Politics And Current Events

[MWB]

To the extent you mean 'broad appeal among voters' is sort of political retcon. In the 18th century there was not much ability to get to know a candidate, certainly not like there is today, and they feared a situation where people would only vote for candidates from their home states, and thus skew power towards the population centers. (Which in retrospect is kinda funny, considering it was like half a century before we had a POTUS from somewhere other than Virginia or Massachusetts.) So the EC is meant to act as sort of a buffer between voters and candidates, because people cannot possibly be entrusted with this kind of decision directly. ("The peasants are revolting!"...."They certainly are.") The type of government that was being set up by the Constitution had never really been contemplated on anything like the scale of a country the size of the U.S. and A., even at its founding. But we're 250 years in now, and the country has like 75x the population density it had in 1790. Time for a re-think.

Why do people assume that the founding fathers couldn’t contemplate the country growing tremendously? That IMO is a completely ridiculous assumption that shouldn’t be taken seriously.

I find it highly doubtful they would consider this growth. Where do you see the country in 200 years? There are too many factors to make any sort of assumption. I think they created a document that could be changed to adjust to whatever was needed. Instead, it is seen as a document that was good for all times.

[Freddy Rumsen]

They envisioned a nation which stretched from sea-to-sea. I'm sure they had enough imagination to know it would get filled up with people.

They also put in mechanisms to change things to deal with the reality that things would need to be changed.

[MWB]

They envisioned a nation which stretched from sea-to-sea. I'm sure they had enough imagination to know it would get filled up with people.

They also put in mechanisms to change things to deal with the reality that things would need to be changed.

Envisioning land ownership is one thing. Envisioning a population explosion is another. I just think the number we have now would have been quite hard to fathom then.

To your second point, I agree. That’s the same thing I posted. However, I would argue that the majority of people today think the constitution is or should be set in stone.

[MrKennethTKangaroo]

However, I would argue that the majority of people today think the constitution is or should be set in stone.

I highly doubt that

[Freddy Rumsen]

They envisioned a nation which stretched from sea-to-sea. I'm sure they had enough imagination to know it would get filled up with people.

They also put in mechanisms to change things to deal with the reality that things would need to be changed.

Envisioning land ownership is one thing. Envisioning a population explosion is another. I just think the number we have now would have been quite hard to fathom then.

To your second point, I agree. That’s the same thing I posted. However, I would argue that the majority of people today think the constitution is or should be set in stone.

I think that is a bit of chronological snobbery on the first part. These guys could do basic math. Plus Jefferson (and Franklin) was especially interested in proving America's superiority to Europe. Its "bigness" was his main weapon in that.

Here's a good article on it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... am/471696/

[Viva la Ben]

When does that IG report on the russia investigation come out so Comey & McCabe can be jailed?

[DigitalGypsy66]

I can't see the Constitution getting amended in today's political climate. There isn't one issue that both sides could agree with to make it through the process.

[faftorial]

When does that IG report on the russia investigation come out so Comey & McCabe can be jailed?

Friday, and they are going directly to jail.

[Troy Loney]

When does that IG report on the russia investigation come out so Comey & McCabe can be jailed?

Did you see Barr leaked out that he disputes the findings.

Absolute dipshittery. The whole republican apparatus is just spewing out endless nonsense to validate whatever random bullshit the administration is trying to gaslight with

[faftorial]

When does that IG report on the russia investigation come out so Comey & McCabe can be jailed?

Did you see Barr leaked out that he disputes the findings.

Absolute dipshittery. The whole republican apparatus is just spewing out endless nonsense to validate whatever random bullshit the administration is trying to gaslight with

Barr's point is that the IG didn't also investigate the CIA's role here (only the FBI and DOJ) so now we have to wait for the Durham report for final word.

[Viva la Ben]

Added to the Republicans parroting Putin’s misinformation about Ukraine...but I’m sure it’s just a joke.

[faftorial]

Hannity has been saying for months now that the IG report will shock the conscience of Americans.

[Troy Loney]

When does that IG report on the russia investigation come out so Comey & McCabe can be jailed?

Did you see Barr leaked out that he disputes the findings.

Absolute dipshittery. The whole republican apparatus is just spewing out endless nonsense to validate whatever random bullshit the administration is trying to gaslight with

Barr's point is that the IG didn't also investigate the CIA's role here (only the FBI and DOJ) so now we have to wait for the Durham report for final word.

Seems like the Dunham thing is supposed to explore why they opened a counterintelligence investigation.

Maybe Barr should just read the mueller report.

[MWB]

They envisioned a nation which stretched from sea-to-sea. I'm sure they had enough imagination to know it would get filled up with people.

They also put in mechanisms to change things to deal with the reality that things would need to be changed.

Envisioning land ownership is one thing. Envisioning a population explosion is another. I just think the number we have now would have been quite hard to fathom then.

To your second point, I agree. That’s the same thing I posted. However, I would argue that the majority of people today think the constitution is or should be set in stone.

I think that is a bit of chronological snobbery on the first part. These guys could do basic math. Plus Jefferson (and Franklin) was especially interested in proving America's superiority to Europe. Its "bigness" was his main weapon in that.

Here's a good article on it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... am/471696/

It’s interesting that since my opinion differs from yours there’s “chronological snobbery” and they couldn’t do math. Predicting the future has a lot of factors. What do you think the US population will be in 200 years? I think it’s more complicated than a math problem.

[tifosi77]

When does that IG report on the russia investigation come out so Comey & McCabe can be jailed?

Did you see Barr leaked out that he disputes the findings.

Absolute dipshittery. The whole republican apparatus is just spewing out endless nonsense to validate whatever random bullshit the administration is trying to gaslight with

Barr's point is that the IG didn't also investigate the CIA's role here (only the FBI and DOJ) so now we have to wait for the Durham report for final word.

Does the DOJ IG have any jurisdiction over the CIA?

[tifosi77]

They envisioned a nation which stretched from sea-to-sea. I'm sure they had enough imagination to know it would get filled up with people.

They also put in mechanisms to change things to deal with the reality that things would need to be changed.

Envisioning land ownership is one thing. Envisioning a population explosion is another. I just think the number we have now would have been quite hard to fathom then.

To your second point, I agree. That’s the same thing I posted. However, I would argue that the majority of people today think the constitution is or should be set in stone.

I think that is a bit of chronological snobbery on the first part. These guys could do basic math. Plus Jefferson (and Franklin) was especially interested in proving America's superiority to Europe. Its "bigness" was his main weapon in that.

Here's a good article on it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... am/471696/

It’s interesting that since my opinion differs from yours there’s “chronological snobbery” and they couldn’t do math. Predicting the future has a lot of factors. What do you think the US population will be in 200 years? I think it’s more complicated than a math problem.

There are 19 or 20 cities in the US with larger populations than the largest whole state had as of the first census (and two cities with larger populations than the entire country had at that time), and life expectancy then was not even 40 years for men. The Framers did not have the actuarial capacity to foresee a country of 350 million people expected to live into their 8th decade; no one did in the 1780s.

But to me, the issue isn't so much just expansion and population growth, it's the way that population is dispersed. I remember reading a paper back when I was in college that it would be possible for something like a 5% minority of the overall population to veto a constitutional amendment, if that population was dispersed widely enough among a small number of states. So something with 95% 'broad appeal' is theoretically not a sure thing. Similarly, depending on how the population is dispersed, we could have as little as around a 40% minority pass a constitutional amendment.

Now, that has been true in this country since the early 1800s, and we haven't seen it take place. So that's a good thing. And there are a lot of moving parts to the equation that limit the real-world possibility of situations like that arising....... but as we continue to ever self-sort into pockets of regional political affiliation, and certain groups ever trend towards smaller and smaller sub-divisions, that kind of thing becomes more and more possible.

It's one of the reasons why I'm against leaving the Electoral College as it is: We've had instances where the winner of the popular vote lost in the EC like five times, but two of them have been in the last five elections, and it is more likely to happen with greater frequency if these population/demographic trends continue. It casts a pall over the presidency, and can challenge the notion that the winner has 'broad support' among the states.

[Troy Loney]

Outsized voting power to people in low density states.

It’s not like a “good” thing, unless your views align with those people.

[CBear3]

It casts a pall over the presidency, and can challenge the notion that the winner has 'broad support' among the states.

On one hand this is the strongest argument for me. We're going to continue to have elections where unfortunately the Republican President has a lower share of the popular vote but a better showing in the EC. It's just a function of small state math at the moment. Which is just going to create more animosity as the "majority" feels like they're being railroaded, and demand their reps stand up for them and the standstill in Congress will only get worse.

And then I remember that in these times we're going to be at each others' throats anyways, and Congresspeople have bludgeoned each other on the floor hundreds of years ago and maybe things really aren't that much different today.

[grunthy]

They envisioned a nation which stretched from sea-to-sea. I'm sure they had enough imagination to know it would get filled up with people.

They also put in mechanisms to change things to deal with the reality that things would need to be changed.

Envisioning land ownership is one thing. Envisioning a population explosion is another. I just think the number we have now would have been quite hard to fathom then.

To your second point, I agree. That’s the same thing I posted. However, I would argue that the majority of people today think the constitution is or should be set in stone.

I think that is a bit of chronological snobbery on the first part. These guys could do basic math. Plus Jefferson (and Franklin) was especially interested in proving America's superiority to Europe. Its "bigness" was his main weapon in that.

Here's a good article on it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... am/471696/

It’s interesting that since my opinion differs from yours there’s “chronological snobbery” and they couldn’t do math. Predicting the future has a lot of factors. What do you think the US population will be in 200 years? I think it’s more complicated than a math problem.

There are 19 or 20 cities in the US with larger populations than the largest whole state had as of the first census (and two cities with larger populations than the entire country had at that time), and life expectancy then was not even 40 years for men. The Framers did not have the actuarial capacity to foresee a country of 350 million people expected to live into their 8th decade; no one did in the 1780s.

But to me, the issue isn't so much just expansion and population growth, it's the way that population is dispersed. I remember reading a paper back when I was in college that it would be possible for something like a 5% minority of the overall population to veto a constitutional amendment, if that population was dispersed widely enough among a small number of states. So something with 95% 'broad appeal' is theoretically not a sure thing. Similarly, depending on how the population is dispersed, we could have as little as around a 40% minority pass a constitutional amendment.

Now, that has been true in this country since the early 1800s, and we haven't seen it take place. So that's a good thing. And there are a lot of moving parts to the equation that limit the real-world possibility of situations like that arising....... but as we continue to ever self-sort into pockets of regional political affiliation, and certain groups ever trend towards smaller and smaller sub-divisions, that kind of thing becomes more and more possible.

It's one of the reasons why I'm against leaving the Electoral College as it is: We've had instances where the winner of the popular vote lost in the EC like five times, but two of them have been in the last five elections, and it is more likely to happen with greater frequency if these population/demographic trends continue. It casts a pall over the presidency, and can challenge the notion that the winner has 'broad support' among the states.

Only because the party you support doesn’t give a **** about appealing to the smaller states.

[tifosi77]

I don't support any party.

[Troy Loney]

Kamala, exit stage left

[tifosi77]

National polls are a bit meaningless (especially in the primary), but since Bloomberg officially announced he has immediately slotted into the 5-spot. Which sort of speaks to his rationale for entering the race, that none of the current candidates are worth a heap.

[Troy Loney]

National polls are a bit meaningless (especially in the primary), but since Bloomberg officially announced he has immediately slotted into the 5-spot. Which sort of speaks to his rationale for entering the race, that none of the current candidates are worth a heap.

That’s his ceiling.

The democrats should have held off on beginning their campaigns. For whatever reason, these folks though they could hold peoples attention for almost two years, this democratic primary is boring as ****. This isn’t in the same category as the 2016 gop primary, that was endless entertainment.

[blackjack68]

Kamala, exit stage left

See ya.

[Tomas]

Envisioning land ownership is one thing. Envisioning a population explosion is another. I just think the number we have now would have been quite hard to fathom then.

To your second point, I agree. That’s the same thing I posted. However, I would argue that the majority of people today think the constitution is or should be set in stone.

I think that is a bit of chronological snobbery on the first part. These guys could do basic math. Plus Jefferson (and Franklin) was especially interested in proving America's superiority to Europe. Its "bigness" was his main weapon in that.

Here's a good article on it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... am/471696/

It’s interesting that since my opinion differs from yours there’s “chronological snobbery” and they couldn’t do math. Predicting the future has a lot of factors. What do you think the US population will be in 200 years? I think it’s more complicated than a math problem.

There are 19 or 20 cities in the US with larger populations than the largest whole state had as of the first census (and two cities with larger populations than the entire country had at that time), and life expectancy then was not even 40 years for men. The Framers did not have the actuarial capacity to foresee a country of 350 million people expected to live into their 8th decade; no one did in the 1780s.

But to me, the issue isn't so much just expansion and population growth, it's the way that population is dispersed. I remember reading a paper back when I was in college that it would be possible for something like a 5% minority of the overall population to veto a constitutional amendment, if that population was dispersed widely enough among a small number of states. So something with 95% 'broad appeal' is theoretically not a sure thing. Similarly, depending on how the population is dispersed, we could have as little as around a 40% minority pass a constitutional amendment.

Now, that has been true in this country since the early 1800s, and we haven't seen it take place. So that's a good thing. And there are a lot of moving parts to the equation that limit the real-world possibility of situations like that arising....... but as we continue to ever self-sort into pockets of regional political affiliation, and certain groups ever trend towards smaller and smaller sub-divisions, that kind of thing becomes more and more possible.

It's one of the reasons why I'm against leaving the Electoral College as it is: We've had instances where the winner of the popular vote lost in the EC like five times, but two of them have been in the last five elections, and it is more likely to happen with greater frequency if these population/demographic trends continue. It casts a pall over the presidency, and can challenge the notion that the winner has 'broad support' among the states.

Only because the party you support doesn’t give a **** about appealing to the smaller states.

EC massive problems have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with smaller states. Clinton would have won EC based on proportional voting even if small states kept their higher relative weight. In fact, she would have won even if the advantage given to smaller states substantially increased. The fact that conservatives everywhere perpetuate this myth is cute.

Trump won the EC primarily because 77,000 voters residing in relatively BIG size states swung the winner-takes all EC by 8.6%. To put it in perspective, those 77,000 voters outbalanced 5.8 MILLION "regular" voters (1/2*8.6%*136 M people who voted). Trump's EC victory, while totally legitimate, is the consequence of a totally fluke electoral system - which has the equal power to penalize both parties NOT because of any advantages given to small states, but because of the winner-takes-all "benefit" given to BIG states.