mtutiger

Anybody starting to get the sense that the reaction from the west isn't what Russia was expecting when they started escalating?

Wyoming Rule This would be the best option IMO.... basically, the size of Congressional districts would be based on the smallest possible population for a district, which is Wyoming. Would result in 573 seats, but would be more proportional and would reduce the population of the average district, the hope being better representation for people in those districts.

Also, why should votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia matter more than in the rest of the country?

Even if this were the case (which I don't believe it is), under the current system, don't Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wyoming, both Dakota's, Rhode Island, Delaware, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Maine, West Virginia have to stfu and just accept the President that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia select for them? The current system is what it is, it's not gonna change, but this idea that a national popular vote ***** over the rest of the country more than the EC does, just can't agree with that. I'll admit maybe my perspective is different though because I live in a state where my vote is pretty worthless...

I'd be curious to know myself, but I suspect the answer to this is "yes".

I disagree with you on this one. There are too many voters in the rest of the country to just campaign on the coasts and expect to win an election. The more likely result is that Rs and Ds would be more incentivized to visit places where they don't necessarily excel in order to maximize their margins. You'd see Rs visiting places like California and Ds spending time in places like Omaha or Kansas City or OKC or Little Rock trying to get votes. As opposed to our current system, where candidates spend time in eight states and ignore the rest.

I'd argue that a national popular vote would do a lot more to get parties to campaign in front of people they don't normally cater to given that about 90% of the states are flat out ignored during the general election campaign under this current system

If you are a Democrat living in Overland Park, Kansas, you know. If you are a Republican living in Bakersfield you know. Since you brought up Texas, prior to this past election, I knew ahead of time my vote didn't matter. Its a stupid system for electing Presidents that, in itself, has done a lot of damage and has divided the populace as red states and blue states. If one were starting this experiment from scratch, they'd never consider utilizing it.

Except that isn't what we have... rather, we have a system where your vote only matters in 6-8 states and is irrelevant in the rest.

This seems a little too on the nose...

Rules for thee, not for me... Texas edition

Maybe I'm blind, but for the most part, I don't see the hatred in day to day life. And I work with and interact with people who don't think like me quite a bit. But the internet and social media amplifies a lot of differences. I wish we could go back to simpler times when that wasn't the case.

This seems like a buried lede to me. Unless I'm missing something

To be fair, everyone is in a bubble to varying extents. I tend to think a lot of the focus and discussion on bubbles tends to be pointed at the left, of course (recall the Peggy Noonan excerpt shared a few weeks ago) but there absolutely are right-wing bubbles as well.... Either way, I get that the general lean of the board is what it is and that it's not the most diverse set of opinions out there, especially since November 2016. And yeah, we all need to do a little more to be civil in discussion (something I have really tried working on, especially in this new iteration of the board). I guess my question is, when someone comes onto this board and constantly just talks about how dumb everyone else is and how they don't like America and how they are willing to "sacrifice their country" all because they simply hold a different perspective, should it be that big of a surprise that they don't exactly win back a lot of respect in the process? As I keep saying, it's a two-way street... I'll talk with anyone, but after about the 80th time of being told how terrible and dumb you are and how you hate America because of your views, it starts seeming pretty pointless to engage.

I don't think he's a troll either. My main issue is that you really don't get much of a response when you try to engage in good faith there. Points just get ignored and instead you get a bunch of "Old Man Bad" (see what I did there?) and "Democrats Bad" and "people on the board hate America" and stuff like that. It's a shame really.... you can want to engage in good faith with people of opposing views, but that's a two way street.... and it never really seems constructive with some folks.

fwiw, Rosenthal and Passan did report that they are talking today.

The ECA is pretty clear, and SCOTUS would have enforced it IMO. In terms of the hypothetical above, I'm a lot less clear on what would happen.

I can't really disagree with you on any of this. I just don't think it's a reason to not reform the ECA.

He would have been in violation of the ECA, it would have been litigated, the Supreme Court would have stepped in and the votes would have ultimately counted. My understanding is that the ECA reform is looking to remove any sort of ambiguity on the question in the hopes of preventing a repeat of this from happening again. But I'll admit that I haven't read enough about the reform negotiations beyond that to know completely about the details.

Is it really clear there was anything that could be done on January 6th, 2020 anyway?

I would just add that, in regard to Trump's reasoning on the travel ban and the "it's not against all Muslims, just those countries", I thought one of the most telling lines during his Presidency was the "shithole countries" remark. Not just because he referred to Haiti and African nations as "shithole countries", which is obviously terrible, but it was telling for the more forgotten part of that diatribe, where he lamented that "we should have more people from Norway". It's telling in that the large majority of immigration in the United States has generally happened because those immigrating are trying to escape something.... again, all of my ancestors (who immigrated during various centurites) were trying to escape economic hardship or war. People in Norway? They aren't immigrating because, you know, why the hell would you leave Norway? At best, it's just a fundamental misreading of the history of immigration in the United States... but I don't give Trump the benefit of the doubt on that.

Talk about a false choice... it's not even clear to me that the travel ban stopped any terror attacks from happening. Either way, what I don't get is that, at least in my experience, people who come here don't like their governments and like ours and our way of life better. For some reason, a lot people have trouble separating feelings about the governments of a place like Iran, Libya, etc with people who may want to come here from there. It's punitive against people who may want to come here for the same reason that my ancestors came here for. It's kinda sad and bigoted

The couple of people that I've met who came here from those countries, like most immigrants, appreciate America more than actual Americans do. And they came here because of the opportunity we provide. Maybe, just maybe, don't paint with a broad brush. Just because Trump singled out a country doesn't mean everyone from that country hates us.