Brexit

SAS · Joined: 18 Feb 1997 Posts: 167 Location: planet earth

Techno:
You clearly did not read carefully or do not comprehend my initial post that clearly outlines ways the small states have excessive power in all 3 branches of the federal government. You are simply wrong that the selection of the President and federal judges does not give more power to smaller states than larger ones. If you want an intelligent discussion, you need to understand the facts. Please reread it and if you still cannot comprehend it ask someone to help you.

As to defining "small state," I don't have an exact definition but I am referring to states where their senators represent a small number of people compared to other states. If you look at this link you will see that a senator from New York represents 9.7 million people, a senator from Texas represents over 13 million people, and a senator from California represents over 19 million people. Meanwhile, there are 14 states where a senator represents less than a million people and 24 states where a senator represents less that 2 million people.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/small-state-advantage.html

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10575

techno900,

You might want to think a bit deeper about the unique powers that the Senate has over the House of Representatives, particularly relative to the Judiciary branch. Just think about the Senate's power to approve or disapprove those appointed by the President to run and support the Executive Branch.

In my view, SAS is spot on in his comments.

coboardhead · Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4287

Techno wrote

real-human · Joined: 02 Jul 2011 Posts: 14265 Location: on earth

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

Frankly, I agree Dean. I would like to think that, behind the scenes, such has been made crystal clear to all potential aggressors, which is the intended purpose of the nuclear deterrent, and why we MUST keep it.

But in our democracies does anybody have the authority to make such behind the scenes dictatorial threats? I doubt it, and doesn't Putin, and other potential enemy states already realise this?

There was an excellent film made of the Israeli raid on Entebbe where Palestinian terrorists had seized over a hundred Israeli visitors, and were threatening to murder them in batches unless their demands for Israel to release all Palestinian terrorists in captivity were met in full. (Idi Amin did nothing to stop them, and was complicit.)

The point I'm making is that the raid had been organised and rehearsed and agreed by the Israeli Prime minister, and actually sent on its way BEFORE he had consulted the Knesset. All hell broke loose in that assembly!

The raid knew that it would have to turn back at an agreed beforehand time unless the Knesset agreed. It went up to the wire before they did so, and the raid was a success. (All the terrorists killed and ll the Israelis, apart from one, rescued.)

Israelis history of fighting terrorists won the day, but would the same hold true in our (complacent) democracies if put to the vote? I doubt it. Too many would agree with jaw-jaw, not war war.

techno900 · Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4144

SAS said:

techno900 · Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4144

coboardhead said:

SAS · Joined: 18 Feb 1997 Posts: 167 Location: planet earth

Techno

While you may not “see any bias for the smaller state,” the facts do not support you. Yes, roughly 80% of the electoral vote is population based, but the remaining 20% is not. Let’s look at some actual presidential elections to see how they were decided.

In the 2020 election Biden received 56.9% of the electoral vote but only 51.3% of the popular vote.

In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton won 48.2% of the popular vote compared to Trump's 46.1% but lost the electoral vote by a substantial margin. In the electoral college Clinton had 42.7% while 57.3% went to Trump.

In 2012, Mitt Romney won 48% of the popular vote but only 38% of the electoral vote.

In 2008 Obama won 50.7% of the popular vote and 53% of the electoral vote. McCain won 48.3 of the popular vote but only 47% of the electoral vote.

In 2004 Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote and 53% of the electoral vote.

In 2000 Bush received 47.9% of the popular vote while Gore received 48.4%. In the electoral vote, Bush won with 50.4%

So, in 1/3 of these recent elections the popular vote winner lost the presidency. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but to many people a person getting fewer votes by the citizens of a nation but then becoming that nation’s leader is not working “pretty darn well.” And again, I wonder if you would believe this if the democratic candidates were losing the popular vote but still becoming President.

Since I like to be honest and factual, in addition to the bias towards smaller states in the electoral college, there is one other major way the electoral college is biased. This is because all states except for Maine and Nebraska have a winner-take-all policy where the overall winner of the state-wide popular vote gets all of the electoral votes. This essentially ignores the votes of millions of people, especially in large states. So, in recent elections if you voted for the Republican candidate in California or New York, your vote did not matter in the electoral vote. The same thing occured if you voted Democratic in Texas or Florida.

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9011 Location: at a computer

mac · Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 1:48 pm Post subject:

But the founders! Let us all bless an era where women and black folks couldn’t vote and Senators were selected by state legislators. It was just perfect!