America - The Official Thread

[Com Fox]

I've always been interested in the debate between popular vote and regional representation. The Electoral College seemed like an interesting compromise between population weight, which would allow politicians to cater to issues that focus on states with large populations, and perfectly balanced state votes between states (South Dakota is one state, it gets one vote. California is one state, it gets one vote). The electoral college seemed aimed at curing the problems that would crop up if you go with a purely population-based system. Might the rest of the union get sold on the idea of using South Dakota as a giant land fill?

But as Adam points out in the video above, it doesn't really work that way. Binning populations by state and giving the state to the winner is horrifically undemocratic. If you're a republican in Texas, you don't have to vote because your state is going republican. If you're a democrat in Texas, you don't have to vote because your state is going republican. This means Texas has a very hard time getting heard in a national election.

The only states where voting really makes a difference are states that are close enough to swing either way, and yet, also have enough electoral votes to count. If you're in Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania, your vote is over weighted, not just because your have more electoral votes per person than California or Texas, but because California and Texas are going red or blue no matter what.

All that the electoral college is doing is creating extreme artifical importance on very particular demographics. And that was exactly the problem it was created to solve. Ultimately, I think it's bad for the country. Don't overweight the votes of individuals living in South Dakota, and don't bin votes according to states. Let's have a straight popular vote for the presidency every time.

Problems with this:

1. Swing States Change, if I remember correctly one of the states which was believed to be Democrat during the 2016 Election turned out to be a Swing State.

2. Popular Votes doesn't solve any of the issues Adam brings up at all, candidates will still ignore portions of the country. People in the lesser known regions won't even bother voting since they're in the massive minority or create donkey votes.

3. Despite the outweight of California and Wyoming, California is still a worthy asset since of how many Electoral Votes it contains depspite having less power.

 

[Danoff]

Problems with this:

1. Swing States Change, if I remember correctly one of the states which was believed to be Democrat during the 2016 Election turned out to be a Swing State.

That's not a problem. It just means that extreme focus on swing states won't shift from election to election. That's a good thing.

2. Popular Votes doesn't solve any of the issues Adam brings up at all, candidates will still ignore portions of the country. People in the lesser known regions won't even bother voting since they're in the massive minority or create donkey votes.

Every vote would be weighed equally, so campaigning is something that has to be aimed at the entire population, rather than individual states. It won't cause people in lesser known regions to stop voting, because their vote will not be binned according to region. Their vote counts exactly as much as someone in California or Texas. It may even encourage them to vote, since their vote is not tied to a small bin of electoral votes (despite their vote actually being worth less overall when weighed as part of the popular vote).

What it does do is make it difficult to bring up any state-specific issues in the general election.

3. Despite the outweight of California and Wyoming, California is still a worthy asset since of how many Electoral Votes it contains depspite having less power.

California is an extremely important asset, which can be gotten automatically at zero cost due to having a "D" next to your name. This means you can spend exactly zero time campaigning there. Whether or not politicians are interested in your vote should not depend on whether or not you are in a populous state, or whether or not that state has an unbalanced number of democrats or republicans.

 

[Dennisch]

Hillary's pubic domain

Nasty man. Nasty.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Nasty man. Nasty.

Hillary is a woman...I think.

 

[McLaren]

*I should preface this by saying that all references to voting below are for the presidential election*

I've always been interested in the debate between popular vote and regional representation. The Electoral College seemed like an interesting compromise between population weight, which would allow politicians to cater to issues that focus on states with large populations, and perfectly balanced state votes between states (South Dakota is one state, it gets one vote. California is one state, it gets one vote). The electoral college seemed aimed at curing the problems that would crop up if you go with a purely population-based system. Might the rest of the union get sold on the idea of using South Dakota as a giant land fill?

But as Adam points out in the video above, it doesn't really work that way. Binning populations by state and giving the state to the winner is horrifically undemocratic. If you're a republican in Texas, you don't have to vote because your state is going republican. If you're a democrat in Texas, you don't have to vote because your state is going republican. This means Texas has a very hard time getting heard in a national election.

The only states where voting really makes a difference are states that are close enough to swing either way, and yet, also have enough electoral votes to count. If you're in Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania, your vote is over weighted, not just because your have more electoral votes per person than California or Texas, but because California and Texas are going red or blue no matter what.

All that the electoral college is doing is creating extreme artifical importance on very particular demographics. And that was exactly the problem it was created to solve. Ultimately, I think it's bad for the country. Don't overweight the votes of individuals living in South Dakota, and don't bin votes according to states. Let's have a straight popular vote for the presidency every time.

The argument to this though, is always going to be that politicians will only campaign in places with heavy populations.

According to Politico, there were 200 million registered voters for 2016, although wikipedia says there were 235,248,000 for 2012. Assuming Politico is correct, if one can win California, Texas, Florida, New York, & Illinois, that's 120.3 million people. There's 14 states that have under 2 million people individually, that will likely never see a politician campaign, as @RESHIRAM5 alluded to.

 

[Danoff]

The argument to this though, is always going to be that politicians will only campaign in places with heavy populations.

According to Politico, there were 200 million registered voters for 2016, although wikipedia says there were 235,248,000 for 2012. Assuming Politico is correct, if one can win California, Texas, Florida, New York, & Illinois, that's 120.3 million people. There's 14 states that have under 2 million people individually, that will likely never see a politician campaign, as @RESHIRAM5 alluded to.

Is it better that California, Texas, New York, etc. do not see a political campaign now? Either way, nobody campaigns in South Dakota. I understand that the point of the electoral college was to keep states from receiving disproportionate attention during campaigns. But that's what's happening because of the electoral college, and we end up with Presidents that didn't win the popular vote on top of it.

I also don't like binning all of the voters in a particular state into just the party that wins. So there should be no such thing as "winning" California, Texas, Florida, etc. Part of the electoral college is lumping the votes in a particular state for 1 party and 1 party only (I know, a few states split their votes). It's a bid to strengthen the importance of the state, but all it really does is discount the interests of the millions of people in that state that don't agree.

It's a terrible system. If I agree with some people way off in Ohio, my presidential vote doesn't count because I'm surrounded by people near me that don't agree with me? That's just silly. We're not voting on some local referendum here, this is the election for who is president of the entire country. It shouldn't matter what part of the country I'm in when my vote gets counted.

 

[McLaren]

Is it better that California, Texas, New York, etc. do not see a political campaign now? Either way, nobody campaigns in South Dakota. I understand that the point of the electoral college was to keep states from receiving disproportionate attention during campaigns. But that's what's happening because of the electoral college, and we end up with Presidents that didn't win the popular vote on top of it.

Isn't it likely to happen either way, though?

I also don't like binning all of the voters in a particular state into just the party that wins. So there should be no such thing as "winning" California, Texas, Florida, etc. Part of the electoral college is lumping the votes in a particular state for 1 party and 1 party only (I know, a few states split their votes). It's a bid to strengthen the importance of the state, but all it really does is discount the interests of the millions of people in that state that don't agree.

But again, doesn't that happen either way? I mean, you said yourself no one campaigns in South Dakota, so doesn't that discount 865,000 people's interests in either situation?

It's a terrible system.

Is it a terrible system now because Trump won, or was it a terrible system in 2000? I remember some backlash, but people wanted a recount because it was so close, not abolishing the Electoral System altogether.

This isn't a shot at who you preferred or insinuating that you're just upset (I know you're more intelligent than that), it's just the most I see this debate come up, the underlying tone is that people want it abolished because their candidate didn't win, not because of sound reasoning like you presented.

 

[Biggles]

Isn't it likely to happen either way, though?

But again, doesn't that happen either way? I mean, you said yourself no one campaigns in South Dakota, so doesn't that discount 865,000 people's interests in either situation?

Is it a terrible system now because Trump won, or was it a terrible system in 2000? I remember some backlash, but people wanted a recount because it was so close, not abolishing the Electoral System altogether.

This isn't a shot at who you preferred or insinuating that you're just upset (I know you're more intelligent than that), it's just the most I see this debate come up, the underlying tone is that people want it abolished because their candidate didn't win, not because of sound reasoning like you presented.

Danoff is right. And I'm not sure that Presidential campaigning in a particular state necessarily offers the people in that state any real guarantee that their interests will be served after the election. The US Senate is the institution that is intended to provide protection to areas of the country with smaller populations - it's a wildly undemocratic system that gives small state populations way more say in the nations affairs than justified by population numbers. Surely they shouldn't have the added influence afforded (potentially) by the electoral college?

The other growing anti-democratic problem is the increasing sophistication of gerrymandering in congressional districts. Typically the party controlling the local or state government has control over how re-districting takes place. The use of computer software now has the potential to turn gerrymandering into a much more precise science, as it's now possible for to churn out thousands of potential different district boundaries to figure out which one most favours the party in power.

 

[Com Fox]

Is it better that California, Texas, New York, etc. do not see a political campaign now? Either way, nobody campaigns in South Dakota. I understand that the point of the electoral college was to keep states from receiving disproportionate attention during campaigns. But that's what's happening because of the electoral college, and we end up with Presidents that didn't win the popular vote on top of it.

With how it is running for awhile now, it would be stupid to campaign hoping to win the popular vote more than the one that actually matters.

Issue is, either way, nothing will be balanced you'll just be shunning people away from voting. I highly doubt an individual in a less populated voting region would and think their vote would make difference. The whole political scene right now in terms of elections is based on groups, not the individual so if a group think their vote doesn't matter, they won't vote or donkey vote. Electoral College was an attempt to balance it, however like you said it has come out completely wrong and we end up with the same issue that would've happens if the US focused on popular votes.

It would be better just to include a whole new system instead of changing it as in the end, out of those 2, just like 2016 election, nobody really wins.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

If you're a republican in Texas, you don't have to vote because your state is going republican. If you're a democrat in Texas, you don't have to vote because your state is going republican.

I don't like this line of thinking because it kinda suggests there's something innate about how a region will swing in a vote, as if the voters aren't fully in control of their own votes. Obviously, "If you're a republican in Texas, you don't have to vote because your state is going republican" doesn't hold if every republican were to think that, and not turn up.............without wanting to state the obvious, the only reason there's the idea of a safe state/safe seat/safe whatever is because a lot of people choose to vote that way. If the issue is that politicians in these states know they have to do sod all to win it, is the bigger question there not why people choose to stick with their vote even if they're being neglected by their own politicians, or in the national conversation? Would that stubbornness change much if the electoral system was different?

As an aside, you suggest Texas is 'safe' whilst Ohio was a swing state, but in the end Trump won them by similar margins. Again not to state the obvious, but places are safe/swing, right up until the point they're not. Yes, in every election you can comfortably predict which way the majority of states will go, but people make the mistake of thinking that result is a good predictor of performance in future elections - it often isn't (just look at Hillary's "blue wall").

Having said all that I do agree with the point that putting people into bins for what is an (almost) uniform national vote is a rough deal. It would have been a bit ridiculous if in our EU referendum we'd divided up the choices into regions instead of counting up every vote equally (well some suggest we should kind of do this after the fact, but that's another matter).

 

[Danoff]

Isn't it likely to happen either way, though?

But again, doesn't that happen either way? I mean, you said yourself no one campaigns in South Dakota, so doesn't that discount 865,000 people's interests in either situation?

Yes, if you bin states together and send 100% of the votes within that state to one political candidate, which is part of the electoral system now. There are two things going on with the electoral college, one is overweighting of smaller states, and the other is binning all votes according to state. Both are bad.

I propose we ditch both, in which case nobody in South Dakota is treated differently from anyone in CA or OH. They're all equally important to the presidential campaign.

Is it a terrible system now because Trump won, or was it a terrible system in 2000? I remember some backlash, but people wanted a recount because it was so close, not abolishing the Electoral System altogether.

This isn't a shot at who you preferred or insinuating that you're just upset (I know you're more intelligent than that), it's just the most I see this debate come up, the underlying tone is that people want it abolished because their candidate didn't win, not because of sound reasoning like you presented.

I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary. I didn't want either of them to be president. My candidate didn't win, but that wouldn't have changed with the popular vote - so don't take this as some sort of backlash. I'm concluding that this system is inferior for tangible reasons.

With how it is running for awhile now, it would be stupid to campaign hoping to win the popular vote more than the one that actually matters.

Agreed, which is part of the reason why I'm not suggesting that outcomes from past elections would necessarily have been different. It would have changed the strategy, so maybe the outcome is the same. We'll never know.

I will say this though, and keep in mind I'm not a democrat, the two recent presidents that have won the electorate without winning the popular vote were both republicans. Overweighting smaller states' votes does put additional power in the hands of largely rural areas, which... tend to vote republican (at least during that time period). Just saying, it lines up.

Issue is, either way, nothing will be balanced you'll just be shunning people away from voting.

No. See above, I'm advocating getting rid of state-by-state binning (which is part of the electoral college) in addition to getting rid of overweighting of votes in small states.

I don't like this line of thinking because it kinda suggests there's something innate about how a region will swing in a vote, as if the voters aren't fully in control of their own votes. Obviously, "If you're a republican in Texas, you don't have to vote because your state is going republican" doesn't hold if every republican were to think that, and not turn up.............without wanting to state the obvious, the only reason there's the idea of a safe state/safe seat/safe whatever is because a lot of people choose to vote that way.

On an election-by-election basis you can figure out how your state will go, and so your vote is marginalized if you're not in a swing state. It's not true across decades of course. Bottom line, if you're in a state where most people don't agree with you, there is still no reason why your vote should be switched (which is what we do) to the candidate that you didn't vote for. That's undemocratic.

Having said all that I do agree with the point that putting people into bins for what is an (almost) uniform national vote is a rough deal. It would have been a bit ridiculous if in our EU referendum we'd divided up the choices into regions instead of counting up every vote equally (well some suggest we should kind of do this after the fact, but that's another matter).

👍

There are a lot of people, when it comes to discussion of the electoral college, that get concerned about state representation. The Electoral College was designed to make sure that states got representation in the presidential election not only based on population, but based on region. This was a play to assuage concerns for colonies who were considering joining the union that their vote for president (as if the colony could vote en-mass) would get overridden every time by more populous states.

The thing is, we have regional representation. You have the Senate, which is not based on population at all. There's also an entire state government that runs each state and has power reserved from the federal government for that purpose enshrined in the constitution. It is absolutely ridiculous to try to balance state-specific representation for the specific election of the office of president, the individual who is supposed to represent the entire country, and who is largely charged with the affairs of the federal government. This is not a regional office, and it's not an office that's designed to represent regional interests. This is one individual elected by the entire nation to run only the portion of the government that is concerned with the entire country.

There is no real defense of the electoral college. It's absurd.

 

[Joey D]

Hmmm, I've always been of mind that the electoral college worked since it seemed that it balanced out regions more, but @Danoff you got me thinking a bit.

With regards to not voting because X candidate will win, that's something that's very real in Utah right now. Basically anyone who isn't a conservative, Mormon, Republican won't win anything at the state level. Local level is a little different, but that's only in SLC and the metro area. Once you're out of the metro area though, it goes back to the conservative, Mormon, Republican that wins. They get people to turn out and vote though since many areas see candidates who try to out-Mormon each other and win.

I won't vote in the state because I don't want a conservative, Mormon, Republican in office at any level. I'm in such a small minority though it's not worth trying to get to the polls. I actually think we have an election coming up too.

 

[Danoff]

Let's say you're a powerful individual living toward the beginning of the United States. You'd like your state to have the most influence in choosing a president as possible, but you don't want to allow the slaves, married women, unmarried women, and white male non-landowners to vote. You want to count them among your voting power, but you don't want to actually give them a say. If at all possible, you'd like your vote to count on their behalf. If you could also capture the votes of people who voted for the wrong person, or chose not to vote, and make those votes count on your behalf as well, that would be even better.

Thus, the electoral college was born. A way for the aristocracy to cast a vote on behalf of the disenfranchised population and the minority party. It is a vote-laundering system.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Let's say you're a powerful individual living toward the beginning of the United States. You'd like your state to have the most influence in choosing a president as possible, but you don't want to allow the slaves, married women, unmarried women, and white male non-landowners to vote. You want to count them among your voting power, but you don't want to actually give them a say. If at all possible, you'd like your vote to count on their behalf. If you could also capture the votes of people who voted for the wrong person, or chose not to vote, and make those votes count on your behalf as well, that would be even better.

Thus, the electoral college was born. A way for the aristocracy to cast a vote on behalf of the disenfranchised population and the minority party. It is a vote-laundering system.

Absolutely. In addition that was pretty much the voting system that European gentry had brought with them. By coincidence today's episode of Blackadder III (Prince Regent era) was the one where a rotten borough with one eligible voter returns a majority of 16,000.

 

[Com Fox]

Agreed, which is part of the reason why I'm not suggesting that outcomes from past elections would necessarily have been different. It would have changed the strategy, so maybe the outcome is the same. We'll never know.

I will say this though, and keep in mind I'm not a democrat, the two recent presidents that have won the electorate without winning the popular vote were both republicans. Overweighting smaller states' votes does put additional power in the hands of largely rural areas, which... tend to vote republican (at least during that time period). Just saying, it lines up.

I never assumed that you were a democrat who thought Hillary should've won as what you said if it was different so would the strategies headinto the election.

Sorry for the bold, my Wii U glitched out with this post

EDIT: Fixed

 

[Dotini]

Tonight is when thousands of JFK assassination documents were to be released. But it appears Mr Trump has been prevailed upon by CIA and FBI to withhold hundreds of them on grounds of national security. This means active operations or sources and methods could be compromised. From 1963?? Of course that's BS - it's more likely because of embarrassment. I guess sometimes the truth is just too ugly. Or the swamp too deep.

 

[Biggles]

Let's say you're a powerful individual living toward the beginning of the United States. You'd like your state to have the most influence in choosing a president as possible, but you don't want to allow the slaves, married women, unmarried women, and white male non-landowners to vote. You want to count them among your voting power, but you don't want to actually give them a say. If at all possible, you'd like your vote to count on their behalf. If you could also capture the votes of people who voted for the wrong person, or chose not to vote, and make those votes count on your behalf as well, that would be even better.

Thus, the electoral college was born. A way for the aristocracy to cast a vote on behalf of the disenfranchised population and the minority party. It is a vote-laundering system.

Wait ... what? That reads a lot like it could be a Biggles post.

 

[DK]

Tonight is when thousands of JFK assassination documents were to be released. But it appears Mr Trump has been prevailed upon by CIA and FBI to withhold hundreds of them on grounds of national security. This means active operations or sources and methods could be compromised. From 1963?? Of course that's BS - it's more likely because of embarrassment. I guess sometimes the truth is just too ugly. Or the swamp too deep.

It's not like Trump is doing anything to drain it. [1] [2]

 

[Danoff]

Wait ... what? That reads a lot like it could be a Biggles post.

It does a little bit doesn't it? It's always fun to find a little common ground.

 

[mustafur]

Anything that naturally lowers the vote count as people know their vote is useless because of what their state is doing is bad.

If you got rid of the electoral collage the vote count would increase without doubt.

 

[Biggles]

It does a little bit doesn't it? It's always fun to find a little common ground.

I LOVE finding common ground! However, your cynical, but (in my view) realistic explanation of the origins of the electoral college seem somewhat at odds with views you expressed a few years ago. You previously seemed to extoll the perfection of the US Constitution, while I pointed out that, in practice, it resulted in decades of legally sanctioned slavery, a brutal civil war, egregious civil rights violations that continued for another hundred years after Emancipation, forcible displacement &/or genocide of indigenous peoples, & last, but not least, political graft & corruption on an epic scale.

In fact, the members of "aristocracy", as you put it, have always been able, one way or another, to operate a "vote-laundering system". I'm just curious if you have actually started to modify your views over time?

 

[Com Fox]

Anything that naturally lowers the vote count as people know their vote is useless because of what their state is doing is bad.

If you got rid of the electoral collage the vote count would increase without doubt.

Still doubtful on this, while people who don't vote might, the same can be said the other way around.

Perhaps instead of winner takes all for a state and their electoral votes, perhaps they take whatever percentage (with round ups) the votes are. For example, lets say a state has 50 electoral votes. Lets say 70% voted for Democrat and 30% voted for Republican. 35 Electoral Votes go to Democrat and 15 Electoral Votes go to Republican. Of coarse the number of electoral votes would have to reworked to actually make this seem plausible however, I think the video Danoff showed the current existing numbers of the Electoral College are already unbalanced and need fixing or complete removal depending on your position.

 

[mustafur]

Still doubtful on this, while people who don't vote might, the same can be said the other way around.

Perhaps instead of winner takes all for a state and their electoral votes, perhaps they take whatever percentage (with round ups) the votes are. For example, lets say a state has 50 electoral votes. Lets say 70% voted for Democrat and 30% voted for Republican. 35 Electoral Votes go to Democrat and 15 Electoral Votes go to Republican. Of coarse the number of electoral votes would have to reworked to actually make this seem plausible however, I think the video Danoff showed the current existing numbers of the Electoral College are already unbalanced and need fixing or complete removal depending on your position.

How would it go the other way, if people are not voting because they know the majority is going to vote a certain way why have elections?

The predictability of the vote would differ as everyone has the same voting power as opposed to those that live in a state that votes opposite to them making them powerless.

If this ends up favouring a certain political party then so be it, this is fair.

The US also needs preferential voting so it gives the long term possibility of more then a 2 party system.

 

[Danoff]

I LOVE finding common ground! However, your cynical, but (in my view) realistic explanation of the origins of the electoral college seem somewhat at odds with views you expressed a few years ago. You previously seemed to extoll the perfection of the US Constitution, while I pointed out that, in practice, it resulted in decades of legally sanctioned slavery, a brutal civil war, egregious civil rights violations that continued for another hundred years after Emancipation, forcible displacement &/or genocide of indigenous peoples, & last, but not least, political graft & corruption on an epic scale.

In fact, the members of "aristocracy", as you put it, have always been able, one way or another, to operate a "vote-laundering system". I'm just curious if you have actually started to modify your views over time?

You'll be shocked to find that I don't feel like I've changed my views on the subject. The Constitution was never intended to be a perfect document, and it has been monkeyed with a bit... prohibition being one of the most obvious examples. The 3/5ths compromise isn't exactly fine work either. I think the reason that the constitution (actually, the bill of rights) was so profound, and is such a fantastic document (whatever flaws it may have), is that it represents a fantastic expression of fundamental human rights.

Is the 2nd amendment, or any amendment, perfectly written? Probably not, definitely not in some cases. But they voice real human rights, the right to self-defense, the right to freedom of speech. The right to equal protection under the law (that one had to be added). Similarly for the declaration of independence. Naturally, being an atheist, I don't love the appeals to a creator. And being a student of logic, I don't love the "self-evident" cop-out. But there is profound truth in it regardless. I think I said back then what I'm thinking right now, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Perhaps instead of winner takes all for a state and their electoral votes, perhaps they take whatever percentage (with round ups) the votes are. For example, lets say a state has 50 electoral votes. Lets say 70% voted for Democrat and 30% voted for Republican. 35 Electoral Votes go to Democrat and 15 Electoral Votes go to Republican. Of coarse the number of electoral votes would have to reworked to actually make this seem plausible however, I think the video Danoff showed the current existing numbers of the Electoral College are already unbalanced and need fixing or complete removal depending on your position.

I believe this is up to the states to decide. In 2016, Maine went for Clinton, but Trump received one of the state's four votes.

 

[McLaren]

@Danoff , perhaps one could have you take over the role for one of these politicians? At least you present an argument for getting rid of the EC than claiming the Constitution never created it.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...-creation-of-the-constitution/article/2638676

"The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be there," he said. "There's a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says we will allocate our vote, our electoral votes, to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 270 electoral votes do the same."

The United States Electoral College is the mechanism established by the United States Constitution for the indirect election of the president of the United States and vice president of the United States. Citizens of the United States vote in each state and the District of Columbia at a general election to choose a slate of "electors" pledged to vote for a particular party's candidate.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#cite_note-2

 

[Com Fox]

How would it go the other way, if people are not voting because they know the majority is going to vote a certain way why have elections?

The predictability of the vote would differ as everyone has the same voting power as opposed to those that live in a state that votes opposite to them making them powerless.

If this ends up favouring a certain political party then so be it, this is fair.

The US also needs preferential voting so it gives the long term possibility of more then a 2 party system.

People wouldn't be voting if their minor vote wouldn't matter, especially residents in less populated states. Why would any of them vote if there's combined can't even beat 1/3 of another state, politicians wouldn't even try to acknowledge the states existence because their numbers won't matter in comparison to others.

The only way around this would be to make voting mandatory but not only does that have issues with people's free rights, it also doesn't stop donkey votes.

I hardly see either option of Popular Vote or Electoral College being any better, they both have the same issues just on different scales.

 

[Rage Racer]

Tonight is when thousands of JFK assassination documents were to be released. But it appears Mr Trump has been prevailed upon by CIA and FBI to withhold hundreds of them on grounds of national security. This means active operations or sources and methods could be compromised. From 1963?? Of course that's BS - it's more likely because of embarrassment. I guess sometimes the truth is just too ugly. Or the swamp too deep.

From what I heard, the documents say that Lee Harvey Oswald had a meeting with a KGB agent before the JFK assasination. According to jokes on the Russian Internet, that agent was an 11 years old boy.

Spoiler

 

[Dotini]

From what I heard, the documents say that Lee Harvey Oswald had a meeting with a KGB agent before the JFK assasination. According to jokes on the Russian Internet, that agent was an 11 years old boy.

Spoiler

Yes, Oswald attempted to contact Soviet Embassy officials in a visit to Mexico City shortly before the assassination. So there could indeed be a Soviet connection. But Oswald also met with Cuban Embassy officials on the same trip, if I recall correctly. IMO, we will eventually learn that Oswald's motivation related more to Castro than anyone else, and that any help he had came from that basic source.

A document was shown on TV last night revealing J Edgar Hoover insisting that it was essential for the American people to believe Oswald acted alone.

 

[ryzno]

So "WLM" White Lives Matter" Has become a thing...
Interesting it's been instantly called a White Supremacist Group...

The system is adding fuel to the Civil War fire...

I find it funny how I see countries world wide falling apart over similar reasons including and beyond racism.

Illuminati wants another World War...
It only benefits them...