We are a federations of states. Sure people that prefers a more French system with majority rules do not like it, The rules are what they are, in soccer you can play with in the rules of the game or try to carry the fall with your hands to score a goal and then complain that the rules are stupid when they call a handball on you.
Right... Except that your analogy would be more accurate if, say, one team was allowed to carry the ball with their hands all over the field except in their rival's 18-yard box, and the other team wasn't.
The states have been what they are (John is arguing about the Senate) for a while now, so both teams know the rules.
The analogy fails because in soccer the rules do not favor one side over the other. And yes, we know the rules. They should be changed for fairness -- but of course they won't, because the side that benefits from the unfairness also benefits from the rules by which Constitutions are changed. And that side isn't interested in fair play.
Right, but so what. That everybody knows the rules does not mean the rules are not lopsided and heavily favor one of the teams. EDIT: JohnR beat me to it.
Rather than complain about the rules, let's take advantage of the orange idiot, become the referees, and change the rules. Every time you donate to a presidential candidate, donate to a state legislator race instead.
If the rules are that you have to score goals to win, but then you develop a game plan that calls for short passes that helps you team keep possession of the ball for 65% of the time. Then you lose the game 2-0 while out possessing the other team 65-35, who's fault is that? You can be mad at the rules of the game, but you knew the rules before the game started (you can be like Hope Solo and call the Sweden bunkering team cowards). You can complain to the Association that keeps the rules of the game and get them to change the rules in the future, but for now the rules may benefit teams that can bunker and counter over teams that possess but can't score. So at the end it is your fault for developing a game plan that scores no goals. The rules of winning elections in a federal republic means winning elections in the federal entities that make up the republic (it could be worse, just look at the EU election format). You can be pissed that the rules help the Republicans since they have a game plan for that vs the democratic team that has a plan to run up the score in some federal entities, but can't win in the majority of them. But you have to win the game at its current rules before you can develop a plan to change those rules.
I get that you all would prefer that we were not a federal union, perhaps it would be better. I would prefer a parlimentary federal government, but we don't have that. (More chance for 3rd parties).
Of course we are. We have a national currency, no state border controls, a national bank, a national army, etc. And states don't have the rights to do with they wish. Lincoln took care of that. The federal union bridge was crossed a long, long time ago. What's left are outdated vestiges that haven't yet been cleaned up.
California is suing the federal government to keep their vehicle emissions, multiple states did not sign up for medicare extensions. A court just ruled that the federal government can not stop states that want to implement internet neutrality. Yes in 200+ years more and more power has been centralized in the federal government, but states still have some power left. The rules are still set, and again to change the rules you need to win with the rules to change them. Or perhaps we need a new constitution, that may be the easiest way to "fix" the Union in a way that democrats would prefer.
BTW this article talks about how the coalitions that Democrats (city folk) and Republicans (rural folk) do give an advantage to Republicans due to the way we sort each other out in the places we choose to live, this goes beyond the federal level, but it also shows up at local and state level. https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/0...ities-lose-book-interview-us-politics/598693/ In England there is something similar with their voting system, In elections that the Green party can win say 5%+ of the vote, that will mean very few seats in the parliament (maybe even zero) because they get votes all over the Kingdom. While the Scottish Nationalist can get 20 or so seats with the same 5%+ because all their votes are concentrated in a few electoral districts.
Ok, so we did talk about the problems many liberals here have with the Senate and the Electoral college. Perhaps you should include States on the lost. I am sure many democrats here have a problem with the democratic governor of Louisiana. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-a-democrat-get-reelected-governor-in-louisiana/ He did get 47% of the primary vote, so he should be favorite to win the runoff in November. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/...ace-runoff-in-louisiana-governors-race-000285 If Democrats want to win under the current rules, people like Edwards are needed in the party. If the party runs with purity tests, then those type of wins (possible wins) will not happen. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/...ace-runoff-in-louisiana-governors-race-000285
Winning the first time would have been best, of course, but Edwards is lucky to be facing Rispone rather than Abraham in the runoff. I think there is a greater chance of Abraham voters voting for Edwards (or just staying home) than Rispone voters.
I am fine with John Edwards, as well as with Joe Manchin in West Virginia. Better a blue dog than a red wolf.
I didn't know that. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses the Republicans have had at least 57 senators in seven congresses including when the parties thought differently. The last time there were at least 57 Republican senators were when they had a 59-37 advantage in the 67th Congress from 1921 to 1923. The most Republican senators out of 100 is 55 in the 105th (1997 to 1999), 106th (1999 to 2001), and 109th (2005 to 2007). The last time a party had at least 55 senators and gained at least one was when the Democrats went from 56 in the 102nd (1991 to 1993) to 57 in the 103rd (1993 to 1995). According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_States_Senate_elections in 2014, when the Republicans gained 9 senators to make 54, the nationwide senate popular vote was 51.7 percent for Republicans and 43.8 percent for Democrats. Looking at the nationwide popular popular vote and percentage of members elected in each chamber, in 2014 the Republicans were helped more by House district lines than by Senate district lines. If the same people vote and everyone votes for the same party, Edwards will lose. A unique thing about Louisiana is that they vote on Saturdays. Somebody said that voting on weekends will avoid conflicts with work, but that Democrats won't consent to voting on Saturdays because their voters are more likely to have to work six a week to make ends meet, and Republicans won't consent to voting on Sundays because it's Sabbath. Criminal justice and education are two big things done mostly by states and smaller areas. I'm not saying it's fair, but having two senators per state is a way of having much fewer senators than representatives without having different size Senate and House districts. The only ways to have 100 senators determined by population would be to have some senators represent multiple nearby states, such as North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana; or have the lowest population states not have any senators. New York has 63 state senators and 62 counties. One state senator proposed going to one state senator per county, and obviously not many of his colleagues agreed.
Obviously, that's just arithmetic. However, Edwards is basically a republican on some important issues, like abortion and guns, while being a much better manager than his republican predecessor, Piyush "Li'l Booby" Jindal. Maybe some Abraham voters don't want a return to fiscal chaos. Also, I read yesterday that democrat turnout in New Orleans was really low, so there is room for Edwards to improve without crossover votes. I still think Rispone is a better opponent for Edwards, because he is more of a nut job than Abraham. We've always had elections on Saturday (except federal elections). If you work Saturday, early voting is quite easy (but you can't do it Sunday). Turnout was pretty low by historical standards, but that may be due to the LSU-Florida game. I lifted this from Facebook:
Rooney, R-FL, is retiring from a safe R district. He’s the guy refusing to suck Trump’s cock WRT Ukraine.
That's pretty much how it works. Bow to the king, or resign. Trump is purging the party of any dissenters to his autocracy, with the consent and support of Republican voters.
I can't predict the future but this looks like a realignment. I'm assuming the new Republican party will be a hard-right nationalist one. Does the Democratic party absorb those who would normally be Republicans? Normally you'd expect a 3rd party but I don't see the driving issue that normally propels one be it slavery, the power of railroads & other corporations, prohibition or desegregation.
It indeed is a realignment. The new GOP consists 2% of extremely rich people who HATE taxes and contribute 98% of the money, and 98% of mainstream white-nationalist voters, who contribute 2% of the money. The white-collar suburbanites are being chased out. So far, it seems. Taxes could lead to a rift, though. As a general rule, those white-collar suburban voters are all aboard with the Democrats on cultural issues, but they aren't much for redistribution policies. In my view, they are disgusted enough with Trump to vote for a progressive Dem candidate in 2020, but I think they quickly would become disenchanted with that progressive once he/she got into office.
3rd party only if the Sanders/Warren side of the Dems wins not only in the white house but across Congress. I do not see evidence that outside Warren and a handful of very liberal seats that will happen.
This is why Warren keeps refusing to answer where the rest of the money she will need for her platform will come from. Props to Sanders who at least does admit that Medicare for all will mean higher taxes for the middle and working class. (Theoretically offset by savings on medical costs).
Even if this very unlikely scenario comes to pass it is still not the sort of event that brings success to 3rd parties in the US. They've arisen in support of a specific issue not because of opposition to one. The ones that have a negative motivation last one election like Wallace in '68.