Okay, some has to explain this to me...

On a state level each state has its government and representation.
Yet the states are not separate countries.

I think the balance is extremely important.
Alaska has almost 800K people.
It has very different needs in comparison to some other states.
The key is in the balance that is fair for all states.

There can be an adjustment to the EC to maintain fair ethical balance that with generations deviated from initial intent?

 

Yes. Exactly. And the constitution was written to strike that balance. It was a compromise that can be deeply frustrating. I don't know, though, that any other shifting of the weights would have lasted so long.

 

Opinions on testable things can be right or wrong. Dems are not the radical party; GOP is. GOP is the force that tries to undo Roe v. Wade, demolish voting rights, and promote now literal Nazi messaging ("Great Replacement"). In fact, it was GOP who moved away from the bipartisan so called "progressive consensus" and now resorts to demagoguery - because their economic agenda is less popular with voters than white nationalism - so they go with white nationalism to sneak through their economic agenda.

On marginalizing Americans - how about Comandante Abbott and Death Santis bullying local governments and school boards for the sake of partisan sloganeering?

 

And territories. Let's give fair representation to people in PR and DC as the first step in this conversation.

 

I think most of the calls to de-fund police
came from more radical members of Dem party.
I think both parties have their radicals.

 

I support PR becoming a state.
On DC I'm undecided, never took proper time for an educated opinion.
It appears both are going to become states.
I have friends who are dreaming about Canada and Mexico making NAU.

 

Why Puerto Rico isn't a state is a mystery to me. The island has a population greater than many states and its native residents have been U.S. citizens from around WWI. They ARE us.

 

Guam and the CNMI don't have such large populations but again, they're natural born U.S. citizens.

 

Sorry, Lerner, but perhaps you don't know what that word means.

An opinion is the formation of an assessment. Instead, I proffered an assertion.

Getting back to the purpose of this board for a moment, making those kinds of distinctions are vital to success in higher education. This isn't the first time you've mixed up these concepts. Usually, it's by offering up someone's opinion as evidence of some assertion you've made.

 

That would work, on the other hand Washington DC is similar in size to the smaller states in the union.

1. Wyoming (Population: 581,075)
2. Vermont (Population: 623,251)
3. District of Columbia (Population: 714,153)
4. Alaska (Population: 724,357)
5. North Dakota (Population: 770,026)
6. South Dakota (Population: 896,581)
7. Delaware (Population: 990,334)
8. Rhode Island (Population: 1,061,509)
9. Montana (Population: 1,085,004)
10. Maine (Population: 1,354,522)

 

This is hilarious. Since 1970, with no let-up, the Supreme Court has consisted of a majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents. For most of the people posting on this board, they've known nothing else.

Besides, what you're referring to isn't "packing" the court. It is the potential expansion of it. But for now it's just another Republican bogeyman. When the president calls for it or either house of Congress votes on a bill that provides for it, fine. Until then you're taking a few people's desire and implying it is somehow central to the Democrats' legislative agenda.

 

As it should. It is a national office.

No other democracy uses an electoral college. No other election system in the U.S. uses one, either. It is truly unique. It is also arcane, the product of a deal made a very long time ago to get the Constitution ratified. And it continues to create results contrary to the will of the people.

 

Totally agree on both points. Yes, statehood for DC would create a state more populated than a couple of others. But that's no reason for doing it. Rather, it's an indictment not only to situations like two Dakotas, but even to the concept of statehood itself.

 

"Returning" 700K citizens to anyone or anything without their consent is a tad problematic, don't you think?

 

Dems have radical members. GOP at this point IS radical.

I agree that "defund the police" slogan comes from radical members. However, as stupid-ass a slogan as it undoubtedly is, and as juvenile as the Starbucks revolutionaries sentiment it comes from, substantially it is about how to divide limited government resources. In other words, something politicians are supposed to discuss. GOP sided with an uprising aimed at overturning a legitimate election. Moreover, a purity test for any GOP politician right now is to support ongoing cockamamie schemes to try and undermine the 2020 election, in public opinion if not fact. And this is just ONE of the many ways that gang is hopelessly radical.

I'm following the whole reconciliation bill brouhaha. Joe Manchin's position is to pare down the bill substantially. His arguments? He's concerned about deficit, inflation, "competitiveness" (in other words, low corporate taxes), wants "work requirements" for social programs, listens to corporate lobbyists. This is what Republican politicians used to be: open to efforts to solve society's problems, subject to all these constraints and priorities. GWB expanded Medicare. Romney passed the prototype of Obamacare. Nixon did several things that would be "progressive" today. This used to not just be moderate: it was mainstream, center of the GOP (and still far to the right of what I would want). Joe Manchin IS a moderate Republican; Romney is a market fundamentalist and would not be "moderate" not so long ago. Now? We have debt ceiling staredowns. Even in economic part of the agenda, GOPniks* are very radical. Not to mention members of Congress spreading "Great Replacement", an idea due to European Far-Right (in other words, literal Neo-Nazis).

You do not like "defund the police"? It is the acknowledged goal of the GOP to defund as much of the government as humanly possible. It's called "starve the beast", and is not Trump's idea - already existed in Reagan's time (Reagan was a proponent but I believe didn't invent it either). Student debt crisis is, in part, a direct result of massive disinvestment in education motivated by Republican ideology (yes, Steve, it's more complex than that). Pearl-clutching about "defund the police" is typical Republican brainwashing, even though Progressives did step into it with the dumb slogan.


*"Gopnik" happens to be a Russian slang term, meaning "thug". Interesting coincidence.

 

Did they consent to the current situation? No, because it was created long before their births. And the citizens in place at that time didn't have a say in it, either.

 

If anything your response strengthens Rich's assertion. If all you can come up with are these two examples then your argument fails.

First the electoral college itself is anti-democratic. An important tenant of democracy is one person one vote. That does not apply in the electoral college where one vote can be worth more than three times my own vote.

Packing the SCOTUS is just a bogeyman. It is not happening. Even if it did the SCOTUS is not democracy. The court system is part of our system but not the part relating to democracy. It is just trying to change the subject.

 

No other country uses an electoral college? Hm. Technically that might be true but many democratic governments follow something like the Westminster model to select their head of government, meaning the Prime Minister. Basically, whatever party or coalition that gets the most votes installs its leader as Prime Minister. So in Canada, for example, more people voted against Justin Trudeau (by voting for some party other than Labor) than voted for him yet he is Prime Minister.

 

In fact, unless I misunderstood the coverage, in terms of total popular vote, the Canadian Conservative Party won.