|
It would not surprise me at all to learn that no one has told Trump that he did not win either the majority or a plurality of the popular vote.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
Niton posted:No, but that's what happened in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012 It's worth noting that the House has been capped at 435 seats since 1916, when the population of the United States was 102 million. We're at 320 million now, and would have ~1300 congressmen if that ratio had been kept the same, and therefore 1400 Electoral Votes. If we wanted to fix the Electoral College and help break gerrymandering in one shot, we'd simply increase the number of Congressmen to a more representative level-but we won't, because 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
I don't have a better answer but I think 1300 Congressman seems like a bad idea. It's a lot harder to hold people accountable for doing shady things when nobody has ever heard of them. Hell, i dont even know many congressmen by name today. (Not that im proud of that) Bullshitting here, but we need another house or something. The Urban House, the Rural house and the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:It would not surprise me at all to learn that no one has told Trump that he did not win either the majority or a plurality of the popular vote. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/798519600413601792 He knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:It's worth noting that the House has been capped at 435 seats since 1916, when the population of the United States was 102 million. We're at 320 million now, and would have ~1300 congressmen if that ratio had been kept the same, and therefore 1400 Electoral Votes. If we wanted to fix the Electoral College and help break gerrymandering in one shot, we'd simply increase the number of Congressmen to a more representative level-but we won't, because This would cost like 2 billion dollars minimum each year in just salaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:This would cost like 2 billion dollars minimum each year in just salaries. That seems high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:This would cost like 2 billion dollars minimum each year in just salaries. What? 1300 House Reps multiplied by $174,000 comes out to ~ 225 million, not 2 billion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:That seems high. It is, that's ~2.35 million per person. 200mil (235k) is closer to accurate, but the current figure of $174k a head would put it right at 150mil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:What? 1300 House Reps multiplied by $174,000 comes out to ~ 225 million, not 2 billion. You'll need some additional staff as well. Not 3-4x as much, because the country's workload would still be roughly the same, but having more congresscritters will be slightly less efficient in that respect. Of course, you could also cut everyone's salaries in half, since they're presumably doing less work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:What? 1300 House Reps multiplied by $174,000 comes out to ~ 225 million, not 2 billion. Each Congressman has over 10 staffers at an average of $50,000 each. e: added a zero oops
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
And even if it was 2 billion a year, is that really a price that's too high to pay to unfuck the Electoral College and weaken the influence of gerrymandering?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Yeah I was figuring base salary plus assistants and secretaries. 2 billion is probably a low figure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Each Congressman has over 10 staffers at an average of $50,000 each. Ah, right, forgot about staffers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Covok posted:She probably will line her coffers. Donald J. Trump, the man selling $149 MAGA Christmas Ornaments, the man who used his President-Elect Status to get the ball rolling on a building in Argentina, is accusing someone of corruption.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yeah I was figuring base salary plus assistants and secretaries. 2 billion is probably a low figure. Looking it up, each House Member is granted $944k for a maximum of 18 permanent staffers and up to 4 part time, on leave w/o pay, interns, etc. This doesn't include the extra cost to send official mailing or travel expenses. So yeah, just the pay allowances comes to 2.2 billion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Niton posted:Donald J. Trump, the man selling $149 MAGA Christmas Ornaments, the man who used his President-Elect Status to get the ball rolling on a building in Argentina, is accusing someone of corruption.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:I don't have a better answer but I think 1300 Congressman seems like a bad idea. It's a lot harder to hold people accountable for doing shady things when nobody has ever heard of them. Hell, i dont even know many congressmen by name today. (Not that im proud of that) As someone else mentioned, they don't all have to meet at the same time. You could have delegations, or simply make a new building.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Looking it up, each House Member is granted $944k for a maximum of 18 permanent staffers and up to 4 part time, on leave w/o pay, interns, etc. This doesn't include the extra cost to send official mailing or travel expenses. So yeah, just the pay allowances comes to 2.2 billion. If you assume the size of staff per congressman remains the same, despite the total population being represented remaining constant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Actually having like 1400 people would be kind of a nightmare logistically. Like how are all 1400 going to vote on something at the same time or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
As stupid as this is, there is a little bit of truth here. Talking about how many votes Hillary Clinton won by is completely pointless because nobody campaigns on winning the popular vote and nobody should, at least as the system exists right now. Losing the election even though you won the popular vote looks terrible, but it doesn't actually say anything meaningful about voter preferences because the existence of the electoral college system influences voter behavior.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Quorum posted:This is a dumb, dumb discussion that's been had to death, but remember that according to all the state polling (which everyone had no reason to believe was massively incorrect), they were spending all their time in the critical battlegrounds. In hindsight of course the "firewall" wasn't nearly as safe as it appeared, but that's not the right lens through which to view strategy decisions. They made the right decisions for the polling they had, and up until literally election night everyone, even the Trump campaign themselves, agreed with the information that led them to do so. This. The difference between President Trump and President Hillary was about 100,000 votes spread across WI, MI, PA. It's easy to criticize in hindsight but most people, including in this forum, believed that even if the polls we're skewed in Hillary's direction there would still be enough padding to still win. Take your pick from poor strategy, comey email surprise, wikileaks drips, voter suppression, transit strike in PA, fake news, etc. etc. All that was thrown at Hillary and in the end Trump barely won the raw votes in a few key states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Can you even stick that many people in the House chamber?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:As stupid as this is, there is a little bit of truth here. Talking about how many votes Hillary Clinton won by is completely pointless because nobody campaigns on winning the popular vote and nobody should, at least as the system exists right now. Losing the election even though you won the popular vote looks terrible, but it doesn't actually say anything meaningful about voter preferences because the existence of the electoral college system influences voter behavior. Yeah but Trump won by appealing to rural cultural resentment, that only works if rural votes count for extra.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
The Chinese government has a national parliamentary body with like 3000 representatives, so it's not impossible to do e: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:Can you even stick that many people in the House chamber?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:The Chinese government has a national parliamentary body with like 3000 representatives, so it's not impossible to do Uhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:The Chinese government has a national parliamentary body with like 3000 representatives, so it's not impossible to do It's a lot easier to do in a dictatorship when the parliament doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:The Chinese government has a national parliamentary body with like 3000 representatives, so it's not impossible to do Yeah, only have one political party, ban the rest, and secretly kill everyone who dissents. Its reeeeeeeaaaaaal easy to have 3000 representatives when they all have to follow the one rule or be dead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
If you internet based socialists are going to gripe there's just no possible way to manage the logistics of taking 1400 simultaneous votes in the day and age I can order same day flowers to the other side of the planet without speaking to another human being I will in fact hunt you all down and beat you with the limbs of the change averse boomers you've decided to make your spirit animals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
gently caress they don't vote simultaneously on most things now, there's literally an hour window where people just run over to their seat and press a button (Or have someone press it for them).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:gently caress they don't vote simultaneously on most things now, there's literally an hour window where people just run over to their seat and press a button (Or have someone press it for them). Or just don't show up at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:It would not surprise me at all to learn that no one has told Trump that he did not win either the majority or a plurality of the popular vote. He knows, his response was "I totally would have won the popular vote if that was how it was decided because I would have campaigned in California."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:gently caress they don't vote simultaneously on most things now, there's literally an hour window where people just run over to their seat and press a button (Or have someone press it for them). or someone "sneakily" (later caught on camera) pressing other's buttons without knowledge
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:gently caress they don't vote simultaneously on most things now, there's literally an hour window where people just run over to their seat and press a button (Or have someone press it for them). And in true American tradition, go to rivals and try to steal their vote for them when they are not there or not looking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfhO38CPlAI
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Quick Draw McGraw posted:Or just don't show up at all I thought Rubio was a senator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
People used to literally have sticks so they could reach over and vote for people seated at the desks in front of or behind them 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Actually having like 1400 people would be kind of a nightmare logistically. Like how are all 1400 going to vote on something at the same time or whatever. Teleconferencing exists
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Teleconferencing exists
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Pet peeve of mine I guess, I mean if the internet leftists just think "It's too hard  " how the gently caress are we going to build anything of value because gently caress lets just run the entire government by Goddamn mylars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
There is no way in this day and age we could have 4,839 registered users logged in and 196,870 users total on a dead gay comedy website and our national legislature should reflect that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 22:33
|
|