• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 07:39
CEST 13:39
KST 20:39
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy3Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3
Community News
Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2)8BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13
StarCraft 2
General
TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2) How herO can make history in the Code S S2 finals Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group A [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group B SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Recent recommended BW games BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest
Tourneys
Small VOD Thread 2.0 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 4 [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 3
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
NHL Playoffs 2024 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 27571 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1100

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 5026 Next
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!

NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.

Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.


If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15528 Posts
February 07 2019 17:15 GMT
#21981
On February 08 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote.


But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country?

Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be.


In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment?

I’m not sure. I don’t think it will improve things and may make rural states feel more ignored that they already are.

Folks forget I’m from a very small town that still does not have high speed internet. My parents live ina dirt road. And this is in MA, a coastal state with a huge population compared to fly over country. Everyone where I’m from feels undervalued and ignored. And the reality is they are right. Boston gives zero fucks about Western Ma and does nothing to help them beyond collect taxes and bitch about the roads.

Side note: I am listening to a podcast with former senator Harry Reid. It is worth people’s time if only because he tells the story of putting the first person who tried to bribe him in a choke hold and the FBI had to pull him off. And learning to swim in the pool of a brothel.



The rural state issue is really weird. I understand that rural states should be given autonomy and be allowed to exist as they would like to, but the whole idea of giving them really disproportionate national representation doesn't make sense. I understand the whole idea of tyranny of the majority, but states are already given a lot of personal freedom. Mississippi and Oregon may as well be different countries. In many ways, it feels like we end up with tyranny of the minority. Let the rural states do their thing, but their impact on national stuff is not appropriate.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
February 07 2019 17:24 GMT
#21982
On February 08 2019 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote.


But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country?

Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be.


In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment?

I’m not sure. I don’t think it will improve things and may make rural states feel more ignored that they already are.

Folks forget I’m from a very small town that still does not have high speed internet. My parents live ina dirt road. And this is in MA, a coastal state with a huge population compared to fly over country. Everyone where I’m from feels undervalued and ignored. And the reality is they are right. Boston gives zero fucks about Western Ma and does nothing to help them beyond collect taxes and bitch about the roads.

Side note: I am listening to a podcast with former senator Harry Reid. It is worth people’s time if only because he tells the story of putting the first person who tried to bribe him in a choke hold and the FBI had to pull him off. And learning to swim in the pool of a brothel.



The rural state issue is really weird. I understand that rural states should be given autonomy and be allowed to exist as they would like to, but the whole idea of giving them really disproportionate national representation doesn't make sense. I understand the whole idea of tyranny of the majority, but states are already given a lot of personal freedom. Mississippi and Oregon may as well be different countries. In many ways, it feels like we end up with tyranny of the minority. Let the rural states do their thing, but their impact on national stuff is not appropriate.

Let me put it to you another way. If they don’t get power in the government because they don’t have the population your state does, why should you be able to drive across them? They occupy more landmass in the US and they upkeep and police those roads, so maybe you should be required to pay a “travel tax” for visiting? That they get to set, maybe based on the state you are from?(All of this is not allowed by the constitution because stated did this in the past, FYI)

You are arguing that population equals political power because we are a democracy and all people should be equal. But collectively you are saying that where you live should be more powerful and have the ability to dictate to less populated areas, because more votes means more power.

But the rural states are not going to find that argument compelling. They are going to say(and have said in the past) that land mass matters. That they are the caretakers of large parts of the country that you are able to travel through because of their labor. That you are able to trade and travel across the country in relative safety because they choose to live in these rural states. And because of that, they deserve 2 senators and a greater say in who is president of the country. And if you try to take that away, they will find other ways to exert power.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
February 07 2019 17:29 GMT
#21983
What does 2 senators per state have to do with electoral college?
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-02-07 17:34:19
February 07 2019 17:33 GMT
#21984
On February 08 2019 02:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What does 2 senators per state have to do with electoral college?

Nothing. But the existence of 2 senators per state gives rural states a lot of power in congress. Some have argued is unearned power because of how low their populations are compared to the coastal states. Modoo asked about them having disproportionate national representation, which include the senate.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Ryzel
Profile Joined December 2012
United States524 Posts
February 07 2019 18:09 GMT
#21985
On February 08 2019 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote.


But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country?

Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be.


In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment?

I’m not sure. I don’t think it will improve things and may make rural states feel more ignored that they already are.

Folks forget I’m from a very small town that still does not have high speed internet. My parents live ina dirt road. And this is in MA, a coastal state with a huge population compared to fly over country. Everyone where I’m from feels undervalued and ignored. And the reality is they are right. Boston gives zero fucks about Western Ma and does nothing to help them beyond collect taxes and bitch about the roads.

Side note: I am listening to a podcast with former senator Harry Reid. It is worth people’s time if only because he tells the story of putting the first person who tried to bribe him in a choke hold and the FBI had to pull him off. And learning to swim in the pool of a brothel.



The rural state issue is really weird. I understand that rural states should be given autonomy and be allowed to exist as they would like to, but the whole idea of giving them really disproportionate national representation doesn't make sense. I understand the whole idea of tyranny of the majority, but states are already given a lot of personal freedom. Mississippi and Oregon may as well be different countries. In many ways, it feels like we end up with tyranny of the minority. Let the rural states do their thing, but their impact on national stuff is not appropriate.

Let me put it to you another way. If they don’t get power in the government because they don’t have the population your state does, why should you be able to drive across them? They occupy more landmass in the US and they upkeep and police those roads, so maybe you should be required to pay a “travel tax” for visiting? That they get to set, maybe based on the state you are from?(All of this is not allowed by the constitution because stated did this in the past, FYI)

You are arguing that population equals political power because we are a democracy and all people should be equal. But collectively you are saying that where you live should be more powerful and have the ability to dictate to less populated areas, because more votes means more power.

But the rural states are not going to find that argument compelling. They are going to say(and have said in the past) that land mass matters. That they are the caretakers of large parts of the country that you are able to travel through because of their labor. That you are able to trade and travel across the country in relative safety because they choose to live in these rural states. And because of that, they deserve 2 senators and a greater say in who is president of the country. And if you try to take that away, they will find other ways to exert power.


TY for this post, this is very interesting to read about. I’ve definitely taken for granted how unified the US is and how much effort and compromises need to happen to make such disparate areas get along and integrate as seemlessly as they have.
Hakuna Matata B*tches
Slydie
Profile Joined August 2013
1913 Posts
February 07 2019 18:09 GMT
#21986
Many countries favour large less populated provinces in their parlament, but the way the Senate works is really extreme. At the very least, there should be like 1 to 5 senators per state to represent the people more closely. Also, there should be some objective reecaluations regularly.

Nobody wants to lose power, no matter how unfairly they got it.
Buff the siegetank
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
February 07 2019 18:22 GMT
#21987
On February 08 2019 03:09 Ryzel wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 02:24 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote.


But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country?

Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be.


In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment?

I’m not sure. I don’t think it will improve things and may make rural states feel more ignored that they already are.

Folks forget I’m from a very small town that still does not have high speed internet. My parents live ina dirt road. And this is in MA, a coastal state with a huge population compared to fly over country. Everyone where I’m from feels undervalued and ignored. And the reality is they are right. Boston gives zero fucks about Western Ma and does nothing to help them beyond collect taxes and bitch about the roads.

Side note: I am listening to a podcast with former senator Harry Reid. It is worth people’s time if only because he tells the story of putting the first person who tried to bribe him in a choke hold and the FBI had to pull him off. And learning to swim in the pool of a brothel.



The rural state issue is really weird. I understand that rural states should be given autonomy and be allowed to exist as they would like to, but the whole idea of giving them really disproportionate national representation doesn't make sense. I understand the whole idea of tyranny of the majority, but states are already given a lot of personal freedom. Mississippi and Oregon may as well be different countries. In many ways, it feels like we end up with tyranny of the minority. Let the rural states do their thing, but their impact on national stuff is not appropriate.

Let me put it to you another way. If they don’t get power in the government because they don’t have the population your state does, why should you be able to drive across them? They occupy more landmass in the US and they upkeep and police those roads, so maybe you should be required to pay a “travel tax” for visiting? That they get to set, maybe based on the state you are from?(All of this is not allowed by the constitution because stated did this in the past, FYI)

You are arguing that population equals political power because we are a democracy and all people should be equal. But collectively you are saying that where you live should be more powerful and have the ability to dictate to less populated areas, because more votes means more power.

But the rural states are not going to find that argument compelling. They are going to say(and have said in the past) that land mass matters. That they are the caretakers of large parts of the country that you are able to travel through because of their labor. That you are able to trade and travel across the country in relative safety because they choose to live in these rural states. And because of that, they deserve 2 senators and a greater say in who is president of the country. And if you try to take that away, they will find other ways to exert power.


TY for this post, this is very interesting to read about. I’ve definitely taken for granted how unified the US is and how much effort and compromises need to happen to make such disparate areas get along and integrate as seemlessly as they have.

We sort of gloss over that we fought one of the more deadly wars in human history against ourselves. It doesn't mean that we are at each others throats or anything. But I think we underestimate how diverse the states are when it comes to population size and culture. And how quickly a group of rural states would sour on the idea that California and New England were calling all the shots.

That doesn't mean the current dynamic in the country isn't completely fucked. But removing the EC is not the way to un-fuck the situation.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Kyadytim
Profile Joined March 2009
United States886 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-02-07 18:24:41
February 07 2019 18:24 GMT
#21988
On February 08 2019 02:33 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 02:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What does 2 senators per state have to do with electoral college?

Nothing. But the existence of 2 senators per state gives rural states a lot of power in congress. Some have argued is unearned power because of how low their populations are compared to the coastal states. Modoo asked about them having disproportionate national representation, which include the senate.

Not quite correct. Electoral college votes is calculated as each state gets one vote per House Representative and one vote per Senator. Thus, the least populous states have a minimum of 3 votes.


On February 08 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:
The Us government was designed to limit the tyranny of the majority and prevent it from causing strife between the rural and populated states. If people want to change the rules, the rural state need to buy in too.
What we've got now is tyranny of the minority, and that's causing substantial strife.

On February 08 2019 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote.


But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country?

Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be.


In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment?

I’m not sure. I don’t think it will improve things and may make rural states feel more ignored that they already are.

Folks forget I’m from a very small town that still does not have high speed internet. My parents live ina dirt road. And this is in MA, a coastal state with a huge population compared to fly over country. Everyone where I’m from feels undervalued and ignored. And the reality is they are right. Boston gives zero fucks about Western Ma and does nothing to help them beyond collect taxes and bitch about the roads.

Side note: I am listening to a podcast with former senator Harry Reid. It is worth people’s time if only because he tells the story of putting the first person who tried to bribe him in a choke hold and the FBI had to pull him off. And learning to swim in the pool of a brothel.



The rural state issue is really weird. I understand that rural states should be given autonomy and be allowed to exist as they would like to, but the whole idea of giving them really disproportionate national representation doesn't make sense. I understand the whole idea of tyranny of the majority, but states are already given a lot of personal freedom. Mississippi and Oregon may as well be different countries. In many ways, it feels like we end up with tyranny of the minority. Let the rural states do their thing, but their impact on national stuff is not appropriate.

Let me put it to you another way. If they don’t get power in the government because they don’t have the population your state does, why should you be able to drive across them? They occupy more landmass in the US and they upkeep and police those roads, so maybe you should be required to pay a “travel tax” for visiting? That they get to set, maybe based on the state you are from?(All of this is not allowed by the constitution because stated did this in the past, FYI)

You are arguing that population equals political power because we are a democracy and all people should be equal. But collectively you are saying that where you live should be more powerful and have the ability to dictate to less populated areas, because more votes means more power.

But the rural states are not going to find that argument compelling. They are going to say(and have said in the past) that land mass matters. That they are the caretakers of large parts of the country that you are able to travel through because of their labor. That you are able to trade and travel across the country in relative safety because they choose to live in these rural states. And because of that, they deserve 2 senators and a greater say in who is president of the country. And if you try to take that away, they will find other ways to exert power.
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?

I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up.
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28625 Posts
February 07 2019 18:29 GMT
#21989
On February 08 2019 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote.


But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country?

Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be.


In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment?

I’m not sure. I don’t think it will improve things and may make rural states feel more ignored that they already are.

Folks forget I’m from a very small town that still does not have high speed internet. My parents live ina dirt road. And this is in MA, a coastal state with a huge population compared to fly over country. Everyone where I’m from feels undervalued and ignored. And the reality is they are right. Boston gives zero fucks about Western Ma and does nothing to help them beyond collect taxes and bitch about the roads.

Side note: I am listening to a podcast with former senator Harry Reid. It is worth people’s time if only because he tells the story of putting the first person who tried to bribe him in a choke hold and the FBI had to pull him off. And learning to swim in the pool of a brothel.



The rural state issue is really weird. I understand that rural states should be given autonomy and be allowed to exist as they would like to, but the whole idea of giving them really disproportionate national representation doesn't make sense. I understand the whole idea of tyranny of the majority, but states are already given a lot of personal freedom. Mississippi and Oregon may as well be different countries. In many ways, it feels like we end up with tyranny of the minority. Let the rural states do their thing, but their impact on national stuff is not appropriate.

Let me put it to you another way. If they don’t get power in the government because they don’t have the population your state does, why should you be able to drive across them? They occupy more landmass in the US and they upkeep and police those roads, so maybe you should be required to pay a “travel tax” for visiting? That they get to set, maybe based on the state you are from?(All of this is not allowed by the constitution because stated did this in the past, FYI)

You are arguing that population equals political power because we are a democracy and all people should be equal. But collectively you are saying that where you live should be more powerful and have the ability to dictate to less populated areas, because more votes means more power.

But the rural states are not going to find that argument compelling. They are going to say(and have said in the past) that land mass matters. That they are the caretakers of large parts of the country that you are able to travel through because of their labor. That you are able to trade and travel across the country in relative safety because they choose to live in these rural states. And because of that, they deserve 2 senators and a greater say in who is president of the country. And if you try to take that away, they will find other ways to exert power.


having tolls for road use makes a lot of sense, giving rural americans a disproportionate amount of influence over who becomes president does not. I don't really mind the senate makeup favoring low population states, to ensure that every state has a viable voice etc, but there's no real coherent argument for why inhabitants from low population areas should have a bigger say regarding foreign policy or the makeup of the supreme court.

Norway also has a geographic factor for votes where the low population counties get slightly more representatives. We still have proportional representation though, so the chances of 'mathematically wrong' outcomes are lessened, but one of our recent governments was formed by a coalition that lost the popular vote but narrowly edged out on representatives. Shockingly, as in Norway, the left wing parties generally benefit slightly more from this arrangement, who argues what is kinda flipped on its head. I think it's dumb in Norway too, even if it directly resulted in my side recently winning an election.

I mean, all regions need to have representation. This justifies vermont and california both having 2 senators. But for all the stuff that's 'trans-stateional', where it is my understanding that a lot of the executive stuff falls, I don't really see it.
Moderator
Lmui
Profile Joined November 2010
Canada6213 Posts
February 07 2019 18:30 GMT
#21990
On February 08 2019 03:09 Slydie wrote:
Many countries favour large less populated provinces in their parlament, but the way the Senate works is really extreme. At the very least, there should be like 1 to 5 senators per state to represent the people more closely. Also, there should be some objective reecaluations regularly.

Nobody wants to lose power, no matter how unfairly they got it.


The house is supposed to be representative of the population of the country, but it isn't recalibrated either.

That would be a better place to start than restructuring the Senate to be balanced.
Modernizing the US system is a pipe dream given that none of the tiny states are willing to give up the power.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
February 07 2019 18:32 GMT
#21991
On February 08 2019 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?

I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up.

So you are saying that the results of a single tax bill, that can be undone, in the history of tax bills is justification up end the political dynamic that has existed for 200 years and strip rural states small amount of political power they have in the senate and electoral collect(which isn't even that much)? Are you sure this is a good plan for long term, like over the course of generations?

And again, the argument from teh rural states is the only reason California and New England can be so economically prosperous is because of the natural resources and trade that crosses rural states.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-02-07 18:52:38
February 07 2019 18:51 GMT
#21992
On February 08 2019 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 02:24 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote.


But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country?

Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be.


In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment?

I’m not sure. I don’t think it will improve things and may make rural states feel more ignored that they already are.

Folks forget I’m from a very small town that still does not have high speed internet. My parents live ina dirt road. And this is in MA, a coastal state with a huge population compared to fly over country. Everyone where I’m from feels undervalued and ignored. And the reality is they are right. Boston gives zero fucks about Western Ma and does nothing to help them beyond collect taxes and bitch about the roads.

Side note: I am listening to a podcast with former senator Harry Reid. It is worth people’s time if only because he tells the story of putting the first person who tried to bribe him in a choke hold and the FBI had to pull him off. And learning to swim in the pool of a brothel.



The rural state issue is really weird. I understand that rural states should be given autonomy and be allowed to exist as they would like to, but the whole idea of giving them really disproportionate national representation doesn't make sense. I understand the whole idea of tyranny of the majority, but states are already given a lot of personal freedom. Mississippi and Oregon may as well be different countries. In many ways, it feels like we end up with tyranny of the minority. Let the rural states do their thing, but their impact on national stuff is not appropriate.

Let me put it to you another way. If they don’t get power in the government because they don’t have the population your state does, why should you be able to drive across them? They occupy more landmass in the US and they upkeep and police those roads, so maybe you should be required to pay a “travel tax” for visiting? That they get to set, maybe based on the state you are from?(All of this is not allowed by the constitution because stated did this in the past, FYI)

You are arguing that population equals political power because we are a democracy and all people should be equal. But collectively you are saying that where you live should be more powerful and have the ability to dictate to less populated areas, because more votes means more power.

But the rural states are not going to find that argument compelling. They are going to say(and have said in the past) that land mass matters. That they are the caretakers of large parts of the country that you are able to travel through because of their labor. That you are able to trade and travel across the country in relative safety because they choose to live in these rural states. And because of that, they deserve 2 senators and a greater say in who is president of the country. And if you try to take that away, they will find other ways to exert power.


having tolls for road use makes a lot of sense, giving rural americans a disproportionate amount of influence over who becomes president does not. I don't really mind the senate makeup favoring low population states, to ensure that every state has a viable voice etc, but there's no real coherent argument for why inhabitants from low population areas should have a bigger say regarding foreign policy or the makeup of the supreme court.

Norway also has a geographic factor for votes where the low population counties get slightly more representatives. We still have proportional representation though, so the chances of 'mathematically wrong' outcomes are lessened, but one of our recent governments was formed by a coalition that lost the popular vote but narrowly edged out on representatives. Shockingly, as in Norway, the left wing parties generally benefit slightly more from this arrangement, who argues what is kinda flipped on its head. I think it's dumb in Norway too, even if it directly resulted in my side recently winning an election.

I mean, all regions need to have representation. This justifies vermont and california both having 2 senators. But for all the stuff that's 'trans-stateional', where it is my understanding that a lot of the executive stuff falls, I don't really see it.

I was not referring to tolls. I was referring to tariffs for the privilege of crossing the great state of North Dakota. It will be charged per person and will be $50 each. Unless you are from California, which then it will be $100 each because that state is wealthy and North Dakota provide its with a fantastic service of allow its citizens ship international goods across this great country. There will also be a tariff when you leave the state too, to pay the tariffs going into Minnesota, which is a great state and you should totally pay to visit. They will also be collecting a tax for all the goods you are carrying into the state.

I'm being slightly hyperbolic at this point. But these were the ways stated conducted themselves before the Constitution. They screwed with each other constantly. My state had a law saying it was legal to murder anyone from Rhode Island who crossed the border. That law was passed by the statue legislature. Openly debated and everything. It was on the books for like 200 years(though unenforceable). Part of the deal was that the less populated states got slightly more say that their population accounted for. Not a ton, but enough. And we need to do it because there was no way they would agree to sign on without some assurance that NY would reign supreme(back in the days of 13 colonies)

I mean look at this map:

+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


It isn't like the least populated states are getting away with murder here. You need to put three of them together just to equal the state of MA. It would take the entire midwest to even come close to California. They already have so little power even under the EC.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15528 Posts
February 07 2019 18:56 GMT
#21993
On February 08 2019 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote.


But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country?

Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be.


In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment?

I’m not sure. I don’t think it will improve things and may make rural states feel more ignored that they already are.

Folks forget I’m from a very small town that still does not have high speed internet. My parents live ina dirt road. And this is in MA, a coastal state with a huge population compared to fly over country. Everyone where I’m from feels undervalued and ignored. And the reality is they are right. Boston gives zero fucks about Western Ma and does nothing to help them beyond collect taxes and bitch about the roads.

Side note: I am listening to a podcast with former senator Harry Reid. It is worth people’s time if only because he tells the story of putting the first person who tried to bribe him in a choke hold and the FBI had to pull him off. And learning to swim in the pool of a brothel.



The rural state issue is really weird. I understand that rural states should be given autonomy and be allowed to exist as they would like to, but the whole idea of giving them really disproportionate national representation doesn't make sense. I understand the whole idea of tyranny of the majority, but states are already given a lot of personal freedom. Mississippi and Oregon may as well be different countries. In many ways, it feels like we end up with tyranny of the minority. Let the rural states do their thing, but their impact on national stuff is not appropriate.

Let me put it to you another way. If they don’t get power in the government because they don’t have the population your state does, why should you be able to drive across them? They occupy more landmass in the US and they upkeep and police those roads, so maybe you should be required to pay a “travel tax” for visiting? That they get to set, maybe based on the state you are from?(All of this is not allowed by the constitution because stated did this in the past, FYI)

You are arguing that population equals political power because we are a democracy and all people should be equal. But collectively you are saying that where you live should be more powerful and have the ability to dictate to less populated areas, because more votes means more power.

But the rural states are not going to find that argument compelling. They are going to say(and have said in the past) that land mass matters. That they are the caretakers of large parts of the country that you are able to travel through because of their labor. That you are able to trade and travel across the country in relative safety because they choose to live in these rural states. And because of that, they deserve 2 senators and a greater say in who is president of the country. And if you try to take that away, they will find other ways to exert power.


Maintaining roads is not a reason for more representation. Roads in rural states should just get assistance from the federal government, since that is the whole point of having a bunch of states: you fill in gaps and use each other's strengths. We should be able to cross them for the same reason I can drive through a rural city in Oregon...they are in Oregon. We are a single entity. Oregon helps rural areas pay for stuff because they are poor. In exchange, those areas are good for everyone else to use.

A significant part of these rural areas does not require upkeep. And the areas that do provide jobs and blah blah. If they don't have enough money, that's where the federal government comes in. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. So long as the rural areas are allowed to keep doing what they do, I don't see why road and land maintenance should entitle them to more representation. We should just help them out with that.
ThaddeusK
Profile Joined July 2008
United States231 Posts
February 07 2019 18:57 GMT
#21994
And one person in California is worth 3/5 of a vote compared to one person in the midwest.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
February 07 2019 19:02 GMT
#21995
On February 08 2019 03:57 ThaddeusK wrote:
And one person in California is worth 3/5 of a vote compared to one person in the midwest.

And they get 53 Representatives in the House, while most of the mid west gets that many if you add them all together. California seems to have it pretty good.

[image loading]
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
ThaddeusK
Profile Joined July 2008
United States231 Posts
February 07 2019 19:07 GMT
#21996
Yes, I'm very convinced by you repeating yourself for the 1000th time. well argued
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-02-07 19:19:52
February 07 2019 19:18 GMT
#21997
The entire point of my argument is to highlight that change is not without cost. Politics isn’t about logic or reasoning. The best argument rarely wins and is now how things get done. Politics is about power. It is about winner and losers. Your argument that California’s voters have less power per voter is true, for that one office. That can be changed, but there is a cost to that change and it may come due a generation after the rules are changed. Or very quickly. And we cannot predict what that cost will be. If you want to pay that costs, that is fine. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that the cost doesn’t exist just because the argument for eliminating the EC is well reasoned and logical.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
semantics
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
10040 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-02-07 19:30:17
February 07 2019 19:26 GMT
#21998
On February 08 2019 04:02 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 03:57 ThaddeusK wrote:
And one person in California is worth 3/5 of a vote compared to one person in the midwest.

And they get 53 Representatives in the House, while most of the mid west gets that many if you add them all together. California seems to have it pretty good.

[image loading]

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml
Califronia
Representatives 53, per People per House seat 704,566
Which is pretty close to the middle
Take a look at the best and worst case
Montana
Representatives 1, per People per House seat 994,416
Rhode Island
Representatives 2, per People per House seat 527,624
Large population states tend to be in the middle, smaller population states can either be at the top or bottom in representation per citizen because the rounding issues become egregious.

Either way the USA has terrible levels of representation per citizen, easily double of any oced country, usually way worse.

Also house representation is down to the district level which is a pretty fair way to split it. It's not like all 53 california representatives all vote the same way and are all from the same party.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21591 Posts
February 07 2019 20:31 GMT
#21999
On February 08 2019 03:30 Lmui wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 03:09 Slydie wrote:
Many countries favour large less populated provinces in their parlament, but the way the Senate works is really extreme. At the very least, there should be like 1 to 5 senators per state to represent the people more closely. Also, there should be some objective reecaluations regularly.

Nobody wants to lose power, no matter how unfairly they got it.


The house is supposed to be representative of the population of the country, but it isn't recalibrated either.

That would be a better place to start than restructuring the Senate to be balanced.
Modernizing the US system is a pipe dream given that none of the tiny states are willing to give up the power.
Ehm the House is recalibrated every 10 years with the US census?
States get House representatives based on population as determined in the last census, with a minimum of 1 (which skews some states, but the alternative, states with 0 house representatives, is worse).
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21591 Posts
February 07 2019 20:34 GMT
#22000
On February 08 2019 04:26 semantics wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 08 2019 04:02 Plansix wrote:
On February 08 2019 03:57 ThaddeusK wrote:
And one person in California is worth 3/5 of a vote compared to one person in the midwest.

And they get 53 Representatives in the House, while most of the mid west gets that many if you add them all together. California seems to have it pretty good.

[image loading]

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml
Califronia
Representatives 53, per People per House seat 704,566
Which is pretty close to the middle
Take a look at the best and worst case
Montana
Representatives 1, per People per House seat 994,416
Rhode Island
Representatives 2, per People per House seat 527,624
Large population states tend to be in the middle, smaller population states can either be at the top or bottom in representation per citizen because the rounding issues become egregious.

Either way the USA has terrible levels of representation per citizen, easily double of any oced country, usually way worse.

Also house representation is down to the district level which is a pretty fair way to split it. It's not like all 53 california representatives all vote the same way and are all from the same party.
Terrible representation per citizen is what happens in a big country. Having a House with 5485 representatives in it is simply not practical. The 435 it has now already sounds to me like more then is practical
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Prev 1 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 5026 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
WardiTV Invitational
11:00
WardiTV June Group D & 1/2C
MaNa vs HiGhDrALIVE!
HiGhDrA vs Reynor
Nicoract vs Reynor
MaNa vs Nicoract
MaNa vs Reynor
MaxPax vs Spirit
Krystianer vs Spirit
YoungYakov vs MaxPax
WardiTV476
IndyStarCraft 102
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
OGKoka 324
IndyStarCraft 102
ProTech75
MindelVK 26
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 22752
Calm 8762
firebathero 2511
Hyuk 1016
EffOrt 439
Stork 305
Zeus 225
Mini 223
Light 205
PianO 171
[ Show more ]
ZerO 137
Dewaltoss 92
ToSsGirL 79
Soulkey 62
JulyZerg 58
Killer 58
hero 47
Larva 46
Rush 39
sorry 38
[sc1f]eonzerg 27
Barracks 22
Nal_rA 19
sSak 17
Icarus 15
Sea.KH 13
HiyA 13
Noble 9
SilentControl 8
IntoTheRainbow 7
scan(afreeca) 6
ivOry 5
Hm[arnc] 4
Dota 2
XcaliburYe547
Counter-Strike
shoxiejesuss1005
allub200
Super Smash Bros
C9.Mang0324
Westballz31
Other Games
singsing2272
B2W.Neo399
Lowko189
crisheroes162
ArmadaUGS152
elazer150
XaKoH 101
QueenE31
ZerO(Twitch)6
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Secondary Stream4731
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream3956
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 29
lovetv 11
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV317
• lizZardDota2115
Upcoming Events
OSC
1h 21m
BSL 2v2 ProLeague S3
7h 21m
Korean StarCraft League
15h 21m
SOOP
21h 21m
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
22h 21m
WardiTV Invitational
23h 21m
Cheesadelphia
1d 3h
CSO Cup
1d 5h
BSL: ProLeague
1d 6h
Hawk vs UltrA
Sziky vs spx
TerrOr vs JDConan
GSL Code S
1d 20h
Rogue vs herO
Classic vs GuMiho
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 22h
BSL: ProLeague
2 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
Cross vs Doodle
MadiNho vs Dragon
Replay Cast
2 days
Wardi Open
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
4 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
5 days
The PondCast
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Serral vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.