I suspect polling on the question of the EC probably falls along Party lines, and why wouldn’t it? It’s how the GOP ended up in the White House the last two times they did. Republicans know that their appeal to voters as a party is in decline.
I suspect polling on the question of the EC probably falls along Party lines, and why wouldn’t it? It’s how the GOP ended up in the White House the last two times they did. Republicans know that their appeal to voters as a party is in decline (1).
Another interesting point is that we have to go back to the 1800s to find the only other times when the EC chose a president the voters did not. (2)
As the above linked video shows, Trump used to hate the EC until he loved it. It’s pointless to address this contradiction except to point it out and to let it speak for itself and for who he is.
And as the linked video also shows, John Boehner’s spokesperson, Michael Steel, is making the argument that the founders gave us this system and that eliminating the EC would mean candidates would pay little to no attention to small states.
My response is simple. So what?
One person, one vote means just that, doesn’t it?
Of course the president should care about everyone. To that exact point, there are greater concentrations of people in urban areas. In a system where the popular vote elects the president, of course candidates will do what they’ve always done, and that’s to chase voters and their votes needed to win. If that means urban areas and large population centers, so be it. They still have to motivate Americans to show up on election day, and they still have to inspire Americans to vote for them.
More candidate visits to southern CA and fewer to Madison, WI, is, in my view, better for democracy. And, let’s be real. In this day and age, residents of Madison, Anchorage, and Burlington, VT, don’t need to have a candidate visit their quaint Rockwellian diners for those Americans to know what the candidate is proposing.
IMHO, the EC is a zero-value-add step in the electoral process. And if 2016 wasn’t evidence of the EC failing in their mission, there never will be one.
As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” (3)
I also wish that some Americans – mostly, in my view, conservatives and Republicans – would also stop with what looks like actual religious worship of the founders.
So what if the venerated founders set down the EC? It’s 2019, and it’s embarrassing to see adults seemingly worshiping and even attributing divine intervention and influence to the thoughts and actions of rich, white, slave-owning men of the 18th century. They were colonial oligarchs, and they weren’t perfect.
Perhaps these very same founder-worshipers haven’t noticed or have chosen to ignore that there are 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Changing how the government operates – including how officials are elected, vis-a-vis the 17th Amendment – has happened before. Why can’t the presidential election be a popular vote? (Even better, why can’t it be ranked choice voting? (4) )
Candidates know how to do math. They do it now. It seems to me that Republicans should be bragging about how Trump “won” because he actually went to more places than Clinton. He even went to some places that Republican strategist, Ryan Williams, called “head scratchers.” (5)
Oh. Wait. That’s right.
They aren’t bragging because he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.
What Republicans also fail to mention in their vilification of “coastal elites” is that every city also has Republicans living in them, and that not all cities on the coasts.
Fun facts for the fact-averse Republicans:
4 out of the top 10 largest cities – Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, and Dallas – are in red states (6), and the 25 cities reported with the largest percentage of growth are all in red states except two, Bend-Redmond, OR, and Greeley, CO. (7)
Seems that Republicans should have nothing to fear from a popular vote if they truly believe that they have policy ideas that appeal to large numbers of Americans.
They also should be advocates for making voting easier and more inclusive for all Americans if they don’t fear voter participation.
They should also be confident enough in the value and broad appeal of their ideology and their policy ideas to agree that democracy should be about total votes cast for the president regardless of the state in which they are cast.
The president is supposed to represent people, not states.
(1) “America hits new landmark: 200 million registered voters”
(2) “Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote”
(3) “The Reason for the Electoral College”
(4) “Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff”
(5) “Where have Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton spent their time?”
(6) “Cities and metropolitan areas of the United States”
(7) “These 25 cities are seeing a huge boost in residents as population grows”
The reason you’re looking at this right now on a high speed network that doesn’t cost so much that only rich people could afford it can be traced to the breakup by the federal government of AT&T way back in the Stone Age of the 1980s.
I think it’s time for some more break ups, and this is why Elizabeth Warren has my attention.
I was “there” in the 1980s when AT&T was broken apart. Thanks to that action, I spent a large part of my early career working for new competitors who never could have come into being without the forced breakup of AT&T’s monopoly.
In Warren, I see someone with the courage to go after rich and powerful corporations. I applaud her for that, and for making this a visible plank in her campaign.
There is a fundamental truism about monopolies that everyone should understand and that everyone should talk about when it comes to conversations about the balance between capitalism and so-called free markets, and the role of oversight and regulation government is supposed to play. That truism is this.
Monopolies are terrible for everyone except for the people who own them and run them.
Monopolies have zero incentive to innovate. Why would they invest any profits into innovation when the market has no alternative but to use their goods and services?
Monopolies have zero incentive to offer their goods and services at competitive prices. Same rhetorical question as before tells you why this is true.
Monopolies have zero incentive to be good corporate citizens. Do I need to say it again?
By definition, monopolies mean you have no choice but to use whatever they offer at whatever price they choose, and in whatever manner in which they choose to operate.
Ok. Fine. You can choose not to participate at all in the market they rule, but understand this reality, too. A monopoly cannot arise unless they offer something people want or need; otherwise, no one would be in that market.
And, yes, I suppose you can choose to chuck it all and move to Alaska or Belize or some off-the-grid locale. May not be a bad idea. Hell, maybe you can even sell the rights to your own “reality” show to those empty-headed nitwits at The Discovery Channel. Watch out, Swamp Loggers.
Seriously, I hope people will think about what’s been happening when it comes to corporate power and influence, especially during conversations with people who complain about, scoff at, or mock Elizabeth Warren and people like her who are now calling for this era’s tech giants – and big banks – to be broken up.
That’s advice for my fellow tech business people, too. Put greed and every last nickle of profit as the goal aside, and think long-term and for the greater good on this.
As for politicians, Democratic Party apparatchiks, and industry groups, we can expect to hear from the likes of Rob Atkinson, the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, and Ed Black, president of Computer and Communications Industry Association, whine and wail and gnash their teeth over Warren’s plan. They’re shills for big money; it just happens to be Big Tech Money, and not Big Oil Money or Big Bank Money. It’s still Big Money
There are no shortage of articles on Warren and this topic. Here’s one from the Washington Post in which the aforementioned group leaders are quoted.
Certain liberals and progressives nowadays have no shortage of litmus tests they seem to relish in applying to every candidate.
It will be interesting to see how they test for the idea of breaking up with Silicon Valley and their money.
Unless you’re a One Percenter, it makes no sense for you to be against taxing the rich with much higher marginal rates.
How far away are you from being a One Percenter?
On average, you’ll need to make $422,000.00 a year to become one.
Good luck getting there. Seriously. I hope lots of people reading this make piles of money if that’s their goal and how they measure success and are made happy. That’s for each individual to decide for themselves.
But, if you’re not a One Percenter and you’re cheering Michael Dell for asking to see the evidence of where and when higher marginal tax rates have ever worked, the answer, as the historian in this video from Davos points out and which is documented here, is the United States in the years right after WWII and during what many people see as this country’s greatest economic expansion for working class people.
And, yes, by most measures the American economy today can be said to be doing well, but shouldn’t the real questions be how well and for whom?
Look, even if you don’t give a shit about anyone else, and even if you’ve bought the lie of trickle-down economics hook, line, and sinker, and even if you think you’ll someday be a One Percenter if you just work hard, play by the rules, and vote Republican to get government out of your way, here’s the truth.
If that describes you, you’re a patsy to the One Percenters.
You have been duped, and you are siding with the very people who don’t give a fuck about you or anyone else. All they care about is money. Their money.
Be pissed off at me for calling you a patsy and accusing you of being duped if it makes you feel better, but here’s another truth you need to accept.
It’s not me voting for people who want to make the rich and powerful richer and more powerful.
Howard Schultz isn’t as terrible as Trump. No one is, but if you think a guy with a $3.1billion net worth sees the world, thinks about what life is, and has good policy vision and strategies for how government and capitalism and private enterprise are supposed to operate FOR THE COMMON GOOD, you are terribly mistaken.
Governments are NOT businesses, and they should NEVER be run the same way.
It’s the whole point of having a government – to counter-balance private enterprise.