See section 2 of the 14th Amendment. You're wrong. Apportionment is by population across the entire US, and every State gets at LEAST on Representative.
Congress CANNOT pass a law about how the EVs are allocated - that is, per the Constitution, the domain of the States. It's entirely a States thing, nothing to do with Congress.
Because at the national level - we're NOT a democracy. We're a republic. If you want to change what we are, there is a process for that - amend the Constitution.
I support the EC. The ONLY change I'd say would be warranted would be to adopt the Nebraska/Maine way of appointing electors: one per district, goes to the winner of the popular vote in that district. Then the two "senate" electors go to the overall State winner of the State's popular vote. That's how it should go, IMHO - much more close to the electorate, and better than the "our EVs go to the national popular vote winner" in which a State that votes 80% for one candidate could see their EVs going to the opponent.
That becomes the tyranny of the majority. In fact, in this election, the entire lead that Hillary has is covered by her lead in Los Angeles County. Basically a single county dictates the entire election of the President? Sucks if you live anywhere else, huh...
Instead of a popular vote, do like Nebraska and Maine. Proportional votes. Each district gets their own winner - and the overall State winner gets the two extra electoral votes. Eliminate "winner take all" - that is the TRUE discrimination. Let each district vote how it wants and cast its own elector.
Trump meets the qualifications to be President (natural born citizen, over 35). There is no charge or proof he's beholden to overseas powers. Hillary? Well - she's committed actions (crimes, if it was anyone else) that cast strong doubt on her ability to operate as a President and there are certainly hundreds of millions of foreign dollars in her pocket - especially whilst she was Secretary of State.
Interestingly, Hillary's ENTIRE "popular vote" win can be ascribed to her lead in votes in Los Angeles County. Basically you're arguing that a single municipal region should dictate the election of the President. If you discount Los Angeles County, Trump carries a majority of total votes summed across all other counties in the nation.
You mean will the electors vote as the will of their State and the laws thereof, or will they ignore it and go with the trendy feelings of Hillary voters?
The only reason the accuracy of the results are being challenged is that some people feel because, it was different from the polls, that it should be examined. I am merely point out that:
1. Not all polls are different from the results; in fact, three major polls were right in line with the results (and the other polls were even more wrong in NH and NV - but those went for Hillary so we won't talk about that)
2. There is no evidence or even supposed evidence (that's direct from those making the recommendation) about inaccurate results, just a feeling it could be wrong.
I absolutely LOVE the fact you got modded to -1! A challenge for "published proof. Not claims..verifiable, reproducible, proof...including all data used and how it was collected and any 'adjustments' made) that proves that humans are a major controlling factor in global climate." You provide a list that is at least as authoritative as the other side, and get slammed. A thoughtful person would take it as proof that everything is NOT known, there is still some variability, and conclude at best "well, there is probably a good chance that climate change is caused by humans" or at worst "there is a good chance that climate change is not caused by humans". Declaring one way or another cannot be realistically done.
But the pro-AGW side treat it more as a religion than science - and modded your list into oblivion...
For those situations, the authors tend to expose ALL data and processes/methods needed to recreate their results. They don't hide their data and refuse to release their code...
She wanted to use his Jewish ancestry to stir up religious divisions. That's what happened. Your question has been answered, but I guess you don't like the answer so will dismiss it.
Would it be OK for a Republican candidate to use a candidate's sexuality or religion to try to gain an electoral advantage? Would you whitewash that as well?
Yes, it was about change. Most of the US never recovered from the 2008/2009 recession - they are treading water. The labor participation rate is at a 40 year low. Most people aren't doing any better than 2008 - and we had a leadership that insisted everything was fine, and we needed to stay the course. It didn't sit well with the electorate in much of the US. So change was voted for.
With Clinton promising more of the same, and Trump a bit of a wildcard - apparently lots of people will take a gamble that could be good or bad (Trump) versus what they perceived as a continued bad (Clinton).
IBD/TIPP and USC/Dornsife had WI, MI and PA all narrowly leaning towards Trump prior to the election; they actually were the accurate polls. No surprise at all if you looked beyond CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS. Interestingly, those are also the polls that typically had the election a lot closer than the others (typically just a few percent between the candidates). Polls that had Hillary up big (8%+) at various times were the ones way off.
The polls were NOT off if you looked at socioeconomic factors; Nate Silver is no friend of the GOP, and he's completely eviscerated the concept that the results in WI were wrong. Why WI, MI and PA and not NH, NV, and CO which were all much closer AND ended up going for Hillary? Even those "experts" who brought up the concept completely admit there is ZERO evidence pointing to any issues, it's just a "feeling" they have...
This is Stein and the Green Party trying to cash out, bump up their own coffers before the next round of elections, and maybe get a Bernie-esque cottage out of it.
Oh, and voter suppression efforts? Care to list those? I know we have documented proof of excessive voter fraud on the left, typically via absentee ballots (for example, 83 ballots showing up in a Los Angeles community that went over 85% for Hillary). So we have proof - actual convictions - of voter fraud, but voter intimidation? Any proof of that? Why not voter ID? Canada and Mexico both require it - why can't the US?
With the announcement today that the Clinton campaign will now join Jill Stein in the recount - I think I pretty much nailed it. This is about trying, hope against hope, to overturn the results of the election. It's pure politics, as you imply (when you state that she "believes Trump will be a disaster"). Especially in light of the fact that, during the campaign, the Green Party endorsed Trump over Clinton; this is Stein fishing for money and her own cabin on the lake.
And people were aghast when Trump wouldn't say, unequivocally, that he would accept the results of the election... I wonder where the outrage is now?
I find your hatred of Islam to be troubling. After all, Allah calls for his followers to shun and even kill all homosexuals - and you refuse to allow people of the Islamic faith to exercise their religious rights to avoid homosexuals. Or Jews. Or people who converted from Islam to other religions.
Not to mention 7% more African American votes and 8% more hispanic American votes. It was the decided rise of the "minorities" (women, blacks, hispanics) that elected Trump - yes, the "racist/misogynist" was put into office by a marked increase of votes by the minorities he supposedly hates.
DWS talking about weaponizing Bernie's Jewish background. She was 100% in the tank for Hillary and did everything she could to ensure Hillary won the primaries. Say what you will about Priebus, but he at least played it neutral with the GOP field...
Correct - it's Jill Stein doing the work of the Democrat Party. Her challenge will do zero for her own results. And there are several States that were a LOT closer in terms of results - but happened to break for Hillary. Given her choice of venues for challenge, it's quite obvious that Stein is just carrying the water for the DNC. Probably hoping for her own Bernie-esque $600,000 lake-front cottage courtesy of the Clinton machine...
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh sounds like a conspiracy theory, do tell so it can be debunked.
Jones refused to release his data and his algorithms meaning it was impossible to vet and review his claims. Of course, Michael Mann (he who wanted to hide the decline in his own data) now states that we don't really need data because we can just see what happens. Data is irrelevant, anecdotal evidence is all that one needs.
See section 2 of the 14th Amendment. You're wrong. Apportionment is by population across the entire US, and every State gets at LEAST on Representative.
The dead certainly vote. Here's a list of 438 voter fraud convictions that is just a small list of the total number of voter fraud cases over the last few elections. It's a real issue. Why don't we do what Canada and Mexico do - require photo ID to vote?
Congress CANNOT pass a law about how the EVs are allocated - that is, per the Constitution, the domain of the States. It's entirely a States thing, nothing to do with Congress.
Because at the national level - we're NOT a democracy. We're a republic. If you want to change what we are, there is a process for that - amend the Constitution.
I support the EC. The ONLY change I'd say would be warranted would be to adopt the Nebraska/Maine way of appointing electors: one per district, goes to the winner of the popular vote in that district. Then the two "senate" electors go to the overall State winner of the State's popular vote. That's how it should go, IMHO - much more close to the electorate, and better than the "our EVs go to the national popular vote winner" in which a State that votes 80% for one candidate could see their EVs going to the opponent.
That becomes the tyranny of the majority. In fact, in this election, the entire lead that Hillary has is covered by her lead in Los Angeles County. Basically a single county dictates the entire election of the President? Sucks if you live anywhere else, huh...
Instead of a popular vote, do like Nebraska and Maine. Proportional votes. Each district gets their own winner - and the overall State winner gets the two extra electoral votes. Eliminate "winner take all" - that is the TRUE discrimination. Let each district vote how it wants and cast its own elector.
Trump meets the qualifications to be President (natural born citizen, over 35). There is no charge or proof he's beholden to overseas powers. Hillary? Well - she's committed actions (crimes, if it was anyone else) that cast strong doubt on her ability to operate as a President and there are certainly hundreds of millions of foreign dollars in her pocket - especially whilst she was Secretary of State.
Interestingly, Hillary's ENTIRE "popular vote" win can be ascribed to her lead in votes in Los Angeles County. Basically you're arguing that a single municipal region should dictate the election of the President. If you discount Los Angeles County, Trump carries a majority of total votes summed across all other counties in the nation.
You mean will the electors vote as the will of their State and the laws thereof, or will they ignore it and go with the trendy feelings of Hillary voters?
The only reason the accuracy of the results are being challenged is that some people feel because, it was different from the polls, that it should be examined. I am merely point out that:
1. Not all polls are different from the results; in fact, three major polls were right in line with the results (and the other polls were even more wrong in NH and NV - but those went for Hillary so we won't talk about that)
2. There is no evidence or even supposed evidence (that's direct from those making the recommendation) about inaccurate results, just a feeling it could be wrong.
I absolutely LOVE the fact you got modded to -1! A challenge for "published proof. Not claims..verifiable, reproducible, proof...including all data used and how it was collected and any 'adjustments' made) that proves that humans are a major controlling factor in global climate." You provide a list that is at least as authoritative as the other side, and get slammed. A thoughtful person would take it as proof that everything is NOT known, there is still some variability, and conclude at best "well, there is probably a good chance that climate change is caused by humans" or at worst "there is a good chance that climate change is not caused by humans". Declaring one way or another cannot be realistically done.
But the pro-AGW side treat it more as a religion than science - and modded your list into oblivion...
For those situations, the authors tend to expose ALL data and processes/methods needed to recreate their results. They don't hide their data and refuse to release their code...
97,000 killed, backed up with substantiated reports and independent sources.You can choose to ignore it, but it's pretty well established data.
She wanted to use his Jewish ancestry to stir up religious divisions. That's what happened. Your question has been answered, but I guess you don't like the answer so will dismiss it.
Would it be OK for a Republican candidate to use a candidate's sexuality or religion to try to gain an electoral advantage? Would you whitewash that as well?
Yes, it was about change. Most of the US never recovered from the 2008/2009 recession - they are treading water. The labor participation rate is at a 40 year low. Most people aren't doing any better than 2008 - and we had a leadership that insisted everything was fine, and we needed to stay the course. It didn't sit well with the electorate in much of the US. So change was voted for.
With Clinton promising more of the same, and Trump a bit of a wildcard - apparently lots of people will take a gamble that could be good or bad (Trump) versus what they perceived as a continued bad (Clinton).
IBD/TIPP and USC/Dornsife had WI, MI and PA all narrowly leaning towards Trump prior to the election; they actually were the accurate polls. No surprise at all if you looked beyond CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS. Interestingly, those are also the polls that typically had the election a lot closer than the others (typically just a few percent between the candidates). Polls that had Hillary up big (8%+) at various times were the ones way off.
The polls were NOT off if you looked at socioeconomic factors; Nate Silver is no friend of the GOP, and he's completely eviscerated the concept that the results in WI were wrong. Why WI, MI and PA and not NH, NV, and CO which were all much closer AND ended up going for Hillary? Even those "experts" who brought up the concept completely admit there is ZERO evidence pointing to any issues, it's just a "feeling" they have...
This is Stein and the Green Party trying to cash out, bump up their own coffers before the next round of elections, and maybe get a Bernie-esque cottage out of it.
Oh, and voter suppression efforts? Care to list those? I know we have documented proof of excessive voter fraud on the left, typically via absentee ballots (for example, 83 ballots showing up in a Los Angeles community that went over 85% for Hillary). So we have proof - actual convictions - of voter fraud, but voter intimidation? Any proof of that? Why not voter ID? Canada and Mexico both require it - why can't the US?
With the announcement today that the Clinton campaign will now join Jill Stein in the recount - I think I pretty much nailed it. This is about trying, hope against hope, to overturn the results of the election. It's pure politics, as you imply (when you state that she "believes Trump will be a disaster"). Especially in light of the fact that, during the campaign, the Green Party endorsed Trump over Clinton; this is Stein fishing for money and her own cabin on the lake.
And people were aghast when Trump wouldn't say, unequivocally, that he would accept the results of the election... I wonder where the outrage is now?
I find your hatred of Islam to be troubling. After all, Allah calls for his followers to shun and even kill all homosexuals - and you refuse to allow people of the Islamic faith to exercise their religious rights to avoid homosexuals. Or Jews. Or people who converted from Islam to other religions.
Not to mention 7% more African American votes and 8% more hispanic American votes. It was the decided rise of the "minorities" (women, blacks, hispanics) that elected Trump - yes, the "racist/misogynist" was put into office by a marked increase of votes by the minorities he supposedly hates.
DWS talking about weaponizing Bernie's Jewish background. She was 100% in the tank for Hillary and did everything she could to ensure Hillary won the primaries. Say what you will about Priebus, but he at least played it neutral with the GOP field...
I'd say small; on my map, it's about 3 square inches...
Correct - it's Jill Stein doing the work of the Democrat Party. Her challenge will do zero for her own results. And there are several States that were a LOT closer in terms of results - but happened to break for Hillary. Given her choice of venues for challenge, it's quite obvious that Stein is just carrying the water for the DNC. Probably hoping for her own Bernie-esque $600,000 lake-front cottage courtesy of the Clinton machine...
Of course all States have pre-printed ballots for all different voting districts - how else could they offer absentee ballots?