[Torus34]

[Quoting myself from another source:]

"Constitutions and charters have a pesky permanence about them. Take, for instance, the UN Charter. It sets up a security council with 5 permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. These five nations were victorious at the end of WWII and, as we know, to the victor belongs the spoils [Ed.: and the writing of history, dude.] In itself, the permanent seats were simply a reflection of the state of things at that time. Permanent seats. But there was one little addition. Each of those 5 nations were given veto power over what would come before the Council. We have seen how that has worked out, and it has not been good in many instances.

"The US Constitution also contains some built-in problems. One is the Electoral College. It was included as a bulwark against the formation of a dictatorship or monarchy through 'the will of the people' in an election. It provided the landed elite with the means to thwart such an event. However, . . . .

"And then there's the section of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. There was concern that the perks which came with having state militias might be decreased by a strong federal army. The annual toll of deaths by gunshot in the United States that resulted was not part of the calculus of purpose.

"It should be noted that the writers of the US Constitution were aware of their own limitations and attempted to form 'a more perfect', as opposed to a perfect, union.

"And so it goes. [A tip-o'-the-hat to the late Mr. Kurt Vonnegut.]"

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[Steve_American]

@Torus34,

They made another error in the US Constitution.

Today we talk about preindustrial times as starting in 1750 in England. So, in 1787 in the US it was still a preindustrial economy, and almost no Americans had any clue about industrialism in England. So, the Founders didn't imagine that today less than 5% of the population would be living on the land. So, they assumed (incorrectly) the the area of a state would be close to proportional to its population. They also didn't realize that many future states would not have much farm land. This is wht we still talk about "small states" when we mean "low Population states". Alaska and Wyoming are not small states compared to New England states, but they have the lowest populations.
. . . So, can we blame them for not realizing that today the 26 lowest population states would contain less tan 20% of the population. [IIRC, aka that 20% is from memory, I think the number is 14%.] Imagine that the industrial revolution had not happened. In this situation hundreds of millions of Americans are not in the population, because we can't feed as many people without modern improvements. So, the states east of the Mississippi R. all have population proportional to the areas, and states west of the river have more people because farm land is covered with people because 90 to 95% of the people live on farms, or near the farms they work on.

Ideally the Senate would be proportional to population also. However, we could propose a compromise, a middle ground. Many are possible.
. . . One might be =>
1] Every state gets 1 Senator minimum. This is for states with 1 to 5 Reps. in the House.
2] States with more Reps. in the House get 1 for the 1st 5, then 1 more for 6 to 10 Reps.
3] States with more than 10 Reps. in the House get 1 for the 1st 5, then 1 more for 6 to 10 Reps, and then 1 more for each block of 10 Reps more than 15. Round any remainder off to nearest.

For example, Wyoming gets 1 Senator for its 1 Rep., and Calif. has about 57 Reps., so it gets 1 for 1-5, and 1 for 6-10, then 4 more for 16-57 Reps for a total of 6 Senators.
. . . If the additional block were also of 5 Reps. each, the Calif gets 11 Senators.

I have not done any math to see what the current size of this Senate would be. Obviously, Calif. has about 57 times more people than Wyoming (actually I did the math and it is about 67 times more), and here it gets just 6 times more Senators, or it gets 11 times more Senators with all blocks being 5 Reps.

If the EC is retained then these numbers are used for it like now. However, a popular vote does have its advantages.
. . . However, imagine the cost and delay of recounting every single vote in every state when the popular vote totals are 50%, 49.6%, and 0.4% for all others. This is why I would suggest that the EC be retained with 1 change. I want to add 2 Electors for every state. They are all given to (or won by) the candidate who got the most popular votes. They are split evenly, if the popular vote totals are separated by 1 percentage point or less, i.e. a tie.
. . . With this change all the voters who didn't win in the state in which they live, are represented by the 100 additional Electors given to the popular vote winner. Parties and candidates will have to try harder in all the states to be sure to win that block of 100 Electors. This block is larger than the largest state. Every vote will matter some. So, people can't not vote when they know their state is a lost cause for their candidate.
. . . This change would have made both Gore and Sec. Clinton be the winner. Clinton with 327 to Trump's 304 EC votes, with 5 faithless electors voting for someone other than Trump and Clinton.

. . . While complicated, this system does do what we want done. It makes every single vote in every state matter some. It gives a massive weight to the popular vote totals. And, it will never require a recount in every state in a very close race.
. . . Functionally, the regular EC vote is just a tie breaker in case there is a "tie" for 1st place.

[Unthinking Majority]

You can amend a constitution. For instance, the 2nd amendment is an amendment

[ckaihatsu]

*Or*, we could just have Trump as dictator-for-life, by executive coup. It's just *easier*. (grin)

[Torus34]

@Steve_American:

The net net of the Electoral College at this time is to make the votes of some 'worth' more that 3 times the 'worth' of others. Gerrymandering also plays a part, making the votes of some essentially worth nothing at all in certain races.

It's worth noting that corporations have worked hard to be given the political status of 'personhood' with regard, say, to 'campaign contributions' [Ed.: or, as seen by some, bribes,] but have eschewed entirely any effort to gain the right to vote. They know, prima facie, that the ROI is miniscule.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[Torus34]

It's worth noting that the drafters of the Constitution of the United States of America made sure that three of the four main components of the federal government -- the Executive branch, the Senate and the Supreme Court -- would remain under the ultimate control of the landed elite. The sole part exempt from such control was the House of Representatives.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[AFAIK]

The electoral college is too dumb to split it's votes in accordance with the popular vote. If 48% of Floridians vote red and 49% vote blue the EC gives 100% of its votes to the blue candidate instead of splitting its votes 50-50 (no other candidate met the threshold for EC votes). If you can't do basic arithmetic then you have no chance of having representation within your elections.

[Steve_American]

@Steve_American:

The net net of the Electoral College at this timeis to make the votes of some 'worth' more that 3 times the 'worth' of others. Gerrymandering also plays a part, making the votes of some essentially worth nothing at all in certain races.

It's worth noting that corporations have worked hard to be given the political status of 'personhood'with regard, say, to 'campaign contributions' [Ed.: or, as seen by some, bribes,] but have eschewed entirely any effort to gain the right to vote. They know, prima facie, that the ROI is miniscule.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

I know the EC college does that as of now, that is why I suggested an amendment to have 2 Electors from each state (now = 2x 50 =100) that added to the current system. The winner of the popular vote gets these 2 new ones, even if the other candidate won in that state. So, if a state currently has 7Reps and 2 Senators = 9 EC electors, with this change that state could send 9 for 1 guy and 2 for the other guy.
. . . In total the winner of the popular vote would get 100 more new EC votes. This would have been enough to have Hillary win in 2016, 327 to 304.

I also know about corp personhood. I posted a reply in the last 3 days on my theory of how this happened. Basically, a USSC clerk inserted a lying cover page onto a USSC decision in the 1880s that functionally revered the ruling. IIRC, the ruling was based on the word "person" in the 14th Amendment. Clearly, it referred to human persons who had been slaves, and not to corporate persons who still were "slaves" of the stockholders.
. . . Later, lawyers used the cover page as the meat of the decision so precedents were set on that basis. When this was pointed out to the USSC it refused to change the precedent for some reason. The Founders rolled over in their graves.
.

[Torus34]

I know the EC college does that as of now, that is why I suggested an amendment to have 2 Electors from each state (now = 2x 50 =100) that added to the current system. The winner of the popular vote gets these 2 new ones, even if the other candidate won in that state. So, if a state currently has 7Reps and 2 Senators = 9 EC electors, with this change that state could send 9 for 1 guy and 2 for the other guy.
. . . In total the winner of the popular vote would get 100 more new EC votes. This would have been enough to have Hillary win in 2016, 327 to 304.

I also know about corp personhood. I posted a reply in the last 3 days on my theory of how this happened. Basically, a USSC clerk inserted a lying cover page onto a USSC decision in the 1880s that functionally revered the ruling. IIRC, the ruling was based on the word "person" in the 14th Amendment. Clearly, it referred to human persons who had been slaves, and not to corporate persons who still were "slaves" of the stockholders.
. . . Later, lawyers used the cover page as the meat of the decision so precedents were set on that basis. When this was pointed out to the USSC it refused to change the precedent for some reason. The Founders rolled over in their graves.
.

Hi again, Steve_American.

Thank you for the added information to this thread.

Best wishes to you and yours.

[ckaihatsu]

I know the EC college does that as of now, that is why I suggested an amendment to have 2 Electors from each state (now = 2x 50 =100) that added to the current system. The winner of the popular vote gets these 2 new ones, even if the other candidate won in that state. So, if a state currently has 7Reps and 2 Senators = 9 EC electors, with this change that state could send 9 for 1 guy and 2 for the other guy.
. . . In total the winner of the popular vote would get 100 more new EC votes. This would have been enough to have Hillary win in 2016, 327 to 304.

I also know about corp personhood. I posted a reply in the last 3 days on my theory of how this happened. Basically, a USSC clerk inserted a lying cover page onto a USSC decision in the 1880s that functionally revered the ruling. IIRC, the ruling was based on the word "person" in the 14th Amendment. Clearly, it referred to human persons who had been slaves, and not to corporate persons who still were "slaves" of the stockholders.
. . . Later, lawyers used the cover page as the meat of the decision so precedents were set on that basis. When this was pointed out to the USSC it refused to change the precedent for some reason. The Founders rolled over in their graves.
.

Industrialization / urbanization / governance in the U.S.

You teach a class?


= D

[ckaihatsu]

I know the EC college does that as of now, that is why I suggested an amendment to have 2 Electors from each state (now = 2x 50 =100) that added to the current system. The winner of the popular vote gets these 2 new ones, even if the other candidate won in that state. So, if a state currently has 7Reps and 2 Senators = 9 EC electors, with this change that state could send 9 for 1 guy and 2 for the other guy.
. . . In total the winner of the popular vote would get 100 more new EC votes. This would have been enough to have Hillary win in 2016, 327 to 304.

I also know about corp personhood. I posted a reply in the last 3 days on my theory of how this happened. Basically, a USSC clerk inserted a lying cover page onto a USSC decision in the 1880s that functionally revered the ruling. IIRC, the ruling was based on the word "person" in the 14th Amendment. Clearly, it referred to human persons who had been slaves, and not to corporate persons who still were "slaves" of the stockholders.
. . . Later, lawyers used the cover page as the meat of the decision so precedents were set on that basis. When this was pointed out to the USSC it refused to change the precedent for some reason. The Founders rolled over in their graves.
.

Besides the historical *legal* snafu, I think we can say that there were / are *social dynamics* that underlie any particular historical *instance* -- like the legal thing you mentioned.

It sounds like you're describing the *Senate* all over again, which is known to be a racist and elitist institution, as with its recent use of the 'filibuster' to preempt any investigation into the white-nationalist attempted coup.

The House passed a bill to launch an independent commission to investigate the events of January 6, 2021, but on May 28, 2021, Senate Republicans blocked the bill with a 54 to 35 vote using the filibuster.[60] This represents 60% of senators present, but not of absolute number of senators, as required by the 1975 rule still in effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuste ... since_2017

[BlutoSays]

Another POS "journalist" shredded.

[ckaihatsu]

Another POS "journalist" shredded.

https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIQ4Vrn1wj4

'Questions' / 'ambiguity' about the 2020 election results -- ? Really?

Btw, here's about some 'extra-electoral activity', shall-we-say:


Ginni Thomas emailed Wisconsin lawmakers, asking them to help overturn 2020 election and 'fight back against fraud'

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/01/politics ... index.html


Oath Keepers attorney has been charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/11206397 ... ye-sorelle


Biden warns US democracy imperiled by Trump and Maga extremists

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -democracy

[late]

Another POS "journalist" shredded.

Because overthrowing a government, and trying to become our Dear Dictator would never, ever divide the country.

[ckaihatsu]

Oh, look, there's a whole *thing* on it -- here's my favorite part, when Trump was *shopping it around* -- (!)

Rosen and his deputy Richard Donoghue resisted the efforts, exchanging emails mocking them, in one case, as "pure insanity."[36][340][341] Rosen later testified to Congress, "During my tenure, no special prosecutors were appointed, whether for election fraud or otherwise; no public statements were made questioning the election; no letters were sent to State officials seeking to overturn the election results; [and] no DOJ court actions or filings were submitted seeking to overturn election results."[342]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_ ... Department

[ckaihatsu]

Smoking gun....

Ellis memos

On New Year's Eve, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows sent a memo drafted by Trump attorney Jenna Ellis to a top Pence aide containing a detailed plan to overturn the election results. The plan entailed Pence returning the electoral results to six battleground states on January 6, with a deadline of January 15 for the states to return them. If any state did not return their electoral slate by that date, neither Trump nor Biden would hold a majority, so the election would be thrown to the House for a vote to determine the winner. Per the Constitution, in such a scenario the vote would be conducted on the basis of party control of state legislatures, with Republicans holding 26 of 50, presumably giving Trump the victory.[336]

Ellis drafted a second memo dated January 5 which she shared with Trump personal attorney, Jay Sekulow. The memo argued that certain provisions of the Electoral Count Act that restricted Pence's authority to accept or reject selected electors were unconstitutional. She proposed that when Pence reached Arizona in the alphabetical order during the certification, he could declare the state's results as disputed and send all the electoral slates back to the states for "the final ascertainment of electors to be completed before continuing." Sekulow did not agree that Pence had such authority.[337]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_ ... llis_memos

[ckaihatsu]

November 2020

On at least one occasion in November 2020, Trump privately acknowledged that he lost the election. Alyssa Farah Griffin, a White House aide to Trump, recalls him exclaiming "Can you believe I lost to this guy?" while watching Biden on television.[175] This, however, was not Trump's public position.

On November 12, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Chris Krebs called the election "the most secure in American history", leading Trump to fire him[176] and Trump attorney Joseph diGenova to call for his execution.[177][178][179]

Emily Murphy, the administrator of the General Services Administration, delayed the start of the presidential transition until sixteen days after most media outlets had projected Biden to be the winner.[180][181]

"Alternate" electors

Main article: Trump fake electors plot

On November 4, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows received a text message calling for an "aggressive strategy" of having the Republican-led legislatures of three uncalled states "just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the [Supreme Court]." This was reportedly sent by Trump's secretary of energy, Rick Perry.[182]

On November 5, Donald Trump Jr. sent a text message to Meadows outlining paths to subvert the Electoral College process and ensure his father a second term. He wrote, "It’s very simple. We have multiple paths. We control them all. We have operational control. Total leverage. Moral high ground. POTUS must start second term now." Trump Jr. continued, "Republicans control 28 states Democrats 22 states. Once again Trump wins," adding, "We either have a vote WE control and WE win OR it gets kicked to Congress 6 January 2021." Biden had not yet been declared the winner at the time of the text.[183]

On November 9, Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, emailed 29 Arizona lawmakers, including Russell Bowers and Shawnna Bolick, encouraging them to pick "a clean slate of Electors" and telling them that the responsibility was "yours and yours alone".[184]

On November 18, James R. Troupis, a lawyer for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, received a memo from Boston attorney Kenneth Chesebro outlining a plan to create and submit alternate slates of electors in contested states. Another memo three weeks later went to Wisconsin and several other contested states. The memos are evidence that within weeks of the election, the Trump campaign was focusing on January 6, 2021 as the "hard deadline" for determining the outcome of the election.[185]

The White House Counsel's Office reportedly reviewed the plans to use alternate electors and deemed them not to be legally sound.[186]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_ ... ember_2020