Just trying to be analytical here, and knowing there are no silver bullets- would this further increase the polarization of the country? Certainly, California can't swing its weight like it ought to be able to in the present scenario, and my good friend in reddest Oklahoma would have his vote count.
The converse of this argument are the folks who want to split california into 6 states, so there would be more red senators. The senate is a place where California is clearly underrepresented as well. Would there be a net increase of red senators in a properly allocated/partitioned California? Maybe not.
Interesting fact- one of the big reasons the electoral college exists, a reason no one seems to like to talk about, is slavery. When the founders were putting the whole thing together, they obviously considered direct election of POTUS. But James Madison said that this would be unacceptable to the South, which had a much smaller population and risked being bullied by the North. The electoral college numbers were based upon population, including the 3/5 that each slave represented, giving the South much more power in the election even though those slaves obviously could not actually vote. In fact, the big winner was Madison's Virginia.
Yes. Here's the |article in Time Magazine| about that. In fact, I think I got this link from your post a few days ago?
People need to just sign the damn petition. I am done with liberal types who think they have the leisure to say la-de-da, maybe it's good maybe it's not about things that will affect us for generations.
Thanks for signing, I hope you pass the petition along to others.
Just trying to be analytical here, and knowing there are no silver bullets- would this further increase the polarization of the country? Certainly, California can't swing its weight like it ought to be able to in the present scenario, and my good friend in reddest Oklahoma would have his vote count.
The converse of this argument are the folks who want to split california into 6 states, so there would be more red senators. The senate is a place where California is clearly underrepresented as well. Would there be a net increase of red senators in a properly allocated/partitioned California? Maybe not.
Woo…might want to go easy on that sort of stuff here, friend, we have a few regulars here who are really down in the dumps, just sayin'.
Interesting fact- one of the big reasons the electoral college exists, a reason no one seems to like to talk about, is slavery. When the founders were putting the whole thing together, they obviously considered direct election of POTUS. But James Madison said that this would be unacceptable to the South, which had a much smaller population and risked being bullied by the North. The electoral college numbers were based upon population, including the 3/5 that each slave represented, giving the South much more power in the election even though those slaves obviously could not actually vote. In fact, the big winner was Madison's Virginia.
Yes. Here's the |article in Time Magazine| about that. In fact, I think I got this link from your post a few days ago?
People need to just sign the damn petition. I am done with liberal types who think they have the leisure to say la-de-da, maybe it's good maybe it's not about things that will affect us for generations.
There are few problems in modern America that don't trace back to slavery.
Facebook, maybe.
See below. glass has a point.