Seems as if that analysis might also apply to the electoral college, which (through a different path) ends up being a form of gerrymandering.
Well it makes parties try to have a message that reaches more than just a few selected populated areas. It works against a party that wants to be just a party of a few big cities and it forces them to try to craft a message to appeal to at least a few smaller cities, at least enough to win more than a few states.
It's hard to find something unconstitutional that's actually in the constitution, but if this leads to some kind of proportional representation, that would be great. I'm sure it won't though.
Well true. I was thinking of how this Law School guy's inefficiency calculation might be applied, as a measure, not about how to change the law -- which as you write, would have to be a Constitutional change.
Yeah, and that message failed in every big city. So, we have a battle between the party that wins no big cities and all the small towns, and a party that wins every big cities and loses the small towns. Neither is better than the other. So, let's just count the popular vote and not pretend that any good is coming from the electoral college. It's not.
But we are a federation, I would much rather go to having state legislatures pick the electors that pick the President. The Repugs won more states, the Democrats need to craft a message that will resonate in more states than just the West coast and East Coast. Remember if the Dems ever get a hold of Texas, then the Republicans are in a world of trouble. California + Texas + NY state is a lot of electoral votes.
Didn't he already write that he's sympathetic to the basic argument, but needed some kind of scalable standard? Doesn't this provide him with exactly what he asked for? I saw an unintentionally hilarious blog post, I think by Michael Barone, arguing that the popular vote just means tyranny by California. I'd try to do it justice...but that's not possible.
I don't get this. Bush won Florida in 2000 for a variety of reasons, one of which was voter intimidation in the county containing Jacksonville. And the county containing Tallahassee illegally (no preclearance) moving a precinct off the HBCU there. Hillary barely lost in 3 states. You make it sound like Trump won his tipping point state by 5 points or something.
Exactly this. The issue with partisan gerrymandering cases has been the difficulty of establishing an objective measurement. The wasted vote theory provides it.
For sure but she did lose them, the Dems have to figure out how to get a few thousand more voters in those states to come out. The problem will be if the Repugs figure out that Trumps way is the best way for them to stay relevant, and go full nationalistic with protectionism and immigration. Many of the money people in the Republican party do not like the protectionism of Trump, but if he can pull the carpet from under the democrats., then the Repugs could find a way to stay alive political for a few more decades. Even if you think Trump is too crazy to do it, I am sure there are other Republicans that see what Trump was able to do and may go in the same white nationalistic direction. Your people still make up 70% of the USA population.
Don't care. Don't care if they won more cows, more acres, more states, more mountains, and more chicken farms. They didn't win more people. Now, I'm not arguing for what the Dems need to do. If the game is played this way, then the Dems need to play better than they did. Just don't tell me it's a good way, because it's not. It's a stupid way.
Again, we are a federation. Personally I would like a multi-party election with a run-off if nobody gets 50%+1, but we are not getting that.
The constitution. BTW we are a representative democracy. and we are both a representative democracy and a federation of equal* states. *Equal in the sense of rights, not in the sense that we have to have equal representation (other than what the constitution calls for).
Again, I don't care. Trump is a usurper. He's a legal usurper, to be sure, but either way, he's a President whom most voters did not want. So for me the plan is simple -- oppose him on every turn, block him, don't work with him. He doesn't belong in office. You're free to believe differently, of course. That is just how I see it. The first time I've ever felt this way. In the past, I've always maintained that Dems should work with a Republican President. Not this guy, not this election.
Well yes, we can try to change the 2nd while we are at it. BTW changing the constitution needs 2/3rd of all states, we can't even win a plurality in half. Well you do need to have some type of power to block shit as the party of no. Really the only power Dems have right now is the control of big cities. States like California can try to pass laws that go against the federal government (push the boundaries) just like GOP controlled states did with regard to abortion, immigration, Medicare, ect. Is the liberals turn to cry out for state rights (even when those words are seen as code for racism to many people).
1. I don't think that's true. What about all of the pro-Democratic suburbs? I think that's more of a Sunbelt thing than a Rust Belt thing, but it's a thing. 2. "only" is doing a ton of work there.
I think by "big cities" he meant both the cities and burbs. As you write, he put that word "only" to working overtime.
We do have very important States also. I was just being dramatic. At the federal level, other than the filibuster, there is really very little the Dems can do to stop Trumps agenda, and I am not confident that will change in 2 years, the GOP is going to have 4 years of free reign to give us the elections have consequences shaft, good and hard.
Yep. I have no faith in Dems to show up and vote for their interests in mid-term elections. The only ones who will do so are the new Dems, that is the rich white suburbanites that the Trump wing has chased away from the GOP. Traditional Dems, forget about it. The GOP can kill student loans, and the kiddies will whine, but they won't show up in the midterm elections.
I hope he referenced the Great Jessica/Ashley War of 1993, where Ashley was the most popular name for newborn girls in 31 states plus DC, while Jessica was the top name in just 13 states, but Jessica won California by such a big margin that it narrowly pulled out the national popular vote. (FWIW, Trump won 23 of the 31 "Ashley states", Clinton won 7 of the 13 "Jessica states" and 5 of the 6 "other" states).