They're going to send your butt to college, I mean vote
Of course, first, the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyIFqf3XH24
Remember back in the day, when the broadcast networks actually taught how the government was supposed to work?
Before starting this tutorial on the Electoral College, as a reminder on past elections:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF39O_OQm6M
The candidates in 2016 knew they were running to win 270 electoral votes. That was the goal. They knew that the popular vote meant nothing. Right? They all knew the rules. They all knew the math to get there. And for those that don't care to remember, As late as the end of October, the Clinton campaign was preparing for a scenario where THEY won the Electoral College, and lost the popular vote. So it has been since the Twelfth Amendment. (ratified 1804).
That is all in the past. All she had to do was maintain the Blue wall of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. She didn't. Of course, all Algore had to do was win his home state of Tennessee..
So, now, there are those dreaming of a future with no Electoral College. I have tried not to use absolutes lately, but if ever there was a time for it, I feel like I could say that it is likely that that will NEVER happen. It would require 38 states to vote to eliminate it, either, after getting 2/3rds of the House and Senate to vote it out, (H.J.Resolution 19, FYI) or through a Convention of States. So do the math. Trump won 30 states that put together an Electoral majority. How many of those states are going to vote for an amendment to render themselves meaningless? I know, of course, states don't vote. But right now, states such as the Dakotas, Wyoming, et al have an oversized voice in the Electoral College. Why would they vote to change that? Progressive, Conservative, or Independent? In fact, it was that oversized voice that was a path, if not to victory, at least a voice at the table for Gary Johnson, had he played his cards better. (and not shown his jack booted thug side)
Then there are those talking about this cool hip legislation making its way around. Each state can change its constitution so that its Electoral votes go to the national popular vote winner. Of course they can do that. I can put my shotgun in my mouth and pull the trigger too, similar result.
And of course, what do Progressives do when they can't get their way? They call the waaambulance chasers, to sue. I guess the suit is based on equal representation. The problem? The Electoral College is way more constitutional than the 9th Circus's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Besides, there is a way easier, and I would say way overdue way to make everybody happy. And it would fix a host of other problems as well.
Do you think gerrymandering congressional districts is cool? Lumping all of this group or that group together so their voice is constrained? Or how about drawing the lines so this or that group's voice is diluted, and isn't there at all? Fun, right? Been around a long time, and it is truly bipartisan, meaning that whichever party is in power does it.
Think that lobbyists have too much say in our laws? Me too to both.
Simply change the law governing number of members of the House of Representatives so that there is 1 representative for each xxx,xxx number of citizens. When the number was set, I believe in 1911, there was 1 representative for every 211,000 citizens. Just set it there, rather than a fixed number. This would eliminate a lot of those gerrymanders, it would balance out the Electoral College, by giving increased representation to larger, more populous states. Believe me, I get that this solution could very well be the shotgun to the mouth of conservative politics, but it would be fair, and it might be surprising how the Congress shakes out. After all, over 1,500 members of Congress would be a completely different dynamic. And it would be worth it, I think.
Like the idea? Share it. Don't like it? Tell me why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyIFqf3XH24
Remember back in the day, when the broadcast networks actually taught how the government was supposed to work?
Before starting this tutorial on the Electoral College, as a reminder on past elections:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF39O_OQm6M
The candidates in 2016 knew they were running to win 270 electoral votes. That was the goal. They knew that the popular vote meant nothing. Right? They all knew the rules. They all knew the math to get there. And for those that don't care to remember, As late as the end of October, the Clinton campaign was preparing for a scenario where THEY won the Electoral College, and lost the popular vote. So it has been since the Twelfth Amendment. (ratified 1804).
That is all in the past. All she had to do was maintain the Blue wall of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. She didn't. Of course, all Algore had to do was win his home state of Tennessee..
So, now, there are those dreaming of a future with no Electoral College. I have tried not to use absolutes lately, but if ever there was a time for it, I feel like I could say that it is likely that that will NEVER happen. It would require 38 states to vote to eliminate it, either, after getting 2/3rds of the House and Senate to vote it out, (H.J.Resolution 19, FYI) or through a Convention of States. So do the math. Trump won 30 states that put together an Electoral majority. How many of those states are going to vote for an amendment to render themselves meaningless? I know, of course, states don't vote. But right now, states such as the Dakotas, Wyoming, et al have an oversized voice in the Electoral College. Why would they vote to change that? Progressive, Conservative, or Independent? In fact, it was that oversized voice that was a path, if not to victory, at least a voice at the table for Gary Johnson, had he played his cards better. (and not shown his jack booted thug side)
Then there are those talking about this cool hip legislation making its way around. Each state can change its constitution so that its Electoral votes go to the national popular vote winner. Of course they can do that. I can put my shotgun in my mouth and pull the trigger too, similar result.
And of course, what do Progressives do when they can't get their way? They call the waaambulance chasers, to sue. I guess the suit is based on equal representation. The problem? The Electoral College is way more constitutional than the 9th Circus's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Besides, there is a way easier, and I would say way overdue way to make everybody happy. And it would fix a host of other problems as well.
Do you think gerrymandering congressional districts is cool? Lumping all of this group or that group together so their voice is constrained? Or how about drawing the lines so this or that group's voice is diluted, and isn't there at all? Fun, right? Been around a long time, and it is truly bipartisan, meaning that whichever party is in power does it.
Think that lobbyists have too much say in our laws? Me too to both.
Simply change the law governing number of members of the House of Representatives so that there is 1 representative for each xxx,xxx number of citizens. When the number was set, I believe in 1911, there was 1 representative for every 211,000 citizens. Just set it there, rather than a fixed number. This would eliminate a lot of those gerrymanders, it would balance out the Electoral College, by giving increased representation to larger, more populous states. Believe me, I get that this solution could very well be the shotgun to the mouth of conservative politics, but it would be fair, and it might be surprising how the Congress shakes out. After all, over 1,500 members of Congress would be a completely different dynamic. And it would be worth it, I think.
Like the idea? Share it. Don't like it? Tell me why.
Comments
Post a Comment