Canada2017 said:

---

75 years after the end of WW2....its ridiculous that American taxpayers are paying over 60% of NATO's budget while member countries do multi billion dollar deals with the same country we are defending them against.

---

riflebear said:

---

Trust me, my news is 100 times more factual than anything Cinque or any of the radical liberals ever post on here.

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

The EC has nothing to do with slavery.

---

tommie said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

The EC has nothing to do with slavery.

---

What is EC?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

The EC has nothing to do with slavery.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

tommie said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

The EC has nothing to do with slavery.

---

What is EC?

---

Electoral College.

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Yeah those Framers were all stoopid racists. Let's just throw out the best system of government the world has ever seen.

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Yeah those Framers were all stoopid racists. Let's just throw out the best system of government the world has ever seen.

---

That's exactly what Trump and Putin are endeavoring to do.

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Yeah those Framers were all stoopid racists. Let's just throw out the best system of government the world has ever seen.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Actually it was Virginia that proposed proportional representation in Congress with the support of southern states like Georgia and the Carolinas. They were opposed by northern states like Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, and most of the New York representatives. The lone dissenter from New York was Alexander Hamilton, who was also a principal defender of the Electoral College (and a Founder most notable for his abolitionist tendencies). The 3/5 Rule is no more relevant to the Electoral College today than it is to House representation. In both cases the rule's effect was nullified by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

I know you find it convenient to demonize rural voters, but the racism argument stretches too far and proves too much for its own good. If the Electoral College is a relic of slavery, then so is Congress, and indeed the Constitution itself. What we have is a system that balances the rights of small and large states. The principle is similar to that of the Voting Rights Act, which balances the rights of individuals and communities of political interest.

I'm sorry you're still upset, but it's no mystery how the process works. Next time try running a candidate who doesn't deplore half of the country. If you can find one.

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Actually it was Virginia that proposed proportional representation in Congress with the support of southern states like Georgia and the Carolinas. They were opposed by northern states like Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, and most of the New York representatives. The lone dissenter from New York was Alexander Hamilton, who was also a principal defender of the Electoral College (and a Founder most notable for his abolitionist tendencies). The 3/5 Rule is no more relevant to the Electoral College today than it is to House representation. In both cases the rule's effect was nullified by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

I know you find it convenient to demonize rural voters, but the racism argument stretches too far and proves too much for its own good. If the Electoral College is a relic of slavery, then so is Congress, and indeed the Constitution itself. What we have is a system that balances the rights of small and large states. The principle is similar to that of the Voting Rights Act, which balances the rights of individuals and communities of political interest.

I'm sorry you're still upset, but it's no mystery how the process works. Next time try running a candidate who doesn't deplore half of the country. If you can find one.

---

I have nothing against rural voters, I just don't think their vote should be 3.62 times my vote

and the EC is a relic of slavery.... that you find that inconvenient is unfortunate for you, but it is what it is...

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Actually it was Virginia that proposed proportional representation in Congress with the support of southern states like Georgia and the Carolinas. They were opposed by northern states like Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, and most of the New York representatives. The lone dissenter from New York was Alexander Hamilton, who was also a principal defender of the Electoral College (and a Founder most notable for his abolitionist tendencies). The 3/5 Rule is no more relevant to the Electoral College today than it is to House representation. In both cases the rule's effect was nullified by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

I know you find it convenient to demonize rural voters, but the racism argument stretches too far and proves too much for its own good. If the Electoral College is a relic of slavery, then so is Congress, and indeed the Constitution itself. What we have is a system that balances the rights of small and large states. The principle is similar to that of the Voting Rights Act, which balances the rights of individuals and communities of political interest.

I'm sorry you're still upset, but it's no mystery how the process works. Next time try running a candidate who doesn't deplore half of the country. If you can find one.

---

I have nothing against rural voters, I just don't think their vote should be 3.62 times my vote

and the EC is a relic of slavery.... that you find that inconvenient is unfortunate for you, but it is what it is...

---

Your habit of trivializing racism is far less injurious to me than it is to the victims of real racism. I object to it mainly on principle.

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Yeah those Framers were all stoopid racists. Let's just throw out the best system of government the world has ever seen.

---

you don't read very well do you.... are you saying that you want to go back to counting black people as 3/5 of a person?

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Yeah those Framers were all stoopid racists. Let's just throw out the best system of government the world has ever seen.

---

you don't read very well do you.... are you saying that you want to go back to counting black people as 3/5 of a person?

---

Not everybody is a racist like you.

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Yeah those Framers were all stoopid racists. Let's just throw out the best system of government the world has ever seen.

---

you don't read very well do you.... are you saying that you want to go back to counting black people as 3/5 of a person?

---

Not everybody is a racist like you.

---

Oh Yoak.... you are so sad

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Yeah those Framers were all stoopid racists. Let's just throw out the best system of government the world has ever seen.

---

you don't read very well do you.... are you saying that you want to go back to counting black people as 3/5 of a person?

---

Not everybody is a racist like you.

---

Oh Yoak.... you are so sad

---

I'd rather be sad than a racist.

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Actually it was Virginia that proposed proportional representation in Congress with the support of southern states like Georgia and the Carolinas. They were opposed by northern states like Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, and most of the New York representatives. The lone dissenter from New York was Alexander Hamilton, who was also a principal defender of the Electoral College (and a Founder most notable for his abolitionist tendencies). The 3/5 Rule is no more relevant to the Electoral College today than it is to House representation. In both cases the rule's effect was nullified by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

I know you find it convenient to demonize rural voters, but the racism argument stretches too far and proves too much for its own good. If the Electoral College is a relic of slavery, then so is Congress, and indeed the Constitution itself. What we have is a system that balances the rights of small and large states. The principle is similar to that of the Voting Rights Act, which balances the rights of individuals and communities of political interest.

I'm sorry you're still upset, but it's no mystery how the process works. Next time try running a candidate who doesn't deplore half of the country. If you can find one.

---

I have nothing against rural voters, I just don't think their vote should be 3.62 times my vote

and the EC is a relic of slavery.... that you find that inconvenient is unfortunate for you, but it is what it is...

---

Your habit of trivializing racism is far less injurious to me than it is to the victims of real racism. I object to it mainly on principle.

---

what you object to is inconvenient truth

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Everything in our Constitution that favors rural states was defended at the Constitutional Convention by delegates representing slave states. Some such stuff has been nullified by amendment, like the 3/5 rule for House representation. But the composition of our Senate and the EC are there because slave-owning conservatives wanted them there, and still today they are the political benefactors of conservative-led states.

---

Yeah those Framers were all stoopid racists. Let's just throw out the best system of government the world has ever seen.

---

That's exactly what Trump and Putin are endeavoring to do.

---

LOL. Y'all lost an election. Quit crying. You'll have another chance in 2020 with your nomination of Hillary, Bernie, or Elizabeth.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

The EC has nothing to do with slavery.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

The EC has nothing to do with slavery.

---

The founding fathers apportioned the EC, so that candidates were less likely to ignore small states in favor of large states. This past election underscores the need for a candidate to focus on all of the country and not just the large states if they want maximize their chance to be elected.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

The EC has nothing to do with slavery.

---

The founding fathers apportioned the EC, so that candidates were less likely to ignore small states in favor of large states. This past election underscores the need for a candidate to focus on all of the country and not just the large states if they want maximize their chance to be elected.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

The EC has nothing to do with slavery.

---

The founding fathers apportioned the EC, so that candidates were less likely to ignore small states in favor of large states. This past election underscores the need for a candidate to focus on all of the country and not just the large states if they want maximize their chance to be elected.

---

Exactly. The issue of slavery was incidental.

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

The EC has nothing to do with slavery.

---

The founding fathers apportioned the EC, so that candidates were less likely to ignore small states in favor of large states. This past election underscores the need for a candidate to focus on all of the country and not just the large states if they want maximize their chance to be elected.

---

Exactly. The issue of slavery was incidental.

---

it allowed them to get greater representation while not counting all their people as people

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

Booray said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

He is focused on the wrong institutions. The electoral college is part of the Constitution and is apportioned according to population. 3 years ago all the analysis was about the incredibly slim pathway the GOP had to the White House because of the electoral college. The fact that Donald Trump figured out the path does not change its essential dynamic. When you start with California, New York and Illinois in the bag, you have a pretty good chance of capturing the presidency.

The Senate does encourage "minority rule" but it does so by the design of the founders. The Senate has always functioned as the government's brakeman, slowing rapid change. The filibuster rule added to that function. Either party only needed 41 Senators to stop something it perceived as really radical. Harry Reid threw that out for judicial appointments; if that led to Brett Kavanaugh, so be it.

The real injustice is in the House, which is supposed to be the most direct voice of the people. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are leading us to minority rule in that chamber that is not by constitutional design. In the process it destroys the balance the founders had in mind.

---

there is a problem with the math used for apportionment of electors when a vote in Wyoming is 3.62x more important than a vote in California

---

Well, yeah, but it's a problem that goes back to the Constitution itself. Virginians made the same complaint about Rhode Island and Georgia that Californians make about Wyoming.

---

we have fixed other parts of the constitution that were due to slavery.... maybe it's time for this one to be fixed as well

---

The EC has nothing to do with slavery.

---

The founding fathers apportioned the EC, so that candidates were less likely to ignore small states in favor of large states. This past election underscores the need for a candidate to focus on all of the country and not just the large states if they want maximize their chance to be elected.

---

Exactly. The issue of slavery was incidental.

---

it allowed them to get greater representation while not counting all their people as people

---