Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states

[Greenman]

Thank you for acknowledging that, I do appreciate it.


But those states would still have a voice in a popular election, and their voice would be directly proportional to their representation.

I hate eating crow as much as the next guy, but you were right and I was wrong. It works out that way sometimes.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

^^^ People completely ignore the simple fact that the EC was specifically designed so that each state got some where near equal representation despite their population.

CA, NY, TX, FL and other more populous states MUST NOT have a larger say than smaller states. That isn't how it works. Also remember that when the EC
came about, such vastly larger populations did not exist.

But why are we again having this conversation for the 89 millionth time with no one learning anything?

Convince me there's a rational reason why more populous states should have the same, or less of a vote than less populous states. Wyoming's problems are California's problems, and vice versa.

 

[fskimospy]

^^^ People completely ignore the simple fact that the EC was specifically designed so that each state got some where near equal representation despite their population.

That is not accurate. It was intended to increase the representation of small states, but was not designed to make sure they had somewhat near equal representation.

The primary purpose of the electoral college was to merge the 3/5ths compromise into the pres

CA, NY, TX, FL and other more populous states MUST NOT have a larger say than smaller states. That isn't how it works. Also remember that when the EC
came about, such vastly larger populations did not exist.

But why are we again having this conversation for the 89 millionth time with no one learning anything?
[/QUOTE]
As DHT said, I would love to hear an explanation as to why you think the voices of 500,000 people should have as much say as 40,000,000. What governance purpose does this serve and why is America better off for doing it that way instead of just counting everyone equally?

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Convince me there's a rational reason why more populous states should have the same, or less of a vote than less populous states.

You'd have to be rational to understand it

As DHT said, I would love to hear an explanation as to why you think the voices of 500,000 people should have as much say as 40,000,000. What governance purpose does this serve and why is America better off for doing it that way instead of just counting everyone equally?

Fairness.

There are more people in NY and CA than a number of other states combined. Your position is that the votes of people in smaller states should not be counted since they don't matter. You're bolstering the need for the EC.

 

[hal2kilo]

That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.

Those states have basically ended up running the show. You must love minority rule.

 

[dank69]

Fairness.

There are more people in NY and CA than a number of other states combined. Your position is that the votes of people in smaller states should not be counted since they don't matter. You're bolstering the need for the EC.

50,000,000 > 500,000 = not fair
500,000 == 50,000,000 = fair

 

[hal2kilo]

Team Maddow has it too

I think Rudy is about to get the Cohen treatment.

Rudy who? That dude under the bus? Never met him.

Rudy Giuliani reportedly the ringleader of fake Trump elector scheme

Rachel Maddow shares new reporting from multiple outlets that Rudy Giuliani was the Trump campaign official who ran the operation to get states that Donald Trump lost in 2020 to nonetheless deliver Trump electors to represent those states in the final count.

www.msnbc.com

Rudy is going to jail.

That's where, I kind of feel sorry for the drunk. You know now, he's going to be the big fall guy. Hell, Trump could probably get away with saying he couldn't stop the crazy man. He's great at shifting blame.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

50,000,000 > 500,000 = not fair
500,000 == 50,000,000 = fair

Each state has a representative vote/voice; Fair.

Two states rule: Not fair.

 

[fskimospy]

You'd have to be rational to understand it


Fairness.

There are more people in NY and CA than a number of other states combined. Your position is that the votes of people in smaller states should not be counted since they don't matter. You're bolstering the need for the EC.

Let's assume we aren't rational - please explain to us how the US is better off as a country if we count the votes of 500,000 people the same as the votes of 40,000,000 purely based on the arbitrary map lines drawn up by Congress.

EDIT: Let's say tomorrow Congress decided to chop California up into 80 states, making each state equivalent in population to Wyoming. It would then run the entire country but to you that would be fair, as each state should be represented equally, correct?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You'd have to be rational to understand it


Fairness.

There are more people in NY and CA than a number of other states combined. Your position is that the votes of people in smaller states should not be counted since they don't matter. You're bolstering the need for the EC.

Again, the *states* aren't voting. It's United States citizens. A problem for a citizen in NY and CA is a problem for a citizen in Kansas or North Dakota.

 

[interchange]

It seems pretty clear now that all of the legal "efforts" that Guiliani etc. underwent and publicized were efforts to add pressure to state governments & Congress to sabotage the normal electoral process with the hopes that a scheme like this would succeed. Seems they casted a wide net between substitute electors, pressuring Pence not to certify the election, pressuring Congress not to certify the election, pressing Raffensperger (and who knows who else) to invalidate state elections, etc. Pressure pressure pressure and hope one of the wedges you are driving makes the whole thing crack. There was obviously no legitimate hope that any court would help, but the pretense that they might sure activated a lot of Trump's supporters.

 

[fskimospy]

It seems pretty clear now that all of the legal "efforts" that Guiliani etc. underwent and publicized were efforts to add pressure to state governments & Congress to sabotage the normal electoral process with the hopes that a scheme like this would succeed. Seems they casted a wide net between substitute electors, pressuring Pence not to certify the election, pressuring Congress not to certify the election, pressing Raffensperger (and who knows who else) to invalidate state elections, etc. Pressure pressure pressure and hope one of the wedges you are driving makes the whole thing crack. There was obviously no legitimate hope that any court would help, but the pretense that they might sure activated a lot of Trump's supporters.

Yes, it seems very clear now the idea was to throw so much shit in the air that Congress would have an excuse to say it can't count enough electoral votes to decide a winner, at which point the election would go to the house and Trump would win.

So in other words, a coup.

 

[dank69]

Each state has a representative vote/voice; Fair.

Two states rule: Not fair.

Again, why do we care about "states"? States are made up of people who have different opinions. Popular vote is by definition the fairest system.

 

[ivwshane]

^^^ People completely ignore the simple fact that the EC was specifically designed so that each state got some where near equal representation despite their population.

CA, NY, TX, FL and other more populous states MUST NOT have a larger say than smaller states. That isn't how it works. Also remember that when the EC
came about, such vastly larger populations did not exist.

But why are we again having this conversation for the 89 millionth time with no one learning anything?

We are talking about it still because horribly misinformed people, such as yourself, still don’t know what the fuck they are talking about despite repeated attempts to educate you.

So I gotta ask, why is it that you still don’t understand the purpose of the EC, how it was supposed to work and more broadly how our government was supposed to work?

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

EDIT: Let's say tomorrow Congress decided to chop California up into 80 states, making each state equivalent in population to Wyoming. It would then run the entire country but to you that would be fair, as each state should be represented equally, correct?

If you broke CA up that way, you might be surprised of the outcome. Look at a map of red and blue counties in CA.

Again, the *states* aren't voting. It's United States citizens.

And that's where you're wrong. The people do not vote directly for a President. They vote for who their state's electors should vote for.

 

[ivwshane]

If you broke CA up that way, you might be surprised of the outcome. Look at a map of red and blue counties in CA.



And that's where you're wrong. The people do not vote directly for a President. They vote for who their state's electors should vote for.

Good god you are fucking ignorant!. The people don’t vote for their states electors! Where the fuck did you even come up with that?

Originally the states were to select the electors, instead they allowed the political parties to select the electors. This is basic shit and was all covered in the link I provided earlier.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If you broke CA up that way, you might be surprised of the outcome. Look at a map of red and blue counties in CA.



And that's where you're wrong. The people do not vote directly for a President. They vote for who their state's electors should vote for.

Those are still humans, still not a state. Humans elect people, not social constructs. We've reduced our voice to a handful of trusted peoples, in a configuration decided by slave owners 300 years ago.

 

[fskimospy]

If you broke CA up that way, you might be surprised of the outcome. Look at a map of red and blue counties in CA.

I would not be surprised at all. California went about 2:1 for Biden, which would translate to ~53 Democratic states and 27 Republican states. This would be a net gain of 52 senators for Democrats, leading to a legislative supermajority. It would also mean with 3 electors per 'state' a net gain of 78 electors, or more than Texas and Florida combined.

Essentially this would mean permanent Democratic control of government at all levels. To you though, this is fair while a popular vote is not. Can you explain this?

And that's where you're wrong. The people do not vote directly for a President. They vote for who their state's electors should vote for.

But.
Why.
Is.
That.
Better?

What concrete benefits do US citizens see from this?

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Edited because I'm not sure those maps were finals for 2020.

 

[fskimospy]

Remember, I hate the Orange Guy, but those maps simply are not the best way to do things.

Ironically you just further proved my point by essentially electoral college-i-fying California. See what an insane result that leads to in one state? Now why would you want to do that for the whole country?

I didn't say split it up by COUNTY, I said split it into 80 states of equivalent population to Wyoming. That would mean LA county would have like 20 states in it.

So again, since you said that's fair despite the country being about a 50/50 country Democrats would be completely fair if they did that so they controlled the entire federal government forever. Is this correct?

 

[Dave_5k]

I would not be surprised at all. California went about 2:1 for Biden, which would translate to ~53 Democratic states and 27 Republican states. This would be a net gain of 52 senators for Democrats, leading to a legislative supermajority. It would also mean with 3 electors per 'state' a net gain of 78 electors, or more than Texas and Florida combined.

Depends on who draws the new state lines.... properly gerrymandered, this 2:1 Democrat vote count advantage could end up giving anywhere from a small republican elector majority up to an 85+% democrat elector advantage out of the new California states...

e.g. Ohio republicans were able to convert a 54:46 vote share, into 80+% of electoral districts, with their (recently deemed illegal) creative redistricting plans

 

[fskimospy]

Depends on who draws the new state lines.... properly gerrymandered, this 2:1 Democrat vote count advantage could end up giving anywhere from a small republican elector majority up to an 85+% democrat elector advantage out of the new California states...

e.g. Ohio republicans were able to convert a 54:46 vote share, into 80+% of electoral districts, with their (recently deemed illegal) creative redistricting plans

Any breakup of a state has to come with the approval of the state legislature so it would be a heavy democratic gerrymander.

EDIT: this raises a good point though, I was assuming a proportional breakup. With a Democratic gerrymander California could easily net much, much larger gains for Democrats, maybe even pushing majorities over the veto threshold. It could end competitive elections in America for a generation or more.

 

[soulcougher73]

If you broke CA up that way, you might be surprised of the outcome. Look at a map of red and blue counties in CA.

You just defeated your whole argument lol

 

[fskimospy]

You just defeated your whole argument lol

Yeah, I’m curious as to how ‘look how bad things would be if we assigned political power based on arbitrary map lines’ did not register as more problematic for him.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Sorry, wrong thread ..