MESSAGE
| DATE | 2016-12-21 |
| FROM | Rick Moen
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] Serious danger to state sovereignty and your
|
Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com):
> Yeah, the supposed Blue states are run by severe machine politics....
{boggle}
Seriously, where _do_ you get this chozzeroi?
Even where the state houses are run by machine policians, which I
wouldn't doubt in, say, Albany (especially under Dan O'Connell), that
gives no obvious ability to manipulate state popular vote totals from
smoke-filled rooms. And if it did, we'd have a lot bigger problems.
> and what they want to do is coop the protections of smaller states
> wrapping about the lie that the electorial college was invented for
> slavery, which it wasn't.
Gee, the 3/5 Compromise was just an invention of some conspiracy of
far-left historians? _Who knew?_
> It was designed to protect the smaller states, like Delaware.
In that case, it failed.
Despite the advantage in elector count, according to figures gathered
in 2011 based on then-recent election cycles, only 18 states receive
visits from major-party candidates during the last two months of
election season. Those are: Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri,
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, New Hampshire,
and Maine.
Notice what's missing? Well, most of the country, for sure, but, in
particular, all of the small (less-populated) states are missing except
for New Hampshire. That's because the Electoral College makes those
irrelevant. So, the Electoral College specifically and forcefully
makes candidates _not care about small states_.
Four 'big' states, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, actually
receive 57% -- the majority -- of candidate visits during election
season. And campaign spending by state follows the same pattern.
> Regardless. Those Blue states will be a lot less blue anyway, and there
> will likely not be any more democrats in a decade.
Actually, while you've been knocking your cane against the ground, the
country has continued to get more liberal to an amazing degree, going by
what I'd call reasonable indicators. Consider:
o Same sex marriage is now no longer even an issue.
o Even that Torquemada-wannabe Pence couldn't ignore
discriminatory policies against LGBT people causing boycotts
of Indiana
o Likewise North Carolina couldn't ignore boycotts over that
stupid bathroom law
o November, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada just
voted to make recreational pot legal
A majority of the people increasingly reject Trump's views on everything
from the border wall to climate change to gun control. And the GOP
is stuck with being stapled to his alleged policies and is (for now)
getting dragged along. I think they have huge problems ahead from
that. And they'll have worse problems when people eventually notice
that the Trumpublican faction has no economic plan, or, worse, a
plan likely to cause a trade war and a global depression.
And we move forward four year, eight years, they'll have an even bigger
problem: Their recent policies and rhetoric cater to a core of old
people, but have piss-poor appeal to the young. Good news for the GOP:
Old people vote reliably. Bad news for the GOP: Old people aren't
immortal.
The GOP new this in 2012 with its 'autopsy report' in the Romney
experience -- and they were trying to fix their problem, when Trump came
along and hijacked the party.
> The Democrats are all about coruption and machine politics.
Oh, Ruben, please entertain me! Tell me all about the corrupt
Democratic machine politics in Sacramento. That would be the most fun
gift I'm likely to get, this year.
> That the electorial college does do is assure local control in
> elections.
Then, it does a piss-poor job of it.
A state's electors are determined by the statewide vote. The statewide
vote, if the state is under the control of local policitians, gets
(obviously) manipulated by the state, and therefore the corrupt
politicians thereby determine the electoral delegation.
_With or without_ electors, the results are under the control of each
state. If indeed that state is a den of corrupt governance, then
the election results will be gimmicked either way. So, why are you
saying that the Electoral College 'assures local control'? It doesn't.
> Unfortunaely for NY that means curropt machine politicians
> at every turn.
If so, then the Electoral College delegation is under the control of
those corrupt machine politicians. Are you having fun arguing against
yourself?
> I might agree to a popular vote if they split california up into 4 or
> five states.
There isn't going to be a popular vote with or without splitting up
states, for obvious reasons I already explained. I guess you decided
not to pay even the slightest amount of attention.
But that's not new, is it?
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
