Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I voted today!Follow

#227 Nov 20 2016 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
TirithRR wrote:
New York City has more people in it than what... the 10 least populous States combined? I view that as a problem to a pure popular vote, I do travel a bit for work, and in what handful of places I've been I have seen enough of a difference in the people.

I get that different people want different things, but why should people in New York City have their vote reduced? What exactly is wrong with a plurality getting what it wants? Isn't this the fundamental principle of a democracy? Aren't less people happy this way?

Why should two people in New York City not get what they want so that 1 person in Wyoming can?

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 7:41pm by Allegory
#228 Nov 20 2016 at 7:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It was less about people in Montana knowing what's going down in Florida and more about the logistics of collecting votes. Having each state be independently responsible for collecting their votes and send representatives to announce those results was easier than trying to tabulate a national total. Having those representatives be empowered to vote against the wishes of the populace was the "Just in case the common man can't be trusted with democracy" safety valve.

Neither of which is an applicable argument today. It's not about "we should get rid of it just because it's old" but rather "The excuses for making a voter in Wyoming more important than a voter in Texas" largely no longer apply.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#229 Nov 20 2016 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, I'll give you a chance to clarify before responding.


Mass media and new technologies allowing people to be exposed to or know what is going on around the world, doesn't necessarily change what is happening to them in their locale?


Ah, okay, that makes sense...

While it is true that it doesn't change what is happening to them in their locales, it does change the awareness of people of those same happenings inside of and outside of those locales. People outside of those locales are much better informed about what is happening inside those locales then they used to be. It doesn't take information weeks to travel from point A to point B, potentially not informing voters BEFORE they vote, now the information is available nigh instantaneously.

I am not saying people today are any better at making those hard choices then they were in the days of the founding fathers, I believe that people for the most part are myopic, ego-centric pricks, but they are now better informed myopic, ego-centric pricks.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#230 Nov 20 2016 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"New York has more people than ten states" isn't a great argument since not everyone in New York votes the same way. A national popular vote would mean that the Republican voter in New York is actually heard and the Democratic voter in Utah has their vote counted. Under the current system, both voters are essentially irrelevant.

2.64 million votes cast in New York for Trump made no difference because of the current system. Each of those people may as well have left the presidential ballot blank because the Electoral College makes them irrelevant. But I guess it makes Wyoming feel like those big city states aren't pushing them around so too bad for the 2.64mil people. That's not counting the people in New York who stayed home because they knew that their votes wouldn't matter.

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 8:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#231 Nov 20 2016 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Joph, I have to ask if you feel the same way that Jane Craig (Holly Hunter) did, in Broadcast News...

Broadcast News wrote:
Paul Moore: It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room.
Jane Craig: No. It's awful.


In other new, Professor stupidmonkey is quoted as saying "What Joph said."
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#232 Nov 20 2016 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
2.64 million votes cast in New York for Trump made no difference because of the current system. Each of those people may as well have left the presidential ballot blank because the Electoral College makes them irrelevant. But I guess it makes Wyoming feel like those big city states aren't pushing them around so too bad for the 2.64mil people I guess. That's not counting the people in New York who stayed home because they knew that their votes wouldn't matter.


The EC itself didn't make them pointless. But the way New York gives its electors did. How each State divvies up their electors isn't defined in the Constitution, right?

I think I did mention I could separate the EC, gerrymandering, and the "Winner takes all" rules of the States. I think Maine divides their House Electors up between the candidates.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#233 Nov 20 2016 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I think I did mention I could separate the EC, gerrymandering

This is an incredibly minor point, but the EC necessarily allows gerrymandering.
#234 Nov 20 2016 at 8:32 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Allegory wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
I think I did mention I could separate the EC, gerrymandering

This is an incredibly minor point, but the EC necessarily allows gerrymandering.


No. The EC doesn't allow gerrymandering. The EC is merely a combination of House and Senate allotments to elect a President. The district definitions happen before that.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#235 Nov 20 2016 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
States boundaries can be re-drawn to manipulate the size and constituency of a state.
#236 Nov 20 2016 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
The EC itself didn't make them pointless. But the way New York gives its electors did.

Political realities hold that states aren't likely to make this change unless it benefits them which is a side effect of the EC process.

Coincidentally, a couple states were looking at proportional allotment of EC votes a couple years ago after Romney lost -- Ohio, Michigan and Virginia. Even at the time, I said it would be a bad idea for the GOP state legislatures because if a Republican DID win those states after the change, they would have crippled themselves.

Maine allows a candidate to receive a single EV if they win one of its two districts. That's not the same as proportional allotment since the split will always be 100% or 75/25. Or 80/20 in the case of Nebraska, the other state allows someone to take a district.

That said, if the argument is that states should just make their allotments strictly proportional then it makes no sense to retain the EC anyway. If only some states do so, then you have the same issue of some states making their voters toothless. New York using a strict proportional system doesn't help the Democratic voter in Texas, or vice versa. It really is an issue with the Electoral College system, not a flaw with the states themselves.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#237 Nov 20 2016 at 9:06 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That said, if the argument is that states should just make their allotments strictly proportional then it makes no sense to retain the EC anyway. If only some states do so, then you have the same issue of some states making their voters toothless. New York using a strict proportional system doesn't help the Democratic voter in Texas, or vice versa. It really is an issue with the Electoral College system, not a flaw with the states themselves.


Well, even if all the States divided their electors up instead of winner takes all, it wouldn't be 100% proportional due to the way they get electors. So you'd still have the minimum 3 per State. So you'd still favor the bottom (of States).


Allegory wrote:
States boundaries can be re-drawn to manipulate the size and constituency of a state.


Honestly curious when the last time a State has tried to take land from another State to "Gerrymander" their State bigger? I guess I heard something in the Click Bait pile a couple years ago about "hey, they found this old map that saw this State was such and such and blah de blah"... but I don't recall States having their borders redrawn like congressional districts are to Gerrymander their constituency.

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 10:12pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#238 Nov 20 2016 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
Well, even if all the States divided their electors up instead of winner takes all, it wouldn't be 100% proportional due to the way they get electors.

So, again, it's a system of disenfranchisement. Which is a great argument against it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#239 Nov 20 2016 at 9:19 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Well, even if all the States divided their electors up instead of winner takes all, it wouldn't be 100% proportional due to the way they get electors.

So, again, it's a system of disenfranchisement. Which is a great argument against it.


Only if you start with the assumption that the perfect popular vote result equals best. But in my view, giving a slightly larger say to the smaller States is a benefit. How much of say exactly that the current EC would give vs not would be a result of how each State divvies up its electors. Winner-Takes-All, Proportional (within the State) or some combination of the two.

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 10:19pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#240 Nov 20 2016 at 9:24 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Allegory wrote:
States boundaries can be re-drawn to manipulate the size and constituency of a state.

Honestly curious when the last time a State has tried to take land from another State to "Gerrymander" their State bigger? I guess I heard something in the Click Bait pile a couple years ago about "hey, they found this old map that saw this State was such and such and blah de blah"... but I don't recall States having their borders redrawn like congressional districts are to Gerrymander their constituency.


I am sure that Allegory can answer this, but I assumed that what was meant was that states can have their district boundaries re-drawn, to change the size of the districts, which can effect the balance of party influence.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#241 Nov 20 2016 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
I really want it addressed why 2 people in New York should lose out so that 1 person in Wyoming can win. Isn't that setting up a system where less people are happy than could be?

To be blunt, TirithRR it seems like you're saying ********** you" to everyone who doesn't live in a rural area. You really don't seem to care how other people are ignored and shut out as long as your pet group gets what they want.
#242 Nov 20 2016 at 9:29 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Allegory wrote:
States boundaries can be re-drawn to manipulate the size and constituency of a state.

Honestly curious when the last time a State has tried to take land from another State to "Gerrymander" their State bigger? I guess I heard something in the Click Bait pile a couple years ago about "hey, they found this old map that saw this State was such and such and blah de blah"... but I don't recall States having their borders redrawn like congressional districts are to Gerrymander their constituency.


I am sure that Allegory can answer this, but I assumed that what was meant was that states can have their district boundaries re-drawn, to change the size of the districts, which can effect the balance of party influence.


So basically he just defined gerrymandering? But why would he do that, since it wasn't a response to anything previously mentioned.

EC doesn't allow Gerrymandering. That's a separate issue from it. The EC is affected by it, well, in a way... with almost all the States doing "Winner Takes All" the EC really isn't. Makeup of the House is affected by it mostly. And makeup of the EC would be if a State allotted electors based on their districts voting vs a winner takes all.


Allegory wrote:
To be blunt, TirithRR it seems like you're saying ********** you" to everyone who doesn't live in a rural area. You really don't seem to care how other people are ignored and shut out as long as your pet group gets what they want.


No, because the urban areas still carry some pretty hefty weights. The rural areas just carry more than one a pure popular vote would allow. One rural State vs New York... minimal impact. All the rural States vs New York? That makes a difference.

"My pet group" just happens to be the States. The thing we are a Union of. You don't care about the State, you seem to think of them as an obsolete structure (maybe not, but that's my impression). I don't. Nothing really about today's technology or media presence really makes me think otherwise.

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 10:35pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#243 Nov 20 2016 at 9:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Honestly curious when the last time a State has tried to take land from another State to "Gerrymander" their State bigger? I guess I heard something in the Click Bait pile a couple years ago about "hey, they found this old map that saw this State was such and such and blah de blah"... but I don't recall States having their borders redrawn like congressional districts are to Gerrymander their constituency.


That has a name.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#244 Nov 20 2016 at 9:42 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Honestly curious when the last time a State has tried to take land from another State to "Gerrymander" their State bigger? I guess I heard something in the Click Bait pile a couple years ago about "hey, they found this old map that saw this State was such and such and blah de blah"... but I don't recall States having their borders redrawn like congressional districts are to Gerrymander their constituency.


That has a name.


Seem to be relatively few, mostly long ago (a few more recent ones), and many dealing with natural resources and construction instead of things like populations and demographics. Guess I'm not going to bother reading into each instance, even though only 45 listed.

Edit:
So, not exactly worth mentioning in the same breath as congressional district gerrymandering.

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 10:46pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#245 Nov 20 2016 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
TirithRR wrote:
So basically he just defined gerrymandering? But why would he do that, since it wasn't a response to anything previously mentioned.


Well, I could be wrong. That was just how I took it, as I stated.

TirithRR wrote:
You don't care about the State, you seem to think of them as an obsolete structure (maybe not, but that's my impression). I don't. Nothing really about today's technology or media presence really makes me think otherwise.


I am able to separate being a citizen of the State of California, and being a citizen of the United States.

Do I think that California should be allowed to decide what goes on within it's borders, with it's budget, what state laws to pass/enforce? Sure. I am a citizen of the state of California, in those instances.

When I vote for the President of the United States of America, I am a citizen of the United State first and foremost. I am taking into account how I want the whole country to be led and governed, not just my part of it.

You can't separate the two(maybe not, but that's my impression).
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#246 Nov 20 2016 at 9:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
"My pet group" just happens to be the States

Well, a minority of states which you feel deserve outsized roles to the detriment of the other states. If you were for "the states" in general, you'd want each state to have an equal role based on its population. Perhaps a fluid number of EC electors (one per 10,000 people for instance) rather than the current system of one per Rep & Senator.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#247 Nov 20 2016 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
TirithRR wrote:
No, because the urban areas still carry some pretty hefty weights. The rural areas just carry more than one a pure popular vote would allow. One rural State vs New York... minimal impact. All the rural States vs New York? That makes a difference.

You're grouping people in ridiculous ways. A city isn't a monolithic bloc. There's a lot of diversity there. It's not city versus rural, it's the democratic city and rural residents against the republican city and rural residents.
#248 Nov 20 2016 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Do I think that California should be allowed to decide what goes on within it's borders, with it's budget, what state laws to pass/enforce? Sure. I am a citizen of the state of California, in those instances.

When I vote for the President of the United States of America, I am a citizen of the United State first and foremost. I am taking into account how I want the whole country to be led and governed, not just my part of it.

You can't separate the two(maybe not, but that's my impression).


But ultimately the Federal level will be able to trump (no pun intended) the State level. So you'd end up with an easier path for the will of the large States to be enforced on the smaller States. Whether or not this is the actual intent of the Constitution (that whole part about powers not defined being left to the States) is another thing, but just based on what we've seen, Federal does tend to come before State.

So I don't feel that Federal level things being purely popular vote, and State level still existing, can actually coexist for long.

Allegory wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
No, because the urban areas still carry some pretty hefty weights. The rural areas just carry more than one a pure popular vote would allow. One rural State vs New York... minimal impact. All the rural States vs New York? That makes a difference.

You're grouping people in ridiculous ways. A city isn't a monolithic bloc. There's a lot of diversity there. It's not city versus rural, it's the democratic city and rural residents against the republican city and rural residents.
I don't think grouping people by State is ridiculous at all. That's what the Country is.

Jophiel wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
"My pet group" just happens to be the States

Well, a minority of states which you feel deserve outsized roles to the detriment of the other states. If you were for "the states" in general, you'd want each state to have an equal role based on its population. Perhaps a fluid number of EC electors (one per 10,000 people for instance) rather than the current system of one per Rep & Senator.


Well, no... because then the States wouldn't matter. Only the size of the populations. I mean... if I wanted States to matter I'd just say give them all equal voting across the board. Just Senate EC. But by giving them House EC you compromise with those that want a popularity based vote.

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 11:03pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#249 Nov 20 2016 at 10:08 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Do I think that California should be allowed to decide what goes on within it's borders, with it's budget, what state laws to pass/enforce? Sure. I am a citizen of the state of California, in those instances.

When I vote for the President of the United States of America, I am a citizen of the United State first and foremost. I am taking into account how I want the whole country to be led and governed, not just my part of it.

You can't separate the two(maybe not, but that's my impression).


But ultimately the Federal level will be able to trump (no pun intended) the State level. So you'd end up with an easier path for the will of the large States to be enforced on the smaller States. Whether or not this is the actual intent of the Constitution (that whole part about powers not defined being left to the States) is another thing, but just based on what we've seen, Federal does tend to come before State.

So I don't feel that Federal level things being purely popular vote, and State level still existing, can actually coexist for long.


And yet, states have legalized marijuana, which is against federal law, and the feds haven't come kicking down state doors yet. I feel that they could coexist.

Link
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#250 Nov 20 2016 at 10:13 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
And yet, states have legalized marijuana, which is against federal law, and the feds haven't come kicking down state doors yet. I feel that they could coexist.

Link


Yet. Maybe we'll see what happens when Trump's administration is enforcing the Federal level. Guess we'll see which side of the aisle cries "States Rights" then?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#251 Nov 20 2016 at 10:22 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
I am not against states rights.

As I mentioned earlier, I am both a citizen of California, and a citizen of The United States of America. And I think that those rights, both state and federal, should co-exist.

What I also think is what I stated before, about the reverence for decisions made long ago. That we can't be afraid to at the very least examine them, and see if maybe they are out-dated. See if there is a better way, or if the old way of doing things is still better.

I also think that you maybe think I am being adversarial here, but that is not my intention, I just happen to disagree with some of your statements. I am not trying to demonize you. If I have made you feel that way, it was not intentional. I think that discussion is healthy, discourse is good.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 235 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (235)