US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1596

On January 26 2015 17:22 Simberto wrote:
And in your example, the 100k from Districts 1-3 and the 450k from districts 4-11 don't have ANY representation whatsoever.

Oppose that to a system where out of the whole pool,

Party A gains 2.8 million votes and has 3 representatives.
Party B gains 1.1 Mvotes and thus has 1 representative
Party C gains 5.6 Mvotes and has 6 representatives.
Party D gains 0.9 Mvotes and has 1 representative.
The remainder of the votes are split in really small crazy parties.

Suddenly instead of ~1/3 of the people not having ANY representation whatsoever (And most likely NEVER going to have any because the districts are set up in a way that there is not actually a fight between the really rightwing party and the crazy rightwing party, now figure why these people might feel betrayed by the system), only the few people who did not manage to actually rally enough votes to even justify one 1 rep are not represented. Every vote in every district matters and gets representation, not just that of the people voting for the winning guy.

On January 26 2015 17:53 Yoav wrote:


Right, but Republican Democracy is about people, not just parties. Under your system, there's little way to punish individual candidates for anything, making them beholden only to party, not to the electorate at large. I'd like to avoid a system where I'm just voting for a party. I'm a centrist and one of the plurality of Americans who are nonaligned. We get to choose candidates we like from either party. This is good.

On January 26 2015 11:18 Sub40APM wrote:

and the previous governing coalition was the SPD and the Greens...sort of like the if the Democrats divided their party into two, one called "California Democrats" and the other called "Democrats"

On January 26 2015 17:53 Yoav wrote:


Right, but Republican Democracy is about people, not just parties. Under your system, there's little way to punish individual candidates for anything, making them beholden only to party, not to the electorate at large. I'd like to avoid a system where I'm just voting for a party. I'm a centrist and one of the plurality of Americans who are nonaligned. We get to choose candidates we like from either party. This is good.

WASHINGTON – Rand Paul is demonstrating how he could disrupt the Republican presidential field if he seeks the nomination, sparring with potential rivals over Iran, Cuba and the Pentagon's budget in a face-to-face forum that offered an early preview of the feisty policy debate to come.

The Kentucky Republican joined fellow first-term senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida on stage Sunday evening in California for a summit organized by Freedom Partners. That group is the central hub of the powerful network of organizations backed by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch.

Each likely candidate has broad backing from tea party activists, who helped push them to victory over establishment-minded rivals in their most recent races. But a split is already starting to emerge even before they formally decide if they will run, and Paul seems to be an eager wedge.

"I'm a big fan of trying the diplomatic option as long as we can," Paul said of talks with Iran over its nuclear plan. "I do think diplomacy is better than war."

Lawmakers from both parties are pushing for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The White House and foreign leaders have urged Congress to not do that, for fear it would agitate Iran and prompt them to end negotiations over its nuclear abilities.

Cruz and Rubio were sharply critical of negotiations, backed by President Barack Obama.

"This is the worst negotiation in the history of mankind," Cruz said, predicting an Iranian nuclear strike in "Tel Aviv, New York or Los Angeles."

Added Rubio: "At this pace, in five years, we're going to build the bomb for them."

Paul urged his colleagues to have patience. "Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran?"

Cruz was having none of it. "The problem with Iran is Khomeini and the mullahs are radical Islamic nutcases," he said.

It was as intense a disagreement on Cuba. Obama late last year sent shockwaves across the hemisphere by restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba after more than a half-century of estrangement and embargoes. Politicians from corner of both parties were critical.

Cruz and Rubio, both Cuban-Americans fiercely opposed to the Castro regime's hold on power there, have been outspoken critics of Obama's move, while Paul notes the embargo has not ousted Fidel or Raul Castro.

"I'm kind of surrounded on this one," Paul said, sitting between Cruz to his right and Rubio to his left.

"The Castros are brutal dictators," Cruz said. He also said the potential for U.S. dollars flooding into Cuba would only keep the Castro regime in power longer.

"Maybe. Maybe not," Paul said.

Even on military spending, which is typically sacrosanct among Republicans, Paul needled his colleagues. Paul said national security is the most important spending in the budget, but "I'm not for a blank check."

Rubio said the United States' economic challenges did not stem from defense spending and smaller budgets would only threaten its future economic growth.

"Try economic growth while you're under attack," Rubio said.

The trio of lawmakers is laying the groundwork for presidential bids that are expected to launch in the coming months and will be competing for many of the same donors, including those the Kochs count as allies and who joined the weekend summit in Palm Springs, California.

On January 26 2015 21:23 farvacola wrote:
Such foreign policy genius. I can see why xDaunt identities as a Republican

In the late 1960s, more than half of the households in the United States were squarely in the middle, earning, in today’s dollars, $35,000 to $100,000 a year. Few people noticed or cared as the size of that group began to fall, because the shift was primarily caused by more Americans climbing the economic ladder into upper-income brackets.

But since 2000, the middle-class share of households has continued to narrow, the main reason being that more people have fallen to the bottom. At the same time, fewer of those in this group fit the traditional image of a married couple with children at home, a gap increasingly filled by the elderly.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

Dorine Poole lost a job when her employer closed, then got a job that paid more, but less than she made before the recession.Uneven Progress for 3 Chicagoans Janet Yellen Held Up as SymbolsJAN. 25, 2015
Representative Paul D. Ryan, center, praised the president for avoiding “partisan class-warfare rhetoric” in his State of the Union address.News Analysis: Talk of Wealth Gap Prods the G.O.P. to Refocus JAN. 21, 2015
The world’s business elite will meet this week at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.Oxfam Study Finds Richest 1% Is Likely to Control Half of Global Wealth by 2016JAN. 19, 2015
The public has a bleaker view of upward mobility than it did after the 2008 financial crisis, according to a New York Times poll, despite an improving economy and an increase in jobs.Many Feel the American Dream Is Out of Reach, Poll ShowsDEC. 10, 2014
This social upheaval helps explain why the president focused on reviving the middle class, offering a raft of proposals squarely aimed at concerns like paying for a college education, taking parental leave, affording child care and buying a home.

what would you have done differently?

"The Castros are brutal dictators," Cruz said. He also said the potential for U.S. dollars flooding into Cuba would only keep the Castro regime in power longer.

"Maybe. Maybe not," Paul said.

On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote:
what would you have done differently?