|
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 November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote:On November 07 2018 22:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2018 18:00 Kyadytim wrote:
To use a Starcraft analogy, the Republican party is playing Starcraft on a machine with hacks installed. They didn't install the hacks, but they're lying about having them and refusing to turn them off, and instead leveraging them for every advantage they can get. And then they're pointing to their ladder ranking and head to head winrates as evidence of how good they are at the game. Obviously, Democrats don't want to use ladder rankings or head to head winrates as a measure of comparative skill, because Republicans are hacking. And the underlying issue that I keep talking about is that Democrats are getting sick of playing Starcraft against a hacker.
In this analogy, playing Starcraft against someone is participating in the same democratic process with an opposing party and respecting its outcomes. The problem with your analogy is that democrats were playing on the hacks computer for a long time and only seem to care now that the Republicans have their turn. What? The hacks in this case are the structural advantages Republicans have because the Senate and to a lesser extent the House are designed to give extra representation to people living in sparsely populated states. It's only recently that US political parties started splitting so cleanly on the urban/rural divide. On November 07 2018 21:39 Silvanel wrote:
If the demographic trends hold i think in 10-20 years we might see big democratic states go "No taxation without FAIR representation". Exactly. We can have a conversation about if power has swung too far towards small states versus large states, but I suspect the small states will use that same "No taxation without fair representation" line after you've swung power in the other direction towards the larger states.
Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people")
To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal.
|
On November 08 2018 03:09 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 02:50 semantics wrote:On November 08 2018 00:57 plasmidghost wrote:
Now that I've slept on it and the disappointment's somewhat worn off, it's amazing that a Democrat was able to get so much support in Texas. Being only 2.6% behind is not something to sneeze at, and perhaps when Cruz is up for reelection in 2024, we could vote in a Democrat. I highly doubt John Cornyn will come anywhere remotely close to being beaten by a Democrat in 2020, though If cruz is on the ballot in 2024 i would expect that, people i've known in texas vote for him reluctantly just to avoid voting for a democrat. At Least in the group of independents/republicans they hang out with he's not really liked he's just the dead fish that better than a democrat. On November 08 2018 01:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 07 2018 23:19 Atreides wrote:
The gerrymandering of house seats is pretty egregious and extremely difficult to defend in general, but I am sure you could find some historically democratic districts with bizarre boundaries also.
That is ENTIRELY different than the argument being made here about the senate and the popular vote in general (electoral college in presidential years). People who bash on those are quick to point out the arguments in favor of the popular vote, but never even bother to address the arguments against it. Which have existed for 250 years and are why the systems exist so they don't exactly need listed out.
Furthermore I don't think EU posters in general understand the sheer geographical and social differences present. We are talking Estonia to France type levels pretty easily. The concern was made about how all the left leaning voters from the populations centers would begin to feel disenfranchised and would promote social unrest. Look at any Election Map. The exact same thing is true for all those vast expanses of red areas that would feel the exact same way if people from the coasts were dictating there day to day lives from THOUSANDS of miles away and they had no representation. Like pretty much any issue there is clearly two sides to it, and it is hard to imagine a nice, clean solution to the undeniably shitty situation. What does the damage which gerrymandering does to democratic institutions got to do with social and geographical difference? Many people outside of USA have relatives in USA and have traveled to various culturally differently places in USA, and in any case the urban/rural divide is pretty common in all democratic countries (and even some authoritarian ones!), it's not something special at all you are trying to make out. What is special however is the sheer political tribalism in USA, but all posters here are well aware of that. We have people in this very forum who appear to be arguing against correcting the gerrymandering, now that's a social difference which is present worth talking about. That is what gerrymandering encourages. Packing cracking and kidnapping encourage very safe democrat/republican seats in a two party system which tend to lead more to political extremes as opposed to just right of middle which is what most americans actually are. This tribalism increases because there is no punishment by voters when going to the extremes because representatives choose their voters. So the popular rhetoric is to those who are elected which is the extreme encouraging tribalism and breaking down confidence in the system by the voter. On November 08 2018 01:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 08 2018 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Never got it, what’s the problem with Pelosi? She represents far liberal policies. The district she represents is the heart of san francisco a super safe liberal district. Essentially things republicans hate it could be a mistake if the democrats wish to use their strategy that did them well for years in trying to appeal to just right of center which is what most of america actually is. I'm sorry, but that needs a citation. Or a qualifier, or something. If you're saying that most Americans are right of center by European standards, fine. But you can't just assert that most Americans are right of center by American standards with no supporting evidence. A majority of Americans voted for Clinton in 2016, and by the NYT dems are currently up 51,142,767 votes to 47,083,141 votes. Both of these indicate that a majority of Americans are left leaning by American standards.
It's american right of center by american standards.
http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/wide-gender-gap-growing-educational-divide-in-voters-party-identification/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead-ideology-down-single-digits.aspx
There has always been a divide though when you go though self identify vs how people vote. It's where you get the slurs RINO/DINO and have groups like blue dog democrats. Party affiliation and how people view issues and themselves are all different things.
|
Looks like DJT has been reading some Juche thought on how reporters who ask tough questions should be handled. DJT is back to full on Stalinist "enemy of the people" branding for media that ask him questions he doesn't like. This is the Republican party right now.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote:On November 07 2018 22:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2018 18:00 Kyadytim wrote:
To use a Starcraft analogy, the Republican party is playing Starcraft on a machine with hacks installed. They didn't install the hacks, but they're lying about having them and refusing to turn them off, and instead leveraging them for every advantage they can get. And then they're pointing to their ladder ranking and head to head winrates as evidence of how good they are at the game. Obviously, Democrats don't want to use ladder rankings or head to head winrates as a measure of comparative skill, because Republicans are hacking. And the underlying issue that I keep talking about is that Democrats are getting sick of playing Starcraft against a hacker.
In this analogy, playing Starcraft against someone is participating in the same democratic process with an opposing party and respecting its outcomes. The problem with your analogy is that democrats were playing on the hacks computer for a long time and only seem to care now that the Republicans have their turn. What? The hacks in this case are the structural advantages Republicans have because the Senate and to a lesser extent the House are designed to give extra representation to people living in sparsely populated states. It's only recently that US political parties started splitting so cleanly on the urban/rural divide. On November 07 2018 21:39 Silvanel wrote:
If the demographic trends hold i think in 10-20 years we might see big democratic states go "No taxation without FAIR representation". Exactly. We can have a conversation about if power has swung too far towards small states versus large states, but I suspect the small states will use that same "No taxation without fair representation" line after you've swung power in the other direction towards the larger states. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal.
and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system.
|
On November 08 2018 04:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote:On November 07 2018 22:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2018 18:00 Kyadytim wrote:
To use a Starcraft analogy, the Republican party is playing Starcraft on a machine with hacks installed. They didn't install the hacks, but they're lying about having them and refusing to turn them off, and instead leveraging them for every advantage they can get. And then they're pointing to their ladder ranking and head to head winrates as evidence of how good they are at the game. Obviously, Democrats don't want to use ladder rankings or head to head winrates as a measure of comparative skill, because Republicans are hacking. And the underlying issue that I keep talking about is that Democrats are getting sick of playing Starcraft against a hacker.
In this analogy, playing Starcraft against someone is participating in the same democratic process with an opposing party and respecting its outcomes. The problem with your analogy is that democrats were playing on the hacks computer for a long time and only seem to care now that the Republicans have their turn. What? The hacks in this case are the structural advantages Republicans have because the Senate and to a lesser extent the House are designed to give extra representation to people living in sparsely populated states. It's only recently that US political parties started splitting so cleanly on the urban/rural divide. On November 07 2018 21:39 Silvanel wrote:
If the demographic trends hold i think in 10-20 years we might see big democratic states go "No taxation without FAIR representation". Exactly. We can have a conversation about if power has swung too far towards small states versus large states, but I suspect the small states will use that same "No taxation without fair representation" line after you've swung power in the other direction towards the larger states. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal. and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system.
they could, but that wouldn’t actually follow a logical argument. their interests would be taken into account proportionally. if 20% of the people were rural voters they’d be given 20% of the voting power, unless you had just misunderstood his point. or if you think they’d deserve more, that would be an interesting conversation i think.
|
The people who have their electoral power reduced will try to come up with any kind of argument in opposition, that doesn't mean those arguments are right nor that we shouldn't revisit the extent to which our system needs an updated reference to geographic divides.
|
A few at-large type seats seem like a good way to handle that, though small states would almost certainly balk at diluting their representation.
|
On November 08 2018 04:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote:On November 07 2018 22:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2018 18:00 Kyadytim wrote:
To use a Starcraft analogy, the Republican party is playing Starcraft on a machine with hacks installed. They didn't install the hacks, but they're lying about having them and refusing to turn them off, and instead leveraging them for every advantage they can get. And then they're pointing to their ladder ranking and head to head winrates as evidence of how good they are at the game. Obviously, Democrats don't want to use ladder rankings or head to head winrates as a measure of comparative skill, because Republicans are hacking. And the underlying issue that I keep talking about is that Democrats are getting sick of playing Starcraft against a hacker.
In this analogy, playing Starcraft against someone is participating in the same democratic process with an opposing party and respecting its outcomes. The problem with your analogy is that democrats were playing on the hacks computer for a long time and only seem to care now that the Republicans have their turn. What? The hacks in this case are the structural advantages Republicans have because the Senate and to a lesser extent the House are designed to give extra representation to people living in sparsely populated states. It's only recently that US political parties started splitting so cleanly on the urban/rural divide. On November 07 2018 21:39 Silvanel wrote:
If the demographic trends hold i think in 10-20 years we might see big democratic states go "No taxation without FAIR representation". Exactly. We can have a conversation about if power has swung too far towards small states versus large states, but I suspect the small states will use that same "No taxation without fair representation" line after you've swung power in the other direction towards the larger states. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal. and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system.
Except they would, they just wouldn't be over represented in the house, it's not like they would have no representatives in the house they would have many, plus in the senate, states that are predominantly rural would elect senators with rural interest in mind.
Not having any representatives and have many representatives are not the same thing. The only issue with trying to level out all representatives counting for the same amount in the house is that you'd need to increase the house size in order to better accommodate that. That or change the entire voting system to be more parliamentary.
|
Another problem is that following that line of argument, you can basically randomly divide all voters into two categories (let's say, "people from chicago" and "people not from chicago"), and demand that both categories need to be represented equally. You only realize how silly the arguments for overrepresentation of rural people are if you replace "rural people" by any other random category of people, and demand that they have half the power in government.
"the people from chicago would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live elsewhere, all their people win and no one represents people from chicago with your system." sounds like an absurd argument, yet
"the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system." is not?
|
On November 08 2018 04:19 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 04:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote:On November 07 2018 22:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2018 18:00 Kyadytim wrote:
To use a Starcraft analogy, the Republican party is playing Starcraft on a machine with hacks installed. They didn't install the hacks, but they're lying about having them and refusing to turn them off, and instead leveraging them for every advantage they can get. And then they're pointing to their ladder ranking and head to head winrates as evidence of how good they are at the game. Obviously, Democrats don't want to use ladder rankings or head to head winrates as a measure of comparative skill, because Republicans are hacking. And the underlying issue that I keep talking about is that Democrats are getting sick of playing Starcraft against a hacker.
In this analogy, playing Starcraft against someone is participating in the same democratic process with an opposing party and respecting its outcomes. The problem with your analogy is that democrats were playing on the hacks computer for a long time and only seem to care now that the Republicans have their turn. What? The hacks in this case are the structural advantages Republicans have because the Senate and to a lesser extent the House are designed to give extra representation to people living in sparsely populated states. It's only recently that US political parties started splitting so cleanly on the urban/rural divide. On November 07 2018 21:39 Silvanel wrote:
If the demographic trends hold i think in 10-20 years we might see big democratic states go "No taxation without FAIR representation". Exactly. We can have a conversation about if power has swung too far towards small states versus large states, but I suspect the small states will use that same "No taxation without fair representation" line after you've swung power in the other direction towards the larger states. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal. and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system. they could, but that wouldn’t actually follow a logical argument. their interests would be taken into account proportionally. if 20% of the people were rural voters they’d be given 20% of the voting power, unless you had just misunderstood his point. or if you think they’d deserve more, that would be an interesting conversation i think.
If you give me 20% of the voting power and the 80% overrides my interests every time do I actually have representation?
|
On November 08 2018 04:39 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 04:19 brian wrote:On November 08 2018 04:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote:On November 07 2018 22:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2018 18:00 Kyadytim wrote:
To use a Starcraft analogy, the Republican party is playing Starcraft on a machine with hacks installed. They didn't install the hacks, but they're lying about having them and refusing to turn them off, and instead leveraging them for every advantage they can get. And then they're pointing to their ladder ranking and head to head winrates as evidence of how good they are at the game. Obviously, Democrats don't want to use ladder rankings or head to head winrates as a measure of comparative skill, because Republicans are hacking. And the underlying issue that I keep talking about is that Democrats are getting sick of playing Starcraft against a hacker.
In this analogy, playing Starcraft against someone is participating in the same democratic process with an opposing party and respecting its outcomes. The problem with your analogy is that democrats were playing on the hacks computer for a long time and only seem to care now that the Republicans have their turn. What? The hacks in this case are the structural advantages Republicans have because the Senate and to a lesser extent the House are designed to give extra representation to people living in sparsely populated states. It's only recently that US political parties started splitting so cleanly on the urban/rural divide. On November 07 2018 21:39 Silvanel wrote:
If the demographic trends hold i think in 10-20 years we might see big democratic states go "No taxation without FAIR representation". Exactly. We can have a conversation about if power has swung too far towards small states versus large states, but I suspect the small states will use that same "No taxation without fair representation" line after you've swung power in the other direction towards the larger states. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal. and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system. they could, but that wouldn’t actually follow a logical argument. their interests would be taken into account proportionally. if 20% of the people were rural voters they’d be given 20% of the voting power, unless you had just misunderstood his point. or if you think they’d deserve more, that would be an interesting conversation i think. If you give me 20% of the voting power and the 80% overrides my interests every time do I actually have representation?
Yes, you have representation equal to your population. Giving the 20% rednecks equal or in many cases greater representation than the majority is just wrong and allows the uneducated minority to hold the country hostage and force regression.
|
Word is that Trump just gave Sessions the boot.
|
On November 08 2018 04:39 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 04:19 brian wrote:On November 08 2018 04:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote:On November 07 2018 22:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2018 18:00 Kyadytim wrote:
To use a Starcraft analogy, the Republican party is playing Starcraft on a machine with hacks installed. They didn't install the hacks, but they're lying about having them and refusing to turn them off, and instead leveraging them for every advantage they can get. And then they're pointing to their ladder ranking and head to head winrates as evidence of how good they are at the game. Obviously, Democrats don't want to use ladder rankings or head to head winrates as a measure of comparative skill, because Republicans are hacking. And the underlying issue that I keep talking about is that Democrats are getting sick of playing Starcraft against a hacker.
In this analogy, playing Starcraft against someone is participating in the same democratic process with an opposing party and respecting its outcomes. The problem with your analogy is that democrats were playing on the hacks computer for a long time and only seem to care now that the Republicans have their turn. What? The hacks in this case are the structural advantages Republicans have because the Senate and to a lesser extent the House are designed to give extra representation to people living in sparsely populated states. It's only recently that US political parties started splitting so cleanly on the urban/rural divide. On November 07 2018 21:39 Silvanel wrote:
If the demographic trends hold i think in 10-20 years we might see big democratic states go "No taxation without FAIR representation". Exactly. We can have a conversation about if power has swung too far towards small states versus large states, but I suspect the small states will use that same "No taxation without fair representation" line after you've swung power in the other direction towards the larger states. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal. and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system. they could, but that wouldn’t actually follow a logical argument. their interests would be taken into account proportionally. if 20% of the people were rural voters they’d be given 20% of the voting power, unless you had just misunderstood his point. or if you think they’d deserve more, that would be an interesting conversation i think. If you give me 20% of the voting power and the 80% overrides my interests every time do I actually have representation?
The alternative you're proposing is along the lines of 20% of the people have 50% of the representation which they use to override the interests of the other 80% of the people, which should be obviously terrible at a glance to anyone who understands democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Figure he was only keeping him around for the midterms then, though I doubt forcing him out would've really made a difference in the midterms.
|
What powers would a Congress appointed Mueller investigation lack that a DOJ one has? Don't forget, if rosenstein is fired, we march.
|
The elections on rural/urban has come up in British Columbia (Canadian province where I live) where we have a referendum ongoing, with results expected early December.
https://elections.bc.ca/referendum/voting-systems/voting-systems/
Ensuring that rural areas are represented, without causing them to have disproportionately less citizens per representative is a difficult goal because demographically, more and more people are moving to cities.
|
On November 08 2018 05:00 Zambrah wrote:
Figure he was only keeping him around for the midterms then, though I doubt forcing him out would've really made a difference in the midterms.
Pretend you are a senile man-baby for a bit. Why did you just lose the election badly last night? Fake news? The Russia Hoax? Shooters distracting from the Caravan? DJT doesn't have a plan here. He is just enraged that he lost and is lashing out at someone who he blames for his loss. DJT has long thought that Session's recusal is what caused the Russia Hoax from the start. Trump would have aborted the Mueller investigation a long time ago if his AG would have followed his orders. Remember that Trump see the AG as his lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
