advertisement


Trump Part 20

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a well known feature of voter behaviour that supporters of a candidate who looks likely to lose are less inclined to vote because of demotivation and, well, who likes to back a loser. So Trump has to convey the message he's going to win even when he knows he's not and he's never been known to shrink from lying.

That dynamic may be kicking in against Trump in WI. The 17% margin reported in the ABC/Wash Post poll this morning is the number among 'likely voters.' Trump voters becoming less likely?
 
Regarding the recent US Supreme Court shenanagans , I read somewhere that the Democrats, if they have a majority in both Congress and the Senate, could increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court to redress the political balance. Does anyone here know if this is true? Presumably the Supreme Court as currently composed couldn't stop this, or could they. Who rules America?
 
Last edited:
Regarding the recent US Supreme Court shenanagans , I read somewhere that the Democrats, if they have a minority in both Congress and the Senate, could increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court to redress the political balance. Does anyone here know if this is true? Presumably the Supreme Court as currently composed couldn't stop this, or could they. Who rules America?

If they retain the House and gain the Senate, they should of course restore the balance of the court asap. The Republicans have just shown them how to use the power if they win it. Then change the absurd electoral systems for all elections (Presidential, Senate and House) to more accurately reflect the popular vote in each case and vastly improve people's ability to vote making it easier, faster and secure.

I think Trump's contention that making elections fair and properly representative would mean no Republican administration would ever be elected is not true, it would however force the Republicans to become electable.
 
I saw something on TV recently that suggested that making major changes wrt elections, voting processes etc requires 2/3 majority to pass and thus was extremely difficult to do much?
 
I saw something on TV recently that suggested that making major changes wrt elections, voting processes etc requires 2/3 majority to pass and thus was extremely difficult to do much?

Well the Supreme court just got a replacement member on a 52-48 Senate vote, so I doubt it applies to all changes. The SC composition is not established AFAIK, certainly not constitutional and if they are worried about 'precedent' there was none for what has just happened. Quite the reverse.

I'm sure the lawyers will have fun with what constitutes 'major'.
 
The number of Supreme Court justices is not written into the US constitution and can be changed by law, passed by simple majorities of both houses of congress and signed by the president. The Electoral College provisions, however, are in the constitution. Change or elimination thus requires a 2/3 majority in each house, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. The last requirement in particular makes elimination of the electoral college virtually impossible, since it would require many smaller states to vote to greatly decrease their political power.
 
The number of Supreme Court justices is not written into the US constitution and can be changed by law, passed by simple majorities of both houses of congress and signed by the president. The Electoral College provisions, however, are in the constitution. Change or elimination thus requires a 2/3 majority in each house, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. The last requirement in particular makes elimination of the electoral college virtually impossible, since it would require many smaller states to vote to greatly decrease their political power.

It's just occurred to me that all the vast sums raised for campaigning is wasted. They need to re-home surplus Democrat voters into low population states with disproportionate college representation and pay them to live there. It will be cheaper and easier. ;)
 
I saw something on TV recently that suggested that making major changes wrt elections, voting processes etc requires 2/3 majority to pass and thus was extremely difficult to do much?
Yes, it was a vague recollection of something like this that made me ask the question.
 
Regarding the recent US Supreme Court shenanagans , I read somewhere that the Democrats, if they have a majority in both Congress and the Senate, could increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court to redress the political balance. Does anyone here know if this is true? Presumably the Supreme Court as currently composed couldn't stop this, or could they. Who rules America?

There's nothing in the Constitution that fixes the number of Supreme Court justices. It's been changed before, although it's been at nine since sometime in the late 19th Century.

Problem is, Biden would have to add FOUR new justices to gain a Liberal majority. Adding two seems reasonable, four would probably alarm significant numbers of the populace.

It would be better to cajole Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito into retiring.

If Trump wins, though, justice Stephen Breyer is 82 years old and if he goes that would let the GOP gain yet another seat at the bench.
 
The number of Supreme Court justices is not written into the US constitution and can be changed by law, passed by simple majorities of both houses of congress and signed by the president. The Electoral College provisions, however, are in the constitution. Change or elimination thus requires a 2/3 majority in each house, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. The last requirement in particular makes elimination of the electoral college virtually impossible, since it would require many smaller states to vote to greatly decrease their political power.

But the present "winner takes all" tradition in the Electoral College is not in the Constitution, that's down to state rules. Two states - Nebraska and Maine - have some level of proportionality to their Electors. But it's unlikely to change unless the GOP and ALEC see it as an advantage to do so.
 
But the present "winner takes all" tradition in the Electoral College is not in the Constitution, that's down to state rules. Two states - Nebraska and Maine - have some level of proportionality to their Electors. But it's unlikely to change unless the GOP and ALEC see it as an advantage to do so.
The unit rule maximizes a state's value as an electoral prize, and thus it's leverage. It won't change much.
 
The unit rule maximizes a state's value as an electoral prize, and thus it's leverage. It won't change much.
It is obviously a flawed system of voting - when the popular vote goes to one candidate but a President is elected through the electoral college system with fewer votes. If the popular vote determined the winner how many republican presidents would have been elected in the last ?? decades?

Lest we forget democracy is meant to represent the will of the people!!
 
It is obviously a flawed system of voting - when the popular vote goes to one candidate but a President is elected through the electoral college system with fewer votes. If the popular vote determined the winner how many republican presidents would have been elected in the last ?? decades?

Lest we forget democracy is meant to represent the will of the people!!

There would have been a lot less Republican presidents if they didn’t cheat.
 
The unit rule maximizes a state's value as an electoral prize, and thus it's leverage. It won't change much.

Particularly the ones with more real estate than people.

I'll post this map again - half the US population live in the colored counties:

z2FQaJX.jpg
 
In other news, dear old Glenn has jumped the shark : https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1321869227226222593
I see this as one of the very few honest investigative journalists left in US mainstream media sadly being forced to leave the publication, rather than accept becoming another unprincipled propagandist regurgitating the narrative dictated by the powerful, as most of the rest of them are.

I could say it baffles me why everyone else wouldn't see it this way too, but it doesn't, it's perfectly understandable, because so many have ended up so brainwashed by the comforting, binary good vs evil narrative pushed by the morally defunct criminals running the US that they see anyone who opposes or exposes or questions it as bad, and anyone who pushes it as good.

President Biden, until he's replaced by President Harris will make sure more money goes to the wealthy and less to everyone else, as all of the Presidents going back decades have, and as all the ones to come will, creating more and more hardship, until such time as enough people realise their country is being raped by the banks, corporations and M.I.C. while the mainstream media keeps them all entrenched, arguing amongst themselves which party, both of which are owned by the banks, corporations and M.I.C., is best.

It's so very sad, but hey, dear old Glenn has jumped the shark, yippee!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top