We should just have a direct vote. Yes this is an attempt to throw electoral votes and swing the election, but the entire electoral system is rigged. Throw it out. Direct vote.

I don't know why we continue to put up with it. But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate.

But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate

That makes me sad. It used to be taught in high school civics when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the peanut farmer from Georgia was in the White House.

MFAWG: But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate

That makes me sad. It used to be taught in high school civics when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the peanut farmer from Georgia was in the White House.

Rhode Island is probably a bad example. A better example is some of the very sparsely populated midwestern states which manage to pull in ridiculous farm subsidies year after year due to there Senate representation.

Well, that's different. A Republican governor actually backing down over public backlash? Or is it something more?

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Alphax: Well, that's different. A Republican governor actually backing down over public backlash? Or is it something more?

He's distracted. People are starting to notice that while he's basking in the headlines on the Sandusky case now as governor prior to that he was the Attorney General for eight years and softpedaled the investigation.

Plus he hates talking to the press, so when they ask him "Hey, you were the state's top cop and you knew Sandusky was banging pre-teen boys yet you dragged your feet until the big donor checks were cashed -- and just last year you gave Sandusky's charity $3 million in tax dollars while the investigation and grand jury was in full swing -- would you like to explain ANY of that?" he takes off so fast he makes Usain Bolt look like Nell Carter.

Ah, OK. I've not followed the Sandusky case much.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Today they're redrawing legislative districts...

Speaking of that... Isn't there some sort of deadline mandated to complete redistricting?

/sorry, can't really research right now

Kibbler: We should just have a direct vote. Yes this is an attempt to throw electoral votes and swing the election, but the entire electoral system is rigged. Throw it out. Direct vote.

I don't know why we continue to put up with it. But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate.

As a practical matter, direct election of the president would open the possibility of having a nationwide recount. That would make the Florida recount of 2000 look like a church picnic.

As to why Rhode Island is equal to California, it is because they are each sovereign states. Before the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment the states had a voice in the federal government. If you abolished the Two-Senators-Per-State structure you might as well eliminate the states completely.

Alphax: Well, that's different. A Republican governor actually backing down over public backlash? Or is it something more?

Pennsylvania is weirdly purple. Something like this would lose them a lot of support, and possibly turn us solid blue. He doesn't want to see a new Democratic state legislature and governor turn back everything they've been doing, on top of the US House losses the Republicans would suffer.

The last thing he wants is for his party to have NJ GOP levels of relevance.

Altman: MFAWG: But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate

That makes me sad. It used to be taught in high school civics when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the peanut farmer from Georgia was in the White House.

Rhode Island is probably a bad example. A better example is some of the very sparsely populated midwestern states which manage to pull in ridiculous farm subsidies year after year due to there Senate representation.

Nope, it's still the same reason. If only there was some sort of vast repository of knowledge available where one could find out why these things are so, a 'Web' of information.

Idiots, THIS is how the electoral college is SUPPOSED TO WORK!... Now, the redistricting so that 12 of them definitly go to republicans, well perhaps not... But over all the electoral college isn't supposed to be giving ALL of a states votes to a single candidate.

Kibbler: We should just have a direct vote. Yes this is an attempt to throw electoral votes and swing the election, but the entire electoral system is rigged. Throw it out. Direct vote.

I don't know why we continue to put up with it. But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate.

Yes because mob rule is a great idea. Sorry but I would rather have a dictator, emperor or king, than begin a full fledged move to mass democracy. Democratic-Republics are fine, but eventually we would end up with total mob rule.

siphra: Idiots, THIS is how the electoral college is SUPPOSED TO WORK!... Now, the redistricting so that 12 of them definitly go to republicans, well perhaps not... But over all the electoral college isn't supposed to be giving ALL of a states votes to a single candidate.

Actually, the Electoral College is supposed to work however the individual state wants it to work. Further evidence that the Constitution envisions sovereign states and the the Seventeenth Amendment was a mistake.

I wonder how many people realize that they don't have a right to vote for the president and only can because their state's legislature has decided to allow them do so?

I'm from North Carolina so I always get a good hardy laugh when Democrats complain about 'gerrymandering' on the part of Republicans. Back in the 90s the Democrats had to be taken to court twice over their gerrymandering in this state and once our representative at the time, Eva Clayton, figured out that she was no longer going to be able to win she spent her last year in office telling every constituent she had that they weren't her problem anymore and could go straight to hell.

Kibbler: I don't know why we continue to put up with it. But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate.

I believe this settled under the connecticut compromise put forward by madison in the 1780s(I was paying attention Mrs. Kamp, see?) as a solution to potential disagreements between populous states and less populous states. States like Georgia were afraid that smaller states would constrain them so a bicamural form of representation was chosen that relied on the house representation being based on population and the senate representation based on status as being a state.

So there you have it, basic grade school civics wins the day again.

siphra: Idiots, THIS is how the electoral college is SUPPOSED TO WORK!... Now, the redistricting so that 12 of them definitly go to republicans, well perhaps not... But over all the electoral college isn't supposed to be giving ALL of a states votes to a single candidate.

Personally, I like what a bunch of states have done.

Rather than get a Constitutional Convention together, or wait for Congress to be able to agree on such things as what time of day it is, states are passing laws that say: "When states representing 273+ Electoral Votes pass this law, all our states' EVs will go to the winner of the national popular vote."

Let's actually take the country back, and give the minority back their chance to object to the majority's rules via the filibuster (before the laws get passed) or courts (after).

As it stands, 11 states can pick the new leader, and that is undemocratic like a mutherfocker. If 50%+1 of eligible voters live in those 11 states and cast votes for Yelnick McWawa, I have far less of a problem.

Wellon Dowd: siphra: Idiots, THIS is how the electoral college is SUPPOSED TO WORK!... Now, the redistricting so that 12 of them definitly go to republicans, well perhaps not... But over all the electoral college isn't supposed to be giving ALL of a states votes to a single candidate.

Actually, the Electoral College is supposed to work however the individual state wants it to work. Further evidence that the Constitution envisions sovereign states and the the Seventeenth Amendment was a mistake.

I wonder how many people realize that they don't have a right to vote for the president and only can because their state's legislature has decided to allow them do so?

Yes true, but every state in the beginning allowed the electoral college to split the vote, which is how it should work. And TBH I don't want people voting directly for the president, people who for the most part don't actually know, or care on a day to day basis what they are voting for. Politically the vast majority are undereducated (cast blame where you will). Not that they shouldn't have *A* vote, but that there needs to be some type of checks in place. Ideally if the EC works the way it should IT becomes that check. But by and large both parties are taking advantage of the fact that most people who vote are idiots. You couldn't likely swing a vote in any direction with the politically educated voting specifically in that direction. Because of this you get two camps, preying on fears of the un-informed.

YES the EC needs some work, this is one thing that should be considered in every state.

Wellon Dowd: siphra: Idiots, THIS is how the electoral college is SUPPOSED TO WORK!... Now, the redistricting so that 12 of them definitly go to republicans, well perhaps not... But over all the electoral college isn't supposed to be giving ALL of a states votes to a single candidate.

Actually, the Electoral College is supposed to work however the individual state wants it to work. Further evidence that the Constitution envisions sovereign states and the the Seventeenth Amendment was a mistake.

I wonder how many people realize that they don't have a right to vote for the president and only can because their state's legislature has decided to allow them do so?

This.

Honestly, if this had succeeded, what is the over/under on a state eventually saying "all delegates go to whichever candidate wins the most counties?"

I remember all the fun e-mails explaining how McCain was robbed and Bush won in a landslide when you look at a map showing voting patterns by county and don't take population into account.

Wellon Dowd: siphra: Idiots, THIS is how the electoral college is SUPPOSED TO WORK!... Now, the redistricting so that 12 of them definitly go to republicans, well perhaps not... But over all the electoral college isn't supposed to be giving ALL of a states votes to a single candidate.

Actually, the Electoral College is supposed to work however the individual state wants it to work. Further evidence that the Constitution envisions sovereign states and the the Seventeenth Amendment was a mistake.

I wonder how many people realize that they don't have a right to vote for the president and only can because their state's legislature has decided to allow them do so?

Going back to those days would force voters to consider national implications when selecting the representatives that they want to handle local issues. It also subjects the selection of senators to gerrymandering.

Even in the absence of gerrymandering, it is more likely than not that a state whose popular vote is 50/50 lib/conservative will end up with a 40/60 lib/conservative split considering the current rural/urban gulf in the electorate.

randomjsa: I'm from North Carolina so I always get a good hardy laugh when Democrats complain about 'gerrymandering' on the part of Republicans. Back in the 90s the Democrats had to be taken to court twice over their gerrymandering in this state and once our representative at the time, Eva Clayton, figured out that she was no longer going to be able to win she spent her last year in office telling every constituent she had that they weren't her problem anymore and could go straight to hell.

You're from North Carolina, so you think that Gerrymandering was bad when Democrats tried to do it, but now you're in favor of it when Republicans are doing it?

Gerrymandering is either bad or it's not, you're the literal definition of a partisan hypocrite.

Dr Dreidel: siphra: Idiots, THIS is how the electoral college is SUPPOSED TO WORK!... Now, the redistricting so that 12 of them definitly go to republicans, well perhaps not... But over all the electoral college isn't supposed to be giving ALL of a states votes to a single candidate.

Personally, I like what a bunch of states have done.

Rather than get a Constitutional Convention together, or wait for Congress to be able to agree on such things as what time of day it is, states are passing laws that say: "When states representing 273+ Electoral Votes pass this law, all our states' EVs will go to the winner of the national popular vote."

Let's actually take the country back, and give the minority back their chance to object to the majority's rules via the filibuster (before the laws get passed) or courts (after).

As it stands, 11 states can pick the new leader, and that is undemocratic like a mutherfocker. If 50%+1 of eligible voters live in those 11 states and cast votes for Yelnick McWawa, I have far less of a problem.

National Popular Vote will make elections more expensive than they already were. Much more expensive. I simply don't see a need. We've had about 60 Presidential elections and the popular vote winner has only lost 3 times IIRC, and none of those times did that person have an outright majority of the popular vote, rather they had a plurality. So the cure is worse than the disease.

Wellon Dowd: As to why Rhode Island is equal to California, it is because they are each sovereign states. Before the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment the states had a voice in the federal government. If you abolished the Two-Senators-Per-State structure you might as well eliminate the states completely.

A better question would be why the House of Representatives is no longer representative of state's relative populations. I think it's great that the Senate provides equal representation among the states although I'd like to see it go back to state legislatures electing the senators. Clearly popular election of state senators has not been good for the sanity and operation of that house of congress.

Kibbler: We should just have a direct vote. Yes this is an attempt to throw electoral votes and swing the election, but the entire electoral system is rigged. Throw it out. Direct vote.

The problem is, you can't really do it piecemeal like this. For a switch to a direct vote to work, the whole nation needs to do it at once.

As for this legislation, I disagree with the overdramatization of the legislation "rigging the election", but it's pretty clear that the governor's objective is simply to turn as much of his state red as possible, not to better represent the people or any of that jazz. It would appear the Republicans have simply given up on the very idea of even competing in the cities.

randomjsa: Oh yeah? Well, DEMOCRATS BAD!!!!

Yes, I see. Thanks for the insightful analysis

The Homer Tax: randomjsa: I'm from North Carolina so I always get a good hardy laugh when Democrats complain about 'gerrymandering' on the part of Republicans. Back in the 90s the Democrats had to be taken to court twice over their gerrymandering in this state and once our representative at the time, Eva Clayton, figured out that she was no longer going to be able to win she spent her last year in office telling every constituent she had that they weren't her problem anymore and could go straight to hell.

You're from North Carolina, so you think that Gerrymandering was bad when Democrats tried to do it, but now you're in favor of it when Republicans are doing it?

Gerrymandering is either bad or it's not, you're the literal definition of a partisan hypocrite.

I'm from North Carolina and the shiat the Republicans pulled this time was just as bad as what the Democrats did before. Both sides pull this shiat and it should not be up to them to do it. There should be a defined way to divide up districts so as not to include any bias.

Cheesus: I'm from North Carolina and the shiat the Republicans pulled this time was just as bad as what the Democrats did before. Both sides pull this shiat and it should not be up to them to do it. There should be a defined way to divide up districts so as not to include any bias.

This This Thisy This This.

There is just way too much of a conflict of interest.

GentDirkly: Dr Dreidel: siphra: Idiots, THIS is how the electoral college is SUPPOSED TO WORK!... Now, the redistricting so that 12 of them definitly go to republicans, well perhaps not... But over all the electoral college isn't supposed to be giving ALL of a states votes to a single candidate.

Personally, I like what a bunch of states have done.

Rather than get a Constitutional Convention together, or wait for Congress to be able to agree on such things as what time of day it is, states are passing laws that say: "When states representing 273+ Electoral Votes pass this law, all our states' EVs will go to the winner of the national popular vote."

Let's actually take the country back, and give the minority back their chance to object to the majority's rules via the filibuster (before the laws get passed) or courts (after).

As it stands, 11 states can pick the new leader, and that is undemocratic like a mutherfocker. If 50%+1 of eligible voters live in those 11 states and cast votes for Yelnick McWawa, I have far less of a problem.

National Popular Vote will make elections more expensive than they already were. Much more expensive. I simply don't see a need. We've had about 60 Presidential elections and the popular vote winner has only lost 3 times IIRC, and none of those times did that person have an outright majority of the popular vote, rather they had a plurality. So the cure is worse than the disease.

Except that making elections more expensive invites more of the wrong people to the campaign-finance party, I'm fine with it.

Solution? Mandatory public financing. Every national election or referendum (when was the last time we had a national referendum? 1992 for the 27th?).

// states still get to choose their own financing laws

Dr Dreidel: GentDirkly: Dr Dreidel: siphra: Idiots, THIS is how the electoral college is SUPPOSED TO WORK!... Now, the redistricting so that 12 of them definitly go to republicans, well perhaps not... But over all the electoral college isn't supposed to be giving ALL of a states votes to a single candidate.

Personally, I like what a bunch of states have done.

Rather than get a Constitutional Convention together, or wait for Congress to be able to agree on such things as what time of day it is, states are passing laws that say: "When states representing 273+ Electoral Votes pass this law, all our states' EVs will go to the winner of the national popular vote."

Let's actually take the country back, and give the minority back their chance to object to the majority's rules via the filibuster (before the laws get passed) or courts (after).

As it stands, 11 states can pick the new leader, and that is undemocratic like a mutherfocker. If 50%+1 of eligible voters live in those 11 states and cast votes for Yelnick McWawa, I have far less of a problem.

National Popular Vote will make elections more expensive than they already were. Much more expensive. I simply don't see a need. We've had about 60 Presidential elections and the popular vote winner has only lost 3 times IIRC, and none of those times did that person have an outright majority of the popular vote, rather they had a plurality. So the cure is worse than the disease.

Except that making elections more expensive invites more of the wrong people to the campaign-finance party, I'm fine with it.

Solution? Mandatory public financing. Every national election or referendum (when was the last time we had a national referendum? 1992 for the 27th?).

// states still get to choose their own financing laws

How do you determine which candidates are legitimate enough to receive the public financing?

Well, the electoral system is a freaking undemocratic piece of shiat that needs to be burned in hell.

If I get more votes than you, i should win.
If you get more votes than me, you should win.

This is not a difficult concept. Why the motherfark can we not just do that?

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Wellon Dowd: As to why Rhode Island is equal to California, it is because they are each sovereign states. Before the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment the states had a voice in the federal government. If you abolished the Two-Senators-Per-State structure you might as well eliminate the states completely.

A better question would be why the House of Representatives is no longer representative of state's relative populations. I think it's great that the Senate provides equal representation among the states although I'd like to see it go back to state legislatures electing the senators. Clearly popular election of state senators has not been good for the sanity and operation of that house of congress.

Representation in the House is proportional to population, adjusted every 10 years after each census.

GentDirkly: Dr Dreidel: Solution? Mandatory public financing. Every national election or referendum (when was the last time we had a national referendum? 1992 for the 27th?).

// states still get to choose their own financing laws

How do you determine which candidates are legitimate enough to receive the public financing?

National Primary Day, independent of any political primary day(s). The Fed counts up, somewhere in the middle of primary "season" ideally, and anyone who gets more than X% (20?) gets to apply for funding. I guess it would kind of neuter the ongoing primaries, but give it to the top 3 candidates from either party (plus any independent polling at 10-15%+ consistently)? Maybe limit each party to 5 nominees, each of whom get funding? Fund the (closed) party primaries - all of them - in proportion to how many people vote in the primary?

I dunno, man - there's probably myriad ways to get national popular vote that doesn't require fixing six issues at once, but the fact is that there are far more than six things wrong with the current electoral system.

// I'd actually like to start more with vote-by-mail, -by-internet (somehow) and more hack-proof voting machine subject to black-hat tests
// and having a Federal Holiday on Election Day
// those, in my mind, are the two biggest election problems

Altman: MFAWG: But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate

That makes me sad. It used to be taught in high school civics when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the peanut farmer from Georgia was in the White House.

Rhode Island is probably a bad example. A better example is some of the very sparsely populated midwestern states which manage to pull in ridiculous farm subsidies year after year due to there Senate representation.

Like Wyoming, population 563k. Many states have cities and counties with more people.

jake3988: Well, the electoral system is a freaking undemocratic piece of shiat that needs to be burned in hell.

If I get more votes than you, i should win.
If you get more votes than me, you should win.

This is not a difficult concept. Why the motherfark can we not just do that?

Because our government was never designed as a democracy.

jm105: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Wellon Dowd: As to why Rhode Island is equal to California, it is because they are each sovereign states. Before the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment the states had a voice in the federal government. If you abolished the Two-Senators-Per-State structure you might as well eliminate the states completely.

A better question would be why the House of Representatives is no longer representative of state's relative populations. I think it's great that the Senate provides equal representation among the states although I'd like to see it go back to state legislatures electing the senators. Clearly popular election of state senators has not been good for the sanity and operation of that house of congress.

Representation in the House is proportional to population, adjusted every 10 years after each census.

The problem is that, since the House is currently fixed at 435 members, that is no longer true. For example, Wyoming's lone representative represents 563,626 people, while each of California's represents 37,253,956 / 53 = 702,905 people. Since Wyoming's representative represents less people, and yet has the same voting power as any other representative, each of them is more represented.

Wellon Dowd: siphra: Idiots, THIS is how the electoral college is SUPPOSED TO WORK!... Now, the redistricting so that 12 of them definitly go to republicans, well perhaps not... But over all the electoral college isn't supposed to be giving ALL of a states votes to a single candidate.

Actually, the Electoral College is supposed to work however the individual state wants it to work. Further evidence that the Constitution envisions sovereign states and the the Seventeenth Amendment was a mistake.

I wonder how many people realize that they don't have a right to vote for the president and only can because their state's legislature has decided to allow them do so?

The framers also intended that only white male adult property holders could vote.

When the Constitution was signed the average congressional district had a population of 40,000. I think we should expand the size of Congress in order to get to that level again. Gerrymander is less of a concern in a smaller district, the candidates are more likely to come from a similar background and have similar concerns as the people they are trying to represent, each candidate would need less money to run a viable campaign, and the increased number of districts would spread the behind-the-scenes influence peddlers so thin that they'd be less of a problem.

The way some states have started doing it is following Nebraska's lead (IIRC). They pass a law saying that they're going to go to proportional electoral votes (congressional district based, I think) as soon as X number of states (2/3, I think) have passed laws doing the same.

The problem with that, of course, is that it makes gerrymandering an even bigger issue. Not only do you have problems with Congress, but now the way the districts are drawn effects presidential elections, too.

BTW, whoever said that the Senate is subject to gerrymandering above? I don't know if you've ever voted in an election, but Senate races where I am are statewide and never two in the same year. And direct election is great for Senators because quite a few states have more corruption problems at the state house level.

Wellon Dowd: When the Constitution was signed the average congressional district had a population of 40,000. I think we should expand the size of Congress in order to get to that level again

Dude, you really think a House of Representatives consisting of 8000 representatives would be able to do anything at all?

phyrkrakr: The way some states have started doing it is following Nebraska's lead (IIRC). They pass a law saying that they're going to go to proportional electoral votes (congressional district based, I think) as soon as X number of states (2/3, I think) have passed laws doing the same.

The problem with that, of course, is that it makes gerrymandering an even bigger issue. Not only do you have problems with Congress, but now the way the districts are drawn effects presidential elections, too.

BTW, whoever said that the Senate is subject to gerrymandering above? I don't know if you've ever voted in an election, but Senate races where I am are statewide and never two in the same year. And direct election is great for Senators because quite a few states have more corruption problems at the state house level.

If the state house making the selection was itself selected by an "Israeli Knesset" style process, then I'd be OK with it. More and more I think that state legislatures should be two houses, one house done by districts and the other done Knesset style.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Wellon Dowd: When the Constitution was signed the average congressional district had a population of 40,000. I think we should expand the size of Congress in order to get to that level again

Dude, you really think a House of Representatives consisting of 8000 representatives would be able to do anything at all?

As opposed to everything they accomplish now?

In fact, I think it would be more likely to function. Currently, with our two party system and only 435 representatives it is easier for things to be polarized. With more representative from smaller and, presumably, more homogenous districts, representative would be freer to buck party discipline and form coalitions with those across the aisle. When the majority of Americans thinks taxes on the upper brackets should be raise but the entire Republican delegation in the House refuses to consider it, it is obvious that our elected officials are representing someone else's interests. Smaller districts will bring them close to the people and make them more responsive. If not, at least the corporatocracy will have to spend 20 times as much to buy them all.

Kibbler: We should just have a direct vote. Yes this is an attempt to throw electoral votes and swing the election, but the entire electoral system is rigged. Throw it out. Direct vote.

I don't know why we continue to put up with it. But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate.

Yep. No Bush 2000.

Wellon Dowd: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Wellon Dowd: When the Constitution was signed the average congressional district had a population of 40,000. I think we should expand the size of Congress in order to get to that level again

Dude, you really think a House of Representatives consisting of 8000 representatives would be able to do anything at all?

As opposed to everything they accomplish now?

In fact, I think it would be more likely to function. Currently, with our two party system and only 435 representatives it is easier for things to be polarized. With more representative from smaller and, presumably, more homogenous districts, representative would be freer to buck party discipline and form coalitions with those across the aisle. When the majority of Americans thinks taxes on the upper brackets should be raise but the entire Republican delegation in the House refuses to consider it, it is obvious that our elected officials are representing someone else's interests. Smaller districts will bring them close to the people and make them more responsive. If not, at least the corporatocracy will have to spend 20 times as much to buy them all.

It is also less likely that meaningful quid-pro-quo relationships would ever be established among such a body, making committee assignments more random.

GentDirkly:
If the state house making the selection was itself selected by an "Israeli Knesset" style process, then I'd be OK with it. More and more I think that state legislatures should be two houses, one house done by districts and the other done Knesset style.

I'm not familiar with that process. How does it work?

phyrkrakr: GentDirkly:
If the state house making the selection was itself selected by an "Israeli Knesset" style process, then I'd be OK with it. More and more I think that state legislatures should be two houses, one house done by districts and the other done Knesset style.

I'm not familiar with that process. How does it work?

Basically, you get a list of parties on the ballot, and pick one. Every party that gets more than a 2% share of the vote gets seats proportional to the number of votes they got. (ie: 30% of the votes get 30% of the seats). It's the main way of encouraging a multiparty legislature without resorting to multi-member districts.

Kibbler: We should just have a direct vote. Yes this is an attempt to throw electoral votes and swing the election, but the entire electoral system is rigged. Throw it out. Direct vote.

I don't know why we continue to put up with it. But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate.

Come here to Philadelphia. I'll take you to the National Constitution Center and all your questions will be answered. We can then walk down the street, visit the Liberty Bell, then on to Independence Hall where you can see where the Founding Fathers hammered out the Constitution. For dinner, we'll head off to the City Tavern.

Then, since you're a Farker, it's off to Eulogy and a night of great beer and awesome fries.

siphra: Kibbler: We should just have a direct vote. Yes this is an attempt to throw electoral votes and swing the election, but the entire electoral system is rigged. Throw it out. Direct vote.

I don't know why we continue to put up with it. But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate.

Yes because mob rule is a great idea. Sorry but I would rather have a dictator, emperor or king, than begin a full fledged move to mass democracy. Democratic-Republics are fine, but eventually we would end up with total mob rule.

So...let's see...the way we elect senators and representatives and governors is mob rule?

Kibbler: siphra: Kibbler: We should just have a direct vote. Yes this is an attempt to throw electoral votes and swing the election, but the entire electoral system is rigged. Throw it out. Direct vote.

I don't know why we continue to put up with it. But then I don't know why Rhode Island continues to be equal to California in the Senate.

Yes because mob rule is a great idea. Sorry but I would rather have a dictator, emperor or king, than begin a full fledged move to mass democracy. Democratic-Republics are fine, but eventually we would end up with total mob rule.

So...let's see...the way we elect senators and representatives and governors is mob rule?

No, but when we do it that way, we're electing a large number of people who themselves vote in a body. A President is, by definition, one person.