|
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 |
United States41979 Posts
On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator.
|
On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator.
I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians.
@dmcd Without Republicans Democrats are the conservatives, because they don't actually have a left wing ideology, they have a "prevent the Republicans from making things worse" ideology which doesn't make sense without Republicans
If the other party is to their left then it becomes obvious they are conservatives.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 19 2019 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator. I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians.
And I’m disagreeing that the consensus of politicians is independent of the overweighting of rural voters.
|
If the low population states would leave if the cities dictated their policy then currently it would be in the best interest of the cities to leave the US and form their own union, leaving the rural area's to sort their shit out on their own.
(ignoring the fact that the low population states don't want to leave because the cities are paying their bills.)
|
On November 19 2019 02:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator. I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians. And I’m disagreeing that the consensus of politicians is independent of the overweighting of rural voters.
That's why I made the point that Democrats don't actually want Republicans to be powerless, because then they have no one but themselves to blame for not passing even moderately left-wing policy like a single payer option.
EDIT: The parties jobs are to take the flack that would otherwise be aimed at their controlling oligarchs and diffuse it. That works better when they can point it at each other. "Damn democrats taxing away my check" "Damn Republicans spending all my taxes on guns and bombs".
Truth is Republicans tax and spend, Democrats drop bombs and Obama sold more guns than Trump or Bush
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 19 2019 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:49 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator. I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians. And I’m disagreeing that the consensus of politicians is independent of the overweighting of rural voters. That's why I made the point that Democrats don't actually want Republicans to be powerless, because then they have no one but themselves to blame for not passing even moderately left-wing policy like a single payer option.
I disagree. A hypothetical Democratic Party that represented a majority of voters and won every election would simply divide into a center right party and a leftist party. Political coalitions cannot outgrow the opposition because once the opposition ceases to be relevant the reason for the coalition to exist ends and it fractures. A coalition exists because the members hate each other less than they hate the other side. Remove the other side and you have two smaller coalitions where there used to be one.
|
On November 19 2019 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator. I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians. @dmcd Without Republicans Democrats are the conservatives, because they don't actually have a left wing ideology, they have a "prevent the Republicans from making things worse" ideology which doesn't make sense without Republicans If the other party is to their left then it becomes obvious they are conservatives. That's an awful lot of unsubstantiated assumptions you are making there. That the one party exists solely for the position to be in opposition of another party. That without that opposition a party would be without purpose.A wonderful fairy tale. It's as if parties aren't made out of people but of a monolithic entity. Imagine one party disappeared tommorow. They don't make sense to you and behold, yet they still exist.
|
On November 19 2019 02:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:49 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator. I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians. And I’m disagreeing that the consensus of politicians is independent of the overweighting of rural voters. That's why I made the point that Democrats don't actually want Republicans to be powerless, because then they have no one but themselves to blame for not passing even moderately left-wing policy like a single payer option. I disagree. A hypothetical Democratic Party that represented a majority of voters and won every election would simply divide into a center right party and a leftist party. Political coalitions cannot outgrow the opposition because once the opposition ceases to be relevant the reason for the coalition to exist ends and it fractures. A coalition exists because the members hate each other less than they hate the other side. Remove the other side and you have two smaller coalitions where there used to be one.
That's what I'm saying. That the Democratic party as an establishment would be the right wing party and the new party wouldn't be designed to serve US oligarchs.
Then the entire premise of the Democratic party changes. They are no longer preventing the right wing from taking us lower while advocating progress, they are making conservative arguments preventing policy aimed at helping the masses.
|
Aaah, I get it now. You deliberately make nonsensical posts, and then you slowly reveal that you really really hate the Domocratic Party as if the policies and idealogies both parties are championing doesn't have any real ability to change peoples lives for the better or make it worse, and they are all just a front for the elites who control everthing with bread and circuses and we are all fools to not see this before.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 19 2019 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:57 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:49 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator. I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians. And I’m disagreeing that the consensus of politicians is independent of the overweighting of rural voters. That's why I made the point that Democrats don't actually want Republicans to be powerless, because then they have no one but themselves to blame for not passing even moderately left-wing policy like a single payer option. I disagree. A hypothetical Democratic Party that represented a majority of voters and won every election would simply divide into a center right party and a leftist party. Political coalitions cannot outgrow the opposition because once the opposition ceases to be relevant the reason for the coalition to exist ends and it fractures. A coalition exists because the members hate each other less than they hate the other side. Remove the other side and you have two smaller coalitions where there used to be one. That's what I'm saying. That the Democratic party as an establishment would be the right wing party and the new party wouldn't be designed to serve US oligarchs. Then the entire premise of the Democratic party changes. They are no longer preventing the right wing from taking us lower while advocating progress, they are making conservative arguments preventing policy aimed at helping the masses.
You’re not disagreeing with my point then. The overweighted power given to a conservative minority has necessitated the creation of the center right Democratic coalition which would not exist under a representative form of government. Therefore the problem is not that the Democrats exist to provide cover for the Republicans, it’s that the political system requires a supermajority coalition to fight a minority.
|
On November 19 2019 03:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Aaah, I get it now. You deliberately make nonsensical posts, and then you slowly reveal that you really really hate the Domocratic Party as if the policies and idealogies both parties are championing doesn't have any real ability to change peoples lives for the better or make it worse, and they are all just a front for the elites who control everthing with bread and circuses and we are all fools to not see this before.
They aren't nonsensical, but for those largely comfortable in the existing paradigm it's often hardest to see.
|
On November 19 2019 03:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:57 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:49 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator. I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians. And I’m disagreeing that the consensus of politicians is independent of the overweighting of rural voters. That's why I made the point that Democrats don't actually want Republicans to be powerless, because then they have no one but themselves to blame for not passing even moderately left-wing policy like a single payer option. I disagree. A hypothetical Democratic Party that represented a majority of voters and won every election would simply divide into a center right party and a leftist party. Political coalitions cannot outgrow the opposition because once the opposition ceases to be relevant the reason for the coalition to exist ends and it fractures. A coalition exists because the members hate each other less than they hate the other side. Remove the other side and you have two smaller coalitions where there used to be one. That's what I'm saying. That the Democratic party as an establishment would be the right wing party and the new party wouldn't be designed to serve US oligarchs. Then the entire premise of the Democratic party changes. They are no longer preventing the right wing from taking us lower while advocating progress, they are making conservative arguments preventing policy aimed at helping the masses. You’re not disagreeing with my point then. The overweighted power given to a conservative minority has necessitated the creation of the center right Democratic coalition which would not exist under a representative form of government. Therefore the problem is not that the Democrats exist to provide cover for the Republicans, it’s that the political system requires a supermajority coalition to fight a minority.
I'd say Democrats love that Republicans force people far to their left economically to support what is essentially right-wing policy and Republicans love that Democrats force people to Republicans left economically to vote Republican for social policy resulting in bipartisan support for right wing economic policy and little to no progress on social issues or any issues that would undermine our oligarchs influence.
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 19 2019 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:57 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:49 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator. I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians. And I’m disagreeing that the consensus of politicians is independent of the overweighting of rural voters. That's why I made the point that Democrats don't actually want Republicans to be powerless, because then they have no one but themselves to blame for not passing even moderately left-wing policy like a single payer option. I disagree. A hypothetical Democratic Party that represented a majority of voters and won every election would simply divide into a center right party and a leftist party. Political coalitions cannot outgrow the opposition because once the opposition ceases to be relevant the reason for the coalition to exist ends and it fractures. A coalition exists because the members hate each other less than they hate the other side. Remove the other side and you have two smaller coalitions where there used to be one. That's what I'm saying. That the Democratic party as an establishment would be the right wing party and the new party wouldn't be designed to serve US oligarchs. Then the entire premise of the Democratic party changes. They are no longer preventing the right wing from taking us lower while advocating progress, they are making conservative arguments preventing policy aimed at helping the masses. You’re not disagreeing with my point then. The overweighted power given to a conservative minority has necessitated the creation of the center right Democratic coalition which would not exist under a representative form of government. Therefore the problem is not that the Democrats exist to provide cover for the Republicans, it’s that the political system requires a supermajority coalition to fight a minority. I'd say Democrats love that Republicans force people far to their left economically to support what is essentially right-wing policy and Republicans love that Democrats force people to Republicans left economically to vote Republican for social policy resulting in bipartisan support for right wing economic policy and little to no progress on social issues or any issues that would undermine our oligarchs influence.
But that requires them to be homogenous which they’re clearly not. I suspect they hate that they have to work with each other to defeat a common foe.
|
On November 19 2019 03:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 03:13 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:57 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:49 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator. I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians. And I’m disagreeing that the consensus of politicians is independent of the overweighting of rural voters. That's why I made the point that Democrats don't actually want Republicans to be powerless, because then they have no one but themselves to blame for not passing even moderately left-wing policy like a single payer option. I disagree. A hypothetical Democratic Party that represented a majority of voters and won every election would simply divide into a center right party and a leftist party. Political coalitions cannot outgrow the opposition because once the opposition ceases to be relevant the reason for the coalition to exist ends and it fractures. A coalition exists because the members hate each other less than they hate the other side. Remove the other side and you have two smaller coalitions where there used to be one. That's what I'm saying. That the Democratic party as an establishment would be the right wing party and the new party wouldn't be designed to serve US oligarchs. Then the entire premise of the Democratic party changes. They are no longer preventing the right wing from taking us lower while advocating progress, they are making conservative arguments preventing policy aimed at helping the masses. You’re not disagreeing with my point then. The overweighted power given to a conservative minority has necessitated the creation of the center right Democratic coalition which would not exist under a representative form of government. Therefore the problem is not that the Democrats exist to provide cover for the Republicans, it’s that the political system requires a supermajority coalition to fight a minority. I'd say Democrats love that Republicans force people far to their left economically to support what is essentially right-wing policy and Republicans love that Democrats force people to Republicans left economically to vote Republican for social policy resulting in bipartisan support for right wing economic policy and little to no progress on social issues or any issues that would undermine our oligarchs influence. But that requires them to be homogenous which they’re clearly not. I suspect they hate that they have to work with each other to defeat a common foe.
Oligarchs have lots of mutual interests but many competing interests as well. Like I said, the parties jobs are to take the righteous anger at the oligarchs and diffuse/redirect it back at ourselves or "the other side".
It's an unenviable job in general and increasingly irrelevant as celebrity and commercial culture grows in influence. Also Trump cut out a BUNCH of the typical middlemen in all this out, being both the (aspiring) oligarch and the politician securing more wealth for allied oligarchs.
EDIT: Kanye West is more likely to net Trump some Black voters than Herman Cain or Ben Carson for example.
|
On November 19 2019 02:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:27 reborn8u2 wrote:
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.
Also for the most part even the coastal states still are largely rural. The US city size isn't that big even for the few exceptions. The rural city divide happens with in every state, the fact we label states and rural or not is because of the failure of representation on the federal level.
States are not monolithic, it's only because the current system makes it appear that way that we think of them as such.
|
Northern Ireland23799 Posts
On November 19 2019 02:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:05 Wombat_NI wrote: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.
How would you measure it?
You’re basically saying that Londoners deserve more investment, because they’re more of them and they contribute more economically?
|
On November 19 2019 04:57 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:34 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2019 02:27 reborn8u2 wrote:
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. Also for the most part even the coastal states still are largely rural. The US city size isn't that big even for the few exceptions. The rural city divide happens with in every state, the fact we label states and rural or not is because of the failure of representation on the federal level. States are not monolithic, it's only because the current system makes it appear that way that we think of them as such.
Western coastal state *land* is mostly rural. The people are mostly industrialized
|
At the rate things are changing, I expect Tupac will win Iowa.
|
On November 19 2019 08:26 Mohdoo wrote:
At the rate things are changing, I expect Tupac will win Iowa.
We're seeing the Democrat version of Republicans in 2016 where even candidates with 0 chance to win had some time at the top of polls.
|
Biden being anti weed is the peak ok boomer moment of the election so far. What in the world is this shit show campaign
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
