“Democrats, have all the sudden become very worried about becoming an oligarchy where billionaires control the world.
Here is a list of billionaires who are exclusively contributing to the Democratic Party:
– George Soros
– Michael Bloomberg
– Reid Hoffman
– Hansjorg Weiss
– Tom Steyer
– Sam Bankman – Fried
– JB Pritzker
– Marc Benioff
– Neil Blum – Mark Cuban
– Laurene Powell Jobs
– Bill Gates
Here is the list that have contributed to Republicans in the last year:
– Elon Musk
– Zuckerberg (like a week ago)
– Besos (like a week ago)
Oh yes, be afraid of the oligarchs, but not the ones on the right. The ones on the left who have been systemically funneling all of their money through 501(c)(4)s that have been purchasing elections by destroying election integrity measures across the country, investing in insane ballot measures, and overall funneling $2 billion worth of dark money per election cycle.
Please tell me some more about oligarchy Bernie Sanders, from one of your 4 mansions no less.”
“21 days before the Palisades Fire broke out, Los Angeles Fire personnel jammed into a LA Fire commission meeting with a dire warning about the consequences of Karen Bass’ budget cuts.
“The residence of Los Angeles are going to pay the ultimate sacrifice, and someone will die.””
“Strong words from LA fire fighters to the chief: “[I]f you had done things right… fatalities would have been reduced, property would have been saved….the preventive systems… were nonexistent… We attribute this to… lack of experience, arrogance, inability to lead…”
~ “Do I own three residences? Yeah, I do,” Sanders said. He explained that he lives in Burlington, Vermont, in a “middle-class neighborhood, nice house,” and owns another home in Washington, D.C., like most senators do. He also has a summer camp on Lake Champlain. “That’s it,” Sanders stated, noting that his homes are far from luxurious. “They’re middle-class houses.”
When asked how he managed to afford these properties, Sanders pointed to his success as an author. “I wrote two bestselling books,” he said, including one about capitalism that became a New York Times bestseller. He also earns $175,000 a year as a senator.
Sanders emphasized that while he’s now comfortable financially, his working-class background remains a key part of who he is. “Growing up in a working-class family has been maybe the most singularly significant aspect of my politics,” he said. He grew up in a rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn and remembers not having money.” ~
Biden’s criticism of the oligarch is of course Johnny-come lately. Much like Eisenhower’s warning, he waited until the political implications were removed. This doesn’t mean he’s wrong — he’s definitely correct in his criticism (just hypocritical in his timing). The oligarchs have taken over. It started under Reagan, was in full stride under Bush Jr and was given legal cover by Citizen’s United. Trump has just made it obvious with the richest cabinet in history
An Eastern European friend once remarked of the post 1989 differences. Prior to 1989, they rioted in the streets when the gov’t raised the price of bread. Now they don’t riot because the “market” raises the price of bread. They couldn’t hold anyone responsible.
I’m reminded of this every time I read studies and problems of the Cdn health care system. The data is easy to collect and the finger is easy to point at. The Cdn system is government controlled and paid in a way that Europe or the US do not commit to. When wait times are long or a bed is not available — the gov’t is blamed. In a market oriented system, we will never be sure — is it insurance, financial ability, gov’t regulations, etc In fact, because data is harder to collect, we may not know there was a problem (except in the abstract — overall numbers life expectancy, infant mortality or maternal death rates).
There are definitely issues to be solved in the post covid Cdn health systems. Unfortunately the mostly conservative provincial governments have failed to spend the necessary infrastructure money. At times, my mind become conspiratorial and thinks they are depriving the system to generate a crisis and then hand it to the private sector.
Strictly anecdotal, I nor my family have ever had an issue in the health care system. It took less than 12 hours from admission to diagnosis to surgery last April when I had appendicitis. And 6 of those hours were spent sleeping in a hospital bed while i waited for my scheduled morning surgery. Total cost — my ex-girlfriend’s parking fee of $20. I took her out for dinner so it cost me more. I was told by my family doctor in a post surgery appointment that we should run some tests. I waited until after my holidays — after speaking to him then, I was scheduled for three diagnostic tests the next week. I might have earlier appointments but I preferred to walk instead of driving to a clinic. My friends and colleagues had similar experiences. However, we all live in the most urbanised area in Canada. The rural-urban divide and the economy of scales is a major issue in health care and I would think that transcends national borders.
Banning Tiktok is a joke — RedNote is here. Prohibition rarely works. Moderation and regulation perhaps but not prohibition. Forcing the sale of Tiktok to an American company would scare foreign investment and lead to retaliation. Maybe China could force the sale of Apple property in China to a Chinese firm.
The electoral college is outdated. Senators aren’t elected by state legislators anymore instead its popular vote; not a bad idea for presidents either (not sure why Republicans would object — Trump would’ve still won)
HRW, it’s not impossible you have never heard an argument for the electoral college, which is why you see it as dated. Of course anyone’s system that is radically different from one’s own can be confusing. I recently read a three-volume biography of Churchill, and until I read it I somehow that members of the House of Lords had more power than in the Commons, and I still don’t understand how it all works, partly because the author assumed that readers know more than I (at least) do know.
Anyway: the idea of both our two houses of Congress and the electoral college is brilliantly designed to make sure that small states still have a say in government–that even Rhode Island matters. States have more representatives in Congress if they have more people, so New York and California have more power in that branch; but each state has exactly two Senators, so in the Senate, Rhode Island and California (theoretically) have equal footing. I’m not necessarily in favor of Senators being elected by popular vote, either, by the way–I haven’t studied that one, so I can’t make an argument for that, but I do know there is real danger in some parts of how the system has morphed, and I think that representatives accumulating more and more power and wealth the longer they “serve,” and buying more and more perks for voters who keep them in office, is harmful.
Well, here is what the electoral college does: It gives large states like California and Texas a lot more votes, but not quite proportionately, because in the electoral college each state gets the number of Congressmen plus the number of Senators. So a state with only 500,000 people gets a minimum number, three votes. I don’t know how many citizens a state has to get an extra Congressman, but let’s say it’s 1,000,000. So, the state with 500,000 people gets three votes in the electoral college, and the state with 1,000,000–twice as many people–gets just one more, four. Obviously California, with 39 million (I did look up that one), gets lots and lots, and has a greatly expanded amount of power.
But if we get rid of the electoral college, Idaho won’t matter at all to politicians. Rhode Island won’t matter; only three or for states (really only the largest cities in those states) will matter. If you promise California some wonderful feature that will hurt Rhode Island, you’ll end up with a lot more votes. As a candidate, you’ll never visit any city with fewer than a million people; you’d be foolish to waste your time that way. Farmers’ votes won’t matter at all, nor the votes of miners. They’re truly irrelevant. Furthermore, it will become easier and more profitable to cheat. Now, with the current system, cheating gets you one state at a time. State A is likely to vote for your opponent, and so you cheat and manage to land it, but if you want State B, you have to land it too. And there isn’t much motivation to cheat in California–the Democrats already have it; the Republicans can’t cheat enough to land it, no matter what.
Now imagine a system in which politicians can cheat in Chicago, with government officials looking the other way, and produce 5 million new votes that don’t just affect Illinois, but affect the whole country–and since it’s harder to audit the entire country than to keep track of individual states, such cheating may be more likely to go undetected.
California already has an outsize power over the entire country because they vote in such a bulk form–but imagine that counties that want Democrats in power can affect not only the votes of California, but of the whole nation’s “popular vote.” Quietly stir in an extra 10 million votes, with no local politician disinclined to let you.
Also, the way the USA was set up is as a voluntary union of states. Initially we would say the United States ARE; though now we say the United States IS, the electoral college continues to say we act as individual states, not primarily as citizens of the USA but primarily as residents of whatever state we reside. Again, the balance of power: states have already lost most of the power granted to them in the Constitution (because the federal government has given itself the power to seize plots of land inside states, the power to regulate things as trivial as the size of holes in Swiss cheese, and powerful taxing authority), but the states should retain this right.
Anyway, that is why the Democrats are in favor, and the Republicans opposed. Republicans don’t want this nation to look like California; we don’t want California to decide the fate of the whole nation, or for large cities and large states to be the only ones that matter.
HRW, it’s not impossible you have never heard an argument for the electoral college, which is why you see it as dated. Of course anyone’s system that is radically different from one’s own can be confusing. I recently read a three-volume biography of Churchill, and until I read it I somehow that members of the House of Lords had more power than in the Commons, and I still don’t understand how it all works, partly because the author assumed that readers know more than I (at least) do know.
Anyway: the idea of both our two houses of Congress and the electoral college is brilliantly designed to make sure that small states still have a say in government–that even Rhode Island matters. States have more representatives in Congress if they have more people, so New York and California have more power in that branch; but each state has exactly two Senators, so in the Senate, Rhode Island and California (theoretically) have equal footing. I’m not necessarily in favor of Senators being elected by popular vote, either, by the way–I haven’t studied that one, so I can’t make an argument for that, but I do know there is real danger in some parts of how the system has morphed, and I think that representatives accumulating more and more power and wealth the longer they “serve,” and buying more and more perks for voters who keep them in office, is harmful.
Well, here is what the electoral college does: It gives large states like California and Texas a lot more votes, but not quite proportionately, because in the electoral college each state gets the number of Congressmen plus the number of Senators. So a state with only 500,000 people gets a minimum number, three votes. I don’t know how many citizens a state has to get an extra Congressman, but let’s say it’s 1,000,000. So, the state with 500,000 people gets three votes in the electoral college, and the state with 1,000,000–twice as many people–gets just one more, four. Obviously California, with 39 million (I did look up that one), gets lots and lots, and has a greatly expanded amount of power.
But if we get rid of the electoral college, Idaho won’t matter at all to politicians. Rhode Island won’t matter; only three or for states (really only the largest cities in those states) will matter. If you promise California some wonderful feature that will hurt Rhode Island, you’ll end up with a lot more votes. As a candidate, you’ll never visit any city with fewer than a million people; you’d be foolish to waste your time that way. Farmers’ votes won’t matter at all, nor the votes of miners. They’re truly irrelevant. Furthermore, it will become easier and more profitable to cheat. Now, with the current system, cheating gets you one state at a time. State A is likely to vote for your opponent, and so you cheat and manage to land it, but if you want State B, you have to land it too. And there isn’t much motivation to cheat in California–the Democrats already have it; the Republicans can’t cheat enough to land it, no matter what.
Now imagine a system in which politicians can cheat in Chicago, with government officials looking the other way, and produce 5 million new votes that don’t just affect Illinois, but affect the whole country–and since it’s harder to audit the entire country than to keep track of individual states, such cheating may be more likely to go undetected.
California already has an outsize power over the entire country because they vote in such a bulk form–but imagine that counties that want Democrats in power can affect not only the votes of California, but of the whole nation’s “popular vote.” Quietly stir in an extra 10 million votes, with no local politician disinclined to let you.
Also, the way the USA was set up is as a voluntary union of states. Initially we would say the United States ARE; though now we say the United States IS, the electoral college continues to say we act as individual states, not primarily as citizens of the USA but primarily as residents of whatever state we reside. Again, the balance of power: states have already lost most of the power granted to them in the Constitution (because the federal government has given itself the power to seize plots of land inside states, the power to regulate things as trivial as the size of holes in Swiss cheese, and powerful taxing authority), but the states should retain this right.
Anyway, that is why the Democrats are in favor, and the Republicans opposed. Republicans don’t want this nation to look like California; we don’t want California to decide the fate of the whole nation, or for large cities and large states to be the only ones that matter.
“Here’s more info: CNN Found Liable for Defamation of Navy Vet Zachary Young
The jury found that Young was entitled to $4 million in economic damages and $1 million in emotional damages. They also ruled that CNN should be subject to punitive damages (the amount to be determined).
A jury of six in Florida’s 14th Circuit Court in Bay County has found CNN liable for the defamation of Navy veteran Zachary Young and that he was entitled economic and emotional damages, a ruling that proved that CNN was not worthy of their moniker “the most trusted name in news.””
“Joe Biden just ratified a constitutional amendment even though US Arcivist told him recently said that United States president cannot ratify a constitutional amendment.
The U.S. archivist and U.S. deputy archivist said in late 2024 that the president could not ratify the amendment because the amendment did not receive the required support from three-fourths of the states by the deadline Congress imposed, which was June 30, 1982.
This is literally what a dictator does.
These are the people who keep trying to tell you that Donald Trump is going to use the power of his office to do things that are unconstitutional.
That is why every Republican needs to get into the practice of laughing in their face and doing whatever the hell they deem necessary because we are up against people who are lawless, have no respect for the constitution and continuously violate the principles of separation of powers.
Despite not having the requisite authority, Joe Biden just made the 28th amendment the law of the land.”
I never understood the expectations that a left wing politician has to have less wealth than a right wing politician. He has a well paying job and like many his age benefits from real estate wealth. Weirdly, I have friends who make the same argument when we discuss politics — they think since I’m “communist”, I should give away any extra money.
Some smaller homes in certain locales are more valuable than a mansion in another locale. You can’t go solely on the photos of the homes to get the whole picture.
Thanks for your long reply. Some of your arguments I’ve heard before and others are new to me. As for the House of Lords and Canada’s own unelected Senate — I still don’t understand their purpose.
The regional argument for the electoral college is quite common but the regional representation in the Senate should be enough. Vermon or Wyoming have far better Senate representation than California or Texas.
Others have argued that Democratic California will overwhelm the vote but right now the vote is about 60-40 which means 40% of California votes are negated. There are 40% more votes for the Republicans — meanwhile 45% of Texans presidential votes are also negated. Unless there’s a local tight race, this has to dampen voter turnout.
I’ve also heard fears that a popular vote will have politicians focusing on major cities. The primary campaign has politicians focusing far more on Iowa, NH and NC. They have an oversized vote on the actual campaigns. My brother a non-American living in Iowa and in very Republican county has probably spent more one on one time with Republican candidates than most Americans (he turned down a meet and greet with Trump)
Once the primaries are done, the actual candidates spend far more time in “swing” states. Right now because of the electoral college they ignore vast swaths of the population in the northeast, west coast, and the old south. Why bother campaigning in Memphis, Dallas, Boston or San Jose when the most important voter is in suburban Philadelphia.
Now the dead of Cook County could overwhelm the vote especially in a tight race. A popular vote then will force more attention on these types of instances. Right now its a joke, but if its important than Republicans might spend more effort on catching the dead. Meanwhile the Democrats ignore voter purging in places like Florida and Alabama — after all it matters very little as those votes would be overwhelmed and not count toward the electoral college.
Electoral reform is something most countries ignore — its difficult to get various parties to agree. However as technology and expectations change, voting should change. For example Canada, the US and the UK need to move away from the first past the post. New Zealand changed to mixed member representation — a mix of districts and proportional representation, far more democratic. Estonia has (almost) perfected online voting. Other nations should look at it. Other presidential republics (eg France) have run-offs for presidential elections. All parties run candidates and then the top two run again. This would bring out more voters and more ideas. Currently the “uniparty” dominates the debate and very few fresh ideas are aired.
Anyway, you get the idea — there’s a lot of options and any means to increase votes, ideas and security should be looked into.
The Department of Justice has already opined that the amendment had not been ratified.
Outgoing President Joe Biden issued a declaration that was mocked and ridiculed for attempting to simply declare a 28th Amendment to the Constitution.
Biden posted on social media his “belief” that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified to the Constitution.
‘Dementia is not a magic ticket to become a dictator.’
“Today I’m affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified,” read the missive attributed to Biden. “The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.”
Sanders has been on the government dole since 1991. He has a great income and pension. He has 3 homes when many cannot afford 1! Yet he complains about the rich guys and wants a 45% tax levied on them. He should watch what he hopes for because he is in that class…
From Forbes:
What does Sanders, the scourge of the wealthy, have to say about his own wealth? He is uncharacteristically silent: A Sanders spokesman didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
Please note that my comments were not necessarily pro-Sanders, merely pointing out the difference between “4 mansions” and three houses, even if they are large or expensive.
This brief video is an interview with Sanders in which he talks about his homes and wealth:
Sanders was considered fairly consistent until his TDS caused him to throw in with Hillary. He’s been in public service pretty much his whole career starting in the 1980’s with 4 terms as Mayor of Burlington, VT before he went to DC.
I think there’s a legitimate debate to be had about the value of long term public service. There are pros and cons. But on thing is undebatable: the people who serve have more information and control over governmental decisions because they are there. As a group, I think Republicans and conservatives in particular discourage public service in favor of private business. Democrats encourage public service. That has serious consequences. Perhaps we should reconsider the value of public service.
Wandering Views 
I see the court held up the Tik Tok ban. That should be interesting to watch. I am not on Tik Tok but have grandchildren etc. on it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sure, by getting rid of the system that’s worked for nearly 250 years….
These are unserious people.
🤡🤡🤡🤡
https://x.com/JDVanceNewsX/status/1879943165240816028?t=1taNt_pwPBRVwAXMs3TTFA&s=19
“Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to remove the Electoral College, saying it will “restore Democracy.””
LikeLiked by 2 people
TT needs to be sold to an American company, fully cut off from Chinese surveillance and spyware, and then re-launched.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Their hypocrisy is limitless.
https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1880119200930517149?t=-Orsl0BV2Ac91jhi5948eQ&s=19
“Democrats, have all the sudden become very worried about becoming an oligarchy where billionaires control the world.
Here is a list of billionaires who are exclusively contributing to the Democratic Party:
– George Soros
– Michael Bloomberg
– Reid Hoffman
– Hansjorg Weiss
– Tom Steyer
– Sam Bankman – Fried
– JB Pritzker
– Marc Benioff
– Neil Blum – Mark Cuban
– Laurene Powell Jobs
– Bill Gates
Here is the list that have contributed to Republicans in the last year:
– Elon Musk
– Zuckerberg (like a week ago)
– Besos (like a week ago)
Oh yes, be afraid of the oligarchs, but not the ones on the right. The ones on the left who have been systemically funneling all of their money through 501(c)(4)s that have been purchasing elections by destroying election integrity measures across the country, investing in insane ballot measures, and overall funneling $2 billion worth of dark money per election cycle.
Please tell me some more about oligarchy Bernie Sanders, from one of your 4 mansions no less.”
——
Biden pushed this thru for his favorite oligarch.
https://x.com/CollinsforTX/status/1880015494339874907?t=uPpWwR6CC8yrANLUJJLPYw&s=19
“Billionaire George Soros recently bought 200+ radio stations in 40 markets with 165 million listeners.
Joe Biden’s FCC fast-tracked the deal before the November election.
Remember this when Democrats claim an “oligarchy” will form in Trump’s America.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is Sen. Tim Kaine, the hypocrite so worried about Pete Hegseth having a drink now and then.
Again, the hypocrisy is astounding.
https://x.com/NoVA_Campaigns/status/1879337807015194651?t=yQ7ICVj5VTGqlczDYnkbHA&s=19
LikeLiked by 3 people
“21 days before the Palisades Fire broke out, Los Angeles Fire personnel jammed into a LA Fire commission meeting with a dire warning about the consequences of Karen Bass’ budget cuts.
“The residence of Los Angeles are going to pay the ultimate sacrifice, and someone will die.””
https://x.com/TheKevinDalton/status/1879936420602900963?t=_r8MJzuqd0eAqxFqEhn0_A&s=19
—-
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1880074919616344139?t=RM50BHbuhkagzrqoMwdP9Q&s=19
“Strong words from LA fire fighters to the chief: “[I]f you had done things right… fatalities would have been reduced, property would have been saved….the preventive systems… were nonexistent… We attribute this to… lack of experience, arrogance, inability to lead…”
LikeLiked by 3 people
~ “Do I own three residences? Yeah, I do,” Sanders said. He explained that he lives in Burlington, Vermont, in a “middle-class neighborhood, nice house,” and owns another home in Washington, D.C., like most senators do. He also has a summer camp on Lake Champlain. “That’s it,” Sanders stated, noting that his homes are far from luxurious. “They’re middle-class houses.”
When asked how he managed to afford these properties, Sanders pointed to his success as an author. “I wrote two bestselling books,” he said, including one about capitalism that became a New York Times bestseller. He also earns $175,000 a year as a senator.
Sanders emphasized that while he’s now comfortable financially, his working-class background remains a key part of who he is. “Growing up in a working-class family has been maybe the most singularly significant aspect of my politics,” he said. He grew up in a rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn and remembers not having money.” ~
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-says-very-easy-161523858.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Biden’s criticism of the oligarch is of course Johnny-come lately. Much like Eisenhower’s warning, he waited until the political implications were removed. This doesn’t mean he’s wrong — he’s definitely correct in his criticism (just hypocritical in his timing). The oligarchs have taken over. It started under Reagan, was in full stride under Bush Jr and was given legal cover by Citizen’s United. Trump has just made it obvious with the richest cabinet in history
I found this interesting
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/the-guardian-view-on-bidens-warning-of-oligarchy-trump-and-the-malefactors-of-wealth
hrw
LikeLiked by 1 person
An Eastern European friend once remarked of the post 1989 differences. Prior to 1989, they rioted in the streets when the gov’t raised the price of bread. Now they don’t riot because the “market” raises the price of bread. They couldn’t hold anyone responsible.
I’m reminded of this every time I read studies and problems of the Cdn health care system. The data is easy to collect and the finger is easy to point at. The Cdn system is government controlled and paid in a way that Europe or the US do not commit to. When wait times are long or a bed is not available — the gov’t is blamed. In a market oriented system, we will never be sure — is it insurance, financial ability, gov’t regulations, etc In fact, because data is harder to collect, we may not know there was a problem (except in the abstract — overall numbers life expectancy, infant mortality or maternal death rates).
There are definitely issues to be solved in the post covid Cdn health systems. Unfortunately the mostly conservative provincial governments have failed to spend the necessary infrastructure money. At times, my mind become conspiratorial and thinks they are depriving the system to generate a crisis and then hand it to the private sector.
Strictly anecdotal, I nor my family have ever had an issue in the health care system. It took less than 12 hours from admission to diagnosis to surgery last April when I had appendicitis. And 6 of those hours were spent sleeping in a hospital bed while i waited for my scheduled morning surgery. Total cost — my ex-girlfriend’s parking fee of $20. I took her out for dinner so it cost me more. I was told by my family doctor in a post surgery appointment that we should run some tests. I waited until after my holidays — after speaking to him then, I was scheduled for three diagnostic tests the next week. I might have earlier appointments but I preferred to walk instead of driving to a clinic. My friends and colleagues had similar experiences. However, we all live in the most urbanised area in Canada. The rural-urban divide and the economy of scales is a major issue in health care and I would think that transcends national borders.
hrw
LikeLiked by 1 person
Banning Tiktok is a joke — RedNote is here. Prohibition rarely works. Moderation and regulation perhaps but not prohibition. Forcing the sale of Tiktok to an American company would scare foreign investment and lead to retaliation. Maybe China could force the sale of Apple property in China to a Chinese firm.
The electoral college is outdated. Senators aren’t elected by state legislators anymore instead its popular vote; not a bad idea for presidents either (not sure why Republicans would object — Trump would’ve still won)
hrw
LikeLike
Electoral College is essential.
mumsee
LikeLiked by 5 people
Sure…. middle class neighborhoods… 🙄
https://x.com/netre25/status/1879400302945931311?t=KgUSpHjkErebXT7Gy8hkgw&s=19
🙄
https://x.com/Thomas1774Paine/status/763363278051475456?t=Cz47reqdXulXsZSNxkCuBg&s=19
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just stop…. 🙄
https://x.com/ReaganBattalion/status/815958151463845888?t=nnDmNRqzCsn_ve6qeeHaIA&s=19
LikeLiked by 1 person
HRW, it’s not impossible you have never heard an argument for the electoral college, which is why you see it as dated. Of course anyone’s system that is radically different from one’s own can be confusing. I recently read a three-volume biography of Churchill, and until I read it I somehow that members of the House of Lords had more power than in the Commons, and I still don’t understand how it all works, partly because the author assumed that readers know more than I (at least) do know.
Anyway: the idea of both our two houses of Congress and the electoral college is brilliantly designed to make sure that small states still have a say in government–that even Rhode Island matters. States have more representatives in Congress if they have more people, so New York and California have more power in that branch; but each state has exactly two Senators, so in the Senate, Rhode Island and California (theoretically) have equal footing. I’m not necessarily in favor of Senators being elected by popular vote, either, by the way–I haven’t studied that one, so I can’t make an argument for that, but I do know there is real danger in some parts of how the system has morphed, and I think that representatives accumulating more and more power and wealth the longer they “serve,” and buying more and more perks for voters who keep them in office, is harmful.
Well, here is what the electoral college does: It gives large states like California and Texas a lot more votes, but not quite proportionately, because in the electoral college each state gets the number of Congressmen plus the number of Senators. So a state with only 500,000 people gets a minimum number, three votes. I don’t know how many citizens a state has to get an extra Congressman, but let’s say it’s 1,000,000. So, the state with 500,000 people gets three votes in the electoral college, and the state with 1,000,000–twice as many people–gets just one more, four. Obviously California, with 39 million (I did look up that one), gets lots and lots, and has a greatly expanded amount of power.
But if we get rid of the electoral college, Idaho won’t matter at all to politicians. Rhode Island won’t matter; only three or for states (really only the largest cities in those states) will matter. If you promise California some wonderful feature that will hurt Rhode Island, you’ll end up with a lot more votes. As a candidate, you’ll never visit any city with fewer than a million people; you’d be foolish to waste your time that way. Farmers’ votes won’t matter at all, nor the votes of miners. They’re truly irrelevant. Furthermore, it will become easier and more profitable to cheat. Now, with the current system, cheating gets you one state at a time. State A is likely to vote for your opponent, and so you cheat and manage to land it, but if you want State B, you have to land it too. And there isn’t much motivation to cheat in California–the Democrats already have it; the Republicans can’t cheat enough to land it, no matter what.
Now imagine a system in which politicians can cheat in Chicago, with government officials looking the other way, and produce 5 million new votes that don’t just affect Illinois, but affect the whole country–and since it’s harder to audit the entire country than to keep track of individual states, such cheating may be more likely to go undetected.
California already has an outsize power over the entire country because they vote in such a bulk form–but imagine that counties that want Democrats in power can affect not only the votes of California, but of the whole nation’s “popular vote.” Quietly stir in an extra 10 million votes, with no local politician disinclined to let you.
Also, the way the USA was set up is as a voluntary union of states. Initially we would say the United States ARE; though now we say the United States IS, the electoral college continues to say we act as individual states, not primarily as citizens of the USA but primarily as residents of whatever state we reside. Again, the balance of power: states have already lost most of the power granted to them in the Constitution (because the federal government has given itself the power to seize plots of land inside states, the power to regulate things as trivial as the size of holes in Swiss cheese, and powerful taxing authority), but the states should retain this right.
Anyway, that is why the Democrats are in favor, and the Republicans opposed. Republicans don’t want this nation to look like California; we don’t want California to decide the fate of the whole nation, or for large cities and large states to be the only ones that matter.
LikeLiked by 3 people
HRW, it’s not impossible you have never heard an argument for the electoral college, which is why you see it as dated. Of course anyone’s system that is radically different from one’s own can be confusing. I recently read a three-volume biography of Churchill, and until I read it I somehow that members of the House of Lords had more power than in the Commons, and I still don’t understand how it all works, partly because the author assumed that readers know more than I (at least) do know.
Anyway: the idea of both our two houses of Congress and the electoral college is brilliantly designed to make sure that small states still have a say in government–that even Rhode Island matters. States have more representatives in Congress if they have more people, so New York and California have more power in that branch; but each state has exactly two Senators, so in the Senate, Rhode Island and California (theoretically) have equal footing. I’m not necessarily in favor of Senators being elected by popular vote, either, by the way–I haven’t studied that one, so I can’t make an argument for that, but I do know there is real danger in some parts of how the system has morphed, and I think that representatives accumulating more and more power and wealth the longer they “serve,” and buying more and more perks for voters who keep them in office, is harmful.
Well, here is what the electoral college does: It gives large states like California and Texas a lot more votes, but not quite proportionately, because in the electoral college each state gets the number of Congressmen plus the number of Senators. So a state with only 500,000 people gets a minimum number, three votes. I don’t know how many citizens a state has to get an extra Congressman, but let’s say it’s 1,000,000. So, the state with 500,000 people gets three votes in the electoral college, and the state with 1,000,000–twice as many people–gets just one more, four. Obviously California, with 39 million (I did look up that one), gets lots and lots, and has a greatly expanded amount of power.
But if we get rid of the electoral college, Idaho won’t matter at all to politicians. Rhode Island won’t matter; only three or for states (really only the largest cities in those states) will matter. If you promise California some wonderful feature that will hurt Rhode Island, you’ll end up with a lot more votes. As a candidate, you’ll never visit any city with fewer than a million people; you’d be foolish to waste your time that way. Farmers’ votes won’t matter at all, nor the votes of miners. They’re truly irrelevant. Furthermore, it will become easier and more profitable to cheat. Now, with the current system, cheating gets you one state at a time. State A is likely to vote for your opponent, and so you cheat and manage to land it, but if you want State B, you have to land it too. And there isn’t much motivation to cheat in California–the Democrats already have it; the Republicans can’t cheat enough to land it, no matter what.
Now imagine a system in which politicians can cheat in Chicago, with government officials looking the other way, and produce 5 million new votes that don’t just affect Illinois, but affect the whole country–and since it’s harder to audit the entire country than to keep track of individual states, such cheating may be more likely to go undetected.
California already has an outsize power over the entire country because they vote in such a bulk form–but imagine that counties that want Democrats in power can affect not only the votes of California, but of the whole nation’s “popular vote.” Quietly stir in an extra 10 million votes, with no local politician disinclined to let you.
Also, the way the USA was set up is as a voluntary union of states. Initially we would say the United States ARE; though now we say the United States IS, the electoral college continues to say we act as individual states, not primarily as citizens of the USA but primarily as residents of whatever state we reside. Again, the balance of power: states have already lost most of the power granted to them in the Constitution (because the federal government has given itself the power to seize plots of land inside states, the power to regulate things as trivial as the size of holes in Swiss cheese, and powerful taxing authority), but the states should retain this right.
Anyway, that is why the Democrats are in favor, and the Republicans opposed. Republicans don’t want this nation to look like California; we don’t want California to decide the fate of the whole nation, or for large cities and large states to be the only ones that matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Jury in CNN defamation trial — finds CNN guilty”
https://x.com/MZHemingway/status/1880304798555410725?t=2hZLk4kBjTPnW_2-STo6DQ&s=19
—-
https://x.com/Eddies_X/status/1880306684880462115?t=IhlvzBLb8bNrQq2m4YH5iw&s=19
“Here’s more info: CNN Found Liable for Defamation of Navy Vet Zachary Young
The jury found that Young was entitled to $4 million in economic damages and $1 million in emotional damages. They also ruled that CNN should be subject to punitive damages (the amount to be determined).
A jury of six in Florida’s 14th Circuit Court in Bay County has found CNN liable for the defamation of Navy veteran Zachary Young and that he was entitled economic and emotional damages, a ruling that proved that CNN was not worthy of their moniker “the most trusted name in news.””
newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicho…
LikeLiked by 4 people
Huh. Yet Trump is the dictator he tells us..
https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1880281725663867189?t=ehzId7KuHX2ehX8EvSP01w&s=19
“Joe Biden just ratified a constitutional amendment even though US Arcivist told him recently said that United States president cannot ratify a constitutional amendment.
The U.S. archivist and U.S. deputy archivist said in late 2024 that the president could not ratify the amendment because the amendment did not receive the required support from three-fourths of the states by the deadline Congress imposed, which was June 30, 1982.
This is literally what a dictator does.
These are the people who keep trying to tell you that Donald Trump is going to use the power of his office to do things that are unconstitutional.
That is why every Republican needs to get into the practice of laughing in their face and doing whatever the hell they deem necessary because we are up against people who are lawless, have no respect for the constitution and continuously violate the principles of separation of powers.
Despite not having the requisite authority, Joe Biden just made the 28th amendment the law of the land.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
I don’t think Bernie Sanders is unreasonablely wealthy, but he destroyed his credibility by hitching his wagon to the Hillary train in 2016.
We don’t need billionaire oligarchs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is a big difference between owning “4 mansions” and owning three homes, even if a couple of them are on the large side.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-socialist-bernie-sanders-has-3-houses-makes-millions
LikeLiked by 1 person
I never understood the expectations that a left wing politician has to have less wealth than a right wing politician. He has a well paying job and like many his age benefits from real estate wealth. Weirdly, I have friends who make the same argument when we discuss politics — they think since I’m “communist”, I should give away any extra money.
hrw
LikeLike
Location, location, location.
Some smaller homes in certain locales are more valuable than a mansion in another locale. You can’t go solely on the photos of the homes to get the whole picture.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cheryl,
Thanks for your long reply. Some of your arguments I’ve heard before and others are new to me. As for the House of Lords and Canada’s own unelected Senate — I still don’t understand their purpose.
The regional argument for the electoral college is quite common but the regional representation in the Senate should be enough. Vermon or Wyoming have far better Senate representation than California or Texas.
Others have argued that Democratic California will overwhelm the vote but right now the vote is about 60-40 which means 40% of California votes are negated. There are 40% more votes for the Republicans — meanwhile 45% of Texans presidential votes are also negated. Unless there’s a local tight race, this has to dampen voter turnout.
I’ve also heard fears that a popular vote will have politicians focusing on major cities. The primary campaign has politicians focusing far more on Iowa, NH and NC. They have an oversized vote on the actual campaigns. My brother a non-American living in Iowa and in very Republican county has probably spent more one on one time with Republican candidates than most Americans (he turned down a meet and greet with Trump)
Once the primaries are done, the actual candidates spend far more time in “swing” states. Right now because of the electoral college they ignore vast swaths of the population in the northeast, west coast, and the old south. Why bother campaigning in Memphis, Dallas, Boston or San Jose when the most important voter is in suburban Philadelphia.
Now the dead of Cook County could overwhelm the vote especially in a tight race. A popular vote then will force more attention on these types of instances. Right now its a joke, but if its important than Republicans might spend more effort on catching the dead. Meanwhile the Democrats ignore voter purging in places like Florida and Alabama — after all it matters very little as those votes would be overwhelmed and not count toward the electoral college.
Electoral reform is something most countries ignore — its difficult to get various parties to agree. However as technology and expectations change, voting should change. For example Canada, the US and the UK need to move away from the first past the post. New Zealand changed to mixed member representation — a mix of districts and proportional representation, far more democratic. Estonia has (almost) perfected online voting. Other nations should look at it. Other presidential republics (eg France) have run-offs for presidential elections. All parties run candidates and then the top two run again. This would bring out more voters and more ideas. Currently the “uniparty” dominates the debate and very few fresh ideas are aired.
Anyway, you get the idea — there’s a lot of options and any means to increase votes, ideas and security should be looked into.
hrw
LikeLike
Janice – But the post mentioned mansions, not merely expensive houses.
LikeLike
Time to turn out the lights and go to bed Joe!!!
The Department of Justice has already opined that the amendment had not been ratified.
Outgoing President Joe Biden issued a declaration that was mocked and ridiculed for attempting to simply declare a 28th Amendment to the Constitution.
Biden posted on social media his “belief” that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified to the Constitution.
‘Dementia is not a magic ticket to become a dictator.’
“Today I’m affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified,” read the missive attributed to Biden. “The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sanders has been on the government dole since 1991. He has a great income and pension. He has 3 homes when many cannot afford 1! Yet he complains about the rich guys and wants a 45% tax levied on them. He should watch what he hopes for because he is in that class…
From Forbes:
What does Sanders, the scourge of the wealthy, have to say about his own wealth? He is uncharacteristically silent: A Sanders spokesman didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
LikeLike
Please note that my comments were not necessarily pro-Sanders, merely pointing out the difference between “4 mansions” and three houses, even if they are large or expensive.
This brief video is an interview with Sanders in which he talks about his homes and wealth:
LikeLike
Sanders was considered fairly consistent until his TDS caused him to throw in with Hillary. He’s been in public service pretty much his whole career starting in the 1980’s with 4 terms as Mayor of Burlington, VT before he went to DC.
I think there’s a legitimate debate to be had about the value of long term public service. There are pros and cons. But on thing is undebatable: the people who serve have more information and control over governmental decisions because they are there. As a group, I think Republicans and conservatives in particular discourage public service in favor of private business. Democrats encourage public service. That has serious consequences. Perhaps we should reconsider the value of public service.
LikeLiked by 1 person