BIden stumbles up stairs versus Biden goes to thank pilots

[tallguy]

Aug 8, 2024 15:01:03 GMT -5 dondubble said:

Aug 8, 2024 14:49:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Have you ever once on any subject held a logically defensible position?

How could she. She’s a Repo-Con!

Yeah, but even a clock that doesn't work at all is right twice a day, proving that it takes work to be wrong every single time.      

[thyme4change]

Aug 8, 2024 14:14:39 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 7, 2024 23:15:27 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Ranked choice voting - all candidates, no parties, no primaries. Image this race if it was Haley, Trump, Biden, Harris and 3 others. We would be in a totally different situation. It would be exciting - and would push more candidates towards the center - where the majority of Americans are.

Aug 8, 2024 13:17:37 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

There are rules for third party making it on the ballot. I am sure there are ways to increase the burden to keep it below 10. Maybe you need to gather signatures from 6% of registered voters. Maybe there is a primary that whittles it down. I’m sure there is a solution.

So no parties and no primaries after you use parties and primaries to cut down the field?

6% of voters nationwide with no requirement for signatures from all states? 6% of voters from each and every state? 6% of registered voters or 6% of voters from last presidential election? Any idea what type of organization and how much money it would take to get the signatures? How much time and taxpayer's money to verify that many signatures?

I am not impressed with how our limited choices are determined and have pondered greatly on how to improve it. Like your proposal, I tend to see flaws in anything I can come up with. Unlike you, I am not sure there is a solution. 

You always come in with a can’t do attitude. Of course I don’t have a perfectly thought out solution. But our system currently is expensive, onerous and fucked up. I am positive we could replace it with another expensive, onerous system and get results that are less fucked up. If we just assume that no solution will work, we. Have no solutions. But if we discuss solutions, someone might figure out how to make marginal improvements.

Maybe we put ranked choice in primaries. Maybe the parties can each put in two people for the general and there is a different set of rules for independents that mirror today’s requirements. Then, if you are an anti-Trump Republican you could put in Haley as your top choice and RFK as your second choice.

There are places that do ranked - other countries, some US states and cities. This isn’t something I just made up. There is a blueprint for it. But if you have to have a 100% perfect, 200 page plan with all the contingencies worked out to even discuss it - I am not interested in talking to you. That isn’t how big ideas are explored. It is just nit picking to pretend that you are smarter because you ‘dig deep’ when really you just want to shit all over any kind of change.

[Opti]

I like the idea of ranked choice in primaries. Some places are doing it already. It will however require laws be changed, so it will be slow.

Thyme, generally there is only one official candidate per office for both political parties. I personally prefer that thos candidates who are registered to the two main political parties but did not win the nod, have the ability to be listed on their political party line if they want.

Otherwise we have crap ton of candidates and parties listed line by line under each elected office. Only parties like the Green Party, Liberatarians and similar field multiple candidates. I think here you have to create your own possibly one-time political party for the election if you lost being the selected candidate. Sadly I don't think Haley chose to run under "GOP but not Trump" party.

[billisonboard]

Aug 8, 2024 15:48:32 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Aug 8, 2024 14:14:39 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So no parties and no primaries after you use parties and primaries to cut down the field?

6% of voters nationwide with no requirement for signatures from all states? 6% of voters from each and every state? 6% of registered voters or 6% of voters from last presidential election? Any idea what type of organization and how much money it would take to get the signatures? How much time and taxpayer's money to verify that many signatures?

I am not impressed with how our limited choices are determined and have pondered greatly on how to improve it. Like your proposal, I tend to see flaws in anything I can come up with. Unlike you, I am not sure there is a solution. 

You always come in with a can’t do attitude. Of course I don’t have a perfectly thought out solution. But our system currently is expensive, onerous and fucked up. I am positive we could replace it with another expensive, onerous system and get results that are less fucked up. If we just assume that no solution will work, we. Have no solutions. But if we discuss solutions, someone might figure out how to make marginal improvements.

Maybe we put ranked choice in primaries. Maybe the parties can each put in two people for the general and there is a different set of rules for independents that mirror today’s requirements. Then, if you are an anti-Trump Republican you could put in Haley as your top choice and RFK as your second choice.

There are places that do ranked - other countries, some US states and cities. This isn’t something I just made up. There is a blueprint for it. But if you have to have a 100% perfect, 200 page plan with all the contingencies worked out to even discuss it - I am not interested in talking to you. That isn’t how big ideas are explored. It is just nit picking to pretend that you are smarter because you ‘dig deep’ when really you just want to shit all over any kind of change.

Okay, I will own the point that I am, based primarily on my upbringing, a conservative individual, I support change when it is determined to reasonably be an improvement. (This shouldn't be confused with what are identified as conservative and liberal stances on political issues.) I also believe we can replace the current system "with another expensive, onerous system." I think that by looking for the potential flaws in a new system is how we can determine if it would result in better results or at least make those marginal improvements.

Ranked voting is an interesting idea that should be explored.

I don't "have to have a 100% perfect, 200 page plan with all the contingencies worked out to even discuss it -..." I am discussing your proposal, working on the details. And I don't really care if you "talk" to me. I just read what people post and respond if so moved.

[billisonboard]

Aug 8, 2024 16:10:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

I like the idea of ranked choice in primaries. Some places are doing it already. It will however require laws be changed, so it will be slow.

Thyme, generally there is only one official candidate per office for both political parties. I personally prefer that thos candidates who are registered to the two main political parties but did not win the nod, have the ability to be listed on their political party line if they want.

Otherwise we have crap ton of candidates and parties listed line by line under each elected office. Only parties like the Green Party, Liberatarians and similar field multiple candidates. I think here you have to create your own possibly one-time political party for the election if you lost being the selected candidate. Sadly I don't think Haley chose to run under "GOP but not Trump" party.

I like our state top two non-party specific primaries but think a top four with ranked choice voting in the general would be an improvement.



I

[djAdvocate]

Aug 8, 2024 7:02:00 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 7, 2024 17:16:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am not a big fan of primaries.  
our five best presidents had no primaries.
we didn't have primaries for 125 years and did just fine.
and they give the FALSE impression that the people are
choosing the candidates.  they aren't.  it is just another layer of the same Republican electoral college crap

i would rather have direct elections for primaries in June and presidents in November, just like every other office.

#allprimariesareshamprimaries

The electoral college is needed. The presidential election is not a popularity contest. The president must represent the interest of all states not just the few states with the most in them. They could make it simpler though.

i agree that it isn't.
my question is this: why should it NOT be?

[thyme4change]

Saying the popular vote would only count a handful of states is ridiculous. Sure - if you got 100% of the voters in the top 10 states you could win - but absolutely no state votes 100%.

In reality, 45% of voters in the top 10 states did not get their candidate. NY, CA, TX and IL voters might be locked in - or another couple million could show up to vote if they knew their vote counted. We already cater to PA, OH, GA and MI as swing states. Florida was the most important state a few years ago.

Even if one candidate got 52% of all those states (which wouldn’t happen) they still wouldn’t win without a significant showing the other 40 states.

As far as the “just a few cities” is concerned - the top 34 metro areas hold about half the voters. That would include touch points in all of the top 10 states - but add cities in another 5 states that aren’t in the top 10.

Right now our elections are being decided by small groups of voters in very targeted areas. If we ditch the electoral college we would spread out the campaigning and widen the appeal.

[billisonboard]

Aug 8, 2024 16:10:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

I like the idea of ranked choice in primaries. Some places are doing it already. It will however require laws be changed, so it will be slow.

Thyme, generally there is only one official candidate per office for both political parties. I personally prefer that thos candidates who are registered to the two main political parties but did not win the nod, have the ability to be listed on their political party line if they want.

Otherwise we have crap ton of candidates and parties listed line by line under each elected office. Only parties like the Green Party, Liberatarians and similar field multiple candidates. I think here you have to create your own possibly one-time political party for the election if you lost being the selected candidate. Sadly I don't think Haley chose to run under "GOP but not Trump" party.

I was curious how ranked choice voting might have impacted the 2024 GOP presidential primaries. Of course it is an imperfect look as having it in place could have altered people's voting behavior. There was only one primary in which a candidate failed to gain 50% in the initial round, so ranked voting wouldn't have impacted any of the others. In Vermont, Haley received 49.3% to Trump's 45.1%. Haley not gaining .7% +1 votes in subsequent rounds would be very surprising but there would have at least been the possibility Trump could have overtaken her. At the link following is a chart showing the results from the Virgin Islands Republican caucus, February 8, 2024. They did use a multiple round voting system and the results are shown. Very small sample and a bit weird since Trump started with 69.4% of the vote but shows something on how ranked choice voting might play out.  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#State-wide_results

[scgal]

Aug 8, 2024 14:29:26 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 8, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Like I said it could be simplified. Without the electoral college the smaller states would be severely underrepresented. I don't care how many millions are in California they shouldn't have anymore say than Kansas. 

You keep talking about a governmental entity having a say. They don't "say" anything. It is individuals who have a say. Each individual should have the same say.

Each state should have the same say. 

[scgal]

Aug 8, 2024 14:39:09 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 8, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Like I said it could be simplified. Without the electoral college the smaller states would be severely underrepresented. I don't care how many millions are in California they shouldn't have anymore say than Kansas. 

The Constitution starts "We the people". States are not people. And there are millions of republicans in California who have no say in the election because California will vote Democrat. So they should suffer for living in California. Again, why should a vote in Wyoming have more impact on the Presidential election than a vote in California. You still refuse to answer that. It should be 1 person=1 vote. Not 1 person=.65 votes in California, and 1 person= 1 vote in Wyoming. You want the electoral college because a Republican, in their current lunacy, will never win another election without it.

Someone above pointed out how a bunch of states, with a smaller population than California had almost 40 more EV. Yet you think that is fair

Are you in favor of getting rid of all the Senate and Congress? According to your logic we should have to vote on everything. Every vote counts right?

[scgal]

Aug 8, 2024 14:49:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 8, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Like I said it could be simplified. Without the electoral college the smaller states would be severely underrepresented. I don't care how many millions are in California they shouldn't have anymore say than Kansas. 

Have you ever once on any subject held a logically defensible position?

Say what you want you know I'm right.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 8, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 12:22:18 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

My point is that the electoral college is undemocratic. Republicans cannot win elections without it. You want to keep it because you know you cannot win without. You dislike the principle of 1 person=1 vote. As I pointed out, a voter in Wyoming has more power than a voter in California. But you are OK with it because you win.

If we did away with the electoral college, we would get better candidates, and they would need to pay more attention to voters everywhere. Right now, a Republican in NY, and a Democrat in SC have no influence because we know how the electoral votes are going to go. Losing candidates have no need to campaign there. But with popular voting, a small change in percentages in those states could mean the difference between winning and losing, and their votes matter. But that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

Like I said it could be simplified. Without the electoral college the smaller states would be severely underrepresented. I don't care how many millions are in California they shouldn't have anymore say than Kansas. 

Really?


California: population 39.03 million (2022)
Kansas: population 2.937 million (2022)

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 9, 2024 16:52:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 14:39:09 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

The Constitution starts "We the people". States are not people. And there are millions of republicans in California who have no say in the election because California will vote Democrat. So they should suffer for living in California. Again, why should a vote in Wyoming have more impact on the Presidential election than a vote in California. You still refuse to answer that. It should be 1 person=1 vote. Not 1 person=.65 votes in California, and 1 person= 1 vote in Wyoming. You want the electoral college because a Republican, in their current lunacy, will never win another election without it.

Someone above pointed out how a bunch of states, with a smaller population than California had almost 40 more EV. Yet you think that is fair

Are you in favor of getting rid of all the Senate and Congress? According to your logic we should have to vote on everything. Every vote counts right?

No, I am not. The senate can protect the small states right, which you are so concerned about. You just think that some people’s vote should count for more than others, just because of an accident of geography and the decision of a whole bunch of old white men. Everyone voting in the same election should have their votes count an equal amount. But you like the outcome so you think it is ok. If the outcome was that democrats won despite losing the popular vote, the howls from conservatives would be deafening

Right now we have a candidate for president who refused to accept the outcome of an election, continues to whine about it, and is preparing to whine about it again should he lose. He incited a riot because of it. And you support him. Face it, you like minority rule

[billisonboard]

Aug 9, 2024 16:44:54 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 14:29:26 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

You keep talking about a governmental entity having a say. They don't "say" anything. It is individuals who have a say. Each individual should have the same say.

Each state should have the same say. 

Do you have a reason why states should have equal say?

[tallguy]

Aug 9, 2024 16:58:42 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 14:49:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Have you ever once on any subject held a logically defensible position?

Say what you want you know I'm right.

Said no one here about you.  EVER!

[tallguy]

Aug 9, 2024 16:44:54 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 8, 2024 14:29:26 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

You keep talking about a governmental entity having a say. They don't "say" anything. It is individuals who have a say. Each individual should have the same say.

Each state should have the same say. 

A "state" is an artificial construct.  It exists only as we wish and define it to exist.  It has no life, it has no intelligence, it has no will.  It cannot think, it cannot decide, it cannot exercise judgment.  It cannot even have an opinion, so how can it logically have a say in anything?

it is the same nonsense as corporations having free speech rights or religious freedom rights.  No.  Individuals have rights.  Artificial constructs don't.  In elections, individuals have votes.  States don't.  A state cannot itself vote for or against anything.  It has no say.  A bedrock of our system is, "One person, one vote."  And that vote must be worth the same for every person everywhere in that election.

Conservatives seem to enjoy investing artificial entities with rights.  I guess it is a way to escape all rights being invested in individuals, because conservatives usually lose with individuals.... 
  

[thyme4change]

Aug 9, 2024 9:51:39 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 8, 2024 16:10:49 GMT -5 Opti said:

I like the idea of ranked choice in primaries. Some places are doing it already. It will however require laws be changed, so it will be slow.

Thyme, generally there is only one official candidate per office for both political parties. I personally prefer that thos candidates who are registered to the two main political parties but did not win the nod, have the ability to be listed on their political party line if they want.

Otherwise we have crap ton of candidates and parties listed line by line under each elected office. Only parties like the Green Party, Liberatarians and similar field multiple candidates. I think here you have to create your own possibly one-time political party for the election if you lost being the selected candidate. Sadly I don't think Haley chose to run under "GOP but not Trump" party.

I was curious how ranked choice voting might have impacted the 2024 GOP presidential primaries. Of course it is an imperfect look as having it in place could have altered people's voting behavior. There was only one primary in which a candidate failed to gain 50% in the initial round, so ranked voting wouldn't have impacted any of the others. In Vermont, Haley received 49.3% to Trump's 45.1%. Haley not gaining .7% +1 votes in subsequent rounds would be very surprising but there would have at least been the possibility Trump could have overtaken her. At the link following is a chart showing the results from the Virgin Islands Republican caucus, February 8, 2024. They did use a multiple round voting system and the results are shown. Very small sample and a bit weird since Trump started with 69.4% of the vote but shows something on how ranked choice voting might play out.  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#State-wide_results

Ranked choice voting in the primaries would have eliminated Trump in 2016. He had his voters, but very few people had him as their number 2 - several candidates easily had more votes in #1 and #2, and a lot of voters “wasted” their mail in vote on candidates who dropped out after they had sent in their ballot but before voting day.

[billisonboard]

Aug 9, 2024 18:41:09 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Aug 9, 2024 9:51:39 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I was curious how ranked choice voting might have impacted the 2024 GOP presidential primaries. Of course it is an imperfect look as having it in place could have altered people's voting behavior. There was only one primary in which a candidate failed to gain 50% in the initial round, so ranked voting wouldn't have impacted any of the others. In Vermont, Haley received 49.3% to Trump's 45.1%. Haley not gaining .7% +1 votes in subsequent rounds would be very surprising but there would have at least been the possibility Trump could have overtaken her. At the link following is a chart showing the results from the Virgin Islands Republican caucus, February 8, 2024. They did use a multiple round voting system and the results are shown. Very small sample and a bit weird since Trump started with 69.4% of the vote but shows something on how ranked choice voting might play out.  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#State-wide_results

Ranked choice voting in the primaries would have eliminated Trump in 2016. He had his voters, but very few people had him as their number 2 - several candidates easily had more votes in #1 and #2, and a lot of voters “wasted” their mail in vote on candidates who dropped out after they had sent in their ballot but before voting day.

That idea is interesting. 17 candidates to start would have made ranked choice voting an adventure. I like looking at numbers. New Hampshire 2016 was easy to find:

Trump 35.23% Kasich 15.72% Cruz 11.63% Bush 10.96% Rubio 10.52% Christie 7.38% Fiorina 4.1% Carson 2.3% others 2%

Wonder who would have gotten to 50% from this start? 

[scgal]

Aug 9, 2024 18:10:04 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 9, 2024 16:58:42 GMT -5 scgal said:

Say what you want you know I'm right.

Said no one here about you.  EVER!

Well with a board of 99% liberals. I wouldn't expect anything close to being correct

[tallguy]

Aug 10, 2024 5:41:31 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 9, 2024 18:10:04 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Said no one here about you.  EVER!

Well with a board of 99% liberals. I wouldn't expect anything close to being correct

You are seriously deluded.

[scgal]

Aug 9, 2024 18:35:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 9, 2024 16:44:54 GMT -5 scgal said:

Each state should have the same say. 

A "state" is an artificial construct.  It exists only as we wish and define it to exist.  It has no life, it has no intelligence, it has no will.  It cannot think, it cannot decide, it cannot exercise judgment.  It cannot even have an opinion, so how can it logically have a say in anything?

it is the same nonsense as corporations having free speech rights or religious freedom rights.  No.  Individuals have rights.  Artificial constructs don't.  In elections, individuals have votes.  States don't.  A state cannot itself vote for or against anything.  It has no say.  A bedrock of our system is, "One person, one vote."  And that vote must be worth the same for every person everywhere in that election.

Conservatives seem to enjoy investing artificial entities with rights.  I guess it is a way to escape all rights being invested in individuals, because conservatives usually lose with individuals.... 
  

Actually a thought out reply. If a state is an artificial construct (I tend to agree ) then so does the country. Yet our country is The United States of America. Not these individuals of America. The way our country is without the states we do not have a country.

[scgal]

Aug 9, 2024 17:08:00 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 9, 2024 16:52:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Are you in favor of getting rid of all the Senate and Congress? According to your logic we should have to vote on everything. Every vote counts right?

No, I am not. The senate can protect the small states right, which you are so concerned about. You just think that some people’s vote should count for more than others, just because of an accident of geography and the decision of a whole bunch of old white men. Everyone voting in the same election should have their votes count an equal amount. But you like the outcome so you think it is ok. If the outcome was that democrats won despite losing the popular vote, the howls from conservatives would be deafening

Right now we have a candidate for president who refused to accept the outcome of an election, continues to whine about it, and is preparing to whine about it again should he lose. He incited a riot because of it. And you support him. Face it, you like minority rule

The old white men you say are the ones who made the constitution. You know the thing which guide our way of life. Then again that is the same thing that the liberals constantly want to break and change. Do I support Trump well I didn't but now with a female Democrat running who threatens our country I will have no choice. 

[scgal]

Aug 9, 2024 17:23:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 9, 2024 16:44:54 GMT -5 scgal said:

Each state should have the same say. 

Do you have a reason why states should have equal say?

I think my reply in 110 would say why

[tallguy]

Aug 10, 2024 5:47:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 9, 2024 18:35:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

A "state" is an artificial construct.  It exists only as we wish and define it to exist.  It has no life, it has no intelligence, it has no will.  It cannot think, it cannot decide, it cannot exercise judgment.  It cannot even have an opinion, so how can it logically have a say in anything?

it is the same nonsense as corporations having free speech rights or religious freedom rights.  No.  Individuals have rights.  Artificial constructs don't.  In elections, individuals have votes.  States don't.  A state cannot itself vote for or against anything.  It has no say.  A bedrock of our system is, "One person, one vote."  And that vote must be worth the same for every person everywhere in that election.

Conservatives seem to enjoy investing artificial entities with rights.  I guess it is a way to escape all rights being invested in individuals, because conservatives usually lose with individuals.... 
  

Actually a thought out reply. If a state is an artificial construct (I tend to agree ) then so does the country. Yet our country is The United States of America. Not these individuals of America. The way our country is without the states we do not have a country.

More illogic, and not particularly relevant illogic either.  

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 10, 2024 5:52:09 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 9, 2024 17:08:00 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

No, I am not. The senate can protect the small states right, which you are so concerned about. You just think that some people’s vote should count for more than others, just because of an accident of geography and the decision of a whole bunch of old white men. Everyone voting in the same election should have their votes count an equal amount. But you like the outcome so you think it is ok. If the outcome was that democrats won despite losing the popular vote, the howls from conservatives would be deafening

Right now we have a candidate for president who refused to accept the outcome of an election, continues to whine about it, and is preparing to whine about it again should he lose. He incited a riot because of it. And you support him. Face it, you like minority rule

The old white men you say are the ones who made the constitution. You know the thing which guide our way of life. Then again that is the same thing that the liberals constantly want to break and change. Do I support Trump well I didn't but now with a female Democrat running who threatens our country I will have no choice. 

Still no answer why one person’s vote should matter more than another’s

[scgal]

Aug 10, 2024 6:39:44 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 10, 2024 5:52:09 GMT -5 scgal said:

The old white men you say are the ones who made the constitution. You know the thing which guide our way of life. Then again that is the same thing that the liberals constantly want to break and change. Do I support Trump well I didn't but now with a female Democrat running who threatens our country I will have no choice. 

Still no answer why one person’s vote should matter more than another’s

You really don't understand the system do you? Is it in the Constitution?

[billisonboard]

Aug 10, 2024 6:45:24 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 10, 2024 6:39:44 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Still no answer why one person’s vote should matter more than another’s

You really don't understand the system do you? Is it in the Constitution?

I understand the system. The ability of the people to alter the system (Constitution) is a part of the system (Constitution).

[billisonboard]

Aug 10, 2024 5:47:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 9, 2024 18:35:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

A "state" is an artificial construct.  It exists only as we wish and define it to exist.  It has no life, it has no intelligence, it has no will.  It cannot think, it cannot decide, it cannot exercise judgment.  It cannot even have an opinion, so how can it logically have a say in anything?

it is the same nonsense as corporations having free speech rights or religious freedom rights.  No.  Individuals have rights.  Artificial constructs don't.  In elections, individuals have votes.  States don't.  A state cannot itself vote for or against anything.  It has no say.  A bedrock of our system is, "One person, one vote."  And that vote must be worth the same for every person everywhere in that election.

Conservatives seem to enjoy investing artificial entities with rights.  I guess it is a way to escape all rights being invested in individuals, because conservatives usually lose with individuals.... 
  

Actually a thought out reply. If a state is an artificial construct (I tend to agree ) then so does the country. Yet our country is The United States of America. Not these individuals of America. The way our country is without the states we do not have a country.

I think the Senate provides adequate representation for the people of each state to have a voice. The 17th Amendment was a wise move towards recognizing individual's power. Eliminating the Electoral College would be a good additional step.

[billisonboard]

I wonder how political parties would respond to ranked choice voting in state presidential primaries? For example,  in reply 107 above I gave the percentages of the votes in the 2016 New Hampshire GOP primary.  The GOP used those numbers to proportion out convention delegates. This is a common practice in early primaries, switching to winner-take-all in later ones. If New Hampshire had done ranked choice voting, would the GOP have used results for winner-take-all distribution or stuck with first round proportional distribution of delegates? Would they use ranked choice voting results in later winner-take-all primaries? They reward and punish state parties by increasing and decreasing their delegate numbers for various reasons. Wonder if they would do either for states using or not adopting ranked choice voting? 

[scgal]

Aug 10, 2024 7:28:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 10, 2024 6:45:24 GMT -5 scgal said:

You really don't understand the system do you? Is it in the Constitution?

I understand the system. The ability of the people to alter the system (Constitution) is a part of the system (Constitution).

I agree with that it is within the power to get it done. I don't think it should be done. Nor do I think it will be done thankfully