The Founders weren't exclusively interested in how many "people" were represented, they were interested in political entities being represented, such as states, which otherwise would be disenfranchised by the big population centers. Originally Senators were to be appointed by states and it had nothing to do with the population, each state or political unit had the same number of Senators no matter what its population because population was NOT the important issue in the Founders' minds.. So to criticize these things on the basis of population is to completely miss the whole point.
You've lost the plot again. The discussion had moved on from the founder's intent to why the electoral college is unrepresentative. The electoral college is the sum of the number of Representatives and Senators, and it is the Senate's portion that's the problem because it is so unrepresentative numerically.
That's why it's an important fact that 53% of the Senate represents only 45% of the people. In effect Kavanaugh was appointed to the Supreme Court by a portion of the country more than 30 million in the minority. Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million. At present neither the president nor the Senate is representative of the country as a whole.
The article is a pretty clear description of what you're doing, falsely accusing those left of center of being communists. Yours is not a valid opinion. It is self evidently false, just as your other accusation that the left is fascist is also self evidently false.
Your plot that you say I've missed is a false representation of what the Founders wanted, which was not based on population count, and my answer was perfectly appropriate and there is no more to say.
You're still lost, plus you're misrepresenting what people said, probably because you never read it in the first place. Half of people's response to you is explaining what they actually said that you ignored by instead strawmanning them with your own made up stuff.
Here's the correction to the part you made up: No one is arguing that the goal of the framers of the Constitution was to have an electoral college representative of the population.
Here's what people are actually saying: While the electoral college has served the country fairly well through most of our history, it has misfired on several occasions. As the country is currently constituted the electoral college can cause very unrepresentative results, increasingly so and increasingly frequently since if Trump wins reelection it will again be with a minority of the vote.
The winner of the presidential election lost the popular vote in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016. Is it significant that two out of the last three presidents (both Republicans) lost the popular vote, or is it merely an anomaly not likely to be soon repeated, as was the case with the 1876 and 1888 elections (also won by Republicans)? No Democrat has ever won the presidency while losing the popular vote, and that seems strong evidence that the electoral college is slanted toward the Republicans. (The Democratic and Republican parties didn't exist in 1824, so we can't classify that election either way.)
Please quote what I said if you think I said such different things about my financial situation. What I get is a very small amount that most people say is hardly enough to live on, but I do live on it and really don't want any more from the government although I'm told it's available. I live with minimum expenses. But if you ask how much it's a very small amount. And I do often daydream of making money on my own and getting off it all. But it's enough and in the context of feeling I benefit from the American system I am very grateful indeed for what I get and figure it's because America is a very prosperous nation. But if you think I said something so very contradictory please quote me.
Is there anything so obvious you won't argue it? You said it, you know you said it because links to the messages were provided as well as short quotes, but you want it quoted in full for you? Okay, sure, waste more of our time.
Here's what was said in your Message 4721 in response to the suggestion that if you want to help the country's financial situation that you could get off Social Security and Medicare:
You can help. Don't cash your Social Security check.
Don't let your doct charge Medicare, buy a full-coverage private policy.
I truly wish I could but I am one of the people who need the help unfortunately and due to physical disability couldn't work even if there were jobs I could do. I have an income of $420 from SS, plus rent relief, and that's all. I daydream about ways to make money, writing a book is one but of course it might not sell. I am truly grateful for the help I get, I'm not against entitlements, only it's clear there are a lot of people who could be working instead and that's way better for the economy.
You say you "need the help," that you have "physical disability" and "couldn't work", that you have only meager SS income and rent relief, and that you "daydream about ways to make money." You've just described very tough circumstances. Some people even tried to help by sending you book writing suggestions.
Your story changed in Message 5174, where suddenly you're doing great because you're benefiting from Republican policies:
As you eek by on your meager income you might ask yourself how trickle down is working for you. If Republican policies are so beneficial for the country, why aren't you benefiting?
I AM benefiting. I have a really nice apartment that is rent subsidized, and I have all the food and medical help I need. I've been told I could apply for another entitlement program which would increase my income but I don't feel I need it. AND I feel that even what I get comes from a fund that is going to bankrupt the country eventually. I'm grateful to have it of course but there's something wrong with how the Left thinks there is an unlimited source of money when there isn't. Even if you took away all the money legitimately earned by the rich you couldn't balance the budget.
You say you "have a really nice apartment that is rent subsidized", and that you "have all the food and medical help" you need, and that you could get even more money but don't need it. That's a much more rosy picture.
You still haven't explained how you've benefited from Republican policies. Social Security and Medicare have been around for a very long time, and I very much doubt that a Republican policy is behind your rent relief. Is it through Family Promise? If so, I don't think it's politically affiliated.
The growth of the cities to such a great extent, also greatly reducing the rural population, means we have an even greater need to give the rural areas a handicap to level the playing field.
The hollowing out of rural America is an ongoing serious problem that has been addressed by neither Democrats nor Republicans. It is especially negligent of the Republicans to not better serve the people that have put them in power. The most serious lack is healthcare. Too many rural people have to travel far too many miles to the nearest hospital, or even just an emergency room or urgent care facility. The government should provide substantial subsidies to businesses that locate to rural areas, with subsidies increasing with decreasing population density.
The Electoral College votes are based on population anyway, right?
That would be a big no, the electoral college is not based on population. You keep bringing up how the founders wanted to represent not population but groups of people, so I can't imagine why you would even say this.
The size of the electoral college is equal to the sum of the number of representatives and number of senators. Washington D.C. is considered a state for the electoral college (not in Congress). The representatives do represent population, the senators do not.
If we define a senator as representing all the people of his state, then each senator of Wyoming represents about 580,000 people, while each senator of California represents about 40 million. This means that the roughly half million people of Wyoming get two votes in the Senate, and the 40 million people of California get two votes in the Senate.
This is as originally intended, but the framers of the Constitution never anticipated that there would be such dramatic differences in state population and so many low population states. Half the country lives in just ten states. That means that half the country gets 20 senators, while the other half of the country gets 80 senators. That's wildly out of whack. The Senate is wildly unrepresentative.
This unrepresentation is carried over to the electoral college where it is diluted because it's only around 20% of the total, but it does have an impact, and we saw it in the election of two out of the last three presidents.
It's not as if so many people moved into the cities but the Electoral College votes stayed the same. It's recalculated from time to time as I understand it.
Each time a state is added the electoral college grows by 2, the number of senators. The size of the House of Representatives is fixed at 435, so the number of people represented by each representative grows as the country grows. The number of representatives from each state changes as population flows and changes around the country. There is reapportionment after each census. A new state would also force a reapportionment of representatives, which could be major or minor depending upon population. But the number of representatives will remain at 435.
For example, if Puerto Rico with its roughly 3 million population were to become a state then it would receive two senators. Each representative represents about 750,000 people, so Puerto Rico would likely receive four representatives. This means that four representatives would have to be taken away from other states so that the total is still 435. The electoral college would grow from 538 (don't forget that Washington D.C. is considered a state for the electoral college) to 540.
No one is arguing that the goal of the framers of the Constitution was to have an electoral college representative of the population.
Here's what people are actually saying: While the electoral college has served the country fairly well through most of our history, it has misfired on several occasions. As the country is currently constituted the electoral college can cause very unrepresentative results, increasingly so and increasingly frequently since if Trump wins reelection it will again be with a minority of the vote.
I rather doubt that will be the case this time, but all you are saying overall is that when the Electoral College actually functions to give the smaller population the break it is designed to do,...Usually the popular vote is aligned with the Electoral College vote but as I'm saying it is designed to override the popular vote in favor of the less populated areas...Which is exactly what the Electoral College is designed to override. ... But the Electoral College is functioning as it was meant to function to give the underdog a handicap in the race against the overwhelming numbers of the opposition.
The winner of the presidential election lost the popular vote in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016. Is it significant that two out of the last three presidents (both Republicans) lost the popular vote, or is it merely an anomaly not likely to be soon repeated, as was the case with the 1876 and 1888 elections (also won by Republicans)? No Democrat has ever won the presidency while losing the popular vote, and that seems strong evidence that the electoral college is slanted toward the Republicans. (The Democratic and Republican parties didn't exist in 1824, so we can't classify that election either way.)
All this means is that the Democrats dominate the cities, the high density areas, while the Republicans for whatever reason represent the rural or less populated areas, and you don't like it because you vote Democrat.
Two things. First, I don't like it because its unrepresentative.
Second, I don't "vote Democratic." How many times must you be reminded that I am not a Republican or a Democrat?
The significant difference between us is that I would think it a bad thing whenever a president was elected by a minority of the people, while you would think it a bad thing only when it was a Democrat.
I merely emphasized different facets of my financial situation but I'm sorry if I gave a different impression.
Wow, didn't see that coming. Thank you, apology accepted.
Your story was accompanied by a claim that you *are* benefiting from Republican policies. So far you've mentioned Social Security, Medicare, SNAP (you called it EBT, but that is only the method by which the funds are dispensed), and rent relief. Three of the four without question originated with Democrats, and you haven't described the source of your rent relief, which I doubt stems from a Republican policy. Certainly Trump's history is to disenfranchise low income renters. Is the source of this relief Republican? If not then why did you claim that you're benefiting from Republican policies?
If you are going to accuse me of misrepresenting the fact I think you need to be a lot clearer how you came to that conclusion. I read it and I concluded what I concluded. That's all I know.
If you're still referring to Red-baiting - Wikipedia then I'll just add my opinion to DWise1's and PaulK's. It looks like you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Accusing an actual admitted communist of being a communist is not red-baiting. If you called known communist John Bachtell a communist he'd gladly admit it (he was chair of the US Communist Party until recently). It is only when the accusation is false or only suspected that it is red-baiting. You seem to be missing this distinction.
If as you say that the Electoral College was never intended to provide an advantage to a minority of voters then there is absolutely no point to it at all.
It isn't me saying it, it's the historical record. Read all about it: United States Electoral College - Wikipedia. If you click on that link it will take you to the section about the original goals of the electoral college. The first two points based on the writings of Alexander Hamilton are instructive.
It is worth noting that this is the worst world catastrophe in most people's memory. Not since WWII has the world experienced such as this, not the Korean War, not the Cuban Missile Crisis, not the Berlin Airlift, not the Japan Tsunami, not ISIS, not anything.
This must be measured against the 1918 influenza pandemic when an estimated half billion people around the globe were infected and somewhere between 20 and 50 million died, possibly 100 million (Spanish flu - Wikipedia). Taking these figures at face value (but remaining aware that data gathering techniques of the period were not like today), the mortality rate was somewhere between 4% and 20%.
The infection rate of viruses like this is often around 30%. If that holds up then around a hundred million people in the US will become infected. At the currently estimated mortality rate of between 2% and 3%, between two and three million will die. The elderly appear to be the most vulnerable, and it is most fortunate that children seem least affected.
With only around a thousand people infected nationality it is difficult at this stage to comprehend the scale of what is to come. Public events are already being pared back. Both Biden and Sanders cancelled rallies (Trump has declared his rallies safe). College basketball games have already played to empty arenas, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's head of infectious diseases, has recommended that the NBA begin playing to empty arenas. He would likely say the same about hockey, and about baseball as it begins spring training with the regular season only two weeks off.
It is probably best to refrain from speculating about other effects, so I'll conclude by encouraging everyone to be safe out there. Avoid crowds, wash your hands frequently, and try not to touch your face.
Jewish people know that Bernie Sanders is a Communist. they grew up with guys like him. Michael Savage and Mark Levin are two who did. One of them calls him "the Bolshevik," the other the "Old Red" I think or something like that. He can get away with denying it with ignorami who aren't Jewish.
EvC-ers know that Faith is a red-baiter. they've had lots of contact with her. Jonf and DWise1 are two who did. One of them calls her "the wing nut," the other "the redneck" I think or something like that. She can get away with denying it with ignorami who aren't EvC-ers.
Nave people who don't know about these things won't recognize this I suppose but it is a huge red flag to me if someone says "Socialism has never really been tried."
But Bernie did not say that. He did not say, "Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried," and your quote proves he didn't say that, and didn't even say words to that effect. Here's your quote:
National Review writes:
What happened and existed in the Soviet Union was not socialism. It was authoritarian Communism, Bernie replied, inducing a bunch of his historically illiterate fans to applaud.
And Communism, Bernie goes on, whether in Cuba, whether in the Soviet Union or whether in other countries was marked by totalitarianism, was marked by throwing millions of people into the Gulag.
This is simple English. Bernie said that where communism has been tried it has been dominated by totalitarianism that rendered mute any socialistic aspects. A country that comes much closer to the kind of socialistic approaches Bernie favors is Denmark.
Denmark strenuously objects to being called socialist, and they are right to object because Bernie plays fast and loose with the socialist label. He calls himself a democratic socialist as if that is meaningfully different from plain old socialism. Democratic socialism still advocates state ownership of business and industry, and that's what Bernie ultimately wants. He's dishonest in that he labels programs he favors as democratic socialism, such as universal healthcare and free higher education. It is true that they would be aspects of any democratic socialist government, but democratic socialism goes way beyond that, a fact Bernie tries to obscure.
Bernie is a snake oil salesman, just like Trump. The difference between you and the National Review on the one hand and people like me on the other is that you (plural) are trying to smear Bernie with the most negative label you can think of and truth and accuracy be damned, while we are merely trying to be factual about who Bernie really is. Bernie isn't a communist, but he is a socialist, and that's bad enough.
™ Version 4.2
(1)