GA Senate Run off

[JoeWeber 2,299]

It appears both of Georgia's Senate seats, unless the leaders get over 50%, are headed for a run-off on January 5, 2021. So.......if somehow neither seat was filled by January 21 owing to Trumpian irregularities, shenanigans, court cases etc... wouldn't the Senate convene 48-48 with a Vice Presidential Tie breaker?

[headoverheels 291]

12 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

It appears both of Georgia's Senate seats, unless the leaders get over 50%, are headed for a run-off on January 5, 2021. So.......if somehow neither seat was filled by January 21 owing to Trumpian irregularities, shenanigans, court cases etc... wouldn't the Senate convene 48-48 with a Vice Presidential Tie breaker?

I don't know, but I suspect that the Governor can appoint temporary Senators pending the next election result. One of the runoff candidates is already a temporary appointment.  He would likely appoint those currently in office.

 

 

[Phil1111 910]

How the US senate is anti-democratic.

"In the incoming Senate, Democratic senators will represent at least 20,314,962 more people than their Republican counterparts — and that’s if we assume that Republicans win both runoff elections in Georgia. If the two Georgia seats go to the Democrats, the Senate will be split 50-50, but the Democratic half will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half."

Pence's days of vote breaking are likely over

[CygnusX-1 42]

33 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Democratic half will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half

Yes, and that is the way it should be. The senate is not a representation of the population of each state (or the US as a whole). That is the "job" of the house of representatives. The senate is a representation of each state no matter how many people are in that state.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

40 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

I don't know, but I suspect that the Governor can appoint temporary Senators pending the next election result. One of the runoff candidates is already a temporary appointment.  He would likely appoint those currently in office.

 

 

Could be, I sure don't know, but unless the seat is officially vacated you'd have two on one seat, seems to me.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Just now, CygnusX-1 said:

Yes, and that is the way it should be. The senate is not a representation of the population of each state (or the US as a whole). That is the "job" of the house of representatives. The senate is a representation of each state no matter how many people are in that state.

When you consider the extreme disparity between the states in both physical size and population there is no good basis to consider this a good thing. It probably made some sense when it was first conceived, but the intervening 2 1/2 centuries of change have made it a serious liability to American democracy. The now emasculated and likely soon to be eliminated filibuster rules only compound this problem. The American right wing has always had a fear of democracy. Actually, all right wing movements the world over dislike the idea behind democracy.

[Phil1111 910]

13 minutes ago, CygnusX-1 said:

Yes, and that is the way it should be. The senate is not a representation of the population of each state (or the US as a whole). That is the "job" of the house of representatives. The senate is a representation of each state no matter how many people are in that state.

One more reason why Biden needs senate control to move another constitutional amendment through.

The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One

"In 1995, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared, “Sometime in the next century the United States is going to have to address the question of apportionment in the Senate.” Perhaps that time has come. Today the voting power of a citizen in Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, is about 67 times that of a citizen in the largest state of California, and the disparities among the states are only increasing. The situation is untenable."

Edited November 6, 2020 by Phil1111

[headoverheels 291]

IIRC, GA voters were not allowed to vote in the Primary runoff, unless they had voted in (or maybe just registered prior to ?) the Primary.  I don't see anything to that effect for the case of this Senate runoff.  You can bet that these Senate runoffs will get the highest voter turnout in recent Georgia history, if it does come down whether the R's will retain the majority.

Edited November 6, 2020 by headoverheels

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

One more reason why Biden needs senate control to move another constitutional amendment through.

There is no chance whatsoever of the US constitution being amended in a way that takes away any of the power granted to smaller states short of a second revolution. The requirements for amendments are quite clear. The popular feelings of the citizens on a national level are completely irrelevant. No one gives up power that they legally possess willingly. It is a complete non starter and it is pointless to even consider it except as a thought exercise.

[Phil1111 910]

11 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

There is no chance whatsoever of the US constitution being amended in a way that takes away any of the power granted to smaller states short of a second revolution. The requirements for amendments are quite clear. The popular feelings of the citizens on a national level are completely irrelevant. No one gives up power that they legally possess willingly. It is a complete non starter and it is pointless to even consider it except as a thought exercise.

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”

Fair taxation aligned with fair representation are the fundamentals of democracy. When unequal representation is exploited partisanship will always be the result.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Phil1111

[gowlerk 1,912]

3 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”

 

Like I said, an interesting thought exercise but completely undoable

[Phil1111 910]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Like I said, an interesting thought exercise but completely undoable

Now you sound like a Republican No offense intended. Mods please don't ban me.

"Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (78%) now say rulings should be based on the Constitution’s meaning in current times, higher than at any previous point on record and up 9 percentage points from 2016 (69%). Just three-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaners now say the same, an 11-point increase from 2016 but little changed from GOP views in the years prior."

[gowlerk 1,912]

Just now, Phil1111 said:

Now you sound like a Republican No offense intended. Mods please don't ban me.

I'm trying at realism. Changing the power structure involves someone losing power and someone gaining power. People can try lawyerly arguments about different ways of interpreting words, but clearly they already have more than a couple centuries of meaning one thing. Only some kind of force could make the small states cede power. What force would you think could be brought to bear?

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

I'm trying at realism. Changing the power structure involves someone losing power and someone gaining power. People can try lawyerly arguments about different ways of interpreting words, but clearly they already have more than a couple centuries of meaning one thing. Only some kind of force could make the small states cede power. What force would you think could be brought to bear?

Hi Ken,

Re:  'I'm trying at realism.'

Yup.  While it is a rather good idea, it is right up there with term-limits for people in Congress; the fox is guarding the hen house.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Well written post.

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, CygnusX-1 said:

Yes, and that is the way it should be. The senate is not a representation of the population of each state (or the US as a whole). That is the "job" of the house of representatives. The senate is a representation of each state no matter how many people are in that state.

Except that it was deliberately gerrymandered almost from the very beginning to hardwire a partisan advantage into the system. The very reason some states are states is so that they can supply Senators, and the reason some US citizens don't live in a state is so that they can't supply any Senators.

Edited November 6, 2020 by jakee

[gowlerk 1,912]

4 minutes ago, jakee said:

The very reason some states are states is so that they can supply Senators,

West Virginia was granted statehood to reward them for supporting the union and to punish Virginia for seceding.

[Phil1111 910]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I'm trying at realism. .... Only some kind of force could make the small states cede power. What force would you think could be brought to bear?

A tea party.

[gowlerk 1,912]

25 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

A tea party.

I agree. It would take some kind of crisis. A revolution or an ultimatum from powerful states threatening to leave.

[Phil1111 910]

5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I'm trying at realism. Changing the power structure involves someone losing power and someone gaining power. People can try lawyerly arguments about different ways of interpreting words, but clearly they already have more than a couple centuries of meaning one thing. Only some kind of force could make the small states cede power. What force would you think could be brought to bear?

Speaking of lawyerly arguments: Graham: Senate may confirm Trump judges into 2021

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Friday opened the door to continuing to confirm President Trump’s judicial nominees in 2021, right up until when the next president, likely Joe Biden, is sworn in on Jan. 20."

 

[billeisele 122]

This mess still isn't over. There are about 8900 military votes to count in GA, and 40,000 in PA.. Don't understand why it's so hard to count votes, and move on. Supposedly the votes are scheduled to arrive on the 10th. Crazy.

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Speaking of lawyerly arguments: Graham: Senate may confirm Trump judges into 2021

I am assuming that is exactly what he will do.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

This mess still isn't over. There are about 8900 military votes to count in GA, and 40,000 in PA.. Don't understand why it's so hard to count votes, and move on. Supposedly the votes are scheduled to arrive on the 10th. Crazy.

I don't get it either. You'd think those silly Yemeni's, Afghanistanis and East Egyptionarians would know how to run a postal service by now. And there is absolutely no reason our forces cannot deploy in place while their ballots work their way through the highly efficient military systems after their wives in the US receive them at the home address and forward them on. Crazy.

[headoverheels 291]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

This mess still isn't over. There are about 8900 military votes to count in GA, and 40,000 in PA.. Don't understand why it's so hard to count votes, and move on. Supposedly the votes are scheduled to arrive on the 10th. Crazy.

My understanding for Georgia (as of yesterday) was that there were ~8900 military ballots which had not yet been returned.  Any which did not make it by today will not be counted.  I don't expect even half of those to have arrived, and I expect that they should be counted tomorrow or Sunday. There were a similar amount of ex-pat ballots still not received.

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

This mess still isn't over. There are about 8900 military votes to count in GA, and 40,000 in PA.. Don't understand why it's so hard to count votes, and move on. 

Well, for one reason, GOP lawmakers passed laws that said that counting could not start until the day of the election, even if mail-in ballots were received early.  That lets republicans (who tend to vote in person) have an early lead, which they like.

[headoverheels 291]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

Well, for one reason, GOP lawmakers passed laws that said that counting could not start until the day of the election, even if mail-in ballots were received early.  That lets republicans (who tend to vote in person) have an early lead, which they like.

We saw the opposite effect in Ohio, where mail-in ballots were counted ahead of election day.  Big blue lead at first (unexpected in Ohio), then in person voting got counted and the expected Republican win emerged.