The Election wasn't based on the Popular Vote, that is why you guys keep winning it
If it was on the Popular Vote, you guys would lose BIGLY every Election
US Conservatives Outnumber Liberals by Narrowing Margin
Posted on 04/12/2017 6:01:53 AM PDT by RC one
220 221 whatever it takes...
Well, if she were president, she could get an unearned Nobel Peace Prize.
If the EC is ever abolished, we might as well drop the facade of the United STATES and shorten the name to simply, “America.”
Because, much more than they are even now, the STATES will become little more than lines on a map and a quaint reminder of a failed experiment.
This ain't going to happen. Whatever the split, it will always be the case that at least 1/3 of the states will be disadvantaged by a change, whether it is red, right now, or blue sometime in the future when their minority status shrinks into insignificance.
LOL -- As if that's never been done before... (Obie, Algore, et al)
The same dunces that hand these out also seem to pick Pulitzer winners, if the NYT getting one for their Russian hacking series is any indication.
This mummy will be fossilized before that ever happens.
“restoring our country’s democratic legitimacy”
Note to Feingold:
In as much as the Electoral College and how it works is in the United States Constitution, then unless you are arguing that every single election of a U.S. president has not been legitimate, and the provisions for it in the Constitution are not legitimate, then intellectual honesty requires your admission that you are not arguing to “restore” our country’s democratic legitimacy, but to destroy it. Either no past elections for president have been legitimate - none - or you are a fool.
I was interested, so I did a little analysis. I went back to 2000. Surprisingly, the only change would have been in 2012. Rest of the elections didn't move all that much.
In 2016, Pres. Trump took the electoral vote count 304 to 227. (or, 306 to 232 if a few electors hadn't decided on making personal statements....)
Roughly, apportioning by what we're thinking, Pres. Trump won 30 states. That's 60 EV. Republicans hold 241 House seats, so, assuming that those districts would also go for Pres. Trump, then he'd have received a total of 301 EV under the system we're proposing.
Not a lot of difference. Surprised me too, so I did some more homework...
In 2012, Obama took 332 EV. Under our system, he carried 26 states for a total of 52 EV, plus 201 Dem Representatives. Gives him 253 EV, or a loss.
So, I went back to 2008. A Dem landslide, right? Sort of. BO carried 28 states + 257 Dem Reps. Total of 313 EV, vs the 365 he actually received. Closer, but still an unarguable win.
2004? Bush would have gotten 294 EV under our system, instead of the 286 he actually received.
2000? Bush would have gotten 281 EV, vs the 271 he actually received.
Also known as the ...
Feingold F U America Group!
... going places ...
More specifically, Feingold is evidently clueless about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers and associated liimited power to appropriate taxes as clarified by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Probably all that Feingold is interested in concerning abolishing the electoral college is in getting his “fair” share of the tsunami of unconstitutional federal taxes that go through DC every year, taxes that corrupt Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch is approved but turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.
Bob Casey (D-PA) is the Poster Child for Repeal the 17th. Amendment.
More than a little analysis, methinks.
But excellent work, and an excellent addition to the thread. I must say that I too am surprised by the lack of difference.
But it also says that the Founding Fathers did a pretty darned good job on the original. One of the things that the FF hated was “democracy”, which they called “the tyranny of the majority”.
I have long thought that the specification of supermajorities in the Constitution was an unappreciated touch of genius, by assuring that support for changes were both wide and deep among the governed. Simple majorities assure large groups of dissatisfied losers, and aggravates strife. Supermajorities have the opposite effect.
The Election wasn't based on the Popular Vote, that is why you guys keep winning it
If it was on the Popular Vote, you guys would lose BIGLY every Election
US Conservatives Outnumber Liberals by Narrowing Margin
We have already went so far into mob rule that our representatives can not or will not protect the states rights
we started out with.
The Democrats are nothing but a forerunner of socialism and have one purpose and that is to destroy this nation as a republic and bring in socialism.
Other than make SCOTUS an elected position (which really doesn’t do this either) appointment is still the only option.“- Protecting the independence and credibility of the Supreme Court”
I think the 2016 precedent is very good: before the election, each presidential candidate publishes names of potential SCOTUS nominees. Then the Senate confirms them on an up-or-down simple majority vote. If the president selects some whom he did not publicly suggest before he got elected, it should take a supermajority to confirm. 55%, perhaps.I would regularize SCOTUS terms by fixing the size of SCOTUS at 11 justices, and providing that each president name 2 justices (one at a time, so that one justice would be senior to the other) at the start of his term. Thus, the most-senior (in service time) justices would retire “simultaneously” as needed to respect the 11-justice limit. The least senior retired justice would, unless blocked by a 55% senate vote, resume service until the succeeding presidential election after a justice died in office or retired early. And similarly for recusals.
This would establish a 22 year term for SCOTUS justices, and would mean that each two-term POTUS would have a legacy of 4/11 of the justices on SCOTUS for 18 years, and 2/11 of the justices on SCOTUS for eight years (the 4 years before the start of his second term, and the 4 years starting 22 years after the start of his first term).
Feingold is like too damned many communists in my home state. One of the reasons while I no longer call Wisconsin home.
This limp-wristed bastard doesn’t accept the fact that our Constitution established a Representative Republic...not a “democracy”.
Someone tell Feingold, Abraham Lincoln won in the electoral college in 1860, not the popular vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.