operation warped trump Topic

So basically, your theory is that the political majority should be determined, not by population, but by surface area?
3/4/2020 3:17 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
I didn’t read the study only reporting its findings. Whether female or male the bottom line is the population is consolidating into 15 States.
3/4/2020 3:37 PM
As to why we have 2 US Senators per state:

Two Senators per State

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

During the summer of 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia established equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. Called the “Great Compromise” or the “Connecticut Compromise,” the unique plan for congressional representation resolved the most controversial aspect of the drafting of the Constitution.

In the weeks before the Constitution’s framers agreed to the compromise, the delegates from the states with large populations argued that each state’s representation in the Senate should correspond to the size of the state. Large-state delegates promoted James Madison’s Virginia Plan, the document that was the basis for several of the clauses in the Constitution. Under this plan, the Senate and the House would base their membership on the same proportional “right of suffrage.” That is, the number of senators in each state would be determined by its population of free citizens and slaves. Large states, then, stood to gain the most seats in the Senate. As justification for this advantage, delegates noted that their states contributed more of the nation’s financial and defensive resources than small states, and therefore, required a greater say in government.

Small-state delegates hoped to protect states’ rights within a confederate system of government. Fearing the effects of majority rule, they demanded equal representation in Congress, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation and assumed in William Paterson’s New Jersey Plan. In fact, some framers threatened to withdraw from the convention if a proportional representation measure passed.

Other delegates sought a compromise between large-state and small-state interests. As early as 1776, Connecticut’s Roger Sherman had suggested that Congress represent the people as well as the states. During the 1787 convention, Sherman proposed that House representation be based on the population, while in the Senate, the states would be equally represented. Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate except in matters concerning money. The convention’s grand committee reported his motion, with some modifications, to the delegates early in July. Madison led the debates against Franklin’s measure, believing it an injustice to the majority of Americans, while some small-state delegates were reluctant even to support proportional representation in the House. On July 16, delegates narrowly adopted the mixed representation plan giving states equal votes in the Senate within a federal system of government.

Once delegates established equal representation in the Senate, they needed to determine how many senators would represent each state. State constitutions offered some guidance. Several states designated one senator per county or district, while in Delaware there were three senators for each of the three counties. Convention delegates did not refer to the state precedents in debate, however. Instead, they seemed to take a common-sense approach in deciding the number of senators.

According to constitutional commentator Joseph Story (1779-1845), few, if any, delegates considered one senator per state sufficient representation. Lone senators might leave their state unrepresented in times of illness or absence, and would have no colleague to consult with on state issues. Additional senators, moreover, would increase the size of the Senate, making it a more knowledgeable body, and better able to counter the influence of the House. On the other hand, a very large Senate would soon lose its distinctive membership and purpose, and actually decrease its ability to check the lower house or to allow senators to take personal responsibility for their actions.

Given these considerations, delegates had a limited choice regarding the number of senators. During the convention, they briefly discussed the advantages of two seats versus three. Gouverneur Morris stated that three senators per state were necessary to form an acceptable quorum, while other delegates thought a third senator would be too costly. On July 23, delegates filled in the blank in the proposal offered by Morris and Rufus King: “That the representation in the second branch consist of _____ members from each State, who shall vote per capita.” Only Pennsylvania voted in favor of three senators. When the question turned to two, Maryland alone voted against the measure, not because of the number, but because Martin disagreed with per capita voting, which gave each senator, rather than each state, one vote.

In its final form, the clause in the Constitution is deceptively simple. “The Senate shall be composed of two senators from each state” appears to be a single provision, the designated number of senators per state. Delegates agreed to this number, however, only after they had considered a larger matter: legislative representation. While representation proved to be the most controversial issue in the convention, delegates determined the number of senators quickly and with little dispute.

3/4/2020 5:05 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/4/2020 3:17:00 PM (view original):
So basically, your theory is that the political majority should be determined, not by population, but by surface area?
Can you imagine California ruling over the other 49 states? Hardly seems fair.

Equal representation allows for all states to take part, and to not be at the mercy of just a few states, regardless of population density.

A change would require a large number of states to sign off on it. Good luck with that.

Jefferson had reason to fear a Virginia farmer being in hock to a New York banker. They decided equal representation was the way to go...
3/4/2020 5:18 PM (edited)
Be careful what you wish for. California for many years was a Republican stronghold. One day we may revisit that. You may find yourself on the other side of the argument. Same for the idea of packing the courts. You probably aren't wanting to see Trump increase the number of Supreme Court justices over the next few months...this keeps us somewhere near the middle. If Trump were to go to say 15 justices, Republicans would potentially dominate the court for decades. When it finally shifted, it would likely swing significantly left. The next Democrat could up it to 21, 25 or more...Moderation would go out the window. An all or nothing is probably something to avoid. Neither side would benefit long term.
3/4/2020 5:31 PM (edited)
You also run the risk of some real corruption regarding the vote, having mass movements from state to state if heavily populated states carried all the clout. Our elections could find themselves in crisis. This country is nothing without free and fair elections. Please see the wisdom our forefathers had in setting this up.

Imagine Soros or the Koch Brothers moving millions of people a week prior to the deadline of voter eligibility. It would be a circus.
3/4/2020 5:49 PM (edited)
Gridlock can be a good thing. When there is no consensus, little is accomplished. The logjam eventually works its way free. We avoid sweeping changes that half the electorate don't want. Is probably a good thing to remain within reach of the middle. You risk anarchy without it. Adams feared we would tear ourselves a sunder...

I maintain it to be better for our democracy to survive than our own party to get its way. Winning is not so important...many in Washington are completely lost on this...
3/4/2020 5:41 PM (edited)
After SCOTUS destroyed the Voting Rights Act, Texas closed a bunch of polling places in poorer, minority communities. It showed yesterday
3/4/2020 6:14 PM
That's a ****** thing to do, unless there was a population drop in a specific county, or some valid reason to reduce the number of polling places. There should be a way to challenge this. I support people being able to vote, with their being fairness, not bending the rules to help your side win...

Your argument would need to show who was actually impacted, not just claim bias.

I worked in East Saint Louis for years. Those little old ladies were at the boat several days a week. Their excuse of not being able to get to the Social Security office or to the polling place was a weak *** argument. They were hardly homebound...obviously this was not everyone, but I'm just saying...they managed to drag that oxygen cart behind them just fine to sit at that darned slot machine.
3/4/2020 6:47 PM
Posted by bronxcheer on 3/4/2020 6:14:00 PM (view original):
After SCOTUS destroyed the Voting Rights Act, Texas closed a bunch of polling places in poorer, minority communities. It showed yesterday
it is an astute and pertinent and true statement.
there was great alarm when the voting rights act was ended and predictions about revival of schemes to resytrict voting would begin again.
the id laws effecting millions to catch a handful were started shortly after.
now some of the plans to restrict abortions are starting to be used to restrict voting.

3/4/2020 7:02 PM

One important technical point: the Supreme Court actually left Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – the part of the law that describes how preclearance works – intact. Instead, the Court struck down Section 4, which explains which states and localities are subject to preclearance. If Congress amends Section 4, the Justice Department can start enforcing Section 5 again.

Why does this matter?

Takeaways

While literacy tests are a thing of the past, voting rights advocates say that statutes that limit early voting and registration, require voters to show photo ID, and purge voter rolls still disproportionately affect poor and minority voters.

The Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision also effectively shifted the burden from states to citizens. Before, a state subject to preclearance had to demonstrate that a new voting law was not discriminatory and let voting law experts in the Justice Department evaluate it before it could be implemented. Now it is up to voters to challenge voting laws by filing lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination.

3/4/2020 7:15 PM
I've never understood why you need same day registration. You invite corruption. We always had 90 or 180 day registration in order to be eligible to vote.

If you weren't on the books by then, you had to wait until the next election to vote. Everyone knew it, and abided by it. Hillary said there are rules, we should play by the rules. Or only when convienient? Which is it?
3/4/2020 7:20 PM
I'm against the same voter being on several different county or state voter rolls. Dead people voting should cease. The corrupt, heinous **** needs to stop. You are a corrupt MF if you are against me on this, plain and simple. The left does not hesitate to complain about these closings in the South. You want fair? Fine, but not just when it suits you. If you are not willing, then this will be how the other side will play.

Trump having an eye for an eye ****** Democrats off. He does not roll over and play dead. They aren't used to this from the other side. No wonder they hate him. Ain't it a *****...
3/4/2020 7:33 PM (edited)
Posted by laramiebob on 3/4/2020 11:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by DoctorKz on 3/4/2020 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dino27 on 3/4/2020 10:10:00 AM (view original):
Extremely well said
You can blow it out your ***, welp.

Allow me to expand on my answer. I come on this site and help others routinely. Then I am mercilessly picked apart. Some chime in just to feel a part of something, no matter how pathetic that is. I give you, as Krauthhammer referenced so eloquently, The Deuce.
Not sure how I should take this..........what's up Doc?

Krauthhammer was a serious Patriot........with a capital P!
However, he would absolutely support Dino's right to express his opinion without unhinged attacks based on NOTHING but a discomfort with being so effectively rebutted (Dah's post) and a post agreeing with the opinion of the rebutter!

No WONDER you think Trump is fit to be POTUS!
You're response is as childish as Trump's constant whining about being the ONLY POTUS ever to be doubted and hounded by the media!!
AS IF that was believable!
How old are you............ 8?
ANYBODY over 16 knows that the media hounding our POTUS is their JOB!!
It IS what they should do!
And it IS what they've done for about..........oh what 70 years!!!

Trump IS a retarded 8 year old.
I didn't think you were........... and then you go and reprint a piece of propaganda emailed you without vetting????
POOR excuse!

Sorry Doc, but I still like you and I assure you I WON'T be voting Biden...............nor Trump.
I won't toss my vote away without regard for WHO I'm backing.
NO MATTER the excuse.

Biden MAY BE preferable to Trump.................BUT he's also horridly beholden, full of needless baggage, and borderline (if NOT beyond) senile.
However, HE does seem to actually give a **** about the Country.
The alternative is ONLY about himself, and besides, I think he's sleeping with an agent!!
And I DIDN'T get that concept from the left wing media,.
It's my OWN hunch/speculation.
I'd love to be proved wrong.
And the same thing goes for my opinion of Trump's patriotism..............but I'd bet my life on NOT being wrong about that!
Hey bob, maybe you could tell us how you really feel about Trump? We haven't heard it before.

While you are at it, tell us how often Obama got bashed by the media? Trump gets more in 1 day than Obama got in all of his 8 years. If it is the media's job to hound the President then it should also be there job to praise him when he does something good and also admit and apologize for their mistakes when they are wrong, but that doesn't happen.
Anyone who calls the President a retarded 8 year old shouldn't be voting, regardless of who the President is. 8 year olds make comments like that.
3/4/2020 7:48 PM
◂ Prev 1...21|22|23|24|25...89 Next ▸
operation warped trump Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.