Joe Biden Innocent or Not Guilty

OSUBucks wrote:

Huck wrote:The sooner the Electoral College is circumvented, the better.  How someone who lost two popular votes, by a combined 8 million votes, was almost a two term president is unbelievable to me.  Our government would not officially recognize it if it happened somewhere else.  

Anyone want to tackle justifying why the current admin. can't recognize the "current" (from their POV) result of the vote, allowing the Biden transition team access to the funds and information it needs, while still contesting the results (as ridiculous as these contestations have been so far) and exhausting all the legal recourses they have?

I think going with a system in which whoever receives the most votes in the country is declared the winner would sure simplify things. That's how practically all countries in the world do it. Looking at the last 5 Presidential elections Republicans have won 3 of 5 although they only received the most votes in 1 of 5. The current system works well for them. Ratification of a new Amendment to change to a popular vote would require 38 states to vote yes. That's a lot of states. That would require more than a few Republican leaning states to vote for ratification. Not going to happen.

You do not need an amendment. Check out the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If a handful more states join, it would effectively abolish the Electoral College.

I do think that if something like this happens, there has to be a qualifier that the winner does need to win a majority of the national popular vote. Popular sovereignty and majority rule are fundamental concepts to constitutional government and should be encouraged.

Beat you to it.  

Teetime wrote:Biden's share of the vote was the largest by a challenger vs. an incumbent President since FDR's first election in 1932.

In each of those years all of the states were counted.

This is interesting to me for the sole reason that since the pandemic started, I've compared Trumps handling of it as to that of Hoover and the onset of the Great Depression, leaving the states to fend for themselves with very little aid or help from the Federal Government. The Federal Government got their act together somewhat over the summer, but for the first few months there was only finger pointing going both ways as to who should be doing what. Interesting how the two elections rival each other.

Head Idiot wrote:It may be higher, but it's not that alarmingly high. The difference is the media coverage and how public Trump makes it.. Obama went through 3 Sec of Education and 4 Sec of Defense throughout his term for example.

51 people held the 22 Cabinet level positions throughout his 8 years.

EDIT- it was 2 Sec of Education. I thought there was an acting one during the change from one to the other.

From July 2019- so we can go apples to apples

Trump cabinet turnover passes the first term turnover of Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Obama in 2 1/2 years.

19delta wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:

Huck wrote:The sooner the Electoral College is circumvented, the better.  How someone who lost two popular votes, by a combined 8 million votes, was almost a two term president is unbelievable to me.  Our government would not officially recognize it if it happened somewhere else.  

Anyone want to tackle justifying why the current admin. can't recognize the "current" (from their POV) result of the vote, allowing the Biden transition team access to the funds and information it needs, while still contesting the results (as ridiculous as these contestations have been so far) and exhausting all the legal recourses they have?

I think going with a system in which whoever receives the most votes in the country is declared the winner would sure simplify things. That's how practically all countries in the world do it. Looking at the last 5 Presidential elections Republicans have won 3 of 5 although they only received the most votes in 1 of 5. The current system works well for them. Ratification of a new Amendment to change to a popular vote would require 38 states to vote yes. That's a lot of states. That would require more than a few Republican leaning states to vote for ratification. Not going to happen.

You do not need an amendment. Check out the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If a handful more states join, it would effectively abolish the Electoral College.

I do think that if something like this happens, there has to be a qualifier that the winner does need to win a majority of the national popular vote. Popular sovereignty and majority rule are fundamental concepts to constitutional government and should be encouraged.

I think that ultimately, the SCOTUS would decide whether or not the Compact is legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

I think that ultimately, the SCOTUS would decide whether or not the Compact is legal.

Maybe true, but I like its chances. I would love to hear the formal argument against it that would be presented to the court.

Huck wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:It may be higher, but it's not that alarmingly high. The difference is the media coverage and how public Trump makes it.. Obama went through 3 Sec of Education and 4 Sec of Defense throughout his term for example.

51 people held the 22 Cabinet level positions throughout his 8 years.

EDIT- it was 2 Sec of Education. I thought there was an acting one during the change from one to the other.

From July 2019- so we can go apples to apples

Trump cabinet turnover passes the first term turnover of Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Obama in 2 1/2 years.

Shocker! People either realize he’s an asshat they don’t want to be associated with or they publicly disagree with one of his uneducated assertions and they’re fired (see Secretary of Defense Mark Esper). Who Trump mocked multiple times calling him Yesper...

OSUBucks wrote:

19delta wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:

Huck wrote:The sooner the Electoral College is circumvented, the better.  How someone who lost two popular votes, by a combined 8 million votes, was almost a two term president is unbelievable to me.  Our government would not officially recognize it if it happened somewhere else.  

Anyone want to tackle justifying why the current admin. can't recognize the "current" (from their POV) result of the vote, allowing the Biden transition team access to the funds and information it needs, while still contesting the results (as ridiculous as these contestations have been so far) and exhausting all the legal recourses they have?

I think going with a system in which whoever receives the most votes in the country is declared the winner would sure simplify things. That's how practically all countries in the world do it. Looking at the last 5 Presidential elections Republicans have won 3 of 5 although they only received the most votes in 1 of 5. The current system works well for them. Ratification of a new Amendment to change to a popular vote would require 38 states to vote yes. That's a lot of states. That would require more than a few Republican leaning states to vote for ratification. Not going to happen.

You do not need an amendment. Check out the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If a handful more states join, it would effectively abolish the Electoral College.

I do think that if something like this happens, there has to be a qualifier that the winner does need to win a majority of the national popular vote. Popular sovereignty and majority rule are fundamental concepts to constitutional government and should be encouraged.

I think that ultimately, the SCOTUS would decide whether or not the Compact is legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

I would LOVE to see the strict constitutionalists that have been appointed to the federal judiciary contort themselves to write this sentence out of Article II of the Constitution:


"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..."

I'm thick headed. Tell me if I have this right...

So by signing on to the compact those States say that their legislature will appoint their electors  to the popular vote winner nationally even if their own State votes for the other candidate?

What if the State Legislature in 2036 says it just can't bring itself to assign it's electors to Eric Trump even if he won the national popular vote?

Oh, and maybe now is a good time to mention this. There’s currently a Senate-confirmed Deputy Secretary of Defense — David Norquist. He is supposed to become Acting Secretary in the event of a vacancy. Not someone Trump designated on his own. Wtf? But I’m sure this happened all the time before this current administration too. I’ll wait for the Republican led Senate to take care of this. I’m sure they’re already on it.

Teetime wrote:I'm thick headed. Tell me if I have this right...

So by signing on to the compact those States say that their legislature will appoint their electors  to the popular vote winner nationally even if their own State votes for the other candidate?

What if the State Legislature in 2036 says it just can't bring itself to assign it's electors to Eric Trump even if he won the national popular vote?

Yes. That is a possibility and one of the major criticisms of the NPVIC, especially given that the winner only needs a plurality of votes instead of a majority.

Huck wrote:

I think that ultimately, the SCOTUS would decide whether or not the Compact is legal.

Maybe true, but I like its chances.  I would love to hear the formal argument against it that would be presented to the court.

just an opinion -
popular votes will give all power to cities. i don't like that cause i'm just a dumb hick...i'm not smart like you city guys...

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

I think that ultimately, the SCOTUS would decide whether or not the Compact is legal.

Maybe true, but I like its chances.  I would love to hear the formal argument against it that would be presented to the court.

just an opinion -
popular votes will give all power to cities. i don't like that cause i'm just a dumb hick...i'm not smart like you city guys...

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. You prefer that electoral college continues to be weighted in favor of the dumb hicks. Does that about cover it?

You might be dumb, but you are smart enough to know a rigged system in your favor when you see one.

Another opinion; I do not want the states of new York, & especially ca determining the President, in now way does it reflect the values of an entire country. CA is nuts period!

When it comes to national politics, why should it matter if the votes come from people in a city or people out of the city?  Genuine question.  I have never understood why it still matters.  I understand why it used to.  Why should someone in Florida's vote matter more than mine does in the current system?

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

I think that ultimately, the SCOTUS would decide whether or not the Compact is legal.

Maybe true, but I like its chances.  I would love to hear the formal argument against it that would be presented to the court.

just an opinion -
popular votes will give all power to cities. i don't like that cause i'm just a dumb hick...i'm not smart like you city guys...

I live in a county with 1 stoplight.

Seriously.

ramblinman wrote:

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

I think that ultimately, the SCOTUS would decide whether or not the Compact is legal.

Maybe true, but I like its chances.  I would love to hear the formal argument against it that would be presented to the court.

just an opinion -
popular votes will give all power to cities. i don't like that cause i'm just a dumb hick...i'm not smart like you city guys...

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.  You prefer that electoral college continues to be weighted in favor of the dumb hicks.  Does that about cover it?

You might be dumb, but you are smart enough to know a rigged system in your favor when you see one.

Don't the opinions and concerns for these dumb hicks matter just as much as those in the city? The Electoral College provides the smaller states a voice in the Presidential election, do their votes count more? Yes, and that was done by design by the Founding Fathers. They were smart enough to understand that majority rule will ultimately lead to mob rule. If the majority feels threatened than it is very easy for them to strip the rights away from the minority. We also must remember that the Constitution was written before the Bill of Rights so many were still fearful about the majority (larger states) taking away their rights which is why the Bill of Rights was added to create a Liberal Democracy so the rights of the minority are protected.

Somebody mentioned earlier that majority rule is the foundation of our country or something along the lines of that but our Founding Fathers were very fearful of creating a Democracy.  They were all for "majority rule by those in power" meaning the legislatures but not "majority rule by the people."

Here is a good 10 minute video to explain the real American Form of Government - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&playnext=1&list=PLCDC7237D6EF2464B&feature=results_main&ab_channel=notdemocracy

The quicker more feasible solution is to increase the number of representatives in the House. No Constitutional Amendment needed and no possible court challenge.

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

I think that ultimately, the SCOTUS would decide whether or not the Compact is legal.

Maybe true, but I like its chances.  I would love to hear the formal argument against it that would be presented to the court.

just an opinion -
popular votes will give all power to cities. i don't like that cause i'm just a dumb hick...i'm not smart like you city guys...

I live in a county with 1 stoplight.

Seriously.

Really? Where did you grow up?

ramblinman wrote:

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

I think that ultimately, the SCOTUS would decide whether or not the Compact is legal.

Maybe true, but I like its chances.  I would love to hear the formal argument against it that would be presented to the court.

just an opinion -
popular votes will give all power to cities. i don't like that cause i'm just a dumb hick...i'm not smart like you city guys...

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.  You prefer that electoral college continues to be weighted in favor of the dumb hicks.  Does that about cover it?

You might be dumb, but you are smart enough to know a rigged system in your favor when you see one.

Us dumb hicks need a voice too, don't we?
from what I've read (it took me a while - dumb hick, remember) the EC was put in place to prevent tyranny of the majority.
glad we can agree that i am a dumb hick and you a smart city boy.

dusty7 wrote:Don't the opinions and concerns for these dumb hicks matter just as much as those in the city? The Electoral College provides the smaller states a voice in the Presidential election, do their votes count more? Yes, and that was done by design by the Founding Fathers.

Your phrasing is interesting here.  You start off with saying that the country vote (simplified term for brevity) should matter just as much as the city vote, then acknowledge that the country vote counts for more.  And don't act like the founding fathers were infallible.  They designed the government with a mind on some things that are no longer a concern and without considering things that they couldn't possibly have known would become a concern.  That's why the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can change with the times.  Or do you think what was written in the 1700s is where it should have stopped?

tps wrote:Us dumb hicks need a voice too, don't we?

You have a voice.  You just don't have the majority voice and for some reason that seems to be a problem for you.

to prevent tyranny of the majority.

Isn't that what the Senate is for?

Where was the Republican outcry against the tyranny of the majority when Barrett was confirmed?

tps wrote:

ramblinman wrote:

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

I think that ultimately, the SCOTUS would decide whether or not the Compact is legal.

Maybe true, but I like its chances.  I would love to hear the formal argument against it that would be presented to the court.

just an opinion -
popular votes will give all power to cities. i don't like that cause i'm just a dumb hick...i'm not smart like you city guys...

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.  You prefer that electoral college continues to be weighted in favor of the dumb hicks.  Does that about cover it?

You might be dumb, but you are smart enough to know a rigged system in your favor when you see one.

Us dumb hicks need a voice too, don't we?
from what I've read (it took me a while - dumb hick, remember) the EC was put in place to prevent tyranny of the majority.
glad we can agree that i am a dumb hick and you a smart city boy.

No. Not really.

The EC is closely linked to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which gave the states with lots of slaves a huge advantage over the states that did not have as many slaves.

It's largely the reason that the Southern states dominated national politics for the first several decades of American history.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson doesn't defeat John Adams without the Three-Fifths Compromise.

If anything, the EC ensured tyranny of the minority.

newcom wrote:Another opinion; I do not want the states of new York, & especially ca determining the President, in now way does it reflect the values of an entire country. CA is nuts period!

Why not just boot them from the union for being too big?

Huck wrote:

tps wrote:Us dumb hicks need a voice too, don't we?

You have a voice.  You just don't have the majority voice and for some reason that seems to be a problem for you.

to prevent tyranny of the majority.

Isn't that what the Senate is for?

Where was the Republican outcry against the tyranny of the majority when Barrett was confirmed?

Of course its a problem. Everyone wants to win...

I thought we were talking about picking a president?