanded that jobs be brought to them.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Clinton never got 50% of the vote.

In 1992 Ross Perot siphoned votes from both parties, more so from the Republicans, so Clinton won with less than 50%. I don't remember specifically what happened in 1996.

 

[ark steel]

1) Show me where the founders expected states to "compete" with each other. I've never seen that quote.

2) "Separate but equal" came from the Plessy vs Furgeson decision which legalized Jim Crow segregation. That concept was STRUCK DOWN by the Supreme Court in the 1954 Brown vs. Board decision.

3) I have argued, repeatedly in this thread, that neither the Constitution nor the Founding Fathers were infallible. They were slave holders, after all. That's why we have an Amendment process.

4) The 14th Amendment challenges your assertion that votes should not be equal. All citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law and the Electoral College violates that protection.

5) The House of Representatives balances out the Senate's state representation. I said earlier in this thread that if their was a balance in our elections between the popular vote and the college it would be more democratic. As it stands you have disenfranchised entire population of Tampa.

# 2 is a helluva stretch to conflate del's separate but equal statement about the states to individuals and jim crow. laughably so, at first I assumed you were trying to be funny.

I don't think the 14th amendment can be stretched to include overriding the electoral college provisions of the constitution.

 

[ark steel]

In 1992 Ross Perot siphoned votes from both parties, more so from the Republicans, so Clinton won with less than 50%. I don't remember specifically what happened in 1996.

similar in 1996, with perot siphoning off less votes. Clinton got 49.2% of the vote.

 

[ark steel]

What? That's not what President Trump said! He pandered to all yokels who refuse to move away from their shithole towns for greener pastures and demanded that jobs be brought to them.

as apposed to those on the dole who refused to move out of their liberal shitholes and demanded that money be given to them?

 

[Steel Vanguard]

# 2 is a helluva stretch to conflate del's separate but equal statement about the states to individuals and jim crow. laughably so, at first I assumed you were trying to be funny.

I don't think the 14th amendment can be stretched to include overriding the electoral college provisions of the constitution.

He was referring to the intent of the founding fathers. I have read nowhere that they intended the states to be "separate but equal". The only other place I have heard that language was from the southern states. It's not a stretch, it's what he said. If the founders used that rhetoric, fine, post it.

 

[ark steel]

He was referring to the intent of the founding fathers. I have read nowhere that they intended the states to be "separate but equal". The only other place I have heard that language was from the southern states. It's not a stretch, it's what he said. If the founders used that rhetoric, fine, post it.

it is a stretch because it is clear he said Separate but Equal STATES, and nothing about individuals.

But that's the way it's supposed to be, on purpose, in a Republic of States. Our country is not called "America". It is called the "United States of America". States. Collectively. United together under the laws of the Constitution. Separate but equal. To compete with each other for their own best interests.

I don't know the exact language used by the founders (the Several States rings a bell), but it seems pretty clear that he referred to States not jim crow laws and individuals. I know about the laws that tried to define people as Separate but Equal and his references to Separate but Equal states didn't make me think of those laws, at all. I could see, if I squint, how someone might think, "wait, what do you mean, 'separate but equal'", but if they actually read the whole thing, it is so very clear what was meant.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

it is a stretch because it is clear he said Separate but Equal STATES, and nothing about individuals.



I don't know the exact language used by the founders (the Several States rings a bell), but it seems pretty clear that he referred to States not jim crow laws and individuals. I know about the laws that tried to define people as Separate but Equal and his references to Separate but Equal states didn't make me think of those laws, at all. I could see, if I squint, how someone might think, "wait, what do you mean, 'separate but equal'", but if they actually read the whole thing, it is so very clear what was meant.

And again, to the larger point he was trying to make, where is the evidence that the states were intended to compete? This is what he was getting at, and I've seen no such language from the Founding Fathers themselves. The idea that small states should be protected from large states was absolutely part of their thinking, for better or worse. But that is not the same as competition.

 

[ark steel]

And again, to the larger point he was trying to make, where is the evidence that the states were intended to compete? This is what he was getting at, and I've seen no such language from the Founding Fathers themselves. The idea that small states should be protected from large states was absolutely part of their thinking, for better or worse. But that is not the same as competition.

The general idea that the states should compete seems reasonable with some expectation that one state can't inordinately impose their will another. For example (maybe a bad one?), if PA wants to lower their tax rates (HA!!), to better complete against NY, they should be allowed to do so. However, PA can't impose extra taxes on good because they are made in NY (or I don't think they can!). PA can't build a road and make NY pay for it (although they, probably do indirectly through federal funds...).

One of the ****** up things in a recent obamacare replacement proposal was that insurance companies housed in one state could sell policies in another state without following the 2nd state's rules. That, IMO is a distinct violation of the 2nd state's rights.

 

[Steeltime]

The general idea that the states should compete seems reasonable with some expectation that one state can't inordinately impose their will another. For example (maybe a bad one?), if PA wants to lower their tax rates (HA!!), to better complete against NY, they should be allowed to do so. However, PA can't impose extra taxes on good because they are made in NY (or I don't think they can!).

You are correct, ark. The Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, provides, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

These two Constitutional provisions mean that the Federal government, and ONLY the Federal government, has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Therefore, Pennsylvania cannot impose taxes on goods manufactured out-of-state to favor its own manufacturing, under something known as the "dormant commerce clause." The dormant commerce clause is judicially created, and provides that the commerce clause necessarily prohibits a state from passing legislation that improperly "burdens or discriminates" against interstate commerce. Your Pennsylvania tax on New York goods is a good example of violation of the dormant commerce clause.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

The general idea that the states should compete seems reasonable with some expectation that one state can't inordinately impose their will another. For example (maybe a bad one?), if PA wants to lower their tax rates (HA!!), to better complete against NY, they should be allowed to do so. However, PA can't impose extra taxes on good because they are made in NY (or I don't think they can!). PA can't build a road and make NY pay for it (although they, probably do indirectly through federal funds...).

One of the ****** up things in a recent obamacare replacement proposal was that insurance companies housed in one state could sell policies in another state without following the 2nd state's rules. That, IMO is a distinct violation of the 2nd state's rights.

You are correct, ark. The Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, provides, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

These two Constitutional provisions mean that the Federal government, and ONLY the Federal government, has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Therefore, Pennsylvania cannot impose taxes on goods manufactured out-of-state to favor its own manufacturing, under something known as the "dormant commerce clause." The dormant commerce clause is judicially created, and provides that the commerce clause necessarily prohibits a state from passing legislation that improperly "burdens or discriminates" against interstate commerce. Your Pennsylvania tax on New York goods is a good example of violation of the dormant commerce clause.

All of that is well and good, and those are great quotes thank you. But it still doesn't represent "competition" between the states. Only that they are to be protected from meddling by one another, and that their interstate interactions be regulated by a third party so as to prevent malfeasance.

We are both a nation of states and a nation of people. The precedent has been mentioned about congress having a population representative house and a state representative house. The electoral college has no such balance and is biased in favor of unpopulated lands over living breathing tax paying human beings. Fields can't vote. Cows don't pay taxes. It is a contradiction of the Founding Fathers to say we should not have taxation without representation, then to disenfranchise millions of people based on geography. We have an election which ignored the votes of a population the size of Oklahoma City and Jacksonville COMBINED. That's plainly undemocratic. Three million people were taxed without representation. And that, like the now abolished 3/5ths compromise in the original Constitution, is fundamentally un-American.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

You are correct, ark. The Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, provides, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

These two Constitutional provisions mean that the Federal government, and ONLY the Federal government, has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Therefore, Pennsylvania cannot impose taxes on goods manufactured out-of-state to favor its own manufacturing, under something known as the "dormant commerce clause." The dormant commerce clause is judicially created, and provides that the commerce clause necessarily prohibits a state from passing legislation that improperly "burdens or discriminates" against interstate commerce. Your Pennsylvania tax on New York goods is a good example of violation of the dormant commerce clause.

It's perfectly okay for states to compete with each other. What is not allowed is tariffs or otherwise restraining trade between the states.

 

[Steeltime]

It's perfectly okay for states to compete with each other. What is not allowed is tariffs or otherwise restraining trade between the states.

True - but in reading commerce clause cases, I learned that the states become very inventive in their favoritism. For example, states enacted laws regulating what kind of tires trucks could use on public highways, arguing that the regulation was meant to protect these highways ... but gee, coincidentally enough, the types of tires permitted just happened to be common and already in use among trucks in that particular state!