This is just weird!
Crusty the clown š¤” and side show bob.
- Thread starter Wesbo
- Start date
This is just weird!
I had to fucking turn that off. "Couldn't have a stronger mandate" is bullshit. They got a plurality. However, because of how the electoral college is skewed, NOT as a result of its original design but because the House is so mis-proportioned at this point, they got the executive as well.
If the House were fixed, they'd have lost both the White House and House, and the SENATE would be the balancer.
The system is fucked because House reps were capped in 1929. Were the House corrected, Kamala with all of her unlikability, would be in charge. Full fucking stop.
These people are just announcing what they want without any reality check, and people are eating it up.
If the House were fixed, they'd have lost both the White House and House, and the SENATE would be the balancer.
The system is fucked because House reps were capped in 1929. Were the House corrected, Kamala with all of her unlikability, would be in charge. Full fucking stop.
These people are just announcing what they want without any reality check, and people are eating it up.
Can you please explain that in a way someone living in a post-18th century, multi-party democracy can understand?
I would also recommend doing something useful in stead of vandalizing civilian owned Tesla cars.
I would also recommend doing something useful in stead of vandalizing civilian owned Tesla cars.
Originally, the number of representatives in the House was supposed to be adjusted and tied to the census. Because some states are really big and some are really small, you have to pick a number that kind of distributes the number of constituents represented evenly. Can't just say "every 20k people gets a representative" because the math doesn't work out. You have to find a common denominator and distribute accordingly, assuring that the smallest states get at least 1.
From there, the electoral college delegates are awarded base on the number of reps in the house and two senators, so the smallest states get 3 votes in the electoral college. The big states get a lot. The idea was that the House of Reps would be evenly distributed by population, and the small states get a boost in the electoral college because every state gets two senators. It gives them an edge to not get bowled over, twice actually. Once in the power the senate has, and then again in the presidential elections every four years.
The problem is that in 1929, congress voted to cap the number of reps in the House to 435, kind of an arbitrary number at the time. That means that the math is really fucking hard to work out, and generally speaking (but not fully) the smaller states get proportionally MORE house votes per capita than the large states. The small states also tend to skew red, large go blue with an exception or two.
This means that out of the gate, small, conservative states have an advantage in the House, the Senate, and Electoral college for president.
It was a decent plan to protect the rural places from getting run roughshod by the cities, but it has drifted too far from the original intent.
A couple things have happened as a result...most of the center does not believe its votes count, so they stay home. The extremists appeal to the lunatic fringe on both sides to get through primaries, because the lunatics DO participate, so you end up with hard left and hard right. The maps are skewed towards conservatism because of the system, and historically speaking, the votes of the liberals are diluted.
The number of people who stayed home in this last election guaranteed two branches went conservative, and the previous few times around, the skewing of the house and the finagling in the senate means the judicial is harder right than the country as a whole by A LOT.
Most of this would be fixed by correcting the number of representatives in the House, because that problem begets all the others. It won't happen, though, because the conservatives understand the power imbalance, and the liberals are fucking stupid. Their hearts are in the right place, but they are playing Sesame Street for decades in our politics while the conservatives have been playing Call of Duty.
Long and short of it is that the conservatives, who by all demographic counts are a minority, have an outsized systemic advantage.
They have used that advantage to blow up faith in the system, so they are winning because of apathy. On top of that, Kamala Harris was greatly qualified to run for President, such experience and bona fides, but they overlooked the fact that more than half of the country just doesn't like her. Same with Hillary. You cannot force these people down our throats, the country will reject them.
The solution is for the left to shift central in messaging and get out the vote if there is anything left after the next four years of chaos. Hopefully midterms will bring some adults back into the room.
From there, the electoral college delegates are awarded base on the number of reps in the house and two senators, so the smallest states get 3 votes in the electoral college. The big states get a lot. The idea was that the House of Reps would be evenly distributed by population, and the small states get a boost in the electoral college because every state gets two senators. It gives them an edge to not get bowled over, twice actually. Once in the power the senate has, and then again in the presidential elections every four years.
The problem is that in 1929, congress voted to cap the number of reps in the House to 435, kind of an arbitrary number at the time. That means that the math is really fucking hard to work out, and generally speaking (but not fully) the smaller states get proportionally MORE house votes per capita than the large states. The small states also tend to skew red, large go blue with an exception or two.
This means that out of the gate, small, conservative states have an advantage in the House, the Senate, and Electoral college for president.
It was a decent plan to protect the rural places from getting run roughshod by the cities, but it has drifted too far from the original intent.
A couple things have happened as a result...most of the center does not believe its votes count, so they stay home. The extremists appeal to the lunatic fringe on both sides to get through primaries, because the lunatics DO participate, so you end up with hard left and hard right. The maps are skewed towards conservatism because of the system, and historically speaking, the votes of the liberals are diluted.
The number of people who stayed home in this last election guaranteed two branches went conservative, and the previous few times around, the skewing of the house and the finagling in the senate means the judicial is harder right than the country as a whole by A LOT.
Most of this would be fixed by correcting the number of representatives in the House, because that problem begets all the others. It won't happen, though, because the conservatives understand the power imbalance, and the liberals are fucking stupid. Their hearts are in the right place, but they are playing Sesame Street for decades in our politics while the conservatives have been playing Call of Duty.
Long and short of it is that the conservatives, who by all demographic counts are a minority, have an outsized systemic advantage.
They have used that advantage to blow up faith in the system, so they are winning because of apathy. On top of that, Kamala Harris was greatly qualified to run for President, such experience and bona fides, but they overlooked the fact that more than half of the country just doesn't like her. Same with Hillary. You cannot force these people down our throats, the country will reject them.
The solution is for the left to shift central in messaging and get out the vote if there is anything left after the next four years of chaos. Hopefully midterms will bring some adults back into the room.
Thanks, that's clear. The conservatives are pretty smart. Rigging the system in a way that 95% of the people don't realize it's rigged?
I've said this before, but it started with Newt Gingrich. He realized in the 80s that the conservatives were going to lose a demographic battle, so he worked to do two very particular things:
1) destroy America's trust in government
2) attack the institutions from the ground up
How Newt Gingrich Destroyed American Politics - The Atlantic
...there is a paywall, and I might email the Atlantic to ask them to specifically open this article for the world. For real. This was from 2018, and we are seeing the results now.
1) destroy America's trust in government
2) attack the institutions from the ground up
How Newt Gingrich Destroyed American Politics - The Atlantic
...there is a paywall, and I might email the Atlantic to ask them to specifically open this article for the world. For real. This was from 2018, and we are seeing the results now.
