Democratic leaders have suddenly discovered that the Electoral College is anti-democratic and have called for its elimination. I have long been a critic of the Electoral College, though I understand the concerns of those who fear that the loss of the institution would reduce presidential elections to the choice of states like California and New York. However, the interesting result of this election (where Hillary Clinton won the popular) was a ground swell of calls for the elimination of the Electoral College. The hue and cry for reform gave hope for critics (despite the obvious opportunism and hypocrisy from some quarters) but a recent Gallup poll indicates that an inverse move has also occurred as many have come to appreciate the counter-majoritarian impact of institution in this election. The net results appears to be an increase in support for the Electoral College.
According to the latest poll, 47% of Americans say they want to keep the Electoral College while 49% want to amend the Constitution to allow for a popular vote for president. (For the record, I favor a majority vote requirement much like many countries around the world where a runoff occurs between the final two candidates to insure a majority election). What is fascinating is that there was previously a majority in favor of eliminating the Electoral College.
The shift, not surprising, follows political affiliations. Previously 50 of Republicans favored the elimination, but now it was just 19 percent.
The loss of the Democrats appear to have cut off this option with all of the spoils of victory. While a bill was introduced to eliminate the Electoral College by Democrats, the Senate is now going to be control of the same party as a president who counts his election on that very institution.
Who said that Electoral College was not actually educational?
I never understood any opposition to the popular vote on any issue, until I lived in a rural area.
It wasn’t until I lived in a community that lacked the votes for self determination, and realized that rural areas become the dumping grounds for cities, that I realized the downside to majority rule.
We’ve all seen movies like Erin Brokovich, read about Reservations used for toxic waste dumps or oil pipelines, and where do you think the sexual predators go? Where can they find housing that is spread out enough from schools? In rural areas. The Megan’s Law Database looks like scatter shot on a target. Where are the prisons built? Nuclear power plants? Electrical stations? Noisy wind farms that ruin the ridge lines? Do you think they build the new High Speed Rail lines through nice suburbs, seizing their properties through eminent domain, and putting in a train that will go so fast that the air crashing behind it will make a booming sound? Do those go by the schools in the city? No, they go through rural areas. They drain the wells of rural areas so they can build train tunnels so the rich and upper middle class can vacation in San Francisco. Where do they put the outdoor dog kennels, with hundreds of dogs kept in pens? Rural areas. But they often do not let rural areas decide for themselves if they want a train, or kennels, or wind farms, or prisons. The cities have the votes, and they decide, and they never want those things in their back yards. They want them in ours. And then they want to cap off the farmers’ wells, sneer about the almond orchards, while they have golf courses, burbling fountains in shopping malls, and green Kentucky Bluegrass lawns.
My fear about the popular vote is that our country is vast, with concentrated coastal areas and widely different needs among the 50 states. I’ve seen what happens to communities whose fate is decided by others. I don’t want that to happen in our country. What would a President do if only a few states really mattered to get elected? How would the “not in my backyard” issue translate to a country scale?
KarenS – kudos to your passionate and informative post. Yep, it’s like that –NIMBY –and those with money and power decide – peasants be damned.
I do believe that Trump will prevail and the plutocrats will increase their power over us. Damn be the little guy or gal. Goldman and Exxon reign.
Trump’s Cabinet picks have more wealth than third of American households combined http://hill.cm/haeSPCX
Why is that a problem for you?
Well, for one thing, they might be more interested in keeping their own nests feathered, than worrying about the country as a whole.
Jay S.,
So you believe the less wealthy one is the less likely they will act in their own self-interest? Human nature hasn’t changed since man first walked this planet. What has changed is the increased number of people that believe our nature has advanced with technology. Jonathan Gruber preyed on these folks.
klm927 – I didn’t notice that any of Obama’s cabinet were picked from the bread line.
So, wealthy private sector super successful business people who know how to get results are being tapped for ‘public service’ positions in order to serve their country by trying to help Washington work better for the people. Would you rather have people who only use politics and ‘public service’ as their vehicle to become wealthy? You know, like the Clintons?
kim927 — Why do you seem to think that this is a binary choice? Are you not aware that you are employing the false dilemma fallacy?
Agreed!
sorry – Agreed! to post saying “KarenS – kudos to your passionate and informative post.”
What would a President do if only a few states really mattered to get elected?
FWIW, if you had national popular vote, the geographic locus of the votes would not matter. It’s only when you’re awarding geographic blocs that it does.
Karen, just north of 75% of the population in this country lives in concentrated settlements. At ordinary suburban densities, this population occupies maybe 120,000 sq. miles of territory. That’s less 4% of the land area of the United States. Of course you put land-intensive activities in the countryside, that’s where the land is, and the land is, of course, less expensive.
The “support” for the electoral college mirrors the election results and means nothing in terms of discerning whether or not the electoral college should be kept. It should not. No government on earth would be recognized by the USA as legitimate that held an election where the candidate with the most votes lost because of a weird and unique aspect of law allowing political jurisdictions to determine the outcome as opposed to the will of the people. For the good of the country, our leaders must initiate a permanent elimination of the electoral college so the will of the whole people, majority rule can prevail in Presidential elections. Right now, public opinion surveys only reflect whether or not people are currently happy with the outcome. If the results were reversed the Republicans would be howling as loud or louder than the Democrats are now. Sadly, as corrupt as all our leaders are in Washington, which has become little more than a cesspool of empire, I doubt we’ll see any reform on this until there is a watershed election that throws out both the insane right wing Republicans and the corrupt neoliberal sellouts who dominate the Democratic Party.
Interesting comment (the last line is spot on) but you don’t offer any rational other than “political jurisdictions” is a self evident negative by comparison to popular vote, and that all the other countries do it.
What about the fact that the popular vote would indeed favor highly dense areas over those sparsely populated?
Dum de dum de dum. Parliamentary schemes without directly elected executives are modal in this world. Neither the U.S. Government nor any other government cares much if the legislature of Country X is malapportioned or gerrymandered (as Canada’s is, btw).
“will of the whole people, majority rule can prevail in Presidential elections.”
Mob rule.
Who said that Electoral College was not actually educational?
Instructive indeed.
Professor, you have mentioned several times in your posts that you favor the popular vote while at the same time being aware of the problem that such a system presents for the less populated states. In effect, California and New York (and other coastal demographic concentrations) would suddenly take on a significant advantage.
But to my knowledge you have not elaborated on why you think the benefits of a popular vote would still outweigh the negatives of a potential imbalance between states and population.
I don’t have that much of a dog in this particular instance of that issue. I am deeply grateful that Clinton did not win and deeply troubled that Trump was the only alternative. The whole election process was about the status quo spinning out of control – and the result was two entirely disfunctional candidates in two political parties that only the most ardent would defend. Neither of these individuals, and certainly not this dystopian election, provide me with anything substantial to make a critique or apology for the Electoral College.
But more generally, that institution and process is elaborated in the Consitution and so to remove it would be no small matter and it would be necessary and only right to fully explore why a popular vote would outweigh the costs.
I would also be very interested in Olly’s opinion on this.
This is a very thoughtful comment. I’d like to hear both opinions as well.
There are other really good ways to have a more representative vote of the will of the people, say with instant run-off voting. There are a number of reforms that would help. Right now we have madness with NYTimes Op-Eds saying Trump lost the election because he lost the popular vote. This is simply false but he presents it at face value as a fact (talk about fake news!). We further have death threats against electors, as well as attempts to turn them by offers of free legal representation (UNSOLICITED BY THE ELECTOR) by the Harvard group of law professors.
This is getting weirder and scarier by the day. I really don’t think that all this violence and death threats fits with the Hillary’s campaign slogan: “Love Trumps Hate”. This needs to update to reflect reality: Death Threats against Trump and his supporters are O.K. !!!!
Thanks Jill,
This is getting weirder and scarier by the day.
Now even Obama is saying we are going to retaliate against Russia. On one level it’s hilarious, Obama is going to retaliate against Russia for bringing the TRUTH about Hillary’s emails to the attention of the public. On another level, that of things going coo-coo, Obama’s reaction, purely for the press, purely for public consumption and ignoring any diplomatic niceties with Russia, such as any proof what-so-ever, is ominous indeed. Putin certainly, and Trump in his special way, come out as the more reasonable and less completely unhinged.
Not to mention the Alice In Wonderland atmosphere of Obama passing judgement before his inquiry into what exactly happened – if anything related to Russia.
I tried to enter the Freshman Class of the Electoral College back in 1955 when I got out of high school. They rejected my application. Apparently it is some uppity east coast place with no room for nitwits from Texas.
Unfortunately, the curriculum consists of a mixture of rubber-stamping and skullduggery.
“Oh Canada our home and native land
True patriot love in all thy sons command..”
Canada does have a better national anthem. That’s about it.
You sound like a “freedom fries” type of guy. You must hate Montreal.
I worked 2 summers @ a Jersey shore hotel, which had many French Canadian tourists. The entire staff came to truly dislike those smug, chippy, cheap, people. Montreal as a city is really quite nice. I had a friend who went to McGill and I would visit. It would be a MUCH better place to visit if you got rid of the French Canadians. Maybe move them all to Trois Rivieres.
I worked the front desk. The waitresses had more contact and hated French Canadians. I’m talking sweet, liberal, young women waitresses. They HATED them!
Canada made use of decent ensigns until 1964. Then they stuck themselves with the Lester Pearson supermarket logo.
Their Charter of Rights is for tools.
Nick, I had never heard the Canadian national anthem – you’re right it IS better =) We should have gone with “America the Beautiful” =)
O Canada is being screwed royally by neo lib Trudeau – hilarious article in The Guardian today. Talk about double-speak! Never met a corporatist trade deal he didn’t like although Canada has been sued due to ISDS more than ANY other country! Idiots who elected him.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/15/justin-trudeau-interview-globalisation-climate-change-trump
America the Beautiful” =
An insipid piece of music if their ever was one.
That’s a little harsh–isn’t it??
Not exactly “Natural Science,” but I’ve heard a lot worse.
Autumn, Thanks for the link. Our Canadian friend is embarrassed by the vapid, pretty boy, Trudeau. He touted Trudeau right after he was elected but has been tellingly silent since then.
The Electoral College has always been hugely unpopular for negating the concept of “one person one vote.” Its surge in popularity is strictly because so many people who loathe Trump are hoping at least 37 Electors defect and thwart him becoming President, like a Presidential Hail Mary play.
When you find yourself talking like that, you might insert the names of real people and see if it makes sense, as in, “I was in the staff lounge today with Rob, Bill, Z, and Laura. The electoral college is hugely unpopular…”. If it were hugely unpopular, there would have been some effort at the grass roots to get an amendment regarding it, as there has been for balanced budgets.
You don’t need to poll a “staff lounge” to figure out that the electoral clout of a rural state like Wyoming is significantly greater in an unfair way than an urban state like New York do you?
No you don’t, but that wasn’t your money contention. Your contention was that the electoral college is ‘hugely unpopular’, a statement you can file in the same bin with ‘the Kansas City Royals are hugely unpopular’. The vast majority of the population does not give a moment of thought to the proposition and hardly cares.
Let’s see…. In order to convert the Presidential Election from the current (Electoral College) model to some form of a national popular vote model, we’d have to amend Article II and, probably, the Twelfth Amendment. That would require a two-thirds (67%) vote in both chambers of Congress and ratification of three-fourths (75%) of the states within 7 years. I say the Democrats should push this, and push this hard. A few obstacles, though.
1. Dems have 46% of the House seats. To get to 67% they’d only have to switch 93 Repub votes. Doable.
2. Dems have 48% of the Senate seats. To get to 67% they’d only have to switch 16 Repub votes. Doable.
3. Dems control the legislatures in 26% of the state legislatures, including some in “flyover” states. To get to 75% they’d only have to switch 25 state legislatures, including some states who would never see a presidential candidate were it not for the Electoral College. Doable.
I really think there is a chance that Democrats in Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, Montana, etc can get voters to put them in the House, Senate, or State Houses so that the Dems can vote to transfer power to California, New York, and Illinois. Yep, doable.
The first step, I think, is for the Democrats to raise some money from rich, liberal donors to begin the campaign. $5,000,000,000 to $7,000,000,000 should do nicely. Heck, count me in for $100.
Sarcasm?
Article II and, probably, the Twelfth Amendment. That would require a two-thirds (67%) vote in both chambers of Congress and ratification of three-fourths (75%) of the states within 7 years. I
There’s no constitutional provision which requires ratification within 7 years. It’s just been conventional in the post-bellum period to tack that on to the proposed amendments themselves.
We’ve had these anomalies in the last 20 years because the electorate is so closely divided. The electoral college itself is not all that malapportioned.
This election demonstrated clearly to Americans just why our founders, in their wisdom, established the Electoral College. And, why it is just as necessary today as it ever was. Maybe more so.
Would you sing the same tune if enough electors decide they can’t go along with electing Trump?
It’s at least debatable that ‘Our Founders’ had any scenario in mind such as we face. They had actual discrete problems on their plate to address. Hari Seldon was a fictional character, SierraRose. He and the 50 mathematicians of his Foundation did not travel through time and alight in Philadelphia in 1787.
Electoral College is just more genius from our Founders. People who produce, manufacture, and deliver goods from coast to coast (the factory & farm workers, the oil roustabouts, the truckers, etc) to the population centers to keep the big city residents well coifed & fed — well, those workers, their vote counts too.
Factories are rapidly being automated, trucks will no doubt soon become self-driving, and who knows, factory farming will find a way to use even less labor.
When ALL unskilled or semi-skilled jobs are gone, who will “those [ex] workers” vote for then?
And no doubt soon we’ll each be able to relocate to the planet of our choice. Who knows, right?
I still (reluctantly) now favor the dissolution of the USA into (more or less) the Left Coast, the Right Coast, and FlyOverLand, as sovereign or semi-sovereign regions. FlyOverLand could try the Kansas experiment on a much larger scale, perhaps driving all taxes to zero. Arthur Laffer could be chief economist and visionary guru. FlyOverLand could impose draconian bans on abortion, contraception, and young women having sex for fun. Middle age men could have viagra provided free as a divine right. Oh, and black persons would only have 3/5 of a vote. What could go wrong? In any event, we would at least be over all this relentless bickering.
Another time, another place, you may be able to deal with real people and not with caricatures.
I have a lot of relatives in FlyOverLand, and many of them ARE caricatures.
You know, Jay, we often don’t see ourselves as others do.
Again, if you’re to have a national popular vote for any office, you’re going to have to centralize the administration of elections and the screens for being put on the voter roll. Given the sloppiness manifest in nearly all public institutions in this country other than the military, this is asking for trouble. The form of the electoral college could use some adjustments (e.g. eliminating the office of elector and retaining electoral votes as a tabulating convention, breaking up more populous states into 2-5 constituencies, more granularity in the distribution of electoral votes by assigning each state a quantum equal to the citizen population therein, and assigning electoral votes to the territories).
There are so many things wrong with the system of suffrage and elections in this country: haphazard registration procedures, the gratuitous use of postal balloting, the gratuitous use of digital technology, poor ballot security generally, a haphazard electoral calendar, the universal use of first-past-the-post tabulation, the mess that is the corporate law applicable to political parties, the mess that is campaign finance regulation, the wretched excess of offices chosen by competitive election (e.g elected coroners), and the deficit of rotary schemes and mandatory retirement, &c &c. Where are you on any of these questions???? Why the interest in the electoral college per se?
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. LOL
Dave – we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
No, we have a democracy. After 1836, the only common use of property and tax qualifications were a stratagem for negro disfranchisement.
As for the various and sundry supermajority requirements, all they do nowadays is generate dysfunction and fraud, no matter what Mr. Madison may have intended.
That was a verified trump tweet. Inform your leader. LOL
Thanks to the Founding Fathers we have an
acceptable system.
The Republican Party from top to bottom have
Won fairly and squarely.
There isn’t a shred of evidence of Election
interference …..only inuendo.
seamusp7c – there seems to be some problems with the vote count in Detroit where machines tallied more votes than ballots. They were all for Hillary. And there is going to be an audit.
Why does the popular vote tally keep going up for Hillary? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Will they audit California too?
helly – in the Detroit case the numbers tallied are 3 times the number of ballots.
Um, no. the bulk of ‘unbalanced’ precincts had fewer than 5 votes tallied in excess of the number who signed in on the register. Now, if you had impersonators signing the register, that’s another problem. Voter ID would take care of impersonators as long as you had bipartisan teams of poll inspectors. Your real problem is postal ballot fraud, badly calibrated tabulation machines, and registration procedures which allow the ineligible to get on the rolls readily. Other countries deal with these problems. We cannot seem to and every innovation in elections administration makes things worse (the digital technology, the early voting, the failure to purge the rolls, &c).
I wonder if that support from authoritarian loving republicans would be so strong if they actually knew what the Electoral College is supposed to do and not what it does do. Maybe Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell can write Putin and ask for his advice on how to ‘manage’ elections and the members of the Electoral College.
Would that be similar to those authoritarian loving Democrats learning what Congress “is supposed to do and what it does do.”? You know, when they gave Obama a standing ovation when he told them they are irrelevant to his agenda?
Sorry Lloyd but the only thing the Democrats have learned is that the American people have overwhelming rejected that progressive idea. And the Democrats are still in denial about it.
Lloyd – many states, like mine, require the Elector to take an oath to bind themselves to vote for that person if they win the vote total in their state.
…. and what is the penalty if they don’t? If the Electors (for example) throw the Presidency into the House, I’m not sure what really draconian punishments the states can mete out.
Jay S – in Arizona we do not screw around with rogue Electors. They are treated like cattle rustlers. We take them to the nearest tall tree and hang them.
Somehow, I doubt that the penalty in Arizona is lynching, without any pretext of due process. Even in Arizona.
Jay S – we call it “rough justice.”
McCain on the list?
slohrss29 – he’s on my list, but I do not think he is an Elector. 😉
Oh yeah…. people make mistakes thought sometimes…
Thank God for the electoral college.
Why? God had nothing to do with it. Why the hell would a supernatural deity give a rat’s ass about the mechanism by which we elect our president?
Now you’ve gone and set off the fanatic atheist. Shame on you.
Progressives have already been granted one power grab for their bureaucratic, administrative state; the 17th Amendment. effectively stripping the representation of the states in Congress. Next they will seek to strip the states, especially the less populated ones from any voice in electing the President.
Long live Federalism!
Olly, I fear you are correct. The seeds of the federalist system’s destruction were sown in 1913 with the 17th, and to some extent the 16th, amendment.
Chuffering about the 16th and 17th Amendments is Madison cargo-cult rubbish.
The effect of the 17th Amendment is that people elected to the Senate have a different skill set than they used to – more adept at fundraising and publicity campaigns, less adept at building relationships in conciliar bodies (or making yourself a protege to a donor who can buy the legislative body). The state governments haven’t defended their autonomy and seem not to care about compliance costs as long as there’s money on the table.
As for the 16th Amendment, the problem with income taxes is that tax abatements are used to build patron-client relationships between politicians and economic sectors. Enact constitutional language which puts the legislature in a straightjacket and ends the preference schemes. If you fancy you’re going to finance the federal government with apportioned poll taxes, you’re quite disoriented.
I remain a proud Madisonian, not because I believe it politically possible to return to the system he created, or even that this system would create an ideal world. I simply think it, as modified by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, preferable to the current unrestrained national government we have today. The Senate had been a check on expanding centralized power because each member was beholden to his state legislative body. The House of Representatives was more democratic and provided a useful balance of power in the legislative branch of the then federal, as opposed to national, government.
As to the rent seeking inherent in the federal income tax, as Madison stated in Federalist 10: “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man” so it is politically impossible to straightjacket the legislature as you describe now that the Constitutional walls against such interests have been toppled.
Madison did overestimate the majority’s ability “to defeat its (the minority faction’s) sinister views by regular vote”, and hence the problem you describe with the income tax.
Finally, I am not in the least disoriented about financing the national government as it exists today. I favor a limited federal government with enumerated powers as mandated by the US Constitution, which would not be nearly so expensive. I understand the political reality that we will never return to that system, but we are not negotiating in a constitutional convention here, just philosophizing on a blog.
so it is politically impossible to straightjacket the legislature as you describe now that the Constitutional walls against such interests have been toppled.
You alternate without a beat between telling the world that constitutional language creates glorious and timeless schemes and telling the world that constitutional language is completely ineffectual.
I favor a limited federal government with enumerated powers as mandated by the US Constitution, which would not be nearly so expensive. I understand the political reality that we will never return to that system,
Ha ha ha. I’ve been tangling with people in these fora for about 10 years on these questions, including an attorney with voluminous granular knowledge of American history and a lapsed academic with a signed dissertation in political theory. The next time I encounter a ‘constitutional conservative’ who has a coarse understanding of what the federal government spends, knows what his destination is brass tacks, and has a schema in mind for getting from here to there, will be the first time. I’m sure such an Ivory-billed woodpecker is out there, but I’m not expecting to encounter that person in any forum.
‘Big government’, ‘small government’, ‘limited government’, etc are constructions which signal attitudes, and little else.
Toads,
I enjoy reading your posts if not for any reason other than looking up the definition of words. “Chuffering about the 16th and 17th Amendments is Madison cargo-cult rubbish.” That would be an impressive sentence if it actually had more substance to it. You follow that with a paragraph that in my opinion reflects the effects of the 17th amendment cause. I agree the states have done nothing to defend the rights they have lost. Doing anything about it at this point would take far more civics literacy than they or the people possess.
Olly, you have a vigorous strand of opinion on the starboard that if we just did everything the way Mr. Madison intended, we would have no intractable problems in federal policy. I’ve had cretins make that explicit statement to me: all we have to do is repeal the 16th and 17th amendment, and everything will be Georgia Peachy Keen. I’m not caricaturing anyone. That’s just what they say. It’s a cargo cult In your case, you fancy that the cultural and social phenomenon in state and local government which takes any swag it can get, compliance costs be damned is a function of the repeal of the 17th Amendment. That’s cargo cult.
If you wish to address deficits in state and local autonomy, a constitutional amendment which requires intergovernmental transfers be according to formula and without strings might help. Repealing the 17th Amendment will do nothing.
Precisely…
Olly-
Why not lobby for a return to the Articles of Confederation? That way, there would be almost no federal government, and the individual states would be free to impose whatever they like, without any sort of check.
Because the Articles of Confederation were too weak to hold together this new republic. The Great Compromise provided a central government with representation of the people in the House and the states in the Senate. The 17th amendment blew up that compromise. We now have 535 representatives elected by only the people. The state legislatures have lost their voice in the central government and the lobbyists set up one shop on K Street rather than 50. Adios to the 10th amendment.
The 17th amendment blew up that compromise.
It did nothing of the kind. You have precisely the same representation scheme, just a different election scheme. In any case, the compromise addressed what was at the time a topical question. James Madison wasn’t Moses coming down from the mountain. Get a grip.
The far left has taken over the Democratic Party and that is why they lost. The discussion of a popular vote is moot. America does not use that type of voting system. Leftists constantly refer to America as a democracy. Which is wrong. America is a constitutional republic. Calls of constant racism if you disagree with their policies. Or one is a bigot, a homophobe, a mysogynist, et al. Epic number of police being killed. BLM, riots, fake hacking by Russians. The list goes on and on. We truly did see the silent majority come out and vote to keep the corrupt, lying Hillarious no where near the Oval Office. Thank God!
Far left? More like the center unless you consider hard right Trump to be the center.
The US has moved gradually left since the election of Woodrow Wilson – giving us a large administrative state, more centralized control with Washington expanding well beyond its powers as enumerated in the Constitution, high taxes and spending etc. There were brief pauses along the way, but the long term trend seems pretty clear. The Democratic party has moved left faster and farther than the rest of the country. John Kennedy, if governing today, would be considered a far right wing nut by Democrats.
You can also thank Wilson for the mess that is the 17th amendment. Prior to that, your Senator served at the pleasure of your State Legislature. Break the Oligarchy that is the Senate. Repeal the 17th and return to the founder’s intention. Think it through, it’s not crazy talk.
The 17th Amendment was sent to the states for ratification in May 2012. Woodrow Wilson was at the time the Governor of New Jersey and had held public office for a grand total of 16 months in the course of the 35 years he had been eligible to vote. It was ratified by the states five weeks after Wilson was sworn into office as President. What’s your sense of what happened there? That the neophyte Governor of New Jersey Jedi-mind tricked Congress into passing the proposed amendment by a two-thirds majority? Or that the Democratic Presidential candidate bamboozled 3/4 of the state legislatures into ratifying it?
JR, there are no occidental countries whose political economy resembles that of the United States in 1912, like it or lump it. I think that suggests it’s a social tendency that’s not local to the United States or all that sensitive to the contingencies of our history.
Yes, well, man is a flawed creature. You have conceded my point that Laurie is correct in stating the far left has taken over the Democratic party and extended it to taking over Western world.
Thanks for the pompous non sequitur. It’s been an education.
Yes, the far left. Commies, socialists, marxists, give me everything free crowd, feminazis, snowflakes. All joined at the hip in the democratic party.
You far right wingers should enjoy your victories now. but they will more than likely be fleeting. Eventually those young bernie voters will be the majority.
I’ve been hearing for about 25 years that demographics were going to destroy the Republican Party. Funny how you only ever get your way when you can get lawyers meeting in secret to pretend it’s constitutionally required.
I don’t think the majority of posters on this blog are “far right wingers” – moderate conservatives and libs maybe. They will hold Trump’s to the fire as well.
Glad you are optimistic about the “young Bernie voters” because I am not. I know far too many young people, especially women who eagerly (!) lined up behind HRC. And the Dems kneecapped him – why wouldn’t they do the same to a candidate like, say, Tulsi Gabbard? Until the Olde Guard dies off I see 0 hope for the Dim Dems. They would rather keep losing and then whine about the Russians, etc.
Yep. It will be forthcoming.
I have a female family member who is convinced the Russians ruined HRC’s chances. Sigh.
Sorry to hear that PR, sad when some seem like they were born yesterday.
Outgoing Democrat nut job Harry Reid has even accused James Comey and the FBI of working with Putin’s Russia to get Trump elected president. The man is out of his mind. Spreading the unsubstantiated allegations all over the news cycle serves the Democrats intended purpose of being deposited into the minds of gullible people who then follow the Democrats right down the Russian hacking story rabbit hole.
I think Harry is taking too many of the free pharmaceuticals he gets as a kick back.
Actually the far left has not taken over the Democratic party. If this were the case Sanders would be President elect today. The Democratic party opted for the status quo. DDT promised all the whiners in America that he would upend and do away with the status quo, the oligarchs, and the special interests. So far, it looks like the people from Podunk happened to be coming along at the right time.
LOL. Omg. I see many here were supporting a spittle spewing old man who is a socialist.
Democratic socialist. Educate yourself. And that ” spittle spewing old man” as you put it had enormous enthusiasm and would given the Donald a run for his money without cheating and manipulating the MSM.
So you elect the king of the oligarchs who will take from the average person to make the rich more rich. Give me socialism any day.
Say what? Give me socialism any day *(or give me death)? You are sounding like Fidel Castro, man.
Missed this, something we can agree on. Except I would call the people who have taken over the Democratic party to be an opportunistic mob. Just ask the poor guy who was going to testify about the outside email server… that didn’t exist… then finally existed… but didn’t have anything important on it… but then it did, but was very secure… but then it got hacked my mean, salivating russians… and the secrets that were on it cost her the election. Sounds like a mob to me. We need to assign them mob-style names so we can keep them straight. Slick Willie was a great one.
Laurie — “The far left has taken over the Democratic Party and that is why they lost.”
You can’t be serious. If this were true then Sanders should have and would have easily glided to the nomination.
The beat goes on with some continuing to advocate for the direct election of the President. To show the fallacy in this proposition lets look at a logical extension. Rather than our current allocation of Congresspersons and Senators what if they were allocated on a strict population basis. With no guarantee of the current one Congressperson and two Senators, a number of our smaller states would have NO representation. While the intelligentsia would probably not have any issues with those in what is euphemistically referred to as “Fly Over Land” not being represented my guess is that many would. I am sure that some would insist that this is “different” but it is not. Both are examples of our forefathers working to avoid the “Tierney of the Majority”. Think about it? If all offices, both the President and Congress, were strictly allocated based on population winning in only a few states would allow one faction or the other to control the entire government. Granted we are not all that far away now, but at least there is some protection. By example, the population in the ten most populous states comprises 54.2% of the total USA population according to 2015 data, meaning that the remaining 40 states could be left out in the cold. One only needs to think about two Senators; Tom Daschle and John Thune, both from the small state of South Dakota, that might well be unrepresented if all congressional seats were apportioned on population. Had that been the case we, the USA, would have lost the intelligence and talent these two brought to the fold. By the way, one is a Democrat and the other a Republican.
One could still elect the President by popular vote, keep the Senate as a guarantee of State’s presence and power. Congress is elected based on popular vote. The Senate is elected based on State’s rights. This third area, the Presidency being determined by the electoral college where if 60%+ voted for one the the other could be elected President, is the issue. As it stands, two out of the three governing parts of Washington are determined by states and not the people.
Taking it further, what if the electoral college represented the least educated, poorest, most easily manipulated by a carnival barker and the world’s most prolific pathological liar was elected President because he promised these mindless types the world and empathized with their anxiety. What if that were the case?
“The Senate is elected based on State’s rights.”
How exactly are state’s rights represented when the state’s legislature are no longer electing Senators to the central government? Prior to the 17th amendment, the people would “speak” their preference for the Senate through their election of the state legislators. These state representatives were far more accessible to the people and were therefore better able to elect Senators that represented the interests of the state. Now the people are represented in the central government in the House and Senate, cutting out the very entity that created the central government in the first place; the States.
The state legislatures elected pols who had the social skills to persuade state legislatures (except when legislators were bought and paid for by businessmen who had interests and stake and deep pockets). Roscoe Conkling and Boise Penrose were elected by those legislatures.
Olly – the original 10 amendments actually included two others that were not ratified by the states. One of the direct election of Senators and the other was for one Representative for every 50,000 population.
Paul
What you and millions of other Americans don’t seem to realize is that ‘the original 10 amendments’ date well over two hundred years ago with almost no comparison to today. Humanity has to evolve to survive. Every time a reference is made to ‘the original’ this or that, we slide further behind. At least the more progressive countries put their royalty and tradition where it belongs, in a Disney like place to bring in the tourists. This country needs an enema and then some intelligent changes. A parliamentary system would work infinitely better than this oligarchy.
issac – what you fail to realize is that all I was doing was offering Olly some factual history about the Constitution and its original amendments.
Issac,
What you and millions of other Americans have never accepted is those original amendments will always be relevant because human nature NEVER evolves. If you truly wanted to get rid of the oligarchy the first place to begin is restoring the rule of law and separation of powers.
He’s a Canadian first, a European second, and American 3rd. That’s how HE sees himself. And, anyone who has ever read Shakespeare knows, as you put so well, that we are fundamentally the same now as when the genius Bard walked this earth, 200 years prior to the greatest Constitution being written, forming the greatest country.
With no guarantee of the current one Congressperson and two Senators, a number of our smaller states would have NO representation.
Nationally, we currently have one representative for every 709,000 residents enumerated in 2010. The only states with fewer than 709,000 residents are Wyoming and Vermont, who would be due 0.78 and 0.88 representatives by virtue of their populations alone. I don’t think rounding up is a mathematical exercise too taxing for most people. The only territories well below 709,000 in population are the Caribbean and Pacific dependencies, who have no representation in Congress anyway bar the observers they’re permitted to elect.
One other thing: the Congress has a franchise to expand the membership of the House. We’ve been stuck at 435 members for over a century for reasons of inertia.
Toads – they were expanding the Congress after every Census until they finally had to build a new Capitol. Then they stopped at 435. No state can have less than one, but it does mean that some states get screwed. Arizona which is a continually growing state has always been short-changed because the Democrats controlled Congress during the last Censuses. Since they have to short Democratic states to give us Representatives, we always are a couple short. We have 9 now, but we should have 11.
Arizona had 2.09% of the population of the several states in 2010 and received 2.07% of the seats in the House. You’re not getting screwed. There is no evidence the census figures are cooked and the apportionment is done according to formula. What’s distressing is that the apportionment is being done according to resident population and not citizen population as the 14th Amendment would seem to require.
Somewhat connected, there is also turmoil and anxiety North of the border in British Columbia. BC Med, the government institution that administers the basic health care systems in British Columbia is raising premiums a whopping 10%. This proves to all the mindless Americans who voted Trump in that you’re better off with private health care insurance instead of a single payer based ‘two tier’ system as can be found in other countries, 36 of which, including Canada, are well ahead of the US in health care. Regarding efficiency of money spent, the US is second from the bottom, just ahead of Algeria.
From the Times Colonist, Victoria, BC-my old home town.
‘More than 500,000 B.C. couples are bracing for a 10 per cent increase in their Medical Services Plan premiums next month.
Couples earning more than $45,000 a year and senior couples making more than $51,000 will see their monthly premiums rise to $150 from $136.’
– See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/74-year-old-shocked-as-couples-brace-for-jump-in-msp-premiums-1.4591821#sthash.GmW1BPam.dpuf
You should return to BC for your medical care.
The number one reply of the losing side, ‘You should go there if you like it so much.’ Inherent in your statement is the crux of the problem.
My Canadian friend needed hip replacement surgery, she had to get on the waiting list and WAIT for six months to get her surgery. Yup, it’s such a good idea that people from Canada and all over the freakin world come to the United States to have their major surgeries.
Bob – a lot of Canadians from western Canada come to Arizona to winter. We call them snowbirds. They join others from our northern states. However, many of them get their medical care taken care of down here. I cannot get an appt with my dermatologist until the middle of February and I am not having any cosmetic work done.
Paul-
My dermatologist can get me an “urgent appointment” within a few days, if necessary. I know, because I’ve done it. Routine visits take a couple of months, but so what? Most skin conditions are not urgent.
Continuing with the education of ignorant Americans-the health care insurance system in most, if not all, Canadian provinces, is a two tier system. Basic needs are taken care of through a mandatory provincially administered insurance system, i.e.. BC Med. The services vary from province to province and from city to town to rural areas, much like in the US. However, no one is denied care when needed and no one needs to re-mortgage their house to pay deductibles or other predatory fees. I have intimate knowledge of this fact both first and second hand.
People are prioritized and sometimes have to wait except in the case of emergencies and obvious need, however they are given the option of carrying a second tier of private health care insurance which will allow them more immediate care when their convenience is entered into the equation. Together the provincial and private second tier monthly premiums are around half of the average free enterprise mercenary premiums in the US. Anyone who is in immediate need of a hip replacement will get it immediately. My Dad had both knees replaced, one at a time. His knee problems had been going on for years. The first knee replacement was scheduled four months in advance due to a ‘waiting’ list but after some complaining he had it done after a two month wait. He had endured the problem for several years and could have scheduled the surgery well in advance. The second knee replacement was done eight months after treatment was prescribed as he and my Mom wanted to wait until after they returned from a World Cruise. People receiving hip transplants usually do so after years of problems. A six month advance scheduling is more than appropriate in most cases. If someone injured their hip and it needed replacing, it would be done as an emergency procedure.
My Mom had cataracts removed within a few days of requesting; she would have had to wait for four months due to prioritizing as they were not ripe enough-it was the chlorine in her local pool that exacerbated a slowly developing problem. She went to a private clinic, paid $2,500 (far less than in the US) and BC Med reimbursed $1,300-their price and she deducted the $1,200 difference from taxes resulting in $800 for immediate and unnecessary surgery. While paying less than $300 a month for the two of them, she still came out well ahead of anything the US has to offer.
Americans who criticize the 36 other health care systems continually cherry pick the worst cases in these countries. They would do better to look at their own dysfunctional system and how it financially ruins some and medically ruins others due to the mercenary cost approaches by the predatory private sector.
When Canadians come to the US for treatment the lion’s share of the costs are typically covered by their provincial or private insurance. Many areas of Canada are so rural that it makes more sense to combine a vacation with treatment. This phenomenon exists with dental issues between the US and Mexico, medical issues between the US and other countries. There are some instances where treatment is available in the US that is not available at the moment in Canada. With ten times the population there will be ten times the opportunity. However this is typically in the area of obscure diseases. Almost all medical problems can be treated in Canada at vastly lower costs.
When Americans come to Canada for medical treatment, and they do in much greater numbers, they do so without reimbursement simply because it is so much less expensive even without insurance. The US has a dysfunctional corporate based medical system. All first hand participants i.e. doctors, nurses, etc. could make just as much money and it could cost less than half as much if the redundant cost could be eliminated. Statistics show that administrative costs due to the 1,200+/- insurance companies in the US are three to five times as much as administrative costs in other countries. Even within the US private insurance administrative costs are many times more expensive than Medicaid and Medicare. Any doctor or hospital will tell you that they need three to four administrative workers per medical practitioner just to deal with the mess due to private insurance predatory practices. The patient picks up the tab for the redundant workers and the million dollar salaries of the CEOs. The US practices its own sort of socialism but because it is in denial it ends up socializing the top 5%. The patient subsidizes unnecessary workers and millionaires. The only downside of privatizing medical insurance would be the loss of several hundred thousand jobs, jobs that the patient pays for, for services that are basically unnecessary. Think about that the next time you enter into a fruitless argument with some person in a call center in Texas over your getting screwed again.
The health care system in the US includes some of the best if not the best treatment in the world. However, only if you pay through the nose. If you don’t pay through the nose, you get pushed along. In the US it is all about money. In Canada and other two tier systems it is only about money when it comes to convenience. Somehow statistics don’t seem to matter to the mindless, those that voted in the world’s most prolific pathological liar, DDT. DDT is going to turn back the clock. Americans are going to take it in the rear, without vaseline. Thank you mindless voters from the ‘Heartland’.
TMI baby doll.
maryp, LOL! You mean you don’t like being lectured to condescendingly? Just how many friends do you think this isaac guy has? Imagine being stuck on an international flight next to the Canadian Foghorn Leghorn!
“I say Boyyyy–you hit it right on the head!”
Nick — I can easily imagine being stuck on an international flight with Isaac. I have little doubt I’d find it much more pleasurable than being stuck with you.
It’s only TMI because it does not support the false view so many here apparently hold about our dysfunctional health insurance system. I’ve had experience with both the U.S. system and one of the systems that Isaac spoke of. My wife had a serious injury in 2006 during a vacation visit to Scotland. The treatment, service, and care she received was as good, and in some ways better, than anything she has received over the years here in the U.S. And the cost was approximately 1/4 what it would have been had the same injury occurred here.
Isaac –
Right on! Trumpians should read your epistle out loud, in the company of others.
The issue is, does the medicare care system exist to help the sick and inform, or does it exist to make the maximum amount of money?
Jay S – you forgot to add ‘Vaseline’. Trumpians should read sir Issac’s epistle, out loud, in the company of others — with Vaseline.
Many of these posters here claim to be for the little guy and gal but in reality they serve there corporate masters.
You think I’m on the Exxon-Mobil payroll?
their……Nah, you seem to be a true believer……
Bob –
People from all over the freakin world come to the United States to have their major surgeries, without waiting, IF THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. If they are of modest means, they wait their six months, and then are able to get their surgery. The difference in this country, especially going forward under Trump and the Republicans, is that those of modest (and especially poor) means won’t be able to get their surgery at all. But the rich will love it.
Yep, they get to go to Mayo and other centers of excellence. Rich from all over the world go there.
Paid more for my insurance so I can go there too if need be.
Sounds like I should be hoping for a full government takeover of our medical care and that Trump is going to turn back the clock we Americans will take it in the rear, without vaseline. Got it, thanks.
Hip replacement is elective surgery and at least it’s covered. Sure, the US offers the best medical care in the world for certain conditions – but the truth is many can’t afford it. Just having insurance does not mean one actually has access to care.
At a minimum, I hope the Electoral College demands to see Trump’s tax returns to determine whether or not he is hip deep in Russian business interests.
Yes, Sanders was a true change agent or as true of one as we might possibly get in the US.. Hillary was a tainted version of more of the same. Trump is an agent of the oil barons, and corrupt gazillionaires of every stripe. Trump’s administration is about money, money,money and the plundering of resources. Although I think a popular vote would be preferable, he did win the electoral college and should be inaugurated.
p.s. I highly doubt Bernie would have filled his administration with Big Oil, Goldman officials, billionaires and war mongering generals.
You’re right, Bernie would have found some fellow comrades who, like himself, didn’t have a freakin JOB until he was 40-years-old, and that job was a government job (Mayor of Burlington VT) and he’s never done anything else. But, yeah, he’s done pretty well for himself having just bought his third home to the tune of $600k. Yeah, I would feel much better with a Socialist bureaucrat (ie pinko, commie) running the freakin free world. If the liberal love Socialism/Communism so much, what’s all the fuss about the Russians?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-10-signs-that-a-us-president-is-a-russian-spy-2016-12-13
Say, Bob, you DO understand the differences between socialism and communism, right? They are not the same.
In any event, Russia these days is certainly not a communist country. Instead, it is a sort-of socialist one, an authoritarian oligarchy, with small scale private-property being allowed, as a sop to popular sentiment. Indeed, even under Stalin, the USSR was not entirely communist.
The fear of many of us is that, under Trump, and with Russian collusion, the USA will become an authoritarian oligarchy, with small sale private property being allowed, as a sop to popular sentiment.
The only REALLY communist societies were under Mao in China and Pol Pot in Cambodia. In this country, the only communist or communal societies were small religious sects such as the Shakers and the Amana Colonies.
Indeed, even under Stalin, the USSR was not entirely communist.
What are you talking about? It was a command economy with no private enterprise therein.
Small scale private property was entirely allowed. (e.g., people could own cars) The command economy directed large scale and medium scale enterprises. China under Mao, by contrast, was much more communist. Indeed, it is almost amazing that, after Mao, China has adopted a form of laissez-faire capitalism, so long as the capitalists do not challenge the primacy of the Chinese communist party.
People owned chattels, not real estate or capital goods.
So? Probably the majority in the US only own “chattel goods.”
Actually, about 65% of the population lives in owner-occupied housing.
That aside, there is a distinction between a country in which over 85% of the workforce is employed in private enterprise and a country where there is NO private enterprise.
re: ” Indeed, it is almost amazing that, after Mao, China has adopted a form of laissez-faire capitalism, so long as the capitalists do not challenge the primacy of the Chinese communist party.”
It’s not amazing at all – a certain percentage of Chinese are doing well from capitalism- some extremely well and they don’t mind Communist rule at all. The last thing they would want is democracy where billions of poor peasants would have a say. It’s only going to get worse as land is chewed up, villages destroyed and more folks moving into the cities.
China has nothing resembling laissez-faire. It has enormous state enterprises and a planning apparat. There’s private enterprise too, but then there always was in Sweden.
You’re right, Bernie would have found some fellow comrades who, like himself, didn’t have a freakin JOB until he was 40-years-old,
No. He had ordinary wage jobs between 1965 and 1981. He did not have a trade or a career (and failed at an effort to work in construction and remodeling – a friend told the papers Sanders proved to be the world’s worst carpenter). Most people don’t have careers and a great many don’t have trades either. Just prior to his election as mayor, he had a staff job working for one of the local historical societies.
Bob, Sanders was a seminal figure in Burlington politics. There’s before Sanders and after Sanders, and the civic association he founded is still the plurality party in Burlington. Very peculiar that he found his vocation in municipal government at age 40, but that’s his life. He had actual accomplishments in that setting. Keep in mind that the only other Democratic presidential candidates of note in the last 20-odd years who’ve had any executive experience ‘ere running for President, have been Bilge Clinton (crook, career pol to a degree Sanders is not), Howard Dean (not as crazy as he seems), and Wesley Clark (the exception that proves the rule). Hilligula’s time as Secretary of State proved to be a major embarrassment; her job when her husband was Governor of Arkansas was to launder the bribes.
Sanders would likely have drawn on extant recruitment pools in and around the Democratic Party. That would be problematic enough. BO was peculiarly bad in this respect, hardly recruiting from the business sectors and putting cretins like Valerie Jarrett and Ben Rhodes in consequential positions.
“BO was peculiarly bad in this respect, hardly recruiting from the business sectors and putting cretins like Valerie Jarrett and Ben Rhodes in consequential positions.”
=> 100 percent Agree! And I would add that BO was peculiarly bad in MANY more respects as well. Move over White House pajama boys, the Alpha males are moving in.
Bernie Sanders is not a communist. He is a democratic socialist. But it apparently does not fit your dogmatic and ideological narrative to draw the distinction between the political views of a democratic socialist and a communist, as if there is no actual difference.
Bob, you certainly are a smug one. Just because you don’t like government jobs is not an argument that government jobs are not actually jobs. Given that a job is nothing more than a position of paid employment, government jobs are just as much a job as any job in the private sector.
Thank you all for your comments.
I have no problem with a government job, I used to have one. My point was in response to the many comments that criticize and belittle Trump’s success in business and his cabinet selections as being wealthy business people who will not be working in the best interests of the people, whereas the government bureaucrats would? Doesn’t follow for me. Also, I don’t understand the difference between a democratic socialist and a communist. Please explain.
Bab
The US is a socialist country. It is an oligarchy where the rich and ultra rich enjoy socialist advantages peculiar to their rank and file. Subsidies are subsidies whether they go to the rich or poor. Americans are in denial regarding socialism. That’s why it is so easy to pull the wool over their eyes. Witness those who voted for DDT, blind mindless sheep with the Judas goat leading the way. All that logic makes so much sense when you happen to be coming along at the right time.
Dave – I am concerned about the Podesta email where he says they have something on Bernie so they can keep him in line. That makes me nervous.
Paul, who knows what they have on Bernie? I have been thinking his campaign was infiltrated by a Clinton plant and maybe there were some financial/donor shenanigans which would have set him up for prosecution. I do know that DNC folks infiltrated and tried to ruin his organization and exposure in NC. There is nothing the Clinton/neo con/lib cabal wouldn’t do to destroy him. As a Berniebot it is sad to see him reduced to being a mascot.
Autumn – if it was donor problems he could pay a fine. There is something Bernie does not want the public to know and Podesta knows it.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_do_gop_presidents_get_to_go_hard_right_democrats_gop_lite_20161215 Trump has gone harder right than Bush.