Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,482
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 2, 2020 18:46:01 GMT -5
The number of EC votes should be based on state population not the number of senators and house representatives... That would be a quick and easy fix... Not unless you want an Amendment. The words are fairly clear (Article 1, Section 1, Clause 2): "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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." DFW—how dare you cling to something as arcane as the language of the US Constitution?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,899
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 2, 2020 18:49:15 GMT -5
The number of EC votes should be based on state population not the number of senators and house representatives... That would be a quick and easy fix... Not unless you want an Amendment. The words are fairly clear (Article 1, Section 1, Clause 2): "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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." I do want an amendment of the current rule, don't you? Texas gets 1 EC vote per approx 760K citizens, Vermont gets 1 EC vote per approx 200K citizens. How could that be considered equitable?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,482
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 2, 2020 18:50:31 GMT -5
Then by all means you should hop off this board and launch a nationwide campaign for that amendment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 18:52:27 GMT -5
"I have no opinion other than trolling is good"
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,482
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 2, 2020 18:54:20 GMT -5
"I have no opinion other than trolling is good" It’s okay, we still like you...
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,899
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 2, 2020 18:55:04 GMT -5
Not unless you want an Amendment. The words are fairly clear (Article 1, Section 1, Clause 2): "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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." DFW—how dare you cling to something as arcane as the language of the US Constitution? Has the constitution ever been amended Elvado?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,482
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 2, 2020 18:57:58 GMT -5
Many times.
And I don’t take issue with your basic point.
However, until that amendment takes place, your complaints ring very empty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 18:59:58 GMT -5
"I have no opinion other than trolling is good" It’s okay, we still like you... Case in point...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 19:14:42 GMT -5
"our stockpile." I mean: Our is the citizens of the United States, right???
Not the governor. Not the hospitals. Friends.
Spoken without a hint of irony
It’s called the Strategic “National” Stockpile ... Is this an example of "leading from behind?"
I'm so glad we have the guy whose qualifications are having sex with the boss's daughter on the case. Great job everyone who voted for this.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,899
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 2, 2020 19:19:21 GMT -5
Many times. And I don’t take issue with your basic point. However, until that amendment takes place, your complaints ring very empty. As long as they ring true I'm good with it...
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,482
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 2, 2020 19:20:10 GMT -5
Many times. And I don’t take issue with your basic point. However, until that amendment takes place, your complaints ring very empty. As long as they ring true I'm good with it... I will sign your petition for the Amendment.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,204
|
Post by hoya9797 on Apr 2, 2020 19:34:31 GMT -5
Once again, this is the solution if people actually wants to guarantee that the person with the most votes wins. I don’t think everyone (Republicans) want that but people who are interested in fairness should. www.nationalpopularvote.com/
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,899
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 2, 2020 19:35:40 GMT -5
As long as they ring true I'm good with it... I will sign your petition for the Amendment. I doubt it but I will remember this offer in the future...
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Apr 2, 2020 20:32:43 GMT -5
Not unless you want an Amendment. The words are fairly clear (Article 1, Section 1, Clause 2): "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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." I do want an amendment of the current rule, don't you? Texas gets 1 EC vote per approx 760K citizens, Vermont gets 1 EC vote per approx 200K citizens. How could that be considered equitable? Honestly, there’s no amendment requiring 435 representatives. It’s a law enacted by Congress and signed by Hoover that fixed us at this level. Which means it’s a law that can be rewritten without 3/4 of the states’’ approval.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 20:38:12 GMT -5
INSANE.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,749
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 2, 2020 21:09:43 GMT -5
Honestly, there’s no amendment requiring 435 representatives. It’s a law enacted by Congress and signed by Hoover that fixed us at this level. Which means it’s a law that can be rewritten without 3/4 of the states’’ approval. There was an amendment to the Constuttion to address this as as early as 1789. It narrowly failed. Were it to have been enacted, the current House chamber would need to accommodate 8,180 members, including 987 from California and 725 from Texas. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,899
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 2, 2020 21:16:42 GMT -5
Agreed!! What's even worse is the fact that VP Pence told reporters that 200K N95 masks were being shipped to NY public health warehouses and then told NYC healthcare workers "help is on the way" Absolutely shameful!!
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,899
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 2, 2020 23:45:18 GMT -5
Honestly, there’s no amendment requiring 435 representatives. It’s a law enacted by Congress and signed by Hoover that fixed us at this level. Which means it’s a law that can be rewritten without 3/4 of the states’’ approval. There was an amendment to the Constuttion to address this as as early as 1789. It narrowly failed. Were it to have been enacted, the current House chamber would need to accommodate 8,180 members, including 987 from California and 725 from Texas. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_AmendmentWhat does this post have to do with Badger's post? Are you implying that this is the best the law can be?
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Apr 3, 2020 10:02:18 GMT -5
Honestly, there’s no amendment requiring 435 representatives. It’s a law enacted by Congress and signed by Hoover that fixed us at this level. Which means it’s a law that can be rewritten without 3/4 of the states’’ approval. There was an amendment to the Constuttion to address this as as early as 1789. It narrowly failed. Were it to have been enacted, the current House chamber would need to accommodate 8,180 members, including 987 from California and 725 from Texas. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_AmendmentYeah - I mean that'd be a little ridiculous... but by the same token, you'd feel like you truly knew your representative in a way that you don't today. That said, there's probably a happy medium in there, no? We "locked in" 435 reps when there were ~120M people in the US. Since there's now ~330M people, multiply 435 by 1.75 and you get 761 reps (760 if you like round numbers). Reps would represent about 275k people, or the size of a medium-sized city. Plus, with more reps, gerrymandering has much less of an effect. Kill two birds with one stone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 10:29:10 GMT -5
-Pardons a chief petty officer who was convicted of war crimes and held in contempt by his fellow SEALS
-Fires a captain in command of an aircraft carrier for warning that his crew was threatened by coronavirus and needed help
|
|