Glass Ceiling has been smashed!

[MU82]

You have no basis for this statement other than hubris and angst.

There was a similar emotional outcry in 1980 when Dutch was elected. What America got over the next 8 years was some of the more inspiring and effective leadership  we have ever enjoyed as a nation.

In November 1980 the prime rate was over 20%, unemployment was double digits, our military capability had been gutted, Soviet expansionism was a reality, and a third rate power had seized sovereign American soil and was holding our embassy staff hostage.

Before the end of that decade both the prime lending rate and unemployment were below 4%, our nation's military had been rebuilt, and the Berlin Wall came down as the Soviet Union crumbled.

Our hostages were released by Iran as Dutch Reagan was being sworn in. Apologists would have you believe it was one final dig at Carter by the mullahs. Far more likely, they feared the new CinC as a man of commitment and righteousness.

People saw Reagan's election as a sign of the Apocalypse; those same folks, and fellow travelers, are saying that once more. As Dutch Reagan once said, "Now there you go again."

You and I have had a lot of interesting conversations, Crash, and you know I respect you.

I agree with the spirit of what you say here and in your earlier post. I am not ashamed to be an American but I do believe this election was an embarrassment for America. I think there is a difference between those two things.

The process was manipulated by, among others, Russian hackers, a vindictive Wikileaks honcho, an Access Hollywood video and a clueless FBI director. And the American people elected a vile human being with a hair trigger.

I disagreed with many of Reagan's policies, but he was an honorable man with vision who cared more about America than about himself. That's about as polar opposite to Trump as one can get.

When Carter had a lead in the polls over Reagan, Reagan never threatened to withhold support for the winner, never threatened to bring the system to its knees, never called the system rigged.

IMHO, Reagan would be spinning in his grave to have Trump compared to him in any kind of positive light.

[Pakuni]

If it weren't for the electoral college the smaller states would get zero attention.  Presidents would make sure that California and New York get everything they want, and f*ck North Dakota with their measly 400,000 voters.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.
More seriously, though, presidents already ignore smaller states like North Dakota. Trump or Hillary didn't exactly spend a lot of time campaigning in Fargo and Bismarck.
Also, states like North Dakota already have disproportionate representation in the legislature. They'd do just fine without the  disproportionate representation in the electoral college.

[muwarrior69]

I'd be interested to see modeling of how this would look.  I honestly don't know.  Would it just end up mirroring the house?  It would be interesting to see what would happen in some of the states that the parties count on.  California wouldn't be an auto 55 for Dems, and Texas wouldn't be an auto 38 for the GOP.

Perhaps, but voters do split their ticket. A Republican could win the district while the Democrat won the Pesidency in that same district. I think one concern is that wards in some states cross congressional districts which would present a challenge in counting.

[Pakuni]

I think one of the biggest issues with relying on  a pure popular vote would be a complete focus on cities.  Politicians would pander to the cities and the term "flyover country" would take on a whole new meaning.

Not necessarily.
Of the 30 largest U.S. metro areas, 14 are in states won by Trump.

[Galway Eagle]

You say that as if it's a bad thing.
More seriously, though, presidents already ignore smaller states like North Dakota. Trump or Hillary didn't exactly spend a lot of time campaigning in Fargo and Bismarck.
Also, states like North Dakota already have disproportionate representation in the legislature. They'd do just fine without the  disproportionate representation in the electoral college.

This

I think one of the biggest issues with relying on  a pure popular vote would be a complete focus on cities.  Politicians would pander to the cities and the term "flyover country" would take on a whole new meaning.

Because there are less people. Look if your views are the minority you shouldn't get to control the highest office, that's just not how a realistic democracy works. If you want to keep the electoral college that's perfectly fine but then we have to stop pretending we're the gold standard of democracy and equality because that's simply not true.

[forgetful]

Difficult problem to fix.  But, you should recognize that the point you're making could be viewed as diminishing the impact of the popular vote argument.  How many Trump supporters in Illinois didn't bother to vote?  New York?  California?  How many Clinton supporters stayed home in Texas?  Missouri?  Determining who would win in a popular vote isn't really as simple as just looking at the popular vote.  People vote based on the rules in place.  As you've pointed out, that removes the incentive to vote for some people in states that are clearly leaning one way or the other.

Tricky statement.  We could also say, how many Hillary supporters stayed home in WI, Michigan and Pennsylvania because they thought the election there was safe.  How many Hillary supporters stayed home in CA, NY, WA because they knew she would win.  How many Trump voters stayed home in TX, how many ran out to vote, because they were convinced they could flip Michigan, WI and Pennsylvania. 

Popular vote, electoral college, they will all have the problems of people not going out to vote because they think the election was already decided.  That was a contributing factor to Brexit and this election.  Today there is a lot of regret in WI, Michigan and Pennsylvania amongst people that didn't vote, because they thought Hillary had already won those states.

[#UnleashSean]

that's just not how a realistic democracy works.

America is not a democracy. It's a representative Republic.

[MU82]

I wish to join the many here thanking the mods for letting this go on.

We all need a place to vent or kibbitz or postulate or whatever after such an incredible election campaign.

And I second those who request we keep it civil and keep it to this thread.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

You and I have had a lot of interesting conversations, Crash, and you know I respect you.

I agree with the spirit of what you say here and in your earlier post. I am not ashamed to be an American but I do believe this election was an embarrassment for America. I think there is a difference between those two things.

The process was manipulated by, among others, Russian hackers, a vindictive Wikileaks honcho, an Access Hollywood video and a clueless FBI director. And the American people elected a vile human being with a hair trigger.

I disagreed with many of Reagan's policies, but he was an honorable man with vision who cared more about America than about himself. That's about as polar opposite to Trump as one can get.

When Carter had a lead in the polls over Reagan, Reagan never threatened to withhold support for the winner, never threatened to bring the system to its knees, never called the system rigged.

IMHO, Reagan would be spinning in his grave to have Trump compared to him in any kind of positive light.

Friends in Canada have been contacting my wife and I and are worried what will happen with the US-Canada relations and also inquiring if we want relocation information.
My Polish in-laws are pissed and think they're screwed and have to fight "Russia" now because Putin thinks Trump won't honor NATO.

[StillAWarrior]

Tricky statement.  We could also say, how many Hillary supporters stayed home in WI, Michigan and Pennsylvania because they thought the election there was safe.  How many Hillary supporters stayed home in CA, NY, WA because they knew she would win.  How many Trump voters stayed home in TX, how many ran out to vote, because they were convinced they could flip Michigan, WI and Pennsylvania.

Absolutely.  That's precisely my point.  In fact, it's pretty much what I said.  Just looking at the raw vote popular numbers is misleading -- or, rather, it might be.  They might represent what would have happened if everyone would have been motivated and able to go out and vote.  Then again, they might not.  It's impossible to know.  The only way the popular vote numbers will be able to reliably show who has the most popular support is if everyone knows going into the election that is what is going to happen.  Trump might have performed better if the popular vote was picking the president.  Hilllary might have performed better.  We'll never know.

[real chili 83]

Does the new majority have the ability to redistrict, or is that done per a set schedule?

[mikekinsellaMVP]

Absolutely.  That's precisely my point.  In fact, it's pretty much what I said.  Just looking at the raw vote popular numbers is misleading -- or, rather, it might be.  They might represent what would have happened if everyone would have been motivated and able to go out and vote.  Then again, they might not.  It's impossible to know.  The only way the popular vote numbers will be able to reliably show who has the most popular support is if everyone knows going into the election that is what is going to happen.  Trump might have performed better if the popular vote was picking the president.  Hilllary might have performed better.  We'll never know.

Interesting question -- would switching from electoral to popular vote fundamentally change voter turnout/apathy?

[GGGG]

Clearly the population distribution amongst states no longer reflects the electoral votes each has to give. 

Since it is in part based on the number of Representatives each state has, and since that is based on population, it is most certainly reflective.

[Pakuni]

Does the new majority have the ability to redistrict, or is that done per a set schedule?

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, after the census. Won't happen again until 2021.

[CTWarrior]

Since it is in part based on the number of Representatives each state has, and since that is based on population, it is most certainly reflective.

But adding the two extra electoral votes to each state skews the value of individual votes in favor of the residents of smaller states.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Does the new majority have the ability to redistrict, or is that done per a set schedule?

I don't think so.  I think they can only redistrict after the 10-year census or if the court orders redistricting for some reason like Florida in 2016.  I think the Dems just picked up 4 Congressional seats in Florida after a court ordered redistricting for some legal reason.

[CTWarrior]

I don't think so.  I think they can only redistrict after the 10-year census or if the court orders redistricting for some reason like Florida in 2016.  I think the Dems just picked up 4 Congressional seats in Florida after a court ordered redistricting for some legal reason.

Connecticut re-districted to insure the one congressional district that regularly elected a Republican was split up so that stopped happening after the last census.

[HouWarrior]

Since it is in part based on the number of Representatives each state has, and since that is based on population, it is most certainly reflective.

One could argue the least populated states have disproportional electoral votes as:
Every state gets at least three electoral votes, because a state's number of electors is identical to the total number of its senators and representatives in Congress. Seven states have the minimum three electors.
Washington, D.C., also has three electoral votes, due to the 23rd Amendment, which gave the nation's capital as many electors as the state with the fewest electoral votes.

[jficke13]

Connecticut re-districted to insure the one congressional district that regularly elected a Republican was split up so that stopped happening after the last census.

Gerrymandering is an old old practice in this country. Nothing new about that at all.

[Benny B]

I'm sorry but I cannot square compulsory voting with the 1st amendment. The state cannot compel speech. Voting is speech. Not-voting is speech.  Therefore, the state cannot compel voting (or use state-action to punish someone for failing to show up and saying they are abstaining).

This isn't a close legal question either. If people are serious about compulsory voting, that would require a constitutional amendment.

Then amend the god damn constitution if you have to.  It's about time we updated our laws.  Fix the bear arms thing and throw something in about abortion if you want.  Just fu@king fix it.

But I disagree that voting is speech. For one, it's done in private. Two, nobody said you have to vote for a candidate on the ballot, vote for Mickey Mouse or Mia Khalifa if you want.  Or write in Monty Brewster.

If voting is speech, then so are income taxes, and last I checked, those were pretty compulsory, too.

Besides, tell me this.... what the hell is wrong with counting every voter instead of every vote?

[real chili 83]

Gerrymandering is an old old practice in this country. Nothing new about that at all.

we got dumped into St. Paul after the last redistricting.  It currently sucks.

[muwarrior69]

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, after the census. Won't happen again until 2021.

...and is done at the state level by the state legislatures, Govenor or state commission or combination. Congress has no say in redistricting.

[muwarrior69]

If it weren't for the electoral college the smaller states would get zero attention.  Presidents would make sure that California and New York get everything they want, and f*ck North Dakota with their measly 400,000 voters.

You just confirmed my original post.

[Benny B]

You just confirmed my original post.

Speaking of fu@king states... I can't wait for South Park tonight.

[Blackhat]

Friends in Canada have been contacting my wife and I and are worried what will happen with the US-Canada relations and also inquiring if we want relocation information.
My Polish in-laws are pissed and think they're screwed and have to fight "Russia" now because Putin thinks Trump won't honor NATO.

Nobody really knows what Trump will do which is a deterrent in itself.   He has said in the past, Russia isn't going to take Ukraine if he is president, though they are already there under Obama.     It will be interesting to see how relations with Russia develop under Trump.