No, I do not think our citizens are any less able that Western European citizens. And I believe that the popular vote should determine who gets to be president. Our current system is not working. Living in California I feel cheated!
No, I do not think our citizens are any less able that Western European citizens. And I believe that the popular vote should determine who gets to be president. Our current system is not working. Living in California I feel cheated!
People tend to want to change the rules not on principle or consideration of long-term consequences, but rather when they believe that doing so is in their current favor. The best recent example is Maj. Leader Reid removing the filibuster for federal court judges believing (mistakenly) that Democrats would control the senate and presidency for a long time to come. Here we are with Trump/McConnell having appointed/confirmed 218 new federal judges.
Some of the latest progressive thinking is to (a) eliminate the electoral college; (b) eliminate the senate filibuster completely; (c) admit 2 new state to effectively pack the senate; and (d) pack the court.
This thinking is buttressed by belief in the inevitable tide ("we're on the right side of history") and faith in perpetual growing democratic majorities. If history is any teacher, it took barely 1 election cycle (in 2010 and 2016) to dispel this thinking, yet people persist in these beliefs.
Do you really belief that this sort of thing is prudent - when the possible retaliation could be, for example, the segmenting of Texas into 10 new states? Or the further packing of the court?
PS: you shouldn't feel cheated living in California (as regards election of the president) because CA's electoral college count is proportionate of CA to national population.
No, I do not think our citizens are any less able that Western European citizens. And I believe that the popular vote should determine who gets to be president. Our current system is not working. Living in California I feel cheated!
People tend to want to change the rules not on principle or consideration of long-term consequences, but rather when they believe that doing so is in their current favor. The best recent example is Maj. Leader Reid removing the filibuster for federal court judges believing (mistakenly) that Democrats would control the senate and presidency for a long time to come. Here we are with Trump/McConnell having appointed/confirmed 218 new federal judges.
Some of the latest progressive thinking is to (a) eliminate the electoral college; (b) eliminate the senate filibuster completely; (c) admit 2 new state to effectively pack the senate; and (d) pack the court.
This thinking is buttressed by belief in the inevitable tide ("we're on the right side of history") and faith in perpetual growing democratic majorities. If history is any teacher, it took barely 1 election cycle (in 2010 and 2016) to dispel this thinking, yet people persist in these beliefs.
Do you really belief that this sort of thing is prudent - when the possible retaliation could be, for example, the segmenting of Texas into 10 new states? Or the further packing of the court?
PS: you shouldn't feel cheated living in California (as regards election of the president) because CA's electoral college count is proportionate of CA to national population.