No. You’re logic is totally flawed. The rules have been set and unchanged for hundreds of years. You have to also understand that you can’t take the results of the election under one set of rules and assume it would have happened the same with a different set. Campaigns spend money, time and effort to secure electoral votes. People vote and don’t vote based on perceived worth of their votes within their state. If you changed the rules (you are the one wanting to change them) the outcome would change.
Even if you change from the electoral college to popular vote without changing the other rules, Hilary still lost. One of the things people miss is that Hilary still got a minority of votes. Under current rules, no majority means the republican house would have decided. So Trump still wins if you just swap out the electoral college for the popular vote.
And even beyond the presidential elections, the heart of what you are proposing to get rid of is the great compromise (which is what causes the electoral college weighting). Congress has far more disproportional representation than the electoral college. It’s logically inconsistent to disapprove of the electoral college and not want to dissolve the Senate.
I don’t know all of the issues (I am still researching; anyone chime-in if they know); but Murkowski’s issues have little to do with this latest shit-show.
She had issues with Kavanagh related to some (opinions?/rulings?) that negatively affected Native Alaskans.
If accusations without a solid evidentiary foundation are enough to derail a nominee, the bar for service on the Supreme Court is lowered, not raised. When all accusations are important, none of them will be.
This is actually a key component in the rise of Trump. When every Republican candidate for the last 3 decades has been accused of being a sexist, racist, homophobic, elitist pig, nothing Trump has done seems shocking.
No, the point falls flat. The standard for determining fitness to be a SCOTUS justice is not nearly as high as that needed to ‘punish’ someone (ie, convict them of a crime).
Nor should it be. The notion re ‘presumption of innocence’ does not apply in the setting of what amounts to a job interview. Further, it is emphatically not the case that Kavanaugh has some right to a SCOTUS seat until/unless it can be proven ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that he is guilty of the allegations made.
No one (here) has suggested that accusations alone should be enough to torpedo a nomination.
IMO, this is incorrect with respect to both its assumptions and conclusion.
While I am still researching specifics; this is what I found:
“Alaska Natives; (who make up about 15 percent of the state’s population, and are very strong supporters of Murkowski); have expressed concern that Kavanaugh’s court decisions reflect a willingness to erode indigenous and tribal rights”.
This causes a problem for Murskowki; because there is also a strong Republican Base in Alaska
I’m aware the Electoral College isn’t a recent development.
Totally agree!
That doesn’t factor into my decision to vote, but I guess it could be true for some people.
You just got done saying you can’t expect the same outcomes when the rules change. Now you’re saying Hillary lost even if the rules change. You need to pick a side and stick to it.
Under the current rule, no Electoral College majority means the House decides. If the Electoral College were abolished, why would we keep the rule that stipulates what happens where there’s no Electoral College majority?
Nope. I’m fine congress existing in its current form. I just think the President should be determined by popular vote.
It is, in at least most states(I’m not sure whether any have already changed to voting for the national popular vote winner or not).
I assume you mean that you think President should be determined by national popular vote. Why? Please come up with something other than George W. and Donald Trump having won without getting the most votes.
