Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "How Is Kamala The Nominee When We Didn't Vote For Her?" video.

It's mostly the small state bonus that causes most of the trouble. Back when the electoral college was originally created, it worked pretty well and dealt with the fact that the news might not make it to some of the more rural areas regularly enough to allow the voters there to have an informed say in what they wanted from the government. So, they'd vote for electors to go and finalize the decision making in the capitol. But, between how easy it is to receive news in all but the most remote locations and that the GOP hasn't won the popular vote a single time this century while winning the Presidency 3 times, it's clearly time to at bare minimum axe the small state bonus, and more generally just move to a popular vote system. The only benefit to not completely obliterating the electoral college is that it makes it harder for the Republicans to rig the election by making it impossible for certain folks to vote in states where they control the election process.
19
Pretending that that's an excuse for her being the nominee without earning it is disingenuous. People voted for Biden because they either wanted his policies or specifically didn't want Trump to get another 4 years. Claiming anything else is just more copium. The DNC should have had a contested convention, this whole business of not knowing who the nominee was going to be and not knowing what the policies would be until after nomination is cartoonish and absurd.
6
@drexeldragon1723 Yes, that's the bigger problem, South Carolina was the final nail in the coffin for Bernie's 202 Presidential run, but the state went red in the general election anyways. Personally, I think that it would make more sense to put the states that never vote for the Democratic candidate towards the end of the primaries, and front load a bunch of the purple states towards the beginning and middle of the primaries with the remainder filled out with a random assortment of the rest of the states. That would at least remove the pro-GOP bias in the process. So, perhaps we could get some Presidential candidates that might actually fight for the voters for once rather than falling down the moment the GOP threatens to fight them on something
4
@JayBee-cr8jm Yes, if we went back to a time when the VP was elected separately from the President it would be a much stronger case, but the fact of the matter is that hardly anybody voted for her and I doubt anybody voted for the Biden/Harris ticket to get more Harris.
3
@TheKillerman3333 At some point, the property values will drop tot he point where the usual cast of artists and entrepreneurs move in for the cheap prices and things will start to move the other way. This isn't like in the past when a region could fall so far behind that it couldn't ever catch up. Although, we do have some states that are trying really hard to avoid catching up.
2
@Ariesguy41499 Yep, also keep in mind that it's normal for the primaries to not reach all of the states due to a lack of viable candidates near the end. That's one of the reasons why it's so problematic to allow the same set of states go first every presidential primary season, by the time it gets to where I live, the only primaries still in question are being decided on a razor thin margin. That being said, I doubt the GOP primaries would have gone differently had they gotten to all 50 states before completing. Trump still has a massive amount of power in the party.
2
So? A lot of us refused to vote for them after the DNC rigged the second Presidential primary season in a row against Bernie and Biden just happened to be in good enough with the DNC and the voters to get away with it. I don't think this would be nearly the issue that it is if it hadn't been so long since the primary voters got a say in the outcome. The last time that the voters got a real say in the primary was in 2008 when Obama earned the nomination. Since then it's either been Obama with token competition or a bunch of anti-democratic primary rigging.
2
@michaelsurratt1864 Look at her record as AG though, it was absolutely horrifying. Hundreds of convictions overturned due to evidence mishandling. So, that's some combination of guilty people off the hook and innocent people prosecuted in spite of being actually innocent.
2
@UnconventionalReasoning Look at her record, she was a terrible AG.
2
You're state needs to fix the primary system then. Here in WA we use a top two primary where the top two vote getters from any party advance to the general election, even if they're the same party. (They aren't even technically in the parties necessarily, they just declare which party they prefer, so we even get Whigs on the ballot fairly regularly) Also, we don't allow the winner to draw the districting lines. Over time, that has led to a state where there's far less extremism in either direction in terms of what the legislature does. There are a few nutters, but the liberal bent to the state politics is largely because the GOP policy positions are just not popular enough to win as during those intra-party general election races, the more moderate candidate tends to win as the opponents get a say in how that shakes out rather than voting for candidates that will never win.
1
@WaterKirby1994 Yes, but what have they done for us today other than giving us a second term of GWB by virtue of their incompetent handling of hundreds of thousands of ballots in the 2004 general election?
1
What about those of us that actually care about democracy? Precisely who are we supposed to vote for?
1
The only reason that it's not fraud is because fraud requires some degree of competence and intention. This was just corruption and it's only legal because the DNC went to SCOTUS to win the ability to nominate candidates over the objection of the voters. That literally was not the case when I was in high school,that came years later. So, a bunch of people don't know that because it wasn't true prior to 8 years ago.
1
No, that would be appropriate given that nobody really has any idea what she was doing while VP other than failing to effectively deal with the border crisis or even appear to be taking it seriously. It's unclear what else she was supposed to be doing other than being a warm body in case Biden died in office.
1
That's an excuse and that's not how it has to be. Here in WA, the parties don't get to do that. The politicians just say which party they represent and the voters get to decide which candidates out of the available options are in the general election. What you're proposing is more or less the same system they use in Iran where the Ayatollah decides which prospective candidates are permitted to run, and the voters just get to choose between the ones that have been approved. It's still "democracy" I suppose,. but it leads to a near complete impossibility to really challenge the government on anything meaningful. If you think that's fine, then keep carrying water for the corrupt parties that won't let anybody win that's going to represent the people.
1
@FTZPLTC That works better for the UK where the Prime Minister's term is a maximum of 5 years rather than a guaranteed 4 years and where there's more than 2 major parties to choose from for that position. There are clearly still some issues there, but allowing the parties to choose the leadership makes more sense as you don't really know which parties are going to have the votes ahead of time, it's a bit like how we in the US don't get to vote for Speaker of the House or President of the Senate.
1
@bbartky Yes, although I think that looking back on it, Reagan's damage to the country will probably be far more significant. That being said, that assumes that at some point the Democrats either completely lose the support of enough voters to prevent a 3rd party from coming in and outflanking them on the left side and there's some semblance of sanity that returns to the system as the voters finally get a progressive and/or left wing option to vote for. Which is not exactly a given given that the SCOTUS keeps legalizing bribery and extra restrictions on prospective left wing voters.
1
That doesn't make this any less retrograde in terms of freedom. The people had a right to have a say in which candidate became the nominee and then subsequently the President. Things have been moving backwards for decades, such logic about implications would be far more compelling if the Democrats didn't win the right to rig primaries and the GOP didn't regularly win the Presidency over the objections of most voters.
1
@hattielankford4775 Which candidate is preogressive? The one that hates immigrants or the one that throws people in jail for truancy and laughs about sending people to jail for marijuana related crimes while having actually smoked the stuff herself? Yep, clearly one of them is progressive.
1
@hattielankford4775 Harris isn't a progressive, she's a pretty horrible person and if anybody bothered to check her record they'd know that she's just as bad of a person as he is, it's just that she cares a bit more about the rule of law than he does. But, both represent the destruction of our democracy.
1
No, people didn't. Please stop lying, are you really suggesting that if say, Hitler's reanimated corpse had been running with Biden that we're stuck with Hitler's reanimated corpse as the Democratic nominee because folks voted for Biden and as such voted for a reanimated corpse is now the rightful nominee? Because it doesn't really get any less ridiculous if you swap a more reasonable candidate like Walz or Harris for Hitler's rotting flesh.
1
If she wins, you likewise won't ever get to vote in any sort of meaningful Presidential election either. Choose your poison carefully.
1