Politics

Now that Satan's minions are back in charge of Congress, they are trying to move the goal posts yet again
There is a proposal going around a bunch of states signing on to propose an amendment to award the electoral college votes of that state to the winner of the states popular vote, thereby, trying to circumvent the electoral college process.

Good luck with that.

Brent in Az said:

There is a proposal going around a bunch of states signing on to propose an amendment to award the electoral college votes of that state to the winner of the states popular vote, thereby, trying to circumvent the electoral college process.

Click to expand...

It already is that State's popular vote. I think you mean the National popular vote.

States have the right to award their electors however they choose. If they enact state legislation that says they are awarded to the winner of the national popular vote it will be an interesting legal case. I believe 22 states agave already enacted the compact which goes into effect once a majority have enacted it.

Tanks said:

It already is that State's popular vote. I think you mean the National popular vote.

Click to expand...

The presidential ticket. It's the only one that uses electorals , yes? Need 270 to win

Brent in Az said:

The presidential ticket. It's the only one that uses electorals , yes? Need 270 to win

Click to expand...

Russ16 said:

States have the right to award their electors however they choose. If they enact state legislation that says they are awarded to the winner of the national popular vote it will be an interesting legal case. I believe 22 states agave already enacted the compact which goes into effect once a majority have enacted it.

Click to expand...

Russ16 said:

States have the right to award their electors however they choose. If they enact state legislation that says they are awarded to the winner of the national popular vote it will be an interesting legal case. I believe 22 states agave already enacted the compact which goes into effect once a majority have enacted it.

Click to expand...

Tanks said:

It already is that State's popular vote. I think you mean the National popular vote.

Click to expand...

Brent in Az said:

Now that Satan's minions are back in charge of Congress, they are trying to move the goal posts yet again
There is a proposal going around a bunch of states signing on to propose an amendment to award the electoral college votes of that state to the winner of the states popular vote, thereby, trying to circumvent the electoral college process.

Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

This Democrat party initiative, which speaks volumes in and of itself, has quietly been gaining momentum for several years. It is an interstate pact designed to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the highest number of overall popular votes across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. It has been largely ignored to date, but the recent election which flipped a number of republican states will bring it into sharp focus (especially potentially Texas).

Currently 18 states have become part of this combact where states pass identical laws binding their state's presidential electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of their individual state's vote. Under this state law, it remains inactive until it is adopted by a cumulative group of states holding at least 270 votes. Currently, those 18 states represent 222 electoral votes. Once 270 is reached, the presidential election will become a popular vote contest giving enormous power to the nation's most densely populated regions.

A majority of Americans likely believe that this is only "fair" without realizing it is absolutely destructive to the core tenants of the republican form of government created by the founders. Those men rightly feared the tyranny of the majority in a true democracy. The very real effect of this law is to disenfranchises the expressed will of the citizens of a given state in favor of the will of a national majority. The regional, cultural and economic fears that drove the creation of this form of our government are as great or greater today than they were in 1788. At least with respect to the presidency, that construct could now be legally ignored, because such a compact would hand the power to choose the president to the densely populated and densely democrat urban coasts. At least five presidents would not have won, including Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016.

Even more critical than the simple determination of an election, think for a moment how little the interests of a state like Oklahoma, or Mississippi, or Montana will mean to a presidential platform when only the vote count rather than the electoral college is what matters. Those interests, like hunting, the 2d amendment, access to federal lands, ecological tyranny, etc, etc, will be of little interest to any candidate of any party trying to maximise the votes of greater New York and LA.

It is worth remembering that Texas, with its new Democrat governor, has forty electoral votes.

Tanks said:

DNA is not irrefutable, ask the OJ Simpson jury.

Click to expand...

That glove DID NOT fit hahah

Red Leg said:

Even more critical than the simple determination of an election, think for a moment how little the interests of a state like Oklahoma, or Mississippi, or Montana will mean to a presidential platform when only the vote count rather than the electoral college is what matters.

Click to expand...

Setting aside the tyranny of the minority for the moment, your example is flawed because the states you have listed largely don't matter anyways. Most modern presidential elections now hinge on winning a few select "swing states." The interests of those states are now substantially overrepresented.

Additionally, if you're so concerned with what the founders intended back in 1788, there are currently ~700,000 American's living in DC under a federal taxation system without voting representation in congress. Not to mention those living in various other territories. I've yet to see those on the right express any concern for them. Remind me again, what did the founding fathers think about taxation without representation?

Big_Easy said:

Setting aside the tyranny of the minority for the moment, your example is flawed because the states you have listed largely don't matter anyways. Most modern presidential elections now hinge on winning a few select "swing states." The interests of those states are now substantially overrepresented.

Additionally, if you're so concerned with what the founders intended back in 1788, there are currently ~700,000 American's living in DC under a federal taxation system without voting representation in congress. Not to mention those living in various other territories. I've yet to see those on the right express any concern for them. Remind me again, what did the founding fathers think about taxation without represent

Click to expand...

You need to work on that history thing a bit. As I have noted before, I do not take you seriously any more than I do the name callers on the right in this discussion. Your comments are a good and predictable example why.

Specifically, why should we set aside the tyranny of the majority issue? It is the absolute heart of the concern with which the founders struggled in creating the republic. Your attitudes and those of the hard right in this discussion simply illustrate their profound wisdom. I do not want either of you in charge without my influence.

Thankfully, our nation's small states do matter enormously. Every electoral victory is built upon a coalition of states and their electors. Presidential candidates and their parties must consider those interests in order to win. Democrats like Bill Clinton understood that. Harris not so much. You apparently not at all.

The idea of you and your ilk deciding what is best for me on my small ranch here in Texas is almost as ridiculous as me dictating your life among your liberal friends in the new North Carolina.

With regard to DC, you are correct. From a presidential perspective, I truly do not care. However, they have the opportunity to vote for a mayor. Based upon the last several decades and most recent election, they can not even manage to do the wisely.

Red Leg said:

Specifically, why should we set aside the tyranny of the majority issue?

Click to expand...

My comment was with regards to the tyranny of the minority, not the majority. Specifically the filibuster in the senate. It's not part of the original form of government, so if we're getting back to the original vision, time for that to go. But that's a separate discussion.

The electoral college was also established for other reasons as well, not only concerns regarding the tyranny of the majority. The founders were concerned that ordinary voters could be easily manipulated by prejudices, passions, or a demagogue appealing to public fears...now who does that sound like? Also to insulate the process from "cabals, intrigue, corruption, and foreign influence." - Federalist No 68.

Kinda like when Trump attempted to use public tax dollars to bribe/solicit interference in his favor during an election from a foreign power? Or perhaps when he incited a seditious mob to stop the counting of the votes from the very electoral college you are advocating for? If the electoral college can't stop such a man, what purpose does it truly serve?

Red Leg said:

I do not want either of you in charge without my influence.

Click to expand...

The question isn't if the minority has influence, its how much do they have, and is it an outsized amount?

Red Leg said:

Thankfully, our nation's small states do matter enormously.

Click to expand...

88% of all TV ad spending is spent in 6 battleground states. 96% of presidential candidate campaign events occur in only 12 states...You need to work on your math skills.

Red Leg said:

From a presidential perspective, I truly do not care.

Click to expand...

This goes to my greater point. Your concern for "the core tenants of our republican form of government created by the founders" is only skin deep. You're only distressed when it's politically favorable for you to be so. The electoral college doesn't even function as originally intended anyways. It's no longer a group of "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice," as Hamilton wrote in Federalist No 68. They are now nothing more than a rubber stamp by a political party.

In roughly half the states a faithless elector can be fined, penalized, their vote nullified, and/or immediately replaced. Is that what the founding fathers had in mind? Your argument would hold more weight if the process wasn't already a faint echo of its former self. If you want to advocate for an originalist vision, champion for restoring the electoral college to its originally intended purpose. Not just because it suites you politically.

Red Leg said:

Based upon the last several decades and most recent election, they can not even manage to do the wisely.

Click to expand...

Who's trying to dictate what is best for who now?

Altitude sickness said:

Even if it’s only a $20,000 raise. At your stated 24% tax bracket it’s not a couple hundred. I’m sure you can do this simple math in your head.

Show me your work please

Click to expand...

Challenge accepted. But first, some history and definitions...If you recall from @Hunter-Habib 's post above:

"The common Democratic rhetoric “Tax the rich” is absolutely abominable. It removes the motivation to work hard."

He referenced Democrats wanting to "Tax the Rich." Which one presumes is their efforts to increase marginal tax rates on larger incomes.

My wife's new job this year pays $34,000 more than her prior one. The result is we are now in a 24% MFJ tax bracket, vs a 22% MFJ tax bracket now. 24%-22% = 2%. The marginal increase in our taxes would be $34,000 x 0.02 = $680. Paying the federal government an additional $680 per year does not in any way remove the motivation for her to work harder. (That also assumes that the entire amount is subject to a higher tax bracket, which it is not).

Even if you/he are referring to the total amount of taxes we would pay on the increase; 24%(fed) + 3.5%(state) + 7.65%(fica)...That's still $11,951 in taxes. Net amount to us is $22,049.

Is your/his hypothesis that in order to prevent the federal/state tax man from collecting $11,951 in revenue, that we would forgo $22,049 in additional income? I can tell you that is not going to happen.

fourfive8 said:

while you hide in keyboard land

Click to expand...

You realize that we're both using a keyboard right?...Unless your talk-to-text skills are just that good?

fourfive8 said:

A loyal commie-socialist minion you certainly are.

Click to expand...

“My wife's new job this year pays $34,000 more than her prior one. The result is we are now in a 24% MFJ tax bracket, vs a 22% MFJ tax bracket now. 24%-22% = 2%. The marginal increase in our taxes would be $34,000 x 0.02 = $680. Paying the federal government an additional $680 per year does not in any way remove the motivation for her to work harder. (That also assumes that the entire amount is subject to a higher tax bracket, which it is not).”

How did you get the IRS to tax the increased wages at 2% and not 24% ?

My taxes are based on total income earned. Not stratified at each pay increase.

deewayne2003 said:

Bukele turns El Salvador from the most violent to safest country in South America; now he’s side questing into Haiti and the locals are celebrating in the streets.

Click to expand...

Now the Haitian gang leader is sending letters to the UN asking for peace to be negotiated between gangs and El Salvador.

Big_Easy said:

You realize that we're both using a keyboard right?...Unless your talk-to-text skills are just that good?

View attachment 806534

Click to expand...

If you are waiting for Red Leg to moderate anything on this site, it will be a very long wait indeed.

Big_Easy said:

You realize that we're both using a keyboard right?...Unless your talk-to-text skills are just that good?

View attachment 806534

Click to expand...

And interesting editorial about the recent conservative win in BC, and how they succeeded not by watering down the platform, but by toning down the aggression.

Red Leg said:

This Democrat party initiative, which speaks volumes in and of itself, has quietly been gaining momentum for several years. It is an interstate pact designed to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the highest number of overall popular votes across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. It has been largely ignored to date, but the recent election which flipped a number of republican states will bring it into sharp focus (especially potentially Texas).

Currently 18 states have become part of this combact where states pass identical laws binding their state's presidential electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of their individual state's vote. Under this state law, it remains inactive until it is adopted by a cumulative group of states holding at least 270 votes. Currently, those 18 states represent 222 electoral votes. Once 270 is reached, the presidential election will become a popular vote contest giving enormous power to the nation's most densely populated regions.

A majority of Americans likely believe that this is only "fair" without realizing it is absolutely destructive to the core tenants of the republican form of government created by the founders. Those men rightly feared the tyranny of the majority in a true democracy. The very real effect of this law is to disenfranchises the expressed will of the citizens of a given state in favor of the will of a national majority. The regional, cultural and economic fears that drove the creation of this form of our government are as great or greater today than they were in 1788. At least with respect to the presidency, that construct could now be legally ignored, because such a compact would hand the power to choose the president to the densely populated and densely democrat urban coasts. At least five presidents would not have won, including Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016.

Even more critical than the simple determination of an election, think for a moment how little the interests of a state like Oklahoma, or Mississippi, or Montana will mean to a presidential platform when only the vote count rather than the electoral college is what matters. Those interests, like hunting, the 2d amendment, access to federal lands, ecological tyranny, etc, etc, will be of little interest to any candidate of any party trying to maximise the votes of greater New York and LA.

It is worth remembering that Texas, with its new Democrat governor, has forty electoral votes.

Click to expand...

Both sides of the political divide are slipping back a few centuries to Thomas Hobbes. Everyone wants a Leviathan to make the world better for them. How incredibly regressive. But uncertainty is scary and democracy is hard.