why do you think we should or shouldn't still have this bullshit system of voting

I don't feel like discussing it because I'll make myself go into a self-induced rage over how much I hate the concept of voting, especially with respect to American politics (and this is why I never post in the Soap Box)

but I do want to see what your thoughts are on the matter

I'm interested to see if there are actually valid reasons to still having the EC, because as far as I can tell, there really is absolutely no reason it should still be in existence :-\ (especially since the 2000 election)

Thank you, brothers,

BB

7/22/2016 1:56:36 AM

k

7/22/2016 7:21:56 AM

If it weren't for the electoral college, your Presidents would win their elections by campaigning only in New York, California, and Texas. Every goddamn candidate in every goddamn Presidential election would spend their entire time pandering to the states with the most people, because that would be the most efficient use of their time and money.

PROTIP: Proponents of a pure popular vote forget that populations live in states and shit.

7/22/2016 7:31:45 AM

hmmm

an interesting point, thx :3

7/26/2016 1:33:06 PM

it still seems like the elections could be held with the popular vote though, and then tax-money/resources etc. could still be divvied up the same way (according to the population of each individual state)

'cause I mean, the popular vote still reflects the entire country, whether or not it makes sense with respect to particular regions

it only just seems more fair

I suppose "seem" is the operative word in this post :3

7/26/2016 3:14:36 PM

Quote :

"If it weren't for the electoral college, your Presidents would win their elections by campaigning only in New York, California, and Texas. Every goddamn candidate in every goddamn Presidential election would spend their entire time pandering to the states with the most people, because that would be the most efficient use of their time and money. PROTIP: Proponents of a pure popular vote forget that populations live in states and shit."

Exactly! That is part of the reason it is a good thing. Without it the candidates only need to focus on the needs of inner city people in places like LA, NYC, Chicago, etc. The electoral college gives the people of Montana, New, Mexico, the Dakotas, Idaho, New England, etc somewhat of a voice.

With that being said, more often than not the popular vote wins because the highly populated areas have the most electoral votes. I would like to see more states do like Nebraska and award elector votes by congressional district. I don't know what party would benefit the most, but under the current system the left has California locked up and the pubs have Texas locked up.

7/26/2016 7:43:45 PM

the electoral college gives undue weight to places like North Dakota. Cities get the shaft from federal policy already because of the Senate. The electoral college makes it even worse.

7/26/2016 8:09:33 PM

i kinda think it would be cool if we enforced the constitution then we wouldnt care who won

7/26/2016 8:13:09 PM

^^But those places have their needs too.

I actually read that part of the reason it exists is because when our country formed the founding fathers wanted to be able to sit around with a group of educated people and pick the best candidate instead of letting the people pick. That would help avoid someone winning the presidency on pure emotion like this year.

I'M GOING TO LOCK THE BORDERS!!!!!!!!!!!

TRUMP IS RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'M GOING TO BAN MUSLIMS!!!!!!!

TRUMP IS RACIST AND WILL DESTROY THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!

7/26/2016 8:23:13 PM

BAN THE INTERNET!!!!

7/26/2016 9:44:27 PM

It's a protection for small states and makes sense.

People don't understand that the point of american democracy is supposed that it is supposed to be hard for people to get something done unless there is an overwhelming consensus that it's the right thing to do. This isn't a parliamentary system where whoever gets the most votes and forms a government gets to just make the entire policy entirely for the next four years. A well armed minority is there to in principle to prevent tyranny. In this past this forced centrism, compromise, and begrudging cooperation. Unfortunately, the parties found a way to break the system and move further to the fringes and just become obstructionist.

What we really should do is keep the EC and get rid of running mates. Go back to the original intent that the First most votes is president and second is vice president (Would suck this time around). Split the administration and the "losing" side wouldn't be quite as disgruntled and maybe being forced to work together would bring about some more moderate planning from both sides.

7/28/2016 4:24:52 PM

if only we had a parlimentary system - shit could get done. it took the 3 fucking weeks to get a new prime minister after one of the most monumental votes of the 21st century. we can barely get two conventions completed in that time.

just like semiautomatic weapons with 30 round magazines, the founding fathers couldn't foresee a 2 party political system hellbent on fucking the "other guys" over instead of governing.

[Edited on July 28, 2016 at 4:51 PM. Reason : ,]

7/28/2016 4:49:41 PM

Quote :

"the founding fathers couldn't foresee a 2 party political system hellbent on fucking the "other guys" over instead of governing."

7/28/2016 5:12:14 PM

and before someone gets pissy about the [political parties] here is the text.

Quote :

"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp


[Edited on July 28, 2016 at 5:16 PM. Reason : Washington's Farewell Address]

7/28/2016 5:15:33 PM

Quote :

"Go back to the original intent that the First most votes is president and second is vice president"

I think this would virtually guarantee more assassination attempts and political violence.

Quote :

"if only we had a parlimentary system"

We do NOT need a system that promotes more rigid partisanship and government shutdown. No thank you.

---

The EC has such big pros and cons that I still don't know how I feel about it. With or without it, parts of the country get attention at the expense of others. The political importance of PA, OH, and FL are far out of proportion to their populations or economic significance, because they are "battleground states." That's only a concept with the EC. If we got rid of it, cities would get far more attention and rural interests would be largely ignored.

It's easy to be against the EC because we have it and we see the problems it causes. I am irked in particular by the political clout it gives to coal and agriculture. But if we got rid of that system, there'd just be a different bunch of pricks cashing in.

I really do think the founders did a great job in setting up checks and balances, but I wish they had come up with something on this one -- something that works like the bicameral legislature to ensure that both states and the people as a whole got a voice. Because I think it's dumb that someone can win without getting the most votes. I would think it was just as dumb if someone could win by only getting votes in a few states.

7/28/2016 5:20:01 PM

Quote :

"i kinda think it would be cool if we enforced the constitution then we wouldnt care who won"

7/28/2016 9:01:37 PM

I think it'd be kinda cool if we could all just get along, without the constraints that rival political parties inherently bring about

7/28/2016 9:37:46 PM

Quote :

"We do NOT need a system that promotes more rigid partisanship and government shutdown. No thank you."

here's a fun game - let's list government shutdowns in western parliamentary governments in the last 50 years.
I'll go first - 1975 Australia.

PS I'll be waiting forever because that's the only one. meaning the us has had 18 times the number of shutdowns of all western parliamentary governments combined.

PPS When Australia did shutdown, everyone in Parliament was fired and they had an entirely new national government one month later. that's twice as long as it will take us to get from the conventions to the first debate.

[Edited on July 29, 2016 at 9:30 AM. Reason : .]

7/29/2016 9:28:27 AM

I used the wrong expression there and I apologize. Not a government shutdown, but a parliamentary one due to the lack of a governing coalition. That happens more often, and while it allows "government" in the sense of bureaucratic activity to function, it necessarily ceases "government" in the sense of having a functioning, elected legislative. I was thinking specifically of Belgium's extended rule by an interim government a couple of years ago.

And you said nothing about rigid partisanship, because of course that's key to a parliamentary system.

7/29/2016 9:48:05 AM

I said nothing of the partisanship because I don't believe it is any worse than our current state. in fact, the partisanship in the united states is much more detrimental because of our bicameral congress and a separately elected president. when legislators say "wait till the election to let the people decide," like the GOP is doing over the Supreme Court process, they really mean "let's see if we can win all 3 control points." because without all 3, they're really not getting what they want out of letting an election decide what happens next. in a parliamentary system, that actually happens. those what win and form the coalition govern as they are wont to do and those that lost push back through criticism. but the will of the public election is carried out.

parliamentary is not perfect. Italy and Greece have proven that enough time over to make it stick. but it would stop the gridlock-as-a-policy that has become status quo in our government in the last decade

7/29/2016 10:12:36 AM

I think a parliamentary system is kinda designed to be all or nothing. You either have a ruling party/coalition steamrolling their agenda or you have to reform and try again.

With ours, at least in theory only the important less debateable stuff is supposed to move through easily (declaration or war, etc) and anything too extreme is almost impossible to happen. Once again, it is supposed to be hard for the federal system to get things done, that is an aspect of our american desire for limited government. Unfortunately this has been taken to an extreme with complete obstructionism on even super important matters like appointments and the like.

Personally I think we are overdue for some amendments (we are in one of the longest spans without an ammendment in the countries history) to smooth out some rough edges but that the overall structure is working as intended just a little too well.

1. Term limits: Make politics less of a career and more of a calling to service.
1a. Supreme court should be a long(15-20yrs) but not lifetime appointment. Would make people less worried about an appointment being on the bench 50 years.
2. If congress does not vote on an appointment within a time frame the appointment is accepted, or the ability of the supreme court to compel a vote or hold congress in contempt for dereliction of duty.
3. Redefine and restrict the ability of the executive branch to use military force without congress' approval in a better manner that reflects our current reality.
4. Outlaw running mates, straight ticket voting, party affiliation on ballots, and force states to issue EC votes by proportion or district and not as winner takes all. You can't outlaw parties but you can at least remove it somewhat as a component of our actual election mechanics and make people have to think about it more.

Just some ideas I'm sure there are holes in but just coming up with some ideas.

7/29/2016 11:38:31 AM

Quote :

"You either have a ruling party/coalition steamrolling their agenda"

but that's effectively what the GOP is hoping to do right now. that's why they won't even hold hearings on Garland for the Supreme Court. they are hoping that they can control all 3 points and steamroll their agenda/rollback what Obama has done.

7/29/2016 12:26:56 PM

^I think the key difference here is the GOP isn't the ruling party of the executive branch and is not able to completely implement their own agenda, just to impede the other party's.

In the parliamentary setup, the PM is the executive and comes from the ruling party. The executive and judiciary are effectively subservient and derived wholly from the legislature. For us the Executive is independent of the legislature and often from a different party from the congressional majority.

Also I would argue our states exercise a higher degree of sovereignty than most constituent members of parliament systems and that is a factor too on the distribution of power.

I'm not arguing that our system hasn't found a way to break itself pretty badly, but for our desired type of limited government and checks and balances this is a better approach than the parliamentary setup. Now if you say you want a stronger more active federal system then that's fine and may be suitable for that setup but then we are talking about a different goal entirely than was originally devised.

[Edited on July 29, 2016 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2016 3:24:27 PM

The Senate under-represents the corresponding popular vote by about 7%, the House under-represents this by about 5%, and 2 of the past 3 presidents didn't have the support of the popular vote.

Numerous states, including North Carolina also have state governments that are wildly un-representative of the people they govern.

Worse yet, the Electoral College winner-take-all system drives further polarization by dictating states are either Red or Blue, when most states are firmly purple.

There was a whole revolution over "Taxation without representation" but it seems every level of government now under-represents what most Americans want. This doesn't seem sustainable...

3/29/2019 10:14:21 PM

I'm 100% convinced that House apportionment needs to be revisited. We've had 436 representatives for the past 90 years. During that time our population has more than doubled. The whole system is predicated in part on the idea that the House is a, well, Representative body. Let us make it so. I gather this means we'd need 900+ reps, which I know would be difficult from a logistical perspective. But, well, tough shit. Make the house meet at the old soccer stadium or something.

3/30/2019 12:14:11 AM

^ hell lets go back to the original 1 rep per 30k people. they could meet and vote online

3/30/2019 7:36:34 AM

I had never thought of that...that is kinda brilliant. At this point, each representative presides over more people than the President did in the beginning. Having tens of thousands of them would make them far harder to roll into the system. You couldn't offer all of them future employment. But it would probably render the body unruly and dysfunctional? Maybe? The party leadership already rules, they'd remain agenda dictators, but I'd predict a lot of rebellions in the legislature against the leadership. There'd be a lot more surprise vote outcomes.

All told, I LOVE THIS IDEA. Not 30k people, but maybe 4000 representatives!

3/31/2019 8:02:26 PM

^^^^ Nothing about the EC mandates a winner takes all system. If states would just split their congressional electors up by their internal popular vote, most of the "problems" with the EC would vanish. You'd probably get better voter turnout, too. But, oddly, you don't see California, NY, Mass, or Illinois even considering splitting up their votes in order to give their conservative-leaning residents an actual vote in Presidential elections... The places complaining the loudest seem content to squash the voices of those in the minority in their states.

4/2/2019 12:18:05 AM

^ it’s liberal states that are passing laws to ditch the EC, including California, but they only kick in when the
Rest of the states do it.

MAkes no sense for a state to do it unilaterally.

Literally no primarily red state has passed such a law.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

4/2/2019 1:51:03 AM

Quote :

"Literally no primarily red state has passed such a law."

Nebraska (red state!) already splits their EVs based on popular vote.

Don't you get tired of being so wrong all the time?

4/2/2019 9:43:32 AM

^^^not to go into reproportioning again but that only works if we make the electoral votes even by population.

1 vote per 200k people or something

Actually now that I think about, this would be very complex, figuring out rounding and how to split in 50/50 races. So much simpler to just award to popular vote winner.

Quote :

"Nebraska (red state!) already splits their EVs based on popular vote. "

False

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 10:21 AM. Reason : E]

4/2/2019 10:12:45 AM

The details in that post took a back seat to self-righteousness.

4/2/2019 10:25:33 AM

Mine or hch's?

4/2/2019 10:52:24 AM

^^^^^ I'm not talking about splitting votes by the national winner. I'm saying if NC votes 60/40 for somebody, give 60% of their congressional EC votes to that candidate and 40% to the other. That not a single blue state is doing so, despite clamoring about wanting fairer representation, shows that they would rather give Dems a 150 vote head start than give the conservative minority in their states an actual voice. It shows that the current bitching about the EC is nothing more than partisan sour grapes and a disdain for rural voters.

4/2/2019 12:00:22 PM

I know exactly what you you are saying, I just think it doesn't go far enough.

And every presidential candidate around shows disdain for rural voters, they don't campaign in most rural states bc most of those states reliably vote one way.

Rural voters currently have much more say and representation than urban voters. The current system shows disdain for urban voters.


Edit: i guess you were pointing at Moron but still. No red states do what you're saying either. If a state did what you suggested, they would have to also do what moron said and not enforce until every state passed a similar law.

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 12:28 PM. Reason : R]

4/2/2019 12:26:34 PM

Quote :

"Mine or hch's?"

aaronburro's

4/2/2019 12:26:43 PM

^^ you seem to be missing the point that California and New York have already passed laws like that but they don’t kick in until the rest of the states do it too.

And your logic is entirely backwards. The winner take all system was specifically designed to be unfair to black people, but because conservative politicians are worried their racism will no longer have this entrenchment they’re resisting doing the right thing.

If California for example did proportional representation unilaterally, that would be giving a huge gift to white supremacists and Republicans. The most logical thing to do is push for all states to make the switch at the same time.

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 12:29 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2019 12:29:11 PM

I think you're missing a carat?

4/2/2019 12:36:00 PM

^^ You seem to be missing the point that I'm talking about state vote results, not national ones. As far as I know, Califormia has not voted to divide their EC votes based on their state vote results.

You also seem to be under the impression that the EC mandates winner-takes-all. It does not.

And California giving actual representation to their non-liberal citizens would show that they are serious about making sure their voices are heard, and not just guaranteeing Democrats a 60+ vote head start. Boiling it down to being " a gift to white supremacists and Republicans" proves that your motivation scare nothing but partisan sour grapes.

4/2/2019 1:26:35 PM

Hey burro i have a question. Have you considered that this plan might be partisan sour grapes?

4/2/2019 1:28:09 PM

^^ It can't be partisan "sour grapes," because the current system is inherently wrong, and tilted towards "red state" ideology (which is itself a creation of the winner-take-all system).

It's like if your house is burning down, and someone told you calling the fire department was anti-fire bias, it's anti-having-your-house-burn down.

It only would bias democrats now because it's been designed, for corrupt, anti-democracy purposes, to be anti-Democrat.

The solution to solve the problem is for all states to switch at the same time. 1 state switching makes the problem worse. You're arguing that California should make the system even more broken, which is just asinine.

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 1:39 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2019 1:38:33 PM

Quote :

"The solution to solve the problem is for all states to switch at the same time"

Clearly, but Burro can't get his focus away from the left coast's "60+ vote head start"

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2019 2:08:20 PM

Quote :

"And California giving actual representation to their non-liberal citizens would show that they are serious about making sure their voices are heard, and not just guaranteeing Democrats a 60+ vote head star"

Being the only state to make such a move would dramatically reduce its electoral relevance regardless of party. Neither side has any motivation to campaign in such a state.

If California - or Texas, for that matter - splits their vote by state result and does so alone, then a candidate could only hope to pick up a couple of EC votes there. Hilary Clinton certainly wouldn't have decided to spend misplaced energy trying to "turn Texas blue" for just a point or two. Not when PA, FL, OH, MI, NC, VA, and CO are sitting there, worth several times as many in one go.

California acting unilaterally here would hurt Democrats, it's true. But it would also hurt California. That's plenty of reason to wait until others sign on.

4/2/2019 2:48:47 PM

^ Which is precisely why I say this is all partisan. If the right thing to do is to give people adequate representation, then refusing to do so until all others also do it shows that you don't actually care about giving people adequate representation. Candidates not treating states like monolithic blocks of voters is a good thing, not a bad thing. If California were to do this, it would show leadership and allow them to put legitimate pressure on other states to do so. Instead, it's clear that their main concern is to push power to left-leaning urban centers, not to actually represent all of their citizens.

Meanwhile, moron is over here reading too much Mother Jones and Vox to understand what the EC was actually designed to do. He's got this insane notion that a system designed before political parties even existed was meant to disadvantage a particular party that formed decades later, much less its incarnation two centuries later. He even thinks that northern, anti-slavery states switched to winner-takes-all elections before the Civil War in order to enforce white supremacy. He thinks that the EC was designed to reduce the voting power of people who weren't even allowed to vote in the first place. It would be laughable, except that he seriously thinks this. He's got some cute little theories, but damned if facts and history aren't getting in the way.

As an aside, I wouldn't mind revisiting Congressional representation, as it's clear that 400 people can't adequately represent 350million+ people. I don't know what the right ratio is, but 1:1MM clearly isn't adequate, and it's only leading to hyper-partisan races. I certainly wouldn't go down the originally intended road of allocating electors by district at this point, but expanding Congressional representation, coupled with state-vote-divided electors would go a looooooong way towards fixing the problems in our Presidential election, without destroying any semblance of giving a damn about the concerns of less populated states and regions (which, btw, moron, despite what Mother Jones and Rachel Maddow tell you, was the ACTUAL purpose of the Electoral College).

4/2/2019 3:16:11 PM

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 3:32 PM. Reason : Oops ]

4/2/2019 3:28:34 PM

But what you're describing isn't giving people adequate representation? It's taking away representation from Calis democrats. Having winner take all means 1 person, 1 vote. It's really the only way for everyone to have equal representation in a presidential election

The SYSTEM is undemocratic. What you propose might make California itself more democratic but it would make the SYSTEM even less so.

If the electoral system is to change, the country needs to change it together, not one state at a time.

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 3:33 PM. Reason : E]

4/2/2019 3:29:51 PM

Con:

It allows a deranged, brain worm-infested racist to use actual US citizens who aren’t counted for electoral college purposes as a cudgel to try and score petty electoral points in a state the same size as the territory in question.

4/2/2019 3:37:22 PM

Quote :

"Nebraska (red state!) already splits their EVs based on popular vote. Don't you get tired of being so wrong all the time?"

Actually, that's wrong. Tired yet?

As far as I can tell, since 1992 they distribute electoral votes not by popular vote but by the winner of the vote in each congressional district. This has resulted in split votes only ONCE since then, in 2008.

4/2/2019 3:46:22 PM

Quote :

" If California were to do this, it would show leadership and allow them to put legitimate pressure on other states to do so."

No. It would reduce California's relevance - and the relevance of Californian voters - relative to other states. Wanting to avoid that isn't partisan, it's standing by your state and its inhabitants.

Ok course, all of this is beside the point. I don't care what California does or what its motivations are. I think the country as a whole should move towards changing or abolishing a system that increasingly favors one party over the other.

And don't start up with your "But the system was designed..." crap. The system was designed to get a couple of smaller states to sign on to the Constitution. There wasn't a grand plan to speak up for rural areas (which at the time were mostly filled with Indians whose concerns we cared so much about we killed them all). There was a need for an immediate compromise and this is what they came up with. Fortuitously it worked out reasonably well for a long time with only a couple of hiccups. But now we've had two such hiccups in the span of two decades, and both times it favored the same party.

4/2/2019 4:09:09 PM

^^^^ How doo you figure that a state dividing its electoral votes based upon how its citizens actually voted is not adequate representation? Yes, it takes massive over-representation away from Cali Dems, but gives it to Cali Repubs, who have never had ANY representation whatsoever.

The EC was never meant to be "democratic." It was meant to be republican, as it is was choosing the leader of a republic. Championing "1 person, 1 vote" suggests that you don't realize this. If you want the US to move to a direct democracy, that's a fine argument to make, but don't come in here complaining that a system to elect a republic's leader isn't functioning as a direct democracy should, cause that's just silly. You might as well complain that parts for a Ford Mustang don't fit properly in a Camaro.

^ You can't just gloss over the fact that less populated states (that I poorly shorthanded as "rural," which is far more applicable today than it was then) refused to sign on to a system which would run roughshod over them. It was specifically designed to ease their concerns. If that's not a major design intent, then what the hell is? I wouldn't call the EC vote winner winning the election a "hiccup." It was the whole point.

And yes, California's desire to ensure that its EC votes continue to go completely to Democrats is absolutely partisan. It's not "looking after their own interests." If they wanted to that, they would also look after the interests of the roughly 30% of its citizens who aren't Democrats. As it stands, almost 4.5million voters in 2016 had essentially no representation in the presidential election, other than to piss their vote away, yet there seems to be no move among California's leadership to change that. It's no different than NC Repubs gerrymandering away Dem votes in the state.

[Edited on April 2, 2019 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ]

4/2/2019 4:10:39 PM