Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GGG

One of the problems with today’s electoral process regardless of system is that the analytics are too strong. The dollars per electoral college seat are likely compared across a whole host of strategies. So in any system the parties will determine how to best spend and mobilize to minimize cost per vote.

A problem made much worse by the electoral college system. It ensures that a handful of swing states decide every election, and parties therefore only have to spend money in fewer than 10 states and pretty ignore the rest.

So the best you can do is to have a system to equalize that cost. I suspect if you tried to make the influence of each person cost the same amount of money you would end up in a very undemocratic system.

Strongly disagree. Each voter should have the same amount of say in regards to who becomes president, regardless of where the voter lives. Money in politics is a problem, but you're never going to truly eliminate money from politics. This is why I like Yang's idea of giving every citizen democracy dollars (even if you hate UBI, at least consider this idea separately).

One thing I would question is the result of Hillary losing to trump with 66 million votes to 63 million votes a perversion of Democracy? If the goal of democracy is to reflect the will of the people then all of the people who for whatever reason didn’t vote aren’t being measured. (I do think that non voters likely lean blue given age based voting patterns). We don’t even know who would win if everyone voted, We just had a very large non random poll. So before we worry about EC I think mandatory voting would be the first thing to change. This at least gets everyone vote to the table to be influenced.

Non-voters chose to let other people choose for them. I don't consider this to be a bad thing necessarily, since the last thing we want is people who aren't paying attention to politics making these decisions for us.

Of the people who actually cared enough about politics and its effects on their lives to fill out a ballot, 3 million more of those people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. The EC therefore circumvented democracy.

Another thought I have had is is having states with relatively equal numbers of republicans and democrats deciding elections actually a good thing. My thought would be that purple states have lower levels of polarization then Red or Blue states (This could be completely incorrect though). So if the purple states are less polarized then campaigns have to be less polarized as well. This is better then designing your message to maximizing turnout in California and New York.

I would make the exact opposite argument. If a state votes such than 50.01% of the voters chose one party and 49.99% voted for the other, it makes absolutely no sense that the "winning" party gets 100% of the electors from that state; the state was a statistical tie, where the winning margin was statistical noise.

The states of California and NY, combined, consist of roughly 19% of the US population. 81% of the US population lives outside those 2 states. So if you don't have much success in those 2 states, you have 2 options, either 1) do well in the rest of the country, or 2) change your effing policies to become more appealing to voters in those states.

So despite not being direct democracy it might actually work okay. In the list of problems in the US that need to be fixed for democracy I’m not sure the EC makes it very high.

Things I would fix first:
Automatic voter registration
Allow felons to vote without condition
Equitable distribution of polling areas
More independence in redistricting
Change to combined Primaries where the top 2 candidates regardless of party affiliation are put on the ballot or mandate open primaries everywhere.
The Senate actually doing it’s job to check executive power
Turing over Citizens United

Just how likely is it that you are going to get any of these things done with republicans in power?

I would add to your list: Ranked-choice voting
I would subtract from your list: Felons voting during their sentences.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Oh #### me...it's all over everyone. Prepare to head back to the medieval period. Trump is planning to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Someone who has only been a judge for 3 ####ing years, and is a suped-up religious zealot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/u...gtype=Homepage

Jebus' picked her dontcha know

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yep.

Originally Posted by Amy Coney Barrett

I’m just going to identify one way in which I hope that you, as graduates of Notre Dame, will fulfill the promise of being a different kind of lawyer. And that is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God. You know the same law, are charged with maintaining the same ethical standards, and will be entering the same kinds of legal jobs as your peers across the country. But if you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.

... I mean I guess at least she's an actual judge, and not Ted Cruz? It's tough to find a silver lining here.

[AltaGuy]

I suppose she is representative of a large swath of American society, so that part's ok. Downside is that Margaret Atwood's dystopia isn't far off what that swath of society believes in.

[direwolf]

It's pretty depressing to think that that RBG's incredible legacy will likely be completely erased after the appointment of this woman. And it might only take a few short years.

[Flamenspiel]

^^ I think you are exaggerating, still from briefly looking at it Barbara Lagoa would have been a far more clever choice. Of course Trump literally lives for conflict, he relishes it.

[JohnnyB]

Not that the US was ever strong on the separation of church and state, but her appointment will be one more strong step towards America being an overtly and unashamedly Christian state.

The meaning of “great” in MAGA is clearer than ever. It means white supremacist and Christian, but this time it will also be an authoritarian state.

[Harry Lime]

You could tell right away that the priority would be hire someone young, because of the life time appointment. 48 years old, so that is potentially four decades of far-right voting.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Not that the US was ever strong on the separation of church and state, but her appointment will be one more strong step towards America being an overtly and unashamedly Christian state.

The meaning of “great” in MAGA is clearer than ever. It means white supremacist and Christian, but this time it will also be an authoritarian state.

I wouldn't go so far as white supremacist. Remember Blacks and Latinos for example are extremely religious.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I wouldn't go so far as white supremacist. Remember Blacks and Latinos for example are extremely religious.

Just look at the administration. White supremacist doesn't have to mean getting rid of other races, it just means white people staying solidly on top of positions of power.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Just look at the administration. White supremacist doesn't have to mean getting rid of other races, it just means white people staying solidly on top of positions of power.

Barrett's been the favorite for months. Cant really make it a race thing. Lagoa was mentioned late. Maybe she'll be next.

[JohnnyB]

Barrett's nomination isn't really why I view their vision as white supremacist. It certainly has to do with being a Christian religious state, but it's not needed to view the administration's vision as white supremacist.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Not that the US was ever strong on the separation of church and state, but her appointment will be one more strong step towards America being an overtly and unashamedly Christian state.

The meaning of “great” in MAGA is clearer than ever. It means white supremacist and Christian, but this time it will also be an authoritarian state.

You know what screams white supremacist?

Adopting black kids.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You know what screams white supremacist?

Adopting black kids.

Didn't say she was. She's not part of the administration.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You know what screams white supremacist?

Adopting black kids.

To save them from the heathen Voodoo cult and bathe them in God's light.

[dissentowner]

Barrett was chosen on the knowledge she will back Trump if the election comes down to the Supreme Court deciding the results. This is what the Republican party is aiming for, the Supreme Court deciding the presidency after they lose in the voting.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

To save them from the heathen Voodoo cult and bathe them in God's light.

Which, with any luck, will help turn them a more palatable shade.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Which, with any luck, will help turn them a more palatable shade.

The reverse tan of gods light !

Do the evangelicals know about this!

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Not that the US was ever strong on the separation of church and state, but her appointment will be one more strong step towards America being an overtly and unashamedly Christian state.

The meaning of “great” in MAGA is clearer than ever. It means white supremacist and Christian, but this time it will also be an authoritarian state.

It wont be that long when both the senate and white house flip to the dems, when that happens the SC will be expanded to restore balance, John Roberts has stated himself likes balance.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

It wont be that long when both the senate and white house flip to the dems, when that happens the SC will be expanded to restore balance, John Roberts has stated himself likes balance.

I wonder if the Senate went Dem would one of Alito, Thomas or Roberts agree to retire to avoid court expansion. The problem with court expansion is that using it destroys the independence of the judiciary as anytime a party has the senate and the presidency the court will be expanded to get judges they want. Even the republicans didn’t use this nuclear option.