| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On January 25 2015 00:59 Stratos_speAr wrote: It doesn't. Americans just support it because "'MURICA IS ALWAYS RIGHT!" I don't think Americans really support it, just that the political system makes it impossible to change. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
In a big unexpected twist in the new Congress, Senate Republicans are reportedly crafting a plan to do away with the 60-vote filibuster for Supreme Court justice nominees. Politico reported Friday evening that the plan, though in its early stages, was being led by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Roy Blunt (R-MO). “What we would like to do is adopt by rule the way the Senate has always operated,” Alexander told Politico. “The history of the Senate has been up-or-down votes, as I call them, at 51.” The proposal, which might require a two-thirds vote to take effect, has not yet been circulated widely among the GOP caucus. But that it is even being considered is surprising after Senate Republicans decried last year, while they were still in the minority, the decision by Senate Democrats to do away with the 60-vote filibuster for administrative and judicial nominees -- with the important exception of Supreme Court candidates. "I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: you'll regret this," current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said at the time. "And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think." Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), now chair of the Judiciary Committee, actually warned that day in November 2013 that Republicans would actually expand on the move by Democrats and do away with the filibuster for the Supreme Court, too, once they took back the majority. As Politico observed, the move would be a big boon to whichever party controls the Senate and White House after the 2016 elections. But it could also have more immediate implications, depending on how quickly the GOP Senate acts. Source | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On January 23 2015 07:30 centirius wrote: Something I never understood (as a non-american) is why Israel is so popular. Especially with the Christian right-wingers, anyone care to enlighten me? Well-located (Florida) older Jewish voters, a VERY well organized pressure group (AIPAC), the general identification of Americans with the lone democratic state facing an array of military and terrorist threats, the idea in some niche evangelical circles that the Jews and the Jewish state are an important part of the end times, residual cold-war politics, the fact that through most of most voters lifetimes, Israel pretty clearly was the good guy trying to attain peace settlements that were repeatedly rejected by Palestinian states and only fairly recently has the situation shifted so that it really seems neither side has any interest in peace. On January 24 2015 23:25 Velr wrote: Don't most countries just use their state/city/counties/whatever "borders" for this? I really don't see how anyone could think the way it is done in the US makes sense. This would result in heavily skewed results against Democrats. Cities are heavily democratic, and rural counties tend to be Republican majority, but politically mixed. So you would actually see a very similar effect to today. As for doing it by state borders, that's what the Senate is. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Jan 23 (Reuters) - Residents of a Montana town whose water supply was tainted by an oil pipeline rupture last week got the all-clear on Friday to turn taps back on, though some reported brown or black material spurting from faucets even after their pipes were flushed. Drinking supplies for some 6,000 people in and around the community of Glendive became contaminated last Saturday when an estimated 1,200 barrels of crude oil was spilled into the Yellowstone River from a pipeline breach several miles upstream from the northeastern Montana town. Initial testing of Glendive's water, which is drawn from the river, showed levels of benzene, a cancer-causing constituent of petroleum, well above levels considered safe for human health by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Results of subsequent testing released on Thursday showed that benzene levels had fallen to acceptable levels, and state regulators on Friday said an independent lab analysis confirmed the water was safe to drink after residents flushed their taps of any residual contamination. But some residents on Friday notified regulators that dark-colored matter was issuing from taps at or near the end of the flushing procedure, state environmental officials said. An examination of the material by the EPA showed it was sediment that built up in water pipes after several days of disuse and was unrelated to the oil spill, according to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The number of residents affected by the dark ooze was not immediately known. Source | ||
|
Introvert
United States4718 Posts
On January 25 2015 00:19 oneofthem wrote: you solve it by making every vote count equally within a bigger pool, like at the state level or even nationally. Why does the pool need to be bigger? Then each vote counts for less, not more. Instead of choosing a representative you may know from where you live (that actually does happen) you and everyone in the state just pools together? No thanks, the problem isn't bad enough to warrant something that drastic. We already have state level representation in the Senate. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 24 2015 23:25 Velr wrote: Don't most countries just use their state/city/counties/whatever "borders" for this? I really don't see how anyone could think the way it is done in the US makes sense. Congressional districts need to contain a given number of people each, so you can't just use normal borders straight up. Ideally, yes, you'd take natural and pre-existing borders into account but you'll still need some level of improvisation to make the numbers work. In other words the system necessitates border drawing and the only real question is who gets to draw them. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4718 Posts
On January 25 2015 09:56 oneofthem wrote: ? what do you mean each vote counting less? What does your pool look like? By counting less I mean that each vote has less of an impact on who is chosen as representative. Now, I understand that you aren't a fan of locally chosen representation, but I am. If you only have 25k people voting in a district, than each vote means quite a lot. Each citizen has an important impact, never mind local people campaigning for someone they support. It gets people involved. Every time you move the vote further from the voter, it means less. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
A former Israeli ambassador to the United States said Saturday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should cancel his upcoming March address to Congress on Iran at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner's request. "The behavior over the last few days created the impression of a cynical political move, and it could hurt our attempts to act against Iran," former ambassador Michael Oren said, according to Ynet News. "It's advisable to cancel the speech to Congress so as not to cause a rift with the American government. Much responsibility and reasoned political behavior are needed to guard interests in the White House." The White House has called Netanyahu address at Boehner's request, done without consultation with the Obama administration, a breach of diplomatic protocol. President Barack Obama will not meet with Netanyahu when he visits, with the White House citing the March 17 Israeli elections. Oren was tabbed late last year to run for a seat in the Israeli legislature with the centrist Kulanu Party in the March elections. He had been appointed as ambassador to the United States by Netanyahu, who leads the right-wing Likud Party, in 2009. He served in the post until 2013. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 25 2015 10:12 Introvert wrote: What does your pool look like? By counting less I mean that each vote has less of an impact on who is chosen as representative. Now, I understand that you aren't a fan of locally chosen representation, but I am. If you only have 25k people voting in a district, than each vote means quite a lot. Each citizen has an important impact, never mind local people campaigning for someone they support. It gets people involved. Every time you move the vote further from the voter, it means less. you realize you can have more than one rep for a given pool of voters | ||
|
Introvert
United States4718 Posts
On January 25 2015 10:50 oneofthem wrote: you realize you can have more than one rep for a given pool of voters Yes. Edit: and you are still very sparing when it comes to details. If CA has 53 seats and you instead make people vote from a pool, you still dilute each vote. Unless there is some part of your system that accounts for this. Just saying "you can cast a vote for x many reps" doesn't get around that. Moreover, each rep is less inclined to do as their constituents demand, since they can go fish for votes somewhere else. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4718 Posts
On January 25 2015 11:52 oneofthem wrote: how does it in any way dilute the vote? what are you even talking about Sorry, I'm trying to work from the very limited information you have provided. What is your idea? So far all I can see is that you would rather have all citizens vote on the state level, and the top x vote receivers win. Is that more or less right? This heavily favors densely populated areas. So I don't see how this changes the results of gerrymandering too much, even if gerrymandering itself disappears. It doesn't remove pandering, it just moves the focus. The more citizens you can write off in your election attempt, the less each vote matters. This could cause the citizenry to become even more apathetic. Having local representatives is fine, the problem is drawing the districts. If that can be done in a neutral way, it seems far superior to a state wide vote. Or maybe this is the way I feel because I live in CA, where only shot I have of making my vote mean something is who I vote for at the city level, state house/state senate, and congressional seat. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 25 2015 12:19 Introvert wrote: Sorry, I'm trying to work from the very limited information you have provided. What is your idea? So far all I can see is that you would rather have all citizens vote on the state level, and the top x vote receivers win. Is that more or less right? This heavily favors densely populated areas. So I don't see how this changes the results of gerrymandering too much, even if gerrymandering itself disappears. It doesn't remove pandering, it just moves the focus. The more citizens you can write off in your election attempt, the less each vote matters. This could cause the citizenry to become even more apathetic. Having local representatives is fine, the problem is drawing the districts. If that can be done in a neutral way, it seems far superior to a state wide vote. Or maybe this is the way I feel because I live in CA, where only shot I have of making my vote mean something is who I vote for at the city level, state house/state senate, and congressional seat. Maybe not totally relevant, but I want to point out that this phenomenon plays out in most modern democracies with the rural farmers having disproportionate power over national policy. For instance, each farmer in Japan has the equivalent voting power as five people living in Tokyo because government power is tilted towards the more numerous geographical areas rather than population density. The US has something of the same issue with the Senate biased towards individual states since every state gets 2 votes regardless of population. As such, the farmers in most Western countries and Japan tend to be more sophisticated about politics and know how to play their cards as minority votes well. Farmers tend to be more active politically and better organized than people in the cities, who are more likely to be apathetic for the exact reason that they think their individual votes don't matter and particularly if they oppose a large, faceless majority. But it's one of those things where the farmers have some validity in saying it's unfair for the big cities to tell the farmers what's best for them just because they have more people. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 25 2015 13:43 coverpunch wrote: But it's one of those things where the farmers have some validity in saying it's unfair for the big cities to tell the farmers what's best for them just because they have more people. yeah, because farmers are just rural folk who want to be left alone | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On January 25 2015 14:09 Mindcrime wrote: yeah, because farmers are just rural folk who want to be left alone left alone with their bags of cash from government subsidies. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 25 2015 14:10 wei2coolman wrote: left alone with their bags of cash from government subsidies. fwiw agricultural subsidies have been on the wane and our subsidies are relatively small compared to the OECD average. I would think that at least a portion goes to consumers in the form lower prices as well. That said, I'd be happy to see subsidies of almost all sorts wind down. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 25 2015 14:09 Mindcrime wrote: yeah, because farmers are just rural folk who want to be left alone As they say, everyone's a socialist when they're taking money from the government but a capitalist when they have to pay in. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On January 24 2015 23:25 Velr wrote: Don't most countries just use their state/city/counties/whatever "borders" for this? I really don't see how anyone could think the way it is done in the US makes sense. What a lot of the more sensible countries do is have neutral independent commissions (I think it's statscan that does it for us) draw up electoral boundaries based on, as introvert said, community and geographic boundaries. I think in general they try to maintain community structure as best they can while distributing votes evenly across districts. I remember a while back I linked a page outlining their process in this thread.... I'm sure there are issues with it somewhere, but as a system it definitely works a lot better than letting political parties draw their own electoral boundaries. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
GSL Code S
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
SOOP
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
Cheesadelphia
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
But you can't fix the concentration problem, if liberals are more closely packed and blue areas are overall more homogeneous, then how is redrawing a district going to fix that? Surely redrawing a district to ensure "moderation" is as bad as redrawing one to ensure a victory for your party? Both are manipulating the electoral map for the sake of a desired political outcome, and both lead to some very odd districts in terms of shape and constitution.
