The Next President is...

[sqwatch]

No way the union will let that tax revenue just go away


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Duck]

I used to live in LA many years ago but hadn't been back. Went into LAX for an interview and was surprised at how third world that place had become...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[hispeed7721]

No way the union will let that tax revenue just go away


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd venture a guess that shedding CA would put the federal balance sheet more towards green, but that's completely unsubstantiated


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Fuzz]

3 hours ago, Duck said:

I used to live in LA many years ago but hadn't been back. Went into LAX for an interview and was surprised at how third world that place had become...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I've driven through just about every state minus the Great Lakes region and California is still the only state where I've gone through an inspection checkpoint to enter the state.

[fire4effect]

Maybe let them rely only on fuel/oil from refineries/production in their own state. With no importation from or through evil red states. I know it's overly simplified but I would be very surprised with the amount of fuel consumed in California that they could meet their own needs.

[HeloDude]

19 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said:

The "dead smurf" map also shows how disadvantaged Democrats are by the Electoral College since they are concentrated in a few geographies.

 

The bottom line is that not all votes are equal - it depends where you live.

2,900,000 votes >> 80,000 votes

80,000 votes in MI, WI, and PA >> 2,900,000 votes anywhere else

If Democrats are so disenfranchised by the EC then how were they able to win in 2008 and 2012?  Try researching the EC vote (i.e. state by state races) since the late 1700's--you'll see that states, elections, etc change with time, and likewise this 'advantage/disadvantage' you speak of.  As you mentioned, Democrats do this to themselves because progressives love living close to other progressives--well, enjoy your progressive states like California, New York, Massachusetts, et, and likewise, enjoy Trump being president.  Besides, I don't recall Democrats in 2009 trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment in Congress when they had large majorities...

And with regards to your assertion that "all votes are not equal"...this is completely false.  Since we have 51 individual state elections for president, all votes in each respective state (or district for Nebraska and Maine) is equal.  

[tk1313]

The problem with #Calexit is that California is actually one of the most beautiful places in the world, and has some of the greatest resources, despite all the liberal hippie bullshit that goes on there... LA would've become just another Chicago or Detroit if it weren't for all the fvcking money being pumped in there by all the A-list movie stars in LA, tourism, etc. And don't get me wrong... LA, despite everything it has going for it, is trying as hard as it can to become the murder capital of the US (if it hasn't already done so). The only thing saving it is the beautiful area, and the enclaves of richer-than-God people that live in the area. So basically, California isn't going to implode as a result of its retarded policies anytime soon...

BUT put all the California dipsh!ts (election protesters) in Kansas for a couple years and see how much they want to secede after that.

Edited December 30, 2016 by tk1313

[HU&W]

9 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Besides, I don't recall Democrats in 2009 trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment in Congress when they had large majorities...

Their majority was only 59% in both houses.  Not enough for a 2/3 supermajority.

[HeloDude]

19 minutes ago, HU&W said:

Their majority was only 59% in both houses.  Not enough for a 2/3 supermajority.

I'm aware.  Just pointing out that they didn't even try to pass a Constitutional Amendment the last time they controlled both houses of Congress and thus controlled the agenda.  Besides, I'm not aware of a Constitutional Amendment ever being passed without bipartisan support, so if it wasn't worth progressives' efforts when they had super majorities then I don't know why they would bring it up now...because surely their current argument can't just be because of politics, right? 

[guineapigfury]

If amendments are your thing: In 2017 the GOP is exactly one state legislature short of being able to call an Article V convention.

[SurelySerious]

Interesting piece, although a conclusion is never really presented.
Quirks of negotiations with Putin https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/12/26/vladimir-lets-make-a-deal/

[HeloDude]

14 hours ago, guineapigfury said:

If amendments are your thing: In 2017 the GOP is exactly one state legislature short of being able to call an Article V convention.

Fingers crossed...then again, I don't see too many proposed amendments that would get 3/4 state legislature support needed for ratification.  This is why I call complete BS on progressives saying they want to change the EC/process for electing president--if progressives really wanted the change they speak of then they would do what is necessary on their end for the best chance possible of it becoming a ratified amendment.  It always comes down to politics and making people feel like victims, so in the end progressives can have more control...populists and conservatives want the same thing.  

[SurelySerious]

Tangentially related to discussions here and the cyber thread:

How to improve and move forward for the fourth estate: https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-the-debate-over-journalism-post-trump-gets-wrong/

[SurelySerious]

I will admit that I haven't read all 23 pages yet, but the TLDR version is these individuals think Trump is in violation of the letter, spirit and intent of the Emoluments clause.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf

I think it's interesting, could have applied just as much to HRC, and will likely be a problem for any high-profile candidate that, for instance, runs a big money charity or philanthropy organization.

[MooseAg03]

Talk about Pandora's box.... There's no limit on what can be brought up a Convention of States.

False. The convention can be structured in such a way that it only focuses on certain amendments or amendments that deal with certain issues. Also, since liberals don't control a majority of state legislatures they would be in the minority at the convention so their agenda would go no where. The legislatures control their state delegations and could recall and replace any members who might exceed the scope of what the convention was meant to address. Keep in mind 3/4 of the states have to ratify any proposed amendments. That means even if a CoS created good amendments (like a balanced budget amendment or ending Supreme Court lifetime terms) they still may not be ratified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HerkPerfMan]

On 12/29/2016 at 3:49 PM, Duck said:

I don't know man, I'm kinda hoping California just kinda falls off into the sea.

Be careful what you wish for - CA has the 6th largest economy in the world and contributes >$300 billion a year to the federal coffers (11%), which we all benefit from. 

On 12/30/2016 at 10:12 AM, HeloDude said:

If Democrats are so disenfranchised by the EC then how were they able to win in 2008 and 2012?  Try researching the EC vote (i.e. state by state races) since the late 1700's--you'll see that states, elections, etc change with time, and likewise this 'advantage/disadvantage' you speak of.  As you mentioned, Democrats do this to themselves because progressives love living close to other progressives--well, enjoy your progressive states like California, New York, Massachusetts, et, and likewise, enjoy Trump being president.  Besides, I don't recall Democrats in 2009 trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment in Congress when they had large majorities...

And with regards to your assertion that "all votes are not equal"...this is completely false.  Since we have 51 individual state elections for president, all votes in each respective state (or district for Nebraska and Maine) is equal.  

2008 and 2012 were not exactly close elections with Obama getting 7.2% and 3.9% victory margins, respectively, in the popular vote and hefty EC victories. No disagreement between popular and EC votes, which is the expected outcome and has been true for all but 5 of 58 presidential elections. So why spend political capital messing with it? But when a candidate wins the popular vote by a 2.1% margin and handily loses the EC, don't you think that disconnect disenfranchises voters and subverts the "will of the people"? I'm not disputing the outcome of the election - Trump won fair and square according to the Constitutional rules, period. But that wasn't who a plurality of our nation voted for. I would be making the same argument if the tables were turned.

Of course voting trends, opinions, the number of states, and political parties themselves change over time. Democrats are disenfranchised by the EC right now. That could easily swing the other way but the key point is that VOTERS are disenfranchised over the long term. I did not wake up on November 9 and decide the EC was bad - I just had more substantiation for that opinion.

My assertion that "all votes are not equal" is demonstrably true. See previous comment and outcome of 5 previous elections over the last 200 years. Yes, there are 51 separate elections in 50 states and DC, but the assignment of electors is based on House seats (population) plus 2 (for 2 senators per state) and they are winner-take-all except 2 states. Since the presidency is a NATIONAL office decided by a NATIONAL election, shouldn't the NATIONAL vote decide the outcome? I would also argue that the national popular vote would make our election process more resilient and prevent targeted tampering/influencing from swaying the overall outcome - something that I think will see more of in the future.

An end-run around a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC is already underway: 10 states and DC have signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would allow each state to award their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote, rather than the state's individual popular vote. I'm not sure I agree with that arrangement - it would make more sense to assign state electors based on the state's vote distribution rather than winner-take-all.

[tk1313]

Sorry, but I don't even want to hear talk of a popular vote until we raise the abysmal voter turnout way higher. Also, what happens if the popular vote reveals that all those people in California and New York who didn't vote were all Republicans? Maybe they didn't vote because they know their state/county is going to go blue anyways. Obviously that's a long shot, but are we going to keep flipping which vote is more important based on who decides to b1tch loudest at the time?

The popular vote seems more like mob rule than "will of the people" right now.

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said:

when a candidate wins the popular vote by a 2.1% margin and handily loses the EC, don't you think that disconnect disenfranchises voters and subverts the "will of the people"?

My assertion that "all votes are not equal" is demonstrably true.

An end-run around a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC is already underway: 10 states and DC have signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would allow each state to award their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.....

all votes are equal..... within their state.  States are not given equal representation nationally, they are represented according to population.  "The will of the people" is not as simple as you are making it sound because the United States is, well, states that decided to unite.  Why should the entire center of the country be marginalized because CA & NY share similar values?

What you are talking about is restructuring the foundational philosophy of this country.  If you are going to do something that big, it should be via constitutional amendment.  Think carefully about an end-run around the correct process: it means the majority of a state can vote one way and the EC can disregard the will of those people in favor of the people's will in other states.  That is the definition of institutionalized disenfranchisement, a historic fomenter of civil war.

[RTB]

IMO, any talk about disenfranchisement because the popular vote was opposite the EC vote is pointless.  Yes, the losing side is upset and understandably, but they have to acknowledge the facts.  This election outcome was a direct result of the campaign plan and execution by both candidates.  The Donald and his team campaigned to win the EC, NOT necessarily to win the popular vote.  Campaigning to win the popular vote would have looked very different.   And likely would have resulted in a significantly different number of voters turning out to vote since they would know their vote would count in hard left states like CA and NY.

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Sorry, but I don't even want to hear talk of a popular vote until we raise the abysmal voter turnout way higher. Also, what happens if the popular vote reveals that all those people in California and New York who didn't vote were all Republicans? Maybe they didn't vote because they know their state/county is going to go blue anyways. Obviously that's a long shot, but are we going to keep flipping which vote is more important based on who decides to b1tch loudest at the time?

The popular vote seems more like mob rule than "will of the people" right now.

One quick fix I'd like to see goes like this:

Say you live in a state that has 55 electoral votes, but only 44% of the eligible electorate turns out, well you get 44% of 55 electoral votes counted. Live in a state that doesn't give an F about voting or what's going on, or one that is so lopsided lots of voters don't turn out? Cool. You just get a proportionally moderated voice in the national election.

[Naviguesser]

I may be alone here, but I actually think a depressed voter turnout is not necessarily a bad thing.  Have you met most people?  I don't want the typical ill-informed American citizen voting.  If they're too lazy/preoccupied to educate themselves on issues and current events, then they don't need to be casting votes.  Let the people who actually pay attention have more of a say.  If others choose to disenfranchise themselves, then I say let them be.

[Guest]

One quick fix I'd like to see goes like this:
Say you live in a state that has 55 electoral votes, but only 44% of the eligible electorate turns out, well you get 44% of 55 electoral votes counted. Live in a state that doesn't give an F about voting or what's going on, or one that is so lopsided lots of voters don't turn out? Cool. You just get a proportionally moderated voice in the national election.

What if in California 120% of the eligible electorate turns out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HerkPerfMan]

20 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Sorry, but I don't even want to hear talk of a popular vote until we raise the abysmal voter turnout way higher. Also, what happens if the popular vote reveals that all those people in California and New York who didn't vote were all Republicans? Maybe they didn't vote because they know their state/county is going to go blue anyways. Obviously that's a long shot, but are we going to keep flipping which vote is more important based on who decides to b1tch loudest at the time?

The popular vote seems more like mob rule than "will of the people" right now.

This is exactly what happens now. Republican voters in CA, NY, and IL are not heard since all of their electoral votes go blue and it most likely depresses their turnout. With a national popular vote or proportional EC, every Republican vote in CA would actually count - so would every Dem vote in Alabama.

17 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

The Federal Government provides roughly $343 Billion dollars a year to California through a total of grants and services. CA receives the largest amount of any state in the union, by a significant margin.

In 2016, federal funds consisted of 36% of CA's state budget. That's insane. Don't forget that California has the "wall of debt" that's somewhere above $440 billion dollars. Of that, around $8 billion is money owed directly to the Federal Government. The rest are outstanding obligations to pensions and the variety of state and municipal bonds that CA/Dems seems to love so much. Those bonds are state-insured. You take the Federal Government and the backing of the US Dollar away and all of a sudden those bonds are even less likely to be paid off, meaning a default is that much more likely. 

Listen. It was bad enough when the nation's credit analysts a few years back said the chances of CA defaulting were one in five. Take away the rest of the union and you're essentially up shit creek without a paddle.

Speaking of Alabama, which is a reliably red state and voted 62% for Trump, let's see how it stacks up on federal give-and-take: The Federal Government provides roughly $60 billion annually to AL (includes the same grants, services, and direct payments as your total for CA) and direct federal funds account for 36% of AL's state revenue (about $8 billion). And AL contributes only $19 billion back to the feds. While the dollar totals for CA are greater, it is also the most populous state in the union and it takes roughly the same as it gives.

Look, I'm not trying to defend anything about CA - I've never lived there, never want to. My point is that we can look at these numbers for every state and find blue states that give more than they take and red states that take more than they give. And they all rely on federal money in their budgets no matter how much they like to bash the feds.

17 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

"All votes are equal" is a nice catch phrase but it is unfortunately impossible unless you're talking about a direct democracy, and that's something that was explicitly absent from the Constitution.

Simply? No.

The President (and this nation, if we're being honest) is a unique mix of state's rights and federal powers. The President is actually elected by the states in our electoral system, not by the general public. This idea of state rule was even more clear when one looks back before the seventeenth amendment. Bottom line, the President is the President of the United States.

This is a good point and highlights the role of states' right in the presidential election and EC - thanks for adding it to the discussion. I would counter that the 17th amendment was a clear move toward direct democracy, by instituting statewide direct election of senators. Wouldn't the next step on that path be direct election of the only federal office? And isn't "all votes are equal" a worthy goal? But where would that leave consent from the states? That's why I think keeping the EC and changing it to a proportional distribution of electors would maintain the state/fed mix while minimizing the chance of a disconnect between the EC and national popular vote results.

14 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

all votes are equal..... within their state.  States are not given equal representation nationally, they are represented according to population.  "The will of the people" is not as simple as you are making it sound because the United States is, well, states that decided to unite.  Why should the entire center of the country be marginalized because CA & NY share similar values?

What you are talking about is restructuring the foundational philosophy of this country.  If you are going to do something that big, it should be via constitutional amendment.  Think carefully about an end-run around the correct process: it means the majority of a state can vote one way and the EC can disregard the will of those people in favor of the people's will in other states.  That is the definition of institutionalized disenfranchisement, a historic fomenter of civil war.

I agree - changes to letter and spirit of the Constitution require an amendment. To be clear, I am not personally advocating for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. But it is certainly relevant to this discussion. My personal preference would be to keep the EC but award each states electors as percentages of the state's popular vote, rather than winner-take-all or apportioned by congressional district since we all know those are gerrymandered to hell nationwide.

13 hours ago, RTB said:

IMO, any talk about disenfranchisement because the popular vote was opposite the EC vote is pointless.  Yes, the losing side is upset and understandably, but they have to acknowledge the facts.  This election outcome was a direct result of the campaign plan and execution by both candidates.  The Donald and his team campaigned to win the EC, NOT necessarily to win the popular vote.  Campaigning to win the popular vote would have looked very different.   And likely would have resulted in a significantly different number of voters turning out to vote since they would know their vote would count in hard left states like CA and NY.

Absolutely it would change the way presidential campaigns are planned and executed. And I absolutely agree that voters in every state would be energized to participate, even in hard right and left states, because they will have an actual impact.

2 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:

What if in California 120% of the eligible electorate turns out?

That only happens in IL. We're proud that our cemeteries have the highest turnout in the nation.

[tk1313]

19 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

The President (and this nation, if we're being honest) is a unique mix of state's rights and federal powers. The President is actually elected by the states in our electoral system, not by the general public. This idea of state rule was even more clear when one looks back before the seventeenth amendment. Bottom line, the President is the President of the United States.

THIS. But if anyone is looking for a participation trophy, I think a nice trial run would be giving Clinton control of (1) every state north of Penn., (2) every state on the west coast except for California (geographically about even), and Chicago... The trial will last 8 years and everyone's a winner!

[MooseAg03]

Direct democracy is exactly what the framers were trying to avoid with how they structured the Constitution. I would argue we should go back to electing Senators by state legislatures. With 32 states under Republican control, you can see how that would change the national Senate's composition today. And this isn't just because I'd like to see more Republican senators (I think both parties are hopelessly lost) but I think it would give the states a greater voice in Washington as was originally intended. Senators would then be accountable to the state legislature, and states could even choose to recall Senators if they become too entrenched and loyal to Washington instead of who put them there. This would also help to decrease the effect of densely populated urban areas in Senate representation, which was another reason for indirect election in the first place. The founders believed the Senate was the higher house, and wanted to trust choosing those who serve there to state legislators who could/should have greater discernment in who they chose. The framers were much smarter than I, and I believe if our state reps were electing our Senators, people might care a little more about those elections closer to home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk