Democrats Close To Changing Laws On Popular Vote
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 107 commentsBy: Andrew Morgan (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The left is at it again, and conservatives need to be on high alert. The left has been pushing for a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States for years. Since 2017, 10 more states have either signed the National Popular Vote bill into law or approved the bill in one state legislative chamber. This should be a grave concern because it directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution. If not stopped, the American system of presidential elections will be changed potentially forever.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted by 15 state legislatures plus Washington, D.C., and passed in 41 legislative chambers in 24 states. For the proposal to become the law of the land, enough states totaling at least 270 electoral votes would be required to enact the law, and states would then commit their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationally, regardless of which candidate won at the state level.
The states that have enacted the compact represent 195 electoral votes: Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, California, New York, and the District of Columbia. States with passage in one chamber include Arkansas, Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Successful passage in all of these states represents 283 electoral votes, enough to change the law and make our presidential election decided via popular vote rather than the Electoral College.
Democrats have long been unhappy with the electoral process, unless, of course, their candidate won. When their candidate loses, debate begins anew about how unfair the Electoral College is. The argument is always the same. Since we conduct our elections by democratic process, it makes sense to elect our nation's executive according to the will of the majority with a voting plurality.
Five times, presidential candidates have won elections without the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and Donald Trump (2016).
Minority and Less Populated Areas Would Lack Representation
The commonly heard sentiment during election cycles is "every vote matters." However, what is not fair is that if the president is elected based on a plurality, then the minority would not have a chance of having their candidate elected. Only the concerns and interests of more heavily populated areas, such as the East and West coast cities, would be represented. Interests of the minority and less populated areas would naturally be set aside and of little interest to future presidential candidates. Worse, the executive would be beholden and accountable solely to the majority.
This condition was not the intent of our founders. Their intent was to ensure that the nation's highest executive, as well as the executive branch, represented the interests of all Americans regardless of political affiliation. A future president would need to appeal to those concerned about not just national but also regional issues.
Further, the Electoral College provided a means to disburse and decentralize power. State electors are elected just days before and are unknown until just prior to an election to prevent undue influence to stay true to the people's votes in their states. Our founders framed it so as to prevent collusion and cabalist (their word) behavior, preclude violence, and thwart involvement of foreign powers.
Cabalism Comes to Light
Following the 2020 election, our founders' concerns came to light and fruition. Our national elections have been fraught with cabalist behavior, undue influence, numerous forms of cheating, as well as foreign interference. The tyranny they feared came to pass, driven by collusion among the administrative state, the legislative branch, legacy media, Big Tech, and nongovernmental organizations. An independent executive branch separate from the legislature has become an illusion.
In Federalist Paper 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "the process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of the president will never fall with a lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue and a little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first owners of a single state, but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union." Hamilton would have been appalled today to have witnessed the travesty undermining his sentiment.
So why does all this matter?
An Oppressive Majority
It matters because the idea of a national popular vote is gaining steam and if adopted by enough states, the Electoral College will become irrelevant. Minority voter interests will no longer matter at the national level. Only the whims of the majority will. And the result will be precisely why Socrates opposed a democratic form of government. Once a majority is established, it finds a way to remain permanent, and the majority class will become oppressive to the minority class. There will be no means to overturn the majority, no matter how skewed the majority's view may be.
The implications for the country are vast and would make the United States just another oppressive tyrannical state. The ultimate reason for the success of the U.S. was that its founders held a belief that we are created and guided by a higher power, and they recognized that men are inherently corruptible. They implemented controls to prevent those with ambitions from achieving outright power over the minority, thus making the U.S. unique among nations.
Left Looks to Crush the Right
The left's tactics are in high gear, accelerating in an attempt to overwhelm conservatives and Republicans to a tipping point at which the left acquires complete control and the right becomes powerless.
The left's all-out assault has become abundantly clear since President Joe Biden took office. As soon as Democrats attained the presidency and the narrowest of majorities in the House and Senate, they pressed forward with their agenda, nearly unimpeded had it not been for the likes of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and perhaps divine intervention.
Whether changing voting laws in its favor, creating crises to circumvent the laws already in place, continually flooding the courts with litigation designed to throw sand in the gears of transparent elections, or changing the electoral process altogether, the left's efforts to gain and retain control, by any means necessary, will not relent.
In addition to ongoing election integrity efforts across the nation, it is imperative that conservatives push back attempts to advance a national popular vote. It is incumbent upon individual citizens to tell their state representatives that it is not the desire of the people to circumvent the constitutional process for electing our president.
Failure to stop a national popular vote could take generations to reverse.
Andrew Morgan is a former deputy assistant secretary of the Army, a senior executive within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and a retired U.S. Navy captain. He received his MBA from George Washington University and master's from National Defense University.
Tags
Who is online
80 visitors
The EVIL democrats are still trying to undermine the Constitution.
only in a republican reality would the loser ever be declared the winner. the electoral vote became obsolete with the invention of the telegraph and the abolition of slavery. update the electoral vote or eliminate it.
You mean when democrats started losing elections.
It's too bad all those illegal migrant votes in CA go to waste in national elections. And those big blue machine cities feel cheated as well. Oh well, maybe the left can pull off another dirty deal.
what a fucking bullshit comment. prove it. 95% of all voter fraud this century was committed by republicans.
"95% of all voter fraud this century was committed by republicans."
TRUTH!
Plus their 're-districting' which sorts out those folks they don't like who they don't want to vote with near surgical precision.
What a fucking lying piece of shit denial.
Here; For the 100th time:
"95% of all voter fraud this century was committed by republicans."
What a fucking bullshit comment. prove it.
I'm sure something will be posted that in no way proves you wrong. Probably proves you correct. Or a deflection.
Greg is right.
PROVE IT!
No, he never is. Correct, that is.
You have yet to prove your claim.
Post 1.1.6
It's your turn Tessylo
Have a link to prove it? Of course fucking not.
Democrats want to turn the US into China.
No way in hell will fly over country ever go for being eternally ruled by the leftist coasts.
Land does not vote. People do vote and the majority rules...
And republicans want to turn you into Hungary. Movin' on, If your supposition was true the Chinese would be welcoming Nancy's visit to Taiwan. As much fun as political ping pong can be, serving a bowling ball will take the paddle out of your hands.
See post 1.1.8
Republicans want to turn the U.S. into the Fourth Reich.
No way in hell will those of us in the free states allow ourselves to be ruled by reactionary fascist republicans.
How about YOU prove THAT...
“No way in hell will fly over country ever go for being eternally ruled by the leftist coasts.”
So what do we choose ? Reality or regression? Concession or secession? Intolerance or acceptance?
The sides have already been drawn and history will judge our choices accordingly.
The question becoming real for all to see is this: At what stage does a constitutional document dating back to 1800 becomes desperately in need of 'servicing' (updating)?
The fact is people are congregating in the larger, thus populous states. And as a process of 'evolving' the smaller states should govern themselves in a manner that understands the whys and how-comes of human activities to move out of them. Instead, we have smaller states trying to push their puny "weight' around, and strutting in high places talking about what real power is. All the while, they are weak in the people 'gain,' while holding out-sized power. The constitution did not promise small states this!
Of course, small states would see this concern about taking away their power-base as evil. However, some humility and recognition for those who do the work of governing large populations would be in important and fair.
This piece is written by the same person who said
As far as I can tell, it is merely Mr. Billingsly's (and others) bare assertion that : " ...learning the true number of illegal votes. That could easily match the one million “new” voters registered by the DMV, ..." (From your linked article)
As far as bare assertions go, I can say the moon is made of blue cheese and croutons with bacon crumbles, and that statement carries as much weight.
Your link proved zilch!
"No way in hell will those of us in the free states allow ourselves to be ruled by reactionary fascist republicans."
You won''t have a choice
Ya Vic, all SIX of them.
Where the fuck is my nothing burger meme when I need it?
It's become all to frequent here to post sources of 'pink journalism'. The posters of those sources are either intentionally trying to gaslight members or too lazy to pursue reliable sources, or both.
Want to bet?
That's what the 2nd Amendment is for, right? To resist fascist oppression.
Emphatically. I saw that in the linked article and it gets even worse for MAGA conservatives telling the 'tale' because the article points out that the 6 people at issue did not even try to vote!
Why are MAGA conservatives so faithless?! (I know the answer already. Because they want to achieve their version of success by hook or crook.) You can't trust them personally or their articles any farther than you can. . . see or read 'em!
Emphatically.
'They' don't believe that liberals own guns or know how use them.
'They' think that LEOs and the Military will 'fight' on their side too.
If Jan. 6 didn't prove that delusional, I don't know what will.
Fools, Black women are the fastest-growing group of gun owners in the country.
Going for total domination, are we?
That is just a little bit authoritarian
Says a democrat!
Wrong. I am a liberal libertarian.
And as far as all of your "authoritarian " bs, I have seen more indication of authoritarian tendencies with your 45 than with the current administration.
But hyperbole knows no bounds.
Interesting. You get high marks with me friend Thomas! I learned something with that one: liberal libertarian. 'Everything does have an opposite, do tell!
To quote you..." Prove it"
It's both
That's always the case
I'm going to counter that:
That article really didn't counter my article. As a matter of fact your article confirmed that the state of CA refused to comply with the Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. CA never let anyone examine their voter rolls.
FactCheck.Org is a leftist organization that routinely tries to turn facts on their heads.
Actually it does.
Which proves NOTHING. Massachusetts, along with about 20 other states rightly refused to comply with Trump's 'witch hunt' too.
The article is a factcheck by USA Today and cites FactCheck, PolitiFact and Snopes links.
All of them are all left wing sites that favor liberals and liberal causes
Whoosh, right over your head...
The CotUS was designed to adapt. So if society wishes to reduce the power of the states themselves in the election of the PotUS it would not be evil nor would it undermine the CotUS. It would be a change in philosophy.
I personally like our system which gives representation for the people (i.e. the House) and representation for the states (i.e. the Senate). And I certainly see the symmetry of our electoral college giving each state electors corresponding to its population (one elector per district) and its distinction as a state (two electors as a state). But I do not see this as the only fair system.
A change to the popular vote would give the largest states substantial control over the presidency. CA, TX, FL, and NY would dominate. Since each state in the USA has particular (sometimes unique) economies, lifestyles, etc. the desires of the dominant states would be more likely served than those of the less populated states.
On the flip side, states with sparse populations: WY, VT, AK, ND, SD, and DE have two senators and thus two electoral votes as a state but do not have the population to have but one congressional representative and corresponding elector. Thus they arguably are over-represented by the system.
We could have a system that softens this. For example, I would find it an improvement if ALL states went to a proportional system rather than winner-takes-all (as it is in 48 states and DC). This would mean that each district's elector would truly be a result of that district. So if a state has 11 districts and 5 of them went to party X and 6 went to party Y, we would no longer see 11 electors for party Y. Similarly, the two electoral votes corresponding to the senators would be based on state accumulated popular vote. That is, tally all the votes and award the two state electors to the popular winner for the state (and their is room to devise a system to even split these two on effective ties).
This seems like a reasonable compromise. It is a rather small change compared to switching the system to pure popular vote thus it likely has a better chance for ratification (although today's divisive world precludes almost any change to the CotUS).
I wrote an article on this two years ago:
We actually have both ideas in action in the legislative branch. The popular vote is represented in the House of Representatives and the States are each represented in the Senate.
There is only one reason anyone would want to change the electoral system.
That is fundamental in the point I just made.
I stated a proposal to change the electoral system. The reason for the change is that the winner-takes-all system is unfair. It lessens the vote of the minority and there is no reason for it. Note that this gets us closer to a popular vote on one hand but also gives voice to minority votes on the other. For example, the CA GoP would actually gain a voice under my system as would Texan Ds.
In my article I also stated that the electors should be eliminated. There is no modern need for human electors. Simply tally the electoral votes and follow exactly what the voters chose. If a district chooses the D then that electoral vote goes to the D; likewise for R and any other party. Seems to me that would be quite clean, quite simple and quite fair.
The FILTHY, DISGUSTING, TRAITOROUS republicans are trying to undermine America.
Exactly.
In the seed they claim:
Yet conservatives never stop defending the January 6th insurrectionists that was attempting to "directly undermine" "the electoral system established by our Constitution".
Conservatives are like desperate rabid cornered animals foaming at the mouth in fear because they know they are a minority, they know the majority of Americans don't live in the warped right wing conservative universe. They fear having their privileged status stripped and to become just like any other American with the same rights and privileges as an American Muslim or American Jew or American Hindu or American lesbian or an American atheist. They simply can't accept being put on the same level playing field, not after hundreds of years of their ancestors and now they living with white conservative Christian privilege. They know a popular vote would spell the end of the conservative Christian privilege pedestal and their ability to disrupt and sabotage progress and our nation moving forwards toward a more perfect union that cherishes equality and diversity.
You're right. MAGA is holding our collective culture and society 'down' literally.
The truth as usual. Exactly right
What an intelligent argument/S
The usual projection, deflection, and denial.
Yawn
Well, lookie, lookie, Democrats are trying to screw themselves. How do Republicans turn blue islands red? With a Presidential candidate that can win the popular vote, that's how.
Democrats are deluding themselves if they actually believe Republicans can't compete in a national popular election. And a competitive Republican candidate will erode Democrats' parasitic hold over their tiny urban fiefdoms.
New York City has more electoral votes than does 31 states. Democrats really believe a Republican candidate would waste time trying to win those 31 states rather than focusing attention on New York City? Democrats do know that New York City has had Republican mayors in the recent past, don't they?
Republicans already have an advantage in state governments. So, Democrats want Republicans to become competitive in their tiny urban fiefdoms? That's so smart it's looney.
You know this reads damn near vulgar. If you can make your meaning clearer, I would love, really love, to address this with you directly.
Democrats focus their political attention on urban issues. Comparing population density to Presidential election results provides confirmation.
Urban areas (high population density) concentrates both voters and electoral votes which does provide Democrats an advantage. However, these high population density areas don't provide enough electoral votes to assure Democrats can win Presidential elections. By eliminating Democrats electoral advantage in urban areas, Republicans will begin to compete for those same areas. Republicans will be freed from the constraints of expending campaign resources more broadly to win electoral votes. Both Democrats and Republicans will be competing for urban voters.
Urban areas are thriving hubs for service businesses; entertainment, leisure, tourism, travel. But it simply is not possible for a national economy to remain healthy by strengthening those service businesses. Democrats' legislative and executive agendas have favored the service sectors of the economy and favored urban areas. (Look at the maps again.) That's why Democrats talk about jobs while portraying business as something bad. Democrats' politics has adopted a NIMBY attitude toward the real economy. That's why Democrats focus their attention on the wrong priorities for a resilient and sustainable economy. And Democrats pursue that approach to win a simple plurality where electoral votes are concentrated.
Democrats' focus on urban issues and politics provides an advantage but does not ensure a Presidential win. Republicans have glommed onto that weakness in Democrats' strategy to obtain an overwhelming electoral advantage in less populated parts of the country while also retaining some support in urban areas. Republicans can hold onto their support in less populated areas (Democrats' priorities ensure that) while competing more heavily in urban areas.
In fact, Republicans have been making inroads in some traditionally Democratic strongholds. The only thing holding back Republicans, at the present, is the electoral vote.
Okay. . . if I catch your drift, you are aware this all works in reverse too. In fact, our society should cooperate for the good of all. All these petty political skirmishes, one-upsmanships are wasteful and draining on our society and a brain-drain on leadership as a whole.
The exception being minorities, of course. The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. And those needs are more important than the needs of the majority or plurality.
But, then, we are a country of minorities. Those in poverty are a minority. The unemployed are a minority. School age children are a minority. The at-risk population is a minority. Military veterans are a minority. Even the retired population is a minority.
The rural population is a minority, too. But the country depends upon those rural areas for resources and food. Without that rural population the country starves in the dark. So, ignoring rural issues doesn't bode well for the future.
The political one-upmanship is pitting many, many minorities against each other. To achieve what? Cooperation requires trade-offs between the many, many minorities for the stability and resilience of the nation. And the necessary trade-offs establish grievances that motivate political resolution. Our elite brain-trust doesn't set priorities for the nation; they're pursuing equal outcomes for the many, many minorities which is impossible to accomplish.
A nation without priorities will lose its value in being a nation. There's no point in cooperating for the good of the country because that requires trade-offs.
Forgive me, but what the "h" are you going on about? How is thinking, writing this helpful? You consistently leave me 'gasping' at what you're 'about.'
Too many words to fit on a bumper sticker? The concise bumper sticker for your sentiment of 'cooperation for the good of all' really is America First.
Your call for 'cooperation for the good of all' really does elevate good for America above the special interests of minority issues; America First.
Nope. Just nope.Try again.
"Tiny"?
80% of the population of the US live in urban areas.
That is why GOP legislatures chop cities up and include rural outskirts, to dilute their political power. Check out a district map of Austin, TX for a visual aid.
Well, that's definitionally debatable. What isn't debatable is that the country starves if the 20 pct, according to your numbers, move to urban areas. The country depends upon those rural areas for resources and food.
Never has so many depended upon so few to continue their subsistence.
And yet. . . do you know how silly this looks and sounds in the larger scheme? No one in urban areas is going to starve to death, simply because of farming. Push meets shove when survival is the driving force. That is just more superfluous fodder that trivializes this discussion. At worst, the so-called right/left divide needs to realize its co-existence! At best, it is essential to remaining EXCEPTIONAL that we continue to advance forward coherently and cohesively.
This red states are from 'Mars' and blue states are from 'Venus' is stupid indulgence for which time is nearly up anyway! Why wait? Just end the bravado coming from both sides. The children will thank you!
The fact is this 'alien' bull shit between citizens of one country is 'for the birds.' In a mature democracy, we could be able to co-mingle ourselves and our essences together in harmony across fifty states!
Instead we indulge in tribal and "sectional" foolishness. We're our own worst enemies. And yes, I blame congress for its lack on leadership! Apparently leading government out of political 'sewers' is not something these men and women can do.
Well, a simple (perhaps over simple) illustration of the Mars/Venus divide is that rural areas are more concerned with exports than imports while urban areas are more concerned with imports than exports.
If you really pay attention, Republicans talk more about business trade which really is motivated by rural access to export markets. (Look at the map again, Republicans are dominant in rural areas.) Democrats talk more about consumers which is motivated by access to import markets. Republicans really do place more emphasis on selling and Democrats really do place more emphasis on buying. So, Republicans and Democrats aren't speaking the same language on the issue of trade.
Yet you make no attempt to do so.
The rest of your reply is deflection.
Defend your assertion that "80% of the population of the US live in urban areas." HUD and the US Census disagree.
Defend your assertion that HUD and the US Census disagree.
An 'urban area' includes the suburbs. Never seen "Dallas/Ft. Worth'? Two different cities that are considered one large Metro/urban area.
Who, besides you, says that?
That's correct, I did not challenge your unsupported assertion.
How so? The nitty gritty is that the population size of Austin, TX, is 966k. So, the minimum number of Congressional districts for Austin would be 2; with one district mostly outside Austin. And that would require making spaghetti districts for the suburbs.
After asserting that 80 pct of the population are urban, are you attempting to argue that including an urban segment in a Congressional district would allow rural voters to overwhelm the urban voters? That argument can only stand if the suburbs are considered rural which contradicts the earlier assertion that 80 pct of the population are urban.
Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.
Perhaps the term 'sub urban ' should give you a hint.
Oh, and there's the Washington Post, Gallup AND the US Census Bureau.
Urbanized Area:
'Adjacent densely settled surrounding area' sure as fuck sounds like a 'suburb' to me.
Ch12GARM.pdf (census.gov)
I'm still waiting for YOUR defense of YOUR assertion.
Aren't you the one that brought up the fact that the rural areas feed the urban areas Nerm?
Sadly, they're not doing a lot of farming in the suburbs of Chicago or LA or Dallas/Ft. Worth. Are you trying to assert that the suburbs feed themselves and/or others? Many suburbs that don't even have decent access to grocery stores much less fresh produce.
I live in a rural area, 5 miles outside of a rural town. I am the only one of my 'farmer' neighbors that could feed themselves, let alone anyone else. Sure they grow corn [mostly for animal feed] and soybeans but not one of them has a 'family' size garden like mine. I don't know when 'farmers' got away from being self-sufficient but it's sad. The mono-culture mentality is fucked up. I actually grow more FOOD on my 2 acres than most of the farmers in my rural area.
Now I don't have pigs or a cow, and as a lover of bacon, pork chops, steaks, burgers and cheese; it means I can't feed myself either.
So, even rural people rely on others to feed them Nerm.
According to data HUD and Census collected in the 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS), 52 percent of U.S. households describe their neighborhood as suburban, 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent describe their neighborhood as rural. The 2017 AHS data also show that federal definitions accurately distinguish urban neighborhoods from rural areas while underscoring the need for an official definition of suburban.
You probably know more about we’re they live than those surveyed.
You stated that HUD and the Census disagreed with my stat and insist that the term 'urban areas' does NOT include suburbs.
Now you state that 'US households describe their neighborhood' is somehow a defense for your claim. It isn't.
HUD and the Census are NOT the same as 'US households'.
I posted a link with the actual US Census definition.
Yes, you got that right, good summary.
HUD and the Census are NOT the same as 'US households' or 'Respondent's Neighborhood Description'.
Again, I posted the Census' definition of urban area. You haven't refuted it; you just keep repeating 'households' or 'respondent's' definition.
The American Housing Survey (AHS) is sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The survey has been the most comprehensive national housing survey in the United States since its inception in 1973, providing current information on the size, composition, and quality of the nation’s housing and measuring changes in our housing stock as it ages. The AHS is a longitudinal housing unit survey conducted biennially in odd-numbered years, with samples redrawn in 1985 and 2015 .
The survey provides up-to-date information about the quality and cost of housing in the United States and major metropolitan areas.
[deleted]
They root out the undesirables with near surgical precision
You seem as unable to recognize a deflection as Dulay can’t recognize who’s study I quoted.
It doesn't matter WHOSE study you quoted. It doesn't refute what I said.
Oh, and BTW, if you were quoting a study, you should have posted a link.
It has very different numbers from your post and a link is in 3.2.16. Sorry you didn’t recognize the name of an important; reoccurring HUD/Census survey that’s been conducted for decades.
Really, 78.7 is 'very different' from 80?
Nope, that a generic summary of the survey, NOT the survey.
What you should be sorry for is posting that supercilious strawman bullshit. Just stop.
No, 27 is very different from 80.
What is your point!
So, you are still desperate to ignore the Census definition. Got ya,
What part of that sentence didn't you understand? You say you quoted a study yet have still failed to post a link to it. It's NT policy to post links to quoted material.
I posted a link in 3.2.16 . You called it a summary page, it also always you to navigate by clicking on the Study name on the upper left margin of the page. You can also get to it here . From there you can go to:
Because it IS.
Which link did you quote [copy and paste] the information posted? Why is that so fucking hard for you to post?
The link works, I don't know which version of data you want:
The site works for all of them.
I know that you don't want to admit that many analysts make a distinction between urban and suburban households. If pretending to win is that important to you, declare yourself a winner and move on. The length of this back and forth has greatly exceeded it usefulness.
The version that you claim proves that the Census does NOT include suburbs in 'urban areas', the SAME link I have been asking you for all fucking day.
I have no idea what that means. To me it is common knowledge that the US has suburbs. Why is this so important to you?
Re-read the thread and figure it out.
Strawman.
You asked me to defend my post. Why was that so important to you?
BTFW, I did support my post.
I asked you to defend yours. You haven't.
In fact, you've avoided doing so all fucking day. Your antics lack all credibility.
Carry on.
Not worth my time.
No strawman, It's common knowledge that we have suburbs.
No, I never did.
Not for me, but I'll have some fucking tonight.
With you, so what.
Maybe if you had taken the time to review your own comments, you could have saved the embarrassment of posting that falsehood.
You started this discussion with:
The rest of your comment is mere snark. It seems to be your MO when you can't back up your own comments.
Typical.
Never had any to begin with.
Yes, I should have but this discussion became tiresome and I got lazy with regards to you. At the end of the day, most folks recognize that a sizable portion of our population lives in suburbs - it's self evident.
Was it laziness or a desire to post an unfounded contradiction?
Which is hardly revelatory and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. No one has questioned the EXISTANCE of suburbs. In short, it's a strawman.
Now, since this discussion is so tiresome and you've gotten too lazy to make cogent comments, I'll leave it at that.
Thank you
A few years ago HUD and Census informed American Housing Survey (AHS), 52% of households call their neighborhood as suburban, 27% as urban, and 21% as rural, were they wrong?
Good, the EC has long since ceased to serve its purpose. The entire reason for its creation was to placate the slave states and to help protect slavery and give them a disproportionate say in presidential politics. Oh and because the founders thought only landowning white men were smart enough to elect decent presidents.
Today all it does is allow a minority party that has only won’t the popular vote twice since 1988 (including the 1988 election) to remain competitive. The EC now serves to undermine our system of government by creating a situation where a minority party can rule while never having the consent of the majority or majority support. AKA the EC serves to directly undermine the core of our democratic republic.
Fuck the EC.