|
Why would you assume Hong Kong and Singapore would be GOP?
Also, if people moved from there to say, Florida, they wouldn't automatically get a vote that counted. That's true of PR and DC : they are already american citizens, they just don't have a vote that matters. If they move they do.
On November 06 2020 08:08 WombaT wrote:
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
I'm looking forward to people trying to pull this shit when we have more politicians from AOC's age group, who grew up on Gingrich and Bush era nonsense even before Trump.
|
I love how classic economics isn't regarded as the threat to human life on earth it is but as something desirable. I would lol if it weren't so dire
|
United States10532 Posts
|
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?
The answer is : a 2 party system is shit and means a whole lot of ideas and thoughts are shut down. Congrats.
|
Every time Trump and his satellites say something really dumb I grow more sure the adults in that room have no plan for an organized challenge of the results (in fact, I think the adults all hit the big red "eject" button in the room when they saw the PA numbers). They still seem to be just doing whatever Trump wants, which seems like the worst strategy out there given his inability to pass an AP Gov test.
|
On November 06 2020 08:09 Artisreal wrote:
I love how classic economics isn't regarded as the threat to human life on earth it is but as something desirable. I would lol if it weren't so dire
I remember in high school when we had to read The Jungle, that period of American history of extreme capitalism was very fucked. Poor Jurgis.
|
Northern Ireland27240 Posts
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?
Singapore and Hong Kong are not in US territory, subject to its laws etc.
Speaking of self-propriety, the lowest possible level of that is the self. So why do boundaries and states seem to supersede that in your argumentation here?
The popular vote is bad, elevating other places to statehood is bad and I’m not sure of the consistent rationale underpinning it.
An argument can be made for a much less large and impactful federal government by all means, I don’t see anything contradictory there at all. But considering it is currently, and not all votes count equally in that respect why is that a reasonable state of affairs?
|
On November 06 2020 08:08 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:07 FragKrag wrote: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.
What? I actually prefer a divided government as I prefer gridlock rather than the inexorable expansion of statism (faster under dems slower with reps). Im ecstatic GOP kept the Senate (could care less if Trump won or not given that scenario). (Its also not like the GOP reverses the awful impositions from the past. Still have ACA, still have all the gun laws from 86, 68, 34, still have the Patriot Act, still have all these ABC departments and agencies, etc. So having GOP control all 3 branches is not exactly thrilling for me)
|
On November 06 2020 08:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:08 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 08:07 FragKrag wrote: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. What? I actually prefer a divided government as I prefer gridlock rather than the inexorable expansion of statism (faster under dems slower with reps). Im ecstatic GOP kept the Senate (could care less if Trump won or not given that scenario).
All the more reason you should prefer a multi party system with coalitions for governments. You would LOVE belgium. No government at all for years at a time ! But well, I'll stop there...
|
I've had a bad feeling about Arizona for a while now and this doesn't really help with that.
|
Northern Ireland27240 Posts
On November 06 2020 08:18 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:16 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 08:08 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 08:07 FragKrag wrote: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. What? I actually prefer a divided government as I prefer gridlock rather than the inexorable expansion of statism (faster under dems slower with reps). Im ecstatic GOP kept the Senate (could care less if Trump won or not given that scenario). All the more reason you should prefer a multi party system with coalitions for governments. You would LOVE belgium. No government at all for years at a time ! But well, I'll stop there...
Belgium are bastards, they took our record for longest time without a government (at least in a modern democracy) off of us
|
How even necessary is Arizona even, I’d basically write it off at this point imo
|
On November 06 2020 08:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:08 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 08:07 FragKrag wrote: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. What? I actually prefer a divided government as I prefer gridlock rather than the inexorable expansion of statism (faster under dems slower with reps). Im ecstatic GOP kept the Senate (could care less if Trump won or not given that scenario). (Its also not like the GOP reverses the awful impositions from the past. Still have ACA, still have all the gun laws from 86, 68, 34, still have the Patriot Act, still have all these ABC departments and agencies, etc. So having GOP control all 3 branches is not exactly thrilling for me)
Is this the "Thank god our system is bad so they can't get anything done, because government doesn't work" argument?
|
12 minutes till trump,this is going to be "fun".
AZ would be nice to keep for Biden,seeing all the issues arising in PA (which isnt even sure to turn yet).
Safest would be a 2 state margin,if it comes down to one state all legal efforts will focus on that.
|
United States10532 Posts
On November 06 2020 08:20 Zambrah wrote:
How even necessary is Arizona even, I’d basically write it off at this point imo
Not necessary with how PA is going right now.
|
On November 06 2020 08:21 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:20 Zambrah wrote:
How even necessary is Arizona even, I’d basically write it off at this point imo Not necessary with how PA is going right now.
If PA somehow fucks up then it is necessary tho.
|
On November 06 2020 08:20 pmh wrote:
12 minutes till trump,this is going to be "fun".
Probably more like 30, punctuality and Trump don't really go together.
|
On November 06 2020 08:20 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:16 Wegandi wrote:On November 06 2020 08:08 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 06 2020 08:07 FragKrag wrote: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. What? I actually prefer a divided government as I prefer gridlock rather than the inexorable expansion of statism (faster under dems slower with reps). Im ecstatic GOP kept the Senate (could care less if Trump won or not given that scenario). (Its also not like the GOP reverses the awful impositions from the past. Still have ACA, still have all the gun laws from 86, 68, 34, still have the Patriot Act, still have all these ABC departments and agencies, etc. So having GOP control all 3 branches is not exactly thrilling for me) Is this the "Thank god our system is bad so they can't get anything done, because government doesn't work" argument?
Yes. This is also why Danglars advocated the filibuster. Being unable to even discuss something without 3/5 of the chamber agreeing with you highly stifles progress.
|
your Country52798 Posts
I would prefer to win Arizona given that I don't trust the electoral process at this point and would prefer as much of a margin as possible.
|
On November 06 2020 08:21 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 08:20 Zambrah wrote:
How even necessary is Arizona even, I’d basically write it off at this point imo Not necessary with how PA is going right now.
Still I remain with "Every EV more helps with shutting down Trumps court shenanigans faster."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
