Well, you certainly will not foster a compromising and functional government by encouraging petty party bickering, and espousing the Erisian ideal. Quite the opposite, actually.
That's the primary model that republicans have espoused for the past six years. They should not be shocked that democrats learn from their example.
Seems fair to me, everyone should get one vote, ONE. Right now a citizens of North Dakota has 3 times the voting power for president as that of a citizen of California. Heck right now a Citizen of Washington DC has no presidential voting rights what so ever, does that seem fair to you? Then why did you vote for the party that did just that and only bicker and jam the government?
Of course. Yet another reason to get rid of the Republican Party and every politician that has sold out and joined it - it is founded on such conflict, uses it to prevent the government from functioning, and has been doing that for your entire adult life (it's an ingrained characteristic, not a temporary glitch). Recall, for example, the recent scene in which Republican Senators filibustered their own bills, rather than allow them to be approved and signed by a Democratic President. Or the scenes in which the Republicans in Congress agreed to allow the US Federal Government to default on its debt rather than acquiesce to Democratic Party parliamentary maneuvers. As long as the modern Republican Party has power in a government, it will use it to prevent that government from functioning. And that agenda is nowhere more blatant, and potentially destructive, than in the current Executive administration. If you want functional government, the Trump administration must be opposed and defeated in its attempts to prevent it.
Yeh, so Is that meant to be a justification for bad behaviour? Like grade school "Well he started it"................. Maybe we need actual grownups in government?
When it works - definitely. If "well he started it" resulted in winning the class president election, and meant you graduated with top grades - then yes, it would be utilized quite often as a workable strategy. The train left that station during the last election.
That's a cartoon - just a tad over-stated? Even if we granted its accuracy, you're saying the population would elect the president, as it elects Congress. That doesn't seem like such a bad thing. The president is meant to work for the people, not the states. Isn't that what the senate does?
Yep. Which means getting rid of the Republican Party's politicians and influence. The best of them - the ones not simply too stupid to monitor reality - been servile minions of the Kochs and the Adelsons, cowardly kowtowers to the Limbaughs and Hannitys, and frustration-fueled abusers of those they are allowed to take it out on, for too long: they have lost their honor, the respect of anyone who knows what they've done, and with it their adult standing in the community. The leader of the Republican Party is Donald Trump. The agenda of the Republican Party is reducing the taxes paid by the rich, reducing government oversight and regulation of what the wealthy want to do, and using the remaining powers of government for both acquiring and defending material resources in the interest of the very wealthy. That's it. That is how teenage gang members govern their turf. That is not how adults govern a modern industrial society.
Actually, I'd prefer not to be governed at all. (kick the jams out) incidentally The libertarian party just got party status in iowa. If Tulsi ain't running, I guess I could caucus libertarian next time. It will be interesting to see who else shows up.
You may well get your wish - Trump has no interest in governing anybody, and neither do most other Republicans, and they're running the show. Years ago the Japanese were in a position similar to China's now - cash rich, resource poor, dominating the international manufacturing of consumer goods. At the time, their grand strategy was to make the China the factory, Europe the boutique, and America the farm - all under Japanese management. They overlooked what happens to economies that don't regulate their banks. But the grand strategy was not a bad one - and China's ruling elite were not blind to it. What would happen to - for example - the citizens of Iowa, if America discarded the governance currently interceding between Chinese agribusiness investments and American agriculture itself, is an interesting question I would think most residents of Iowa would prefer remain speculative only.
And I would prefer to live in a world of faeries and unicorns and sexy elves... but we don't live in that world.
Yes, because POTUS is expected to represent everyone...not just the most populace states, or even isolated regions. The President has to appeal to people spread across the whole country. And it's rather hyperbolic to say some people have "no voting rights what so ever" when their elector count equals that of an entire state. Until the 17th Amendment, Senators were elected by state legislatures, i.e. electors. The population does now elect Congress, but only on a per state basis. This means that California voters have nothing to do with the election of Alabama congressmen. If they did, Californians would certainly swamp the will of the Alabamans in shear number, disenfranchising them entirely. And this is the exact same predicament the EC remedies. No, the Senate isn't elected by national popular vote. It's elected by state popular vote.
That would mean one vote per citizen. Everywhere, regardless of whether state has a small or large population, whether they agree with the majority of the people in their state, whether their party had successful rallies there, whether they agree with the electors - regardless of any other factor whatsoever, except which presidential candidate best reflects their preference for a president. One vote per voter --- not a hugely difficult concept. Elector counts are far and away different from individual votes. Exactly. Big states and little states; populous and sparse states; all equally represented. So you can put the map back in proportion.
Elaborating a bit on the China aspect - or rather non-aspect - of the nice speech and not being governed at all, here's something of immediate significance that was omitted: http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-future-of-us-china-relations-under-president-trump/ and a possible reason for the omission - Goldman Sachs's much increased influence in the Trump administration: http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontr...-promised-in-campaign-notably-mia-in-spe.html
"Represent everyone" means representing as wide a variety of values and regions as possible. The autonomous nature of the states means that people can express their values locally, in ways that differentiate their laws, cultures, etc.. Population concentrations do mean that popular vote would permanently disenfranchise a large swath of the country. So what....everyone has "no voting rights what so ever"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Seems I just said something about being hyperbolic. Not in a national presidential popular vote.
The values trump represent is his own narcissism and egomania, a review of his political opinions over the last 30 years reveals that he has no principles what so ever and flip flops between what ever new idea hits his head randomly at any moment. People compare trump to hitler which is so over used a figure as to be detrimental to use in an argument, but hitler had goals, he laid it out in mein kampf, Trump on the other hand has nothing, no objective what so ever other than pleasing is own ego.
You are making no sense. The president is meant to preside over - that is, with the help of a cabinet and civil service, administer the federal government. Not the states: he has no jurisdiction over state legislatures. The House of Representatives is elected by popular vote - or what passes for popular vote in a screwed-up system - from each district. Which means that states with lots of people send more district representatives to Washington than states with few people - regardless of whom each of the voters in each of the districts in each of the states prefer for president. The senate represents every state equally. Pretty basic civics. I don't see why you persist in conflating the levels and branches of government. The point about the electoral college is that it does not accurately represent the will of the voters. And the cartoon map has no bearing on the popularity of presidential candidates.
