Ending The Electoral College
- Thread starter Tom Paris
- Start date
That seems backwards if you're worried about entire states getting crushed under the legislative process.
An inside track to the veto pen is far less effective than the constant ability to build a coalition in the legislature.
So two stones on the side of empty land and a legal limit on represention on the side of human beings, and that seems fair?
In general terms,... Relative equality among citizens within any given state,... Relative equality among states within the Republic.
You should look it up, and try to find the courage to be critical of yourself.
I wouldn't call it a problem, more of a curiosity about why you communicate the way you do as I choose to take you at your word while also knowing that you're being intentionally obtuse or slippery.
That is way more interesting to me than any real beliefs you may accidentally reveal.
The House would take over those responsibilities. Not a problem. We don't need a second body to do those things.
The Senate is an anti-democratic power base. From blatantly umequal representation to the filibuster, it's a travesty of entrenched power.
It needs to go away.
^^^
Has nothing to say about numerous "HROT doctors" lying about the immutable sex binary.
Is "curious."
Consign the Senate to the same duties as the House of Lords. The House of Lords can review, amend, and delay legislation but cannot permanently block bills, especially money bills, which it can only delay for one month. Other bills can be delayed for up to one year or two parliamentary sessions. One senator should not be able to block legislation indefinitely simply by saying, "I'm going to filibuster". A senate committee should not be able to block legislation simply be refusing to take a vote. If it passes the House, the Senate can advise, consent, or get the f*ck out of the way.
AndreWoolridgeB10MVPNo thoughts of your own?
LOL... sorry. I don't know what I meant by that... we all know thinking isn't a maggot strong point. For you, it's not even on the table.
BTW, it's the 21st century. You're free to declare your "alternative" sexuality and not be judged. Well... except by your fellow maggots, but they're f'n morans.
Last edited:
Who else has called out your "VOTE BINARY (but sex is soooooooooo nuanced, as long as you believe in troonology)" retardoviews, grandpa?
Mitch had over 400 bills on his desk and brought zero to a vote. So NONE of those bills would have been beneficial to Americans? That’s criminal.
This. The idea that a single Senator can control the entire US govt all by himself or herself is about as un-American as it gets.
I'd rather get rid of the Senate, but this could be an acceptable compromise. Certainly better than what we have now.
Of course if we still have the Senate, we'll still have to get rid the Electoral College.
It's how every other democratic bicameral legislature in the world operates. Once again, the founders f'ed up the structure of our govt. So intent on breaking every tie with Jolly Old England, they threw the baby out with the bathwater.
The only real fix to the EC is to expand the House. One rep for every 350,000 gets us to ~1,000 representatives. CA gets 112... WY gets 2.
Last edited:
Again, I don't think we need more people. But more votes could make sense, so the votes reflect the demographics better.
So, to use your numbers, CA could have 112 votes, but I'd cap the number of physical bodies per state to make the House less unwieldy (more wieldy?).
The House of Commons has something like 650 members for fewer than 70M people. One representative for every 110,000 roughly.
The other thing that ticks me off about the construct is bad guys like Tuberville would block all of Biden’s military appointments singlehandedly. I didn’t even know that was a thing. One di.ckhead was hurting our military structure.
It really wasn't a thing until the expectation of conduct was en masse lowered and distilled down to the lowest common denominator by reactionaries.
I don't think you need one person per x number of people, but I do think you need one vote per x number of people.
One big advantage of having only 5-10 reps per state (regardless of the number of votes they wield) is that that would reduce the number of districts. That, in turn, would reduce the opportunities to have absurd levels of gerrymandering.
Personally, I'd like to see multi-candidate districts. Couple that with ranked choice voting and we might even see the occasional Green or Libertarian making the cut - providing even better representation.
Good point (assuming they are the prime contractors for Patriots and other things we are running through).
From the "If you're so smart how come you aren't rich" file, why is it that I know what evil the Rs will do if they get elected (and am almost never proved wrong), yet never buy the stocks that will predictably soar.
I'd like to say it's because I have such a strong moral compass, but that would be an exaggeration.
The House is supposed to represent the people. I have a hard time having a CA rep for 3 million constituents and a WY rep for a tenth of that.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated
PART 2: The most important thing we've learned in Clemson this month
-
02
On3
Clemson DT Vic Burley suspended indefinitely following arrest
-
03
Tiger Illustrated
The most important thing we've learned in Clemson this month
-
04
Tiger Illustrated
Inside the contrast in styles between how Clemson and LSU are handling practices this month
-
05
Tiger Illustrated
Friday Clemson Football & Recruiting Nuggets