Do Americans exist anymore?

[MorkandMindy]

I'd suggest closing the thread and renaming it Electoral College since that's what so many people seem to think it is about.

No, it's a good thread, it's a kind of joint one, the original thread and title was a proclamation really, a major concern that the country might be coming apart,

and this good quality writing about the electoral college has helped to keep the proclamation visible for a lot longer than it would otherwise have been.

 

[jgarden]

It is in the sense that there is a formal process for changing it.

Amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Something that favours small states, like the Electoral College, is therefore unlikely to ever be eliminated.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
- Karl Marx, 1875

Many small conservative states aren't too proud to receive more money from the federal government than they contribute in taxes - a state sponsored "redistribution" of wealth that could be described as a form of "communism!"

If these less affluent states are intent on playing "political hardball" by holding the larger, more prosperous, ones hostage by insisting on retaining the Electoral College, perhaps its time the federal government bring this redistribution of tax money to an end and start redirecting it back to those states that contributed it!

 

[Radagast]

Small conservative states aren't too proud to receive more money from the federal government than they contribute in taxes

Hatred of "flyover states" is really just a variation of the hatred of "red."

If it continues, the only future for the US is partition, in the way that Pakistan split from India.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

While the Electoral College currently favors the Republicans, the wisdom of retaining any institution which can ignore the collective decisions made by the majority of Americans makes a mockery of the electoral system

What collective decisions of the majority? Hillary Clinton didn't get a majority of the popular vote. Neither, for that matter, did her husband in either of the elections he ran.

the Presidency should be based on the popular vote!

Nice opinion, but it's just an opinion, and unfortunately for you, not one that the framers of the Constitution shared.

Hatred of "flyover states" is really just a variation of the hatred of "red."

A hatred of a large number of the American people.

If it continues, the only future for the US is partition, in the way that {akistan split from India.

The only thing holding the US together at this point is inertia.

If these smaller states are intent on playing "political hardball" by holding the larger, more prosperous, Democratic hostage by insisting on retaining the Electoral College, perhaps its time the federal government bring this redistribution of tax money to an end and start redirecting it back to those states that contributed it!

Foiled again. The framers of the Constitution gave large and small states equal representation in the Senate just to make sure the larger states would not steamroll over the interests of the smaller ones...

 

[jgarden]

Do Americans exist anymore?

The election of a President based on the national popular vote would automatically make the vote of every citizen of equal value - perhaps those who want to retain the Electoral College would care to explain why the vote for the minority candidate in smaller rural state is of greater value than a vote for the majority candidate in a larger, more populous state!

How is the respect for democracy being served when the national popular vote for the President elect had 3 million fewer ballots than the candidate who placed second in the Electoral College?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

For the same reason that each state has equal representation in the Senate - to make sure that the larger states don't steam roll over the interests of the smaller ones. Come on now, this is basic American civics...

...demanding that the rules of the game be changed after you lost just makes you come off sounding like a sore loser.

 

[Radagast]

perhaps those who want to retain the Electoral College would care to explain why the vote for the minority candidate in smaller rural state is of greater value than a vote for the majority candidate in a larger, more populous state!

Because the US is a federation of states. A condition of federation was that the voices of the small states would not be swamped by the voices of the big ones. That's also why there's a Senate.

Every country formed by federation has similar mechanisms.

 

[Radagast]

That chart does not mean what you think it means.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

All I hear about anymore is Blues that want to defeat Reds and Reds that want to defeat Blues.

And each has an ultimate goal is to 'flip' a state.

In the 2016 they threw mud at each other and there was plenty of mud to throw.

But overall, how did they manage to split our country into two almost mutually exclusive tribes?

Indians land were stolen. I hope they get their land back. I really don't care about your feelings .

 

[LostMarbels]

Indians land were stolen. I hope they get their land back.

Indians, just like all people (stole) 'conquered' other (tribes) 'peoples' land.

I really don't care about your feelings .

I agree...

 

[Nithavela]

Yes, the very rich control the US using the same strategy as the British used to control India.

In 1881 the population of India was counted as 253,896,330 and the country was controlled successfully by 66,000 British soldiers, 130,000 natives and 350,000 other soldiers if I understand correctly.

Even counting all of those as occupying forces they numbered just over 1/500 th of the population of India.

Which sounds like 1/5%, about the number of rich people controlling the US.

How can anyone control so many with so few? Divide and conquer.

Is that why the current president is a billionaire?

 

[Radagast]

Indians land were stolen. I hope they get their land back.

But, if they do, they presumably need to repay the money they were paid for it.

 

[Nithavela]

But, if they do, they presumably need to repay the money they were paid for it.

I'm sure they can scrounge up 30 dollars and a few glas beads.

 

[Radagast]

I'm sure they can scrounge up 30 dollars and a few glas beads.

Every US native tribe has made, and won, claims in the Supreme Court. Some of the payment amounts for former Indian land are over $1,000,000,000.

Not just "30 dollars and a few glass beads," in other words.

 

[Nithavela]

Every US native tribe has made, and won, claims in the Supreme Court. Some of the payment amounts for former Indian land are over $1,000,000,000.

Not just "30 dollars and a few glass beads," in other words.

Link, please.

 

[Radagast]

Link, please.

Look, everybody knows these things.

See List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes - Wikipedia

The Sioux nation has over $1,000,000,000 in the bank thanks to United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians - Wikipedia (although, having won the case, the tribe can't decide what to do with the money).

 

[Nithavela]

Look, everybody knows these things.

Please remember that I'm german, so I don't follow this stuff as closely as you might think.

See List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes - Wikipedia

The Sioux nation has over $1,000,000,000 in the bank thanks to United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians - Wikipedia (although, having won the case, the tribe can't decide what to do with the money).

That's a gross missrepresentation.

The Sioux don't want the money. They want the land. They haven't accepted the money.

Saying that they were "paid" for the land implies that they wanted to sell it in the first place. They don't, not even retroactively.

And they can hardly give back money they haven't accepted in the first place.

 

[Radagast]

Please remember that I'm german, so I don't follow this stuff as closely as you might think.

Perhaps you shouldn't have made that comment about "30 dollars and a few glass beads," then.

That's a gross missrepresentation.

The Sioux don't want the money. They want the land. They haven't accepted the money.

Well, the Sioux who launched the court case wanted money. They went to the Supreme Court asking for money; they won their case; they got what they asked for. The money is in their bank account.

Some of the present-day Sioux leadership believes that they should have asked for the Black Hills instead. Because of those internal disagreements, they haven't touched the money.

 

[Nithavela]

Well, the Sioux who launched the court case wanted money. They went to the Supreme Court asking for money; they won their case; they got what they asked for. The money is in their bank account.

What part of the wikipedia article you linked suggests that they wanted money instead of ownership of the land?

 

[Radagast]

What part of the wikipedia article you linked suggests that they wanted money instead of ownership of the land?

Well, obviously, the fact that the launched a court case asking for money.