Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by hepcat »

Too bad you can’t even apply your wishlist to the POTUS. :doh:
Covfefe!
User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 5307
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by em2nought »

hepcat wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 8:59 pm Too bad you can’t even apply your wishlist to the POTUS. :doh:
1500 SAT to get into Wharton today. Is the SAT easier now? I saw something elsewhere that said they don't accept scores after 1994 as proof of intelligence. I only got mid 1200, can't quite remember exactly in 1982. lol
Technically, he shouldn't be here.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by El Guapo »

RunningMn9 wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 6:57 pm What better system than one that no one knows what the system is, and one which can change at any time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
That said, the Constitution gives states a lot of flexibility in how they allocate their ECs now. So there's some potential for mid-election shenanigans in terms of changing the system mid-race as things stand currently.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by hepcat »

em2nought wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:33 pm
hepcat wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 8:59 pm Too bad you can’t even apply your wishlist to the POTUS. :doh:
1500 SAT to get into Wharton today. Is the SAT easier now? I saw something elsewhere that said they don't accept scores after 1994 as proof of intelligence. I only got mid 1200, can't quite remember exactly in 1982. lol
Using your own list, you would’ve voted for Obama. :mrgreen:
Covfefe!
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Holman »

hepcat wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:42 am
em2nought wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:33 pm
hepcat wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 8:59 pm Too bad you can’t even apply your wishlist to the POTUS. :doh:
1500 SAT to get into Wharton today. Is the SAT easier now? I saw something elsewhere that said they don't accept scores after 1994 as proof of intelligence. I only got mid 1200, can't quite remember exactly in 1982. lol
Using your own list, you would’ve voted for Obama. :mrgreen:
I have worked at Penn and have administration-level connections there. Let's just say that, blessed with a very wealthy New York father and other connections, Trump's admission to Wharton in the 1960s was not necessarily a triumph of intellect.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Remus West »

Holman wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 7:17 am
hepcat wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:42 am
em2nought wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:33 pm
hepcat wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 8:59 pm Too bad you can’t even apply your wishlist to the POTUS. :doh:
1500 SAT to get into Wharton today. Is the SAT easier now? I saw something elsewhere that said they don't accept scores after 1994 as proof of intelligence. I only got mid 1200, can't quite remember exactly in 1982. lol
Using your own list, you would’ve voted for Obama. :mrgreen:
I have worked at Penn and have administration-level connections there. Let's just say that, blessed with a very wealthy New York father and other connections, Trump's admission to Wharton in the 1960s was not necessarily a triumph of intellect.
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. Wait. No, I'm not. Not even a little bit.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by RunningMn9 »

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 12:48 amThat said, the Constitution gives states a lot of flexibility in how they allocate their ECs now. So there's some potential for mid-election shenanigans in terms of changing the system mid-race as things stand currently.
States could certainly change how they determine Electors within their state from election to election, or even during a race. They aren't randomly converting the national race back-and-forth between using the Electoral College and a National Popular Vote to determine the victor.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by RunningMn9 »

malchior wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 10:58 pmI disagree isn't really all that constructive when you don't offer an alternative idea.
Why would I offer an alternate idea / solution to something that I don't view as a problem? Fine. My alternative idea is "let the Senate be the Senate". Was that more constructive?
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by malchior »

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 9:13 am
malchior wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 10:58 pmI disagree isn't really all that constructive when you don't offer an alternative idea.
Why would I offer an alternate idea / solution to something that I don't view as a problem? Fine. My alternative idea is "let the Senate be the Senate". Was that more constructive?
You said you didn't think it was the core problem. Didn't take that to mean you don't think there was (is) a problem. Not thinking there is a problem (in the Senate) is amazingly baffling.

Edit: clarified a little
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by RunningMn9 »

malchior wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 9:43 amNot thinking there is a problem is amazingly baffling.
Perhaps, but that's your burden, not mine.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by malchior »

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 9:47 am
malchior wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 9:43 amNot thinking there is a problem is amazingly baffling.
Perhaps, but that's your burden, not mine.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Holman »

Remus West wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 7:48 am
Holman wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 7:17 am
hepcat wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:42 am
em2nought wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:33 pm
hepcat wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 8:59 pm Too bad you can’t even apply your wishlist to the POTUS. :doh:
1500 SAT to get into Wharton today. Is the SAT easier now? I saw something elsewhere that said they don't accept scores after 1994 as proof of intelligence. I only got mid 1200, can't quite remember exactly in 1982. lol
Using your own list, you would’ve voted for Obama. :mrgreen:
I have worked at Penn and have administration-level connections there. Let's just say that, blessed with a very wealthy New York father and other connections, Trump's admission to Wharton in the 1960s was not necessarily a triumph of intellect.
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. Wait. No, I'm not. Not even a little bit.
I suppose I should clarify: no, I have not seen Trump's application records. (LOTS of people would love to see his transcripts, but they are private.)

But college admissions were a very different thing in the 1960s, and a letter from a powerful contact would get any rich white boy admitted even more than they would today. And Wharton wasn't exactly Harvard or Yale.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by El Guapo »

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 9:13 am
malchior wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 10:58 pmI disagree isn't really all that constructive when you don't offer an alternative idea.
Why would I offer an alternate idea / solution to something that I don't view as a problem? Fine. My alternative idea is "let the Senate be the Senate". Was that more constructive?
Is there a point at which a minority of voters being able to block all legislation would become a problem for you? What if say 10% of voters nationwide was enough, due to the Senate, to block any (fully constitutional) legislation even if favored by the other 90%?
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Fireball »

El Guapo wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 2:06 pm I definitely support the EC popular vote compact. I do have a lot of practical questions, though. If you have states with a 270 vote threshold, so the popular compact goes into effect, presumably that goes away if a state withdraws and brings it under the 270 vote threshold, right? So, if you have a situation where it looks more likely that one candidate will win the EC threshold but possibly fall short on the popular vote, what's to stop a state from repealing their membership in the compact the day before the election? Or possibly even the day after?
Congress sets the date for choosing electors. A state cannot change the method of selection after that date. Also, the compact includes language that precludes a state from withdrawing from the agreement within six months of the Presidential election date.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/answering-myths
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by RunningMn9 »

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 10:53 amIs there a point at which a minority of voters being able to block all legislation would become a problem for you? What if say 10% of voters nationwide was enough, due to the Senate, to block any (fully constitutional) legislation even if favored by the other 90%?
We have a system that was designed purposefully to prevent the tyranny of the majority, so as a rule I'm not overly concerned when the majority can't easily impose it's will on the minority. It SHOULD be hard.

Do I think that Mitch McConnell is an obstructionist piece of human garbage that looks like a turtle? Of course. Am I willing to change the structure of the United States Government to thwart Mitch McConnell? Of course not. Mitch McConnell will pass.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Fireball »

The Meal wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 8:18 pmHis first idea, and one I could really get behind was predicated on the fact that with fewer representatives it doesn't take too significant of financial contributions from a small number of deep-pocketed parties-of-interest to affect things to their benefit. So instead, let's limit the number of constituents covered by a member of the House of Representatives to a number like 30,000. Sure we've radically grown the number of Reps, but we're in a technological era which has tackled many aspects of large-scale communication. And with 300,000,000/30,000 = 10,000 members of the House, it's going to be significantly tougher to "buy" influence.
We should definitely increase the size of the House of Representatives. Doing so would make elections less expensive, make it easier for representatives to engage with a larger share of their electorate, and decrease the degree that the Electoral College misrepresents the popular vote. I'm fond of the idea of using the smallest-population state's population as the divisor to determine the number of seats every other state gets in the House. That would produce a House of about 570 seats. I've also seen good arguments for a House at 650 seats or even 750 seats. Beyond that, it would be unmanageable.

You don't want Congress to be a part-time job, and you don't want it to be a telecommute position. That may sound attractive, but what it would do is disempower the Congress as a branch of government. But that political power wouldn't disappear, it would be reallocated to the Presidency and the executive bureaucracy, institutions far less democratically-responsive to public opinion. Many of the "fuck the politicians" style reforms that people suggest — term limits, dramatic pay cuts, not letting members have staff, telecommuting, etc — would drain expertise and legislative skill out of the body. Less capable legislators lean more on lobbyists and the executive branch.

We definitely have a "democracy gap" in our government. It's driven by a lot of things: the anti-democratic nature of the EC and the Senate, the campaign finance system, the fact that our parties are so weak, and partisan gerrymandering. Increasing the size of the House would help marginally address the first. Hopefully the Supreme Court will take a big swing at the fourth by the end of June. The second and third — our campaign finance system and our too-weak parties — are closely related, and almost unfixable without either a Constitutional Amendment or a significant change in the makeup of the Supreme Court.
His second idea, and one that requires more noodling on my part, was that you'd need to also open up the number of Senators per state. He tossed out, arbitrarily, the number 5. His idea is also predicated on a dissolution of our de facto two party system. He'd fill those 250 seats by a national vote by party, with lots of inter-party horse trading going on to ultimately determine the five senators in each state (with appropriate party-based percentage representation for the country as a whole).
This takes a page from the German system, and would be an interesting way to replace the Senate (if only we could). And he is correct that switching to a proportional system would likely lead to the growth of some minor parties, though there would likely always be two major parties.

I am a huge fan of how Germany elects its lower house of Parliament. Every state in Germany has a certain number of districts, and every voter in the country votes on a two-part ballot for Parliament: they elect a specific person to represent their district, and they vote for which party they wish to see in charge of the government. Half the members of the lower house come from the districts, and the other half are allocated to the parties to make the final composition of the legislature reflect the national preference for the parties. It's a beautiful electoral system. We should be proud of it, since we designed it for them.
Shooting from the hip, but give each district one EC vote and each state 5 general EC votes (allocated as the state decides) and you've sort of compromised to something closer to a true popular vote.
Allocating electoral college votes by Congressional district would make it possible to permanently gerrymander the presidency, unless we get some extremely strong relief against gerrymandering from the Supreme Court this year.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by El Guapo »

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 12:00 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 10:53 amIs there a point at which a minority of voters being able to block all legislation would become a problem for you? What if say 10% of voters nationwide was enough, due to the Senate, to block any (fully constitutional) legislation even if favored by the other 90%?
We have a system that was designed purposefully to prevent the tyranny of the majority, so as a rule I'm not overly concerned when the majority can't easily impose it's will on the minority. It SHOULD be hard.

Do I think that Mitch McConnell is an obstructionist piece of human garbage that looks like a turtle? Of course. Am I willing to change the structure of the United States Government to thwart Mitch McConnell? Of course not. Mitch McConnell will pass.
Right, but there's a limit to how hard it should be, right? Like, if every individual voter could torpedo legislation, you would (I assume) think that was unreasonable, notwithstanding efforts to constrain the "tyranny of the majority". So, at what point is the majority too constrained?
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by The Meal »

Fireball wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 12:07 pm
The Meal wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 8:18 pmHis first idea, and one I could really get behind was predicated on the fact that with fewer representatives it doesn't take too significant of financial contributions from a small number of deep-pocketed parties-of-interest to affect things to their benefit. So instead, let's limit the number of constituents covered by a member of the House of Representatives to a number like 30,000. Sure we've radically grown the number of Reps, but we're in a technological era which has tackled many aspects of large-scale communication. And with 300,000,000/30,000 = 10,000 members of the House, it's going to be significantly tougher to "buy" influence.
We should definitely increase the size of the House of Representatives. Doing so would make elections less expensive, make it easier for representatives to engage with a larger share of their electorate, and decrease the degree that the Electoral College misrepresents the popular vote. I'm fond of the idea of using the smallest-population state's population as the divisor to determine the number of seats every other state gets in the House. That would produce a House of about 570 seats. I've also seen good arguments for a House at 650 seats or even 750 seats. Beyond that, it would be unmanageable.

You don't want Congress to be a part-time job, and you don't want it to be a telecommute position. That may sound attractive, but what it would do is disempower the Congress as a branch of government. But that political power wouldn't disappear, it would be reallocated to the Presidency and the executive bureaucracy, institutions far less democratically-responsive to public opinion. Many of the "fuck the politicians" style reforms that people suggest — term limits, dramatic pay cuts, not letting members have staff, telecommuting, etc — would drain expertise and legislative skill out of the body. Less capable legislators lean more on lobbyists and the executive branch.

We definitely have a "democracy gap" in our government. It's driven by a lot of things: the anti-democratic nature of the EC and the Senate, the campaign finance system, the fact that our parties are so weak, and partisan gerrymandering. Increasing the size of the House would help marginally address the first. Hopefully the Supreme Court will take a big swing at the fourth by the end of June. The second and third — our campaign finance system and our too-weak parties — are closely related, and almost unfixable without either a Constitutional Amendment or a significant change in the makeup of the Supreme Court.
His second idea, and one that requires more noodling on my part, was that you'd need to also open up the number of Senators per state. He tossed out, arbitrarily, the number 5. His idea is also predicated on a dissolution of our de facto two party system. He'd fill those 250 seats by a national vote by party, with lots of inter-party horse trading going on to ultimately determine the five senators in each state (with appropriate party-based percentage representation for the country as a whole).
This takes a page from the German system, and would be an interesting way to replace the Senate (if only we could). And he is correct that switching to a proportional system would likely lead to the growth of some minor parties, though there would likely always be two major parties.

I am a huge fan of how Germany elects its lower house of Parliament. Every state in Germany has a certain number of districts, and every voter in the country votes on a two-part ballot for Parliament: they elect a specific person to represent their district, and they vote for which party they wish to see in charge of the government. Half the members of the lower house come from the districts, and the other half are allocated to the parties to make the final composition of the legislature reflect the national preference for the parties. It's a beautiful electoral system. We should be proud of it, since we designed it for them.
Shooting from the hip, but give each district one EC vote and each state 5 general EC votes (allocated as the state decides) and you've sort of compromised to something closer to a true popular vote.
Allocating electoral college votes by Congressional district would make it possible to permanently gerrymander the presidency, unless we get some extremely strong relief against gerrymandering from the Supreme Court this year.
Thanks for the post. I'll do some more research on the German lower house election process.
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70100
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by LordMortis »

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 1:36 pm
RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 12:00 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 10:53 amIs there a point at which a minority of voters being able to block all legislation would become a problem for you? What if say 10% of voters nationwide was enough, due to the Senate, to block any (fully constitutional) legislation even if favored by the other 90%?
We have a system that was designed purposefully to prevent the tyranny of the majority, so as a rule I'm not overly concerned when the majority can't easily impose it's will on the minority. It SHOULD be hard.

Do I think that Mitch McConnell is an obstructionist piece of human garbage that looks like a turtle? Of course. Am I willing to change the structure of the United States Government to thwart Mitch McConnell? Of course not. Mitch McConnell will pass.
Right, but there's a limit to how hard it should be, right? Like, if every individual voter could torpedo legislation, you would (I assume) think that was unreasonable, notwithstanding efforts to constrain the "tyranny of the majority". So, at what point is the majority too constrained?
I'm going to be too bold and presumptuous and say you brushed over his response to malchior.
RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 9:13 am
malchior wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 10:58 pmI disagree isn't really all that constructive when you don't offer an alternative idea.
Why would I offer an alternate idea / solution to something that I don't view as a problem? Fine. My alternative idea is "let the Senate be the Senate". Was that more constructive?
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by El Guapo »

LordMortis wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 1:54 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 1:36 pm
RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 12:00 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 10:53 amIs there a point at which a minority of voters being able to block all legislation would become a problem for you? What if say 10% of voters nationwide was enough, due to the Senate, to block any (fully constitutional) legislation even if favored by the other 90%?
We have a system that was designed purposefully to prevent the tyranny of the majority, so as a rule I'm not overly concerned when the majority can't easily impose it's will on the minority. It SHOULD be hard.

Do I think that Mitch McConnell is an obstructionist piece of human garbage that looks like a turtle? Of course. Am I willing to change the structure of the United States Government to thwart Mitch McConnell? Of course not. Mitch McConnell will pass.
Right, but there's a limit to how hard it should be, right? Like, if every individual voter could torpedo legislation, you would (I assume) think that was unreasonable, notwithstanding efforts to constrain the "tyranny of the majority". So, at what point is the majority too constrained?
I'm going to be too bold and presumptuous and say you brushed over his response to malchior.
RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 9:13 am
malchior wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 10:58 pmI disagree isn't really all that constructive when you don't offer an alternative idea.
Why would I offer an alternate idea / solution to something that I don't view as a problem? Fine. My alternative idea is "let the Senate be the Senate". Was that more constructive?
Quite the opposite, actually. I was responding to his post to malchior. Since he doesn't think of the current Senate structure (which allows an increasingly small minority of the population to dictate policy to the majority) as posing a problem, is there a point at which that situation would become a problem in his view? If not - if he would be fine with (say) 5% of the population getting to veto what the other 95% want, as long as that is the result of the structure that we were bequeathed by our ancestors, then there's not much point in discussing it further.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70100
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by LordMortis »

My bad. Then fast forward my presumptuous reply to
RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 9:47 am Perhaps, but that's your burden, not mine.
Jeff V
Posts: 36414
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Jeff V »

Holman wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 9:50 am
Remus West wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 7:48 am
Holman wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 7:17 am
hepcat wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:42 am
em2nought wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:33 pm
hepcat wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 8:59 pm Too bad you can’t even apply your wishlist to the POTUS. :doh:
1500 SAT to get into Wharton today. Is the SAT easier now? I saw something elsewhere that said they don't accept scores after 1994 as proof of intelligence. I only got mid 1200, can't quite remember exactly in 1982. lol
Using your own list, you would’ve voted for Obama. :mrgreen:
I have worked at Penn and have administration-level connections there. Let's just say that, blessed with a very wealthy New York father and other connections, Trump's admission to Wharton in the 1960s was not necessarily a triumph of intellect.
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. Wait. No, I'm not. Not even a little bit.
I suppose I should clarify: no, I have not seen Trump's application records. (LOTS of people would love to see his transcripts, but they are private.)

But college admissions were a very different thing in the 1960s, and a letter from a powerful contact would get any rich white boy admitted even more than they would today. And Wharton wasn't exactly Harvard or Yale.
We do, however, have a documentary that slightly changes things to protect the guilty. It features Rodney Dangerfield.
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by ImLawBoy »

Jeff V wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 2:57 pm
Holman wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 9:50 am
Remus West wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 7:48 am
Holman wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 7:17 am
hepcat wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 6:42 am
em2nought wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 10:33 pm
hepcat wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 8:59 pm Too bad you can’t even apply your wishlist to the POTUS. :doh:
1500 SAT to get into Wharton today. Is the SAT easier now? I saw something elsewhere that said they don't accept scores after 1994 as proof of intelligence. I only got mid 1200, can't quite remember exactly in 1982. lol
Using your own list, you would’ve voted for Obama. :mrgreen:
I have worked at Penn and have administration-level connections there. Let's just say that, blessed with a very wealthy New York father and other connections, Trump's admission to Wharton in the 1960s was not necessarily a triumph of intellect.
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. Wait. No, I'm not. Not even a little bit.
I suppose I should clarify: no, I have not seen Trump's application records. (LOTS of people would love to see his transcripts, but they are private.)

But college admissions were a very different thing in the 1960s, and a letter from a powerful contact would get any rich white boy admitted even more than they would today. And Wharton wasn't exactly Harvard or Yale.
We do, however, have a documentary that slightly changes things to protect the guilty. It features Rodney Dangerfield.
Rodney was a hard partying business tycoon who made his fortune off of his own merits and was a world-class diver.

Trump is a tee-totaling serial bankruptcy filer who made his money off of his father's wealth and can't handle physical activity due to bone spurs.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by hepcat »

Plus, Trump wouldn't even understand the joke, "Well, maybe you can help me straighten out my Longfellow."
Covfefe!
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by RunningMn9 »

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 2:00 pmSince he doesn't think of the current Senate structure (which allows an increasingly small minority of the population to dictate policy to the majority) as posing a problem, is there a point at which that situation would become a problem in his view?
What are you even talking about? We have a Senate that is split 51-49. Where are these tiny minorities gumming up the works that we need to be so concerned about?
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Isgrimnur »

I'm pretty sure that you have to look at the caucuses to find the minorities gumming things up. The Blue Dogs were certainly a factor during the ACA negotiations.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41246
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by El Guapo »

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 4:04 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 2:00 pmSince he doesn't think of the current Senate structure (which allows an increasingly small minority of the population to dictate policy to the majority) as posing a problem, is there a point at which that situation would become a problem in his view?
What are you even talking about? We have a Senate that is split 51-49. Where are these tiny minorities gumming up the works that we need to be so concerned about?
I'm not talking about minority political parties. I'm talking about how the Senate, because it gives two senators per state regardless of population, is significantly unrepresentative of the popular vote, and getting more so. The trend is towards greater urbanization and population concentration, such that by ~20ish years from now, 70% of the U.S. population will reside in 15 states. Which means that 70% of the population will get 30 votes in the Senate, while the remaining 30% will get 70. Bearing in mind that as long as the legislative filibuster exists you only need 41 united senators to block any legislation, and even once that goes away you only need 51 - and only 34 senators to block any treaty or prevent a veto from begin overridden.

So, a political party can completely block any legislation (and block any and all appointments of judges, cabinet officers, etc. while only winning the votes of something like 20% of the population. That strikes me as a problem for our democracy.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Rip »

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 4:19 pm
RunningMn9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 4:04 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 2:00 pmSince he doesn't think of the current Senate structure (which allows an increasingly small minority of the population to dictate policy to the majority) as posing a problem, is there a point at which that situation would become a problem in his view?
What are you even talking about? We have a Senate that is split 51-49. Where are these tiny minorities gumming up the works that we need to be so concerned about?
I'm not talking about minority political parties. I'm talking about how the Senate, because it gives two senators per state regardless of population, is significantly unrepresentative of the popular vote, and getting more so. The trend is towards greater urbanization and population concentration, such that by ~20ish years from now, 70% of the U.S. population will reside in 15 states. Which means that 70% of the population will get 30 votes in the Senate, while the remaining 30% will get 70. Bearing in mind that as long as the legislative filibuster exists you only need 41 united senators to block any legislation, and even once that goes away you only need 51 - and only 34 senators to block any treaty or prevent a veto from begin overridden.

So, a political party can completely block any legislation (and block any and all appointments of judges, cabinet officers, etc. while only winning the votes of something like 20% of the population. That strikes me as a problem for our democracy.
Those states would have a serious majority in the house. So likewise the senate couldn't act without them.

So you end up hopefully with mostly legislation that is good for the states with the highest population without having the ability to walk all over the ones that don't. I like it myself.

In the end they have to figure out what they can do that is to the benefit of everyone.
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by RunningMn9 »

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 4:19 pmThat strikes me as a problem for our democracy.
That strikes me as a problem with your understanding of our political system. ;)

While it's true that the Senate would ultimately be controlled by those states with only 30% of the population - that will literally be the only tool at their disposal to represent their interests nationally. The will have almost no impact on Presidential elections (as they are stripped of their electoral votes), and comparatively no representation in the House (as they are stripped of Congresspersons).

So yes, they will retain a voice in the Senate. The only voice they will have against being steamrolled legislatively by urban super-majorities.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Remus West »

Rip wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 4:43 pmIn the end they have to figure out what they can do that is to the benefit of everyone.
This falsely assumes both majority parties are working for the good of everyone rather than their own power. You don't hold government hostage for multiple years in order to do good for everyone. You do it to secure your own power as we are seeing right now with the Republican party suddenly being willing to fill all the judicial vacancies they had been refusing to consider the last multiple years. If the system is to be trusted then the people in it need to be trustworthy. Our are not.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Rip »

Remus West wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 5:25 pm
Rip wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 4:43 pmIn the end they have to figure out what they can do that is to the benefit of everyone.
This falsely assumes both majority parties are working for the good of everyone rather than their own power. You don't hold government hostage for multiple years in order to do good for everyone. You do it to secure your own power as we are seeing right now with the Republican party suddenly being willing to fill all the judicial vacancies they had been refusing to consider the last multiple years. If the system is to be trusted then the people in it need to be trustworthy. Our are not.

But that applies to both parties so means nothing to the discussion. The Republicans have no monopoly on being willing to hold the government hostage to secure their own power. Nor is it something that is only done by the Senate. It isn't even something isolated to small states with power exceeding their population.

Haven't the Democrats damaged themselves enough trying to change the system to give themselves more advantage?
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Remus West »

Rip wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 5:45 pm
Remus West wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 5:25 pm
Rip wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 4:43 pmIn the end they have to figure out what they can do that is to the benefit of everyone.
This falsely assumes both majority parties are working for the good of everyone rather than their own power. You don't hold government hostage for multiple years in order to do good for everyone. You do it to secure your own power as we are seeing right now with the Republican party suddenly being willing to fill all the judicial vacancies they had been refusing to consider the last multiple years. If the system is to be trusted then the people in it need to be trustworthy. Our are not.

But that applies to both parties so means nothing to the discussion. The Republicans have no monopoly on being willing to hold the government hostage to secure their own power. Nor is it something that is only done by the Senate. It isn't even something isolated to small states with power exceeding their population.

Haven't the Democrats damaged themselves enough trying to change the system to give themselves more advantage?
Recently the Democrats only altered the system in response to the Republican's complete stonewalling. I find that offensive but nothing of the magnitude of the stonewalling itself nor of the systemically flooding the system they have been rewarded with due to said stonewalling.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Unagi »

The blocking of Obama's appointment of a SC Justice?

unforgivable.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Rip »

It started with a "borking" of the process.

:ninja:
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by GreenGoo »

Wait, they had a vote? As in everyone got to decide for themselves whether Bork would make a good justice?

Amazing. Democracy in action.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Holman »

Rip wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 10:48 pm It started with a "borking" of the process.

:ninja:
Bork facilitated Nixon's attempt to obstruct justice in Watergate. The "Saturday Night Massacre" ended when when Nixon, after firing AG Richardson and Deputy AG Ruckelshaus in turn when they refused the order, finally got down to Robert Bork, who complied in firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Bork himself admitted that Nixon promised him a Supreme Court nomination for his loyalty. Reagan was a fool to nominate him. (Although I'd say that Bork's opposition to civil rights disqualified him from decent consideration on its own.)

How interesting that Rip's linked editorial makes no mention of Watergate. And how timely.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Rip »

Holman wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 6:25 am
Rip wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 10:48 pm It started with a "borking" of the process.

:ninja:
Bork facilitated Nixon's attempt to obstruct justice in Watergate. The "Saturday Night Massacre" ended when when Nixon, after firing AG Richardson and Deputy AG Ruckelshaus in turn when they refused the order, finally got down to Robert Bork, who complied in firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Bork himself admitted that Nixon promised him a Supreme Court nomination for his loyalty. Reagan was a fool to nominate him. (Although I'd say that Bork's opposition to civil rights disqualified him from decent consideration on its own.)

How interesting that Rip's linked editorial makes no mention of Watergate. And how timely.
Now, it must be conceded that this was a colorful and attention grabbing speech, and that, Pertschuk and Schaetzel tell us, is what was intended. Anti-Bork activists, who had not yet had the time to organize or to make their case, were afraid that because of Bork's impressive resume, enough Senators would quickly line up in praise of the appointment that effective opposition would become impossible." Kennedy's speech, they explain, and other immediate comments, such as National Organization for Women president Molly Yard's statement that Bork was "a neanderthal," were designed to "freeze the Senate," to slow the momentum for the nomination by making the media and the public stop and take notice. Pertschuk and Schaetzel concede that Kennedy's declaration was "seen by critics as reckless and intemperate.

Although there were easy responses to the Kennedy speech-let it suffice here to say that it confused criticism of the reasoning in Supreme Court cases with advocacy of the policy that the Court in those cases struck down-the declaration had the avowed purpose of making the intended audience pay attention. In this sense, Kennedy's speech was akin to the infamous Willie Horton television spots run during the 1988 presidential campaign. Those ads were quite successful in getting people to sit up and take notice. So was the Kennedy speech. The Senate was indeed frozen. There are moments, as every successful politician knows, when rhetorical melodrama works better than reasoned debate.
Having said this, I must add that much of what was said and written about Robert Bork after President Reagan nominated him for the vacancy caused by Justice Powell's resignation was simple nonsense, especially when it came from partisans (on both sides of the conflict) posing as unbiased observers. The rhetoric on both sides was at the time and continues even now to be ridiculously overblown; one might almost suppose that because of the politicized treatment of this one nomination (by the President or the Senate-take your pick according to your predispositions) the future of the American soul was in hazard. Whereas for reasons that I will presently explain, all that was really in danger was the constitutional mythos about the role of the independent judiciary in American society-by no means a triviality, but hardly an occasion for the bombast with which each side pleaded (and still pleads) its case.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ ... fss_papers

The issue is not whether Bork would have been a good justice or not. The issue is how it was conducted. From that point on it has become something you would think Donald Trump designed. Like it or not the circus was founded by Democrat rhetoric. It is just another battle in partisan wrangling every since that occasion.

If you prefer to embrace it do so, but don't whine every time the Republicans employ a tactic founded by Democrats.
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16434
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Zarathud »

Why are you defending Bork? He's loser who supported a failed President in the actions which got him impeached. Who shouldn't have received his promised reward for facilitating a coverup. Sad.

The Democrats objected to Bork and dragged him through the mud in open hearings. The Republicans used procedural rules to delay, delay, delay for years to refuse to give Obama appointments a vote. And now ignore those rules because it's convenient. Weak.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Remus West »

Do you ever look at yourself in the mirror and wonder when and how you became so ridiculous?
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

Post by Rip »

Zarathud wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 8:28 am Why are you defending Bork? He's loser who supported a failed President in the actions which got him impeached. Who shouldn't have received his promised reward for facilitating a coverup. Sad.

The Democrats objected to Bork and dragged him through the mud in open hearings. The Republicans used procedural rules to delay, delay, delay for years to refuse to give Obama appointments a vote. And now ignore those rules because it's convenient. Weak.
I'm not defending Bork, I am pointing to that as the event that began the open war on opposing court appointees based on predicted outcomes and whether they align with the party lines. It is when judicial confirmations became circuses.

It has nothing to do with my political opinions. Just like the decision to use the nuclear option on judges. Once you cross these lines it is very hard if not impossible to go back.

Shitting on the EC will be another one.
Post Reply