It's a matter of perspective, in other words.
Actually Stop and Frisk would be pretty strongly opposed by people for whom gun rights are an issue.
As predicted, the NRA is strongly opposed to candidates taking guns away.... as long as the candidate doing so is Clinton.
Not a peep about Trump's threat/promise to actually do so as part of Stop and Frisk.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?If they can make a religious argument for doing so, they can certainly try. Have to invent a new Bible for doing that, though. It'd be a HARD sell in New Jersey, either way.
I shouldn't continue the derail, but..... <fails Will save>
No, they can't.
The controlling law is Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Act. This particular law applies to all "public accommodations" (basically, if you offer a service to the public, you fall under it, so stores count) and does not permit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex.
There is no exception for religious belief written into this law.
Religious discrimination in employment is covered under Title VII of the same act. Employers are required to make "reasonable accommodation" for employees' religious beliefs, but, unlike Title II, discrimination is not prohibited outright. If an employee's request is unreasonable, it can be refused.
Different laws, different wording, different standards.
Even beyond that, plenty of groups have used the Bible to justify racism, to justify slavery, to justify bans on miscegenation. There's a long historical tradition which some groups continue to this day. No new Bible needed. Just interpretations of the old one.
... which is, I suspect, why there was no religious exemption built into Title II. I believe a large number of Southern Baptists would have found some sort of Biblical injunction to keep darkies out of their restaurant, with the full support of their pastors. (1 Corinthians would have been a good start.)
Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?If they can make a religious argument for doing so, they can certainly try. Have to invent a new Bible for doing that, though. It'd be a HARD sell in New Jersey, either way.I shouldn't continue the derail, but..... <fails Will save>
No, they can't.
The controlling law is TItle II of the Federal Civil RIghts Act. This particular law applies to all "public accomodations" (basically, if you offer a service to the public, you fall under it, so stores count) and does not permit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex.
There is no exception for religious belief written into this law.
Religious discrimination in employment is covered under Title VII of the same act. Employers are required to make "reasonable accommodation" for employees' religious beliefs, but, unlike Title II, discrimination is not prohibited outright. If an employee's request is unreasonable, it can be refused.
Different laws, different wording, different standards.
OF course, working off of that you get different rules on the whole "bake a cake" thing depending on the circumstances: If you own the bakery, as a matter of public accommodation Title II applies - you can't refuse to bake the cake.
If you work at the bakery Title VII, your boss is required to make reasonable accommodations to your religious belief that you shouldn't bake the cake.
That is correct. But if you're the only employee on shift, then you can't refuse.
And if the person who owns the bakery believes that the negative publicity from your refusal is a serious hindrance to business, he may consider any accommodation at all to be unreasonable. That's a case the lawyers can argue over, but I'd not be sanguine about the employee's odds of success.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many people like to complain about Donald Trump being racist but they may not be aware that Hillary Clinton is racist as well. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. The Goldwater Girl organization opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act.
That's right. Hilary Clinton was a racist in the 1960s.
Trump was a racist as recently as yesterday, and there's no end in sight.
Yet another false equivalence claim.
Some more anti-Clinton nonsense
Yes, we get it, you don't like Clinton because of how she acted long ago. Much better to admire Trump for the promises he's making RIGHT NOW.
When Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, a group of mentally challenged children were having an easter egg hunt on the Governor's mansion lawn. The children were having a hard time finding the eggs. Hillary became impatient and was overheard asking "When are they going to get those F****** r!t!rds out of here"?
Hillary called sweet, innocent children 'F****** r!t!rds'. The mentally challenged have a hard time in life and bullies like Hillary don't help. I went to school with some mentally challenged kids. One of them couldn't even talk. He could only communicate by making sounds. Hillary is a bully and nobody likes a bully.
I'm going to have a difficult time accepting this one as factual without something more substantial than just snippets from Dolly Kyle's axe-grindy anti-Clintons book.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?If they can make a religious argument for doing so, they can certainly try. Have to invent a new Bible for doing that, though. It'd be a HARD sell in New Jersey, either way.
The religious argument was used for roughly 200 years, first to allow slavery, then to continue discriminating after slavery. You can claim it's a hard sell, or that it's not "true christianity", but the fact remains that the claim WAS made on religious grounds routinely.
As a country we've actually decided this, you're not allowed to discriminate based on race. It doesn't matter why you want to discriminate on race, you're just not allowed to do it (with a couple of exceptions, such as using it to inform college admissions demographics, but even this is still contested). The reason for this is pretty simple: if you are excluded from basic economic participation in society, you are essentially being excluded from society.
If you can't get a loan, buy food or work, because you are being excluded based on some discriminatory belief, you are being excluded from society. This is a concept that is already legally accepted and applied in our society. It's not okay to discriminate based on broad social concepts. You can refuse to sell to someone for specific reasons, like they're being disruptive and mean, but you can't exclude them for fundamental aspects of their being (like skin color, gender, religion, etc).
The question then becomes what qualifies as these fundamental aspects of being. We've now added "sexual orientation" to that list as a society. It's not an issue of religious freedom, because religion isn't being discriminated against, but rather being used as a determining factor of what discrimination is allowed. The thing is that this form of discrimination isn't allowed, so the religion is irrelevant.
If discrimination were allowed in this form, then religion would be a valid method of determining what you would discriminate.
|
The religious argument was used for roughly 200 years...
What do you mean 'was'.
Burwell v Hobby Lobby was two years ago... and the only thing stopping it from being expanded is Scalia's death. Whether religion can again over-ride the law or not will likely be determined by who the next Supreme Court justice is.
The question then becomes what qualifies as these fundamental aspects of being. We've now added "sexual orientation" to that list as a society.
Some of us have. If you read the 2016 GOP platform it makes VERY clear that this too is a point of contention... which could potentially go backwards if we get a few more conservative SCOTUS appointees.
If discrimination were allowed in this form, then religion would be a valid method of determining what you would discriminate.
And that is exactly what many conservatives want.
The question then becomes what qualifies as these fundamental aspects of being. We've now added "sexual orientation" to that list as a society.
I wish that were true, but unfortunately, it isn't. The US government has determined that it (and by extension, the states) can't discriminate against gays in matters of marriage, but there's no blanket prohibition that extends to private parties.
In real terms, I'm not allowed to fire someone because he's black, because she's a woman, or because s/he attends mosque on Friday. I can't write a job ad for my bakery reading "no Irish need apply." But, except in a few areas where it's controlled by local ordinance, writing a job advertisement that "no gays or lesbians need apply" is completely legal.
... which, again, gets back to Mr. Munroe's point about the First Amendment. It's not actually illegal for someone to write such an ad. It's also not illegal for the entire Internet to boycott them, to protest them, to refuse to run their ads in a newspaper, or even to refuse to renew their lease. ("I'm sorry, Mr. Flaming-Bigott, but we have decided you are detracting from the tone of this building, and so we've decided to rent the space to a sex toy shop instead. Please understand that this decision is final, and, as per the terms of the lease you originally signed, we expect you to be out in the next three days.")
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.
There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)
Did I miss something, or has nobody actually tried to force you to shut up? Because that is the only part where freedom of speech is relevant (I am referring to the general concept, not the specific legal right, because as per the XKCD comic the legal right only applies to the Government).
In short, you have the right to say what you want no matter how terrible it is, so long as you don't break any laws. You can even say completely bat&%$# insane things like that...just to pick a really silly example...that Hitler was right. It is your right to say that.
And if you do say that then I have the right to tell you that you are a terrible person. That is my right to freedom of speech.
Bigots need love too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you do say that then I have the right to tell you that you are a terrible person. That is my right to freedom of speech.Bigots need love too.
Perhaps they do. But not MY love. Or if they do need my love, then they'll have to find a way either to mend their ways, or to do without.
The First Amendment grants them freedom from arrest. It doesn't grant them love, or even respect.
The question then becomes what qualifies as these fundamental aspects of being. We've now added "sexual orientation" to that list as a society. It's not an issue of religious freedom, because religion isn't being discriminated against, but rather being used as a determining factor of what discrimination is allowed. The thing is that this form of discrimination isn't allowed, so the religion is irrelevant.If discrimination were allowed in this form, then religion would be a valid method of determining what you would discriminate.
I'd say "We're in the process of adding sexual orientation" (and thinking about adding gender identity.)
We allow same sex marriage, but it's still perfectly legal under federal law (and in many states) to discriminate against LGBTQ people in employment, housing and other areas.
Certain states do have stronger anti-discrimmatory laws than others.
Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?If they can make a religious argument for doing so, they can certainly try. Have to invent a new Bible for doing that, though. It'd be a HARD sell in New Jersey, either way.The religious argument was used for roughly 200 years, first to allow slavery, then to continue discriminating after slavery. You can claim it's a hard sell, or that it's not "true christianity", but the fact remains that the claim WAS made on religious grounds routinely.
As a country we've actually decided this, you're not allowed to discriminate based on race. It doesn't matter why you want to discriminate on race, you're just not allowed to do it (with a couple of exceptions, such as using it to inform college admissions demographics, but even this is still contested). The reason for this is pretty simple: if you are excluded from basic economic participation in society, you are essentially being excluded from society.
If you can't get a loan, buy food or work, because you are being excluded based on some discriminatory belief, you are being excluded from society. This is a concept that is already legally accepted and applied in our society. It's not okay to discriminate based on broad social concepts. You can refuse to sell to someone for specific reasons, like they're being disruptive and mean, but you can't exclude them for fundamental aspects of their being (like skin color, gender, religion, etc).
The question then becomes what qualifies as these fundamental aspects of being. We've now added "sexual orientation" to that list as a society. It's not an issue of religious freedom, because religion isn't being discriminated against, but rather being used as a determining factor of what discrimination is allowed. The thing is that this form of discrimination isn't allowed, so the religion is irrelevant.
If discrimination were allowed in this form, then religion would be a...
I don't think "fundamental aspects of being" is a legal term. race, creed, and orientation are.
I don't think "fundamental aspects of being" is a legal term. race, creed, and orientation are.The question then becomes what qualifies as these fundamental aspects of being. We've now added "sexual orientation" to that list as a society. It's not an issue of religious freedom, because religion isn't being discriminated against, but rather being used as a determining factor of what discrimination is allowed. The thing is that this form of discrimination isn't allowed, so the religion is irrelevant.,
Actually, the legal term is "suspect classification." That's how the right to gay marriage was determined, even though it's not mentioned in the Civil Rights Act (or indeed, anywhere). What is mentioned (in the Constitution) is "equal protection," which by unreasonably strict reading implies that everyone needs to be treated identically to everyone else. Generals should receive only the pay of privates, everyone should be able to vote regardless of whether they're citizens or not, and all criminals should receive identical-length sentences irrespective of their crimes.
... which is patent nonsense. Less nonsensically, the courts have addressed the question of when it makes sense to discriminate and when it doesn't.
Per Wikipedia, a "suspect classification" (which dates back to 1944, so actually pre-civil rights era) is "any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination." There's no strict ticklist of features that make a proposed classification a suspect one or not, but there are several factors that have been identified, including
* The group has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.
* They possess an immutable or highly visible trait.
* They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.)
* The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.
The second (highlighted) factor is pretty close to what Irontruth described as a fundamental aspect of being. I'm not going to damn him for not paying enough attention in his Civil Rights class at Princeton Law, and thereby using the wrong term.
The key point, though, is that amending the Civil Rights Act will require legislative action. However, judges are capable (and in some cases required) to make decisions about whether other proposed classifications are suspect. But such decisions do not carry the broad protections that adding any particular classification to the CRA would have done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bigots need love too.Perhaps they do. But not MY love. Or if they do need my love, then they'll have to find a way either to mend their ways, or to do without.
The First Amendment grants them freedom from arrest. It doesn't grant them love, or even respect.
An enterprising goblin with programming skillz would create a Deplorables dating/hookup app, and monetize it with ads for products typically sold via Breitbart, Alex Jones, and Fox News.
For the first time the only acceptable candidate left by process of elimination is one that would otherwise have never entered into consideration.
I am at a complete loss as to how to process this.
For what it's worth, Turin, I'm sorry you're feeling so conflicted.
Vote for *the* best candidate, perhaps? As opposed to the last one standing? It may be easier for me to say that since i have no party affiliations and am convinced that the best candidates for each party were effectively eliminated from consideration long ago.
Act from a position of strength, rather than last resort.
"Best" can have many meanings, one of which is "least worst".
Thanks Syrus and Scythia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've decided not to bake brownies for anyone. Mostly because I ate them all.
I've decided not to bake brownies for anyone. Mostly because I ate them all.
Here .teleport object ... six boxes o' brownie mix should have arrived. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Turin,
That would mean I'd probably eat them all too...
Casting a vote, a protest vote, for a third-party candidate that's going to lose may well affect the outcome. It may well lead to a consequence that is deeply, deeply troubling.The message is: Your vote matters, that's why you shouldn't waste it.
I'm really burned out on hearing the "your vote matters stuff". The vast majority of states and voters live in safe states, and their vote for president DON'T matter. I feel like the two parties (and their corporate backers) benefit from this greatly, and are complicit in pushing the idea that voting is important, but for the vast majority, it is not. They are pushing a lie, and benefiting from it at the same time.
If you live in the handful or swing states, sure, your vote for president could matter, but for the vast majority, the system has gerrymandered you out of participating in democracy. Don't feel you owe the parties or candidates anything but a smack in the back of the head.
PS Nader and Perot didn't swing the elections, the crappy mainstream candidates just failed to appeal to their own parties, and won't accept the consequences of their inadequacy.
An enterprising goblin with programming skillz would create a Deplorables dating/hookup app, and monetize it with ads for products typically sold via Breitbart, Alex Jones, and Fox News.So, gold coins and survival kits?
And Jim Bakker's -- yes, that Jim Bakker -- buckets o' deplorable slop apocalypse chow. (Warning: NSFLunch link, unless you are looking to skip a meal or three)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I take it that Stop and Frisk is actually opposed by such people? I haven't really seen the gun rights groups speaking out against it.
There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usually see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.) That's one reason, for example, that the idea that noncitizens have constitutional rights is controversial in some circles -- that, and the fact that it costs money to educate immigrant children that could be saved by simply throwing them out of the public schools.
The idea that constitutional rights only apply to whites has an equally long pedigree. Even when the actual law has changed (or case law has changed), that doesn't actually change people opinions. Similarly, religious freedom seems only to apply to Christians, and sometimes to Jews. A number of cities/counties have refused to allow mosques to be constructed, while allowing local Christian communities to build all the churches they want..... (See also here.)
Yup. Look at the case of John Crawford who was a black man in a walmart where they sell GUNS in a open carry state, who had a BB rifle taken off the shelf in the store and was murdered by the police in the store for...carrying a rifle that was sold in the store. He was even screaming that it wasnt loaded before they shot him.
Not a PEEP out of guns rights activists or the NRA.
Nor were they front and center in the case of Philando Castile, a legal and licensed gun owner in Minnesota another open carry state who was killed at a traffic stop after TELLING the officer that he had a gun and a permit to carry the officer shot him anyway as he was providing his credentials. The NRA eventually said something but only after being shamed by some of it's own members.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I take it that Stop and Frisk is actually opposed by such people? I haven't really seen the gun rights groups speaking out against it.
There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usually see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.) That's one reason, for example, that the idea that noncitizens have constitutional rights is controversial in some circles -- that, and the fact that it costs money to educate immigrant children that could be saved by simply throwing them out of the public schools.
The idea that constitutional rights only apply to whites has an equally long pedigree. Even when the actual law has changed (or case law has changed), that doesn't actually change people opinions. Similarly, religious freedom seems only to apply to Christians, and sometimes to Jews. A number of cities/counties have refused to allow mosques to be constructed, while allowing local Christian communities to build all the churches they want..... (See also here.)
Yup. Look at the case of John Crawford who was a black man in a walmart where they sell GUNS in a open carry state, who had a BB rifle taken off the shelf in the store and was murdered by the police in the store for...carrying a rifle that was sold in the store. He was even screaming that it wasnt loaded before they shot him.
Not a PEEP out of guns rights activists or the NRA.
Nor were they front and center in the case of Philando Castile, a legal and licensed gun owner in Minnesota another open carry state who was killed at a traffic stop after TELLING the officer...
Given that many gun rights advocates are buying guns BECAUSE they are white, male, and fear/hate minorities, it's really no surprise. If you actually look at any of the big NRA meetings... the kind that Clint Eastwood shows up to yell at empty chairs, you'll find them to be almost as white as swiss cheese.
If you live in the handful or swing states, sure, your vote for president could matter, but for the vast majority, the system has gerrymandered you out of participating in democracy. Don't feel you owe the parties or candidates anything but a smack in the back of the head.
The census is coming in 2020. I haven't seen any push online (probably because I'm not looking in the right places), but a major get-out-the-census movement should start hopefully start gearing up soon. The census report will be the basis for redrawing districts for the Federal House of Representatives, which will reallocate not just representatives but also electors (in the Electoral College). This redistricting is overseen and often drawn-up by sitting legislators in each state's congress. Pushing for and voting in more progressive legislators in each election, especially during the off-years with non-PotUS races like 2018, is also picking the people who redraw these maps.
Many people like to complain about Donald Trump being racist but they may not be aware that Hillary Clinton is racist as well. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. The Goldwater Girl organization opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act. Hillary was a member of an organization that opposed equal rights for black Americans, And she had the gall to say that she is proud to have been a Goldwater Girl.
Also, Margaret Sanger said these following words: "Colored people are like human weeds and need to be exterminated". Hillary said these following words about Sanger: "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision". Hillary admires a woman who said that black people should be destroyed. That is disgusting.
I'm aware of ALL OF THIS.
I am a registered voter.
I am also black.
I am STILL voting for Hillary Clinton.
Here's why:
I'm in no way a fan of the Clintons. In fact if the GOP had their crap together and run almost anyone else (with the exception of Cruz) I would sit this one out and let the chips fall where they may. In fact one of the reasons that I ABSOLUTELY HATE the GOP now is that they've bascially run a candidate so openly VILE that they are essentially forcing me to vote for Hillary Clinton.
I will NEVER, EVER forgive them for that. Donald Trump and his poster children for THE PURGE family have successfully courted the white supremacist vote and made racism and white supremacy mainstream. So that essentially means that after he wins the election its going to be open season on muslims and black people (well it's kinda ALREADY open season on black folk but whatever...) not from Trump directly but from his followers. He'll just do what he always does, deny that he influenced them and avoid taking any responsibility for his rhetoric.
Hillary Clinton may be a power hungry, war mongering, greedy, career politician but I'm guessing the death squads wont be a priority for her.
Not in her first term at least...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you live in the handful or swing states, sure, your vote for president could matter, but for the vast majority, the system has gerrymandered you out of participating in democracy. Don't feel you owe the parties or candidates anything but a smack in the back of the head.The census is coming in 2020. I haven't seen any push online (probably because I'm not looking in the right places), but a major get-out-the-census movement should start hopefully start gearing up soon. The census report will be the basis for redrawing districts for the Federal House of Representatives, which will reallocate not just representatives but also electors (in the Electoral College). This redistricting is overseen and often drawn-up by sitting legislators in each state's congress. Pushing for and voting in more progressive legislators in each election, especially during the off-years with non-PotUS races like 2018, is also picking the people who redraw these maps.
Keep in mind that an accurate well run census will probably result in more Democratic representation in Congress, which is something the current majority party isn't really keen on. This is also the party that has the majority of the state governments in this country as well.
Never cite the Purge movies. The first was, well, okay, but the rest are mind boggling bad.
Keep in mind that an accurate well run census will probably result in more Democratic representation in Congress, which is something the current majority party isn't really keen on. This is also the party that has the majority of the state governments in this country as well.If you live in the handful or swing states, sure, your vote for president could matter, but for the vast majority, the system has gerrymandered you out of participating in democracy. Don't feel you owe the parties or candidates anything but a smack in the back of the head.The census is coming in 2020. I haven't seen any push online (probably because I'm not looking in the right places), but a major get-out-the-census movement should start hopefully start gearing up soon. The census report will be the basis for redrawing districts for the Federal House of Representatives, which will reallocate not just representatives but also electors (in the Electoral College). This redistricting is overseen and often drawn-up by sitting legislators in each state's congress. Pushing for and voting in more progressive legislators in each election, especially during the off-years with non-PotUS races like 2018, is also picking the people who redraw these maps.
What does that mean for states like Maryland?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look at the case of John Crawford who was a black man in a walmart where they sell GUNS in a open carry state, who had a BB rifle taken off the shelf in the store and was murdered by the police in the store for...carrying a rifle that was sold in the store. He was even screaming that it wasnt loaded before they shot him.
Actually, he told them that it wasn't loaded after they shot him. Before they shot him he was holding the gun by the end of the stock (it was sized for a child), nowhere near the trigger, with the barrel pointed at the ground and talking on his cell phone. The video makes it clear that he didn't even know they were there until the moment they yelled / opened fire.
The truly sick thing is that the prosecutor, in an effort to be 'fair' to the cops, told the grand jury that the police followed proper procedure for an active shooter situation (i.e. rush in and shoot the perp as fast as possible)... but left out the fact that this WASN'T an 'active shooter' situation. Rather, they had been told that a concerned citizen phoned in a report of a scary black guy waving a gun at children (which the video proved to be a lie). The cops were acquitted... the guy who phoned in the false report was allowed to view the video, revise his statement to match it, and never charged.
Crawford and the mother of the children he DIDN'T wave the toy BB gun at both died. Crawford from bullet wounds and the mother from a heart attack when the officers rushed in and opened fire right next to her rather than first clearing the store per proper procedure for a supposed 'armed and dangerous' situation.
The police chief praised his officers for how their swift response protected the lives of shoppers... somehow overlooking that their overly rushed response killed two shoppers who'd have been fine if his officers instead blew it off and went for donuts.
Your vote matters, it's just not the only vote that matters.
Nope. It does not.
If you understand how the electoral college works, and know that I live in the "safe state" of NY, you will see that my vote does NOT matter. It isn't even close to mattering. This is the case for the majority of the country. If you live in a safe state, YOUR VOTE DOES NOT MATTER.We live in a country where the system elects the president, not the voters. There have been a handful of instances where they system elected a different candidate then the voters, such as in 2000.
NOTE: This is for the presidential election, not all voting in general. Gerrymandering of congressional districts is a problem, but not as absolute as the electoral college.
If you eliminate the electoral college, you'd make the problem even worse. PotUS/VPotUS candidates would only bother campaigning hard in the most populous states and ignore the rest, much more than they do now.
Unless this is some clever plan to damn the most populous states to months and months of relentless campaign commercials while the rest of the country enjoys the relative silence.
|
|
If you eliminate the electoral college, you'd make the problem even worse. PotUS/VPotUS candidates would only bother campaigning hard in the most populous states and ignore the rest, much more than they do now.
Depends on what you replaced it with. If the presidency were instead decided by total popular vote then 10 people in a tiny Alaskan village would be exactly as important as 10 people in NYC.
That said, the electoral college isn't going anywhere without a constitutional amendment... so not bloody likely.
A more plausible, though still unlikely, change would be to get more of the states to allocate their electoral college votes proportionally... instead of 'winner takes all' a state split 51% to 49% would wind up giving roughly half of its electoral college votes to each candidate.
|
|
Obviously, you would need the same sort of 'only triggered if enough states sign on' provision for the proportional allocation plan.
That said, neither of them is going to happen any time soon. Note that the 165 electoral votes on the popular vote compact are all from Democrat leaning states (and D.C.).
Until there is a fundamental change in the Republican party, or the Democrats achieve dominance under the EXISTING rules, there isn't going to be a change like this. Though... if the Dems were running almost anyone other than Hillary against Trump they'd have a chance at a big enough sweep to make that happen after the upcoming election.
For those intent on subjecting themselves to Monday's PotUS debate, do you have any recommendations for alcoholic libations? (Sorry DB, no puff-puff/bubble-bubble for me)
|
The Electoral College is not a matter of gerrymandering. The state boundaries were not manipulated for partisan advantage.* It's a matter of using states as districts at all.If you understand how the electoral college works, and know that I live in the "safe state" of NY, you will see that my vote does NOT matter. It isn't even close to mattering. This is the case for the majority of the country. If you live in a safe state, YOUR VOTE DOES NOT MATTER.
We live in a country where the system elects the president, not the voters. There have been a handful of instances where they system elected a different candidate then the voters, such as in 2000.
NOTE: This is for the presidential election, not all voting in general. Gerrymandering of congressional districts is a problem, but not as absolute as the electoral college.
* The exception being Maine and Nebraska who each split their Presidential electoral votes using congressional districts.
The officially nonpartisan Nebraska legislature considered moving to winner-take-all after Obama won the more urban 2nd district in '08, but ended up just gerrymandering the district to make it more difficult for Democrats to win.