You are denying it, but that is de facto the same thing as saying the rural votes should count more than urban votes. I don't see any other way to interpret your comments. You may not realize this, but that sounds like a dog-whistle.
As you probably know, the electoral college was originally created to benefit the southern states in the context of the 3/5 rule.
I was referring to within state elections which would decide the electoral college votes of said state (barring faithless electors of the EC). The system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best in the world in my opinion.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...po77477/pdf/GOVPUB-Y3_EL2_5-PURL-gpo77477.pdf
You are denying it, but that is de facto the same thing as saying the rural votes should count more than urban votes. I don't see any other way to interpret your comments. You may not realize this, but that sounds like a dog-whistle.
As you probably know, the electoral college was originally created to benefit the southern states in the context of the 3/5 rule.
(Please don’t miss the fact that the citizenry in urban centers eat and depend on what is produced in the rural ones).
Someone smarter and more knowledgeable than me suggested that one fix would be to increase the number of representatives in the House. There is precedence for this, as the number has increased in the past as the population grew. Setting a cap on the current number of representatives on states with larger populations gives more influence to less dense states. In short, it ain't fair.
Well, it's probably time to follow Dennis's example.
A head in a jar would be a better candidate than Trump.
Trump is an empty sack of a human who is a useful tool for others to manipulate. He doesn't know what he is signing when he signs the executive orders and exhibits clear signs of dementia. In his case, the signs are harder to see because he's always been that way, at least according to what his family says about him.
As to comparing him to Kamala and Hillary, we may not like all their policies but those two were light years ahead in their knowledge, experience, accomplishments, and character.
That could help a bit, but the winner-takes-all assignment of electoral votes is also very anti-democratic, IMO. Combined with the +2 each state gets for the senators (regardless of population), the system is absurdly skewed and amenable to manipulation.
I agree with you on all your points, except about Kamala specifically. I'm really surprised so many people still have positive things to say about her. Perhaps in Australia we saw more of her unscripted camera appearances and interviews. US media seemed pretty well choreographed by comparison.
She was done a disservice by her advisors and the democrats playbook. She was a good trooper and kept to the script, which at the time I thought was a mistake. James Carville would likely have gotten her elected had he been given a chance. She was better when she went off script.
BUT, not sure how her worst appearances could compare to Trump trying to drink a glass of water or pronounce simple words or attempt to give a straight answer to any question.
I'm really surprised so many people still have positive things to say about her. Perhaps in Australia we saw more of her unscripted camera appearances and interviews. US media seemed pretty well choreographed by comparison.
The last adjustment in the number of representatives was in 1913, when the population was less than 1/3 of what it is now.
I've seen lots of her unscripted via social media, independent new sites, etc. Almost all in fact as I don't subscribe to cable TV or any news channels. I would confidently say much more than you have as I closely followed not just this past election but also the previous including the primaries for those. I disagree with your opinion.
One of the biggest scams in America is this notion that a bunch of guys in wigs 200+ years ago got the rules for governing 99.9% right. Even if they themselves didn't believe that. The fact that we haven't adopted changes for modern times throws off the balance of power which goes against a main pillar they established in the first place.
Trump's tariff policies seem to highlight the extent of his incoherent, chaotic incompetence (or those advising him). There’s no genius or master plan behind those eyes. He started a massive trade war that working-class Americans will pay for, against an adversary that only needs to be patient to win.
I agree with you on all your points, except about Kamala specifically. I'm really surprised so many people still have positive things to say about her. Perhaps in Australia we saw more of her unscripted camera appearances and interviews. US media seemed pretty well choreographed by comparison.
You obviously flunked history.
I'm beginning to delve into American history a little bit.
One of my nieces got me to watch a show recently.
I'm ashamed to admit that I'd never realised that your founding fathers were all of African-American descent. It was also interesting to learn that everyone conversed through song rather than speech. I'm looking forward to the next episode.
Can you elaborate on what specific policies she was putting forward that made her a poor candidate?
I'm beginning to delve into American history a little bit.
One of my nieces got me to watch a show recently.
I'm ashamed to admit that I'd never realised that your founding fathers were all of African-American descent. It was also interesting to learn that everyone conversed through song rather than speech. I'm looking forward to the next episode.
