House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
???

The adjustments can't keep up with the population shifts but the adjustments do get made after every census.

The problem isn't with the mechanisms to adjust. The problem is that there is no fair way to adjust as long as the population is growing and there's a cap on the House of Representatives. When that cap was placed there were less than 100 million people in the US.
Click to expand...

Correct. And to apply the founders' thinking to today ignores the fact the country is a LOT different. In 1788, the US electoral college was a lot flatter - 3 to 10 electoral votes per state.

 
newyorkguy said:
With some help:

Two out of the past two Republican presidents won a first term despite losing the popular vote. It really stinks.
Click to expand...

It's only going to get worse. The Republicans probably surmise that they can't win a lot of general elections without cheating. So what do they do? They cheat.
 
It is perhaps worth bearing in mind when thinking about the Senate that Trump is currently losing support there over Syria. Whether that loss will be substantial enough to make a difference, and whether that loss is real rather than lip-service remains to be seen. But the current direction of movement for Senate Republicans is away from Trump.
 
The problem is that Republican Senators know that even if the abandon Trump now they'll pay for the sin of Trump forever.

Again if "forgiveness" or similar concepts (if even on a purely political level) are off the table why should they bother dropping their support?

They know that (g)we will horde the sin of supporting for Trump over their head forever. We aren't giving them any reason to shift allegiance or soften their support.

They turn on Trump and support impeachment or even just stand back and let it happen more passively they'll lose Republican support without any gain in Democratic support. There's no percentage for them in that.

Support isn't a zero sum game.
 
Belz... said:
It's only going to get worse. The Republicans probably surmise that they can't win a lot of general elections without cheating. So what do they do? They cheat.
Click to expand...

And they've sold the "We're not cheating, we're just evening the playing field" lie pretty well.

"Hell sure the electoral college ain't fair, but at least it's official unfairness built within the system and it keeps da libruls from winning by bringing busloads of illegal brown folks to vote."
 
JoeMorgue said:
The problem is that Republican Senators know that even if the abandon Trump now they'll pay for the sin of Trump forever.

Again if "forgiveness" or similar concepts (if even on a purely political level) are off the table why should they bother dropping their support?

They know that (g)we will horde the sin of supporting for Trump over their head forever. We aren't giving them any reason to shift allegiance or soften their support.

They turn on Trump and support impeachment or even just stand back and let it happen more passively they'll lose Republican support without any gain in Democratic support. There's no percentage for them in that.

Support isn't a zero sum game.
Click to expand...

The GOP senators don't fear Trump's childish taunts, they fear voters who follow his childish taunts.

it looks like his personal media network is starting to turn on Trump. If that happens does his base follow the Fox or the Hair?
 
slyjoe said:
Correct. And to apply the founders' thinking to today ignores the fact the country is a LOT different. In 1788, the US electoral college was a lot flatter - 3 to 10 electoral votes per state.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_158425da08a7703023.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

And it should be mentioned that the founders EXPECTED frequent Constitutional Conventions. The previous Constitution to the US lasted only 8 years. Jefferson and Adams thought it was hubris to think they should be setting rules for future generations. Everyone keeps pointing at the founders as if they were writing scripture. They certainly were fallible. The electoral college, the Senate, a slave counting as 3/5ths of a person, no rights for women. The second amendment. Yeah, the founders made mistakes, but the biggest mistake it made was in making it too difficult to ammend.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The problem is that Republican Senators know that even if the abandon Trump now they'll pay for the sin of Trump forever.

Again if "forgiveness" or similar concepts (if even on a purely political level) are off the table why should they bother dropping their support?

They know that (g)we will horde the sin of supporting for Trump over their head forever. We aren't giving them any reason to shift allegiance or soften their support.

They turn on Trump and support impeachment or even just stand back and let it happen more passively they'll lose Republican support without any gain in Democratic support. There's no percentage for them in that.

Support isn't a zero sum game.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about forever. I can't tell you how many aticles in the last 40 years I've read that said one party or the other will never recover. And yet they always do.

Nixon was impeached and the Republicans saw big losses in 1976. And in 1980 won the Presidency and the Senate. Memories are short. You'll be amazed at how fast things can and do change.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not sure about forever. I can't tell you how many aticles in the last 40 years I've read that said one party or the other will never recover. And yet they always do.

Nixon was impeached and the Republicans saw big losses in 1976. And in 1980 won the Presidency and the Senate. Memories are short. You'll be amazed at how fast things can and do change.
Click to expand...

This is the central thesis in [The Lost Majority]. Politics is like sports, in that voters seem to have a strange loyalty to a brand that survives all sorts of transgressions and is untethered to policy. This is how my dad went from "Free Trade is the Only Way, anybody who denies that is a TRAITOR," to "Free Trade is TREASON!" at the drop of a hat when the Tories reversed their platform a few years ago.

Parties want votes. They'll adjust their platform and hype/invent rivals' scandals.

There is a theory that the US political system undergoes chaotic restructuring about every 25-30 years, with the parties undertaking dramatic updates to their platforms.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
The GOP senators don't fear Trump's childish taunts, they fear voters who follow his childish taunts.

it looks like his personal media network is starting to turn on Trump. If that happens does his base follow the Fox or the Hair?
Click to expand...

I really, really like that one. Is that yours?
 
Foolmewunz said:
???

The adjustments can't keep up with the population shifts but the adjustments do get made after every census.

The problem isn't with the mechanisms to adjust. The problem is that there is no fair way to adjust as long as the population is growing and there's a cap on the House of Representatives. When that cap was placed there were less than 100 million people in the US.
Click to expand...

I feel that the House is reasonably balanced population-representation-wise, thus the need to gerrymander.

The 'thumb-on-the-scale' for low population regions is in the Senate (two votes per state regardless of population) and Electoral College (minimum two votes per state, plus extra depending on population).
 
acbytesla said:
No it didn't. Al Gore and the electoral college led to W being elected. Clinton was enormously popular and if the Constitution would have allowed it would have won a third term in a landslide. Bill was incredibly charming and charismatic. Gore was more boring than plain white rice.
Click to expand...

My interpretation of the 2000 election was that the Judicial branch was instrumental in handing a victory to the loser because the majority was politically aligned. Thus cementing the importance of getting one's own partisan judges into the Supreme Court.
 
blutoski said:
I feel that the House is reasonably balanced population-representation-wise, thus the need to gerrymander.
Click to expand...

No, it's not reasonably balanced. For example, Wyoming has 1 representative in the House while California has 53. If things were balanced between those two states, California would have 68 representatives. A 15-representative deficit isn't a rounding error.
 
blutoski said:
This is the central thesis in [The Lost Majority]. Politics is like sports, in that voters seem to have a strange loyalty to a brand that survives all sorts of transgressions and is untethered to policy.
Click to expand...

It's so much like sports, political TV coverage is almost indistinguishable from ESPN!
 
blutoski said:
This is the central thesis in [The Lost Majority]. Politics is like sports, in that voters seem to have a strange loyalty to a brand that survives all sorts of transgressions and is untethered to policy. This is how my dad went from "Free Trade is the Only Way, anybody who denies that is a TRAITOR," to "Free Trade is TREASON!" at the drop of a hat when the Tories reversed their platform a few years ago.

Parties want votes. They'll adjust their platform and hype/invent rivals' scandals.

There is a theory that the US political system undergoes chaotic restructuring about every 25-30 years, with the parties undertaking dramatic updates to their platforms.
Click to expand...

I haven't read it. But I agree with it mostly. I have been asking people for years why they support or identify with one party or another and the vast majority don't know or give answers that don't square with reality. This is my team and I'm sticking with it.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
I feel that the House is reasonably balanced population-representation-wise, thus the need to gerrymander.

The 'thumb-on-the-scale' for low population regions is in the Senate (two votes per state regardless of population) and Electoral College (minimum two votes per state, plus extra depending on population).
Click to expand...

Nitpick: Three EC votes minimum per state, one for each Senator and Representative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom