Would you counter-protest?

[befree]

Since Freedom of Speech is one of America's basic four freedoms, I couldn't deny anybody their right to it, distasteful though I might find it. But, as others have posted, nothing is achieved with confrontations. I would attend a pro-active event, like a "love-in" at a park, to celebrate inclusion and peace, while the neo-Nazis across town give their speeches to...nobody but themselves. Or a fund-raiser for an anti-racism organization, like the town in Germany that gets people to pledge money for every mile the neo-Nazis march through their town, so the Nazi sympathizers are greeted with delight and people holding up signs thanking them for their contributions to anti-racism causes. But directly engage angry, resentful men carrying weapons? Uh, no thank you.

[jp1]

But there is this idea abput tyranny of the majority and rights of minorities. It is a pretty important idea.

But we seem to be a lot more worried about that when we percieve ourselves the minority. I dont remember Alan getting stressed that the minority that is California cant assert ourselves in presidential elections. But we're only 12% of the population so whi cares what we think.

[bae]

I dont remember Alan getting stressed that the minority that is California cant assert ourselves in presidential elections. But we're only 12% of the population so whi cares what we think.

Your state legislature could fix your perceived issue in under a week by changing its winner-take-all electoral college policy.

Candidates don't care what California thinks now, because they *know* what California thinks, and they already know where those votes are going. No sense spending any money/effort on a predetermined outcome.

Make it interesting for them!

[iris lilies]

But we seem to be a lot more worried about that when we percieve ourselves the minority. I dont remember Alan getting stressed that the minority that is California cant assert ourselves in presidential elections. But we're only 12% of the population so whi cares what we think.

Well, sure. I'm not "worried" about a bunch of skinheads failing to get their say in Boston, if they did fail. Probably by marching and holding signs and saying a few words, they did get their say.

Any sustained effort to deny them speech is a problem, and if the government turns its back on protecting their speech, thats a bigger problem. But I am not keen on public resources spent on protecting them either, so finding the balance is important.

[Alan]

But we seem to be a lot more worried about that when we percieve ourselves the minority. I dont remember Alan getting stressed that the minority that is California cant assert ourselves in presidential elections. But we're only 12% of the population so whi cares what we think.

California presented all 55 of their electoral votes (more than any other state) to Mrs. Clinton, just as the majority of it's citizens wished. Why would I be stressed? I have no reason to think California's 12% of the population should control the outcome.

[LDAHL]

The original idea of federalism was that sovereignty resided with the various states, who would decide which powers would be allocated to the central government. It was never intended that the president be selected by popular vote but rather a consensus of the states. The Electoral College does indeed overweight less populous states somewhat because the founders worried about dominance by more populous regions. But I would think that would not be decisively significant if most or all of the states allocated their electoral votes by their popular vote results. I think Bae is right that there would be more campaigning in California if at least some of the vote was not essentially a foregone conclusion. But that would mean the dominant party would risk losing some national influence. It's hard to see them going the way of Nebraska or Maine.

California could attempt to convince enough other states to allocate that way, or even change the rules entirely to select presidents by popular vote. But it seems unlikely to me that enough of the other states would be willing to cede power to the more highly populated areas. I think it would take less effort for the Democrats to broaden their appeal in flyover country (it wouldn't have taken much in 2016) than to get a constitutional amendment or an agreement among the states to allocate electoral votes differently. Dropping the "bitter clinger" or "basket of deplorables" talk might have been enough to put them over the top in a number of states.

Surely losing to Donald Trump must have been a "teachable moment" for the more thoughtful Democrats.

[jp1]

Alternatively CA could pass a law, and convince enough other states to pass the same law, that sends all of out electors for whoever won the NATIONAL popular vote. If enough states to win the electoral college did this it would make the election a de-facto popular vote.

That seems like a better, and easier, plan than trying to get the Democratic Party to add pro-nationalist, pro-white supremacist, anti-science, anti-Muslim, pro-tax cuts for the rich, and anti-immigrant planks to their platform.

That said, you're right. Pointing out that people are losers is not a winning plan.

[Alan]

That said, you're right. Pointing out that people are losers is not a winning plan.

But it is popular, so please don't tell the Democrats to change their approach. Republicans appreciate you more than you know.

That seems like a better, and easier, plan than trying to get the Democratic Party to add pro-nationalist, pro-white supremacist, anti-science, anti-Muslim, pro-tax cuts for the rich, and anti-immigrant planks to their platform.

I was listening to Chuck Todd on Meet The Press Daily while driving home a week or so ago. He had a Democratic Senator who's name escapes me at the moment on as a guest as they talked about things the Democrats could do to bring more people into the fold. The Senator said they had to craft their message to appeal to more people. Chuck said (and I paraphrase) "do you really want white males in pick-up trucks with gun racks to be Democrats?". The Senator said "of course, we shouldn't discriminate", to which Chuck replied "but do you really, really want white males in pick-up trucks with gun racks in our party?"

I love it when the opposition works with us, especially when they don't mean to.

[LDAHL]

Alternatively CA could pass a law, and convince enough other states to pass the same law, that sends all of out electors for whoever won the NATIONAL popular vote. If enough states to win the electoral college did this it would make the election a de-facto popular vote.

That seems like a better, and easier, plan than trying to get the Democratic Party to add pro-nationalist, pro-white supremacist, anti-science, anti-Muslim, pro-tax cuts for the rich, and anti-immigrant planks to their platform.

That said, you're right. Pointing out that people are losers is not a winning plan.

While it's a creative approach to the problem (if it in fact is a problem), I doubt your electoral vote cartel would survive very long after the first time its participants were disappointed by the results. I imagine it would play out as a sort of prisoners dilemma. State legislators who voted to assign electoral votes based on a popular vote very much at odds with how their constituents voted would probably be putting themselves at considerable risk. That's probably why it hasn't been tried.

If representing "losers" is just too ignominious to contemplate, the Democrats may need to write off a considerable portion of the voting public as socially unacceptable. Such exclusivity may cost the occasional election, but that may be an acceptable price to pay for identifying as nature's aristocracy.

[ApatheticNoMore]

But it is popular, so please don't tell the Democrats to change their approach. Republicans appreciate you more than you know.

Republicans in effect make people into losers all the time, like all those people it tried to take (admittedly very flawed) ACA coverage away from. Why again don't they deserve to have healthcare? Oh right because they are losers. There is just a certain strain that isn't ever going to provide anyone with healthcare either, but that will encourage people to BLAME their bad circumstances on minorities. Which afterall is probably more comfortable than to think than the reason for them is because one is a loser if one buys into the ridiculous winners and losers framing. But for the most part (the exceptions are individually but NOT socially relevant) both views are complete and utter nonsense and can be safely be REJECTED IN TOTAL.

Never EVER should anyone who really wants things to be better accept that anyone is a loser. Now some people may be vicious and dangerous alright, but that isn't the same thing.