Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Madam45for2923

(7,178 posts)

6. Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al

Reply to doc03 (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 5, 2016, 09:19 AM

Dec 2016

Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-all: #1p1vote

https://twitter.com/lessig/status/805426166433742850

The Equal Protection argument against “winner take all” in the Electoral College

It’s perfectly clear that the Attorney General of New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. But based on that complaint, were I a citizen of California, I’d ask my current AG (and future Senator) why hasn’t CA done the same thing? And were I a citizen of New York, I’d ask my AG the same. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?

https://medium.com/lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.kyqhlyifa

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

CLINTON won among voters that made $50,000 or less AND those said ECONOMY most important 7.3 [View all] Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 OP

and now it will be more of trickle down horror for so many riversedge Dec 2016 #1

... Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #2

k&r tammywammy Dec 2016 #3

KnR! Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #4

A Trumpster said this morning that if you take California out that doc03 Dec 2016 #5

Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #6

I just edited last post, I just heard the second person repeat that. I guess they heard it on doc03 Dec 2016 #7

I made an OP of the last article. Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #8

Can't take California out though... it is a state just like any other state. Zing Zing Zingbah Dec 2016 #9

That will be a legitimate argument if/when California secedes. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #12

So she won with the DNC's core base; working class people ... sigh... wtf, this election is so uponit7771 Dec 2016 #10

The "working class whites/economic messaging" narrative never stood up to scrutiny. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #11

Wow! Thanks for the link/OP/posting Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #14

Those promoting the thought we ignored the economy and white males... NCTraveler Dec 2016 #13

KnR! Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #15

KnR! Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #16

Notice how the people who have all the answers for the Democratic Party BainsBane Dec 2016 #17

I know. duffyduff Dec 2016 #19

But, but, but duffyduff Dec 2016 #18

k/r Dawson Leery Dec 2016 #20

Kicking! Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #21

The same polls that said Hillary would win easily? I don't trust polls anymore. realmirage Dec 2016 #22

Okee! Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #23

You mean the folks dug up by visiting reporters to fit their narrative? bettyellen Dec 2016 #24

Ironically, our economy has improved so much Nevernose Dec 2016 #25

These Trump voters believe THEY are the REAL working class. raging moderate Dec 2016 #26

I know we have to examine why we lost, but I think the real reason isn't something you can control. napi21 Dec 2016 #27