EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4038
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43203 Posts
On August 03 2023 18:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: Gerrymandering isnt actually a factor in presidential elections. The state of Maine literally exists due to gerrymandering. They redistricted the state of Massachusetts to create two anti slave districts because of Missouri. The state of Puerto Rico doesn’t due to gerrymandering. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35161 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
On August 03 2023 23:14 KwarK wrote: The state of Maine literally exists due to gerrymandering. They redistricted the state of Massachusetts to create two anti slave districts because of Missouri. The state of Puerto Rico doesn’t due to gerrymandering. This puts the emphasis in the wrong place. The Missouri Compromise was mostly about the balance of power in the Senate, and a little about the House and almost none about the presidency. So mostly the Senate. And if you think about it, that makes sense. Admitting a new state has a far bigger impact on the Senate than the House or the Electoral College (though I suppose if you split a close state into two uncompetitive ones it could have a larger impact). Also amusing choice of Maine since it is only one of two states that splits its electoral college votes, though that does mean gerrymandering could matter there! Lol And as I've pointed out before, it was the slave states that wanted a proportional senate at the constitutional convention. History is funny that way. Edit:removed something not totally relevant edit 2: for clarity since I have a minute. The senate issue was also about population, as we all learned in school the small states were worried about being run over. but most of the southern states thought they would grow and wanted slaves to count for representation which would bolster their numbers. Madison was a slave holder from the largest state in the union and while he was a principled actor, one has to imagine his own concerns influence his bitter opposition to the Connecticut Compromise. + Show Spoiler + But he contended that the States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but principally from the effects of their having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in forming the great division of interests in the U. States. It did not lie between the large & small States: It lay between the Northern & Southern, and if any defensive power were necessary, it ought to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly impressed with this important truth that he had been casting about in his mind for some expedient that would answer the purpose. The one which had occurred was that instead of proportioning the votes of the States in both branches, to their respective numbers of inhabitants computing the slaves in the ratio of 5 to 3, they should be represented in one branch according to the number of free inhabitants only; and in the other according to the whole no. counting the slaves as if free. By this arrangement the Southern Scale would have the advantage in one House, and the Northern in the other. He had been restrained from proposing this expedient by two considerations: one was his unwillingness to urge any diversity of interests on an occasion where it is but too apt to arise of itself-the other was, the inequality of powers that must be vested in the two branches, and which wd. destroy the equilibrium of interests. From Madison's notes, June 30th. He wrote his own parts in 3rd person | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43203 Posts
On August 04 2023 06:39 JimmiC wrote: I wouldn't use funny as much as disturbing that more people wanted to keep slavery. Or is it funny that now there are less horrible people holding hostage and before it was a few decent people holding hostage? It’s funny that the free states wanted to count free men only for the purpose of representation whereas the slave states wanted to insist that slaves were people to the extent that they should be represented, but only let their owners vote. The 3/5ths compromise is misunderstood. The slaveowners wanted full representation for the slaves in congress, but they wanted to be the representative. The abolitionists wanted no representation because they correctly assumed that the slaveowners would use the voting power of their slaves to expand slavery. | ||
|
Slydie
1927 Posts
The senate issue was also about population, as we all learned in school the small states were worried about being run over. This point sums up how many in the US think about democracy: overrepresented minorities feel entitled not to have their power brought in line with the rest of the population. I had a discussion with a conservative saying exactly that he did not even consider the US a democracy, so he was 100% fine with whatever conservative overrepresentation the system would give him. Losing privilege feels like oppression. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6248 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18110 Posts
On August 05 2023 14:47 RvB wrote: Minority representation against majoritarian rule is one of the core tenets of modern liberal democracies. It's something you see in almost every Western country to an extent and without it we'd have no EU. You can argue that it is too much but I don't see anything wrong with the idea itself. The question here is obviously what minorities you intentionally overrepresent. In the US (and it seems a general trend worldwide) the minorities being overrepresented are mostly "people living in rural areas". This causes other minorities such as "black people" to be underrepresented because they mostly live in densely populated areas. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45013 Posts
On August 05 2023 14:47 RvB wrote: Minority representation against majoritarian rule is one of the core tenets of modern liberal democracies. It's something you see in almost every Western country to an extent and without it we'd have no EU. You can argue that it is too much but I don't see anything wrong with the idea itself. Slydie specifically said overrepresentation and privilege, not merely representation. Not the same thing. In fact, a lot of times they function as opposites, such as looking for female representation when a system overrepresents and privileges men, or looking for representation of people of color when a system overrepresents and privileges white people. The issue isn't with representing groups, especially when it combats overrepresenting a privileged group. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6248 Posts
On August 05 2023 16:08 Acrofales wrote: The question here is obviously what minorities you intentionally overrepresent. In the US (and it seems a general trend worldwide) the minorities being overrepresented are mostly "people living in rural areas". This causes other minorities such as "black people" to be underrepresented because they mostly live in densely populated areas. Sure I do not disagree that it can be too much or can have unintended consequences but on the other hand less populated areas being left behind or not sufficiently represented is not an imaginary concern. For instance, the gillets jaune were in part a response to a feeling of abandonment in rural areas, and in The Netherlands de Randstad dominates politics and other parts of the countries feel left behind. On August 05 2023 19:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Slydie specifically said overrepresentation and privilege, not merely representation. Not the same thing. In fact, a lot of times they function as opposites, such as looking for female representation when a system overrepresents and privileges men, or looking for representation of people of color when a system overrepresents and privileges white people. The issue isn't with representing groups, especially when it combats overrepresenting a privileged group. Not the same thing but sometimes overrepresentation is required. You cannot prevent a tyranny of the majority without overrepresenting the minority. Dismissing it as a privilege ignores the real concern that small states have. I am pro EU but I don't want France and Germany to push through European legislation because they happen to be the two biggest states in the union. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On August 06 2023 17:08 RvB wrote: What people are dismissing as a privilege is overrepresentation to the point that tyranny of the minority is what we should be talking about preventing.Sure I do not disagree that it can be too much or can have unintended consequences but on the other hand less populated areas being left behind or not sufficiently represented is not an imaginary concern. For instance, the gillets jaune were in part a response to a feeling of abandonment in rural areas, and in The Netherlands de Randstad dominates politics and other parts of the countries feel left behind. Not the same thing but sometimes overrepresentation is required. You cannot prevent a tyranny of the majority without overrepresenting the minority. Dismissing it as a privilege ignores the real concern that small states have. I am pro EU but I don't want France and Germany to push through European legislation because they happen to be the two biggest states in the union. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43203 Posts
You don’t need to give minorities additional votes in the legislative. That’s just tyranny of the minority. Tyranny of the majority is prevented by placing limits on what a majority can do while still allowing it to be a majority. The problem isn’t the majority part, it’s the tyranny part. Just stop them from being tyrants. Constrain the power of the legislative in total, don’t steal power from one group within the legislative and gift it to a specific minority group. How Americans think tyranny of the majority should be prevented is by picking exactly one specific minority, rich white men, and giving them more legislative power. To me that suggests that they’re not upset by the tyranny part, just that they’re not the majority. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21948 Posts
On August 07 2023 01:57 KwarK wrote:To me that suggests that they’re not upset by the tyranny part, just that they’re not the majority. Sounds like a perfect description of the GOP. especially post jan 6th when the mask came off and they showed to be perfectly ok with a fascist takeover attempt to install a literally tyranny. But it was attempted by their guy so it was fine. | ||
|
Slydie
1927 Posts
On August 07 2023 01:57 KwarK wrote: You can prevent tyranny of the majority through things like a strong bill of rights and requiring supermajorities or allowing for vetos. That allows for protection of a minority from the majority without allowing for the minority to impose it's will on the majority. You don’t need to give minorities additional votes in the legislative. That’s just tyranny of the minority. Tyranny of the majority is prevented by placing limits on what a majority can do while still allowing it to be a majority. The problem isn’t the majority part, it’s the tyranny part. Just stop them from being tyrants. Constrain the power of the legislative in total, don’t steal power from one group within the legislative and gift it to a specific minority group. How Americans think tyranny of the majority should be prevented is by picking exactly one specific minority, rich white men, and giving them more legislative power. To me that suggests that they’re not upset by the tyranny part, just that they’re not the majority. That is what I mean, the overrepresented groups in the US feel ENTITLED to their overrepresentation, and call any intent of removing their privilege "tyranny of the majority", which is pure spin, imo. | ||
|
captainwaffles
United States1050 Posts
https://showinfrared.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-maga-communism Even if you're not a marxist, it's a good read. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28706 Posts
What a load of nonsensical drivel. Not a good read. I don't usually make posts like these because I want to encourage people to honestly engage with source material they disagree with, but this had me shaking my head going 'what?' several times in every paragraph. I've many times thought, when our resident right wingers have linked opinion pieces from right wing outlets, that 'okay, I totally disagree, but this is coherent and it does make sense'. Here, I cannot be that charitable. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43203 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18110 Posts
On August 08 2023 16:45 captainwaffles wrote: Has anyone here read the MAGACommunism substack? https://showinfrared.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-maga-communism Even if you're not a marxist, it's a good read. Whether you are a Marxist or not, that is the most inane drivel I have clicked on all month. And I clicked on some of your previous links too! | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6992 Posts
On August 08 2023 20:22 Acrofales wrote: Whether you are a Marxist or not, that is the most inane drivel I have clicked on all month. And I clicked on some of your previous links too! Mr Waffles here is a regular in all politic threads here on TL (US, China, War thread) and his posts and links are ... special. | ||
| ||
