-->
@HistoryBuff
packing the courts with right wing judges so they can make the courts swing the law to the right even though that is not what the people want. That is undermining democracy.
Ah, so electing right-wing senators and a right-wing president, whose combined job it is to elect Supreme Court justices is “undermining democracy”. Intriguing.
The republicans used political games to pack the courts with right wing judges. Now the democrats are thinking of doing the same. But in your mind the republicans are fine, but if the democrats do that, that's wrong. That is some hyper partisan bullshit
After decades of left-wing rulings on gay marriage and abortion and your judges legislating through the courts, I’d say it is about time for conservative rulings. If we’re being honest, it is only a 5-4 majority since Roberts cucks all of the time.
there is some twisted logic. Having everyone's votes count for the same amount is a "power grab". having rural people's votes count for way more than urban people's votes is totally fine though....
Two options: give rural voters a little bit of power or give them no voice at all. I’d choose to give them some. Their states are only worth like 3-8 votes while California is like 55.
If it was popular vote, who is going to actually represent the interests of people in states with 200k people? Nobody
lol just because someone disputes something, doesn't mean they are right. I can dispute that the moon exists, but that doesn't change that it is there. Biden won, that is extremely clear. Trump can dispute all he wants, he's an idiot.
I mean, I doubt the results will be overturned, but it is possible. Depends on if there was significant fraud and what routes are taken to remedy that. There are people coming forward and signing affidavits. I haven’t looked into them too much because I’m doubtful, but it is possible.
Also there is always the wildcard of faithless electors. Cenk for TYT in 2016 said they should vote against their state since Trump was “unfit”. Could see the same with Biden, since some days he can barely finish a sentence.
this says alot about the republican party. They recognize they do not represent the majority of americans. They know that they are attempting to force a minority of people's wishes on the majority, and they are ok with it. They actually enjoy it. Its a bit perverse.
I would say that the GOP is very representative of your average American. If you look at county-wide elections for president, the vast majority of them are red. It is just big cities that vote blue, so while they represent “more people” depending on the year, they are really only representing urbanites. While most “areas” don’t vote for them.
That happens now. The only states that get paid attention to are the swing states. Any state that is "safe" is ignored. All the system does is change which states get ignored.
Well the others are “ignored” during election season. But Trump held rallies in tons of safe red states during his presidency like Mississippi to meet the people there. And traveling to swing states is just all for election purposes.
If it was just a popular vote, rural America would probably get ignored while currently with the “undemocratic” Senate and electoral college, they have enough influence to matter in elections.
Policy-wise, I don’t think only swing states matter to the president in the way only urban interests would matter under your proposed system.
yes. California has more people than many countries.California has about 40 million people. That is about 12% of the US's population. they have 55 of 538 electoral college votes. that is a bit over 10% of the electoral college vote.Iowa has 3.15 million people. That is about 0.95% of the US population. They get 6 electoral college votes. That is about 0.11% of the electoral college.So yes, California should have a bigger say in the electoral college than they do. A vote in california is worth less than a vote in Iowa.
California should have a bigger say and they do. But the way the country is set up, via states, popular vote isn’t a good system.
Each state has its own culture, distinct economy, environment, etc and it isn’t a good idea to bulldoze them all simply because they don’t have a massive population. Iowa could still flip either way and not change the chances of winning the presidency that much. If Democrats lost California? They couldn’t win at all.
