So the compromise to me would be to eliminate gerrymandering - require all states to draw congressional districts via non-partisan commission. You win that district, you win that electoral vote. You win the popular vote for that state, you get the extra two from their senators.
Romney proved me wrong since 2016 - I questioned at the time whether he’d pushback against the extremists in the GOP.
There’s no other period to compare to the situation republicans have found themselves in.
You can call it meaningless if you want, but it’s also historical fact that only a very small percentage of presidential elections have seen the winner of the electoral college not also win the popular vote, so that’s not the word I would use personally. Especially with how party lines have been drawn today, republicans under Trump have a much harder path to 270 than democrats do - due to most of the most populous states being solid blue.
The UN is nothing more than a treaties-based organization intended to facilitate cooperation, and was founded upon the sovereignty of nations, who are its members, not individual citizens. It has nothing to do with the concept of representative democracies or even democracies at all. The EU isn't a country. It is simply a political and economic alliance of member countries intended to facilitate trade and wield greater clout on the international stage. And WTF does any of this have to do with slavery? Your arguments are spurious and devoid of merit as they relate to the Unites States system of government.
You’re ducking the question.
Take a look at this graph through our history. Like I mentioned earlier, parties, policies, voters ebb and flow and right now is no different. The same goes for states and how their majority votes.
Point me to another 32 year period of US history and where one party could only win the general election once but has a shot every time to win the EC and possibly end up with 4 of the 9 presidencies. I will save you some time, you can’t.
The states are not “sovereign”. They never were after the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution places restrictions on the power of the states subservient to the national govt and Marbury v Madison made them subservient to federal courts in questions concerning the Constitution. The Civil War settled the question of state “sovereignty” once and for all. A sovereign country can leave the UN. A sovereign country can leave the EU. Can a “sovereign” state leave the Unites States?
Sure, but typically when we’ve seen major shifts like that, it’s often been due to major events.Take a look at this graph through our history. Like I mentioned earlier, parties, policies, voters ebb and flow and right now is no different. The same goes for states and how their majority votes.
California for instance was 9 out of 10 GOP from the 50s on. From 92' on it has been DEM. Just because one state votes one way currently, doesn't mean that it is never going to change or is "off the board" for the other party.
Lets stop with the knee-jerk reactions please.
For the same reason I want my vote to outweigh China’s in the UN.
I have no idea what your point here might be other than to concede that the political structure of the US has nothing to do with the set-up of the UN or the EU.
The Declaration is not a governing document. The Constitution is.
Trump and MAGA don’t care about the Constitution so I hope you’re talking to them.
Battleground states change. The largest media markets rarely do.
Some pretty disingenuous arguments you're making in this thread. Statement of foundational principles vs. actual governing law. The Court is not citing the Declaration as though any of its provisions is dispositive of the case; it's a rhetorical flourish. Next time you're party to a lawsuit, go ahead and try to convince the court to enforce any part of the Declaration.
What do you find inappropriate about the premise of the Declaration of Independence?
impossibility. Seems like a complete waste of time worrying, thinking about and discussing.
That's dumb.
No, read the history behind it. You’re not totally wrong, but slavery definitely played a factor in how it was designed.
It's not sport, we're not trying to make a 'fair game', we're trying to create agreed upon associations, with stipulations to preserve the rights and powers of the members. Even the smallest members.
The primary reason it was developed was as a compromise between those who wanted a popular vote vs those who wanted congress to select the executive.
Can they not come up with a hypothetical that’s remotely realistic?
We are a representative democracy, in that in theory we directly elect our representatives, who are authorized to govern.
if you can’t be honest about the open border under the Biden/Harris administration, I don’t know what to tell you. As far as Kamala’s radical ideas (which she would try to put into policy), here are a few: abolish ICE, taxing unrealized gains, free health care for illegal immigrants, price controls (which would be her way of trying to combat “price gouging” - what would be her definition of price gouging? She’s historically been against fracking, now she’s apparently flip flopping to garner votes. She’s been all over the board on crime…tough on weed, but liberal on other crimes.
Why would the EU have an undemocratic process like requiring unanimity?
