|
On November 06 2020 07:46 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:22 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
IIRC Republicans currently have like a ~+8 advantage in the Senate relative to the popular vote (that is, if they lost every election by 8 points in the popular vote, they’d keep 50 senators on average). Adding PR and DC would bring that to ~+4. “That would give Dems too much advantage” is a pretty weak argument against, and basically every argument against using the popular vote (e.g. ensuring less populous groups’ interests are still represented) would cut in favor of representing the people of DC and PR, too. Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen is because Republicans have a lot of power, and appear not to have a single principle they prioritize more highly than obtaining more power.
Designing the whole system around incentivizing politicians to do whatever it takes to win elections has really negative consequences in situations where those same politicians get to make decisions about the electoral machinery. It’s not obvious how to solve that problem democratically, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Electoral College stuff are all victims of that problem (and all seem to be getting worse as time goes on). A few years ago people were optimistic about a judicial branch solution to the gerrymandering issue, but I assume everyone’s given up on that. The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on- ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing. Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well. One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one. It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. With the way things are going the minority party will have no standing at the national level. All the levers of action for the minority party to use are getting either eroded or abolished, so it does matter if whoever that party be has the competitive ability to pursue that position of power while representing their constituents (hence the well just be more like the other party to try and nudge into their advantage isn't persuasive; the parties can do that now if they wanted). Since admission of states is a political issue and not a moral one (you don't have to make DC a state - thats not the only solution for representation, but we never hear about any other alternatives from the parties who when making it a state would be the sole beneficiery), it gets a political answer. My point about the states (the # is irrelevant in this instance) is that youre pointing to individual votes leading into national popular votes to measure in your comparison of what "should be", but our institutions are republican and based on collections of people. Power devolved to the states, Senate based on the states, etc. You cannot dismiss how our power structures are set up. If you gave Dems auto 4 Senators right now you'd put the GOP into a near permanent minority status. Thats untenable politically. If you put yourself in their shoes what would be your reaction? Has the minority party tried not being absolute shitheads and actually appeal to a majority of voters instead of relying on outdated and archeic systems rather then actual democracy?
|
|
|
On November 06 2020 08:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:22 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
IIRC Republicans currently have like a ~+8 advantage in the Senate relative to the popular vote (that is, if they lost every election by 8 points in the popular vote, they’d keep 50 senators on average). Adding PR and DC would bring that to ~+4. “That would give Dems too much advantage” is a pretty weak argument against, and basically every argument against using the popular vote (e.g. ensuring less populous groups’ interests are still represented) would cut in favor of representing the people of DC and PR, too. Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen is because Republicans have a lot of power, and appear not to have a single principle they prioritize more highly than obtaining more power.
Designing the whole system around incentivizing politicians to do whatever it takes to win elections has really negative consequences in situations where those same politicians get to make decisions about the electoral machinery. It’s not obvious how to solve that problem democratically, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Electoral College stuff are all victims of that problem (and all seem to be getting worse as time goes on). A few years ago people were optimistic about a judicial branch solution to the gerrymandering issue, but I assume everyone’s given up on that. The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on- ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing. Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well. One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one. It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. With the way things are going the minority party will have no standing at the national level. All the levers of action for the minority party to use are getting either eroded or abolished, so it does matter if whoever that party be has the competitive ability to pursue that position of power while representing their constituents (hence the well just be more like the other party to try and nudge into their advantage isn't persuasive; the parties can do that now if they wanted). Since admission of states is a political issue and not a moral one (you don't have to make DC a state - thats not the only solution for representation, but we never hear about any other alternatives from the parties who when making it a state would be the sole beneficiery), it gets a political answer. My point about the states (the # is irrelevant in this instance) is that youre pointing to individual votes leading into national popular votes to measure in your comparison of what "should be", but our institutions are republican and based on collections of people. Power devolved to the states, Senate based on the states, etc. You cannot dismiss how our power structures are set up. If you gave Dems auto 4 Senators right now you'd put the GOP into a near permanent minority status. Thats untenable politically. If you put yourself in their shoes what would be your reaction? Has the minority party tried not being absolute shitheads?
Not since about 1994
|
United States10588 Posts
On November 06 2020 08:01 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:57 WombaT wrote:
I’m massively impressed that Flash got his post count up from 1337 to nearly but not quite over 9000 in like 3 days He does tend to spam a lot, you see... :p
Haven't we voted you off in the BW staff discord and you refuse to accept the election? Sounds like a Trumper over here if you ask me.
|
I expect Trump to echo this during the "press conference" tonight.
I expect our media to fail said ethics of airing this live.
|
On November 06 2020 08:01 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:59 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump to speak @ 630 ET.
I don't expect he will concede. How many hours from now is that? (for us Europeans)  There's a clock showing American, European and Korean time in the top right of the page you're looking at right now.
Oh man. I've been a member since long before Starcraft 2 and I've missed that all the way up until now.... xD
|
United States10588 Posts
|
Trump gonna speak in the next hour cnn says.
This is going to drag on for weeks.
|
United States10588 Posts
Not even trying to hide their partisanship.
|
your Country52798 Posts
This is so transparent. Like, they even said they were going to try to do this before nominating and confirming her in record time.
|
On November 06 2020 07:21 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:07 Slydie wrote:On November 06 2020 07:00 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:50 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 06:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:39 Shinokuki wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
IIRC Republicans currently have like a ~+8 advantage in the Senate relative to the popular vote (that is, if they lost every election by 8 points in the popular vote, they’d keep 50 senators on average). Adding PR and DC would bring that to ~+4. “That would give Dems too much advantage” is a pretty weak argument against, and basically every argument against using the popular vote (e.g. ensuring less populous groups’ interests are still represented) would cut in favor of representing the people of DC and PR, too. Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen is because Republicans have a lot of power, and appear not to have a single principle they prioritize more highly than obtaining more power.
Designing the whole system around incentivizing politicians to do whatever it takes to win elections has really negative consequences in situations where those same politicians get to make decisions about the electoral machinery. It’s not obvious how to solve that problem democratically, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Electoral College stuff are all victims of that problem (and all seem to be getting worse as time goes on). A few years ago people were optimistic about a judicial branch solution to the gerrymandering issue, but I assume everyone’s given up on that. The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). Just like amy coney barrett and any other slimy GOP trying to reason why HURR DURR should be like this. No country is adopting this archaic voting system based on some 1800 slave owner Read the Federalist Papers and the ratifying conventions and understand the Articles of Confederation. Youre just displaying your ignorance to the world. You realize that the Federalist Papers are not the last word for interpreting the creation of this nation right? Jesus conservatives cling onto that shit as much as the bible. Those documents and debates are central to the formation and nature of our Government and its institutions. If you want to understand the how and why of them you must know that history and those documents. You need to read Madison and Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists and understand the precursor Articles of Confederation. Just saying huuur durrr slave owner is peak stupidity. Id also add itd be a good idea to read Locke and Montisqeue but whatever. Or you can move the attention to the present and see how every other western country has a vastly superior election system. USA is just not a modern nation anymore, and is losing ground on so many fronts. Being stuck in the past will not help you out of the misery. I said last time that electing Trump was abandoning the position as a superpower, and it might be lost forever. You realize most nations have modeled their country and institutions off the US right? Having bicameral legislature, judicial branch with SC, checks and balances and a constitution, etc. When the US ratified the Constitution there were almost no similarly styled countries in the world (the Iroquous nation were probably the closest in practice). You can thank the US for how Germany was set up post unification.
And most nations modelled themselves off of Greece once upon a time, too. Doesn't mean Greece retained its prominence.
|
I dunno, if the best Trump can do is a naked appeal to judicial intervention on television, he's toast.
|
On November 06 2020 07:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:22 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
IIRC Republicans currently have like a ~+8 advantage in the Senate relative to the popular vote (that is, if they lost every election by 8 points in the popular vote, they’d keep 50 senators on average). Adding PR and DC would bring that to ~+4. “That would give Dems too much advantage” is a pretty weak argument against, and basically every argument against using the popular vote (e.g. ensuring less populous groups’ interests are still represented) would cut in favor of representing the people of DC and PR, too. Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen is because Republicans have a lot of power, and appear not to have a single principle they prioritize more highly than obtaining more power.
Designing the whole system around incentivizing politicians to do whatever it takes to win elections has really negative consequences in situations where those same politicians get to make decisions about the electoral machinery. It’s not obvious how to solve that problem democratically, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Electoral College stuff are all victims of that problem (and all seem to be getting worse as time goes on). A few years ago people were optimistic about a judicial branch solution to the gerrymandering issue, but I assume everyone’s given up on that. The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on- ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing. Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well. One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one. It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. With the way things are going the minority party will have no standing at the national level. All the levers of action for the minority party to use are getting either eroded or abolished, so it does matter if whoever that party be has the competitive ability to pursue that position of power while representing their constituents (hence the well just be more like the other party to try and nudge into their advantage isn't persuasive; the parties can do that now if they wanted). Since admission of states is a political issue and not a moral one (you don't have to make DC a state - thats not the only solution for representation, but we never hear about any other alternatives from the parties who when making it a state would be the sole beneficiery), it gets a political answer. My point about the states (the # is irrelevant in this instance) is that youre pointing to individual votes leading into national popular votes to measure in your comparison of what "should be", but our institutions are republican and based on collections of people. Power devolved to the states, Senate based on the states, etc. You cannot dismiss how our power structures are set up. If you gave Dems auto 4 Senators right now you'd put the GOP into a near permanent minority status. Thats untenable politically. If you put yourself in their shoes what would be your reaction? Why is that a bad thing? If markets self-correct and resolve a whole slew of problems in all domains why would this not apply to the two political parties?
Markets are about allocation of resources and the moral extension of self-propriety. Political parties represent political ideals and values. Theyre nothing alike. How about if we added Singapore and Hong Kong so we added a permanent 4 GOP seats relegating Dems to near permanent minority status. Would you argue that the Dems need to kick out AOC and Sanders and move towards more classically liberal positions on economics?
|
United States10588 Posts
|
On November 06 2020 08:01 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:55 Zambrah wrote:
Better pray that Democrats rally their ground game for the special election, every Senate seat is going to be extremely precious. Two big questions in my mind regarding the special elections are. 1) How will the lack of Trump on the ballot affect the races? 2) Can Democrats assemble enough enthusiasm and converted moderates to vote for one or two Democratic senators? Democrats tend to struggle to turnout in these situations I've read, meaning both likely both go to the GOP. But the prospect of an additional two senators could be drastic in the make-up of the Senate, and Democrats can't afford to let this slip. They better get Abrams on the ground ASAP to start establishing more ground game in Georgia if they want a hope of winning even one.
Those are indeed the questions.
Republicans have been more reliable for these sorts of things, we've SEEN what overestimating gets us in these down ballot races and Democrats might have some fire lit under their asses after an ultimately humiliating defeat in the House and Senate as of right now.
Its really going to rely on the people like Abrams getting people out there to vote.
I hope its an illustration of what Democrats need to focus on DOING, get enthusiasm going, get a good ground game, talk to people.
|
On November 06 2020 08:05 FlaShFTW wrote:Not even trying to hide their partisanship.
It's difficult to remember to hide things you are proud of.
|
On November 06 2020 08:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 07:53 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2020 07:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:22 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
IIRC Republicans currently have like a ~+8 advantage in the Senate relative to the popular vote (that is, if they lost every election by 8 points in the popular vote, they’d keep 50 senators on average). Adding PR and DC would bring that to ~+4. “That would give Dems too much advantage” is a pretty weak argument against, and basically every argument against using the popular vote (e.g. ensuring less populous groups’ interests are still represented) would cut in favor of representing the people of DC and PR, too. Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen is because Republicans have a lot of power, and appear not to have a single principle they prioritize more highly than obtaining more power.
Designing the whole system around incentivizing politicians to do whatever it takes to win elections has really negative consequences in situations where those same politicians get to make decisions about the electoral machinery. It’s not obvious how to solve that problem democratically, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Electoral College stuff are all victims of that problem (and all seem to be getting worse as time goes on). A few years ago people were optimistic about a judicial branch solution to the gerrymandering issue, but I assume everyone’s given up on that. The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on- ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing. Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well. One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one. It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. With the way things are going the minority party will have no standing at the national level. All the levers of action for the minority party to use are getting either eroded or abolished, so it does matter if whoever that party be has the competitive ability to pursue that position of power while representing their constituents (hence the well just be more like the other party to try and nudge into their advantage isn't persuasive; the parties can do that now if they wanted). Since admission of states is a political issue and not a moral one (you don't have to make DC a state - thats not the only solution for representation, but we never hear about any other alternatives from the parties who when making it a state would be the sole beneficiery), it gets a political answer. My point about the states (the # is irrelevant in this instance) is that youre pointing to individual votes leading into national popular votes to measure in your comparison of what "should be", but our institutions are republican and based on collections of people. Power devolved to the states, Senate based on the states, etc. You cannot dismiss how our power structures are set up. If you gave Dems auto 4 Senators right now you'd put the GOP into a near permanent minority status. Thats untenable politically. If you put yourself in their shoes what would be your reaction? Why is that a bad thing? If markets self-correct and resolve a whole slew of problems in all domains why would this not apply to the two political parties? Markets are about allocation of resources and the moral extension of self-propriety. Political parties represent political ideals and values. Theyre nothing alike. How about if we added Singapore and Hong Kong so we added a permanent 4 GOP seats relegating Dems to near permanent minority status. Would you argue that the Dems need to kick out AOC and Sanders and move towards more classically liberal positions on economics?
you are becoming incomprehensible
|
Northern Ireland27471 Posts
I’m really looking forward to the next iteration of ‘partisanship is bad stop calling Republicans mean you’re killing the civic fabric’ and having all this ridiculous gold to just throw back at that notion
|
United States10588 Posts
On November 06 2020 08:07 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:06 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:53 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2020 07:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 07:22 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
IIRC Republicans currently have like a ~+8 advantage in the Senate relative to the popular vote (that is, if they lost every election by 8 points in the popular vote, they’d keep 50 senators on average). Adding PR and DC would bring that to ~+4. “That would give Dems too much advantage” is a pretty weak argument against, and basically every argument against using the popular vote (e.g. ensuring less populous groups’ interests are still represented) would cut in favor of representing the people of DC and PR, too. Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen is because Republicans have a lot of power, and appear not to have a single principle they prioritize more highly than obtaining more power.
Designing the whole system around incentivizing politicians to do whatever it takes to win elections has really negative consequences in situations where those same politicians get to make decisions about the electoral machinery. It’s not obvious how to solve that problem democratically, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Electoral College stuff are all victims of that problem (and all seem to be getting worse as time goes on). A few years ago people were optimistic about a judicial branch solution to the gerrymandering issue, but I assume everyone’s given up on that. The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on- ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing. Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well. One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one. It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. With the way things are going the minority party will have no standing at the national level. All the levers of action for the minority party to use are getting either eroded or abolished, so it does matter if whoever that party be has the competitive ability to pursue that position of power while representing their constituents (hence the well just be more like the other party to try and nudge into their advantage isn't persuasive; the parties can do that now if they wanted). Since admission of states is a political issue and not a moral one (you don't have to make DC a state - thats not the only solution for representation, but we never hear about any other alternatives from the parties who when making it a state would be the sole beneficiery), it gets a political answer. My point about the states (the # is irrelevant in this instance) is that youre pointing to individual votes leading into national popular votes to measure in your comparison of what "should be", but our institutions are republican and based on collections of people. Power devolved to the states, Senate based on the states, etc. You cannot dismiss how our power structures are set up. If you gave Dems auto 4 Senators right now you'd put the GOP into a near permanent minority status. Thats untenable politically. If you put yourself in their shoes what would be your reaction? Why is that a bad thing? If markets self-correct and resolve a whole slew of problems in all domains why would this not apply to the two political parties? Markets are about allocation of resources and the moral extension of self-propriety. Political parties represent political ideals and values. Theyre nothing alike. How about if we added Singapore and Hong Kong so we added a permanent 4 GOP seats relegating Dems to near permanent minority status. Would you argue that the Dems need to kick out AOC and Sanders and move towards more classically liberal positions on economics? you are becoming incomprehensible
Yeah not sure what he's going off of anymore. Feel like maybe his bias is showing a bit too much and he just needs to double down on everything. He definitely has not had a fun time with this election.
|
lol.
Amy, you owe me - Trump
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
