Keep denying justice to people and they will start to take it upon themselves to see it done. I personally don’t want to see lynch mobs, but if a few pigs have to swing for them to get the message they brought it on themselves
The EC can work but make it a contest for each electoral vote, and remove the states from the equation entirely. California being safe blue and Texas being safe red don’t matter, each district is counted for one electoral vote, and the states don’t get extra votes anymore.
That just seems like popular vote with extra steps. I’m not sure, but I feel like mathematically there would be no way in which the result of the EC would differ from the popular vote under such a system. I suppose it might still be possible to skew it far enough to shift the outcome using some extreme gerrymandering.
It is a popular vote with extra steps. That’s literally what it is.
The extra steps mean that politicians can’t purely focus on population centers, rural communities would count for the same vote. each district should be of similar population size, and every district counts for one.
each district should be of similar population size, and every district counts for one.
seems to run counter to this:
The extra steps mean that politicians can’t purely focus on population centers, rural communities would count for the same vote.
As an example, lets say you have a rural area with 1000 people in it, and you decide that each district should contain 1000 people, so that entire area is one gigantic district. Nearby you have a city with 10,000 people, so you split the city into 10 districts. That city still counts 10 times what that one giant rural area does. The only way I can see where you could make the rural area count for more is with extreme gerrymandering where you snake little bits of every rural area in to include a chunk of the city population thereby diluting the strength of the cities vote by smearing part of it over the rural areas.
I see absolutely no reason why we should adopt a system that exists solely for the purpose of making gerrymandering possible, and I see no reason why doing things this way would make any difference over just using the popular vote if you aren’t gerrymandering.
Many democracies don’t have the people directly vote on their leader. Parliamentary systems typically have the people voting for a representative who will then vote for the Prime Minister on their behalf.
The feds tax 10% according to the blurb posted with the article. So I fail to see how a state doing it infringes on 2A unless the tax is unreasonably high.
Literally read the first half of the first sentence. “California will ban people from carrying firearms in most public places”
SCOTUS point blank ruled this unconstitutional in the Bruen decision, specifically pointing out banning carry in most public places is unconstitutional.
FFS even he acknowledges what hes doing is unconstitutional “But he acknowledged many of these laws might not survive legal challenges”.
My bad on that. I was just having a debate in another thread with someone on the tax aspect of this new laws so that’s where my mind went when I read your comment.
Their magazine ban just got tossed out (again) and will likely be appealed but is pretty much destined to be tossed out on Bruen grounds. Their carry bill will probably also get tossed but it may take a while. The tax might stick. If I were prognosticating I’d say they’ll eventually try something like “1000% tax on every gun except single shot .22 rifles” and that would presumably be tossed out for its chilling effect, but who knows.
In a way I’m rooting for California. The more gun laws they get appealed all the way to SCOTUS, the more national precedent gets set that these laws are illegal in the whole country.
Instead of tilting at the windmill that is removing the EC how about we do something much easier and simpler and simply expand the House of Representatives? Not only would this add votes to the EC and make the Presidential Elections more representative it would also, you know, make the HoR more Representative! For extra fun it would also diminish the returns of gerrymandering since there would be so many more districts.
All we need is a change to the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929. There is no good reason that the size of the HoR is fixed at 435. None.
In 1929, each representative represented about 283k Americans. Now each representative represent about 762k Americans. That’s almost a 300% increase. This means each American’s voice is only about 1/3rd as powerful as it was in 1929. To have as much political power as they did in 1929, we’d need about 1200 Representatives.
Sure, you just define the problem differently. Instead of saying that there are X representatives in total, you just say there should be 1 representative for every 283K citizens. In this way the number of representatives naturally scales with the population.
This is basically what the Wyoming Rule does. It sets the ratio in the lowest population State, currently Wyoming, as the ratio for everywhere. Wyoming currently has 500,000 people and 1 Representative. That means the HoR would expand to something like 580 Seats.
We could change the math, and the name, to the “1929 Rule” and set the ratio 280,000 to 1. I’m actually fine with an HoR that has 1,200 people in it but either way the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929 needs changed and the HoR needs expanded.
And yet, having more representatives fundamentally reduces the power of each as well. Your vote is fundamentally worth less as the population increases. Something you’re just gonna have to come to terms with.
We can achieve that now through fairness in redistricting.
No you can’t.
Your way doesn’t return the ratio of EC votes between the HoR and the Senate to what it should be. It keeps it stuck in 1929 and every year that goes by makes it worse.
Your way doesn’t scale the number of total EC votes as our population grows.
Your way ALSO doesn’t return the ratio of Citizens to Representatives to anything resembling sanity. Ratios of nearly 800,000 to 1, and growing, are irrational and break Democracy.
You could redistrict the ever loving hell out of the other 49 States but Wyoming would keep it’s 3 EC votes and its outsized vote for President. It would keep it’s outsized influence in the HoR and it would keep it’s ranking as #1 in the Citizen to Representative Ratio.
So much of what everyone hates about our Federal Government today is DIRECTLY tied to a vastly undersized HoR. The body is simply too small to adequately represent a population of over 300,000,000 people.
I hope any person who has to go to trial and this officer is called as a witness uses this as an example as to why they arent a good witness.
“Officer, in 2023 you fatally shot a man after you said he got out of his car and lunged at you with a knife. You later backtracked on this and said he was in his car with the windows up. How can we trust what you have to say if you can’t remember what happened then?”
Alas, his lawyer and the judge would agree on how inadmissable this fact will be. Enjoy getting fucked. Don’t forget to vote to make sure these assholes are the only ones people in town with guns!
There’s actually a registry of cops who have been shown to lie so that their testimony can be disregarded. I hope there’s someone out there who makes this happen for this cop.
I would modify the electoral college rather than get rid of it. Make it so that states are obligated to assign their electoral votes to candidates in proportion to the number of votes received. For example, Maryland might go 60% blue and 40% red, so they would give 6 of their 10 votes to blue and 4 to red.
This would de-emphasize the importance of swing states, not completely disenfranchise rural voters, and would return a result that more closely mirrored the popular vote. It might also pave the way for a 3rd party to be relevant if the stars aligned elsewhere.
Might work for MD size states, but most smaller even EV states would split their EVs evenly, even if the state voted 60/40 one way or the other – while odd EV states would always cast a net vote for the winner.
For example, using the 2020 election numbers Trump would win if the election included only the following states:
AK (R+10) Trump 2-1 Biden
GA (D+0) Trump 8-8 Biden
WI (D+1) Trump 5-5 Biden
PA (D+1) Trump 10-10 Biden
NV (D+2) Trump 3-3 Biden
NH (D+7) Trump 2-2 Biden
ME (D+9) Trump 2-2 Biden
RI (D+20) Trump 2-2 Biden
I don’t know that it’s any nobler to for electoral influence to discriminate on the basis of even states and odd states than swing states vs safe states. Unless you’re also one of the group wanting to expand the legislature until there are no 4 and 6 EV states …
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.