The November 4, 2025 National/State/Local Election Thread

[Its On A Slab]

No, not a problem. Sorry if I sounded like a jerk. But how would you know me otherwise!

I only learned it when it looked like it might happen in 2000 (that election - coincidentally - was 25 years ago today).



You know what's funny? Everything we whine about today about how to elect a President is in document after document in the early history of this country. There's literally not a single argument ANYONE advocating a popular vote (however done) presents now that was unknown 250 years ago. Hamilton touched on it in Federalist #68 (the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent) and while I "get" the popular vote argument, I'm not sure everyone has bothered to think through the even shadier ways of winning that the two major parties would try in order to win. No doubt, Democrats would prop up a regional "conservative Democrat" in the South to siphon votes away from the Republican, and the GOP would pull the same trick in New England and on the West Coast, maybe even with two or more candidates.

It's a fair point to say someone doesn't like the EC for whatever reason. But it is simply false for anyone to say, "Well, if it wasn't for the EC then Hillary would have won" because you cannot assume that the two parties run the SAME CAMPAIGNS and turn out the same voters.

Seriously - how many times does a voter either pull the lever for the familiar name or NOT pull it because of a name? That would take on a different meaning in the case of removing the EC.



This - to me - is the funny thing. This country came closer than it ever had in 1970 to abolishing the EC, approving it by a 338-70 margin in the House and sent it to the Senate. Six Senators - three from each party - conducted a filibuster by raising every objection always raised: it would cause the rise of splinter parties (as I was saying above), federalize state elections, lead to endless recounts (imagine if in 2000 we had to recount every single vote in the USA), but also noted (and this was one of the first points ever made historically) that it is EASY TO STEAL and election if it's a popular vote because you might only have to spot inject a few thousand votes around the country. In the case of the EC, you have to have enough to STEAL THE STATE - and let's face it, there's only about 7 states where this would ever matter, but they change through the years. They never shut off the filibuster, failing by a 54-46 vote.

Besides - the only time we ever REALLY hear about it is when someone doesn't like the outcome.

The FF's were no fans of popular elections. That's why the Senate was elected by state legislatures until about the time of TR, when that was done away with by amendments. Oddly enough, there is a segment of the MAGA(formerly known as the GOP) that wants to bring it back.

This is why I am always chuckling when someone puts those guys on pedestals. They were not infallible. The Constitution is a beautiful document, but it was imperfect as Hell. That's why there were so many amendments.

 

[92tide]

The FF's were no fans of popular elections. That's why the Senate was elected by state legislatures until about the time of TR, when that was done away with by amendments. Oddly enough, there is a segment of the MAGA(formerly known as the GOP) that wants to bring it back.

that (along with whining about women being allowed to vote) used to be a staple “argument” on boortz (90-00s atlanta talk radio dude)

 

[Maudiemae]

View attachment 54134

They mean down here where the cost of living is getting beyond so many people. There are a LOT of families not able to keep up and it's just getting worse. I don't know what it's like further north or for those who aren't in that situation up further in the state but here, even the rental prices have become absurd. My family and friends are managing but I feel so badly for people my age here who only have Social Security for income because that ain't gon' cut it.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The FF's were no fans of popular elections. That's why the Senate was elected by state legislatures until about the time of TR, when that was done away with by amendments. Oddly enough, there is a segment of the MAGA(formerly known as the GOP) that wants to bring it back.

This is why I am always chuckling when someone puts those guys on pedestals. They were not infallible. The Constitution is a beautiful document, but it was imperfect as Hell. That's why there were so many amendments.

I'm not gonna argue they were anything close to perfect, I'm just saying that anyone TODAY who thinks they're proposing thoughts that were never contemplated NOT ONLY by the founding fathers but by Congresses since then, it's more of a testament to their bad history teachers or self-learning than it is that the EC is a bad thing. I understand not everyone is a lawyer but folks need to realize their objections aren't original.

Let me bring it on what may be less partisan ground. It's like the college football playoff. Dan Jenkins proposed a 16-team playoff way back in 1965 because of the hullaballoo over "but Alabama lost the bowl game to Texas and Arkansas beat Texas," even though that argument had never been used in the three previous instances similar things happened. Of course, college football wasn't near as well-known in the early 50s (when those others occurred) as in 1965, and it wasn't on television as much, either. But the point being: there was always a discussion about needing a playoff from the day it was suggested - and the arguments literally never changed at all through the years. Of course - and you would rightly point this out - your comeback would obviously be, "Yes, and look what happened: we eventually got there."

You'd be right, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to say the result people said they wanted was REALLY achieved. The entire thing was to determine the champion on the field but THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION was that this would produce indisputable playoff winners, which it has not done. We can't even agree on the right teams to be selected. And my only point (whether one agrees with me or not) is that abolishing the Electoral College WILL NOT produce the results people think it will any more than the CFP did. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Its On A Slab]

I'm not gonna argue they were anything close to perfect, I'm just saying that anyone TODAY who thinks they're proposing thoughts that were never contemplated NOT ONLY by the founding fathers but by Congresses since then, it's more of a testament to their bad history teachers or self-learning than it is that the EC is a bad thing. I understand not everyone is a lawyer but folks need to realize their objections aren't original.

Let me bring it on what may be less partisan ground. It's like the college football playoff. Dan Jenkins proposed a 16-team playoff way back in 1965 because of the hullaballoo over "but Alabama lost the bowl game to Texas and Arkansas beat Texas," even though that argument had never been used in the three previous instances similar things happened. Of course, college football wasn't near as well-known in the early 50s (when those others occurred) as in 1965, and it wasn't on television as much, either. But the point being: there was always a discussion about needing a playoff from the day it was suggested - and the arguments literally never changed at all through the years. Of course - and you would rightly point this out - your comeback would obviously be, "Yes, and look what happened: we eventually got there."

You'd be right, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to say the result people said they wanted was REALLY achieved. The entire thing was to determine the champion on the field but THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION was that this would produce indisputable playoff winners, which it has not done. We can't even agree on the right teams to be selected. And my only point (whether one agrees with me or not) is that abolishing the Electoral College WILL NOT produce the results people think it will any more than the CFP did. That's all I'm saying.

I disagree. My one vote for President should not be worth any more than a person in Wyoming or a person in California.

I have another analogy. What if we elected Gov's of states by taking the majority of votes in each county, and apportioning delegates based upon populations of those counties. Rather than just having the winner of the election take the seat. How idiotic(as well as needlessly complicated) would that be?

Let every damn vote count. Screw these ridiculous 18th century anachronisms, instituted by wealthy landowners and aristocrats because they feared the hoi polloi.

 

[Bodhisattva]

They mean down here where the cost of living is getting beyond so many people. There are a LOT of families not able to keep up and it's just getting worse. I don't know what it's like further north or for those who aren't in that situation up further in the state but here, even the rental prices have become absurd. My family and friends are managing but I feel so badly for people my age here who only have Social Security for income because that ain't gon' cut it.

Why would anyone only have SS to live on? That's a horrible retirement plan. Also, it just reinforces my belief that SS should be an investment, so that it provides 401k-type returns instead of the modest-at-best payouts (if it doesn't go bankrupt) with atrocious ROI we currently have.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Why would anyone only have SS to live on? That's a horrible retirement plan. Also, it just reinforces my belief that SS should be an investment, so that it provides 401k-type returns instead of the modest-at-best payouts (if it doesn't go bankrupt) with atrocious ROI we currently have.

Because many people are by-and-large ignorant of the importance of investing money. I am 2 1/2 weeks away from retiring, but I always fretted that I wasn't investing enough. Turns out, I'm going to be ok.

Many people just aren't cognizant of how money can grow, even a small investment - if done consistently.

It is hard for them to fathom at 30 what investing will do for them at age 60. Too many shiny toys to buy. Conversely, they may have too many mouths to feed, the mortgage, dr bills, trying to stay above water.

But I do agree with some sort of managed investment of SS. I don't know the total of my contributions, but I would be curious if there is an app that would tell me how much that total would have grown if indexed at 8% annum. From the time I entered the work force.

 

[Bodhisattva]

This is why I am always chuckling when someone puts those guys on pedestals. They were not infallible. The Constitution is a beautiful document, but it was imperfect as Hell. That's why there were so many amendments.

While I don't put people on pedestals, too many are want to dismiss the FF because they were white men. People who do this are useless. Context matters. One would be hard pressed to find founders (even with their various views) of any country who were as impressive as ours. Same with our constitution. There's a reason why it is the model for so many other countries' constitutions. Perfection is not a realistic standard. In context, it stands up very well to any other such document in human history.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Because many people are by-and-large ignorant of the importance of investing money. I am 2 1/2 weeks away from retiring, but I always fretted that I wasn't investing enough. Turns out, I'm going to be ok.

Many people just aren't cognizant of how money can grow, even a small investment - if done consistently.

It is hard for them to fathom at 30 what investing will do for them at age 60. Too many shiny toys to buy. Conversely, they may have too many mouths to feed, the mortgage, dr bills, trying to stay above water.

Agreed. When I see current college football players with hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of jewelry and cars, I want to scream. Those idiots! They could invest their money and be set to be wealthy in retirement. Instead they will likely have nothing to show for their present good fortune in a few years. And they may very well expect to be bailed out by taxpayers down the road. They shouldn't be. No able-bodied adult should.

And to them and every other knob (e.g. my brothers) who insist on squandering their wealth, I have no sympathy for the stupid prize they are about to win. Some will accuse me of having a "I got mine, screw you" attitude. No. I earned mine and you had a chance to earn yours. You passed. You screwed yourself. The end.

 

[75thru79]

It is hard for them to fathom at 30 what investing will do for them at age 60. Too many shiny toys to buy. Conversely, they may have too many mouths to feed, the mortgage, dr bills, trying to stay above water.

I have seen people living beyond their means my entire lifetime and it is not entirely "rich" folks. Can't make rent or buy food but you've got an all inclusive phone plan from Verizon or AT&T. Your living paycheck to paycheck but you don't blink at a new $90k SUV. I have lived below my means for almost my entire adult life, socking away the max I can in 401(k) for as long as I've been employed. Now that I'm at the threshold of retirement I don't have to worry about wither SS is going to survive or not. Yeah, I'm driving a 10 year old truck and my wife drives a 12 year old Mercedes SUV but it's a nice feeling to know I can just keep on driving them as long as I want or could buy a new one tomorrow. That's financial freedom and you can only get it by 1) being lucky, 2) being fortunate enough to be a medical doctor or other high paying profession, or 3) SAVING AGGRESSIVELY from the day you first start that first job. Seriously, let them take the max out of your paycheck for 401(k). You'll miss it a little bit when you first start but you won't bat an eye after that because you are used to living off the net paycheck.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Why would anyone only have SS to live on? That's a horrible retirement plan. Also, it just reinforces my belief that SS should be an investment, so that it provides 401k-type returns instead of the modest-at-best payouts (if it doesn't go bankrupt) with atrocious ROI we currently have.

Because at 20 you probably don't make enough to get by, at 30 you think you're going to live forever, at 40 there's a bunch who get wiped out in a divorce and have to start all over, and that narrows your window to 15-20 years and that's assuming you don't have additional "burdens" like a special needs child or a parent who needs long-term care. That also assumes you can get a job at an advanced age and have the health even if you did.

Folks insisting I have to work until I'm 70 don't seem to understand that that means you have to hire me after 50.

I don't know your age but mine:

20 - war (Iraq invades Kuwait) and recession (when I graduate from college in spring 1991)
30 - 9/11 (ok, I was 31, but you get the point)
40 - subprime mortgage cataclysm that affected everybody's financial well-being and Great Recession
45 - divorce
50 - covid pandemic

Throw in the fact I have a high-functional autism child, parents of 79 and 80 who thank God can right now take care of each other, and a brother with two autistic children, one who has my memory and the other who has never spoken a word in his life, and it's not like I've been eating a ton of avocado toast, because I hate both avocado AND toast.



Thing is, a lot of people decided Social Security was their "retirement" and they didn't need to do anything.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Because at 20 you probably don't make enough to get by, at 30 you think you're going to live forever, at 40 there's a bunch who get wiped out in a divorce and have to start all over, and that narrows your window to 15-20 years and that's assuming you don't have additional "burdens" like a special needs child or a parent who needs long-term care. That also assumes you can get a job at an advanced age and have the health even if you did.

Folks insisting I have to work until I'm 70 don't seem to understand that that means you have to hire me after 50.

I don't know your age but mine:

20 - war (Iraq invades Kuwait) and recession (when I graduate from college in spring 1991)
30 - 9/11 (ok, I was 31, but you get the point)
40 - subprime mortgage cataclysm that affected everybody's financial well-being and Great Recession
45 - divorce
50 - covid pandemic

Throw in the fact I have a high-functional autism child, parents of 79 and 80 who thank God can right now take care of each other, and a brother with two autistic children, one who has my memory and the other who has never spoken a word in his life, and it's not like I've been eating a ton of avocado toast, because I hate both avocado AND toast.



Thing is, a lot of people decided Social Security was their "retirement" and they didn't need to do anything.

If SS was kept as it is now - a mandatory payroll deduction that you couldn't touch until retirement - but invested like a 401k or 529 (instead of being immediately spent on crap by the government and replaced by IOUs) people would be more than good in retirement. Add to that their real 401k's and whatever other investments they chose, and it would be real easy to be a millionaire retiree. Lots of welfare would go away, which would free up that much more wealth.

 

[Bazza]

Anyone who expects the government to be their salvation - unfortunately didn't have the right upbringing.

That might include parents but also peers, community leaders, teachers, other role models, and yes.....legacy media.

“Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?”

 

[Maudiemae]

Why would anyone only have SS to live on? That's a horrible retirement plan. Also, it just reinforces my belief that SS should be an investment, so that it provides 401k-type returns instead of the modest-at-best payouts (if it doesn't go bankrupt) with atrocious ROI we currently have.

You realize that not everybody will have access to financial planners, right? I'm sorry to disturb your brand of "everybody should be just like me" thinking but some people are just not in a situation which affords them the same opportunities as you. They've worked all of their lives, sometimes more than one job at a time. They do depend on food stamps and SNAP not because they look for handouts but because that's how things worked out for them. They're not going to have a "retirement plan". But there are many old people who only have Social Security and Medicaid . How do you not realize this?