Stunning Demographic Stats Re: the future of elections

[TwiceHorn 31264]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

Hell abolish the country while you're at it. 

 

It causes so many heartaches  and impediments.

I'm not unconvinced that this will be the thing to do in the not too distant future.

[David Dennison 18652]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No one is an actual "strict constructionist."  Stupid term like judicial activist.

Regardless, Congress has the power to strip the Court of its appellate jurisdiction, thereby limiting it to cases of original jurisdiction outlined in the Constitution.

 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

[RDCanecutter 26249]

I would like to know more.

[RayDog 682]

I took a stab at looking at the demographics for about 10 years out which assumes states with substantial growth like AZ, GA, TX, and NC continuing to swing toward likely democratic. I also estimated the electoral college changes for 2024 assuming DC and PR get added as states in 2021 as I expect they will. It is important to note that the Democrats still have a solid base of small states, so I don't see an angry old white man backlash taking the senate once DC and PR are states. I left some states in play as toss-ups, but that depends a lot on what the Republicans do to capture those states as I could see several of them being leaning or likely Democratic.

Smaller Democratic States (11 states with 56 electoral votes)
DC = 3
DE = 3
VT = 3
HI = 3
RI = 4 (-1) 3
NM = 5
NV = 6
PR = 6
CT = 7
OR = 7 
MD = 10

Larger (>10 electoral votes) Democratic States (11 states with 233 electoral votes)
CA = 55 (-1) 54
TX = 38 (+2) 40
NY = 29 (-1) 28
IL = 20 (-2) 18
GA = 16
NC = 15 (+1) 16
NJ = 14
VA = 13
WA = 12
MA = 11
AZ = 11

Tossup (10 states with 125 electoral votes)
FL = 29 (+2) 31
PA = 20 (-1) 19
OH = 18 (-1) 17
MI = 16 (-1) 15
WI = 10
CO = 9 (+1) 10
MN = 10 (-1) 9
IA = 6
NH = 4
ME = 4

Republican (20 states with 124 electoral votes)
IN = 11
TN = 11
MO = 10
SC = 9
AL = 9 (-1) 8
KY = 8
LA = 8
OK = 7
UT = 6
KS = 6
AR = 6

MS = 6
NE = 5
WV = 5 (-1) 4
ID = 4
MT = 3 
ND = 3
SD = 3
WY = 3
AK = 3

 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by RayDog

[Hornius Emeritus 12416]

3 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Geography having weight in the political process is truly part of the founding farthers genius.  A federal system run soley out of the coasts is a incredibly bad idea.

 

Um, the federal system they set up WAS run solely out of the coasts ------ the East Coast. 

[RDCanecutter 26249]

The population projections may be correct. Then again, a lot can happen in 22 years; in 1948, who in their right mind would have predicted the cratering of booming industrial cities into a "Rust Belt"? In 1499 the Tenochtitlan Rotary Club was probably all about monorails and continued world conquest.

Maybe we won't get the Coughing Butt-Worm Plague, but every time I look at a room of people all staring at their phones, I think we couldn't be that hard to knock over.

Second thing, in 22 years, who knows if Republican or Democrat will be any more relevant than Whig? France dropped their traditional political parties this year like a clingy girlfriend. Italy is just making shit up from one day to the next. Even if R and D still exist, I doubt they'll be what they are now. Whatever that actually is.

[Orca of Peace 109]

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/22/13713148/electoral-college-democracy-race-white-voters

 

After running the numbers, we estimate that, per voter, whites have 16 percent more power than blacks once the Electoral College is taken into consideration, 28 percent more power than Latinos, and 57 percent more power than those who fall into the other category.

[Orca of Peace 109]

In 2015, the most over-represented state (Wyoming) was 306 percent better represented than it would be under a proportionate system.

this is a great article about the Electoral college biases - https://www.thenation.com/article/the-electoral-college-is-even-more-biased-than-you-think-heres-how-democrats-can-beat-it/

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[futureman 22414]

so your shit-ass lying corrupt bitch of a candidate can’t get elected because she sucks that much and now you just wanna abolish the electoral college because you’re butthurt about it?  bravo.  surly should be rebranded as an online think tank.  

[RayDog 682]

Rather than abandoning the electoral college I think we could see large states splitting in the way California is considering.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

I wish we would dissolve this bicameral shit and go to a Parliament. Maybe keep the Senate around as some kind of advisory retirement home for old coots like the House of Lords. 

[Rimbo 25773]

8 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

In about 20 years, half the U.S. population will live in 8 states.  70% of Americans will live in 15 states.  That means that, by 2040, 30 percent of the population of the country will control 68 percent of the seats in the U.S. Senate..  In other words, by 2040, 30 percent of the population will be electing 70 senators, and half the population will be electing 84 of the 100 senators. 










https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/12/in-about-20-years-half-the-population-will-live-in-eight-states/?utm_term=.fb4efa2317a3




 

ya say this as if it wasn't meant to be like this

you didn't pay much attention in high school social studies class, eh?

it was designed like this on purpose... to prevent the less-populated rural areas from being dominated by the tyranny of the majority.

[RayDog 682]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

ya say this as if it wasn't meant to be like this

you didn't pay much attention in high school social studies class, eh?

it was designed like this on purpose... to prevent the less-populated rural areas from being dominated by the tyranny of the majority.

So instead we have tyranny by the common clay of the new west.

[Guest]

and just like that... the global realignment thread was born,

[TwiceHorn 31264]

11 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Regardless, Congress has the power to strip the Court of its appellate jurisdiction, thereby limiting it to cases of original jurisdiction outlined in the Constitution.

Actually no it doesn't. The Constitution provides for appellate jurisdiction over such inferior courts as the Congress creates. Congress might try to curtail the jurisdiction, but could not eliminate it entirely. 

Edited July 15, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

14 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 That means that, by 2040, 30 percent of the population of the country will control 68 percent of the seats in the U.S. Senate..  In other words, by 2040, 30 percent of the population will be electing 70 senators, 




 

Edited July 15, 2018 by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?
That doesn’t make any sense.

[Mdhorn 5911]

Didn't know where to put this but not starting a new thread.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/396994-maryland-ag-probing-russians-purchase-of-state-election-system-software
 

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) has launched an investigation after it was revealed that a Russian investor had purchased a software company that runs part of the state's voter registration system.

CBS Baltimore reported that Maryland state Senate President Thomas Mike Miller (D) and House Speaker Michael Busch (D) said that the FBI had briefed them and Gov. Larry Hogan (R) on Thursday about the 2015 sale. The state was previously unaware of the sale.

The software vendor, ByteGrid LLC, is financed by AltPoint Capital Partners. That company’s largest investor is Russian oligarch Vladimir Potanin, and its fund manager is also Russian, according to the outlet.

The lawmakers announced the revelation just hours after special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The indictment also alleged that the Russian officials had hacked into a state board of elections website and stole the personal information of about 500,000 voters.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Mdhorn

[Mdhorn 5911]

Buying voting software in 2015.  Wonder if they bought election software from other states and how many other voter's personal information was stolen.  

Edited July 15, 2018 by Mdhorn

[Annie 123]

The executive and judicial branches are all powerful now. The legislative branch is a waste of time and gives an illusion of a functional republic. The alphabet agencies have shown they aren't going to be subjected to oversight by elected "representatives" anyway. Laws are for poor people and small district courts have more power through injunctions than the entire legislature. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 hours ago, Rimbo said:

ya say this as if it wasn't meant to be like this

you didn't pay much attention in high school social studies class, eh?

it was designed like this on purpose... to prevent the less-populated rural areas from being dominated by the tyranny of the majority.

The Senate is fine. Get rid of gerrymandering, bump up the number of representatives, and switch to popular vote for President, and all would be fine. 

The Senate was supposed to be the bone thrown to rural states. Instead, they've also effectively been able to control the House and the Presidency while being outvoted.  Rather than balancing urban states and voters, they have completely disenfranchised them. Rather than the tyranny of the majority, we have the tyranny of the minority. Still tyranny. 

[Gatorubet 30083]

17 hours ago, zork said:

yep, something, something, tyranny of the majority, etc, etc. 

Unbridled democracy needs to be stifled for the system to work most efficiently , and the Founders wisely set up the Senate as a check on pure populist ass-hattery. That is why the six year term  - to allow an unpopular vote to be forgotten down the road when election time arrives, and new issues are in the forefront.   And it (the Senate as an institution) was designed to give small population/small geographic square footage states the power to confront the interests of larger population states with more economic power, influence and more votes in the House, by making sure those less powerful states had an equal amount of Senators.  

Brilliant, really.    

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Gatorubet

[Poolflood 845]

The Senate is fine.  We are a union of individual states.  

[DaysOff 7851]

Gerrymandering is the biggest problem of our republic. A nonpartisan group or hell, a computer program randomly draws district boundaries after every census. It would get us closer to the purpose of a House with high turnover every 2 years.

[Gatorubet 30083]

12 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The Senate is fine. Get rid of gerrymandering, bump up the number of representatives, and switch to popular vote for President, and all would be fine. 

Bold is a good idea, the rest just unhappiness at a one-time perfect storm of a shit Presidential election.

The Senate was supposed to be the bone thrown to rural states. Instead, they've also effectively been able to control the House and the Presidency while being outvoted.  Rather than balancing urban states and voters, they have completely disenfranchised them. Rather than the tyranny of the majority, we have the tyranny of the minority. Still tyranny. 

The side who is not in power always considers it tyranny when the other side has more influence.      No reason to change the system due to one  side not currently prevailing.   The Founders did not want a Democracy, they wanted a Representative Republic with a shit ton of  checks and balances on a pure democracy.    And really, the interest in the "States" in the Senate was really more the interest of the rich, landed Elite who made up the interests of the  slavers and mercantile interests who made up the ruling Oligarchy of the average State House.   The Deep State was represented by the Senators, although that got reduced by the direct election of Senators in the 17th Amendment.

I agree with a Founder on this issue:

"I confess that There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies."   - Ben Franklin

 

See bold

[Poolflood 845]

The centralization of power in DC is the real issue

[seven 1366]

10 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

The centralization of power in DC is the real issue

Disagree, the less power given to the idiots in local government the better. The idiots in DC are actually the top performers. 

[CooterBrown 17904]

21 hours ago, Incredulity said:

  A federal system run soley out of the coasts is a incredibly bad idea.

Why should less populated fly over areas have a outsized voice in government? Just because there's more vacant land?

 

 

[Incredulity 11559]

9 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Why should less populated fly over areas have a outsized voice in government? Just because there's more vacant land?

 

 

The country has important interests that are not predicated on population.

 

[David Dennison 18652]

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

The country has important interests that are not predicated on population.

 

It's a shame the people in those areas are too ignorant to know that they keep voting for people who are robbing them blind.

[relapse98 634]

7 hours ago, Poolflood said:

The Senate is fine.  We are a union of individual states.  

Get rid of the 17th amendment and those are true statements.

[EMAWesome 101]

Here's your problem(and I use that word loosely).  In order to change it you need a constitutional amendment.  In order to pass a constitutional amendment you need two thirds of the states to pass it.  If the amendment is going to be detrimental to 35 of the states there is no way that is going to happen.

[David Dennison 18652]

30 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Here's your problem(and I use that word loosely).  In order to change it you need a constitutional amendment.  In order to pass a constitutional amendment you need two thirds of the states to pass it.  If the amendment is going to be detrimental to 35 of the states there is no way that is going to happen.

Three-fourths. 38.

Your point stands.

Edited July 16, 2018 by David Dennison

[CooterBrown 17904]

The country has important interests that are not predicated on population.
 

Name some.

[Michael Knight 12888]

19 hours ago, Rimbo said:

ya say this as if it wasn't meant to be like this

you didn't pay much attention in high school social studies class, eh?

it was designed like this on purpose... to prevent the less-populated rural areas from being dominated by the tyranny of the majority.

What we got now it's a tyranny of the minority

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

For fucks sake, what worked for 13 states hugging the Eastern Seaboard in 1800 is not applicable to 50 states spanning a continent now. 

Myth: the Senate was established to protect rural states. Nope, it was to give voice to states that were less populous. Delaware and Rhode Island were no more rural on an acre by acre basis than the big states -- New York, VA, MA (which included Maine at the time), and PA -- they just were smaller, and thus could not cram in as many people as the larger states. Those boundaries were often made over ridiculous squabbles over Protestant doctrine (RI), or to isolate British Catholics (MD), or as a haven for Quakers (PA) or as a debtors' colony (GA). 

Delaware had 12,000 free white males 16 years and up. That was the low end. VA and PA each had about ten times that number. And as a purely Atlantic seaboard nation, most of their interests were fairly aligned, save for the issue of slavery, which was still legal in many Northern states at the time. 

The entire population of potentially eligible voters was about the same size as the population of the City of Houston. Not the Metro Area. The City -- rubbing up to 4m. I can't imagine that the founders would think it was a good idea to give equal clout in the Senate to Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska as is given to California, Texas, Florida, and New York. Those senators are dead weight on American progress.

 

 

[Incredulity 11559]

37 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Name some.

Farming

Mining

Timber

Food Production

Recreation

Energy

 

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

34 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Name some.

Land is a huge resource and the vast amounts of it we have is a huge reason we are where we are.  Think of how different things would be to the treatment of every Wyoming expanse if every Wyoming only had the sway over treatment of that Wyoming land in proportion to the Wyoming population.  It's a smart system to give a little bonus based on little more than the existence of acreage, and ensures these expanses themselves have people speaking for them. 

If politicians could treat Wyoming with only the fear that Wyoming folks would be mad (500k out of 300MM), no one would care.  0.2% is nothing.  2 out of 100 senators (2%) is a bit more.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Farming

Mining

Timber

Food Production

Recreation

Energy

 

 

So you like big government when it suits your interests.

 

[David Dennison 18652]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Land is a huge resource and the vast amounts of it we have is a huge reason we are where we are.  Think of how different things would be to the treatment of every Wyoming expanse if every Wyoming only had the sway over treatment of that Wyoming land in proportion to the Wyoming population.  It's a smart system to give a little bonus based on little more than the existence of acreage, and ensures these expanses themselves have people speaking for them. 

If politicians could treat Wyoming with only the fear that Wyoming folks would be mad (500k out of 300MM), no one would care.  0.2% is nothing.  2 out of 100 senators (2%) is a bit more.

This is a great argument for getting rid of the legislative filibuster. 

[Incredulity 11559]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

So you like big government when it suits your interests.

 

The fuck are you talking about?

Thinking it is smart for rural areas to be represented in the Federal Gov’t  isn’t advocating for more government.  

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

The fuck are you talking about?

Thinking it is smart for rural areas to be represented in the Federal Gov’t  isn’t advocating for more government.  

You prefer them to be over-represented.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Merge the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho into one big ass state. They will have more representation in the House and less in the Senate. And that's what they deserve. 

Is there any need for two fucking Dakotas?

[woohorn 1131]

It's a design flaw. It needs to be fixed.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Anastasis 23393]

2 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Merge the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho into one big ass state. They will have more representation in the House and less in the Senate. And that's what they deserve. 

Is there any need for two fucking Dakotas?

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, woohorn said:

On 7/14/2018 at 7:45 PM, David Dennison said:

It's a design flaw. It needs to be fixed.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Unfortunately leading to minority rule.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

Here's your problem(and I use that word loosely).  In order to change it you need a constitutional amendment.  In order to pass a constitutional amendment you need two thirds of the states to pass it.  If the amendment is going to be detrimental to 35 of the states there is no way that is going to happen.

You dont need an amendment to change the Presidency to a popular vote. The states assign the electors and aren't constitutionally required to assign them to their states top vote getter. 

If states representing a majority of electors sign on to assign their electors to the national vote winner, that's all you need to change it.  Right now 172 electors are already pledged to do so if a majority is reached. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12416]

Wyoming secede!

[EMAWesome 101]

5 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

You dont need an amendment to change the Presidency to a popular vote. The states assign the electors and aren't constitutionally required to assign them to their states top vote getter. 

If states representing a majority of electors sign on to assign their electors to the national vote winner, that's all you need to change it.  Right now 172 electors are already pledged to do so if a majority is reached. 

I was talking about changing the make up of the Senate.  You are right about the states assigning the electors but it is insane to think any voters in a state are going to be okay with their electors going to the winner of the popular vote overall if they did not win the popular vote in that state.  That would be the kind of shit that would start a civil war.  They are the states electors, not national electors.  They represent the people of that particular state, not the entire country.  The fact that 172 electors have already pledged to do this only shows that there are 172 electors who shouldn't be electing anything.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

I was talking about changing the make up of the Senate.  You are right about the states assigning the electors but it is insane to think any voters in a state are going to be okay with their electors going to the winner of the popular vote overall if they did not win the popular vote in that state.  That would be the kind of shit that would start a civil war.  They are the states electors, not national electors.  They represent the people of that particular state, not the entire country.  The fact that 172 electors have already pledged to do this only shows that there are 172 electors who shouldn't be electing anything.

Not only are they okay with it, states with a combined 172 electors have already passed changes that will automatically go into effect the day the state with the 270th elector passes the same law. It will need a couple swing states, so it's still a ways off. 

We are already in shit that would start a civil war. A Wyoming citizen gets 3 votes for each 1 a California citizen gets. Instead of wiping out tiny WY, CA is attempting to enfranchise its citizens peacefully. 

As for the Senate, there is no requirement of a direct election either. We are an accidental democracy, but most of our democratic institutions are not constitutionally required. The House sits alone.