CNN is running ads for an evening show explaining the Electoral College

CNN at 10 pm tomorrow "Count on Controversy: inside the Electoral College".

They also have this other video.

The host said during an ad piece that an amendment providing for direct popular election of the president was supported by Nixon and got through the house and would have got through the senate but for a small-state filibuster.

On September 18, 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming 338 to 70 to send a constitutional amendment to the Senate that would have dismantled the Electoral College, the indirect system by which Americans elect the president and vice president.

“It was the only time in American history that a chamber of Congress actually approved an amendment to abolish the Electoral College,” says Jesse Wegman, a member of the New York Times editorial board and author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College.

The House vote, which came in the wake of an extraordinarily close presidential election, mirrored national sentiment about scrapping an electoral system that allowed a candidate to win the presidency even while losing the popular vote. 

A 1968 Gallup poll found that 80 percent of Americans believed it was time to elect the nation’s highest office by direct popular vote.

Yet just a year later, the Senate bill that would have ended the Electoral College was dead in the water, filibustered by a cadre of Southern lawmakers intent on preserving the majority’s grip on electoral power in their states. 

Despite widespread bipartisan support for the amendment in both large and small states, the Senate came five votes shy of breaking the filibuster.

He said he thinks that means no such amendment will ever be sent to the states by the congress.

But if the Dems win both houses this fall and dump the filibuster?

Dishonesty is sometimes the best policy

The Supremes today cancelled the freedom of the electors to save the republic from the idiocy of the voters by cancelling their authority to actually choose the president.

On the other hand, affirming their authority to make their own choice would invite far more widespread faithlessness motivated and inspired by shocking new levels of skulduggery and corruption.

Most of the time, the rules of the states lead to results that mirror the popular vote nationally.

Admitting the freedom of the electors could lead to results that far more often defy the national popular vote.

So this utterly dishonest decision is more than welcome.

Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College

They affirm that state constraints on the votes of electors are constitutionally OK and can be enforced, though where they don't exist the electors are free to vote as they choose.

Nor does it seem they pronounced the faithless votes of faithless electors invalid.

They regard the electors as mere agents who must do as they are told. If they are told.

The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

"Because it would be stupid" is not a reason to disbelieve that the constitution says or does something.

Nor is it a good reason to disbelieve the constitution does not say or do something.

But it's a good, if contestable, reason to say that the constitution says or does something, or that it does not.

Constitutional disobedience.

Whole swaths of the foolish thing are honored largely - some exclusively - in the breach.

Supreme Court appears poised to let states keep 'faithless electors' out of the Electoral College

The electoral college is a blot on democracy. The Supreme Court shouldn't make it worse

Of course, punishing them after the fact does not invalidate their votes, and the punishments are not such as to deter anyone serious.

Some state laws do purport to invalidate the votes of faithless electors, but I don't know how that works out in reality.

Some state laws forbidding faithlessness neither punish it nor invalidate faithless votes.

Wikipedia.

The Supremes dare not just shit-can the EC in favor of direct popular election of the president since that would reveal the nudity of the King who professes to wear robes emblazoned, "I am an honest jurist. I only enforce what the Constitution actually says, making it prevail always in all things. My vote never reflects my judgement of what is desirable or best in defiance of what the Framers gave us. Oh, my, no. Never that."

However thin the robes may seem.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh asked during the argument in the Washington case whether the court ought not to be guided by what he called “the avoid-chaos principle of judging.”

I imagine the remark greeted with much hilarity. But likely not. Notoriously humorless, these robed bureaucrats.

And, anyway, Republicans don't want popular election because they do like their EC wins.

"Faithless elector" laws preserve those wins.

Best thing? Lie.

We can't handle the truth.

Apart from giving added power to smaller states in the choice of president, the only reason for the existence of the EC is to take the decision out of the hands not only of the people but even of the states, their governors or legislatures.

The choice of the electors is clearly supposed to be as ad lib as the votes of legislators or the choices of the president.

They are not mere messengers or mouthpieces for anyone.

The very concept of a faithless elector rests on completely, and even willfully, missing the point.

Faithless electors: US supreme court to weigh role of electoral college members

See Article II, Section 1, clauses 1 through 3.

Subsequent amendments don't affect the argument.

But nobody wants to accept the system prescribed by the constitution.

The only honest way out is by passing an amendment.

But, honest or not, we need a way out.

The Dems' repeated warnings are so absurdly hollow

"It will mean every future president can do the same and get away with the same! Democrats too!"

You're joking, right? Not a Democratic president. Oh, no. Over every GOP congress-critter's dead body, eh?

Consistency and cross-party fairness is no part of their plan, except they will consistently do anything to advance their side and crush ours, even at the cost of making America a laughing stock of the world, the world's richest and most powerful fucking banana republic.

And the hell of it is Boss Trump will get worse, as will the GOP, now they know nothing can stop them, after he wins reelection in the Electoral College over whichever doomed Democrat loser goes up against him and wins only the suffrage of the people, a victory in the meaningless popular vote, perhaps even better than Hillary's.

Winning a game we are not playing, losing by the actual rules of the actual game.

Republican theory for Trump acquittal could unleash unrestrained presidential power

Yeah, sure. Republican presidential power.

Sound scary? That's the constitution.

'Faithless elector': Supreme Court will hear case that could change how presidents are chosen

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up an issue that could change a key element of the system America uses to elect its president, with a decision likely in the spring just as the campaign heats up.

The answer to the question could be a decisive one: Are the electors who cast the actual Electoral College ballots for president and vice president required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states? 

Or are they free to vote as they wish?

If the Electors being utterly free scares you to death it probably would scare the whole country to death and move most people to support a constitutional amendment to abolish it.

Because if these guys are painfully honest about the constitution that's what they'll say.

For the umpty umpth time, the voters chose Hillary. She has the mandate of the people.

The Electoral College chose Bozo.

He has their mandate.

The mandate of, what?, 538 low flying political noodles?

Odd, which mandate cuts ice, eh?

The most usual defense of the EC and its power to defy the preference of the actual voters is that it is thus empowered to save us from the people's choice of some dreadful demagogue, making president in his stead some at least harmless politician, if not some admirable statesman.

I guess we won't hear much of that defense, any more.

But another might be that the EC, like the equal representation of states in the senate, intentionally insulates our political branches and institutions from all always or usually being overwhelmed by the same popular passions at the same time.

If we did not have such braking devices, imagine how much more power horrors like Trump might obtain from "wave" elections dominated by his supporters.

Or how much power underlying popular phenomena like the existence of so many deplorables all supporting the same sort of politician or agenda might gain in a single election or sequence of federal elections if they were all equally or too close to equally responsive to the - hopefully transient - passions of deplorable voters like the Trumpist Republicans.

Maybe that's an argument for both the EC and unequal representation in the senate that potentially survives the counter-example of Trump?

Al Capone in the White House

Remember the character of Al Capone as depicted in the film, The Untouchables?

That's the guy the Electoral College - absolutely not the American voters - put into the White House in 2016, with a lot of help, per the entire US intelligence community, from Vladimir Putin.

Not an authoritarian or even populist politician, really. Just a psychotic, narcissistic thug.

Alligators and snakes in a moat at a wall along the Mexican border.

Glass blades at the top to lacerate the flesh of people trying to climb over.

Border guards instructed to shoot to kill, or at least maim, desperate migrants crossing unauthorized.

Withholding half a billion in aid to Ukraine, intended by Congress to help them resist aggression by Putin's Russia.

Making it abundantly clear to Ukraine's president, in a phone call Mike Pompeo was on and an aide of Mike Pence was on, that if he wants that money he had better dig up dirt on Joe Biden's son for Trump's 2020 campaign.

Using Pence, Pompeo, and Barr to solicit from foreign governments aid in casting mountains of discredit on the idea Russia did anything to aid Trump's 2016 campaign and would aid or is aiding his 2020 campaign.

Denouncing the unknown whistle blower as a spy and demanding he be outed and punished as spies once were, by the death penalty.

Denouncing Adam Schiff, dubbed "Shifty Schiff", as a liar and a traitor who ought to be forced to resign.

If I were not an atheist I would be praying, nightly, for his happy death.

Like Big Al in The Untouchables, he lies, he glories in a sycophantic section of the press that loves him, he spreads the disease of political corruption all around him.

If you have been watching the news these last few days and have not seen this, there is something very wrong with you.

Perhaps you are a Trumpist.

Update.

All of this was made possible by the idiotic excess of democracy that passed the power to choose their candidates from the party professional pols to the primary voters and caucus going activists.

Trump is proof that the process is too democratic.

A lesson everyone has absolutely refused to learn.

The poem presupposed racism, when written, says Cuccinelli

Probably true.

And now he's being fried for it as the Dems seeking nomination and desperate to win the hearts and minds of the party's primary voters and the entire left wing noise machine all blast him, Trump, the GOP, and the new policy for racism, racism, racism.

He also pointed out the poem was written one year after the first public charge rule was imposed.

Not going to matter.

Cuccinelli: Statue of Liberty poem was about 'people coming from Europe

I guess 2020 will tell us who was right about who wins when the Dems turn up the volume, yelling about racism.

They think it turns out their anti-racist voters and helps them win.

Steve Bannon thinks it fires up the GOP base in just the right swing states to give Trump another Electoral College victory.

So maybe his attack on the Squad is paying off, after all?

Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign

He doesn't need and probably doesn't even hope for a win among the voters.

Imagine the fury of the Democrats.

President Trump’s approval ratings are under water in national polls. 

His position for re-election, on the other hand, might not be quite so bleak.

His advantage in the Electoral College, relative to the national popular vote, may be even larger than it was in 2016, according to an Upshot analysis of election results and polling data.

That persistent edge leaves him closer to re-election than one would think based on national polls, and it might blunt any electoral cost of actions like his recent tweets attacking four minority congresswomen.

. . . .

The president’s views on immigration and trade play relatively well in the Northern battlegrounds, including among the pivotal Obama-Trump voters.

There are signs that some of these voters have soured on his presidency, based on recent polling. 

There is also reason to think that white working-class voters who supported Mr. Trump were relatively likely to stay home in last November’s midterm elections.

A strategy rooted in racial polarization could at once energize parts of the president’s base and rebuild support among wavering white working-class voters. 

Many of these voters backed Mr. Trump in the first place in part because of his views on hot-button issues, including on immigration and race.

. . . .

But Mr. Trump’s approval rating has been stable even after seemingly big missteps. 

And if it improves by a modest amount — not unusual for incumbents with a strong economy — he could have a distinct chance to win re-election while losing the popular vote by more than he did in 2016, when he lost it by 2.1 percentage points.

The president’s relative advantage in the Electoral College could grow even further in a high-turnout election, which could pad Democratic margins nationwide while doing little to help them in the Northern battleground states.

It is even possible that Mr. Trump could win while losing the national vote by as much as five percentage points.
. . . .

Many assume that the huge turnout expected in 2020 will benefit Democrats, but it’s not so straightforward. 

It could conceivably work to the advantage of either party, and either way, higher turnout could widen the gap between the Electoral College and the popular vote.

That’s because the major Democratic opportunity — to mobilize nonwhite and young voters on the periphery of politics — would disproportionately help Democrats in diverse, often noncompetitive states.

The major Republican opportunity — to mobilize less educated white voters, particularly those who voted in 2016 but sat out 2018 — would disproportionately help them in white, working-class areas overrepresented in the Northern battleground states.

Barr, cat, bag

Trump folds in citizenship census dispute

. . . .

The latest dustup was merely a skirmish in the larger war over using citizenship status to help determine which party controls the White House and the House in the future, as well as how federal money is distributed.

"That information will be used for countless purposes," Barr said.

"For example, there is a current dispute over whether illegal aliens can be included for apportionment purposes. ... We will be studying this issue."

. . . .

Every 10 years, after the census is taken, the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are reapportioned based on each state's share of the national population.

The allotments are based on a formula that assigns the most seats to the states with the largest number of people and the fewest seats to those with the least number of people — with each state getting at least one representative in the House.

California, the most populous state in the country, has 53 House seats.

If there were fewer people in California — or a large proportion of its population were not counted — it might lose representation to another state.

It doesn't just matter for the House.

Because the number of votes each state gets in the electoral college is based on its congressional representation — one elector per House member plus one for each senator — a change in apportionment could also affect presidential elections.

Additionally, many federal programs distribute funds to states or local governments through population-related formulas.

The constitution unmistakably mandates all persons, not only all citizens, be counted and represented.

And that is what has always been done.

Biden can do it, says the latest poll. The others? Maybe not.

Biden beats Trump by 10 percent among registered voters, by 14 percent among adult Americans.

All the other Dems lead Trump a bit among all adults, too, but are in statistical dead heats with the Duce among registered voters.

Another question tests Trump against "a Democratic candidate who you regard as a socialist" –relevant given the Republicans’ stated aim of applying that label to their eventual opponent. 

Not to mention the habit of some of the Democrats - and one notable non-Democrat running for the Democratic nomination for the second time - of applying the label to themselves.

Among the general public the race is tied among Trump vs. a perceived socialist; among registered voters it goes +6 to Trump, 49% to 43%, not a significant difference.

It seems that registered voters are notably both more pro-Trump and more anti-socialist than all adults.

Results show some notable differences among groups. 

Moderates favor Biden over Trump by a 29-point margin, compared with 18- to 15-point margins for Warren, Sanders or Buttigieg vs. Trump (and 21 points for Harris). 

Biden leads among most groups save traditionally GOP-leaning ones, including whites who lack a college degree, conservatives, older adults and rural Americans. 

Among blacks, Biden’s 83-12 lead is as good as Harris’ 77-16%. 

And Biden has a 17-point lead among college-educated white women, which is better than Harris’ 9 points and Warren’s 7 points in the same key Democratic group. 

Indeed neither of those is a statistically significant lead.

And that's some fat margin of error they have in this poll, eh?

Bear all this in mind when impatient and even delusion Democrats from the party's left write stuff like this.

They remind me of activist nitwits who sincerely thought the anti-war movement was going to bring about a red revolution in the US, back in the day, during the Vietnam War.

Or the kind of nitwit Hollywood liberals who actually believed - as opposed to merely, mendaciously, and viciously claimed to believe - the US military might stage a coup against a too liberal president and install a more firmly anti-Communist military dictatorship in his place.

(Think Seven Days in May.)

Oh, about that difference between all adults and registered voters.

The differences between all adults and registered voters mark a longtime GOP advantage; their support groups are more apt to be signed up to vote. 

Just 64% of 18- to 29-year-olds, a broadly Democratic group, are registered, vs. 92% of those 50 and older. 

And only 71% of nonwhites are registered, including 61% of Hispanics (a group with more younger adults and non-citizens alike), vs. 89% of whites.

These are early days, of course, with time aplenty for preferences to develop. 

It’s also worth noting that, as the 2016 contest showed, polling ahead in – and winning – the national vote is not necessarily the same as winning the Electoral College.

80% of life is just showing up, as Woody Allen once noted.

Warren one-ups Bernie

Elizabeth Warren’s Higher Education Plan: Cancel Student Debt and Eliminate Tuition

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has structured her presidential campaign around a steady unveiling of disruptive policy ideas, on Monday proposed her biggest one yet: a $1.25 trillion plan to reshape higher education by canceling most student loan debt and eliminating tuition at every public college.

Ms. Warren’s sweeping plan has several planks. 

She would pay for it with revenue generated by her proposed increase in taxes for America’s most wealthy families and corporations, which the campaign estimates to be $2.75 trillion over 10 years. 

In addition to eliminating undergraduate tuition at public colleges and universities, she would expand federal grants to help students with nontuition expenses and create a $50 billion fund to support historically black colleges and universities.

She would eliminate up to $50,000 in student loan debt for every person with a household income of less than $100,000; borrowers who make between $100,000 and $250,000 would have a portion of their debt forgiven.

. . . .

Ms. Warren has already offered proposals to provide universal child care and expand affordable housing, paid for by her new taxes on the wealthy. 

She has called for the elimination of the Electoral College, and promised to expand the role of the federal government in reining in unfettered capitalism, with separate proposals on breaking up technological giants such as Amazon and Facebook, new regulations aimed at protecting public lands, and reversing consolidation in the agriculture sector.

. . . .

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont was credited with thrusting the issue of free college onto the national stage during his 2016 presidential run, but Ms. Warren has pushed the idea further, calling for the government to cancel debt in addition to expanding college affordability.

It is hardly a surprise that "scholars and educators" are all in.

Erwin Chemerinsky: The Electoral College is unconstitutional and should be declared so

Reading We the People, p 86 ff.

In sum:

The court has held that 5th Amendment due process makes the equal protection clause binding on the federal government.

For half a century the court has held that equal protection imposes the principle of one person, one vote; "every person must have an equal ability to influence the outcome of an election".

[So every person must have the vote? Children? Mental incompetents? Noncitizens? What? - PV]

The Electoral College is inconsistent with this basic principle of democracy.

For example, each presidential vote in Wyoming is worth far more than a vote in California, writes EC, appealing to an argument that conflates a state's total population with its total number of voters.

Still, it's a good point, though it might have been better made by appeal to a principle insisting on equality of representation, which makes total population the relevant factor, rather than "one person, one vote" or "every person must have an equal ability to influence the outcome of an election", which both certainly seem to make the number of voters rather than population the decisive consideration.

He continues (p 87) saying "the judicial role is most important when the political system is incapable of reforming itself. That is why the Court's decisions concerning apportionment were so crucial. . . . [T]hose who benefitted from this [malapportionment] were not about to redraw legislative districts to vote themselves out of power. . . ."

"Earl Warren remarked that the most important decisions during his tenure on the Court were those ordering reapportionment precisely because the political process was never going to solve the constitutional problem. . . . It is especially important for the Court to act because the political process will never deal with the clear unconstitutionality of the Electoral College."

Democrats are not brave enough to pack the court, let alone commit such a brazen act of interpretation so very far from anything resembling original meanings, aims, or expectations.

Do they dare to eat a fig?

I doubt it.

Not every Dem pundit is all in for the AOC/Bernie agenda

Or for Bernie.

Or for Bernie-supporting women, at least one with a role in the 2016 campaign, running to the media to breathlessly complain Joe Biden touched their hair, shoulders, or arms.

Dana Milbank: Bernie Sanders has emerged as the Donald Trump of the left

I suppose that should be "reemerged", since he was that in 2016, as well.

How to blow the next presidential election and hand it over to Trump — 3 surefire techniques for Democrats who want to lose

1. Keep on calling it Socialism.

2. Kill the candidacy of any male Democrat who gets accused of anything by a woman.

3. Play stupid manipulative games with your own voters.

As for me, I really don't want it to be Bernie, though I prefer him to Trump or indeed any Republican.

This is why.

Bernie hates capitalism. He really is a socialist. He really is not a liberal or a progressive.

Though, being penniless, I am not personally a capitalist, I am a pro-capitalist, anti-socialist progressive.

Bernie hates the Democratic Party.

I am a Democrat, and I do not hate the party.

Bernie thinks any politician who takes money from corporations or rich contributors has been bought by the plutocracy and Wall Street.

I do not, and I am only too glad not every such well-heeled contributor is of a kind with the Kochs.

That is because Bernie hates Wall Street, Corporations, and billionaires.

I do not.

Bernie shares Trump's protectionist delusions, at heart.

I do not.

Bernie shares Trump's neo-isolationism, at heart.

I do not.

Bernie shares Trump's opposition to globalism.

I do not.

Bernie shares Trump's angry hatred for "the rigged system".

I hate that hatred.

Bernie thinks the major parties need to make their nomination processes more democratic because he thinks that will give demagogues like himself a better shot at taking over a party most of whose voters and nearly all of whose elected officials do not share his radicalism.

I oppose making the process more democratic because I think he is right.

(And then there is Trump, he whom no smoke filled room would ever have nominated.)

(On the other hand, Bernie won mostly in caucus states where his young socialist activists could gain control of the process. He lost big to Hillary in primary states where Democratic voters, overwhelmingly not socialists, got to make the choice. So maybe we're both wrong.)

Bernie wants Medicare for All in part to force down salaries for Medical professionals and remuneration for other providers, and partly to enable political control of medical, technical, and pharmaceutical research.

I oppose Medicare for All for those reasons, preferring expansion of Ocare and its subsidies to achieve universal coverage among those not otherwise covered.

Bernie wants to spend lots of federal money to make publicly owned secondary schools tuition free. This for him is a step toward a public monopoly on higher education and research.

I oppose his plan in part for that very reason, and prefer a system of tuition vouchers usable at any secondary school, private or public, secular or religious-affiliated. Heck, even training to be a cleric.

On the other hand, I do support court packing and abolition of the filibuster and the Electoral College.

I support representation of states in the senate proportionate to population.

And some other progressive reforms.

OK, we know it's a cheat. But so what?

Allegedly, some top Republicans believe they will rarely if ever win the popular vote for president, again.

To stay in power they need to keep the Electoral College, which on the whole tremendously enhances the power of Republican voters.

And the nonpartisan, non-racist arguments for keeping the thing are bullshit.

Personally, I think winning hearts and minds on this is useless since Republican senators, and maybe even some others from small states, will never vote for a relevant constitutional amendment.

Ditto abolishing the senate or making a state's representation in the senate proportionate to population.

Republicans do not want all votes to count equally.

They don't want non-Republicans to vote at all.

But a lot of folks are out there trying to win hearts and minds.

Here’s Eric Levitz

At a CNN town hall Monday night, Elizabeth Warren argued that America should elect presidents by a national popular vote. 

“We need to make sure that every vote counts. And you know, I want to push that right here in Mississippi. Because I think this is an important point,” the Democratic presidential candidate told a crowd in Jackson. 

“My view is that every vote matters. And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

An overwhelming majority of the American public agree. And yet, an overwhelming majority of GOP operatives, public intellectuals, and politicians do not.

The simplest explanation for this discrepancy is that professional Republicans believe (consciously or otherwise) that the existing election rules benefit their party. 

After all, the GOP has lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections. 

And since the Electoral College gives disproportionate influence to whiter, more rural states — and the GOP is becoming increasingly reliant on white, rural voters — the existing conservative coalition is poised to continue deriving a benefit from the status quo rules for cycles to come.

. . . .

Terrible arguments ensue. 

And these awful products of motivated reasoning are joined by the awful products of status quo bias (which leads some small number of liberals to defend the Electoral College) in a noxious stew of nonsensical arguments against allowing popular democracy to determine control of at least one branch of our government.

. . . .

Argument 1: The Founders said so.

[Referring to an op-ed, our author writes] this isn’t the op-ed’s only argument. 

But the authors devote a solid 350 words of their short column to saying, essentially, “Look, our finest slaveholders already debated all this only a couple decades before the advent of the steam engine, so why reopen this can of worms?” 

And they are hardly alone in presenting “the founders said so” as a trump card.

The trouble with this argument is twofold. 

First, the founders were (mostly) a collection of land speculators who built their fortunes by ethnically cleansing Native Americans, and slavers who built theirs by participating in one of the greatest atrocities in world history. 

Most did not believe in popular democracy (as the vast majority of Americans do today). 

As political theorists, these dudes were so foresighted, they assumed that America would never have political parties.

None of this means that some of them weren’t brilliant, or that they didn’t build some institutions that are worth preserving. 

But it does mean we’re talking about incredibly flawed, extremely dead human beings, not philosopher kings appointed by God.

. . . .

But the most fundamental problem with the idea that we should defer to framer’s judgement is this: Almost immediately after writing the rules for presidential elections into the Constitution, the leaders of our republic realized they’d made a mistake (which is why the 12th Amendment exists). 

. . . .

Argument 2: It would put us on a slippery slope toward abolishing the senate.

. . . .

The biggest problem with this slippery-slope argument is that it’s implausible[.]

. . . .

But the more basic problem with this species of Electoral College defense is that it boils down to “federalism exists, therefore it ought to.”

. . . .

There may be some virtue in decentralizing power and creating opportunities for policy experimentation on the subnational level. 

But that does not require inflating Wyoming’s influence over presidential elections or congressional legislation.

By contrast, the case for not requiring all legislation to pass through an upper chamber that is wildly malapportioned — such that Wyoming residents get 66 times more say in the Senate than Californians do — is quite simple: In a democracy, individual citizens should have roughly equal representation in their governing institutions. 

Achieving perfect equality in this respect is impossible; but designing a more representative legislature than the U.S. Senate is not. 

In fact, every U.S. state has already done so. 

If abolishing the Electoral College will eventually destroy the Senate, that only makes the case for Warren’s proposal more compelling.

Argument 2 (a) It would give too little political power to white people.

Pfui.

Argument 2 (b) It would give too much power to white people.

Pshaw, and see this.

The Electoral College forced the winning candidate [Trump] to appeal to a wide variety of different kinds of white people. 

Therefore, abolishing it would reduce the influence that African-Americans and Hispanics enjoy over our political system?

Argument 2 (c) It would give large states too much power.

. . . .

More broadly, the “counting votes equally would give voters in populous states too much power” is just a long-winded way of saying that one does not believe in democracy. 

Why shouldn’t national candidates campaign in the places where most people live? 

Congress already guarantees that every region will have some say over policy-making — and that, within the Legislative branch, small states will actually have disproportionate say. 

What is it, exactly, about people who live in big cities that make them so undeserving of democratic equality?

Argument 2 (d) It would give small states too much power.

Oh, ick.

Argument 3 (a) Candidates would not campaign much in rural states.

And presidential candidates already don't waste a lot of time speaking to vast empty wheat fields.

Argument 3 (b) Third party candidates would sometimes be spoilers.

Like that never happens.

The problem identified here is not inherent to a national popular vote, but rather, to a winner-take-all system. 

Implementing ranked choice voting and/or runoff elections would solve the spoiler issue (that already exists).

Argument 3 (c) It could lead to a situation where American politics is defined by polarization, and high levels of social animosity.

This is a joke, right?

Argument 3 (d) It would create a political system in which an unqualified “media personality” could win the presidency,

Somebody actually made that his objection?

Here's Jamelle Bouie

In February, I wrote about the Electoral College, its origins and its problems. 

Whatever its potential merits, it is a plainly undemocratic institution. 

It undermines the principle of “one person, one vote,” affirmed in 1964 by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims — a key part of the civil and voting rights revolution of that decade. 

It produces recurring political crises. 

And it threatens to delegitimize the entire political system by creating larger and larger splits between who wins the public and who wins the states.

Someone raised the question why, with her in, Bernie is even running.

Probably because he wants the job, is my guess.

Oh, and he really enjoys bashing the system even more, and more deeply, than she does.

Of the two, I would prefer her to him for three reasons: she's younger, she's not male, and she insists she is not a socialist.

On the other hand, they are both protectionists and not a lot less inclined toward isolationism than Trump, truth be told.

[Bernie was and remains too soft on undemocratic or democracy-betraying socialists. No Michael Harrington, he. No idea whether she would be.]

And I really don't see the world getting safer as a result of the US preparing and committing only to defend the Western Hemisphere north of the equator.

And, no, definitely not even safer just for us.

I used to.

But not for a while.

Of course, any Democratic nominee will be better than Trump, or any other GOP nominee.

Elizabeth Warren Calls For Ending Electoral College

The fly in the ointment is that the ratification process, in which each state counts for one and no more than one, is even more absurd in the outsize power it gives to sparsely populated states than the EC.

And good luck getting two thirds of the senators to agree.

Small state senators have killed every previous attempt to do this.

We need to get rid of our ridiculous systems for choosing our president and our candidates for president

A year of state by state caucuses and primaries, some open and some closed, for each party followed by a national convention for each party just gives big money contributors a long, long time to starve out candidates for nomination who scare them silly.

We need a single, national, closed primary for each party for all offices followed by a runoff of the two leaders for any office for which no one gets more than half the votes

The conventions after the primaries can nominate the winner and hammer out their platforms.

Similarly, abolish the Electoral College and let the voters choose the winner as the French do, in a first round of voting followed by a runoff of the two leaders if no candidate gets more than half the votes.

No more first past the post.

Make both rounds of the primary and the general national holidays and let people do absentee and early voting.

And if that doesn't put an end to campaigns that last more than a year and give billionaire donors too much importance we can forbid campaigning earlier than the last few months before the first round of the primary, which themselves cannot be scheduled more than two or three months before the general.

Yes, squeeze the conventions in between.

We can handle midterms in the same way.

The Dem agenda will be dead on arrival, says Boo.

The Boo is pessimistic.

Paul Waldman ably describes the two most common fallacies pundits and politicians use to explain how Democratic presidents can get stuff done in Washington. 

One can be called “the Bernie Sanders fallacy.” 

It involves leading “a grass-roots movement so powerful that it would force Republicans in Congress to vote for things they despise such as single-payer health care and free college.” 

It’s a manifestly absurd campaign promise and it really shouldn’t even qualify as an aspiration–because it’s delusional. 

The Republicans will not vote for a progressive vision for America, let alone a Democratic Socialist one. 

No amount of citizen pressure could ever convince them otherwise.

The second fallacy can be called “the John Hickenlooper fallacy,” after the former Denver mayor and Colorado governor who just announced his candidacy for president. 

In this scenario, you can convince a sufficient number of Republicans to vote for your agenda by having a respectful dialogue with them.

. . . .

As Waldman correctly points out, this is every bit as ridiculous as the Bernie Sanders fallacy. 

. . . .

The only way to pass progressive legislation in Congress is to do it without any Republican votes. 

But that is not how Congress works. 

Congress includes the Senate, and the Senate requires sixty members to overcome a legislative filibuster.

There are two things that will not happen between now and Inauguration Day, 2021: The Senate Republicans won’t become responsive to citizen pressure or presidential cajoling, and the Democrats will not get enough votes in the Senate to end a filibuster on their own.

Any presidential candidate who promises to accomplish anything legislatively needs to explain how they’ll go about overcoming this problem. 

They’ll need a better answer than the ones Sanders and Hickenlooper have provided thus far.

If this is right, any moderate Democrat who disses the AOC/Bernie agenda saying "That's not going to happen; that's just too radical" needs to explain how his plans to expand Medicare and firm up Obamacare are the least bit more realizable.

But maybe it's not right, in which event the Dems could as well pass the AOC/Bernie agenda as the moderate one of, say, Ed Rendell, if they can unite for it.

According to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. 

Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change could itself be filibustered, requiring two-thirds of senators who are present and voting to end debate. (This differs from the usual requirement for three-fifths of sworn senators.)

However, despite this two-thirds requirement being written into the Senate rules, any Senator may attempt to nullify a Senate rule by making a point of order that the rule is unconstitutional or just that the meaning of the rule should not be followed. 

The presiding officer is generally expected to rule in favor of the rules of the Senate, but any ruling from the chair may be appealed and overturned by a simple majority of Senators. 

This happened in 2013, when Harry Reid of the Democratic Party made a point of order that "the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote."

Although there is no simple majority vote provision in the text of rule XXII, Reid's point of order was sustained by a 52-48 vote, and that ruling established a Senate precedent that cloture on nominations other than those for the Supreme Court requires only a simple majority.

On April 6, 2017, that precedent was further changed by Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority to include Supreme Court nominations.

More briefly,

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a rule – specifically the 60-vote rule to close debate – by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. 

The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. 

The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.

This procedure effectively allows the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of existing procedural rules such as Rule XXII which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation, and 67 for amending a Senate rule.

But would enough Democrats agree to end the filibuster?

As many as needed to constitute a majority of 51?

Perhaps it is this that Boo is pessimistic about (I took him to be thinking the Democrats would not alone be able to contribute the 67 votes allegedly needed to change a rule in the senate).

Anyway, Boo himself in the past has opposed scrapping the filibuster and opposed elimination of the Electoral College.

Don't recall off-hand whether he has opposed proportional representation in the senate, but I would expect him to.

Why Republicans love the Electoral College

OK, but why do some Democrats still defend it?

Paul LePage Says National Popular Vote Will Silence White People

Speaking to the hosts of the WVOM morning show this week, former Governor Paul LePage lambasted a bill being considered by Maine’s legislature to join with other states to essentially bypass the Electoral College and ensure that the President is elected by the national popular vote.

“Actually what would happen if they do what they say they’re gonna do is white people will not have anything to say. It’s only going to be the minorities that would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida,” said LePage.

The former governor, calling into the show from his home in Florida, also labeled the proposal “an insane process” and warned that “we’re gonna be forgotten people.”

The proposal would actually, if adopted by a sufficient number of states, ensure that every voter, regardless of race, has the same say in electing the president.

. . . . .

Commenters on Twitter after LePage’s remarks were shared on Wednesday noted that while he’s wrong about the particulars, race is an instructive lens through which to view the current presidential electoral system. 

The power of white voters is significantly magnified by the Electoral College, which itself is a product of the nation’s history of slavery.

And it is magnified much, much more in the senate in which a state with fewer than 600,000 people, 93% whites, has the same number of senators as a state with 40 million people, some 27% nonwhite (10.8 million) among whom are 2.6 million blacks.

Some Democrats to this day resist the idea that representation in the senate should be proportionate to population, like representation in the house, as both Madison and Hamilton desired.

Why?