Re: 2016 Election
 

California is only allowed to secede if Texas does as well. It's only fair.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Just have to bite the bullet and build desal plants, it's the only viable consistent way to supply water, just gotta pay for the plants.

Or suppose could try and get some from Canada, but that would be a political nightmare on this side of the border so that wouldn't work, I think desal is the best solution despite the cost, but hey pricier water would lead to more conservation as people try and reduce their bills.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Well, we have one in Carlsbad now :cool:.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Set up huge water desalination plants at points along the coast. They require very large amounts of electric power. Nuclear is the rational choice, but being California, vast wind farms would probably be employed instead (although none within the sightline of Beverly Hills, of course). Australia is doing some very good research into reducing the energy cost and improving the membranes. With Silicon Valley on the case, it should soon be possible to clear the way for secession.:sneaky:

Re: 2016 Election
 

Corbyn Effect hitting the Dems?

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/0...leground-poll/

Re: 2016 Election
 

It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the President represents the States, you're inferring it from the electoral college which is clearly an anachronism that serves no practical purpose in this day and age.

The only real reason it persists is because some people (usually Republicans) see it as being an advantage to them.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Not practical because of the brine. Better wastewater management (i.e. recycling) is probably the better option.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Well they do have a desal plant in Carlsbad near San Diego, and they did come up with a solution to reduce the brine salinity so it doesn't cause harm to surrounding ocean life.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Those who are knowledgeable about about the constitution don't make daft comments like that, as anyone who understands the document knows that the document isn't self contained.

No, my point comes straight out of Federalist 45, which I'm sure that you've never heard of, let alone read or understood:

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government...Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it...each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them.

FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 45

You probably aren't aware of this, but the US began without the Constitution.

The Constitution had to be approved by the states. It increased the power of the national government, and the individual states had to be convinced that it was worth their while. And that included assurances that they played a role in electing the president.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Yes, fundamentally, the US is a federal-republican system and not a direct-election democracy. There have been recent attempts to do away with the Electoral College system, the most recent being in 1970 when Congress considered a bill that would have led to a constitutional convention to provide for the direct election of the President. It died, filibustered in the Senate by a combination of Republican and Democratic Senators from small states concerned that they would lose power and influence in the elections.

States currently decide how their electors will be awarded. Two, Nebraska and Maine allow their electors to be decided by the apportionment of votes. You can see why other states won't follow that rule. For example, in 2012, 4.8 million voters in California voted for Romney. However, every one of California's 55 electoral votes went to Obama - thus, nearly 5 million voters in California were effectively disenfranchised. Note: California's legislature is solidly Democrat and the Governor is also a Democrat, so don't expect that to change any time soon.

So, Steve, you can see that Democrats are just as jealous of their power, as enhanced by the Electoral College system, as Republicans. And consider, in only four elections has a President been elected with less than a majority of the vote - so the system does work.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Those who vote for a losing candidate in a "first past the post" election aren't "effectively disenfranchised": they merely exercised their enfranchisement in voting for a candidate that failed to win.

I like the electoral college system because it means candidates have to build more broad-based support from differing states than would be the case if country-wide majority vote was in force.

Re: 2016 Election
 

That was one of the goals expressed in the Federalist papers.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Californian's don't vote straight democrat when it comes to their governor, been more republican governors overall.

I used 1959 to present and voters have flipped flopped back and forth.

1959-1967 Democrat
1967-1975 Republican
1975-1983 Democrat
1983-1991 Republican
1991-1999 Republican
1999-2003 Democrat
2003-2011 Republican
2011-Present Democrat

Re: 2016 Election
 

The state senate currently consists of 26 Democrats and 14 Republicans, and the Assembly consists of 52 Democrats and 28 Republicans. Except for the period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election (even while the governor's office has gone back and forth between Republicans and Democrats). The Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...te_Legislature

Except for a single legislative session, the legislature in California has been in Democratic hands for 45 years - and probably will be for the foreseeable future.

My earlier point about the "first past the post" award of 100% of the electoral college votes in 48 states was that it enhances the power of the majority in each of those states and *effectively* disenfranchises the votes of the minority. Without doing away with the Electoral College - the system is established by the Constitution - I would like to see the states apportion them according to the proportion of the vote. But that won't happen. One other benefit is that in a truly close result in a particular state, it would reduce the temptation to serendipitously "find" just enough ballots lying around somewhere to tip the election to one side or the other. That practice wouldn't disappear in Senatorial or Congressional races, but it would have a minimal effect on the distribution of Electoral College votes. Just my suggestion for reform.

ETA: "First Past the Post" may be OK in UK elections, even if it gives one party that only achieved about 40% of the national vote an absolute majority in Parliament, because we're talking about each single riding. By contrast, in California, for example, almost 12 million people voted and (theoretically) a single vote could end up awarding 55 electoral votes, or more than 1/5th of the total votes needed to elect a President (270). At least in Germany, seats are awarded in the Bundestag when a party exceeds 5% of the total vote, even if it does not win a single seat outright.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I thought the whole point of the electoral college was to reduce the influence of mob rule. If you have all the States assign their college votes in proportion then you might as well just do a singular popoular vote.

Hello President Gore.