11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[boedicca]

If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states. They will be essentially meaningless, and we can one big collective like the USSR.

Does that mean the only purpose of having states is to elect the president?

No. There is nothing in his comment to suggest such a thing.

Have you quit beating your dog?

 

[Montrovant]

l

I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.

I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?

The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?

If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?

I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.

Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.

This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.

And, as always, if you don't like something the Constitution says, you're welcome to amend it. The Founders decided that the presidency is a unique role that should not be decided by a popularity contest. The states are allowed to select their leaders however they like.

"However they like" would include choosing electors based on the national popular vote, wouldn't it?

Apples and oranges. Electors are chosen to elect the PRESIDENT. State leaders are governors, etc.

If you're trying to say that states can cast their electoral votes however they wish, they can to a certain extent. They are certainly not required to follow any other states' lead. Should they follow the big states they would also have to face their own citizens' reaction to having their votes nullified.

I'm not arguing in favor of the compact, I'm merely arguing that it seems likely to be legal and Constitutional.

I'm not sure what the apples and oranges comment is directed at.

 

[Montrovant]

If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states. They will be essentially meaningless, and we can one big collective like the USSR.

Does that mean the only purpose of having states is to elect the president?

No. There is nothing in his comment to suggest such a thing.

Have you quit beating your dog?

Without the EC states "will be essentially meaningless." That would seem to indicate the meaning or purpose of states has to do with the EC and electing the president. That or, perhaps, it is another claim that somehow the functions of government will change dependent upon the method by which presidents are elected.

 

[Pilot1]

Without the EC states "will be essentially meaningless." That would seem to indicate the meaning or purpose of states has to do with the EC and electing the president. That or, perhaps, it is another claim that somehow the functions of government will change dependent upon the method by which presidents are elected.

The state laws will eventually be superseded by Federal laws as the large population centers will dictate the outcome of the Presidential election. Large metro areas are ALL Democrat, and liberal/progressive. Eventually, even the more conservative states will succumb to that. It will be one homogenous collective.

 

[Pogo]

Why do LWNJs believe that they should override the voters of a state? If Connecticut votes in favor of a candidate that doesn't get the majority of the nationwide popular vote, their votes are nullified.

It's a rhetorical question. We all understand that you Progs don't respect the Will of the People.

/—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSC

I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.

I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?

The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?

If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?

I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.

Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.

This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.

Mon petit chou, you need to read up on your Tocqueville.

Ce n'est pas necessaire, ma 'ti chou-fleur.
On account of, you know, that I have un cerveau.

Burma Shave

I just had lunch with Alex today. I said, 'So Toque" (I calls him 'Toque') --- whattaya think of this here Electrical Collage bidness"?

He spat. "C'est completement fou". Whatever that means.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states. They will be essentially meaningless, and we can one big collective like the USSR.

Does that mean the only purpose of having states is to elect the president?

/—-/ Was that meant to be funny or are you serious?

 

[Pogo]

Why do LWNJs believe that they should override the voters of a state? If Connecticut votes in favor of a candidate that doesn't get the majority of the nationwide popular vote, their votes are nullified.

It's a rhetorical question. We all understand that you Progs don't respect the Will of the People.

/—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSC

I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.

I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?

The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?

If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?

I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.

Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.

This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.

And, as always, if you don't like something the Constitution says, you're welcome to amend it. The Founders decided that the presidency is a unique role that should not be decided by a popularity contest. The states are allowed to select their leaders however they like.

There isn't any Constitutional Amendment suggested here, nor would it be necessary to achieve the goal of what this initiative wants to do.

We could always amend the Constitution should we desire to of course, and the effect of this plan could spur that dialogue into action. But for now it's entirely within the existing Constitutional framework, because that document doesn't care if a state uses this method, or even if it holds an election at all.. A state could fill up a tumbler with plasstic balls and have a blindfolded volunteer pick one at random out if it wanted to. Combine it with the lottery number.

The Constitution also in no way requires that any state use a WTA system, which is really what this thing tries to remedy. That's only there because of state peer pressure. WTA only exists because 49 states (DC being one of the 49) have gone down this worm hole and disenfranchised 49% of their own citizens. So the states signing on to this agreement have noted the obvious detriment that system foists on the voter and came up with a workaround. It's hardly a perfect solution, but it beats the present paradigm.

It continues to be interesting that the main guy that sparked the Electrical College, James Madison, thought WTA, once it snowballed into a state-mob thing, thought it should be prohibited, because it would lead to division and factionalism. And he was exactly right.

The irony here is that these are individual states taking this course of action. Y'all complainers want to cry the blues about "states having a voice, as states", and yet here when they're doing exactly that, y'all freak out and want the Fed to step in and stop it. Gotta pick a side here.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSC

I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.

I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?

The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?

If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?

I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.

Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.

This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.

And, as always, if you don't like something the Constitution says, you're welcome to amend it. The Founders decided that the presidency is a unique role that should not be decided by a popularity contest. The states are allowed to select their leaders however they like.

There isn't any Constitutional Amendment suggested here, nor would it be necessary to achieve the goal of what this initiative wants to do.

We could always amend the Constitution should we desire to of course, and the effect of this plan could spur that dialogue into action. But for now it's entirely within the existing Constitutional framework, because that document doesn't care if a state uses this method, or even if it holds an election at all.. A state could fill up a tumbler with plasstic balls and have a blindfolded volunteer pick one at random out if it wanted to. Combine it with the lottery number.

The Constitution also in no way requires that any state use a WTA system, which is really what this thing tries to remedy. That's only there because of state peer pressure. WTA only exists because 49 states (DC being one of the 49) have gone down this worm hole and disenfranchised 49% of their own citizens. So the states signing on to this agreement have noted the obvious detriment that system foists on the voter and came up with a workaround. It's hardly a perfect solution, but it beats the present paradigm.

The irony here is that these are individual states taking this course of action. Y'all complainers want to cry the blues about "states having a voice, as states", and yet here when they're doing exactly that, y'all freak out and want the Fed to step in and stop it. Gotta pick a side here.

/——/ The can have their voice but within the Constitution framework

 

[Pilot1]

/—-/ Was that meant to be funny or are you serious?

Think a few steps ahead will you? What will eventually happen if the large, Democrat metro areas control every Presidential Election.

 

[westwall]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

 

[Pogo]

I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.

I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?

The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?

If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?

I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.

Federal Republic of STATES.

Read about it.

And a president elected by popular vote would change the nation from being a federal republic of states?

Are you aware that there have only been 5 instances in which a president took office without winning the popular vote?

Would a presidential election done by popular vote change the powers of the presidency?

Yes.

So what?

That's not the point - the issue is proper representation. Mob rule by NYC, DC, LA, SF, Seattle, Portland and Chicago is not at all desirable; especially considering the appalling conditions in the Democrat led hellholes.

That is the salient point. When a state declares that its electoral votes will go to the national vote winner, it is explicitly notifying its citizens that their votes literally don't matter, that even though they may have voted overwhelmingly for candidate A, their votes will be given by legislative fiat to candidate B, this completely nullifying voter intent. There would be no need to vote.

You are correct sir. It would do exactly that.

As opposed to the current scheme where up to 49.999% of that state's voters ALREADY get thrown out in every election, regardless who the national winner is.

That's why WTA is a fucked-up system to begin with. It produces hundreds of Electors toddling off to Congress and in effect lying through their teeth that their state vote was unanimous, which has never happened anywhere ever. And they do that in literally every Presidential election.

But as long as both the EC and the WTA exist in practice, this initiative is as I said a workaround to eliminate one of its flaws. Nobody claimed it eliminates all of them.

 

[Pilot1]

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

Their goal is one party Democrat rule, and the end to any opposition. One of the methods to attain that is having the major metro areas controlling the Presidential Election. They want to turn the United States into the Collective States of L.A. and NYC.

 

[danielpalos]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

It is an Electoral College, not an electoral signal corp. States should give their electors the best information they can muster, to make the most well informed decision available at the time. And, vote their State priorities.

 

[Pilot1]

It is an Electoral College, not an electoral signal corp. States should give their electors the best information they can muster, to make the most well informed decision available at the time. And, vote their State priorities.

So, in effect ignoring the wishes of their states People. What is the purpose of a state? Who determines their priorities?

 

[Pogo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

Mostly it exists to defend They the Slaveowners. That, and the fact that a PV would have been impractical in the 18th Century, in part because who had the franchise varied widely from state to state -- not just slaves but property owners. And women. So having it done by states equalized that aspect.

Since those daze we've done away with slavery, and with it the idea that a state could count that part of its population at a 60% rate, done away with requiring property rights to vote, and all 57 states allow women to vote.

In other words every reason the Electrical College once had to exist has been switched off. There is no point in further resistance.

Canada doesn't engage any similar proxy system to "protect its provinces". Nor does the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. In fact the only country in the world that holds a popular vote and then filters it through an indirect system to get it executed, besides us ----------- is Pakistan. And I don't know why they do it but I doubt it's to "prevent Karachi and Islamabad from running the joint".

 

[westwall]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

Mostly it exists to defend They the Slaveowners. That, and the fact that a PV would have been impractical in the 18th Century, in part because who had the franchise varied widely from state to state -- not just slaves but property owners. And women. So having it done by states equalized that aspect.

Since those daze we've done away with slavery, and with it the idea that a state could count that part of its population at a 60% rate, done away with requiring property rights to vote, and all 57 states allow women to vote.

In other words every reason the Electrical College once had to exist has been switched off. There is no point in further resistance.

Canada doesn't engage any similar proxy system to "protect its provinces". Nor does the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. In fact the only country in the world that holds a popular vote and then filters it through an indirect system to get it executed, besides us ----------- is Pakistan. And I don't know why they do it but I doubt it's to "prevent Karachi and Islamabad from running the joint".

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

 

[tycho1572]

Democrats have always cared more about having power than doing anything positive for their voters.
People are finally waking up to that fact and voting republican.

 

[Pogo]

This can only backfire on Democrats.

1: They are allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment, which protects the right of individuals states to determine their elections and their allocation of their electoral votes.

However,

1: These States always vote Democrat...so this change won't matter if the popular voter winner is a Democrat.
2: These States might end up voting Republican (by accident)...because the national popular vote has often been won by the Republican candidate throughout the last several decades as well...

So...they're only setting themselves up for failure. Let them go forward with this idea, it will allow us to pick up more votes every other presidential election.

It does not go into effect until 270 EC votes will be allocated by the PV. The fact they are dem states is irrelevant - should the measure succeed all presidential elections will be held by PV.

Then this is clearly unconstitutional since the States are forbidden by the Constitution to make treaties and alliances with each other...they are clearly establishing a "confederation" within the Union to override the Electoral College instead of amending the Constitution via Article V.

If they wish to independently award their electoral votes on the national PV, they are allowed under the 10th Amendment, but to withhold their Electoral Votes in CONFEDERATION with other states, dependent on a Boolean variable , like the national PV, is illegal, and to proceed down that path is an act of insurrection.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Conservatives are not foolish enough to adopt such a measure anyway (and conservative states and conservatives districts in blue states account for 90% of the geographical land mass of the US).

You can't define this initiative as a "confederation". Each state would be acting on its own as it's supposed to.

--- If you think you can define "confederation" as such, then the current WTA system where states do it "because everybody else is doing it" would be a "confederation" under the same definition. So if you can get this to stick, you've got about 200 years of Presidential elections to nullify. So --- careful what you wish for.

The vote of an Elector cannot be bound by law, the Elector is independent of such things...to subject an Elector to a state law is overriding the Electoral College. The Elector may vote however they choose, and even betray the party (sic rarely in practice) who selected them.

This part, I agree with. State laws requiring Electors to vote in a prescribed way are all unConstitutional. If that were a legitimate way to operate, there would be no point in naming any actual Electors at all --- the state would just report a number that totals its Electoral Vote.

 

[hadit]

l

I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?

The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?

If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?

I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.

Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.

This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.

And, as always, if you don't like something the Constitution says, you're welcome to amend it. The Founders decided that the presidency is a unique role that should not be decided by a popularity contest. The states are allowed to select their leaders however they like.

"However they like" would include choosing electors based on the national popular vote, wouldn't it?

Apples and oranges. Electors are chosen to elect the PRESIDENT. State leaders are governors, etc.

If you're trying to say that states can cast their electoral votes however they wish, they can to a certain extent. They are certainly not required to follow any other states' lead. Should they follow the big states they would also have to face their own citizens' reaction to having their votes nullified.

I'm not arguing in favor of the compact, I'm merely arguing that it seems likely to be legal and Constitutional.

I'm not sure what the apples and oranges comment is directed at.

"States choosing their leaders"is most emphatically NOT the same as "states choosing their electors".

 

[Pogo]

Democrats have always cared more about having power than doing anything positive for their voters.
People are finally waking up to that fact and voting republican.

Hate to tell you something you should have figured out eons ago but "amassing power" is the only real goal of any entrenched political party. And here we sit with two of them dominating everything.