It may surge away from the Republicans because their supporters are already demanding things that they won't get. Jobs and an improved economy are what they get blamed for not producing when they have so little control over them. Plus everyone that benefited from ObamaCare doesn't want it repealed unless they are guaranteed their benefit is kept.

It's true that it may go away from the Republicans if they can't deliver on their promises, but I find it hard to believe those people go to the Democrats, more likely a third party maybe.

Sure - he should be forced to divest and put funds in a blind trust, but impeached, no.

@ND - more than half the country (popular vote) voted democrat. So no, the majority of the country is not republican, or center right, but the Republicans have done a nice job with getting public power despite only getting a minority of the votes through good district maps.
Further, your article is poor evidence. The more liberal California has over 12% of the US population, but only 120 seats in its state legislature, or about 1.6% of the state legislative seats in the country. Similarly, the more liberal New York has a little over 6% of the population and just 150 seats in its state legislature, or 2% state legislative seats in the country. Just because some more conservative states have more state legislature positions per person does not mean they represent the majority - math doesn't work there. If California and New York decided to have a number of state legislative seats in representative of the percentage of the state's population in the country, there would be more democratic state representatives than republican. The measurement here is contrived to inaccurately represent the majority of the population because it gives greater weight to rural states with smaller populations and larger numbers of state representatives per person (somewhat ironically given the conservative platform of smaller government). Proper measures of representation show that conservative views are a minority position. This is true to an even more extreme extent if you consider the views of those too young to vote or those that could vote but fail to do so, as they tend to embrace more liberal positions but are not given a say in elections.

What? You mean ND is willing to embrace distorted sampling for the sake of partisan slander? I don't believe it.

Honestly, that was not my intention. I am not trying to paint a distorted view of the political system, but when a party can only win on the West Coast and portions of the North East then I wouldn't say it represents the majority of the country.

Violating a provision of the constitution in accepting major payments from foreign governments is impeachable. Changing US foreign policy for personally financial benefit is a major violation of the duties of the President.

If it isn't, then what would be?

If the party wins where there are a lot of people, it certainly can represent a majority of the country, with or without representing a majority of the geography.

Letho, neither party has a majority of voters

And when the constitution read "We the real estate of the United States..." That'll be reasonable

Hence the word 'can'. The only one who claimed a majority of the country belonged to either party was ND.

ND, define "majority of the country" then. I am willing to bet your definition will be too convoluted to be useful.

Sorry, leth that was meant to me an add on not a contradiction

Majority = more than 50% of the people. Neither oarty commands that and can't. Too much voter disenfranchisement

majority defined: "the greater number." In the context of elections: "the number by which votes for one candidate in an election are more than those for all other candidates combined."

These definitions have nothing to do with geographic distribution of the voters. Land does not vote. People vote. The majority of the people are on the coasts. The 2010 census found that roughly half the people in the country lived on either the West Coast or East Coast of the United States, and these geographic regions have seen heavier population growth than the rest of the United States, particularly in coastal cities. So yes, the coasts can make up a majority of the country in terms of the votes.

This is of course a simplification, as the coasts do not just vote democrat, just like the central US does not just vote republican, so these regions alone do not vote one way and determine national elections on their own.

But I see no problem with the coastal states having a large voice in elections - that's where the population is, and when voting for a national candidate, each vote should count equally, which is why our electoral college system is outdated. We accomplish a stronger voice for states in government through the senate and house and do not need to do it for the presidency as well. Although I understand this approach is built into the constitution, I disagree with it, and I further take issue with the implementation which skews votes towards small states to an even greater degree than called for by the constitution.

"It's true that it may go away from the Republicans if they can't deliver on their promises, but I find it hard to believe those people go to the Democrats, more likely a third party maybe."

This would make me quite happy, but I'm not sure about the feasibility.

Also, there's the distinct possibility of voting against party. I know liberals who voted Trump and conservatives who voted Clinton.

Of course, y'all remember that the electoral college (and senate) was set up to entice states with low populations to join the union by giving them an outsized voice. This made sense when people were more loyal to their state than the union. When people stopped saying "the United States ARE" and started saying "the United States IS", we became a nation (rather than a collection of states). That was the time, if ever, to get rid of the electoral college.

Still is time. It's absurd that the federal government is so unrepresentative.

^ Yes - it's long past time, and there is time. We're a country more than disparate states now.

@og/@sly: do the math gents. It takes 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the states to approve such an amendment to the constitution. However, there are more than 17 states (>1/3) that would lose power over such a change. Thus, 2/3rds or 3/4ths will NEVER be achieved.

majority of the land mass and geography of the country is indisputable, same with the majority of states.

@ND, a majority of the land mass and geography of the country has no one living on it. It's farmland, mountains, forests. People's homes occupy a very small % of the country.

I noticed you left out.. "majority of the states"

So I suppose the little people in the farmlands and forests and mountains don't matter? 2016 should have taught you differently.

I'm saying that the farms are big but that their houses are small in comparison.

In other words, the US will never be a Democracy. Probably the best approach would simply to remove states from federal district of entirely and have a bicameral house of many small district elected every two years and 100 large equal population district elected every six. Forget about apportioning senators by state

Of course, we have much better odds of California seceding than of tiny states giving up their unfair advantage. We are pretty close to 34 Republican states now and if all the west coast states, New England New York and New Jersey and Delaware all supported each other's secession we'd have 12 blue states voting yes, and getting 22 red states to agree to see the back of us shouldn't be at all hard.

That's a much more feasible approach

America is not a democracy. It is a Republic with a federalist system. If you want to live in a true Democracy travel back in time to ancient Athens.

@Og, so what happens when a new census requires redistricting? By gerrymandering, the party in power can put a lock on national government for eternity. C'mon man, get your head in the game!

Most of ND's outlook is rooted in 500BC thinking.

If a few states wanted to form a loose association of states (there is another word for this type of secessionist government) and secede it would not be a cake walk. The last time there was a secessionist movement there was a Civil War. The Supreme Court has ruled that secession is illegal and that the Union is Perpetual forever.