Posted On: Saturday - July 20th 2024 9:47AM MST
In Topics: Elections '16 - '24 History US Feral Government Geography
Why not something non-political (in a way) and numbers-oriented today for a change? Peak Stupidity's post A more intelligent and civil '24 Presidential election of 2 weeks back discussed how different the high-level American politicians were a century ago. Mostly, we referred to intelligence. (Note our site name.) Aside from the people, the electoral vote results map in that post is very interesting too.
(Pay no attention to the yellow circle around Ohio. These may be some sort of chem-urine-trails, I dunno...)
We discussed some of the numbers in the comments thereunder. A comparison of maps will show the great differences in the Electoral power of the various States from the 20th century's year '24 to the 21st's.
I wish "power" of the States meant a lot more than this 4 year periodic voting, probably for someone who doesn't have the real power anyway and the number of Congresscritters. Had the people defended Federalism since Roosevelt's time and through its almost total demise by 2 decades ago, we might talk about Texas' power to lock up its southern border, or, say, Tennessee's power to legislate that Affirmative Action is illegal in the State. The best efforts I've seen have been by Ron DeSantis in Florida, and, good-or-bad, the varying decisions made by Governors (ex: DeSantis vs. Strechin' Gretchin of Michigan) during that Kung Flu PanicFest.
Digression over with, we'll look at 3 maps here, so let me explain why 3. Without the (ass-backwards) red/blue schemes, which we obviously don't have for 2024* yet, the numbers are there, the political aspect of the State EV changes can't be seen. Therefore, I ask the reader to refer to the all-gray map in the 3rd segment of our previous post for the '24 EV numbers. There have been changes in 13 States from the '20 map we show here due to the '20 census, all of them small. due to population changes.** From (spit)
Down by 1 (west to east): California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, W. Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York.
Up by 1 (west to east): Oregon, Montana, Colorado, Florida, and N. Carolina.
Up by 2: Texas.
Even Steven for the total.
Finally, there is a slight difference between, not these 4 years, but between 1924 and today, in the total EVs. The difference, 531 (a century ago) to 538 (now), is due to the addition of Alaska (3 EVs) and Hawaii (4 EVs). What about the 3 votes stupidity allotted by yet another of the bad-idea Constitutional Amendments**** ratified after the Bill of Rights? That'd be Amendment XIII, ratified in 1961. I haven't figured out where these 3 votes came out of yet.
BTW,
That was a hell of an intro. I was about to put in the maps, but let me cut this post off and put the red/blue maps in the next one with my comments about the huge differences. Stand by for that.
PS: Electoral votes allocated to the States are determined by the number of US Congressional districts + 2 (for Senators).
* Don't forget that here's a lot of day- and week- after color changing, red-to-blue, done due, to
** Note that "population" from the Census doesn't mean just citizens. Illegal aliens are not exactly living in the shadows***, so one can see that counts with large shares of them give power to States, even aside from the corrupt practice of allowing them the franchise, legally or not.
*** See also "Boston Woman" back in the shadows
**** 5, 29% of the damn things expanded the voting franchise. Not cool, Kyle!!
Comments:
Hail
Saturday - July 20th 2024 7:09PM MST
PS
"There is no Senator from the District (of Criminals), thankfully"
The justification for creating a "federal district" made a lot of sense back when the model was something closer to "a federation of states" than what the USA eventually evolved into.
The federal district, on the Potomac River, is a laughable anachronism today in many ways (for one thing, it's far too small in scope).
The principle remains valid that those directly administering the 'federal' government should not have a hand in forming that government, lest out-of-control centralization occur. That of course is the entire reason "Washington D.C." long had limited rights and couldn't vote for president.
We're too late for that now, people will say. And maybe, in the world of nuclear weapons, of Whites dying by the hundreds of thousands of opium, of feminism, and of mass-Diversity, there needs to be centralization to keep a lid on everything.
But maybe there could be a move to amend the U.S. constitution to deny voting rights to those directly tied to that which is called the "federal government." The reasons to do so are obvious. This could also apply to those who receive direct government money-payouts. This would, of course, end the Democratic Party as we know it, so it would be tough to do. But it makes sense...
"There is no Senator from the District (of Criminals), thankfully"
The justification for creating a "federal district" made a lot of sense back when the model was something closer to "a federation of states" than what the USA eventually evolved into.
The federal district, on the Potomac River, is a laughable anachronism today in many ways (for one thing, it's far too small in scope).
The principle remains valid that those directly administering the 'federal' government should not have a hand in forming that government, lest out-of-control centralization occur. That of course is the entire reason "Washington D.C." long had limited rights and couldn't vote for president.
We're too late for that now, people will say. And maybe, in the world of nuclear weapons, of Whites dying by the hundreds of thousands of opium, of feminism, and of mass-Diversity, there needs to be centralization to keep a lid on everything.
But maybe there could be a move to amend the U.S. constitution to deny voting rights to those directly tied to that which is called the "federal government." The reasons to do so are obvious. This could also apply to those who receive direct government money-payouts. This would, of course, end the Democratic Party as we know it, so it would be tough to do. But it makes sense...
Taking away their right to vote would be a good start, at least, in bringing the franchise back to what the Founders intended.
As, I wrote above, 5 of the Const. Amendments expanding voting rights. Really, they forced all the States to expand their voting rights.
Backing up to what you wrote first, nobody expected the Beast it is today. Some small center for administration - the minting of money (though that work was spread out anyway), the Bureau of Standards, for measurements, the Post Office headquarters, I suppose, the Nat'l Weather Bureau, that sort of thing was what they were probably thinking of. You actually had to be a public servant to want to labor in that (actual) swamp.