Hodad

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."

"Waaaah! There aren't enough pictures in this book!" You're a buffoon. ^^Look, repolitics.com just called you a buffoon.

Trump did all of those things, no? You care to dispute any of those facts? If Trump did those things, how are they not to his credit or his blame? Again, Biden had two choices at that point. Surge 20K or 30K troops back in Afghanistan or try to get the final 2500 out as cleanly as possible. That's it. Those are Biden's choices. I think he made the right choice, but perhaps you think we should have revived the war in Afghanistan?

1. The wall is and always has been silly. 2. Total fiction 3. The fedgov has no control over state and local law enforcement policies--and there are sensible reasons that sanctuary cities have elected that approach. 4. Maybe, done sensibly and humanely. No sense tossing out productive and valuable members of our society.

Lol. So the Trump administration: 1. Signed the surrender deal excluding the Afghan government. 2. Gave the Taliban back 5000 of their fighters. 3. Withdrew 90% of American troops and let the Taliban start storming back across the country. 4. Gave Biden just 2500 troops and a middle finger And you think that just because Trump lost the election all of that becomes Biden's fault?🙄

That's really not true. There was no requirement that the Taliban "behave itself." Trump's deal completely excluded the Afghan government, essentially ceding the country to the Taliban. They agreed not to kill American troops, but it was open season on the Afghan army. He gave the Taliban back 5000 captured fighters, and before the ink was dry the Taliban was attacking and retaking territory. And Trump still withdrew the troops. There was no "behaving themselves." That's how easy it was to give away the gains of 20 years, $2 trillion, and thousands of US lives. By the time Biden took office with just 2500 troops in country and the Taliban storming the country, he had three choices. 1. Try to manage the final 10% of the withdrawal without completely abandoning our Afghan allies to collapse. (Not feasible.) 2. Just put everybody on a plane with no cleanup (and there was a LOT to clean up) 3. Surge Troops back in and try to re-take what Trump gave away. ^^There's really no good choices there. It's like if you walk into a room and someone hands you a flaming bag of shit. Sure, you technically have a choice what you do with it, but no matter what you do it's going to be unpleasant and messy. Biden wanted out--had wanted out for a decade, but he might have managed things differently--and would truly have owned the choice and process--if it weren't 90% done by the Trump administration. Typically, Trump wants all of the credit for "ending" the war in Afghanistan, but none of the blame from the manner in which he did it.

The Trump administration signed the surrender agreement, dummy. And then Trump withdrew nearly all the troops. ^^ Two facts. Not that you're familiar with the concept of being informed by facts. He actually promised the world he'd have them all home by Christmas, but like most things, he couldn't get the job done, and left 2500 troops for Biden to withdraw--and an empowered Taliban storming across the country.

Nah, I've stopped trying to reconcile why your feelings are so wildly misaligned with reality. I just chalk it up to your advanced age and basic education.

No, you don't know. You have your own myopic view and your "feelings," but you've demonstrated over and over again that you have neither interest in nor facility for research and data. And no, as always, Trump signed the surrender agreement and withdrew 90% troops, and left Biden holding the bag for the last 2500 troops--not enough to defend themselves, let alone the country. Much like the economy, Trump left the Afghan withdrawal in a precarious situation, and then complained about the guy who had to clean up his mess. And you'd like us to do it all over again.🙄

You think the polls are going to "react" to a campaign rally? 😵‍💫

Apparently you're not into all that fancy "book learnin'" but you simply couldn't be more wrong. Historically (since WWII) the economy fares significantly better under Democrats than under Republicans. GDP grows faster, jobs grow faster, upward mobility increases, the stock market is dramatically better. These are numbers that your (hypothetically) could look up for yourself. Data. Plain, hard facts. There is no way any reasonable person could look at the record of the two parties and think that Republicans are the party of the economy. That's pure partisan fantasy, mostly around the debunked but persistently dogmatic belief in supply side economics. Like Trump's strong, decisive surrender to the Taliban?