|
evilweasel posted:It wouldn't actually, there's no constitutional requirement for single-district House voting. A state declaring it will elect its representatives at-large through a proportional representation vote is completely consistent with the Constitution. I suspect that would prove incredibly unpopular, however. People don't want a passel of representatives representing their state at large. They want a specific name that is designated as their representative that they can call when they need a pothole fixed.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Sure, what I actually said, repeatedly, is that Republicans don't need to carry the Latin vote, but peel a few points off to augment their strong and growing advantage amongst white voters. If it makes you feel better to imagine demographics are going to save the D party in 2016, 2020, or beyond, then you can continue to do so. I don't think the Republicans have too much more margin available in being the party of white people. They've pretty much got everyone they're going to get based on racial identity alone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So, what's the bigger number, Latinos who vote on racial identity alone, or white voters who do so? Why does that matter? Your argument was that Republicans should ignore Latinos and concentrate on getting more of the white vote. I'm skeptical of that argument as I don't think there's much more of it to get. It's also a losing strategy, as the gains from pursuing a larger portion of a shrinking demographic do not offset the losses from winning a smaller portion of an increasing demographic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, my point, explicitly stated a number of times in this and other threads, is that Republicans can tread water or peel off a few points of Latinos and even Blacks, since I seriously doubt (and would love to hear you rationalize otherwise) that an elderly white grandmother will generate the same level of excitement in either community as Obama did in 08 and 12. Also, you may want to consider the actual demographic trends and stop thinking that tomorrow we're going to wake up and all the road signs will be in Spanish. We're a LONG way off from the 'ascendent coalition' from being in the majority. Well, historically blacks have been voting overwhelmingly Democratic for close to 50 years now, so the identity on the top of the ticket is largely irrelevant. The GOP actually used to have an advantage with Latinos which they have squandered in the last couple decades. The 'ascendent coalition' is already a majority, by the way. Ask Mitt Romney about it. The trend is that things continue to get worse for Republicans in Presidential elections into the future if they don't change their policies. The Republicans continue to dominate in off-year elections because they dominate in groups that historically vote in larger proportion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I wonder if we will see these things happen in our lifetimes. I'd like to think there will be an eventual correction toward comity, someday, but I could just as easily see the opposite happening. There has to be. Madison set the system up so that no one group could do anything on its own and force compromise and cooperation. Nothing gets done and the country collapses, otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Pew has been doing a big thing on American political demographics all year long, and I believe they're correct in where a lot of millenials fall is "New generation left" The one constant across time in every generation is the desire to manipulate the political system to one's own benefit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I had forgotten that it had happened, remembering only the John McCain by acclaimation thing the Republicans did in 2008 instead as the only blatant non-democratic vote at a convention. The fact that both occurred during publicly funded events is, in itself, scandalous to me. If parties want to bend rules during their own time that is fine with me but when they are doing things with millions of dollars of state and local money they had better do stuff to the letter. Voice votes aren't "undemocratic," they're the default for everything everywhere. Recorded individual votes only happen if somebody requests it. Choosing the nominee by acclamation at a convention is standard because it conveys a sense of unanimity. No rules were bent. You're going too far out of your way to find things to complain about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Gotta admire her at one level. That's how politics is played. She wanted to keep her job.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Dancer posted:... Yes I am noticing that completely unrelated fact. I was talking (because you mentioned) constitutionality. Right now the aggreement is not in effect, but when it does go in effect (whenthe member states control the majority of electors in the electoral college), it will be a legally binding agreement, andthe legislative and executive branches of the states in question apparently believe it to be constitutional, else they wouldn't have made it the law of their states. Its constitutionality won't be tested until after it's invoked. Then the lawsuits will fly and the election in question will end up being decided by the Supreme Court again. What fun!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 22:59
|
|