SC Kennedy Retiring

Stop talking about her. Stop. 

Talk about the Democrat who will be running for president.

^^ This. 

x1,000. 

But I don't know what we can do.  We can't change the Constitution.  
We need a word other than "democracy" for the US government. 

 This points to a larger problem.  We can change the Constitution.  We have many times.  But people are lazy and/or too afraid to do so and don't want to use the system that was put in place.  So instead they legislate and force the judiciary to constantly interpret the constitutionality of that legislation, which serves to polarize and politicize a co-equal branch of government that was designed to be impartial.  If you don't want to be scared of the Supreme Court overturning Roe, pass an amendment.  Afraid that they'll backtrack on marriage equality, pass an amendment.  We've grown so civically lazy as a people that we get what we deserve. 

Also the United States is not a democracy.  It is a constitutional federal republic.

DannyArcher said:

But I don't know what we can do.  We can't change the Constitution.  
We need a word other than "democracy" for the US government. 

 This points to a larger problem.  We can change the Constitution.  We have many times.  But people are lazy and/or too afraid to do so and don't want to use the system that was put in place.  So instead they legislate and force the judiciary to constantly interpret the constitutionality of that legislation, which serves to polarize and politicize a co-equal branch of government that was designed to be impartial.  If you don't want to be scared of the Supreme Court overturning Roe, pass an amendment.  Afraid that they'll backtrack on marriage equality, pass an amendment.  We've grown so civically lazy as a people that we get what we deserve. 

Also the United States is not a democracy.  It is a constitutional federal republic.

It's pretty well established that the United States Constitution is one of the most rigid in the world.  Changing the Constitution requires 2/3rds of Congress, plus 3/4rds of the state legislatures, 49/50 of which are bicameral.  

You are correct, legally it is possible to change the US Constitution, but the degree of consensus to change the Constitution is a near-insurmountable barrier.  Most constitutional amendments have been on minor issues, and the Reconstruction amendments were passed through very unusual means.  

Also, we have only really changed the structure of our government once, when we established direct election of Senators.  There was a time, five decades ago, when eliminating the electoral college looked possible, but now that the Republicans have developed an advantage in the electoral college, that possibility has receded.   Also, the Senate apportionment scheme cannot be changed due to a provision in Article V.   

I agree with your interpretation that changes to the Constitution occur through the Supreme Court.  I see the necessity of doing this as one of the problems of the US democracy.  I see the Supreme Court's power to effectively amend the US Constitution without a consensus, on a 5-4 vote, as terrifying.  So do many other people, hence the votes Donald Trump got from conservatives who hated him.  (I cannot understand the liberal reverence for "judicial independence" when that "independence" can easily cross over into "judicial supremacy.")

Indeed, the US is not a democracy.  That's something liberals and conservatives ought to agree on.  

RealityForAll said:

dave said:
Won with fewer votes than his opponent.  Obstruction is fine.   Live with it.

 Where DJT's opponent did not receive more than 50% of the popular vote.  This is one of the instances (originally envisioned) where the electoral college is intended to produce a majority winner at the electoral college level.

 No it's not. The only purpose of the electoral college was to appease the slave states.

drummerboy said:

RealityForAll said:

dave said:
Won with fewer votes than his opponent.  Obstruction is fine.   Live with it.

 Where DJT's opponent did not receive more than 50% of the popular vote.  This is one of the instances (originally envisioned) where the electoral college is intended to produce a majority winner at the electoral college level.

 No it's not. The only purpose of the electoral college was to appease the slave states.

 Please provide your authority for your position.  Thanks.

Runner_Guy said:


Indeed, the US is not a democracy.  That's something liberals and conservatives ought to agree on.  

 I have never understood the point of this rather sophistic argument.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Unfortunately, American Presidential elections can leave us with a winner who is in a very real sense illegitimate, since they got fewer votes than their opponent.  That illegitimacy should never be forgotten and should be used to fight him

 I disagree. For better or for worse the electoral college is our system of how the U.S. President is elected. Being President is a binary thing-- you're either president or you're not. Once somebody is president, even if s/he lost the popular vote, s/he has full powers of the office, same as if s/he had won in a landslide. 
Saying Trump and W are illegitimate presidents b/c they lost popular vote is essentially negating our electoral system. Fine if that's your opinion but that's what you're saying.   

 It may be our system but any electoral system, be it American, Soviet or North Korean,  that gives power to someone who is not democratically elected is, prima facie, illegitimate.  

drummerboy said:

Tom_R said:

Klinker said:

Tom_R said:
There are people who think that our Senate's Democrats should be just as obstructionist as the Republicans were during President Obama's administration.
I think it's a road to folly.
President Trump won the last election. Live with it.
TomR

FACT:  Was selected by the Electoral College, lost the popular election.

 Your statement of fact(s) is accurate.
Yet, I fear, I am missing your point.
Please elaborate.
TomR

 I think you're missing the point.
Unfortunately, American Presidential elections can leave us with a winner who is in a very real sense illegitimate, since they got fewer votes than their opponent.  That illegitimacy should never be forgotten and should be used to fight him
Besides, you seem to be excusing McConnel's obstructionism on Garland. Are you?

 I tell Klinker that I'm missing their point; and, you come up with - you think I'm missing their point? You are quite the wit.

We establish a set of rules for the presidential electoral process; a process which produced President Trump, and, you call the winner illegitimate.

What would be a legitimate winner, given the protocol we've established?

And, WHAT ON EARTH could lead you to conclude that I excuse Senator McConnell's conduct in refusing to consider Chief Judge Garland's nomination?

TomR

P.s., Please keep on posting. It's rarely enlightening, but it's frequently amusing.

Klinker said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Unfortunately, American Presidential elections can leave us with a winner who is in a very real sense illegitimate, since they got fewer votes than their opponent.  That illegitimacy should never be forgotten and should be used to fight him

 I disagree. For better or for worse the electoral college is our system of how the U.S. President is elected. Being President is a binary thing-- you're either president or you're not. Once somebody is president, even if s/he lost the popular vote, s/he has full powers of the office, same as if s/he had won in a landslide. 
Saying Trump and W are illegitimate presidents b/c they lost popular vote is essentially negating our electoral system. Fine if that's your opinion but that's what you're saying.   

 It may be our system but any electoral system, be it American, Soviet or North Korean,  that gives power to someone who is not democratically elected is, prima facie, illegitimate.  

 Assume we eliminated the electoral college.  Should a person be considered the legitimate winner of the presidential election if they won less than 50% of the popular vote?

RealityForAll said:

Klinker said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Unfortunately, American Presidential elections can leave us with a winner who is in a very real sense illegitimate, since they got fewer votes than their opponent.  That illegitimacy should never be forgotten and should be used to fight him

 I disagree. For better or for worse the electoral college is our system of how the U.S. President is elected. Being President is a binary thing-- you're either president or you're not. Once somebody is president, even if s/he lost the popular vote, s/he has full powers of the office, same as if s/he had won in a landslide. 
Saying Trump and W are illegitimate presidents b/c they lost popular vote is essentially negating our electoral system. Fine if that's your opinion but that's what you're saying.   

 It may be our system but any electoral system, be it American, Soviet or North Korean,  that gives power to someone who is not democratically elected is, prima facie, illegitimate.  

 Assume we eliminated the electoral college.  Should a person be considered the legitimate winner of the presidential election if they won less than 50% of the popular vote?

 What they do in some other countries, like France, is have a run off two weeks later between the two top vote getters.

Or ranked voting as is used in Australia. That way voting for a candidate like Jill Stein would not have hurt Clinton provided their second choice in the rank is Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

I'd prefer the Australian system.

If you switched to ranked voting, you could ditch the primary system.

drummerboy said:

RealityForAll said:

dave said:
Won with fewer votes than his opponent.  Obstruction is fine.   Live with it.

 Where DJT's opponent did not receive more than 50% of the popular vote.  This is one of the instances (originally envisioned) where the electoral college is intended to produce a majority winner at the electoral college level.

 No it's not. The only purpose of the electoral college was to appease the slave states.

 Given that a State's representation in the Electoral College is based upon a State's representation in the Congress; I thought that this might help:

https://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_greatcompromise.htm

TomR

Tom_R said:

drummerboy said:

RealityForAll said:

dave said:
Won with fewer votes than his opponent.  Obstruction is fine.   Live with it.

 Where DJT's opponent did not receive more than 50% of the popular vote.  This is one of the instances (originally envisioned) where the electoral college is intended to produce a majority winner at the electoral college level.

 No it's not. The only purpose of the electoral college was to appease the slave states.

 Given that a State's representation in the Electoral College is based upon a State's representation in the Congress; I thought that this might help:
https://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_greatcompromise.htm
TomR

 congressforkids huh?

hilarious. I'm convinced.

Discussing various alternatives to the Electoral College is great for a PoliSci class.

It's not an answer to the current political situation.

A couple of things we can ask for, a larger selection of candidates, more debates, and  for the DNC to dump the super delegates. And move the primary up so that the bluer blue states have a say.

Morganna said:
A couple of things we can ask for, a larger selection of candidates, more debates, and  for the DNC to dump the super delegates. And move the primary up so that the bluer blue states have a say.

 Hillary Clinton wasn't nominated because of super delegates.  She was nominated because more voters chose her. 

nohero said:

Morganna said:
A couple of things we can ask for, a larger selection of candidates, more debates, and  for the DNC to dump the super delegates. And move the primary up so that the bluer blue states have a say.

 Hillary Clinton wasn't nominated because of super delegates.  She was nominated because more voters chose her. 

A 359-8 advantage among superdelegates before the caucuses and primaries even begin makes no impression on a party’s electorate whatsoever.

Morganna said:
 And move the primary up so that the bluer blue states have a say.

 Right. Imagine if the first primary was held in Vermont instead of New Hampshire.

Question. Why didn’t RBG retire during the Obama administration? Or did the Senate Majority evaporate right after Sotomayor and Kagan? 

ElizMcCord said:
Question. Why didn’t RBG retire during the Obama administration? Or did the Senate Majority evaporate right after Sotomayor and Kagan? 

Kagan was confirmed in August 2010. Democrats retained the majority until January 2015. The reason Ginsburg didn’t retire is that she didn’t want to retire.

nohero said:

Morganna said:
A couple of things we can ask for, a larger selection of candidates, more debates, and  for the DNC to dump the super delegates. And move the primary up so that the bluer blue states have a say.

 Hillary Clinton wasn't nominated because of super delegates.  She was nominated because more voters chose her. 

 I never said she was? I'm interested in the party looking at a big selection of candidates going forward, having more debates and dumping the super delegates. Nothing to do with Hillary. I was responding to the comment that LOST made about not being practical to discuss the electoral college.

Klinker said:

Morganna said:
 And move the primary up so that the bluer blue states have a say.

 Right. Imagine if the first primary was held in Vermont instead of New Hampshire.

 Wouldn't you like to see California, New York and New Jersey weigh in before everyone drops out? 

Morganna said:

Klinker said:

Morganna said:
 And move the primary up so that the bluer blue states have a say.

 Right. Imagine if the first primary was held in Vermont instead of New Hampshire.

 Wouldn't you like to see California, New York and New Jersey weigh in before everyone drops out? 

 Actually, my preference would be California, a Southern Super Tuesday and then New York, NJ and Massachusetts.

I was proposing Vermont first as the smallest change that would make the biggest difference.

RE "ranked choice" or "instant runoff" voting, Maine actually has this at the sub-federal level.  Their legislature tried to repeal it, but this was a ballot measure in their recent election and ranked-choice voting was re-affirmed.

Five-thirty-eight article from before the vote explaining all this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/maine-is-trying-out-a-new-way-to-run-elections-but-will-it-survive-the-night/

The major driver behind RCV's success in Maine seems to be their governor's election, then re-election, with less than a majority of the vote.

drummerboy said:

Tom_R said:

drummerboy said:

RealityForAll said:

dave said:
Won with fewer votes than his opponent.  Obstruction is fine.   Live with it.

 Where DJT's opponent did not receive more than 50% of the popular vote.  This is one of the instances (originally envisioned) where the electoral college is intended to produce a majority winner at the electoral college level.

 No it's not. The only purpose of the electoral college was to appease the slave states.

 Given that a State's representation in the Electoral College is based upon a State's representation in the Congress; I thought that this might help:
https://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_greatcompromise.htm
TomR

 congressforkids huh?

hilarious. I'm convinced.

 I am glad you're convinced, and that you found the site amusing.

You did notice the part where the representatives of Virginia, a so called slave State proposed Congressional representation based upon population; and that it was New Jersey's representatives that countered with equal representation for each of the thirteen States.

TomR

Tom_R said:

drummerboy said:

Tom_R said:

drummerboy said:

RealityForAll said:

dave said:
Won with fewer votes than his opponent.  Obstruction is fine.   Live with it.

 Where DJT's opponent did not receive more than 50% of the popular vote.  This is one of the instances (originally envisioned) where the electoral college is intended to produce a majority winner at the electoral college level.

 No it's not. The only purpose of the electoral college was to appease the slave states.

 Given that a State's representation in the Electoral College is based upon a State's representation in the Congress; I thought that this might help:
https://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_greatcompromise.htm
TomR

 congressforkids huh?

hilarious. I'm convinced.

 I am glad you're convinced, and that you found the site amusing.
You did notice the part where the representatives of Virginia, a so called slave State proposed Congressional representation based upon population; and that it was New Jersey's representatives that countered with equal representation for each of the thirteen States.
TomR

 oh gee, yeah, ya got me. never mind. I'm wrong. It had nothing to do with slavery. Excuse me.

Klinker said:

Morganna said:

Klinker said:

Morganna said:
 And move the primary up so that the bluer blue states have a say.

 Right. Imagine if the first primary was held in Vermont instead of New Hampshire.

 Wouldn't you like to see California, New York and New Jersey weigh in before everyone drops out? 

 Actually, my preference would be California, a Southern Super Tuesday and then New York, NJ and Massachusetts.
I was proposing Vermont first as the smallest change that would make the biggest difference.

 Why not hold ALL primaries on the SAME DAY??????  It's not like present-day candidates need the Pony Express to let the voters know what they (claim) they stand for.   

BG9 said:
SC Justice Kennedy announced he's retiring. This will really get out the evangelical and conservative in November.
Don't be surprised if a new 5 hard conservative majority kills women's rights, labor rights, etc.
So, thank you, so-called liberals who voted third party or did not even bother to vote. Enjoy the hell you put yourself in. 

 Didn't like Hillary. Voted for Hillary. What about that don't you get?

nakaille said:

 Why not hold ALL primaries on the SAME DAY??????  It's not like present-day candidates need the Pony Express to let the voters know what they (claim) they stand for.   

Staggered primaries and caucuses allow for a field of candidates to be whittled down over time. Hold all the votes on the same day and chances are that multiple candidates pick up a passel of delegates, but none of them enough to seal the nomination. Hello, brokered convention.