Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

bingo

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152

This was the person who Ford supposedly helped coach how to beat a Polygraph.

 

I think it was clear what he said - that people are more important than areas and in 2 of the last 5 presidential elections - the minority of people (but majority of land/states) set the president.

The constitution off course has amendments - because it is not perfect - and the point is that the need to value population of remote areas is less of an issue in an age of supersonic flights and instantaneous information access - so giving more weight to sparsely populated areas is something that might not be that important.

History has shown that repeated rule of minority is fragile and likely to cause discontent - and in my opinion we are starting to see it.

 

I don't think its a matter of giving more weight to sparsely populated area's but giving them some representation thats based against population and the amount of electorates.
I certainly would want the SW & NE determining policy and representation just because they are in heavily populated areas.

 

I get what was said. But I do not see it changing nor do I think it should. I do not see convincing the majority in 38 States to give totally control to 5 or 6. The country might break up with States leaving. It could be possible. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits States leaving, although I am sure that would become a mess again.

California has made the most noise like this. It would be most interesting to see how the small geographic areas that make up the liberal majority, mostly around San Fransisco County with lessor strength in the LA basin, would drag the other 90% of the geographic area along with them through a squabble with the Federal government over the cost Federal property and other points of contention.
I do not see the populations around the major Military bases in the state, agreeing to secede from the US and pay the cost to boot.
We have already seen San Diego county with drawning from supporting California policies are in conflict with Federal policy.

 

You are once again giving too much weight to location. All I am saying is that it makes sense to me to have equal weight for every individual's vote, regardless of where he or she lives. Just because a lot of people live in a certain area does not mean they all vote the same...

 

Are you telling me that SO Cal isn't primarily demo and Texas isn't primarily Repub?
There are areas where that lean one way over another big time.

 

Oh, I doubt it will happen as well, I still think that it shows a weakness of the constitution - which should be amended because times have changed. Do I believe it will? Not anytime soon if ever. Do I think that there will be issues going forward? I sure do - if the majority of people need to align themselves to a minority rule for long periods of time - history has shown us that unrest is sure to follow.

I understand all of this. I still think that a country who's independence declaration includes the "all men are created equal" phrase is yet to achieve that goal when the vote of each person is not the same.

 

So what? If every vote in Texas is worth exactly 1 vote - why does it matter where it originated from? Same with California. The minority of Democrats in Arizona will have their vote count just as the minority Republicans in California will. The do not now. The same is true for the majority in either place (or as it seems, the entire country).

1 person, 1 vote. The argument was, and still is, that not everyone's vote is worth the same given the electoral vote system - which made a lot of sense when the constitution was written but less so today.

 

If you gave each State a number of Senators commensurate with their population, and changed the Presidential election to the total popular vote, I don't believe the concept of the United States makes any sense. I expect it would surely cease to be, probably before the change could somehow be put into effect.

 

It hasn't happened all that many times. And this time, California accounts for the complete unbalance.
It may become more pronounced if the most populace states continue to grow disproportional. Perhaps one or two most populace states need to split into two, perhaps even three. Redistribute the Senatorial count and the electoral votes more equitably by adding a few and still leave all areas of the whole Nation in play.

 

I am pretty certain that someone said the same about slavery and women rights before as well and I reject that idea completely. An idea that does not change with the times is one that will not continue to survive.

But, more specifically - I would actually not change anything about the senate. I think the senate and congress make a lot of sense as a check and balance mechanism. I do not think the electoral vote however for presidential elections makes sense anymore.

 

Why? Does a republican that moves to California automatically starts voting Democrat? That's an absurd idea. Equal presidential weight vote for everyone removes the geography completely from the equation.

 

>>> I doubt that would happen.

>>> If you mean the above, you may be correct.

>>> Thus the point of Creating more States of the States with the very largest populations. Cal probably should be three states.

 

You just said 2 posts above that San Diego with it's military population that mostly comes from out of California is more conservative. I think you might have broken an in-thread record for contradicting yourself here, my friend.

No, it does not, unless you create a state around every person - the inherent mathematical problem of the electoral vote is such that not every vote is the same - because I can assure you that there are still some Republican that live in San Francisco just as there are some Democrats that live in Imperial County.

 

...sounds like Senator Susan Collins will vote yes.

 

Well I won't argue the point with you, Wyoming voters have always been heavier than anyone else.
As a matter of fact the 13 smallest states have a totally of about 1/4 the population of California but with 44 electoral votes to Cals 55.

They exceed Texas' 38 votes by 6 with about 40% the population.

Probably no way to totally balance the value, but changing the election from and election from among the states to a simple popular count nation wide would not be beneficial in my view nor possible to pull off.