<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpca6652d4yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div></div>
<div>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. </div><div><br></div>
</div><div class="ydpb20ef136yahoo_quoted" id="ydpb20ef136yahoo_quoted_3875868595">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 10:23:46 AM PST, vision2020-request@moscow.com <vision2020-request@moscow.com> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020</a><br></div><div dir="ltr">or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <a href="mailto:vision2020-request@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">vision2020-request@moscow.com</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">You can reach the person managing the list at<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <a href="mailto:vision2020-owner@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">vision2020-owner@moscow.com</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br></div><div dir="ltr">than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Today's Topics:<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"> 1. Re: SCOTUS "Disequilibrium" on "Open Mind:" Dems. won<br></div><div dir="ltr"> plurality or majority of presidential popular vote in last 6 of 7<br></div><div dir="ltr"> elections (Tom Hansen)<br></div><div dir="ltr"> 2. Re: SCOTUS "Disequilibrium" on "Open Mind:" Dems. won<br></div><div dir="ltr"> plurality or majority of presidential popular vote in last 6 of 7<br></div><div dir="ltr"> elections (g crabtree)<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Message: 1<br></div><div dir="ltr">Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:18:02 -0800<br></div><div dir="ltr">From: Tom Hansen <<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">thansen@moscow.com</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">To: Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">starbliss@gmail.com</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SCOTUS "Disequilibrium" on "Open Mind:"<br></div><div dir="ltr"> Dems. won plurality or majority of presidential popular vote in last 6<br></div><div dir="ltr"> of 7 elections<br></div><div dir="ltr">Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:9397E44A-D4E5-4200-822C-EC825BE6A374@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">9397E44A-D4E5-4200-822C-EC825BE6A374@moscow.com</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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 . . .<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">ONE PERSON = ONE VOTE <br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">What benefit do ?the people? achieve from the electoral college?<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)<br></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.MoscowCares.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.MoscowCares.com</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"> <br></div><div dir="ltr">Tom Hansen<br></div><div dir="ltr">Moscow, Idaho<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:42 PM, Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <br></div><div dir="ltr">> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br></div><div dir="ltr">> ***** 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.*****<br></div><div dir="ltr">> ------------------<br></div><div dir="ltr">> 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.<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <br></div><div dir="ltr">> 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!<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <br></div><div dir="ltr">> 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.<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <br></div><div dir="ltr">> 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.<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <br></div><div dir="ltr">> 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:<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <br></div><div dir="ltr">> <a href="https://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/disequilibrium-on-the-supreme-court/6063/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/disequilibrium-on-the-supreme-court/6063/</a><br></div><div dir="ltr">> David Pozen<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <br></div><div dir="ltr">> Disequilibrium on the Supreme Court<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <br></div><div dir="ltr">> Air Date: November 19, 2018<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <br></div><div dir="ltr">> David Pozen, Knight First Amendment Institute inaugural scholar and Columbia Law professor, discusses the future of American law.<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <br></div><div dir="ltr">> 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!<br></div><div dir="ltr"> 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.<br></div><div dir="ltr">> =======================================================<br></div><div dir="ltr">> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br></div><div dir="ltr">> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fsr.net</a><br></div><div dir="ltr">> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br></div><div dir="ltr">> =======================================================<br></div><div dir="ltr">-------------- next part --------------<br></div><div dir="ltr">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br></div><div dir="ltr">URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20181127/c22e27f1/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20181127/c22e27f1/attachment-0001.html</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">------------------------------<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Message: 2<br></div><div dir="ltr">Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:21:49 -0800<br></div><div dir="ltr">From: g crabtree <<a href="mailto:direoutcome@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">direoutcome@gmail.com</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">To: Tom Hansen <<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">thansen@moscow.com</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SCOTUS "Disequilibrium" on "Open Mind:"<br></div><div dir="ltr"> Dems. won plurality or majority of presidential popular vote in last 6<br></div><div dir="ltr"> of 7 elections<br></div><div dir="ltr">Message-ID:<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <CACn+POYqEyTwQe2ZZ50zuLUC+J30Y=R59zB=<a href="mailto:yoEguv-DUSWF9A@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">yoEguv-DUSWF9A@mail.gmail.com</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">The Presidency was never designed to be a popularity contest. Since the<br></div><div dir="ltr">Presidency is the only all 50 state elected office it makes<br></div><div dir="ltr">sense that all 50 states have some say in the process. Abolishing the<br></div><div dir="ltr">electoral collage and turning the race into a beauty contest<br></div><div dir="ltr">puts the office into the hands of 4 states tops. I'm thinking that the<br></div><div dir="ltr">folks in Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, etc. ought to be<br></div><div dir="ltr">able to provide meaningful input into the sole country wide election.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I understand why you wish it weren't so but the Constitution set things up<br></div><div dir="ltr">in exactly this way to protect the rights of ALL the states<br></div><div dir="ltr">and by extension, all "the people."<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">g<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:18 AM Tom Hansen <<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">thansen@moscow.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> Yes. It is time to terminate the electoral college and actively support<br></div><div dir="ltr">> the foundation of our democracy and the constitution upon which it was<br></div><div dir="ltr">> founded . . .<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> *ONE PERSON = ONE VOTE*<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> What benefit do ?the people? achieve from the electoral college?<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> Heck! The electoral college isn?t even applied uniformly across our<br></div><div dir="ltr">> nation. A few states award their electoral votes to candidates in<br></div><div dir="ltr">> proportion to their popular vote. A large majority of the states, however,<br></div><div dir="ltr">> award ALL of their electoral votes to the candidate that receives the<br></div><div dir="ltr">> majority of the popular vote. By ?majority? I mean fifty percent plus one<br></div><div dir="ltr">> vote.<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> If we continue to prioritize the electoral college ahead of the popular<br></div><div dir="ltr">> vote, we will continue to swear-in presidents who lost the popular vote by<br></div><div dir="ltr">> considerable margins and whose popular rating is far lower than fifty<br></div><div dir="ltr">> percent . . . like donald trump.<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <a href="http://www.MoscowCares.com " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.MoscowCares.com </a><<a href="http://www.moscowcares.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.moscowcares.com/</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> Tom Hansen<br></div><div dir="ltr">> Moscow, Idaho<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:42 PM, Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br></div><div dir="ltr">> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2000 through life<br></div><div dir="ltr">> plus 70 years, Ted Moffett. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce<br></div><div dir="ltr">> outside the Vision2020.Moscow.com <<a href="http://vision2020.moscow.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://vision2020.moscow.com/</a>> forum<br></div><div dir="ltr">> without the express written permission of the author.*****<br></div><div dir="ltr">> ------------------<br></div><div dir="ltr">> When I heard the claim in the subject heading, I had to pause for a<br></div><div dir="ltr">> moment... Given two B. Clinton terms, two G. W Bush terms, two Obama terms,<br></div><div dir="ltr">> and one Trump... Well, I guess this is obvious. What is incredible about<br></div><div dir="ltr">> this is of course that twice in this period the republicans gained the<br></div><div dir="ltr">> presidency while losing the popular vote, with Gore and H Clinton popular<br></div><div dir="ltr">> vote wins.<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> This has slanted the SCOTUS toward republican presidential appointments,<br></div><div dir="ltr">> despite the voters choosing democratic presidential candidates in 6 of the<br></div><div dir="ltr">> last 7 elections, especially given the blocking of Obama nominee Merrick<br></div><div dir="ltr">> Garland, who should have taken a SCOTUS seat!<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> G. W. Bush appointed Roberts and Alito in 2005, though he won the popular<br></div><div dir="ltr">> vote in 2004. However, if Al Gore had assumed the presidency in 2000,<br></div><div dir="ltr">> based on the popular vote win, it is questionable G. W Bush would have been<br></div><div dir="ltr">> elected president in 2004. Thus these two G. W. Bush appointments still<br></div><div dir="ltr">> are arguably based in part on a presidential "win" against the popular vote.<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> Trump has nominated Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, to pick a<br></div><div dir="ltr">> likely vacancy before 2000, may allow Trump another SCOTUS nominee. It is<br></div><div dir="ltr">> obvious this outcome could slant the politics of the SCOTUS potentially for<br></div><div dir="ltr">> decades.<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> This episode of the Alexander Heffner hosted Open Mind on PBS television<br></div><div dir="ltr">> is at the website below, The fact in the subject heading as clarified by<br></div><div dir="ltr">> professor Pozen is copied below from the transcript of this episode:<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> <a href="https://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/disequilibrium-on-the-supreme-court/6063/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/disequilibrium-on-the-supreme-court/6063/</a><br></div><div dir="ltr">> David Pozen<br></div><div dir="ltr">> Disequilibrium on the Supreme Court<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> Air Date: November 19, 2018<br></div><div dir="ltr">> David Pozen, Knight First Amendment Institute inaugural scholar and<br></div><div dir="ltr">> Columbia Law professor, discusses the future of American law.<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> POZEN: Well, first I?d say on the question of what is equilibrium, there<br></div><div dir="ltr">> are a lot of ways to think about that, but I do think there?s a strong case<br></div><div dir="ltr">> to be made, that we?re out of equilibrium in the sense that the Court?s<br></div><div dir="ltr">> composition doesn?t reflect the composition of the political branches in<br></div><div dir="ltr">> recent decades. The last time that a majority of the justices on the Court<br></div><div dir="ltr">> were appointed by a Democratic president was May in 1969. So we?re about to<br></div><div dir="ltr">> hit five decades straight of Republican President dominated courts. I<br></div><div dir="ltr">> believe 15 of the last 19 justices have been appointed by Republican<br></div><div dir="ltr">> presidents. And that?s in a 49-year window in which there have been five<br></div><div dir="ltr">> Democratic presidencies. The Senate?s been controlled by Democrats, more<br></div><div dir="ltr">> than half of the time, Democratic presidential candidates have won a<br></div><div dir="ltr">> plurality or majority of the popular vote in six of the last seven<br></div><div dir="ltr">> elections. So, that sense of being out of equilibrium reflects these, these<br></div><div dir="ltr">> stubborn facts, these difficult facts about the Court?s politics vis a vis<br></div><div dir="ltr">> the countries and I haven?t even mentioned other factors such as after<br></div><div dir="ltr">> Justice Scalia died, holding open his seat for more than 11 months prior to<br></div><div dir="ltr">> President Trump?s inauguration, denying the Merrick Garland nomination even<br></div><div dir="ltr">> a chance at a hearing. So, I sympathize with the distress on the liberal<br></div><div dir="ltr">> side that something is out of equilibrium. Getting back to equilibrium is a<br></div><div dir="ltr">> very hard question.<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> =======================================================<br></div><div dir="ltr">> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br></div><div dir="ltr">> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fsr.net</a><br></div><div dir="ltr">> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Vision2020@moscow.com</a> <<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr">> =======================================================<br></div><div dir="ltr">><br></div><div dir="ltr">> =======================================================<br></div><div dir="ltr">> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br></div><div dir="ltr">> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br></div><div dir="ltr">> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fsr.net</a><br></div><div dir="ltr">> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br></div><div dir="ltr">> =======================================================<br></div><div dir="ltr">-------------- next part --------------<br></div><div dir="ltr">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br></div><div dir="ltr">URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20181127/3b1473e0/attachment.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20181127/3b1473e0/attachment.html</a>><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">------------------------------<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">=======================================================<br></div><div dir="ltr"> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br></div><div dir="ltr"> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br></div><div dir="ltr"> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fsr.net</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br></div><div dir="ltr">=======================================================<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 149, Issue 55<br></div><div dir="ltr">*******************************************<br></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>