Electoral College

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

SlugSlinger

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
7,865
Reaction score
7,701
Location
Owasso
This kind of puts things into perspective.

upload_2019-6-6_7-48-38.png


upload_2019-6-6_7-50-48.png


Los Angeles homeless population hits 36,000 in dramatic rise

More than 59,000 people are homeless across county as housing crisis plagues California

Tents along a street in downtown Los Angeles. The number of homeless people counted across the county has jumped 12% since last year.

Tents along a street in downtown Los Angeles. The number of homeless people counted across the county has jumped 12% since last year. Photograph: Richard Vogel/AP

Los Angeles has experienced a 16% increase in the homeless population over the last year, the latest sign of severe income inequality and a worsening housing crisis plaguing California.

There are now more than 36,000 homeless people in the city of LA, and nearly 59,000 across LA county, a 16% and 12% uptick respectively, according to an annual LA county report released on Tuesday.

The county “point-in-time count”, conducted by thousands of volunteers in January each year, is an estimate of the number of people living on the street, in tents, in cars and in shelters. The sharp increases paint a picture of a growing public health crisis in a region home to some of the richest neighborhoods and people in the US. Some key data from the report:

More than 44,000 (75%) of the homeless population are unsheltered, with more than 16,000 people living in cars and more than 11,000 in tents and makeshift shelters.

The number of homeless families increased by 8% to 8,800, with more than 1,600 of them unsheltered.

Youth homelessness also increased by 24% to nearly 4,000, and more than half of young people are unsheltered.

More than half of unsheltered adults are experiencing homelessness for the first time.
 

TerryMiller

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
18,778
Reaction score
18,565
Location
Here, but occasionally There.
While we were living and volunteering in Grants Pass, Oregon a while back, we noticed a large number of "transients." I think they might have been all along the I-5 corridor, perhaps even ranging all the way from Seattle down to L.A. Some of these "numbers" at L.A. could be some of those "transients" moving south from further up the coast.
 

CorpsVet

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
2,919
Reaction score
2,211
Location
Smallville, OK
There is a plan from some states to "nullify" the E.C. by agreeing to cast electoral votes for the candidate that wins the popular vote, no matter which candidate wins the vote in their state. There is no requirement that the electors from a particular state vote for the candidate that got the most votes in their state.
 

lasher

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,458
Reaction score
1,828
Location
oklahoma
There is a plan from some states to "nullify" the E.C. by agreeing to cast electoral votes for the candidate that wins the popular vote, no matter which candidate wins the vote in their state. There is no requirement that the electors from a particular state vote for the candidate that got the most votes in their state.

i would consider that to be a call to arms
 

ignerntbend

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
15,797
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Oklahoma
The states are already allowed to ''Bind" electors. Some states do, some states don't. There is no requirement in the constitution that an elector vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in his or her state.
That's why you hear occasionally about "unfaithful" electors.
A recent example is how Trump's electoral count on election day(306) changed to 304 by the time the vote was certified.

The states that bind electors do so with state law rather than Federal law. Can state law can be changed without a constitutional amendment to bind electors some other way? Maybe. Did I say it made sense? I didn't say it made sense.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,492
Reaction score
15,884
Location
Collinsville
The states are already allowed to ''Bind" electors. Some states do, some states don't. There is no requirement in the constitution that an elector vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in his or her state.
That's why you hear occasionally about "unfaithful" electors.
A recent example is how Trump's electoral count on election day(306) changed to 304 by the time the vote was certified.

The states that bind electors do so with state law rather than Federal law. Can state law can be changed without a constitutional amendment to bind electors some other way? Maybe. Did I say it made sense? I didn't say it made sense.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

IF I were in one of these nonsense states throwing their voice away on the popular vote, I'd be furious that my vote was nullified in favor of how the major urban coastal cities voted. At that point I would say I no longer had a representative government and act accordingly.
 

ignerntbend

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
15,797
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Oklahoma
IF I were in one of these nonsense states throwing their voice away on the popular vote, I'd be furious that my vote was nullified in favor of how the major urban coastal cities voted. At that point I would say I no longer had a representative government and act accordingly.

You've hit the jackpot. Oklahoma is one of the thirty states that require electors to vote the state's popular choice BY Law.
 

Ethan N

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
487
Reaction score
313
Location
OKC Area
Our constitution started out without the Electoral College (first few drafts, I believe). The original idea was for Congress to elect the president, which would have been even more indirect than the Electoral College due to US senators being elected by the state legislature in most (all?) states. The founders leaned away from direct election toward options with a buffer of representatives because they understood the dangers inherent to democracy, especially in a nation of diverse regional interests and values, which we are now probably more than ever. “Majority” is often another word for tyranny. Popular majorities need to be buffered by a layer of representatives with the prerogative to decide in favor of minorities when it better serves the nation or the preservation of individual rights.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom