Inevitably the "solutions" for AGW are just socialist economics mixed with SJW punishments that, generally, by their own admission will do little or nothing to actually stop the causes of AGW or ameliorate the existing problems. Rich countries should unilaterally tax themselves to give money to poor countries. The West "owes" the world for its pollution. That sort of thing.
It doesn't help with prominent AGW proponents openly declare that it's not about the environment anymore.
For example, former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
Earlier, he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."
Any number of others in that domain with similar comments.
"Below is a list of all companies that failed to repay their bailout money. These transactions are final and will never result in a profit for taxpayers."
BAILOUT FUNDS OUTGOING BAILOUT FUNDS, INCOMING Name Type State Profi/Net Outstanding Disbursed Returned Dividends + Interest Warrants Other Proceeds General Motors Auto Company MI -$11,393,681,666 $50,744,648,329 $38,656,806,062 $694,160,600 $0 $0 CIT Group Bank (Public) NY -$2,286,312,500 $2,330,000,000 $0 $43,687,500 $0 $0 Chrysler Auto Company MI -$1,212,849,005 $10,748,284,222 $7,256,590,642 $1,171,263,942 $0 $1,107,580,633
GM received over $50B, and still owes $11B. Chrysler received over $10B and still owes over $1B. I suppose "still owes" is not exactly accurate, as the numbers largely reflect the loss the government took on the equity instruments they forced on the companies and the government has closed the books. It is true that GM paid back the loans with interest, but that was not the full extent of the monies that were extended to GM.
GM and Chrysler bailouts tossed bankruptcy regulations out the window, screwed over primary bond-holders, but saved the union jobs at outrageous expense while setting dangerous precedents.
" deserve is enough to live on (as anyone working full time does)"
Leaving out the "deserve" concept, I'll point out that anyone working full time even at the current federal minimum wage makes enough to live on, if the criteria for "makes enough to live on" is the poverty line. They can't support a spouse and/or raise a family at that level, but that's a different problem.
What caused the several centuries long mega-droughts in California in the last 2000 years before Manmade Climate Change?
AGW/Climate Change is contributing, to be sure, but the last 150 years in California have been unusually wet. Centuries without appreciable rain are not rare for the region.
The drought, now in its fourth year, is by many measures the worst since the state began keeping records of temperature and precipitation in the 1800s. And with a population now close to 39 million and a thirsty, $50 billion agricultural industry, California has been affected more by this drought than by any previous one.
But scientists say that in the more ancient past, California and the Southwest occasionally had even worse droughts — so-called megadroughts — that lasted decades. At least in parts of California, in two cases in the last 1,200 years, these dry spells lingered for up to two centuries.
The new normal, scientists say, may in fact be an old one.
"During the medieval period, there was over a century of drought in the Southwest and California. The past repeats itself," says Ingram, who is co-author of The West Without Water: What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climate Clues Tell Us About Tomorrow. Indeed, Ingram believes the 20th century may have been a wet anomaly.
"None of this should be a surprise to anybody," agrees Celeste Cantu, general manager for the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. "California is acting like California, and most of California is arid." (Related: "Behind California's January Wildfires: Dry Conditions, Stubborn Weather Pattern.")
Unfortunately, she notes, most of the state's infrastructure was designed and built during the 20th century, when the climate was unusually wet compared to previous centuries. That hasn't set water management on the right course to deal with long periods of dryness in the future.
In 2014, California paid in $369.2 B into federal revenues. And was the #1 "contributor". On the other hand it received $333.8B, and was the #1 "taker". While it was a net "contributor" that amount was $35.4B, and would hardly be missed in the overall federal budget if California's revenues and expenditures went away as a result of California's secession.
You all wanted millionaires and billionaires to pay more taxes, and California has more than its fair share of those. I get it--if I was a billionaire, I'd probably like to live in an area of the country with socal's weather, too.
We could fix that problem by forcing some millionaires and billionaires to live in Mississippi, etc. You know, to even things out so that all the states have a fair share of millionaires and billionaires.
Some studies have highlighted the idea that the last 150 years or so in California have been unusually wet. It is unfortunate that Californians think what they've seen for their entire lifetimes is normal for the area, when the reality appears to be that is the aberration and that mega-droughts centuries long are actually the norm.
Yes, AGW/Climate Change is certainly having an impact, too, but a temporarily greened desert is still a desert.
Sources who have asked to remain anonymous say that...
This station has been told that...
A few lead-ins like this would certainly allow a "news" organization to be entirely truthful while at the same time presenting completely fictitious stories.
Or some good old fashioned apophasis? I don't for one second think its true that Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of aborted babies.
OTOH, even the National Enquirer from time to time actually scooped other news organizations with real news, so blanket bans seem misguided too.
I also recall back when Fox News was all the rage, that the left was unable to distinguish between the segments that were clearly talk-shows (i.e., opinion as entertainment) like Hannity and O'Reilly and the straight news segments. Perhaps not too surprising, since they also thought CNN programs like Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan were straight fact-based programs and not opinion-as-entertainment.
Professor Melissa Zimdars' list of "fake news" sites, which is now making the rounds as some sort of authoritative resource, even making its way into browser extensions to "protect" users from fake news sites.
Whenever there's a purportedly "racist" outcome in some industry, be it housing or credit or tech jobs, the cry of "disproportionate representation" goes up along with demands that the work-force or customer base be somehow rebalanced so that what amount to racial quotas can be attained.
But when counter-examples are raised, say, the NBA or Silicon Valley CEOs, any attempt to even raise them as counter examples is itself branded racist. Because in those cases, clearly it is just the best and brightest succeeding on their merit. Only those *other* things are rigged.
I find it somewhat laughable that anyone would really try to argue that the NBA be forced to hire and play more white players so that white players are represented in their proportion of the population, but few people bat an eye when quotas are called for in other areas.
According to the Constitution, a state may chose its Presidential electors in any way the state legislature approves. There is no requirement that a state hold an election for president. California could pass that allows the Governor to appoint Cali's 55 electors directly (presumably from his own party). If they did that, then there would be about 9.5M votes that just disappear from the "popular vote". Had that law been in effect already and Jerry Brown just gone ahead and handed Cali's 55 electors to Sec. Clinton, the EC result would not be impacted in the slightest (as Clinton won California anyway), but because not one Californian would have voted for a presidential candidate, the "popular vote" (taken in the rest of the country) would have Clinton trailing by about 3M votes.
The popular vote is meaningless.
It is true that Sec. Clinton received more popular votes than Trump. But not a majority (as many have claimed). Clinton got about 60.9M popular votes to Trump's approximately 60.3M, but trails the EC votes by about 70 votes. Clinton lost 5 states that Obama had carried twice.
EC votes are all that count, in the rules of the game. Which she knew.
If this were a football game, and Clinton had 609 yards of total offense while Trump had 603 yards, but Clinton lost by 4 touchdowns after having 5 turnovers would anyone be crying about her "victory" on the field due to her "domination" of total offense? She didn't put enough points on the board to win. Sure, she moved the ball slightly more than Trump, but she didn't make enough touchdowns or field-goals or PATs or safeties.
Do Democrats *really* want to console themselves by crying about the fact that their team led by a veteran politician--the most qualified person ever to run for office--had 6 more yards of total offense in a blowout loss to a bad team lead by a ROOKIE that even half his own team doesn't like?
The United States is a collection of more-or-less sovereign states, joined in a common federal government. Somewhat like the EU. The member countries of the EU have distinct national interests but also share common interests with other EU members.
It is not surprising, then, that virtually the same mechanism as the US Electoral College is used, except it is the Parliament that elects the EU President and not a separate body specifically for the purpose. But the mechanism is very similar.
The candidate for President of the Commission is proposed to the European Parliament by the European Council that decides by qualified majority and taking into account the elections to the European Parliament.
The Commission President is then elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members (which corresponds to at least 376 out of 751 votes).
Following this election, the President-elect selects the 27 other members of the Commission, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States. The final list of Commissioners-designate has then to be agreed between the President-elect and the Council. The Commission as a whole needs the Parliament's consent. Prior to this, Commissioners-designate are assessed by the European Parliament committees.
The maximum number of MEPs is 750 plus the president The maximum number of MEPs per country is 96 The minimum number of MEPs per country is 6
The division of seats should be according to degressive proportionality, meaning the more citizens a member sate has, the more seats it will get, but also the more citizens each MEP will represent. So MEPs from smaller countries represent fewer people than their colleagues from larger states.
In the United States EC, the minimum number of electors is 3, the maximum is 55. The total number is 538 electors. The number of electors from a state is based on the states proportion of the total population, but the minimum number and upper limit on total electors may unbalance the equation a bit.
The rules of the EC were known to both candidates. They have not been altered. The fact is that Trump flipped 5 states by convincing more voters in those states to vote for him than for Hillary. Hillary knew that states were in play--they're called swing states for a reason. What was "unfair" is simply that the rules both parties knew about going into the game ultimately cost Hillary the election. She had ample time and money to bolster her position or tear down his in those swing states. She outspent him 3:1 but still lost those states!
And I assure you that there are enough patriots who, despite having voted for him, that if he should do something like attempting to dissolve Congress (except by seeking a Constitutional Amendment) that the uprising would be swift and 2nd Amendment-based.
There was a time in college football where the clock started when the ball was kicked during a kickoff. The clock ran until the play was blown dead, and certain live-ball penalties were assessed after the ball was dead. These were the rules. One smart coach at the end of a game, nursing a slight lead after scoring a go-ahead TD, told his team to intentionally be offsides on the ensuing kick-off. The clock started with the kick, the ball is in the air for about 5 seconds--they just had to prevent a big return (by kicking through the endzone). The offsides penalty calls for 5 yards and a re-kick. Two or three time ran out the clock. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-11-06-clock-loophole_x.htm)
"Coaches are innovative," he said. "They find ways to be within the rules but take advantage of situations." "Whenever you put a rule in," Maguire said, "they ought to find the smartest guy in college football and have him look at every single scenario there could be."
Clinton--as the most qualified person ever to run for the office--should have been smart enough to know how the rules worked.
Even though they are not allowed to vote, there is strong evidence that at least some do. Getting a few thousand illegal immigrants to vote for you could flip a state too.
Each state gets two electors, corresponding to the number of Senators each has.
Each state gets one additional elector per Representative.
The number of representatives is apportioned based on the state population's share of the overall population, scaled by the 435 seats the House is currently fixed at. Every ten years, a state with more population (inflow) may gain a seat while states with smaller populations (outflow) may lose a seat. The seats move with the population.
3rd parties cannot make a dent in the current system.
A system in which a person could have voted for a primary and secondary candidate, e.g. Johnson and Trump, or Stein and Clinton, or Johnson and Clinton (I will ignore to potential for Stein and Trump as technically possible, but...), would allow a conscience vote without throwing such a vote away. That is, after their primary selection is eliminated, their secondary vote would come into play.
To wit, if we assume for the sake of argument that a decent majority, let's say 70:30, of Johnson voters would ultimately have preferred Trump over Clinton, once those 4 million Johnson votes were replaced with secondary choices for Trump and Clinton at that 70:30 split, Trump's popular vote would climb from 59.704M to 62.544M; Clinton's would go from 59.938M to 61.159M.
On a state-by-state basis, this could also have had an effect. A close state like Michigan had 173k votes for Johnson, 50k for Stein, and close to 17k for Darrel Castle (Constitution Party). Trump's margin is about 32k votes. So clearly those 3rd party votes had a bearing on the outcome.
The Democrats knew the rules of the electoral college quite well before the election started. They could have done the work to counter Trump in states that he took. Instead, they just chose to bank NY (29) and Cali (55) and the rest of the west coast and small north-eastern states as sure things--providing a baseline of 180 votes or so, ignored a large swath of the country, and focused on a few swing states.
In those swing states, Clinton outspent Trump by about 3-1, but by all accounts Trump worked his ass off in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida talking to people, holding rallies, etc. He flipped what? 5 states that Obama carried, and at least Michigan was more-or-less taken for granted by Clinton.
Face it, she was beaten at the political game by a charismatic hack with no real experience--twice.
There's no rule that states must have winner-take-all appointment of electors.
This does not need a Amendment or federal action. Just lobby to get your state to proportionately appoint its electors.
Then Hillary would have gotten 38 of California's electors and Trump would have gotten 17. It would take some analysis to see how the outcome would be affected if this were the norm in all 50 states.
", then you immediately minamalize the say of the minority." "Good!"
You know, back during the '60s when Civil Rights Act was being passed, or the EPA was enacted, or any of a myriad of Federal takeovers overrode the majority.
Indeed, the majority were against Obamacare when it was foisted on the populace.
"they should have influence exactly in proportion to their populations"
California gets 55 electoral college votes, with 53 of those based on its population. Alaska gets 3, with 1 based on population. There is proportional representation.
Constitutionally, there is no requirement that the people even get a vote for President: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..." A state may decide to let the Governor appoint all the electors directly, or let the statehouse vote. Nothing says the people shall vote for their electors.
The President is not the representative of the people. He (or she) is the CEO charged with executing the laws created by Congress, which itself is supposed to be representative of the people and the States as reflected by the House and Senate (or the Senate before the 17th Amendment). The President also represents the US interests in making treaties, as commander-in-chief (going to war), and making appointments for courts etc. See Article 2 for the enumeration of Presidential powers.
The President is not the leader of a mob bound to do what majority of the mob says. The office of President is the leader of the United States, not the leader of the people of the United States.
I suppose you'd be pleased if San Francisco, LA, NYC, Philly, and Boston could elect the president by themselves and ignore the rest of the country. But have a look at a county-by-county map and realize that almost exactly half of the voters are spread out over the entire country--commonly derided as "flyover country", while the other half are squashed into a small number of dense urban centers.
Mr Obama says: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space." Mr Medvedev replies: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you " Mr Obama retorts: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." And Mr Medvedev finishes: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]."
Recall that Obama was elected and hailed, literally, as a Messiah. He himself voiced his opinion that his election would cause the seas to recede, the planet would heal, war would cease to be...no he wasn't narcissistic at all...
"Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus."
-- Politiken (Danish newspaper)
"No one saw him coming, and Christians believe God comes at us from strange angles and places we don't expect, like Jesus being born in a manger."
--Lawrence Carter
"Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama."
-- Dinesh Sharma
"We just like to say his name. We are considering taking it as a mantra."
-- Chicago] Sun-Times
"A Lightworker -- An Attuned Being with Powerful Luminosity and High-Vibration Integrity who will actually help usher in a New Way of Being"
-- Mark Morford
"This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament." | "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event."
-- Chris Matthews
"Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves."
Slashdot Mirror
Inevitably the "solutions" for AGW are just socialist economics mixed with SJW punishments that, generally, by their own admission will do little or nothing to actually stop the causes of AGW or ameliorate the existing problems. Rich countries should unilaterally tax themselves to give money to poor countries. The West "owes" the world for its pollution. That sort of thing.
It doesn't help with prominent AGW proponents openly declare that it's not about the environment anymore.
For example, former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
Earlier, he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."
Any number of others in that domain with similar comments.
https://projects.propublica.or...
"Below is a list of all companies that failed to repay their bailout money. These transactions are final and will never result in a profit for taxpayers."
BAILOUT FUNDS OUTGOING BAILOUT FUNDS, INCOMING /Net Outstanding Disbursed Returned Dividends + Interest Warrants Other Proceeds
Name Type State Profi
General Motors Auto Company MI -$11,393,681,666 $50,744,648,329 $38,656,806,062 $694,160,600 $0 $0
CIT Group Bank (Public) NY -$2,286,312,500 $2,330,000,000 $0 $43,687,500 $0 $0
Chrysler Auto Company MI -$1,212,849,005 $10,748,284,222 $7,256,590,642 $1,171,263,942 $0 $1,107,580,633
GM received over $50B, and still owes $11B. Chrysler received over $10B and still owes over $1B. I suppose "still owes" is not exactly accurate, as the numbers largely reflect the loss the government took on the equity instruments they forced on the companies and the government has closed the books. It is true that GM paid back the loans with interest, but that was not the full extent of the monies that were extended to GM.
GM and Chrysler bailouts tossed bankruptcy regulations out the window, screwed over primary bond-holders, but saved the union jobs at outrageous expense while setting dangerous precedents.
" deserve is enough to live on (as anyone working full time does)"
Leaving out the "deserve" concept, I'll point out that anyone working full time even at the current federal minimum wage makes enough to live on, if the criteria for "makes enough to live on" is the poverty line. They can't support a spouse and/or raise a family at that level, but that's a different problem.
Or firewood
What caused the several centuries long mega-droughts in California in the last 2000 years before Manmade Climate Change?
AGW/Climate Change is contributing, to be sure, but the last 150 years in California have been unusually wet. Centuries without appreciable rain are not rare for the region.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...
The drought, now in its fourth year, is by many measures the worst since the state began keeping records of temperature and precipitation in the 1800s. And with a population now close to 39 million and a thirsty, $50 billion agricultural industry, California has been affected more by this drought than by any previous one.
But scientists say that in the more ancient past, California and the Southwest occasionally had even worse droughts — so-called megadroughts — that lasted decades. At least in parts of California, in two cases in the last 1,200 years, these dry spells lingered for up to two centuries.
The new normal, scientists say, may in fact be an old one.
http://news.nationalgeographic...
"During the medieval period, there was over a century of drought in the Southwest and California. The past repeats itself," says Ingram, who is co-author of The West Without Water: What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climate Clues Tell Us About Tomorrow. Indeed, Ingram believes the 20th century may have been a wet anomaly.
"None of this should be a surprise to anybody," agrees Celeste Cantu, general manager for the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. "California is acting like California, and most of California is arid." (Related: "Behind California's January Wildfires: Dry Conditions, Stubborn Weather Pattern.")
Unfortunately, she notes, most of the state's infrastructure was designed and built during the 20th century, when the climate was unusually wet compared to previous centuries. That hasn't set water management on the right course to deal with long periods of dryness in the future.
In 2014, California paid in $369.2 B into federal revenues. And was the #1 "contributor". On the other hand it received $333.8B, and was the #1 "taker". While it was a net "contributor" that amount was $35.4B, and would hardly be missed in the overall federal budget if California's revenues and expenditures went away as a result of California's secession.
You all wanted millionaires and billionaires to pay more taxes, and California has more than its fair share of those. I get it--if I was a billionaire, I'd probably like to live in an area of the country with socal's weather, too.
We could fix that problem by forcing some millionaires and billionaires to live in Mississippi, etc. You know, to even things out so that all the states have a fair share of millionaires and billionaires.
Some studies have highlighted the idea that the last 150 years or so in California have been unusually wet. It is unfortunate that Californians think what they've seen for their entire lifetimes is normal for the area, when the reality appears to be that is the aberration and that mega-droughts centuries long are actually the norm.
Yes, AGW/Climate Change is certainly having an impact, too, but a temporarily greened desert is still a desert.
Went right over your head...
Sources who have asked to remain anonymous say that...
This station has been told that...
A few lead-ins like this would certainly allow a "news" organization to be entirely truthful while at the same time presenting completely fictitious stories.
Or some good old fashioned apophasis? I don't for one second think its true that Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of aborted babies.
OTOH, even the National Enquirer from time to time actually scooped other news organizations with real news, so blanket bans seem misguided too.
I also recall back when Fox News was all the rage, that the left was unable to distinguish between the segments that were clearly talk-shows (i.e., opinion as entertainment) like Hannity and O'Reilly and the straight news segments. Perhaps not too surprising, since they also thought CNN programs like Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan were straight fact-based programs and not opinion-as-entertainment.
Professor Melissa Zimdars' list of "fake news" sites, which is now making the rounds as some sort of authoritative resource, even making its way into browser extensions to "protect" users from fake news sites.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...
http://nymag.com/selectall/201...
http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/...
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11...
There is a danger that all the sites providing this news are, in fact, fake news sites themselves...
Whenever there's a purportedly "racist" outcome in some industry, be it housing or credit or tech jobs, the cry of "disproportionate representation" goes up along with demands that the work-force or customer base be somehow rebalanced so that what amount to racial quotas can be attained.
But when counter-examples are raised, say, the NBA or Silicon Valley CEOs, any attempt to even raise them as counter examples is itself branded racist. Because in those cases, clearly it is just the best and brightest succeeding on their merit. Only those *other* things are rigged.
I find it somewhat laughable that anyone would really try to argue that the NBA be forced to hire and play more white players so that white players are represented in their proportion of the population, but few people bat an eye when quotas are called for in other areas.
According to the Constitution, a state may chose its Presidential electors in any way the state legislature approves. There is no requirement that a state hold an election for president. California could pass that allows the Governor to appoint Cali's 55 electors directly (presumably from his own party). If they did that, then there would be about 9.5M votes that just disappear from the "popular vote". Had that law been in effect already and Jerry Brown just gone ahead and handed Cali's 55 electors to Sec. Clinton, the EC result would not be impacted in the slightest (as Clinton won California anyway), but because not one Californian would have voted for a presidential candidate, the "popular vote" (taken in the rest of the country) would have Clinton trailing by about 3M votes.
The popular vote is meaningless.
It is true that Sec. Clinton received more popular votes than Trump. But not a majority (as many have claimed). Clinton got about 60.9M popular votes to Trump's approximately 60.3M, but trails the EC votes by about 70 votes. Clinton lost 5 states that Obama had carried twice.
EC votes are all that count, in the rules of the game. Which she knew.
If this were a football game, and Clinton had 609 yards of total offense while Trump had 603 yards, but Clinton lost by 4 touchdowns after having 5 turnovers would anyone be crying about her "victory" on the field due to her "domination" of total offense? She didn't put enough points on the board to win. Sure, she moved the ball slightly more than Trump, but she didn't make enough touchdowns or field-goals or PATs or safeties.
Do Democrats *really* want to console themselves by crying about the fact that their team led by a veteran politician--the most qualified person ever to run for office--had 6 more yards of total offense in a blowout loss to a bad team lead by a ROOKIE that even half his own team doesn't like?
The United States is a collection of more-or-less sovereign states, joined in a common federal government. Somewhat like the EU. The member countries of the EU have distinct national interests but also share common interests with other EU members.
It is not surprising, then, that virtually the same mechanism as the US Electoral College is used, except it is the Parliament that elects the EU President and not a separate body specifically for the purpose. But the mechanism is very similar.
The candidate for President of the Commission is proposed to the European Parliament by the European Council that decides by qualified majority and taking into account the elections to the European Parliament.
The Commission President is then elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members (which corresponds to at least 376 out of 751 votes).
Following this election, the President-elect selects the 27 other members of the Commission, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States. The final list of Commissioners-designate has then to be agreed between the President-elect and the Council. The Commission as a whole needs the Parliament's consent. Prior to this, Commissioners-designate are assessed by the European Parliament committees.
The maximum number of MEPs is 750 plus the president
The maximum number of MEPs per country is 96
The minimum number of MEPs per country is 6
The division of seats should be according to degressive proportionality, meaning the more citizens a member sate has, the more seats it will get, but also the more citizens each MEP will represent. So MEPs from smaller countries represent fewer people than their colleagues from larger states.
In the United States EC, the minimum number of electors is 3, the maximum is 55. The total number is 538 electors. The number of electors from a state is based on the states proportion of the total population, but the minimum number and upper limit on total electors may unbalance the equation a bit.
It's always losers who want the rules changed.
The rules of the EC were known to both candidates. They have not been altered. The fact is that Trump flipped 5 states by convincing more voters in those states to vote for him than for Hillary. Hillary knew that states were in play--they're called swing states for a reason. What was "unfair" is simply that the rules both parties knew about going into the game ultimately cost Hillary the election. She had ample time and money to bolster her position or tear down his in those swing states. She outspent him 3:1 but still lost those states!
And I assure you that there are enough patriots who, despite having voted for him, that if he should do something like attempting to dissolve Congress (except by seeking a Constitutional Amendment) that the uprising would be swift and 2nd Amendment-based.
There was a time in college football where the clock started when the ball was kicked during a kickoff. The clock ran until the play was blown dead, and certain live-ball penalties were assessed after the ball was dead. These were the rules. One smart coach at the end of a game, nursing a slight lead after scoring a go-ahead TD, told his team to intentionally be offsides on the ensuing kick-off. The clock started with the kick, the ball is in the air for about 5 seconds--they just had to prevent a big return (by kicking through the endzone). The offsides penalty calls for 5 yards and a re-kick. Two or three time ran out the clock. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-11-06-clock-loophole_x.htm)
"Coaches are innovative," he said. "They find ways to be within the rules but take advantage of situations."
"Whenever you put a rule in," Maguire said, "they ought to find the smartest guy in college football and have him look at every single scenario there could be."
Clinton--as the most qualified person ever to run for the office--should have been smart enough to know how the rules worked.
Even though they are not allowed to vote, there is strong evidence that at least some do. Getting a few thousand illegal immigrants to vote for you could flip a state too.
The borders of the states are well fixed.
Each state gets two electors, corresponding to the number of Senators each has.
Each state gets one additional elector per Representative.
The number of representatives is apportioned based on the state population's share of the overall population, scaled by the 435 seats the House is currently fixed at. Every ten years, a state with more population (inflow) may gain a seat while states with smaller populations (outflow) may lose a seat. The seats move with the population.
Where's gerrymandering in all this?
3rd parties cannot make a dent in the current system.
A system in which a person could have voted for a primary and secondary candidate, e.g. Johnson and Trump, or Stein and Clinton, or Johnson and Clinton (I will ignore to potential for Stein and Trump as technically possible, but...), would allow a conscience vote without throwing such a vote away. That is, after their primary selection is eliminated, their secondary vote would come into play.
To wit, if we assume for the sake of argument that a decent majority, let's say 70:30, of Johnson voters would ultimately have preferred Trump over Clinton, once those 4 million Johnson votes were replaced with secondary choices for Trump and Clinton at that 70:30 split, Trump's popular vote would climb from 59.704M to 62.544M; Clinton's would go from 59.938M to 61.159M.
On a state-by-state basis, this could also have had an effect. A close state like Michigan had 173k votes for Johnson, 50k for Stein, and close to 17k for Darrel Castle (Constitution Party). Trump's margin is about 32k votes. So clearly those 3rd party votes had a bearing on the outcome.
The Democrats knew the rules of the electoral college quite well before the election started. They could have done the work to counter Trump in states that he took. Instead, they just chose to bank NY (29) and Cali (55) and the rest of the west coast and small north-eastern states as sure things--providing a baseline of 180 votes or so, ignored a large swath of the country, and focused on a few swing states.
In those swing states, Clinton outspent Trump by about 3-1, but by all accounts Trump worked his ass off in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida talking to people, holding rallies, etc. He flipped what? 5 states that Obama carried, and at least Michigan was more-or-less taken for granted by Clinton.
Face it, she was beaten at the political game by a charismatic hack with no real experience--twice.
There's no rule that states must have winner-take-all appointment of electors.
This does not need a Amendment or federal action. Just lobby to get your state to proportionately appoint its electors.
Then Hillary would have gotten 38 of California's electors and Trump would have gotten 17. It would take some analysis to see how the outcome would be affected if this were the norm in all 50 states.
", then you immediately minamalize the say of the minority." "Good!"
You know, back during the '60s when Civil Rights Act was being passed, or the EPA was enacted, or any of a myriad of Federal takeovers overrode the majority.
Indeed, the majority were against Obamacare when it was foisted on the populace.
You should probably read the rest of the words that follows that lead-in, all the way to end.
I think few people have actually done so.
"they should have influence exactly in proportion to their populations"
California gets 55 electoral college votes, with 53 of those based on its population. Alaska gets 3, with 1 based on population. There is proportional representation.
Constitutionally, there is no requirement that the people even get a vote for President: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..." A state may decide to let the Governor appoint all the electors directly, or let the statehouse vote. Nothing says the people shall vote for their electors.
The President is not the representative of the people. He (or she) is the CEO charged with executing the laws created by Congress, which itself is supposed to be representative of the people and the States as reflected by the House and Senate (or the Senate before the 17th Amendment). The President also represents the US interests in making treaties, as commander-in-chief (going to war), and making appointments for courts etc. See Article 2 for the enumeration of Presidential powers.
The President is not the leader of a mob bound to do what majority of the mob says. The office of President is the leader of the United States, not the leader of the people of the United States.
I suppose you'd be pleased if San Francisco, LA, NYC, Philly, and Boston could elect the president by themselves and ignore the rest of the country. But have a look at a county-by-county map and realize that almost exactly half of the voters are spread out over the entire country--commonly derided as "flyover country", while the other half are squashed into a small number of dense urban centers.
Mr Obama says: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."
Mr Medvedev replies: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you "
Mr Obama retorts: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
And Mr Medvedev finishes: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...
It's OK. Obama will be leaving office soon.
Recall that Obama was elected and hailed, literally, as a Messiah. He himself voiced his opinion that his election would cause the seas to recede, the planet would heal, war would cease to be...no he wasn't narcissistic at all...
"Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus."
-- Politiken (Danish newspaper)
"No one saw him coming, and Christians believe God comes at us from strange angles and places we don't expect, like Jesus being born in a manger."
--Lawrence Carter
"Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama."
-- Dinesh Sharma
"We just like to say his name. We are considering taking it as a mantra."
-- Chicago] Sun-Times
"A Lightworker -- An Attuned Being with Powerful Luminosity and High-Vibration Integrity who will actually help usher in a New Way of Being"
-- Mark Morford
"This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament." | "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event."
-- Chris Matthews
"Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves."
-- Ezra Klein