Hodad

You said it, yet you can't explain how giving a person in one state 3x more voting power than a person in another state is "leveling." You can't make the rational argument. Because it's not leveling. Literally, it's doing the opposite.

Dude, how much "logic" do you need to understand that he was a Republican? That's a plain fact. A matter of record. You know not all Republicans like Trump, right? If you want to speculate about why this particular Republican took a shot at Trump, you're welcome to speculate.

You people aren't rational. Who knows why you do what you do? Perhaps he was one of those old fashioned republicans who was pissed about the coup attempt? Nevertheless, he was certainly a Republican, and by reports seemingly sincere about it.

No fantasy, weirdos. He was a Republican. And there's quite a bit of information available. Interviews with classmates and co-workers. FBI reports about his social media activity, etc. You guys are so nutty, thinking an 18-year old is playing 16D chess, registering as a republican to conduct false flag operations if Trump decided to run again. 🤪

Maybe you should advocate for a law to keep guns away from young Republicans?

Yeah, that movie is surprisingly prescient. Remember how absurd it seemed at the time that it would be possible to elect a bombastic know-nothing professional wrestling TV personality? Ah, but how naive we were to think it could never happen. And now the spelling to match.

No, you didn't. And you can't. It's a vestigial feature from a bygone era that is functionally broken and at this point only does more harm to our political system. There is no justification for a Wyoming resident to have 3x more say in who becomes POTUS than an "all created equal" citizen of CA.

The POTUS is only one job in the government. The house and senate are elected as always without the EC. Is there any logical reason why this one role should not be elected by a popular vote? One job. Shouldn't it go to the person supported by the most Americans? In most cases: If someone runs for governor, they must win at least a plurality of votes. If someone wins for mayor, they must win at least a plurality of votes. If someone runs for dogcatcher, they must win at least a plurality of votes. But for some reason some people still think that a candidate who receives fewer votes moves in the Oval Office.

I'm sure Don Jr. really earned it.

Over having to suffer the terrible indignity of equal voting power in presidential elections? Sure. Except that they'd never do that, because they are net takers. They depend on the rest of the US to sustain them.

You know what's happened since then? All of those 3/5 of a people have been upgraded to whole people in terms of representation. And that was almost 150 years before the reapportionment act capped the size of the house, radically exacerbating the imbalance. We've now reached the point where every presidential election is a question of EV vs popular votes. It's happening more frequently and it's a question every election. It's a system that no longer serves a purpose or the people. That's why a healthy majority of Americans want it abolished.

Lol. Not sure how you can quote the words and still not grasp the basic implications. Let's make it simple. Each state automatically gets 2 senators, and the the number of representatives based on population (currently over 700K per district, IIRC). So a minimum of 3 electoral votes. If a state has 300 people in it 3/300= 100 votes per EC vote If a state has 3000 people in it. 3/3000 = 1000 votes per EC vote Each individual voter in the small state in this example has 10x the influence on the presidential election than voters in the more populous state. When representation used to scale with population this wasn't such a problem, but the reapportionment cap at 435 seats in the house (completely arbitrary, btw) the problem is getting worse and worse. This was NOT the plan when the constitution created the electoral college. It's not in the constitution. And the EC is now broken because of it. Again, back to real world examples. A resident of Wyoming should not have 3-4 times the voting influence on POTUS election than a resident of CA. It's fundamentally wrong.

You have that backward. The smaller states get proportionally larger votes, because the senate delegation is not based on population. There absolutely is a disparity. And you know it. There's just one president for the country. That person should at lest start their term with the support of a majority of Americans.

No, they really don't. And to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Because of the EC, the votes in less populous states are weighted to be worth more--more decisive--in picking the POTUS. That rancher in WY has about 3.6x as much influence on the presidential election as the developer in CA. There's no justice in that. And at this point it means that we're regularly electing a POTUS that the majority of Americans don't want.

No, let's let the people of the nation elect the president. One person, one vote.

Great. Just one more way that Walz is better aligned with and better representative of the American people, 63% of whom want the same thing. One person, one vote. A rancher in Wyoming should have the same voice as a dev in San Francisco.

It has 100 percent done the opposite--at least for generations that are not digitally native. They have no natural immunity to misinformation. No ability to evaluate sources or tune out the nonsense. I'm hoping the young people can save us. You know, when they're not trying to get views on TikTok.

It's definitely highly contagious. You see what your fellow Canadians post on this board. They're lining up to promote and defend the indefensible.

Republicans get crazier every year. I don't know how thinking people can continue to identify with that party. There are plenty of intelligent conservatives out there, but these absolute nutters are the other half of the base. That should be more than enough cause to rethink one's positions and allegiances.

Wow. If Trump gets elected (shudder) his shitty bibles will be tariffed to double the cost at $120.🙄

Lol. They were crimes, you weirdo. What he did was quite plainly illegal. You can whine about the window for the statute of limitations being extended (broadly, not just for Trump) but that's rather petty and pointless. It's a done deal and he did commit the crimes. You just don't like your hero being held accountable for his actions.

Out for a little Gish gallop to blow off some steam? ^^This is what happens when you can't get laid, folks. Just raw incel energy released in a rambling, unfocused hate-gasm.

@WestCanMan does not seem to know what an opinion piece is. Just because a diversity of opinions are encouraged in a publication does not mean the publication (in this case it would be the editorial board) has "called" Harris anything. And, in fact, the OpEd does not "call" Harris anything. Frankly, it's more of a political messaging critique than an economic argument. There are real issues underlying a poorly articulated policy point.

Well now that you've "confessed" to being educated, you've lost your audience.

I think the wildcard this year is turnout among the youth vote (and to a lesser degree, women) who are by all appearances significantly motivated to turn out and rebuke Trumpism. I suspect (and certainly hope) that turnout for both groups is underestimated in the same way that women were underestimated on midterm ballot issues. Trump is just so farking gross, the way he talks about and treats women, the attack on reproductive rights, LGBTQ issues, etc. And these are kids that grew up doing active shooter drills in their classrooms. Trump's message of hate, personal grievance and vendetta is a huge turn off and I don't think it's going to sell. In 2016, people gave him the benefit of the doubt that his actions wouldn't be as extreme as his rhetoric. Now we know that isn't true and I think those two groups in particular are really looking for a "new way forward."