jcburnsYes, I was glad to see the Supreme Court today take the first step down (what may be a very long) path that invalidates the Electoral College, which was developed (among other reasons) to assure that those in power were white men, landowners.
That's the beauty of the electoral college system - the big population centers can't lord over the less populated areas.
We already have that problem in NY state, where the City picks our governor for us. And it shows. If it weren't for the NYS Fair, Cuomo wouldn't even acknowledge upstate exists.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 jcburns Yes, I was glad to see the Supreme Court today take the first step down (what may be a very long) path that invalidates the Electoral College, which was developed (among other reasons) to assure that those in power were white men, landowners. So you'd be happy with NYC, LA, and SFO deciding who the president is - because the votes of those who live in the "flyover states" would not mean a thing anymore. That's the beauty of the electoral college system - the big population centers can't lord over the less populated areas. We already have that problem in NY state, where the City picks our governor for us. And it shows. If it weren't for the NYS Fair, Cuomo wouldn't even acknowledge upstate exists.
jcburns Yes, I was glad to see the Supreme Court today take the first step down (what may be a very long) path that invalidates the Electoral College, which was developed (among other reasons) to assure that those in power were white men, landowners.
So you'd be happy with NYC, LA, and SFO deciding who the president is - because the votes of those who live in the "flyover states" would not mean a thing anymore.
One person, one vote! It dosn't get any more of a democracy than that.
Anything that gives one person the effect of more than one vote is abhorrent.
The Electoral College is abhorrent.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yes, I would be very happy if we chose our President by a vote of all the people, everyone who can legally vote (and that should be all Americans above age 18) should vote and the most votes wins period. Completely agree with BaltACD.
Larry, you act as if the big city people are somehow what, lesser? Scary? Inferior?
i for one welcome a more diverse, compassionate, and interesting America. I'm ready. I'm MORE than ready.
I'm the same guy if I live in the big city or the most rural county in the state. And know what? So are you.
We're not a democracy, we were designed to be a Federal Republic with a representative government. A democracy leads to mob rule and an immobile government (like ancient Greece)
How did we survive recurring bouts of polio, measles, and the Asian flus before vaccines?
A bit of history:
The "Founding Fathers" recognized that pure Democracy could indeed lead to "mob rule," where minority rights would be neglected. What they particularly were concerned about was the possibility of populous mostly urgan areas neglecting the welfare of less populated rural areas. Thus the Fedeeral System, with popular rule in Congress balanced by States Rights in the Senate. The existing system of election is also an attempt at this balance.
Are you really the same person say first working on an assembly line in Dearborn and then saving money and buying a ranch and raising cattle as an employer of others in Wyoming? Sure, physically and as far as memory goes you are the same person. But you may wish the Federal Government had piorities smeewhat different in the second case than in the first.
jcburns I'm the same guy if I live in the big city or the most rural county in the state. And know what? So are you.
Here's the results of the last presidential election:
In the last election, Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. However, Clinton won 88 of of the 100 largest counties (including Washington D.C.). Without these 100 largest counties she would have lost by 11.5 million votes.
Big cities tend to be more liberal than the rest of the country. If that's where your beliefs lie, it makes perfect sense that you don't mind if those 100 largest counties make the decision for the rest of the country.
The electoral college also forces the presidential candidates to consider the wishes of the folks in flyover country. If all they had to worry about winning was those 100 counties, why bother visiting Pocatello, Idaho? Those votes won't matter. Brooklyn has over a million voters, all of Idaho has a little over 800,000.
I wasn't going to jump into this dog fight, but...
Look at that map. That's why Secretary Clinton lost. Note I'm being respectful here and using her last title, instead of the diminutive "Hillary."
Secretary Clinton lost because she was LAZY. She believed her own polling data which predicted a walk-in and thought she didn't have to try too hard.
She made the SAME MISTAKE in 2008 when Barack Obama sneaked in and stole the nomination out from under her. When she realized what was happening she hit the campaign trail hard and was fighting her way back up but it was too late.
Eight years later and she hadn't learned a thing. It was her election to lose, and lose it she did.
Thomas Dewey made the same mistake in 1948 when he lost the election to Harry Truman.
Trump won for two reasons. First, he didn't run like a politician, he ran like a businessman. He saw the underserved market and went after it, hard. Second, and a Democratic strategist (who's name I don't recall, sorry) said it flat-out:
"Donald Trump was a brick thrown through the window of the Washington establishment."
You want to be president? Then you'd better be ready to work your butt off for the job like you've never worked for anything before! YOU have to do it, and not surrogates.
Why do we have an Electoral College? Read the history of the Constitutional Covention and the "small-state large-state" controversies. The Electoral College has NOTHING to do with keeping "white men" in power. Back in those days in most states only white men who were property owners could vote anyway, their "power" if you want to call it that was secure anyway. The EC provides the same kind of balance that's provided by states only getting two senators irregardless of population.
You know who wants to get rid of the Electoral College? The same ones who say "I'd rather be right than be president."
Every loser.
By the way, this time around it's Trump's election to lose. My God, the Democrats had four years to get ready and Joe Biden (who's not a bad guy) is the best they can come up with? Reminds me of what Will Rogers once said...
"I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
The Supreme Court cannot change the fact that the Electoral College picks the president in this republic. The Supreme Court does not have that power.
The case they are hearing has merely to do with how an elector votes in his state, or, in two states, his district.
To do away with the Electoral College would take an amendment to the Constitution approved by at least 38 states.
York1 John
jcburnsi for one welcome a more diverse, compassionate, and interesting America.
Mr. Burns, with all due respect, if you don't believe it's that way to begin with then you musn't get out very much. You haven't seen as much of this country and it's people as you think you have, and you don't know (or care to know) as much as you think you do.
Why do I sense I'm speaking to someone caught in a metropolitan bubble? Or someone trying not to be a big city elitist but just can't help himself?
You can have the last word. I'm "departing the frequency."
Some people on here prefer a distorted view of history, looking at the US through red-colored lenses.
"The times, they are a changing."
charlie hebdoSome people on here prefer a distorted view of history, looking at the US through red-colored lenses. "The times, they are a changing."
And .... some people on here prefer a distorted view of history, looking at the US through blue-colored lenses.
Only if the cross between Cronkite and Rogers committed impeachable offenses.
The democratic leadership was VERY reluctant (and that was for real) to begin the impeachment process. I think one of the reasons was because the Trump administration developed this novel "just ignore subpoenas and congressional requests" approach, assuming (correctly) that if they couldn't get people who were involved on the record, they could get away from crimes. I would have preferred Congress issue subpoenas and literally arrest those who defied them.
and don't get me started on the absolutely illegal profiting Trump's company has made over foreign and domestic entities. Emoluments! He calls it the "phony emoluments clause,” but it's right there in the Constitution.
would any of that happened if a different Republican was in the office? I doubt it, because someone like McCain or Romney seem to respect the rule of law.
i think when Trump does something "good" it gets reported. Which is how you've heard about them.
no, it's not as diverse as it could be. Not by a long shot. And I've seen the moves over the years to make it harder for poor people to have jobs that pay fair wages and have the kind of access to health care wealthier people do.
And I get out quite a bit when not trying to flatten the curve.
you can call me names all you want ("big city elitist"--ha, that's a good one!) or claim I'm in a bubble, but that just sounds to me like someone who wants to dismiss the content of my posts. That's your choice, but I'm disappointed. You could do better.
100% schoolyard comeback.
Most of what you've written here about Secretary Clinton (which you can't resist saying, look, I'm using her correct title, not namecalling, which kinda gets the job done anyway.)
by the way, I've been to all 50 states, 12 Mexican states, 10 Canadian provinces.
spent substantial time in many. I've lived in big cities and the most rural counties in a state. And a big part of our travel is to absorb how people live and think. Is that enough for you? I suspect it's not.
York1: Do you know the original reason for why the voters' ballots in larger population states count for less than those in places with fewer people and cities? Do you think this legacy designed to protect the power of slave-holding states is right today?
HRC was always a weak candidate - not *likable* enough. So in 2016, voter turnout was down (although she still got 3 million more votes than her opponent) and once again we elected a candidate with a minority (not even a plurality) of votes. In this case, a person with no skills or experience has proven his incompetence day after day, at best.
Absentee voting by mail-in ballots has long, safe history of use. Even the current occupant uses this system. Yet he and the GOP oppose its use in the middle of a pandemic. Why? Part of their strategy of voter restriction and suppression.
The once-proud GOP is a battered shell of its former self and our nation is a divided wreck. It will take a long time to undo the damage. And that is a real tragedy.
azrailHow did we survive recurring bouts of polio, measles, and the Asian flus before vaccines?
People died.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Flintlock76You know who wants to get rid of the Electoral College? The same ones who say "I'd rather be right than be president."
How about getting rid of winner-take-all in the other 48 states? Seems like it'd be more fair.
Of course, so would having primaries all on the same day.
Democrats always underestimate their success with younger candidates. Also afraid to tackle the healthcare debate - which is more important than ever now.
charlie hebdoYork1: Do you know the original reason for why the voters' ballots in larger population states count for less than those in places with fewer people and cities? Do you think this legacy designed to protect the power of slave-holding states is right today?
I, for one, am not arguing about the reasons for the Electoral College, although I know that you and I would disagree about the those.
The Electoral College is a fact. The United States is a republic, not a democracy.
The Supreme Court case discussed yesterday has no effect on that. It will not change until at least 38 states agree to it. In other words, it's not going to change any time soon.
On a side note, I hope I am alive when a Republican wins the popular vote. I will watch with amusement as some of the 15 states see their state's electoral votes go to a politician who did not win their state's popular vote.
I don’t think that questioning the experts means that I am not taking the virus seriously. Actually, I think I am taking it far more seriously than most people do. I take it so seriously that I see no hope for the country surviving. But what I see most people taking seriously is the gigantic grievance of insult and blame woven through this disaster; as if that will solve anything.
Here the elements I see making up this dreadful experience:
A worldwide pandemic with no end in sight.
No clear origin or possible motive for start of the pandemic and the resulting international tensions possibly leading to hot war.
An economic depression making itself felt within the next 3-4 months that will devastate this county like no disaster we have ever faced before. It will impose hardship, shortages, massive disorder and crime, and a wipe out all of everyone’s purchasing power.
The postponement of the 2020 election.
Legal slavery was once a fact, but we got past that.
Women not having the right to vote was a fact, but we got past that.
You're right, it may not change anytime "soon", but the Supreme Court has given the issue an avenue for change.
And some day we'll look back on the Electoral College and say "well, that wasn't very fair. Glad it's in our rear view mirror."
Not part of the current argument, but knowing the Israeli experience may be worthwhile, excerpted mostly from the Jeerusalem Post:
Monday night.
The cabinet accepted a proposal by Interior Minister Aryeh Deri to keep synagogues open, but with a maximum occupancy of 19 people, down from the current 50.
That decision also stated that within 48 hours, the Finance Ministry must introduce a compensation package for those harmed by the new regulations.
Daily coronavirus infections again surged past the 1,000 mark on Tuesday, with more than 6,000 new cases confirmed in the past week, according to the Health Ministry.
The Health Ministry said in its morning update that the total number cases in the country had reached 31,186, a rise of 1,024 compared to Monday morning.
The number of active cases grew to a new record of 12,717. Of them, 85 were in serious condition, including 35 on ventilators. Another 85 were in moderate condition, and the rest were experiencing mild or no symptoms.
Four new COVID-19 deaths were recorded since Monday evening, bringing the toll since the start of the pandemic to 338, according to the ministry.
The ministry said 23,046 coronavirus tests were conducted on Monday, 4.6 percent of which returned with a positive result.
Let's get away from the sophomore politics and back on the topic... although it will be a great stretch to find railroad-related subjects.
For those who don't believe me or the Germans about the actual transmissibility issue that ought to be addressed in policy, here might be 239 additional sources that might convince you.
https://watermark.silverchair.com/ciaa939.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAApwwggKYBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKJMIIChQIBADCCAn4GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMkLzX_h2p0Qnz_HKaAgEQgIICTzamH47BCgWAtxA1V_mnjDI7XQZrpUYKvqnTji-4ppkACn22brLfkGa1bZuXgBo-K5Hm9WfOfXP-l9p-cINjFUam2v_zMsXp1JigoZvyRODr9IG9Ou5xZ-eZtPv_mI4jTEyFJbztr_X15fNRvq2pQDm74NCW5CkDf3u358P05mkGOVsv0jAdiWMnHmFpGW5Wu1tKKzRSZyEv-A7KhmbHEr1RgCHWWlIPEeKVgXlMq69_irAgMazYUmWfKNRKOn4Tqo3tspIryiBjBrpSCLgTWhEGgR1wpiBgaj12zQyH0s1sXFIlB9PLU5SV-vfjQvgs7Eys32xs72sg48fHgDoL0LguMgbMcuSXSqNn4cGK9-xA9B_isQbeMJHPskQX1PeVCIBTjuXdGBeHVfnITUwci_Z4IM23SlHJXaY18Eb_Y6Ac72ojSehcctYaLpWHzGvpAywvhfctnZDFWiBwsiqnOi7nL9S1Kd-D-3q86LMldyMCq4FYeGvW7J74c4ZHb_R3b4w0bMJApGDImXbAwvASJacxWCcgnjcMbjXUI9d8A2EkjdRDiQ2V2VIiWybvgfTv3v-L6HCQ_Qc7yQhYxOlSE7jmvkj_keojpHlcFd9LOJkEdfF4lasOOeQIZAhYRezx94PCQeF_JS0ZoigxUJ_V0nVDe8kmyhudNrvopxz38Pj8fR459oK3d_xI7nL7NbjNtDfhQvbRmaIBYhsabwp6M93dgE5Dbdy_AusTOXZJx9omBqK1tW1WHqY9PiqAKKqY1ioWeAPhU-Q4Cox8pObC2Q
daveklepper Not part of the current argument, but knowing the Israeli experience may be worthwhile, excerpted mostly from the Jeerusalem Post: Monday night. Daily coronavirus infections again surged past the 1,000 mark on Tuesday, with more than 6,000 new cases confirmed in the past week, according to the Health Ministry. The Health Ministry said in its morning update that the total number cases in the country had reached 31,186, a rise of 1,024 compared to Monday morning.
Dave,
What was the total rise in cases during the prior week?
What was the total number of tests done during each of the two weeks?
So - my usual question on this whole electoral college thing:
We've magically abolished the EC for the next election. "Your" candidate loses the popular vote but would have won the electoral vote.
Will we see a graceful concession that the best candidate won, or will we see a campaign to re-establish the EC?
Of course we'd see a graceful concession.
This is part of the cynicism—you're asserting (under the surface) people want to abolish the EC just to win.
No. A growing number of people want to abolish it because it beats up on the concept of one person = one vote.
So. Virtually all of our federal intelligence sources not just say, but —AGREE—that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, successfully, to benefit Trump.
Does that concern you? Are you embarrassed by that if he's your candidate?
tree68Will we see a graceful concession that the best candidate won, or will we see a campaign to re-establish the EC?
All this philosophastrizing and nobody has even mentioned the Arrow Impossibility Theorem yet? Be interesting to see what the various participants agree on if we posit effective 'one person-one vote' polling registration and administration and a straight non-partisan count of the raw results...
... but again, there's little if any railroad content other than train wrecks of arguments.
jcburnsDoes that concern you? Are you embarrassed by that if he's your candidate?
The possible interference concerns me. I am, however, very glad that Ms Clinton lost. As optimistic as you all seem to be, I would opine that as individuals, you would not have been happy with the result, either. Ms Clinton's record regarding election fraud isn't exactly spotless.
As for the impeachment - the Dems started looking for reasons the day of the election. That it took them two years to find something they thought might stick speaks to their desperation.
And I'll stand by my opinion that the attacks on the POTUS would have occured no matter who the Republican winner was. Trump gave them ammunition. Had it been anyone else, the Dems would have found something. They found someone to make a sexual harrassment claim about Kavanaugh. Never mind that the charge was a lie.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.