Because the current system provides low pop state citizens with a higher value vote than high pop states. I would prefer our votes be weighted equally
Why do you think this would matter (assuming your scenario plays out)?
How exactly do you remove a Supreme Court Justice from a lifetime appointment? Isn’t the whole purpose of the lifetime appointment, to check/balance the other branches of government?
By impeaching (and convicting) him/her.
Good. Then we agree your comparison is way off.
This was assuming we ignore the first error in your reasoning. If you are okay with your first error being disqualifying, you can ignore this point.
Currently getting elected president requires a majority. Point is just replacing the college (which you are blaming) with the popular vote STILL would get you a president Trump.
Why are you okay with grossly disproportionate state based representation in the legislative and not slightly disproportionate state based representation in the executive? Why should an Alaskans senate vote be worth 200+ Californians?
Bill Clinton set the bar pretty high. Good luck with that.
Intellectually, I disagree with you.
Selfishly, I agree with you. I now live in a “low pop state”, and your scenario would mean I don’t have to be inundated with political ads across all media during Presidential election years.
Not nearly as much so as does the Senate. Should we add Senators, while we’re at it?
I’m alright with that. I’m well aware the majority of the country doesn’t favor equal national votes.
I’m speaking strictly national level votes (so basically POTUS). I couldn’t care less how each state chooses to set up its senate elections.
This would be even better!!! The Senator ads here are cringe worthy, not slick like the Presidential ones.
I think my best bud Nick means that, in your scenario, the Senators from the low population states would not be as “important” as the Senators from NY and CA for instance.
Murkowski would be Senator Irrelevant from the Low Pop State of Alaska.
Does transitioning to a national pop vote somehow invalidate the votes each Senator can cast on legislation?
Wait…what? Senators are national-level/federal officials. Would you want to even out the power of individual votes in various states in the Senate, or just for President?
Senators are state elected officials that are sent to DC to represent their state. Not being even across state lines is the point. Fwiw, I don’t really care about the semantics of it. We won’t be seeing eye to eye here
You quoted the answer to this in your question.
Hillary won the popular vote, so where exactly is the error?
See above.
Collins in on Board.
Kavanaugh appears to be a little more than a day away from Confirmation.
Sure it does. The alternative is the presumption of guilt - how is that fair? And as a matter of basic argument, the burden to prove is always on the person making the claim - it’d be absurd to require the person alleged of wrongdoing to prove they didn’t do it.
2 Likes
Yeah, Flake, Collins, Manchin.
And how, outside of personal daily body cams? How do you prove it without a date or location to even work with?
Has this ever happened?
That is a logical fallacy. It is perfectly possible to approach something with no presumptions at all.
We are talking about making a decision whether to hire someone for a job–not about sending them to jail; not about winning an argument.
Yes.
1 Like