[Vision2020] Electoral College
rhayes at frontier.com
rhayes at frontier.com
Tue Nov 27 11:13:25 PST 2018
The Electoral College was set up for the same reason that there are two senators from each state. That being to placate the South and convince them to join the union, and coincidently (not) to protect their abominable institution of slavery. In a different manner nothing has really changed.
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 10:23:46 AM PST, vision2020-request at moscow.com <vision2020-request at moscow.com> wrote:
Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to
vision2020 at moscow.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
vision2020-request at moscow.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
vision2020-owner at moscow.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: SCOTUS "Disequilibrium" on "Open Mind:" Dems. won
plurality or majority of presidential popular vote in last 6 of 7
elections (Tom Hansen)
2. Re: SCOTUS "Disequilibrium" on "Open Mind:" Dems. won
plurality or majority of presidential popular vote in last 6 of 7
elections (g crabtree)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:18:02 -0800
From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
To: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SCOTUS "Disequilibrium" on "Open Mind:"
Dems. won plurality or majority of presidential popular vote in last 6
of 7 elections
Message-ID: <9397E44A-D4E5-4200-822C-EC825BE6A374 at moscow.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Yes. It is time to terminate the electoral college and actively support the foundation of our democracy and the constitution upon which it was founded . . .
ONE PERSON = ONE VOTE
What benefit do ?the people? achieve from the electoral college?
Heck! The electoral college isn?t even applied uniformly across our nation. A few states award their electoral votes to candidates in proportion to their popular vote. A large majority of the states, however, award ALL of their electoral votes to the candidate that receives the majority of the popular vote. By ?majority? I mean fifty percent plus one vote.
If we continue to prioritize the electoral college ahead of the popular vote, we will continue to swear-in presidents who lost the popular vote by considerable margins and whose popular rating is far lower than fifty percent . . . like donald trump.
Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
> On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:42 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2000 through life plus 70 years, Ted Moffett. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision2020.Moscow.com forum without the express written permission of the author.*****
> ------------------
> When I heard the claim in the subject heading, I had to pause for a moment... Given two B. Clinton terms, two G. W Bush terms, two Obama terms, and one Trump... Well, I guess this is obvious. What is incredible about this is of course that twice in this period the republicans gained the presidency while losing the popular vote, with Gore and H Clinton popular vote wins.
>
> This has slanted the SCOTUS toward republican presidential appointments, despite the voters choosing democratic presidential candidates in 6 of the last 7 elections, especially given the blocking of Obama nominee Merrick Garland, who should have taken a SCOTUS seat!
>
> G. W. Bush appointed Roberts and Alito in 2005, though he won the popular vote in 2004. However, if Al Gore had assumed the presidency in 2000, based on the popular vote win, it is questionable G. W Bush would have been elected president in 2004. Thus these two G. W. Bush appointments still are arguably based in part on a presidential "win" against the popular vote.
>
> Trump has nominated Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, to pick a likely vacancy before 2000, may allow Trump another SCOTUS nominee. It is obvious this outcome could slant the politics of the SCOTUS potentially for decades.
>
> This episode of the Alexander Heffner hosted Open Mind on PBS television is at the website below, The fact in the subject heading as clarified by professor Pozen is copied below from the transcript of this episode:
>
> https://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/disequilibrium-on-the-supreme-court/6063/
> David Pozen
>
> Disequilibrium on the Supreme Court
>
> Air Date: November 19, 2018
>
> David Pozen, Knight First Amendment Institute inaugural scholar and Columbia Law professor, discusses the future of American law.
>
> POZEN: Well, first I?d say on the question of what is equilibrium, there are a lot of ways to think about that, but I do think there?s a strong case to be made, that we?re out of equilibrium in the sense that the Court?s composition doesn?t reflect the composition of the political branches in recent decades. The last time that a majority of the justices on the Court were appointed by a Democratic president was May in 1969. So we?re about to hit five decades straight of Republican President dominated courts. I believe 15 of the last 19 justices have been appointed by Republican presidents. And that?s in a 49-year window in which there have been five Democratic presidencies. The Senate?s been controlled by Democrats, more than half of the time, Democratic presidential candidates have won a plurality or majority of the popular vote in six of the last seven elections. So, that sense of being out of equilibrium reflects these, these stubborn facts, these difficult facts about t!
he Court?s politics vis a vis the countries and I haven?t even mentioned other factors such as after Justice Scalia died, holding open his seat for more than 11 months prior to President Trump?s inauguration, denying the Merrick Garland nomination even a chance at a hearing. So, I sympathize with the distress on the liberal side that something is out of equilibrium. Getting back to equilibrium is a very hard question.
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20181127/c22e27f1/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:21:49 -0800
From: g crabtree <direoutcome at gmail.com>
To: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SCOTUS "Disequilibrium" on "Open Mind:"
Dems. won plurality or majority of presidential popular vote in last 6
of 7 elections
Message-ID:
<CACn+POYqEyTwQe2ZZ50zuLUC+J30Y=R59zB=yoEguv-DUSWF9A at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The Presidency was never designed to be a popularity contest. Since the
Presidency is the only all 50 state elected office it makes
sense that all 50 states have some say in the process. Abolishing the
electoral collage and turning the race into a beauty contest
puts the office into the hands of 4 states tops. I'm thinking that the
folks in Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, etc. ought to be
able to provide meaningful input into the sole country wide election.
I understand why you wish it weren't so but the Constitution set things up
in exactly this way to protect the rights of ALL the states
and by extension, all "the people."
g
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:18 AM Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
> Yes. It is time to terminate the electoral college and actively support
> the foundation of our democracy and the constitution upon which it was
> founded . . .
>
> *ONE PERSON = ONE VOTE*
>
> What benefit do ?the people? achieve from the electoral college?
>
> Heck! The electoral college isn?t even applied uniformly across our
> nation. A few states award their electoral votes to candidates in
> proportion to their popular vote. A large majority of the states, however,
> award ALL of their electoral votes to the candidate that receives the
> majority of the popular vote. By ?majority? I mean fifty percent plus one
> vote.
>
> If we continue to prioritize the electoral college ahead of the popular
> vote, we will continue to swear-in presidents who lost the popular vote by
> considerable margins and whose popular rating is far lower than fifty
> percent . . . like donald trump.
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:42 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2000 through life
> plus 70 years, Ted Moffett. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
> outside the Vision2020.Moscow.com <http://vision2020.moscow.com/> forum
> without the express written permission of the author.*****
> ------------------
> When I heard the claim in the subject heading, I had to pause for a
> moment... Given two B. Clinton terms, two G. W Bush terms, two Obama terms,
> and one Trump... Well, I guess this is obvious. What is incredible about
> this is of course that twice in this period the republicans gained the
> presidency while losing the popular vote, with Gore and H Clinton popular
> vote wins.
>
> This has slanted the SCOTUS toward republican presidential appointments,
> despite the voters choosing democratic presidential candidates in 6 of the
> last 7 elections, especially given the blocking of Obama nominee Merrick
> Garland, who should have taken a SCOTUS seat!
>
> G. W. Bush appointed Roberts and Alito in 2005, though he won the popular
> vote in 2004. However, if Al Gore had assumed the presidency in 2000,
> based on the popular vote win, it is questionable G. W Bush would have been
> elected president in 2004. Thus these two G. W. Bush appointments still
> are arguably based in part on a presidential "win" against the popular vote.
>
> Trump has nominated Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, to pick a
> likely vacancy before 2000, may allow Trump another SCOTUS nominee. It is
> obvious this outcome could slant the politics of the SCOTUS potentially for
> decades.
>
> This episode of the Alexander Heffner hosted Open Mind on PBS television
> is at the website below, The fact in the subject heading as clarified by
> professor Pozen is copied below from the transcript of this episode:
>
>
> https://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/disequilibrium-on-the-supreme-court/6063/
> David Pozen
> Disequilibrium on the Supreme Court
>
> Air Date: November 19, 2018
> David Pozen, Knight First Amendment Institute inaugural scholar and
> Columbia Law professor, discusses the future of American law.
>
> POZEN: Well, first I?d say on the question of what is equilibrium, there
> are a lot of ways to think about that, but I do think there?s a strong case
> to be made, that we?re out of equilibrium in the sense that the Court?s
> composition doesn?t reflect the composition of the political branches in
> recent decades. The last time that a majority of the justices on the Court
> were appointed by a Democratic president was May in 1969. So we?re about to
> hit five decades straight of Republican President dominated courts. I
> believe 15 of the last 19 justices have been appointed by Republican
> presidents. And that?s in a 49-year window in which there have been five
> Democratic presidencies. The Senate?s been controlled by Democrats, more
> than half of the time, Democratic presidential candidates have won a
> plurality or majority of the popular vote in six of the last seven
> elections. So, that sense of being out of equilibrium reflects these, these
> stubborn facts, these difficult facts about the Court?s politics vis a vis
> the countries and I haven?t even mentioned other factors such as after
> Justice Scalia died, holding open his seat for more than 11 months prior to
> President Trump?s inauguration, denying the Merrick Garland nomination even
> a chance at a hearing. So, I sympathize with the distress on the liberal
> side that something is out of equilibrium. Getting back to equilibrium is a
> very hard question.
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20181127/3b1473e0/attachment.html>
------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 149, Issue 55
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20181127/74c6ff43/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list