|
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 |
Northern Ireland23800 Posts
On November 19 2019 01:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 01:22 reborn8u2 wrote:On November 19 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 00:44 reborn8u2 wrote:
If you took this away there would be 20+ states that wouldn't matter. They would have almost no voice in the federal government. Smaller population states already have little say in electing president and in congress. Why would they stay in the union if they had no voice? They might as well be ruled by England at that point.
Imagine that I were to complain that my vote doesn’t matter and that I have almost no voice in Federal government. Perhaps I hyperbolically state that I might as well be ruled by England. Would you humour my complaints or would you point out that I am one man in a nation of 330 million and that my voice should not be louder than the combined voice of the others? Would you give me my own senator? Would you let me secede? The reason the states with less population have less voting power is not a bug or a flaw, it’s that they have less population to represent. It’s absurd to say that the problem is that one man has fewer votes than a group of a hundred men and therefore he should be compensated for it else he would want to leave. It’s a nonsense argument that can only logically be resolved by making every voter, for that is the lowest level at which this can be applied, more powerful than every voter. One man, one vote. That’s the only way it can work. You don’t get to argue that your vote gets overridden by a larger group of voters so really you deserve bonus votes. I agree with most of your statement. It isn't a bug or flaw. The system is designed so that population carries weight. This holds true in the electoral college and in the congress. I take no issue with it. I'm simply saying the reason we also have a senate is to give lower population states more voice, because without it many states would have almost no voice in the federal government. It wouldn't make sense for those staes to be a part of nation where people with far different opinions and interests impose their will on them. They would be better off forming their own nation, and that's why we have the compromise of splitting the house into a congress and sentate. More population carries much more weight in our system but large areas of low population are still able to have some voice. I like our system and I think the reasoning behind it is sound and practical. Why would it not make sense for 1% of the population to have 1% of the representation? You’re saying it wouldn’t make sense but that makes sense to me. Please feel free to elaborate on why 1% of population having 1% of representation makes no sense but 1% of population having 5% of representation makes perfect sense. Because you keep saying that one man one vote doesn’t make sense but you’re not arguing why.
It doesn’t make no sense as an isolated proposition. In practical, real-world terms maybe some weighting is necessary in certain scenarios, maybe not.
In the UK example London is dominant over the whole country.
Hypothetically if there’s enough of a population there it’s politically prudent to appease solely that population. Which makes it even more dominant, economic policy is dictated to those needs, more people emigrate from the poor regions starved of investment and the cycle just repeats.
Sure maybe going against 1 man 1 vote is entirely arbitrary here, but it can serve a practical purpose in preventing such a cycle being completely egregious.
Leave it to a purely majoritarian system without arbitrary weighting and do Londoners ever, ever throw their support behind any kind of policy to redistribute industry and investment to the rest of the country? Well no they don’t.
And as the dominant areas become more dominant they drag more and more of the population away from other places and over to the dominant areas.
So yeah maybe other areas do need protection, arbitrary as it is rather than ‘want a job? Move to the coasts or London/Paris (or whatever equivalent)’
|
|
|
To be clear, I am not arguing against 1 man 1 vote. Both the president and congress are elected that way. It's fair. But keep in mind California has about as man people as the bottom 20 states. Should they all bow to their califonian overlords?
Maybe it's not balanced. Maybe the Senate needs less power. I would certainly entertain that.
But this is a huge nation, and keeping at as a whole is a priority. It split once before the and there were single battles in the civil war that cost more lives than the entire Vietnam war. If you had nearly half the states having nearly no voice in the federal government, and then California unilaterally deciding most of the policy which is drastically different than the will of those 20 other states, it could have disastrous consequences such as a civil war.
I would also like to add this link explaining straw-man fallacy, there seems to be a lot of it in this thread. www.thoughtco.com
|
United States41980 Posts
On November 19 2019 01:40 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 01:28 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 01:22 reborn8u2 wrote:On November 19 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 00:44 reborn8u2 wrote:
If you took this away there would be 20+ states that wouldn't matter. They would have almost no voice in the federal government. Smaller population states already have little say in electing president and in congress. Why would they stay in the union if they had no voice? They might as well be ruled by England at that point.
Imagine that I were to complain that my vote doesn’t matter and that I have almost no voice in Federal government. Perhaps I hyperbolically state that I might as well be ruled by England. Would you humour my complaints or would you point out that I am one man in a nation of 330 million and that my voice should not be louder than the combined voice of the others? Would you give me my own senator? Would you let me secede? The reason the states with less population have less voting power is not a bug or a flaw, it’s that they have less population to represent. It’s absurd to say that the problem is that one man has fewer votes than a group of a hundred men and therefore he should be compensated for it else he would want to leave. It’s a nonsense argument that can only logically be resolved by making every voter, for that is the lowest level at which this can be applied, more powerful than every voter. One man, one vote. That’s the only way it can work. You don’t get to argue that your vote gets overridden by a larger group of voters so really you deserve bonus votes. I agree with most of your statement. It isn't a bug or flaw. The system is designed so that population carries weight. This holds true in the electoral college and in the congress. I take no issue with it. I'm simply saying the reason we also have a senate is to give lower population states more voice, because without it many states would have almost no voice in the federal government. It wouldn't make sense for those staes to be a part of nation where people with far different opinions and interests impose their will on them. They would be better off forming their own nation, and that's why we have the compromise of splitting the house into a congress and sentate. More population carries much more weight in our system but large areas of low population are still able to have some voice. I like our system and I think the reasoning behind it is sound and practical. Why would it not make sense for 1% of the population to have 1% of the representation? You’re saying it wouldn’t make sense but that makes sense to me. Please feel free to elaborate on why 1% of population having 1% of representation makes no sense but 1% of population having 5% of representation makes perfect sense. Because you keep saying that one man one vote doesn’t make sense but you’re not arguing why. It doesn’t make no sense as an isolated proposition. In practical, real-world terms maybe some weighting is necessary in certain scenarios, maybe not. In the UK example London is dominant over the whole country. Hypothetically if there’s enough of a population there it’s politically prudent to appease solely that population. Which makes it even more dominant, economic policy is dictated to those needs, more people emigrate from the poor regions starved of investment and the cycle just repeats. Sure maybe going against 1 man 1 vote is entirely arbitrary here, but it can serve a practical purpose in preventing such a cycle being completely egregious. Leave it to a purely majoritarian system without arbitrary weighting and do Londoners ever, ever throw their support behind any kind of policy to redistribute industry and investment to the rest of the country? Well no they don’t. And as the dominant areas become more dominant they drag more and more of the population away from other places and over to the dominant areas. So yeah maybe other areas do need protection, arbitrary as it is rather than ‘want a job? Move to the coasts or London/Paris (or whatever equivalent)’
We do have a broadly majoritarian system in the UK and Londoners do vote for policies that help people outside of London so I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here. And yes, if the majority of the population had a specific interest then the government would attempt to serve that interest but that’s pretty much the point of government, that’s why it exists.
You’re also assuming that the majority interest would be opposed to the minority interest on majority vs minority lines which is a big reach. It’s far more likely to be rich vs poor than cities vs country, the interests of a London fast food worker are more closely aligned with a shires fast food worker than with a banker.
You’re also assuming that regions won’t find their own place without government influence. The Lake District doesn’t need extra MPs to be the best Lake District it can be, it does just fine on Londoners going there for weekend getaways. Salisbury Plain doesn’t need special favours from the government, where else are they going to test their munitions or keep their squaddies?
|
United States41980 Posts
On November 19 2019 01:58 reborn8u2 wrote:To be clear, I am not arguing against 1 man 1 vote. Both the president and congress are elected that way. It's fair. But keep in mind California has about as man people as the bottom 20 states. Should they all bow to their califonian overlords? Maybe it's not balanced. Maybe the Senate needs less power. I would certainly entertain that. But this is a huge nation, and keeping at as a whole is a priority. It split once before the and there were single battles in the civil war that cost more lives than the entire Vietnam war. If you had nearly half the states having nearly no voice in the federal government, and then California unilaterally deciding most of the policy which is drastically different than the will of those 20 other states, it could have disastrous consequences such as a civil war. I would also like to add this link explaining straw-man fallacy, there seems to be a lot of it in this thread. www.thoughtco.com
The President is not one man one vote. This should be obvious because the current President lost the vote.
|
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"
|
United States41980 Posts
On November 19 2019 01:58 reborn8u2 wrote:
But keep in mind California has about as man people as the bottom 20 states. Should they all bow to their califonian overlords?
YES! That’s how democracy works. I’m not sure how you’re not understanding this. If we all have a vote and one side has more votes than you then they win. I’m really not sure where you’re not getting this. You keep saying you understand but then you pose weird rhetorical questions like “should the majority get to decide policy in a democracy?” as if the answer is obviously no and we’re back to square one.
Yes, if Wyoming and California disagree on a policy then California should get their way. Because more people live there. Obviously.
|
Whether or not “the bottom 20 states” should bow to the policy goals of larger states depends on the policy, which is why it should be the stuff of substantive politicking rather than structural power flows. The leeway granted states at the bottom of any particular ranked list is precisely where we should be focused in terms of fixing problems, rather than eliminating modes of addressing those problems in service of outdated notions of federal/state balances.
|
Northern Ireland23800 Posts
On November 19 2019 02:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 01:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 19 2019 01:28 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 01:22 reborn8u2 wrote:On November 19 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 00:44 reborn8u2 wrote:
If you took this away there would be 20+ states that wouldn't matter. They would have almost no voice in the federal government. Smaller population states already have little say in electing president and in congress. Why would they stay in the union if they had no voice? They might as well be ruled by England at that point.
Imagine that I were to complain that my vote doesn’t matter and that I have almost no voice in Federal government. Perhaps I hyperbolically state that I might as well be ruled by England. Would you humour my complaints or would you point out that I am one man in a nation of 330 million and that my voice should not be louder than the combined voice of the others? Would you give me my own senator? Would you let me secede? The reason the states with less population have less voting power is not a bug or a flaw, it’s that they have less population to represent. It’s absurd to say that the problem is that one man has fewer votes than a group of a hundred men and therefore he should be compensated for it else he would want to leave. It’s a nonsense argument that can only logically be resolved by making every voter, for that is the lowest level at which this can be applied, more powerful than every voter. One man, one vote. That’s the only way it can work. You don’t get to argue that your vote gets overridden by a larger group of voters so really you deserve bonus votes. I agree with most of your statement. It isn't a bug or flaw. The system is designed so that population carries weight. This holds true in the electoral college and in the congress. I take no issue with it. I'm simply saying the reason we also have a senate is to give lower population states more voice, because without it many states would have almost no voice in the federal government. It wouldn't make sense for those staes to be a part of nation where people with far different opinions and interests impose their will on them. They would be better off forming their own nation, and that's why we have the compromise of splitting the house into a congress and sentate. More population carries much more weight in our system but large areas of low population are still able to have some voice. I like our system and I think the reasoning behind it is sound and practical. Why would it not make sense for 1% of the population to have 1% of the representation? You’re saying it wouldn’t make sense but that makes sense to me. Please feel free to elaborate on why 1% of population having 1% of representation makes no sense but 1% of population having 5% of representation makes perfect sense. Because you keep saying that one man one vote doesn’t make sense but you’re not arguing why. It doesn’t make no sense as an isolated proposition. In practical, real-world terms maybe some weighting is necessary in certain scenarios, maybe not. In the UK example London is dominant over the whole country. Hypothetically if there’s enough of a population there it’s politically prudent to appease solely that population. Which makes it even more dominant, economic policy is dictated to those needs, more people emigrate from the poor regions starved of investment and the cycle just repeats. Sure maybe going against 1 man 1 vote is entirely arbitrary here, but it can serve a practical purpose in preventing such a cycle being completely egregious. Leave it to a purely majoritarian system without arbitrary weighting and do Londoners ever, ever throw their support behind any kind of policy to redistribute industry and investment to the rest of the country? Well no they don’t. And as the dominant areas become more dominant they drag more and more of the population away from other places and over to the dominant areas. So yeah maybe other areas do need protection, arbitrary as it is rather than ‘want a job? Move to the coasts or London/Paris (or whatever equivalent)’ We do have a broadly majoritarian system in the UK and Londoners do vote for policies that help people outside of London so I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here. And yes, if the majority of the population had a specific interest then the government would attempt to serve that interest but that’s pretty much the point of government, that’s why it exists. You’re also assuming that the majority interest would be opposed to the minority interest on majority vs minority lines which is a big reach. It’s far more likely to be rich vs poor than cities vs country, the interests of a London fast food worker are more closely aligned with a shires fast food worker than with a banker. You’re also assuming that regions won’t find their own place without government influence. The Lake District doesn’t need extra MPs to be the best Lake District it can be, it does just fine on Londoners going there for weekend getaways. Salisbury Plain doesn’t need special favours from the government, where else are they going to test their munitions or keep their squaddies?
Where’s been the appetite for wholesale investment in the regions for the last 20/30 years?
|
United States41980 Posts
On November 19 2019 02:03 reborn8u2 wrote:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"
The Bill of Rights protects individuals from cannibalism. We don’t need to give minorities extra votes.
|
United States41980 Posts
On November 19 2019 02:05 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:00 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 01:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 19 2019 01:28 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 01:22 reborn8u2 wrote:On November 19 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 00:44 reborn8u2 wrote:
If you took this away there would be 20+ states that wouldn't matter. They would have almost no voice in the federal government. Smaller population states already have little say in electing president and in congress. Why would they stay in the union if they had no voice? They might as well be ruled by England at that point.
Imagine that I were to complain that my vote doesn’t matter and that I have almost no voice in Federal government. Perhaps I hyperbolically state that I might as well be ruled by England. Would you humour my complaints or would you point out that I am one man in a nation of 330 million and that my voice should not be louder than the combined voice of the others? Would you give me my own senator? Would you let me secede? The reason the states with less population have less voting power is not a bug or a flaw, it’s that they have less population to represent. It’s absurd to say that the problem is that one man has fewer votes than a group of a hundred men and therefore he should be compensated for it else he would want to leave. It’s a nonsense argument that can only logically be resolved by making every voter, for that is the lowest level at which this can be applied, more powerful than every voter. One man, one vote. That’s the only way it can work. You don’t get to argue that your vote gets overridden by a larger group of voters so really you deserve bonus votes. I agree with most of your statement. It isn't a bug or flaw. The system is designed so that population carries weight. This holds true in the electoral college and in the congress. I take no issue with it. I'm simply saying the reason we also have a senate is to give lower population states more voice, because without it many states would have almost no voice in the federal government. It wouldn't make sense for those staes to be a part of nation where people with far different opinions and interests impose their will on them. They would be better off forming their own nation, and that's why we have the compromise of splitting the house into a congress and sentate. More population carries much more weight in our system but large areas of low population are still able to have some voice. I like our system and I think the reasoning behind it is sound and practical. Why would it not make sense for 1% of the population to have 1% of the representation? You’re saying it wouldn’t make sense but that makes sense to me. Please feel free to elaborate on why 1% of population having 1% of representation makes no sense but 1% of population having 5% of representation makes perfect sense. Because you keep saying that one man one vote doesn’t make sense but you’re not arguing why. It doesn’t make no sense as an isolated proposition. In practical, real-world terms maybe some weighting is necessary in certain scenarios, maybe not. In the UK example London is dominant over the whole country. Hypothetically if there’s enough of a population there it’s politically prudent to appease solely that population. Which makes it even more dominant, economic policy is dictated to those needs, more people emigrate from the poor regions starved of investment and the cycle just repeats. Sure maybe going against 1 man 1 vote is entirely arbitrary here, but it can serve a practical purpose in preventing such a cycle being completely egregious. Leave it to a purely majoritarian system without arbitrary weighting and do Londoners ever, ever throw their support behind any kind of policy to redistribute industry and investment to the rest of the country? Well no they don’t. And as the dominant areas become more dominant they drag more and more of the population away from other places and over to the dominant areas. So yeah maybe other areas do need protection, arbitrary as it is rather than ‘want a job? Move to the coasts or London/Paris (or whatever equivalent)’ We do have a broadly majoritarian system in the UK and Londoners do vote for policies that help people outside of London so I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here. And yes, if the majority of the population had a specific interest then the government would attempt to serve that interest but that’s pretty much the point of government, that’s why it exists. You’re also assuming that the majority interest would be opposed to the minority interest on majority vs minority lines which is a big reach. It’s far more likely to be rich vs poor than cities vs country, the interests of a London fast food worker are more closely aligned with a shires fast food worker than with a banker. You’re also assuming that regions won’t find their own place without government influence. The Lake District doesn’t need extra MPs to be the best Lake District it can be, it does just fine on Londoners going there for weekend getaways. Salisbury Plain doesn’t need special favours from the government, where else are they going to test their munitions or keep their squaddies? Where’s been the appetite for wholesale investment in the regions for the last 20/30 years?
Where’s been the market for British made goods? The problem is economic. But Bristol tech has been doing very nicely, as have the other regional research hubs.
|
On November 19 2019 02:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:03 reborn8u2 wrote:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" The Bill of Rights protects individuals from cannibalism. We don’t need to give minorities extra votes.
Shouldn't this say minority voting blocs? Because the way it reads comes off as...callous. I know that's not what you meant, but just wanting to give as much clarity as possible.
|
On November 19 2019 02:05 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:00 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 01:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 19 2019 01:28 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 01:22 reborn8u2 wrote:On November 19 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 00:44 reborn8u2 wrote:
If you took this away there would be 20+ states that wouldn't matter. They would have almost no voice in the federal government. Smaller population states already have little say in electing president and in congress. Why would they stay in the union if they had no voice? They might as well be ruled by England at that point.
Imagine that I were to complain that my vote doesn’t matter and that I have almost no voice in Federal government. Perhaps I hyperbolically state that I might as well be ruled by England. Would you humour my complaints or would you point out that I am one man in a nation of 330 million and that my voice should not be louder than the combined voice of the others? Would you give me my own senator? Would you let me secede? The reason the states with less population have less voting power is not a bug or a flaw, it’s that they have less population to represent. It’s absurd to say that the problem is that one man has fewer votes than a group of a hundred men and therefore he should be compensated for it else he would want to leave. It’s a nonsense argument that can only logically be resolved by making every voter, for that is the lowest level at which this can be applied, more powerful than every voter. One man, one vote. That’s the only way it can work. You don’t get to argue that your vote gets overridden by a larger group of voters so really you deserve bonus votes. I agree with most of your statement. It isn't a bug or flaw. The system is designed so that population carries weight. This holds true in the electoral college and in the congress. I take no issue with it. I'm simply saying the reason we also have a senate is to give lower population states more voice, because without it many states would have almost no voice in the federal government. It wouldn't make sense for those staes to be a part of nation where people with far different opinions and interests impose their will on them. They would be better off forming their own nation, and that's why we have the compromise of splitting the house into a congress and sentate. More population carries much more weight in our system but large areas of low population are still able to have some voice. I like our system and I think the reasoning behind it is sound and practical. Why would it not make sense for 1% of the population to have 1% of the representation? You’re saying it wouldn’t make sense but that makes sense to me. Please feel free to elaborate on why 1% of population having 1% of representation makes no sense but 1% of population having 5% of representation makes perfect sense. Because you keep saying that one man one vote doesn’t make sense but you’re not arguing why. It doesn’t make no sense as an isolated proposition. In practical, real-world terms maybe some weighting is necessary in certain scenarios, maybe not. In the UK example London is dominant over the whole country. Hypothetically if there’s enough of a population there it’s politically prudent to appease solely that population. Which makes it even more dominant, economic policy is dictated to those needs, more people emigrate from the poor regions starved of investment and the cycle just repeats. Sure maybe going against 1 man 1 vote is entirely arbitrary here, but it can serve a practical purpose in preventing such a cycle being completely egregious. Leave it to a purely majoritarian system without arbitrary weighting and do Londoners ever, ever throw their support behind any kind of policy to redistribute industry and investment to the rest of the country? Well no they don’t. And as the dominant areas become more dominant they drag more and more of the population away from other places and over to the dominant areas. So yeah maybe other areas do need protection, arbitrary as it is rather than ‘want a job? Move to the coasts or London/Paris (or whatever equivalent)’ We do have a broadly majoritarian system in the UK and Londoners do vote for policies that help people outside of London so I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here. And yes, if the majority of the population had a specific interest then the government would attempt to serve that interest but that’s pretty much the point of government, that’s why it exists. You’re also assuming that the majority interest would be opposed to the minority interest on majority vs minority lines which is a big reach. It’s far more likely to be rich vs poor than cities vs country, the interests of a London fast food worker are more closely aligned with a shires fast food worker than with a banker. You’re also assuming that regions won’t find their own place without government influence. The Lake District doesn’t need extra MPs to be the best Lake District it can be, it does just fine on Londoners going there for weekend getaways. Salisbury Plain doesn’t need special favours from the government, where else are they going to test their munitions or keep their squaddies? Where’s been the appetite for wholesale investment in the regions for the last 20/30 years?
How would you measure appropriate investment? If people in London pay more in taxes it would be appropriate that their money is used for their local area, but instead on average the London taxpayer subsidises the rest of the UK. If you was seeking to invest in transportation, it make sense to build roads and rails to where they are needed or provide the best return for investment, both human and monetary, rather than bridges to nowhere. People deserve investment. Regions do not.
The idea that landmass deserve proportionate representation as to people as some people here have made for the American system is preposterous from a democratic viewpoint. What determines one landmass is as deserving of another landmass? Landmass does not think, it does not feel, it does not have a consciousness. It is completely arbitrary.
|
On November 19 2019 01:58 reborn8u2 wrote:
But keep in mind California has about as man people as the bottom 20 states. Should they all bow to their califonian overlords?
YES! That’s how democracy works. I’m not sure how you’re not understanding this. If we all have a vote and one side has more votes than you then they win. I’m really not sure where you’re not getting this. You keep saying you understand but then you pose weird rhetorical questions like “should the majority get to decide policy in a democracy?” as if the answer is obviously no and we’re back to square one.
Yes, if Wyoming and California disagree on a policy then California should get their way. Because more people live there. Obviously.
What you seem to be missing is that is how democracy fails. Those 20 states aren't going to remain loyal to the whole. Britain tried to impose it's will on the colonies, how did that work out for them?
|
On November 19 2019 02:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:05 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:03 reborn8u2 wrote:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" The Bill of Rights protects individuals from cannibalism. We don’t need to give minorities extra votes. Shouldn't this say minority voting blocs? Because the way it reads comes off as...callous. I know that's not what you meant, but just wanting to give as much clarity as possible.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" is a pretty stupid thing to say and can only stem from ignorance. Democracy and civil rights are hand in hand together. Democracy is far more than voting rights. Bad analogies will always remain bad analogies.
On November 19 2019 02:27 reborn8u2 wrote:Show nested quote +
On November 19 2019 01:58 reborn8u2 wrote:
But keep in mind California has about as man people as the bottom 20 states. Should they all bow to their califonian overlords?
YES! That’s how democracy works. I’m not sure how you’re not understanding this. If we all have a vote and one side has more votes than you then they win. I’m really not sure where you’re not getting this. You keep saying you understand but then you pose weird rhetorical questions like “should the majority get to decide policy in a democracy?” as if the answer is obviously no and we’re back to square one.
Yes, if Wyoming and California disagree on a policy then California should get their way. Because more people live there. Obviously.
What you seem to be missing is that is how democracy fails. Those 20 states aren't going to remain loyal to the whole. Britain tried to impose it's will on the colonies, how did that work out for them?
Uh...did you just quote yourself to reply to yourself? Right now we can see American democracy failing. When an idealogical minority tribal rural identity politics is able to exert itself over the majority.
|
United States41980 Posts
On November 19 2019 02:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:05 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:03 reborn8u2 wrote:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" The Bill of Rights protects individuals from cannibalism. We don’t need to give minorities extra votes. Shouldn't this say minority voting blocs? Because the way it reads comes off as...callous. I know that's not what you meant, but just wanting to give as much clarity as possible.
No, the argument used for saying citizens of small states are special interests that require extra representation at the Federal level can absolutely be applied to African Americans, gays, indigenous peoples, and so forth. More so really. They’re far more a victim of white Christian hetero majority rule than the people of Iowa are victims of rule by New York. If we’re giving minorities extra votes then they should be first in line. Because that’s what it’s all about. Minority identity groups demanding extra votes in the Presidency and Senate, but only if they’re white rural farmers. If I’m saying it should be one man, one vote, I want to be clear that I’m denying all minority identity groups extra votes. And in turn I expect and require that people arguing the inverse argue that all minority identity groups should get extra votes in order to have a shred of integrity.
|
Our representation system sucks but it wouldn't be nearly as bad if our politicians (on both sides) didn't prefer it this way.
Democrats need Republicans for the Democratic party to make any sense.
|
United States41980 Posts
On November 19 2019 02:27 reborn8u2 wrote:Show nested quote +
On November 19 2019 01:58 reborn8u2 wrote:
But keep in mind California has about as man people as the bottom 20 states. Should they all bow to their califonian overlords?
YES! That’s how democracy works. I’m not sure how you’re not understanding this. If we all have a vote and one side has more votes than you then they win. I’m really not sure where you’re not getting this. You keep saying you understand but then you pose weird rhetorical questions like “should the majority get to decide policy in a democracy?” as if the answer is obviously no and we’re back to square one.
Yes, if Wyoming and California disagree on a policy then California should get their way. Because more people live there. Obviously.
What you seem to be missing is that is how democracy fails. Those 20 states aren't going to remain loyal to the whole. Britain tried to impose it's will on the colonies, how did that work out for them?
If one man one vote isn’t enough for Wyoming then how the hell is one man, a tenth of a vote meant to be enough for California?
If you want to argue that one man one vote will inevitably lead to secession and civil war then please proceed to explain why one man, one tenth of a vote hasn’t already done that.
It’s nonsense. California hasn’t seceded because like Wyoming it recognizes benefits to being in the US.
Giving extra votes to one area is taking votes from another. Any consequence of failing to overrepresent one area must, by definition, have already happened to the area you underrepresented.
|
That doesn't remotely make sense GH. Maybe you should try to explain yourself rather than test out phrases?
|
On November 19 2019 02:27 reborn8u2 wrote:Show nested quote +
On November 19 2019 01:58 reborn8u2 wrote:
But keep in mind California has about as man people as the bottom 20 states. Should they all bow to their califonian overlords?
YES! That’s how democracy works. I’m not sure how you’re not understanding this. If we all have a vote and one side has more votes than you then they win. I’m really not sure where you’re not getting this. You keep saying you understand but then you pose weird rhetorical questions like “should the majority get to decide policy in a democracy?” as if the answer is obviously no and we’re back to square one.
Yes, if Wyoming and California disagree on a policy then California should get their way. Because more people live there. Obviously.
What you seem to be missing is that is how democracy fails. Those 20 states aren't going to remain loyal to the whole. Britain tried to impose it's will on the colonies, how did that work out for them?
States are not unitary beings, the vast majority of “coastal progressive” policies find a lot of popularity even in bottom 20 states. The problem, as has already been discussed, is that those supporters usually dwell in cities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
