• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Biden Presidency Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.

SezMe

post-pre-born
SezMe
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
25,183
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Last edited by a moderator:
Captain_Swoop said:
Fox outraged that Biden didn't mention God in his National Day of Prayer 'proclamation.'

Plus Obama only made 1 or 2 references.

Trump however made 11 references last year and 7 the year before, he's a 'true' believer and christian.
Biden is anti god and not fit to be president.
Click to expand...

I always love this one. Clearly we should just abolish elections and measure how often someone who wants to be president says "God" or "Jesus" and they get to lead the executive branch.
 
bruto said:
Don't forget the flag pin requirement too, though. Gotta remember to put on your flag pin!
Click to expand...

Just one? What would you think of a candidate that just did the bare minimum?
 
acbytesla said:
Here, let me give you a concrete example. The most populous State in the country is California California has 39,510,000 citizens. It has a total of 53 Congressional districts. Wyoming is the least populous state with a hair under 579,000 citizens. It has one Congressional district.

Go back and read the Constitution. There never was a cap and representation was supposed to grow with the population. In fact, under the rules of the Constitution there would be thousands of Congressional districts not just 435. Population was supposed to be represented.

To get back to a fairer system I propose that we eliminate the cap and make each district equal the population size of the least populous state. That would mean 579,000 citizens in Wyoming would have the same representation as 579,000 citizens in California. As it stands today 579,000 citizens in Wyoming equals 745,471 citizens in California. California should have 68 districts. This not only makes a difference in Congress, it impacts the Electoral College.

It's worse than that as that 579,000 citizens of Wyoming get two Senators. The Dems can't do anything about the Senators since that is in the Constitution but an act of Congress can change the way districting works.
Click to expand...

You just don't get the whole federaism..a balance of power between the central goverment and the states...thing do you?
You seem to want the feds to take over a lot of things state and local governments now do, reducing them to a administrative convience for the central goverment. Count me out on that one.
I agree the gerrymandering is outrageous, but am concerned a federal takeover of the elections might be a cure as bad as the disease.
 
Biden has a major foreign policy issue on his hands with the Russian cyberattack on the pipeline. This is a major escalation in the cyberwar. He is going to have to strike back someway.
 
dudalb said:
You just don't get the whole federaism..a balance of power between the central goverment and the states...thing do you?
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly and think it's

A) Stupid
B) Should have gone away after half the states broke off and tried to fight a war over their right to own other human beings.

California's 40 million people should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be forced to be equal to Wyoming's *checks notes* 1.5 Indianapolis Motor Speedways at full capacity population.
 
dudalb said:
You just don't get the whole federaism..a balance of power between the central goverment and the states...thing do you?
You seem to want the feds to take over a lot of things state and local governments now do, reducing them to a administrative convience for the central goverment. Count me out on that one.
I agree the gerrymandering is outrageous, but am concerned a federal takeover of the elections might be a cure as bad as the disease.
Click to expand...

So I will put you down as on the against voting rights act side. That kind of federal overreach is exactly what we don't need and we should be glad that the supreme court ended that foolishness.
 
dudalb said:
You just don't get the whole federaism..a balance of power between the central goverment and the states...thing do you?
You seem to want the feds to take over a lot of things state and local governments now do, reducing them to a administrative convience for the central goverment. Count me out on that one.
I agree the gerrymandering is outrageous, but am concerned a federal takeover of the elections might be a cure as bad as the disease.
Click to expand...
The proposal to set the size in population of congressional districts equal to that of the least populated state doesn't include the feds taking over anything from the states. The Feds already decide how many people are in a congressional district, if I'm not mistaken.

It's also doesn't take things away from the states, especially since the states are effected unequally by the current status (Wyoming has fewer people per district while California has more people per district).

The Constitution gives the Feds the power to determine a lot about elections, although the Feds can screw it up just like the states can.
 
I'm a radical because I think there's probably an imbalance of power at the Federal Level if a state can have exactly as many Senators as it has ******* ESCALTORS.
 
The system as it now stands is unfair both to many in urban areas in some ways, and to rural areas in others. It is, of course, unfair in a population sense that Vermont has two senators, and even our one representative is a bit out of proportion.

At the same time, in presidential elections, owing to the way electoral votes are bundled, every vote in Vermont is virtually guaranteed to be meaningless. If, for example, in Florida or another big winner-take-all state, the balance is near 50/50 and the voters in one electoral district vote one way by a slim majority, all that State's electoral votes go to the winner. While it's not always all that close, in theory a handful of people in one town in Florida can outvote my state by a factor of nearly ten (we have 3, they have 29).

So "one man one vote" is messed up in both directions.

I can understand a reluctance to give up States' rights, but at the same time a lot of the system was based on a free versus slave compromise, and at a time when communication and centralization were a lot different. We shouldn't need to appease the slave owners any more, and we shouldn't need to account for the time it takes for a horse to get from one place to another.
 
Paul2 said:
The proposal to set the size in population of congressional districts equal to that of the least populated state doesn't include the feds taking over anything from the states. The Feds already decide how many people are in a congressional district, if I'm not mistaken.
It's also doesn't take things away from the states, especially since the states are effected unequally by the current status (Wyoming has fewer people per district while California has more people per district).

The Constitution gives the Feds the power to determine a lot about elections, although the Feds can screw it up just like the states can.
Click to expand...

Only indirectly. The states get a certain number of districts allocated to them, but the states divide the state up into districts.
 
bruto said:
At the same time, in presidential elections, owing to the way electoral votes are bundled, every vote in Vermont is virtually guaranteed to be meaningless. If, for example, in Florida or another big winner-take-all state, the balance is near 50/50 and the voters in one electoral district vote one way by a slim majority, all that State's electoral votes go to the winner. While it's not always all that close, in theory a handful of people in one town in Florida can outvote my state by a factor of nearly ten (we have 3, they have 29).
Click to expand...


Yeah, and this "Winner takes all" system almost all the states use is part of the problem. It amplifies small differences so much that small differences dominate the electoral landscape.

If they assigned Electoral College votes in proportion to the popular vote in each state, the EC would be much less of a problem, I think.
 
Horatius said:
Yeah, and this "Winner takes all" system almost all the states use is part of the problem. It amplifies small differences so much that small differences dominate the electoral landscape.

If they assigned Electoral College votes in proportion to the popular vote in each state, the EC would be much less of a problem, I think.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that would help or hurt really. It would lose the democrats a lot of EC votes in big states while picking up fewer from small states and the small state individual voters would be worth a lot more.


Though we wouldn't be able to say the election turned on x votes in this state or what have you.
 
It nearly always comes down to the same kinda Catch-22.

Any party with the power to change the election process has been elected through that process, and therefore has less motivation to change it.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I don't know if that would help or hurt really. It would lose the democrats a lot of EC votes in big states while picking up fewer from small states and the small state individual voters would be worth a lot more.





Though we wouldn't be able to say the election turned on x votes in this state or what have you.
Click to expand...
While the Democrats might lose EC votes in places like NY/California, Republicans would lose them in vote-rich Texas and Florida. And since the Republican margin of victory was much slimmer in those states than the Democrats in NY/California, the republicans would have less chance to pick up seats.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
 
Segnosaur said:
While the Democrats might lose EC votes in places like NY/California, Republicans would lose them in vote-rich Texas and Florida. And since the Republican margin of victory was much slimmer in those states than the Democrats in NY/California, the republicans would have less chance to pick up seats.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yea, I am just not sure who would come out ahead by the system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom