Supreme Court

[Mike Sixel]

 

Except that wouldn't have changed anything. The court's political composition has been 5-4 in favor of Republicans for a long time.

 

All of this is the electorate's fault, including the Democrats for nominating a reviled candidate who couldn't steamroll a complete buffoon in an election.

 

There is plenty of blame to go around.....true. Alas.

 

Also, while I revile many of their policies, the GOP has executed the long game of brainwashing very effectively, so they deserve some blame too.....

[Mr. Brooks]

Except that wouldn't have changed anything. The court's political composition has been 5-4 in favor of Republicans for a long time.

 

All of this is the electorate's fault, including the Democrats for nominating a reviled candidate who couldn't steamroll a complete buffoon in an election.

The electoral college is also a joke.

Zero reason for that to still be a thing, with the technology we have now.

This makes 4 SCOTUS selections made by Presidents who lost the popular vote.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think the electoral college is a joke.  I think that's a convenient excuse, one both parties treat as a convenient whipping post when they lose.

 

If I know the way to win a football game is only to score touchdowns, I don't get to complain after the fact that they didn't count my field goals.  

 

The Hillary campaign did a poor job strategizing to win the way you win the Presidency.  They have no one to blame for that but themselves.  

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't think the electoral college is a joke. I think that's a convenient excuse, one both parties treat as a convenient whipping post when they lose.

 

If I know the way to win a football game is only to score touchdowns, I don't get to complain after the fact that they didn't count my field goals.

 

The Hillary campaign did a poor job strategizing to win the way you win the Presidency. They have no one to blame for that but themselves.

I agree that they won fair and square, and you play to the existing rules.

Still think it's a joke though. And would feel the same way if it were Democrats winning that way.

There is no longer a valid reason for the electoral college to exist. This is a principle issue for me, not partisan. And in fact I supported Bush over Gore at the time.

[Badsmerf]

I'm not so sure I'd be willing to agree they won fair and square... but they did win.

 

Best thing democrats could do is add puerto Rico and us virgin islands as a state. After the 2020 elections they might be able to do it. Puerto Rico is close, really freaking close, to becoming a state already. I guarantee the GOP will fight with all their might to keep it from becoming a state. The amount of money pouring into Puerto Rico (for all purposes) would be astounding. Unemployment would go from 10% to 5% within months. While I don't think this would guarantee a Democrat sweep across the board, I do think the current GOP would have to move to the center to ever win the electoral college points in Puerto Rico. After the hurricane, I bet it would get a lot of support.

 

To me, that would be an example of using the rules of the constitution to even the playing field.... Well, not even it, but at make it less lopsided. If the democrats are smart, they will already have a plan in place for this.

[Squirrel]

I'm not so sure I'd be willing to agree they won fair and square... but they did win.

Best thing democrats could do is add puerto Rico and us virgin islands as a state. After the 2020 elections they might be able to do it. Puerto Rico is close, really freaking close, to becoming a state already. I guarantee the GOP will fight with all their might to keep it from becoming a state. The amount of money pouring into Puerto Rico (for all purposes) would be astounding. Unemployment would go from 10% to 5% within months. While I don't think this would guarantee a Democrat sweep across the board, I do think the current GOP would have to move to the center to ever win the electoral college points in Puerto Rico. After the hurricane, I bet it would get a lot of support.

To me, that would be an example of using the rules of the constitution to even the playing field.... Well, not even it, but at make it less lopsided. If the democrats are smart, they will already have a plan in place for this.

Doesn’t PR have to vote for statehood? Haven’t votes in the past failed? Would it pass now?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree that they won fair and square, and you play to the existing rules.
Still think it's a joke though. And would feel the same way if it were Democrats winning that way.
There is no longer a valid reason for the electoral college to exist. This is a principle issue for me, not partisan. And in fact I supported Bush over Gore at the time.

 

A straight popular vote has drawbacks too.  

[slash129]

 

A straight popular vote has drawbacks too.  

 

Yes.  What's good for New York and California is not what's good for me.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yes.  What's good for New York and California is not what's good for me.

Which is why I believe a distributed electoral vote is the obvious answer.

 

If a politician wins 60% of CA, they get 60% of CA's electoral votes.

 

You still end up with a vote where a place like Montana gets a slight advantage but not the massive advantage we see today, which is patently unfair to those who live in populous states.

 

The added bonus of this system is that it forces candidates to court the entire country, as every vote matters. Republicans can't ignore CA because a 10% swing of 50-something votes is a big deal. Inversely, Democrats can't ignore the middle of the country because one extra EC vote in 5-10 states starts to add up quickly.

 

A second added bonus is that the nitwits in Ohio and Florida don't get to choose our ****ing president once a decade or so.

[TheLeviathan]

I am also good with trying a more hybrid system.  I think that could be an improvement and would force both parties to start considering wider swaths of the country.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yes.  What's good for New York and California is not what's good for me.

But that's true of any minority population, whether based on geography or not.  We shouldn't give bonus points to rural people simply because they are in the minority.  There are plenty of other minority groups who have equal claims to being under represented, should we give them extra votes too?

[Badsmerf]

Doesn’t PR have to vote for statehood? Haven’t votes in the past failed? Would it pass now?

They already voted, and it passed easily. They also have an approved constitution. They also have a bill in Congress already for statehood. Seriously, it isn't far fetched to see them become a state in the next decade. The hurricane helped create awareness and support I think.

[slash129]

 

But that's true of any minority population, whether based on geography or not.  We shouldn't give bonus points to rural people simply because they are in the minority.  There are plenty of other minority groups who have equal claims to being under represented, should we give them extra votes too?

 

Those other minority groups are of no concern to the Party for the Benefit of Slash129.

[Mr. Brooks]

Which is why I believe a distributed electoral vote is the obvious answer.

 

If a politician wins 60% of CA, they get 60% of CA's electoral votes.

 

You still end up with a vote where a place like Montana gets a slight advantage but not the massive advantage we see today, which is patently unfair to those who live in populous states.

 

The added bonus of this system is that it forces candidates to court the entire country, as every vote matters. Republicans can't ignore CA because a 10% swing of 50-something votes is a big deal. Inversely, Democrats can't ignore the middle of the country because one extra EC vote in 5-10 states starts to add up quickly.

 

A second added bonus is that the nitwits in Ohio and Florida don't get to choose our ****ing president once a decade or so.

I'd be good with that too.

A couple battleground states shouldn't get to decide something as important as our President.

[Badsmerf]

Which is why I believe a distributed electoral vote is the obvious answer.

 

If a politician wins 60% of CA, they get 60% of CA's electoral votes.

 

You still end up with a vote where a place like Montana gets a slight advantage but not the massive advantage we see today, which is patently unfair to those who live in populous states.

 

The added bonus of this system is that it forces candidates to court the entire country, as every vote matters. Republicans can't ignore CA because a 10% swing of 50-something votes is a big deal. Inversely, Democrats can't ignore the middle of the country because one extra EC vote in 5-10 states starts to add up quickly.

 

A second added bonus is that the nitwits in Ohio and Florida don't get to choose our ****ing president once a decade or so.

How does the outcome of that system diverge from the popular vote? I would say it would energize more to vote, but the outcome would be almost the exact same. Put your formula into the 2016 of proportioned electoral college votes, and Clinton crushes Trump, just like she in the popular vote.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

How does the outcome of that system diverge from the popular vote?

Wyoming and its 500,000 people still get three electoral votes.

 

If California had that same ratio of one electoral vote for every ~167,000 people, they'd have 236 electoral votes.

[Mr. Brooks]

Yeah, sadly it seems to come down to a "whose ox is being gored" situation for some.

Not the first time I've heard the, "I don't want people in California or New York deciding my fate" argument. Yet somehow it's okay that people in Wyoming or the Dakota's get to disproportionately decide people in bigger state's fates.

 

And I'll remind those that might suggest that the Electoral College is meant to be a check, the two elections that went against the popular vote have resulted in trillions wasted on unnecessary wars (not to mention unknowable climate change consequences) the first time, and the exact type of scoundrel that the check of the electoral college purported to prevent taking office the second time.

[TheLeviathan]

Ideally Dems get out and vote intelligently from here on so we don't have to worry as much. This Presidency should be enough to make everyone alert permanently.

 

I admit this is anecdotal but I know three people who avoided voting in the past who are now registered Dems ready to vote in Nov. And going forward.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Ideally Dems get out and vote intelligently from here on so we don't have to worry as much. This Presidency should be enough to make everyone alert permanently.

I admit this is anecdotal but I know three people who avoided voting in the past who are now registered Dems ready to vote in Nov. And going forward.

What we need is a blue wave not in 2018 but in 2020.

 

A census year.

 

I'm loathe to say that gerrymandering is okay - it's really not - but what needs to happen is for the Democrats to either gerrymander the **** out of things so badly for the next decade that SCOTUS is forced to take action or they need to get their **** together and actually enact real campaign and district changes at the legislative level.

 

The latter is a pipe dream so I'm pulling for the former.

 

Why? Because a Democratic gerrymander won't try to permanently prevent people from voting by law. It's that ****ing simple. We can pull back from a Democratic gerrymander. I'm not so sure we can pull back from another Republican gerrymander.

[TheLeviathan]

A wave in 2018 to take back at least half of Congress is primarily valuable as a means to 2020.  This momentum needs to continue.

 

Luckily, Trump frequently reminds us all of what a massive prick he is.  The Dems don't even have to drum up outrage when he's busy providing plenty of fodder.

[Badsmerf]

I think the difference is that a democratic gerrymander will stir the right pot. Maybe this is my bias at this time, but most democratic voters are able to realize the injustice a gerrymandered district or state has. Republicans, to date, have been content since it benefits them.

 

I might be with you Brock. Use the same technology the republicans did, screw the system up so bad the Supreme Court has to take action. I'm the mean time, a gerrymandered map for democrats is gut wrenching for Republicans. In the current state it is +5 swing for Republicans... but democrats already have a +3 advantage, and could easily go to a gerrymandered +8. We're talking a 40+ seat house advantage.

 

I'd feel differently about this if the Republican party stood for the same principles it used to. That party is long gone. At this point, the party only seems concerned with big donors, polluting, and evangelicals. They are gong to find it hard to ever win the votes of millennial that don't give a **** what Reagan said in 1980.

[gunnarthor]

The EC is fine. Ignoring the rips on Wyoming, HRC actually won the small 3 and 4 EC states in 2016. Dems are getting lost in the weeds complaining about the EC.

 

A good article on it from Judge Posner when the GOP was complaining about it after Obama's win.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

The EC is fine. Ignoring the rips on Wyoming, HRC actually won the small 3 and 4 EC states in 2016. Dems are getting lost in the weeds complaining about the EC.

 

A good article on it from Judge Posner when the GOP was complaining about it after Obama's win.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

 

That's always what I go back to.  Slate isn't known for being a right-win news source and there it is laying out the benefits.

 

The EC is the easy scapegoat and, yes, it has flaws, but it isn't the problem.

[stringer bell]

Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who does it. As things have developed in the 21st Century, it is much tougher to gerrymander for Democrats because their voting constituency tends to be in areas of dense population. The thing about gerrymandering is that too many seats are "safe", which give rise to extreme right and left-wingers with no fear of being ousted for questionable behavior or votes. 

 

Minnesota is a good example of how maps should be drawn on a Congressional level. Though the state votes blue for most statewide and national races, there are only two safe Democratic seats (4 & 5) and one safe Republican seat (6), 7 and 1 lean red, but have been represented by Democrats for a decade, 8 leaned blue, but has become swingy and 2 and 3 have been in Republican hands, but are moving towards the Democrats. This year, probably four are locked up (4, 5, 6, 7) and four are tossups. If every state had half their races in the tossup category, we'd have a better referendum on our national government.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who does it. As things have developed in the 21st Century, it is much tougher to gerrymander for Democrats because their voting constituency tends to be in areas of dense population. The thing about gerrymandering is that too many seats are "safe", which give rise to extreme right and left-wingers with no fear of being ousted for questionable behavior or votes. 

 

Minnesota is a good example of how maps should be drawn on a Congressional level. Though the state votes blue for most statewide and national races, there are only two safe Democratic seats (4 & 5) and one safe Republican seat (6), 7 and 1 lean red, but have been represented by Democrats for a decade, 8 leaned blue, but has become swingy and 2 and 3 have been in Republican hands, but are moving towards the Democrats. This year, probably four are locked up (4, 5, 6, 7) and four are tossups. If every state had half their races in the tossup category, we'd have a better referendum on our national government.

 

And better candidates.  There is a reason MN's government functions really well, even with a few crazies scattered in among the elected reps.

 

This was a really great post too.

[stringer bell]

The Electoral College probably is a scapegoat for the Trump victory. To the Donald's credit, he broke through the "blue wall" that carried Obama to certain victory and he has changed the math to win a national election. Just like the US Senate, the EC gives disproportionate sway to small-population states and in a national election, it gives too much power to the so-called swing states. I think some tweaking for some type of proportional vote makes sense, but the devil is in the details. Does it mean you have to get an absolute majority to get all the electoral votes? 60%, a certain plurality? The simplest proposal I heard was to give votes by Congressional District and then have the extra two electoral votes rewarded to the winner of the state overall, but I still believe that would have resulted in a Trump presidency and maybe even a Romney administration. 

 

Bush-Gore was essentially a dead heat decided by the vote in the swing state with the largest population, so I guess that happens. Trump getting 3 million less votes and winning comfortably is close to defying probability. 

[stringer bell]

Regarding Kavanaugh, I think that Democrats have raised enough valid points that that a middle-of-the-road voter would respect a "no" vote on his appointment. The Democrats up for election in states Trump won in '16 probably now have enough cover to vote against him and keep their lefty bona fides. However, I don't think any of the 51 Republicans have changed their vote. He'll be approved either 51-50 or 51-49. 

 

I don't wish for someone death or poor health, but if one of the five conservative justices resigns or dies after the 2020 election, there is a chance for a 5-4 liberal court at that time. 2+ years of mind-jarring 5-4 verdicts are on the horizon in the near future.

[Badsmerf]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is probably a given to leave in the next term. I don't care how it happens, but Thomas has to go. His opinions and interpretations of law are much too radical.

[PseudoSABR]

Kavanaugh looked inevitable.  Not so sure that's the case anymore. 

[TheLeviathan]

I initially thought the sexual misconduct allegations were a bad look.  They seemed (I'm struggling for the word here)...convenient?  Easily at risk of skepticism?  I don't know the right phrasing.  I don't want anyone to take that as the act itself was convenient for the victim or anything, but the timing seemed really hard to take at face value.

 

But the victim coming forward, presenting more of the facts behind the case, and removing the anonymity gives it much more credibility.  And I'm glad for that, without it the accusation probably has no real change to his chances of being appointed and it prevents the accusation from being a glaring mark against metoo type accustions.

 

BTW, I'm trying really hard to balance my initial skepticism about the how/when the accusation happened and respect for the victim.  I'm probably failing at it though.