|
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 |
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.
|
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.
|
What does 2 senators per state have to do with electoral college?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Norway28667 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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 +
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.
|
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.
|
And one person in California is worth 3/5 of a vote compared to one person in the midwest.
|
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://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/2010_census_reapportionment.svg/400px-2010_census_reapportionment.svg.png)
|
Yes, I'm very convinced by you repeating yourself for the 1000th time. well argued
|
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.
|
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.
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.
|
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).
|
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. https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtmlCalifronia 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/bRgO6.png)
