Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Conner died

[*pally*]

The first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court of the United States died today at age 93. She was a Regan conservative yet crossed ideological lines many times to vote with the more liberal Justices, especially on social issues. Her most famous written decision was Bush v Gore the judgement that essentially handed the Presidency to George Bush.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-01-2023, 03:38 PM)pally Wrote: Her most famous written decision was Bush v Gore the judgement that essentially handed the Presidency to George Bush.

I believe you meant to say "confirmed that the people elected Bush".  Or perhaps "refused to allow Gore to steal the election".

[*Nately120*]

(12-01-2023, 03:57 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I believe you meant to say "confirmed that the people elected Bush".  Or perhaps "refused to allow Gore to steal the election".

Well more of "the people" voted for Gore but the EC voted for Bush....er, well sort of.  

[*pally*]

(12-01-2023, 03:57 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I believe you meant to say "confirmed that the people elected Bush".  Or perhaps "refused to allow Gore to steal the election".

How will we ever know?  The SCOTUS order stopped the recount midstream.  Multiple scenarios would have ended up with Gore winning.  But we ended up with another election where the national popular vote winner lost with the archaic electoral vote methodology

[SunsetBengal]

(12-01-2023, 07:17 PM)pally Wrote: How will we ever know?  The SCOTUS order stopped the recount midstream.  Multiple scenarios would have ended up with Gore winning.  But we ended up with another election where the national popular vote winner lost with the archaic electoral vote methodology

..

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Constitutional-Republics-better-and-longer-lasting-than-democracies

[*pally*]

(12-01-2023, 07:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Constitutional-Republics-better-and-longer-lasting-than-democracies

seriously, you are using some random guy on an unvetted Q&A site as your source?

Do you know how democracies fail?  By not reflecting the will of the people.  
 
The Founders of this country worked on the belief that the House of Representatives would grow based on the size of each state's population. They proposed 1 House member for every 30,000 citizens.  With that math, California should have 1306 House members.  The House is artificially capped at 435 legislative districts.  This cap disenfranchises citizens of large states handing over more and more power to states with significantly less population. Even if we kept everything in proportion, for example giving California House districts that each equal the size of Wyoming's population, that would provide CA with 15 or 16 more seats and an equivalent increase in electoral votes.  Texas would get 12 more so it doesn't only affect blue states

 Would a properly sized House of Representatives and therefore, a correctly working Electoral College change results?  Maybe yes or maybe no, but don't tell me it is working when it no longer works as was designed by the Founders

[SunsetBengal]

(12-01-2023, 08:00 PM)pally Wrote:   
 
The Founders of this country worked on the belief that the House of Representatives would grow based on the size of each state's population. They proposed 1 House member for every 30,000 citizens.  With that math, California should have 1306 House members.  The House is artificially capped at 435 legislative districts.  

Egad, if you think that 435 have a tough time getting together and coming to a solution, how do you think it would work with over 1,200 in the House?  Furthermore, I can't imagine tripling the staff and salaries associated with that sort of outlandish proposition.  We'd be spending all of our taxes paying our 'representatives', and not have enough left for other matters.

[Dill]

(12-01-2023, 08:00 PM)pally Wrote: seriously, you are using some random guy on an unvetted Q&A site as your source?

Do you know how democracies fail?  By not reflecting the will of the people.  
 
The Founders of this country worked on the belief that the House of Representatives would grow based on the size of each state's population. They proposed 1 House member for every 30,000 citizens.  With that math, California should have 1306 House members.  The House is artificially capped at 435 legislative districts.  This cap disenfranchises citizens of large states handing over more and more power to states with significantly less population. Even if we kept everything in proportion, for example giving California House districts that each equal the size of Wyoming's population, that would provide CA with 15 or 16 more seats and an equivalent increase in electoral votes.  Texas would get 12 more so it doesn't only affect blue states

 Would a properly sized House of Representatives and therefore, a correctly working Electoral College change results?  Maybe yes or maybe no, but don't tell me it is working when it no longer works as was designed by the Founders

Actually, I've got to step in and defend Sunset's link.  

Quora is, yeah, social media, and who knows who that guy is writing the answer, etc.

But this I do know, his explanation of terms like "Republic" and "Democracy" is historically grounded and actually pretty good.
The US application is informative as well, describing our "limited" democracy.  Guy is rather too vague in some ways though--e.g saying
Great Britain has been "becoming more and more a democracy" since 1215 in answer to a question about the longevity of
democracies. (An error about the extent of parliamentary power in 1688, too.)

This author also recognizes that "which is better/longer-lasting--constitutional republic or democracy?" is a fake question. 

What all that has do with your electoral college question, Pally, I'm not sure.  I share you concerns about the Gore decision. It was 
stopped short. 

I still prefer that the US remain a federal system of states which retain a high degree of sovereignty. That means some states
will have more influence per voter than others. 

Conservatives may defend the electoral college and the Senate with the supposed claim the US was supposed to be a "republic" and not a "democracy,"
as if the founders had worked out some important difference between the two. I've never encountered good scholarly support for that claim though. They favored Rome and England as models. And above all Locke.