|
VitalSigns posted:6 out of the 10 participating states held popular votes for president in the very first election, the impossibility of counting votes wasn't the reason (obviously or you couldn't elect your congressional representatives). No hence why a validated group of electorates would be sent on a states behalf to cast their votes for that state. Also they'd meet in the state capital to cast their vote on behalf of the people of the state, not necessarily D.C my bad. Anyway as I understood it the electoral college was a matter of getting around logistics of having to send a bunch of people all over the countryside to cast votes and have them validated, but maybe that's just me trying to make more sense of it for the era during which it was created than there is. Apparently for their own reasons a lot of the founding fathers didn't trust direct democracy a whole lot and were worried that it could lead to a tyranny of the majority. Instead arguably the exact opposite has happened in modern times where the systems in place grant Midwestern states with low population a disproportionate amount of power to elect representatives that will enforce legislation over the whole country and more populated states. A lot of the time this is policy that the majority are either split on or fundamentally opposed to, aka just about everything Trump and his supporters in congress have said and done since 2016. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/its-time-to-end-the-electoral-college_b_12891764.html A solid concise opinion piece on the matter. It also wasn't a massive problem before 2000 and Bush as it was exceedingly rare if not unheard of for a candidate to lose the popular vote but win the college in the 20th century (as in it literally never happened once), but then things weren't quite as hyper partisan and divisive back then either. Now it's pretty obvious that there's a problem when it's granted the presidency to 2 republican candidates in the last 5 elections both of whom went on to be exceedingly unpopular at large. Actually only 5 presidents in history have managed to do it: - John Quincy Adams (1824) - Rutherford B Hayes (1876) - Benjamin Harrison (1888) Huge 112 year gap - George W Bush (2000) - Donald Trump (2016) Kale fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 6, 2018 |
# ? Dec 6, 2018 21:45 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 02:40 |
|
HootTheOwl posted:Do you mean like states in the electoral college? Because I was just arguing this and as of 2010 (the last census) California as a whole loses about 2% of it's voting power, but that doesn't tell the whole story because California isn't D+100, and while it may be just 2% in California, but a state like Wyoming gets roughly a 0.5% boost in terms of power from having the electoral college. To go further, the 20 least populous states get 83 electoral votes to California's 55, but have about 10% of the population to California's 12. It's also 10% for 15% of the College, compared to California's 12% for 10% What he means is that due to urban areas being ludicrously democratic and rural areas being republican but less so, most maps that are drawn without utilizing any sort of data on voting patterns will tend to have a moderate republican gerrymander.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2018 21:52 |
|
Kale posted:The electoral college was basically set up at a time when travelling the United States to vote in presidential election and transporting a bunch of votes to be validated and confirmed in D.C would have more or less been unfeasible so a representative was sent in the states stead to cast a vote on their behalf to make sure D.C and the other states were in sync on who voted for who and where.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2018 22:03 |
|
Kale posted:No hence why a validated group of electorates would be sent on a states behalf to cast their votes for that state. Also they'd meet in the state capital to cast their vote on behalf of the people of the state, not necessarily D.C my bad. Anyway as I understood it the electoral college was a matter of getting around logistics of having to send a bunch of people all over the countryside to cast votes and have them validated, but maybe that's just me trying to make more sense of it for the era during which it was created than there is. Apparently for their own reasons a lot of the founding fathers didn't trust direct democracy a whole lot and were worried that it could lead to a tyranny of the majority. No it had nothing to do with logistics, again governors and congressional reps etc were elected by popular vote, if they couldn't validate votes then they couldn't validate those elections either (nor the popular presidential elections that most states actually held to choose the slate of presidential electors anyway). It was 100% the second thing you said, the founders feared the mob might choose a president who would redistribute wealth from the upper classes and wanted to make sure aristocratic intermediaries with the wealth and connections to win dozens of individual Elector races (or better yet be selected by state legislatures) would be there to intervene on behalf of their class interests. And that's not supposition Hamilton spelled it out in the Federalist papers. You're also correct that this idea of independent aristocratic Electors choosing one of their own didn't survive the inevitable formation of political parties and a bunch of the founders were still around to see a country bumpkin and proto-Trump become President Andrew Jackson VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Dec 6, 2018 |
# ? Dec 6, 2018 22:03 |
|
mystes posted:The electoral college was set up because the founding fathers didn't care about boring stuff like democracy or having a popular vote for the president. Or more directly, because founding fathers were members of state legislatures, so they made 2 out of 3 elected parts of government be selected under control of state legislatures.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2018 22:06 |
|
The electoral college exists because of the same compromises that caused us to have both a house of representatives and a senate: An inflated value on the purpose of states, a way for slave states to count their slaves and own them too, and protections for smaller states. I didn't think this was a secret. The Constitution was counterrevolutionary
|
# ? Dec 6, 2018 22:21 |
|
JasonV posted:oh my god i am so suprised how did no one see this coming shock horror disbelief. I wanna be in the timeline where this is both NRA's and they all go down burning because pissbaby won.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2018 22:52 |
|
Nothing's going to happen. Like if you read the article they literally committed crimes in plain sight because no one was going to prosecute them for it. There was no sloppiness and no coverup. Just blatant crimes with no repercussions.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2018 23:23 |
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1070812401170374656?s=20
|
# ? Dec 6, 2018 23:55 |
|
Yeah the FEC has basically said that they have no enforcement power at the moment. Literally the entire republican primary involved extensive blatant illegal coordination. Best you can hope for is this is another investigation on the pile and that dems will reinstate FEC enforcement powers. It's not a 'lol nothing matters' thing, but it's not going anywhere soon.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 00:03 |
|
VitalSigns posted:No it had nothing to do with logistics, again governors and congressional reps etc were elected by popular vote, if they couldn't validate votes then they couldn't validate those elections either (nor the popular presidential elections that most states actually held to choose the slate of presidential electors anyway). Though a horrible man, with horrible policies, I don't think it is in any way fair to tar Jackson as a proto Trump since he was actually a good at being a general and politician, he was quite competent at carrying out his plans.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 00:48 |
|
HootTheOwl posted:The electoral college exists because of the same compromises that caused us to have both a house of representatives and a senate: An inflated value on the purpose of states, a way for slave states to count their slaves and own them too, and protections for smaller states. I didn't think this was a secret. Counter revolutionary compared to what? The Articles of Confederation?
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 00:49 |
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Counter revolutionary compared to what? The Articles of Confederation? Some historians (e.g., Charles Beard) have argued precisely that. I don't think it's a very common view among historians today, though.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 01:07 |
|
fool_of_sound posted:Yeah the FEC has basically said that they have no enforcement power at the moment. Literally the entire republican primary involved extensive blatant illegal coordination. Best you can hope for is this is another investigation on the pile and that dems will reinstate FEC enforcement powers. It's not a 'lol nothing matters' thing, but it's not going anywhere soon. Mueller is looking into the NRA connections because Russia was funneling money through them, and if you look back a page, Maria Butina who was extremely involved that whole scheme, might have flipped
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 01:07 |
|
The Glumslinger posted:Mueller is looking into the NRA connections because Russia was funneling money through them, and if you look back a page, Maria Butina who was extremely involved that whole scheme, might have flipped Yeah I understand the investigation angle, and it's unambiguously good that the NRA is caught up in this poo poo, but the actual statutes violated don't have a normal enforcement mechanism at the moment.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 01:38 |
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm sorry, could you be specific about who is taking an 'L' if climate change is mitigated versus if it isn't, I'm struggling to think of a single person who wouldn't be materially better off by avoiding famines, extreme weather disasters, and war. Telling people, "your job and way of life has to go away for ecological reasons, but I will continue to fly to all of my speaking engagements, and we won't put meaningful pressure on other countries to quit coal cold turkey" is a hard sell. The rhetoric about "coal jobs" isn't really about coal jobs, it's about how much the government should sacrifice the rights and interests of certain citizens for ecological concerns, and who is going to pay that price, with all the attendant issues of how much we trust others to honor their commitments. People in West Virginia and "flyover country" more broadly did not trust that Hillary was going to prioritize their interests very highly when making that calculation, while Trump signaled that he would. If climate change is going to kill billions of people, what isn't the federal government justified in doing to prevent it, and who do you trust with that power? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 01:41 |
|
fool_of_sound posted:Yeah I understand the investigation angle, and it's unambiguously good that the NRA is caught up in this poo poo, but the actual statutes violated don't have a normal enforcement mechanism at the moment. I was under the impression that FBI still had the ability to pursue legal action, they just generally differed to the FEC
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 01:48 |
|
We can't even agree about stuff like ubi in a post scarcity economy. Of course we're not going to be able to decide how to put people out of work if we suddenly have to scale down the economy. It's hopeless.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 01:49 |
|
The Glumslinger posted:I was under the impression that FBI still had the ability to pursue legal action, they just generally differed to the FEC I'm not sure the exact specifics of the FBI's authority but maybe! If nothing else they can hand it off to congress and potentially the normal agency should their enforcement powers be restored.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 01:53 |
|
mystes posted:We can't even agree about stuff like ubi in a post scarcity economy. Of course we're not going to be able to decide how to put people out of work if we suddenly have to scale down the economy. It's hopeless. Maybe everyone can just like, work less It'd be nice to work less than 55-60 hours a week personally
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 01:56 |
rscott posted:Maybe everyone can just like, work less https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/
|
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:01 |
|
Buried in Wisconsin Republicans’ Lame-Duck Legislation: Drug Testing Requirements for Food Stamp Applicants quote:On Wednesday morning, after a closed-door meeting that lasted much of the night, both houses of Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled state legislature passed a comprehensive set of measures limiting the incoming Democratic administration’s power. The consequences of the many provisions are still coming into focus. Buried under controversial moves to curtail early voting and strip authority from Gov.-elect Tony Evers is a sweeping codification of welfare restrictions that Republicans across the country have long sought.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:02 |
|
mystes posted:We can't even agree about stuff like ubi in a post scarcity economy. Of course we're not going to be able to decide how to put people out of work if we suddenly have to scale down the economy. It's hopeless. I don't understand why everyone freaks out about a tiny niche economy that is coal Arbys employs more people than the coal industry Government numbers from 2017 put the entire coal industry at 50,800 down from 170K 30 years ago. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/21/how-big-coal-mining-compared-other-occupations/ Journalism has lost double that many jobs in the last 15 years alone https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/m..._eid=e49f1168cb When Toys R Us went bankrupt, 30K people lost their jobs https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/16/news/companies/toys-r-us-employees/index.html Sears alone fired more people that the entire coal industry last year https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-sears-employee-cuts-store-closures-0324-story.html Why the gently caress do we let one niche industry dictate our entire loving national policy, but we barely even think about all of the people getting fired from retail jobs despite it vastly dwarfing the job losses in coal? Was there a huge national debate about how to help horse and buggy drivers? How about asbestos miners? Or the lead miners when be banned leaded gas and paint? Like, I know its callous as gently caress to just say fuckoff to 50K people, but economy does it all the loving time The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Dec 7, 2018 |
# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:03 |
|
why are you in 2 places in this picture Lightning Knight posted:Buried in Wisconsin Republicans’ Lame-Duck Legislation: Drug Testing Requirements for Food Stamp Applicants any chance that this stuff's getting struck down by the courts or probably not
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:03 |
|
exploded mummy posted:any chance that this stuff's getting struck down by the courts or probably not iirc Walker has spent his terms in office packing the Wisconsin courts with cronies because we elect judges in Wisconsin (lol) so I imagine the answer is no.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:07 |
|
The Glumslinger posted:I don't understand why everyone freaks out about a tiny niche economy that is coal Mainly because it is a red meat to the Appalachian states, Coal is still what people think about as a way to make a living with decent wages in those states, even though that hasn't been the case in a long long time. Coal was a working man job that let you provide for your family and made you basically set till retirement. For those states and areas thats all they had for a long time, as those jobs went away the whole areas that those mines and jobs uplifted fell apart. There is still the dream that those jobs will come back and that everyone will benefit. Also for 75% of the population they believe the service industry is filled with lazy fuckheads and they deserve to lose their job. (gently caress these people)
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:19 |
|
evilweasel posted:What he means is that due to urban areas being ludicrously democratic and rural areas being republican but less so, most maps that are drawn without utilizing any sort of data on voting patterns will tend to have a moderate republican gerrymander. Yes, exactly. Judicially drawn neutral districts still mean the Dems need a +x year to win the majority, due to urban clustering. I forget the value of x but I think it's about 3.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:41 |
|
Coal mining is a manly profession with a rich culture and historically pays much better than the alternatives. The only other job options out in the hollers are Walmart and military, and even those aren’t as easy to get these days as they used to be. The fact libs hate it is icing on the cake. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:43 |
|
The Glumslinger posted:I don't understand why everyone freaks out about a tiny niche economy that is coal mystes fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Dec 7, 2018 |
# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:55 |
|
Silver2195 posted:Some historians (e.g., Charles Beard) have argued precisely that. I don't think it's a very common view among historians today, though. The government under the articles had way less power than the EU today. It was barely a government at all.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:57 |
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The government under the articles had way less power than the EU today. It was barely a government at all. Hence the lack of pro-AoC views among historians today, yes.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 03:15 |
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:Mainly because it is a red meat to the Appalachian states, Coal is still what people think about as a way to make a living with decent wages in those states, even though that hasn't been the case in a long long time. Coal was a working man job that let you provide for your family and made you basically set till retirement. For those states and areas thats all they had for a long time, as those jobs went away the whole areas that those mines and jobs uplifted fell apart. There is still the dream that those jobs will come back and that everyone will benefit. Coal is also the big middle finger to people concerned about the environment.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 03:23 |
|
https://twitter.com/donlemon/status/1070888646914527232
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 04:53 |
|
https://twitter.com/ElizLanders/status/1070888850933932032
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 04:58 |
|
Silver2195 posted:Hence the lack of pro-AoC views among historians today, yes. Yeah but the Articles were more like what Libertarians would be into than leftists.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 05:46 |
|
A reminder, from uspol
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 07:01 |
|
It sounds like Ecuador has agreed to boot Assange out of their embassy as long as the UK requires the USA to take the death penalty off the table for any crimes they extradite him to the US for. https://www.dw.com/en/ecuador-wikil...k&ICID=ref_fark quote:Ecuador's president, Lenin Moreno, said on Thursday that "the way has been cleared" for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to leave the country's embassy in London.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:26 |
|
evilweasel posted:It sounds like Ecuador has agreed to boot Assange out of their embassy as long as the UK requires the USA to take the death penalty off the table for any crimes they extradite him to the US for. Fine, we'll just throw him in a deep, dark hole for the rest of his life. Of course, Trump will probably pardon him then give him a nice sloppy blowjob in the middle of Times Square while the chuds look on and go "Yes, yes, this is very Presidential and triggers the libs."
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:28 |
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Fine, we'll just throw him in a deep, dark hole for the rest of his life. So, not all that different from his current situation, except the guards speak English and his cat is getting better care.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:32 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 02:40 |
|
haveblue posted:So, not all that different from his current situation, except the guards speak English and his cat is getting better care. No internet either, sporadic or otherwise. And he'll have to actually do chores
|
# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:33 |