Order In The Court? Hardly, As Democrats Vow Revenge For Barrett Confirmation.

Uh. What?

Electoral votes are completely based on representation in Congress.

 

Well, if 74 = "a few", then I guess you're right. Here's a list of the states that have passed it, and their PVI:

Hawaii (D+1
Vermont (D+15)
California (D+12)
Maryland (D+12)
Massachusetts (D+12)
New York (D+12)
Rhode Island (D+10)
Illinois (D+7)
New Jersey (D+7)
Washington (D+7)
Connecticut (D+6)
Delaware (D+6)
Oregon (D+5)
New Mexico (D+3)
Colorado (D+1)

Notice any sort of a pattern?

How about if we compare that to the list of states that have NOT passed the NPVIC:

Maine (D+3)
Michigan (D+1)
Minnesota (D+1)
Nevada (D+1)
Virginia (D+1)
New Hampshire (EVEN)
Pennsylvania (EVEN)
Wisconsin (EVEN)
Florida (R+2)
Iowa (R+3)
North Carolina (R+3)
Ohio (R+3)
Arizona (R+5)
Georgia (R+5)
Texas (R+
South Carolina (R+
Alaska (R+9)
Indiana (R+9)
Mississippi (R+9)
Missouri (R+9)
Louisiana (R+11)
Montana (R+11)
Kansas (R+13)
South Dakota (R+14)
Tennessee (R+14)
Nebraska (R+14)
Alabama (R+14)
Arkansas (R+15)
Kentucky (R+15)
North Dakota (R+17)
Idaho (R+19)
West Virginia (R+19)
Oklahoma (R+20)
Utah (R+20)
Wyoming (R+25)

 

Give me a link to those '29 times.'

 

I think we can peel off those 5 on top.

 

Attempting to get rid of the EC is attempting to bring back slavery.

 

You think so? Maybe Maine, Virginia, and Nevada, but Republicans are currently in control of the Minnesota Senate and both houses of the Michigan legislature.

Let's say I'm wrong though, and you do manage to get all 5. That's 196 + 4 + 13 + 6 + 10 + 16 = 245, still 25 votes short. And after redistricting, IL, NY, RI, MN, and MI all stand to lose a seat, and an accompanying EC vote.

Where are you going to find another ~30 EC votes to join the NPVIC?

 

Why should Democrats accept they “lost” (even though they had the most votes) but Republicans should accept if they lose in a few days?
How is one side doing what is constitutionally allowed perfectly fine while the other side doing what is constitutionally allowed “starting a war”?

 

Easy, implement the Wyoming rule in the House, that alone adds 48 safe Democratic votes and another 32 in leans Democratic.

 

What does that mean. She doesn't qualify because she has religious beliefs?

 

Not because of her religious beliefs, rather her covenant with that cult and its canons.

 

We are Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians and other denominational and nondenominational Christians. Despite our differences, we are bound together by our Christian baptism. Despite our differences, we worship together. While remaining faithful members of our own churches, we have found a way to live our daily lives together.

You think thats a cult? Seems a bit more like different religions finding a common denominator in their belief in Christ.

 

They lost because they operated by a set of rules and were beaten. At one point they didn thave the most votes which is why they didnt have the votes to stop this from happening.
So that part is a lie.

And 2nd, if Republicans do lose they should accept it. And try again next time.

 

It doesn’t matter what “rules” there are, the majority will always feel cheated when their voices are dismissed on the whims of the vocal minority. This isn’t a game — many consider it to be democracy.

 

We disagree. If the goal were different, the strategy would be different.

If the goal were most field goals instead of points, would the strategy be the same?

If popular vote was the criteria, Trump would have campaigned heavily in California, where they have 10 X more republican voters than the entire population of Wyoming, neutering Wyoming completely.

 

Which makes me disagree even more with the electoral college as it is
The voice of the people should not be discounted because of the state they reside

 

I'm mildly curious where you came up with "adds 48 safe Democratic votes". Seems like something that's largely unknowable at this point, given that we don't even know how the additional districts would be drawn yet, but the other issue is that implementing "the Wyoming rule" in the House would raise the target number for the NPVIC from 270 to ... I don't know, maybe 324. Factor in that mostly blue states would probably lose even additional seats after the census gets factored in, and you're still probably short, even if we accept your (probably inaccurate) 48 safe seats + 32 leaners. Math's a bitch.

 

No, campaigning 10 times more doesn't neuter anyone. It just means Trump would make 10 stops to every one, which only makes sense because there are 10 times as many Republicans.

If popular vote were the criteria, Republican votes from California would actually count. With the EC, they don't.

 

It would still be, no matter how you phrase it, the larger populous states would be in charge.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants that on a runaway train. We want it in doses, as we have for centuries. We don't need to go from buggy to Uber every three years. We need adjustment time; 'tis how humans do best. This is why we have democrats and republicans. One side pushes for change and the other side says not too fast.

It's a good system when the partisans are reasonable.

 

No, the president would be in charge. States have proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate. The president is president of all the states, and of all the people. Saying larger states would be in charge is nonsensical.

It's outdated and serves no purpose. Only those who live in swing states count. I don't disagree on the rate of change; I'm speaking theoretically. The popular vote would force candidates to seek out and convince voters all across the country, not just in a few swing states. Everybody's vote would count.

 

Math must be a bitch because your analysis failed to mention any...
Thanks for the maybes and probables though.

 

LOL. Your dreams just went up in smoke. It's ok, I'll give you some time to process it.

 

The truth is optional for Trump supporters !!

 

The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases,” he wrote. McLaughlin added that “19 times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the 10 were successful.”

By contrast, when the president and Senate were from opposite parties, there have been 10 vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination. In six of the 10 cases, the president made a nomination before Election Day, but only one of those was confirmed by the Senate controlled by the opposite party. That was President Grover Cleveland’s nomination of Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller in 1888.

https://www.abajournal.com/web/arti...scotus-nominations-play-out-in-election-years

 

You misspelled Dems.

 

The rules permit Congress to set the number of judges on SCOTUS so if Congress decides to change that number to 11 (or 13 or 15), that IS playing by the rules.