20
   

Will Republicans take the Senate in the election?

 
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 02:59 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You would have to do what the majority of the people want, Baldimo...pretty much as it should be.

This majority doesn't work here in the US. One mans majority is another mans minority and as we have been told the US govt is there to protect the minority. You want majority rules until the majority wants something you don't want. If the majority wanted same sex only marriage would you be ok with that or would you expect the minority to be protected? How about if the majority wanted to change SS to a private system? Would you still back the majority or would you expect that minority to be protected?

Quote:
Nonsense. Each state gets 2 senators because that is the only way the founding fathers could get a union started.

Why is that? They knew it would cause problems so they did 2 Senators each. It keeps things fair between the different size states. Until Wilson sponsored a change we didn't even vote on Senators. They were selected by the states representatives and not the people.

Quote:
Why do you hate equality of votes, Baldimo?

I don't hate it, this is why I respect the House and it's purpose. You are the one who wants all the control into about 4 or 5 states while the other 50 just do as they are told. You are the one who doesn't like fairness.

Quote:
Yeah, you count. TOO DAMN MUCH!

Sorry my state has a say on what goes on in the Union. When I moved back here 15 years ago from CA, I never envisioned CO being such a heavy hitter in national politics. I'm happy we are, gives you something to complain about.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:08 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
You would have to do what the majority of the people want, Baldimo...pretty much as it should be.

This majority doesn't work here in the US. One mans majority is another mans minority and as we have been told the US govt is there to protect the minority. You want majority rules until the majority wants something you don't want. If the majority wanted same sex only marriage would you be ok with that or would you expect the minority to be protected? How about if the majority wanted to change SS to a private system? Would you still back the majority or would you expect that minority to be protected?


Earth calling Baldimo....Earth calling Baldimo...come in please.

I am not advocating for minority or majority rule, Baldimo...what I want is fairness.

Why should the 600,000 people of Red State Wyoming have as many senators as the 33,000,000 people of Blue State California? Why should they have the impact they have on the Electoral College as they do?

It is an anachronism.

I am suggesting it is unfair.

And it is.


parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:20 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
This majority doesn't work here in the US. One mans majority is another mans minority and as we have been told the US govt is there to protect the minority. You want majority rules until the majority wants something you don't want. If the majority wanted same sex only marriage would you be ok with that or would you expect the minority to be protected? How about if the majority wanted to change SS to a private system? Would you still back the majority or would you expect that minority to be protected?

So many misconceptions. First of all one man's majority is not another man's minority because a majority is a simple mathematical formula.

The US Constitution is not there to protect the minority from the majority. It is there to limit what the majority can do which has a side effect of protecting the minority but it doesn't protect the minority in all things.

If the majority wanted same sex only marriage then it would be allowed to do that unless it gives benefits to those in a marriage. At that point it runs into the equal protection clause.

The majority can change SS to a private system at any time since it is not a protected right in the US Constitution. The politics of doing it are what is preventing it.

Quote:
You are the one who wants all the control into about 4 or 5 states while the other 50 just do as they are told. You are the one who doesn't like fairness.
Based on apportionment in the House you would need 10 states to vote as a block before you achieve a majority. Of those states, they are pretty evenly split red/blue.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm an Independent voter; I will vote for the best candidate that matches my ideals.
Believe it or not, others do that too - including many with political views different from your own.

cicerone imposter wrote:
In today's elections, it's controlled by the GOP state governments, and the SCOTUS allows these shenanigans to occur.
Bullshit ! In California the government is Democrat from end-to-end. Indeed the Democrat Legislature's record of gerrymandering was fo infamous that their power to control it was limited in a referendum. Overall there's not much difference in the behavior of Democrat and Republican cointroilled state legislatures in this area.

cicerone imposter wrote:
When 400,000 registered voter rolls disappear, I'm not going to worry about my one vote.
Perhaps you didn't read the link supporting the deceptive headline. Many of the "dissappeared" were registrations that, by law, don't take effect until later. You may not agree with that but in those cases it is the law. The fact is that fradulent voter registrations do indeed occur, and laws requiring ID and time delays are designed expressly to limit it. How many fradulent voter registrations did Acorn create?

cicerone imposter wrote:
It's simple math; it's not 'each vote counts.' It doesn't.
Your statement is neither simple nor mathematical. It's simply bullshit.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Even in California, the voter turnout today will be less than 50%.
So what? People are free to vote or not vote as they choose. Do you object to that?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:24 pm
Good old Crazy Uncle Joe

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/04/midterms-2014-campaign-notebook/
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
They don't quite have the impact you think they do.
California has 55 electors and Colorado has 3. Yes, it means Colorado has a slight edge but you could make the same argument comparing the small states based on their population differences.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-21/number-of-representatives-by-state-population-u-s-census-2000-to-2010.html
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:25 pm
I detect some advance sour grapes from some here, .... Frank and Cicerone especially. It would be interesting to see if they expressed these views prior to the 2008 election that brought a Democrat President, Senate and House to power.

I have also found myself in agreement with Parados on two recent occasions. These are novel experiences for me.

I still find it very hard to be confident in my intuition about this election, and will watch the results attentively as they come in.
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:26 pm
I may want to jump on Frank's bandwagon here. Just think, there is no need to have 2 houses of Congress both populated by politicians based on a state's population. So, we could simply eliminate the Senate and just have the House. Think of all the good that would do. We would eliminate 100 Senators, most of whom are lying pieces of crap anyway. And think of the money we will save! No more salaries for Senators, their aides, their aide's aides, their secretaries, etc, etc.

This would also make it easier for lobbyists. Rather than having to buy off both Senators and House members, they would have fewer people to talk to and bribe. Think about how much easier their jobs would be.

I think that all of us should get behind this idea. We could sell it to republicans as being less government and we could sell it to democrats as more government power in the hands of fewer of them. I think it could work.

Of course, there is that pesky constitution to worry about, but hey, if we ever have another constitutional convention, I think this needs to be proposed.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:29 pm
@CoastalRat,
Not only are you jumping on the bandwagon, you are beating the dead horses.
Wink
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:30 pm
@parados,
That's three times !
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

It's not about the voters; it's about how the GOP does everything to win elections through fraud and redistricting.


You are correct in that respect, CI. Today, the only way the Republican Party can win any election from mainstream America is to CHEAT, stack the benches with their partisan judges, steal registration applications, along with voter restriction, send out misleading notices that the polling place in their regular building have moved, etc.

But not to worry too much! Two years is not too long. When 2016 arrive, many, and I do mean many GOP will be kicked out on their buttocks. The Republican Party is in the clutches of the Tea Party and fear being primary (used as a verb). The Republican Party tend to be a bunch of chicken sh*ts! The only one the Tea Party fear is Barack Obama, a black man in the white House. It was the election of the African American that created the Tea Party who is so afraid to have a non-white as president they're besides themselves with hatred and trembling. Some backward thinking Republicans believe, stupidly, Obama will seek retaliation for past wrongs!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:33 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I still find it very hard to be confident in my intuition about this election, and will watch the results attentively as they come in.


That is one I agree with. I am hopeful of an outcome but realistic that it probably won't occur.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:34 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

They don't quite have the impact you think they do.
California has 55 electors and Colorado has 3. Yes, it means Colorado has a slight edge but you could make the same argument comparing the small states based on their population differences.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-21/number-of-representatives-by-state-population-u-s-census-2000-to-2010.html


We were talking about Wyoming, Parados.

Wyoming's 600,000 people have 3 electors in the Electoral College. California's 33,000.000 people have 55.

In other words there is an elector for every 200,000 people in Wyoming...and one for every 600,000 Californians. Every person in Wyoming gets three times the voting impact for president as a person in California.

That is not small.

And in the senate...there is one senator for every 300,000 people in Wyoming...and one senator for every 16.5 million people in California. NOT insignificant at all.



parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Yes, and Rhode Island pretty much cancels Wyoming's advantage in the electoral college when it gets 4 electors and 1 for every 263,000 people.

You are comparing the 2 extreme outliers. Statistically, it evens out in the end.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:46 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Yes, and Rhode Island pretty much cancels Wyoming's advantage in the electoral college when it gets 4 electors and 1 for every 263,000 people.

You are comparing the 2 extreme outliers. Statistically, it evens out in the end.


Hardly.

Check out the entire run of states...and you will see that the Red States trump the Blue in the areas we are talking about.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:49 pm
Our system is what it is. The Senate/House compromises were indeed necessary to get agreement at the nation's founding, as has been noted. That doesn't mean they are defective now or must be changed. Human affairs are very complex, and perfect simplicity is not easily atained and certainly not sustainable in the real world. If Frank wants more voting power he could always move to Wyoming or Rhode Island. (I've lived in Rhode Island and would strongly recommend Wyoming. I think Cicerone would be pissed off in either place.)
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 03:54 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Our system is what it is. The Senate/House compromises were indeed necessary to get agreement at the nation's founding, as has been noted. That doesn't mean they are defective now or must be changed.


And of course, it doesn't mean they are not defective, George, or shouldn't be changed now.

I think they are defective and should be changed...but I doubt they will be. The conservatives love the advantage...and I do not blame them. And because of the disadvantage...they can make their "No Way" stand.



Quote:

Human affairs are very complex, and perfect simplicity is not easily atained and certainly not sustainable in the real world.


Okay...I agree. But one can keep efforting in that direction...and sometimes the rubber tree plant moves.



0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 04:01 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
How many fradulent voter registrations did Acorn create?


I don't know, why don't you tell us since you asked the question.

The whole point to all the hurdles is disenfranchise voters who tend to vote democrat.



Quote:
A day after the Senior Deputy Whip for the Georgia Senate Republicans vowed to block early voting dates and locations that he felt would attract African American voters, a progressive group released audio on Wednesday of Georgia’s Secretary of State warning fellow Republicans that Democrats might win because they are registering minority voters.

The audio, posted on YouTube by Better Georgia, features a man identified as Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp telling fellow Republicans at a July 12, 2014 event in Gwinnett County:

In closing I just wanted to tell you real quick, after we get through this runoff, you know the Democrats are working hard, and all these stories about them, you know, registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November. But we’ve got to do the exact same thing. I would encourage all of you, if you have an Android or an Apple device, to download that app, and maybe your goal is to register one new Republican voter.

The admissions by both Kemp and Senator Fran Millar that minority voters are almost certainly going to vote against the GOP in November contradicts the recent spin by the national party. Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus announced last year that his party would spend millions to reach out to minority groups. The RNC’s own autopsy report on the party’s 2012 election defeats found that many minorities “think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country,” (wrongly, the report argued). Latinos and African Americans voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in 2012, citing concerns about salary, wages, affordable healthcare, and immigration.

On Tuesday, Kemp launched a “voter fraud” investigation into a voter registration effort he suspects may have “forged voter registration applications, forged signatures on releases, and applications with false or inaccurate information.” Accusations of voter fraud have been a frequent tool of Republican secretaries of state.

A year ago, Kemp warned that allowing citizens to register to vote on Election Day would undermine their “individual freedoms.” In 2012, he spearheaded an error-riddled effort to purge voters from the rolls just months before the November elections.

Better Georgia executive director Bryan Long said in a statement that Kemp’s and Millar’s comments suggest the investigation is aimed at voter suppression. “The right to vote is sacred, and we should all want to encourage people to vote instead of making it more difficult,” he wrote, adding that, “GOP candidates in Georgia know they cannot win if the electorate reflects the increasing diversity of our state, so Sec. Kemp is using the power of his office to restrict minority voting access. The Justice Department should investigate.


source
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 04:02 pm
@georgeob1,
It's not me who decides where we live; my wife has 100% control. If it were up to me, I'd have moved to the central valley where I would have designed my own low maintenance bungalow with lots of windows under 1,000 sf surrounded by nature.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2014 04:34 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Quote:
How many fradulent voter registrations did Acorn create?


I don't know, why don't you tell us since you asked the question.

The whole point to all the hurdles is disenfranchise voters who tend to vote democrat.


That's the whole point according to you, but others don't agree. Believe it or not voter fraud is a real thing, and a number of mostly Democrat controlled political machines have made a studied art of the process, going back a very long time. In a similar process, through both law and practice, southern states (and others) made a similar art out of disenfranchising their black populations. Both have been serious problems in our history, and the contending political parties are roughly equal in their hypocrisy over the matter.



 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 12:19:20