Why neither my wife nor I will vote for Trump or Biden

[Go Bama]

I agree the electoral college is not perfect, but I worry about the popular vote argument. It would radically change how the candidates lie campaign. They would focus on the larger, more populous areas. New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc would decide our elections. I don't know, maybe it would work...maybe not. It would not however change who is running for election and we most likely would still be stuck with two clowns.

At this point, I would accept letting districts choose their own delegates rather than the winner take all system that we have. CA would get to vote and feel like it counts. Tennessee would still have 9 delegates, but Memphis and Nashville would probably go blue.

I'm all for the popular vote for president. IMO, there is no reason why a guy in Wyoming should get a vote which carries more weight than mine. But as AW stated above, that's not going to happen.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

To amend the US Constitution, it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

You can’t get 2/3 of either house of Congress to agree that water is wet. Even if you did, just 13 states can block a proposal to amend the Constitutional. So the Electoral College will not be abolished in any of our lifetimes.

What’s interesting though is that there’s nothing in the Constitution that dictates how its EC votes are allocated. Currently, as far as I’m aware, all 50 states are winner-take-all. But there’s nothing that would prohibit them from allocating EC votes proportionally.

Which I think would be a good thing in that it would force presidential candidates to appeal to the country as a whole, not just their base.

For example, currently New York and California are about 2/3 blue. But that means that they’re 1/3 red. So Democrats could no longer take a slug of the EC for granted and would have to appeal to a wider audience. Likewise, the deep red states EC votes would no longer be 100% in the Republican camp. Which would mean a more moderate stance would be necessary to attract as many purple voters as possible in red states.

And there’s no Constitutional Amendment necessary to change from winner-take-all to proportional allocation. It does, however, require somebody to do it first.

Think any reliably blue or red state might do that? Not a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace.

 

[mrusso]

To amend the US Constitution, it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

You can’t get 2/3 of either house of Congress to agree that water is wet. Even if you did, just 13 states can block a proposal to amend the Constitutional. So the Electoral College will not be abolished in any of our lifetimes.

What’s interesting though is that there’s nothing in the Constitution that dictates how its EC votes are allocated. Currently, as far as I’m aware, all 50 states are winner-take-all. But there’s nothing that would prohibit them from allocating EC votes proportionally.

Which I think would be a good thing in that it would force presidential candidates to appeal to the country as a whole, not just their base.

For example, currently New York and California are about 2/3 blue. But that means that they’re 1/3 red. So Democrats could no longer take a slug of the EC for granted and would have to appeal to a wider audience. Likewise, the deep red states EC votes would no longer be 100% in the Republican camp. Which would mean a more moderate stance would be necessary to attract as many purple voters as possible in red states.

And there’s no Constitutional Amendment necessary to change from winner-take-all to proportional allocation. It does, however, require somebody to do it first.

Think any reliably blue or red state might do that? Not a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace.

A sensible solution...which guarantees something like this would never be considered by either party.

 

[AWRTR]

To amend the US Constitution, it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

You can’t get 2/3 of either house of Congress to agree that water is wet. Even if you did, just 13 states can block a proposal to amend the Constitutional. So the Electoral College will not be abolished in any of our lifetimes.

What’s interesting though is that there’s nothing in the Constitution that dictates how its EC votes are allocated. Currently, as far as I’m aware, all 50 states are winner-take-all. But there’s nothing that would prohibit them from allocating EC votes proportionally.

Which I think would be a good thing in that it would force presidential candidates to appeal to the country as a whole, not just their base.

For example, currently New York and California are about 2/3 blue. But that means that they’re 1/3 red. So Democrats could no longer take a slug of the EC for granted and would have to appeal to a wider audience. Likewise, the deep red states EC votes would no longer be 100% in the Republican camp. Which would mean a more moderate stance would be necessary to attract as many purple voters as possible in red states.

And there’s no Constitutional Amendment necessary to change from winner-take-all to proportional allocation. It does, however, require somebody to do it first.

Think any reliably blue or red state might do that? Not a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace.

That's a pretty good idea, but I fear you are right that no one wants to be the first to take the plunge.

 

[Go Bama]

That's a pretty good idea, but I fear you are right that no one wants to be the first to take the plunge.

It will probably take voters in a swing state to go first. If a candidate loses by a few thousand votes ( "I just want to find 11,780 votes) those voters who lost may be motivated to try to make a change.

I'm in a deep red district, so it wouldn't help me at all. It would however be a more fair system. IMO, a lot to be gained for voters in general by dumping the winner take all system.

 

[NationalTitles18]

To amend the US Constitution, it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

You can’t get 2/3 of either house of Congress to agree that water is wet. Even if you did, just 13 states can block a proposal to amend the Constitutional. So the Electoral College will not be abolished in any of our lifetimes.

What’s interesting though is that there’s nothing in the Constitution that dictates how its EC votes are allocated. Currently, as far as I’m aware, all 50 states are winner-take-all. But there’s nothing that would prohibit them from allocating EC votes proportionally.

Which I think would be a good thing in that it would force presidential candidates to appeal to the country as a whole, not just their base.

For example, currently New York and California are about 2/3 blue. But that means that they’re 1/3 red. So Democrats could no longer take a slug of the EC for granted and would have to appeal to a wider audience. Likewise, the deep red states EC votes would no longer be 100% in the Republican camp. Which would mean a more moderate stance would be necessary to attract as many purple voters as possible in red states.

And there’s no Constitutional Amendment necessary to change from winner-take-all to proportional allocation. It does, however, require somebody to do it first.

Think any reliably blue or red state might do that? Not a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace.

Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska - 270toWin

While most states allocate electoral votes in an all or none manner to the popular vote winner, Maine and Nebraska take a different approach.

www.270towin.com

In all but two states, electoral votes are winner-take-all.1 The candidate winning the popular vote normally receives all of that state's votes. Maine and Nebraska have taken a different approach. Using the congressional district method, these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote.

 

[UAH]

I am saying that Garland didn't disagree enough with the substance of the findings or their wording to edit them.

Garland is a political animal, having been successfully swimming in Washington DC's swamp for decades. He knew full well what the fallout would be. He didn't get where he is by making politically stupid decisions.

Here's an article from that well-known MAGA rag, Politico. It has nothing to do with the Hur / Biden report. I'm linking it because it illustrates how his mind works.

The Merrick Garland You Don’t Know - POLITICO

Merrick Garland meets with the President on a regular basis. If he believed that Biden is in fact mentally sharp, I just don't think he would allow the DOJ (of which he is head), to publish a report significantly impugning Biden's mental faculties.

If Garland had been the author of the Hur report, he might not have phrased the findings as Hur did. But he clearly didn't think Hur was wrong. Guaranteed, someone as politically astute as Garland would have pressed for details and verification of the characterization of Biden's mental state.

I have no doubt that Garland knew what was in the report and didn't think it warranted further editing.

If I did something like that to my boss by omission or comission I would expect to be canned the next day. That is one of the many complaints I have about Biden. He has a guy destroying the postal service for financial purposes and a Multi-Billion Justice Department that appears completely detached from the administration as does the Federal Reserve. The guy is way to weak kneed to be President in this horrible time.

Regardless of his faults there are those on here who want to blame him for inflation , the price of oil and on and on. All that does is ignore what has been happening for the past twenty years in this country with Republican tax cuts and the Federal Reserve constantly creating stacks of paper currency and economic bubbles as a consequence.

Regardless of all my many concerns about him I believe he is a significantly better option than electing a criminal like Trump.

 

[JDCrimson]

Well, short of showing obvious bias I would hope Garland would want to protect democracy. And I dont think he has done a good job doing that during his tenure. If anything he has gone above and beyond to try to appear non-biased that he has allowed the scales to be tilted yet again in the favor of Republicans to such a degree you inherently favor them.

He needed to stand up and do the job with character and he hasn't done that.

Biden's biggest failure is not appointing people as VP or AG to do the job the way it ought to be done in this current time. He needed a knuckle brawler as AG and an electable successor as VP. And he has neither in the role.

I hadn't really considered that point until your question. The more I think about it, the more I think he neither gains nor loses anything -- which is more incentive to just tell the truth.

I think you're right in that Garland probably doesn't have any ambitions for higher office. He's 70. He's been Attorney General of the US. He's been nominated to SCOTUS and got railroaded out of the job. This is probably his last public-sector job. He's made decent money as a federal judge for a long time, and will have a nice pension. Should he want to work part-time, his resume will get him a partnership at any number of white-stocking law firms who would pay handsomely to have his name on their letterhead.

He could also become a legal consultant and talking head.

So unless Garland has massively mis-managed his personal finances (which would be a major departure from everything I've read about his personality), he'll be financially comfortable. He probably doesn't aspire to another political office and has lots of other options should he want to stay active.

Sounds to me like no incentive to do anything other than tell the truth.

 

[JDCrimson]

The EC is not necessarily the problem. To me the bigger problem is that some states have a winner take all allocation of EC votes. If we had an EC where the candidates got awarded the EC voted they won then you would see the more blue areas of Alabama come back into play and be on level with the rural WY EC vote.

 

[NationalTitles18]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/12/opinions/hur-report-biden-classified-documents-eisen-painter-kolb/index.html

Although Attorney General Merrick Garland is the one who technically released the report, he had indicated he would do so in advance, so Hur should have been fully aware that the findings of his report would be revealed — and could have predicted the impact his words would have.

The portion of the document garnering the most attention in the media — referencing Biden’s age and mental powers — is particularly egregious. Hur’s free-floating characterization of Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory” sheds little light on his charging decision.

It is certainly relevant for the special counsel to note the caliber of Biden’s memory about the documents in evaluating the strength of a criminal case. But many of the special counsel’s other comments about the president’s recollections during five hours of interviews were not relevant to the inquiry.

Perhaps most offensive was Hur’s observation that Biden did not remember when his son Beau died. That subject was well beyond the scope of the inquiry. And given the well-known impact Beau’s death had on Biden, its inclusion was needlessly personal and painful — as Biden’s heated reaction Thursday night demonstrated.

Hur’s justification for including this commentary on Biden — that these observations were a factor in considering Biden’s legal defenses — is also arguably misplaced. Speculating publicly about any possible legal defenses an individual might raise if they were charged with a crime and how they might be perceived based on age and memory is unnecessary in our view. These defenses had nothing to do with evaluating whether Biden committed a crime. They were musings unrelated to the evidence in the case.


Moreover, the language Hur used crosses the boundary from descriptive to inappropriate editorializing. Instead of neutrally describing what Biden recalled, he used evocative language as he surmised whether a hypothetical jury would view him the same way. But as practicing attorneys, we know that it would be extremely unlikely for any criminal defense lawyer to put Biden on the stand. The chances of a jury being confronted with how he might appear to them under examination would be slim to none, so it is ludicrous to mention as a public-facing explanation for not prosecuting Biden.

We cannot know Hur’s intentions, but his comments can certainly be seen as an unnecessary shot at Biden, one that reinforces a prominent line of partisan political attack against the president. It is a bad look for both Hur and the Department of Justice.

 

[AWRTR]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/12/opinions/hur-report-biden-classified-documents-eisen-painter-kolb/index.html

Although Attorney General Merrick Garland is the one who technically released the report, he had indicated he would do so in advance, so Hur should have been fully aware that the findings of his report would be revealed — and could have predicted the impact his words would have.

The portion of the document garnering the most attention in the media — referencing Biden’s age and mental powers — is particularly egregious. Hur’s free-floating characterization of Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory” sheds little light on his charging decision.

It is certainly relevant for the special counsel to note the caliber of Biden’s memory about the documents in evaluating the strength of a criminal case. But many of the special counsel’s other comments about the president’s recollections during five hours of interviews were not relevant to the inquiry.

Perhaps most offensive was Hur’s observation that Biden did not remember when his son Beau died. That subject was well beyond the scope of the inquiry. And given the well-known impact Beau’s death had on Biden, its inclusion was needlessly personal and painful — as Biden’s heated reaction Thursday night demonstrated.

Hur’s justification for including this commentary on Biden — that these observations were a factor in considering Biden’s legal defenses — is also arguably misplaced. Speculating publicly about any possible legal defenses an individual might raise if they were charged with a crime and how they might be perceived based on age and memory is unnecessary in our view. These defenses had nothing to do with evaluating whether Biden committed a crime. They were musings unrelated to the evidence in the case.


Moreover, the language Hur used crosses the boundary from descriptive to inappropriate editorializing. Instead of neutrally describing what Biden recalled, he used evocative language as he surmised whether a hypothetical jury would view him the same way. But as practicing attorneys, we know that it would be extremely unlikely for any criminal defense lawyer to put Biden on the stand. The chances of a jury being confronted with how he might appear to them under examination would be slim to none, so it is ludicrous to mention as a public-facing explanation for not prosecuting Biden.

We cannot know Hur’s intentions, but his comments can certainly be seen as an unnecessary shot at Biden, one that reinforces a prominent line of partisan political attack against the president. It is a bad look for both Hur and the Department of Justice.

Biden is the one it’s a bad look for. It reinforced what a very large part of the electorate already saw.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Biden is the one it’s a bad look for. It reinforced what a very large part of the electorate already saw.

Yep, Biden can control what a partisan hack says about him. Brilliant commentary.

 

[AWRTR]

Yep, Biden can control what a partisan hack says about him. Brilliant commentary.

It looks bad for Biden because if true, and we haven’t seen any reason to doubt the accuracy of the report, he looks worse than he already did to a large part of the public. There are apparently both transcripts and recordings of the interviews. This means Hur is most likely not making any of it up because there is underlying proof either way.

Biden could control the situation by being able to recall the years he was the VICE PRESIDENT. I don’t know about you but I think that’s pretty significant. Whether Hur should have included any of that could be up for debate. The fact he couldn’t remember when his VP term ended is wild. Then he comes out and gives a press conference that is one for the ages. He called the president of Egypt the president of Mexico and talked like Mexico bordered Gaza. Before that he was saying he talked to dead people. It’s all a stacking problem. It’s not one thing it’s the accumulation of everything. I’ve read the defenses of this and they are weak sauce. Israel had just been attacked so he couldn’t remember things like what year very significant things were happening. He couldn’t remember his son’s death to within several years. He forgot the exact date. Ok whatever no big deal. He couldn’t get close to the year? It’s time to face the music that he has slipped significantly.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The EC is not necessarily the problem. To me the bigger problem is that some states have a winner take all allocation of EC votes. If we had an EC where the candidates got awarded the EC voted they won then you would see the more blue areas of Alabama come back into play and be on level with the rural WY EC vote.

I previously thought all 50 states had a winner-take-all method of allocating EC votes. I’ve been corrected. Two in fact allocate EC votes proportionally.

Unfortunately, they’re Maine and Nebraska. Nebraska has 5 EC votes and Maine has 4 — accounting for a total of 9 EC votes, or about 1.6% of the 535-vote Electoral College. Leaving 98.4% of the EC allocated by winner-take-all.

Keep in mind, though, that while EC votes in rural Alabama and similarly red states would indeed be in play for the blues, so would New York outside of NYC, California outside of LA and San Francisco, and Illinois outside of Chicago be in play for the reds.

My point is not that Biden would have lost 2020 under a proportional EC. I don’t think he would have.

The point is that the blues would give up a lot of guaranteed EC votes in big states to get the chance at a bunch of at-risk votes in a bunch of smaller states. I’m not sure that’s a trade they’re willing to make. I guarantee you that hard-core red states wouldn’t make the photographic negative of that trade.

So while I’d love to see a proportionally-allocated EC, I don’t think it’ll happen in the next 50 years, if ever. I‘m 65. So unless I live to be 115, I also don’t think there’s any chance it’ll change in my lifetime.

 

[Go Bama]

A different way to run the electoral college

A state could simply apportion its electors on the basis of the popular vote. For example, in 2008, Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes could have divided six for Obama and four for McCain based upon Obama’s 56% to 44% margin of victory. On the other hand, such a system can run into problem because of the presence of “third” parties. Like Wisconsin, Minnesota currently has 10 electoral votes. In 2008, Obama and McCain received 54% and 44% of the popular vote, respectively, with 2% going to third parties. The Constitution requires the appointment of actual electors, so it is not obvious as to whom the tenth Minnesota elector would be assigned.


A second possibility would be for a state legislature to divide the state into “electoral districts” with each district choosing one elector. Because each state has two more electors than it has representatives in Congress, congressional districts could not be used for this purpose. Instead, states would have to create special districts. Wisconsin, for example, would have to be divided into ten districts whose sole function would be the selection of presidential electors. Obviously, this could be done, but the process would involve many of the same difficulties that arise when the state has to redraw the lines of congressional districts.


The third possibility is the approach currently taken in Maine and Nebraska. The presidential candidate receiving the largest number of popular votes in each congressional district receives one elector, and the winner of the statewide popular vote is awarded an additional two electors. In Wisconsin in 2008, Obama received the largest number of popular votes in seven of the state’s eight Congressional Districts. Consequently, under the Maine/Nebraska system he would have received nine of the state’s ten electoral votes with the other vote going to McCain.

 

[NationalTitles18]

It looks bad for Biden because if true, and we haven’t seen any reason to doubt the accuracy of the report, he looks worse than he already did to a large part of the public. There are apparently both transcripts and recordings of the interviews. This means Hur is most likely not making any of it up because there is underlying proof either way.

Biden could control the situation by being able to recall the years he was the VICE PRESIDENT. I don’t know about you but I think that’s pretty significant. Whether Hur should have included any of that could be up for debate. The fact he couldn’t remember when his VP term ended is wild. Then he comes out and gives a press conference that is one for the ages. He called the president of Egypt the president of Mexico and talked like Mexico bordered Gaza. Before that he was saying he talked to dead people. It’s all a stacking problem. It’s not one thing it’s the accumulation of everything. I’ve read the defenses of this and they are weak sauce. Israel had just been attacked so he couldn’t remember things like what year very significant things were happening. He couldn’t remember his son’s death to within several years. He forgot the exact date. Ok whatever no big deal. He couldn’t get close to the year? It’s time to face the music that he has slipped significantly.

Because republicans like Hur have proven themselves reliable arbiters of truth.

 

[AWRTR]

Because republicans like Hur have proven themselves reliable arbiters of truth.

I gave rational reasons why he’s probably not lying and that his isn’t the only evidence of the decline of Joe Biden. This fairy tale land people live in is astounding. Are there unicorns and dragons there?

 

[Bamaro]

IMO, if you really think about it, what difference, large state or small state, should it make to you. Its your own vote that should count. Unless you live in a swing state, yours doesn't. I want mine to mean something regardless of how my state votes. As long as politicians wimp out and say it cant be changed, it wont.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

All the arguments against a popular vote and for the EC, or some version of the EC, boil down to "but without the EC the little guy doesn't get a say". That's crap. Every person would have an equal say in a popular vote, 1 vote to 1 vote. It's not our faults if one party doesn't have enough voters to win a popular vote but, that is how majority rule is supposed to work. It's not our fault the majority of people live in the big cities. The EC gives a minority of voices a majority say and I'm sick and tired of it.

I know it will never change because of the constitution but, I will never understand why some view a popular vote as unfair. It is the only truly fair method, every person's vote counts the same as everyone else's, 1 to 1. You can't get any more fair than that.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I gave rational reasons why he’s probably not lying and that his isn’t the only evidence of the decline of Joe Biden. This fairy tale land people live in is astounding. Are there unicorns and dragons there?

Yes. It's beautiful here.

On a serious note, I can't post a link but last night's John Stewart monologue has a little something for everyone and a little something to irritate everyone.