Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I voted today!Follow

#202 Nov 19 2016 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Those are only contradictory positions if you assume that fascism isn't a stance of the median Republican. Not saying myself that it is but, if you read the first article, he makes clear that Trump's views on immigration and national safety are what's appealing to all parts of the Republican spectrum (which is what makes him the 'median Republican' as he says in the article). So he says in the first article what aspects of Trump give him broad Republican voter appeal and the second saying why those aspects are reflective of fascism.

Does ANYONE bother to read past the headline (which typically isn't written by the article's author anyway)?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#203 Nov 19 2016 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,215 posts
Quote:
I'm reasonably certain that the people of Wyoming and the people of Montana don't think of themselves as interchangeable and identical. And if you asked them, you'd find that they think of themselves as two different groups of people, with two very different sets of ideas about the rules to live under, how to manage their local economies, their culture, wants, desires etc. They are not just a homogenous set of voters. There are reasons why different states exist and have boundaries, different legislatures and executives, and different rules beyond just divvying up electoral college votes. Wyoming and Montana didn't develop as separate states just so the people living there could pad their EC vote count.


Those states are really bad examples, since their borders were defined not by culture, economic differences etc, but rather for ease of territorial maintenance.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#204 Nov 19 2016 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,352 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Those are only contradictory positions if you assume that fascism isn't a stance of the median Republican.
Show me one the doll where Reagan bad touched you, Joph. Smiley: tongue
#205 Nov 19 2016 at 2:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I know you're used to all thoughts being expressed in 140 characters or less but you really need to learn to read deeper than a single sentence.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#206 Nov 19 2016 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
gbaji wrote:
Except I don't believe that's a correct comparison. People want to be treated the same regardless of race, or gender, or whatever. States, and the people who live in them, actively want to be treated differently based on what state they live in. Folks in California very much may wish to have a different set of rules and laws than people in Montana, who in turn might choose to have different rules than people in New York. That's kind of the point of moving to a different state. The state boundaries specifically denote regions where differences in law, culture, etc, will exist.

People do not want to be treated differently based on what state they live in. You might, but I certainly do not. I live in Texas because I enjoy the climate and the overwhelming majority of my family lives here. I don't choose Texas because of set of rules I'm forced to live by.
gbaji wrote:
And again, I completely and utterly disagree with that comparison. Those are two very different things. It's wrong to apply different rules to two different people based on their race or ***. It's not just wrong but desired that two different states have different rules and be thought of as different entities. It's why we have different states in the first place. So that people can choose to live in a state that has rules they like. Making them all identical is the opposite of that. Thus, lumping all voters in all states in the same big popular vote bucket is also wrong.

It is not desired that two different states have different rules. You might desire it to be, but I do not.

It's also not why we have different states. We have different states because the U.S. was settled piece wise in different regions, at different times, by different nations.
gbaji wrote:
I'm reasonably certain that the people of Wyoming and the people of Montana don't think of themselves as interchangeable and identical. And if you asked them, you'd find that they think of themselves as two different groups of people, with two very different sets of ideas about the rules to live under, how to manage their local economies, their culture, wants, desires etc. They are not just a homogenous set of voters. There are reasons why different states exist and have boundaries, different legislatures and executives, and different rules beyond just divvying up electoral college votes. Wyoming and Montana didn't develop as separate states just so the people living there could pad their EC vote count.

I'm not asserting that they're interchangeable, I'm asserting that their vote shouldn't chased based on how imaginary lines are drawn.

If Wyoming and Montana were grouped as the same state, with all of their voters retaining their original wants and interests, their total EV would be cut in half. Alternatively, if you took Wyoming and split it into 2 separates states, again with everyone retaining their originals wants and interests, then their EV would double.

What people want hasn't changed in either of those scenarios, but how much EV they control has. That is the problem. 2 half gallons of of water shouldn't have more mass than 1 full gallon. 2 half gallons of water shouldn't have less mass than 4 quarter gallons.

Strategically, Wymoning should want to split itself into 2 separate states so that each of their residents has more influence in the federal government, even if both states function identically on the state level. The only reason other states would wish for them not to do so is specifically because Wymoing would double its EV at the expense of others.
gbaji wrote:
It's easy to say that. It's a lot harder to write down an alternative methodology that does not introduce even worse problems.

It's been done. The problem is that party in control has no motivation to implement a system that will give them less control and the parties not in control have insufficient power to implement a system that will give them more.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not seeing any justification of your unbiased opposition to the EC at all in there. Did I miss it?

I wrote what I did as a courtesy to you. Since you're asserting I have partisan motivations, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate as such.

Edited, Nov 19th 2016 3:23pm by Allegory
#207 Nov 19 2016 at 4:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,352 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I know you're used to all thoughts being expressed in 140 characters or less but you really need to learn to read deeper than a single sentence.
Look, old guy, I know you're clinging to the failed institutions of the past, but you gotta learn to move forward. #OldMediaIsDeadAndGone
#208 Nov 20 2016 at 3:18 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,357 posts
Quote:
People do not want to be treated differently based on what state they live in. You might, but I certainly do not. I live in Texas because I enjoy the climate and the overwhelming majority of my family lives here. I don't choose Texas because of set of rules I'm forced to live by.
That's ********* and gbaji's the perfect example. Clearly, gbaji lives in California because it's such a hotbed for Democrats.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#209 Nov 20 2016 at 6:00 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,824 posts
Allegory wrote:
People do not want to be treated differently based on what state they live in. You might, but I certainly do not.


Well, some people may not, but a lot of people do. 30 of those States in the Union did.

It's obviously no coincidence that the main States taken by the D-side align with the large populated cities. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But you seem to think that a ~1% difference in popular vote nation-wide, carried on the back of these high density cities, should override the very different political views of of the States as a whole. But if it were a 1% difference across all the States, then the D-side would have won many of their states and won the election.

I travel frequently for work between Northern Michigan and Western Kentucky/Southern Illinois. Both areas heavily red. And I'm still surprised about how different the people are. When I first started working in Kentucky I actually felt more in place when I had traveled to Italy for a week a few years ago. (Part of it is probably admittedly racist. Northern Michigan is a very white area. Not a lot of diversity...) Sometime in the near future I'll probably be heading out west to the California area at roughly the same frequency. I'd imagine there is going to be a lot of difference there too.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#210 Nov 20 2016 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,320 posts
TirithRR wrote:
But you seem to think that a ~1% difference in popular vote nation-wide, carried on the back of these high density cities, should override the very different political views of of the States as a whole. But if it were a 1% difference across all the States, then the D-side would have won many of their states and won the election.


Yes, a less then 1% difference. Or, you know, the majority of people in the united states, that voted for Hillary. No need be disingenuous.
Hillary got the majority of the popular vote, don't qualify it as just a ~1% difference.

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 9:19am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#211 Nov 20 2016 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
Allegory wrote:
People do not want to be treated differently based on what state they live in. You might, but I certainly do not.
Well, some people may not, but a lot of people do. 30 of those States in the Union did.

It's obviously no coincidence that the main States taken by the D-side align with the large populated cities. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But you seem to think that a ~1% difference in popular vote nation-wide, carried on the back of these high density cities, should override the very different political views of of the States as a whole. But if it were a 1% difference across all the States, then the D-side would have won many of their states and won the election.

Maybe I'm misreading Allegory but I took his remark to mean that someone who is pro-life in California (to pick an obvious example) does not want to simply be a reflection of their blue state but would rather have their opinion matter on the national stage. A pro-life vote in a deep blue state is "wasted" since the state won't flip red regardless but, also, a pro-choice vote in such a state may be "wasted" as well since the state was already overwhelmingly blue. A popular vote method would make both of those votes have more value regardless of what state you live in.

Speaking of, a popular vote method would likely increase participation since I wouldn't say "Eh, Illinois is in the bag anyway" but I'd know that my vote actually counted towards the grand total. Republicans, of course, would not like this since the more people who vote, the worse they do (thus their continued voter suppression efforts).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#212 Nov 20 2016 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,824 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
But you seem to think that a ~1% difference in popular vote nation-wide, carried on the back of these high density cities, should override the very different political views of of the States as a whole. But if it were a 1% difference across all the States, then the D-side would have won many of their states and won the election.


Yes, a less then 1% difference. Or, you know, the majority of people in the united states, that voted for Hillary. No need be disingenuous.
Hillary got the majority of the popular vote, don't qualify it as just a ~1% difference.


Meh. I'd feel worse about it if it weren't all clustered in a handful of big cities. If that 1% were truly a representation of the entire US.


Jophiel wrote:
Maybe I'm misreading Allegory but I took his remark to mean that someone who is pro-life in California (to pick an obvious example) does not want to simply be a reflection of their blue state but would rather have their opinion matter on the national stage. A pro-life vote in a deep blue state is "wasted" since the state won't flip red regardless but, also, a pro-choice vote in such a state may be "wasted" as well since the state was already overwhelmingly blue. A popular vote method would make both of those votes have more value regardless of what state you live in.


I took it as his general tone has been the whole thread. A dismissal of the idea of the State in general and treating everyone in the US as the same regardless of State of residence. But we have single cities so populous they can suppress the vote of entire States.


Jophiel wrote:
Speaking of, a popular vote method would likely increase participation since I wouldn't say "Eh, Illinois is in the bag anyway" but I'd know that my vote actually counted towards the grand total. Republicans, of course, would not like this since the more people who vote, the worse they do (thus their continued voter suppression efforts).


I am not so sure there'd be much of a voter difference. I guess I don't give the voters in general as much credit as you would. The Presidency is the thing they come out for the most, right? And their local or State elections ignored. And those they have even more direct say in. I guess I don't see the link between Direct Influence vs Turnout.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#213 Nov 20 2016 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
TirithRR wrote:
But you seem to think that a ~1% difference in popular vote nation-wide, carried on the back of these high density cities, should override the very different political views of of the States as a whole. But if it were a 1% difference across all the States, then the D-side would have won many of their states and won the election.

You seem still very stuck on this agenda against "big cities", and I had addressed it in post 194, but you didn't seem to feel the need to respond.

You seem to think areas with high populations shouldn't matter and shouldn't have their fair say. You seem very worried about about rural areas being disenfranchised, but have no problem with urban areas being disenfranchised to an even greater extent. If 11 people are ordering a pizza, 5 want pepperoni, 4 want veggie, and 2 want hawaiian, why should the veggie be the one to win out? This is akin to the 2016 presidential election where Clinton had ~48%, Trump ~47%, and others 5%. Why should a minority vote win in a Democracy?

I get your fear about rural people people being ignored, but in singlemindedly boosting them you're ignoring everyone else to an even greater extent.
#214 Nov 20 2016 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,320 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Meh. I'd feel worse about it if it weren't all clustered in a handful of big cities. If that 1% were truly a representation of the entire US.

Smiley: dubious
Because people who live in big cities aren't a part of the US? Tell me, please, how does the fact that I live in Los Angeles make my opinions less relevant than a person who lives in rural montana?

Also, the votes continue to come in, and Hilary now has a 1.5 Million lead over Donald.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#215 Nov 20 2016 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,824 posts
Allegory wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
But you seem to think that a ~1% difference in popular vote nation-wide, carried on the back of these high density cities, should override the very different political views of of the States as a whole. But if it were a 1% difference across all the States, then the D-side would have won many of their states and won the election.

You seem still very stuck on this agenda against "big cities", and I had addressed it in post 194, but you didn't seem to feel the need to respond.

You seem to think areas with high populations shouldn't matter and shouldn't have their fair say. You seem very worried about about rural areas being disenfranchised, but have no problem with urban areas being disenfranchised to an even greater extent. If 11 people are ordering a pizza, 5 want pepperoni, 4 want veggie, and 2 want hawaiian, why should the veggie be the one to win out? This is akin to the 2016 presidential election where Clinton had ~48%, Trump ~47%, and others 5%. Why should a minority vote win in a Democracy?

I get your fear about rural people people being ignored, but in singlemindedly boosting them you're ignoring everyone else to an even greater extent.


I didn't respond to it because I dislike analogies, but if you insist.

If you had 5 different groups of people that came together and decided to order pizza an one large entity,

Group 1 had 2 people
Group 2 had 2 people
Group 3 had 2 people
Group 4 had 10 people
Group 5 had 3 people

Group 4 wants Veggie, Groups 1-3, and 5, all want Pepperoni (except 1 person in group 5, who wanted Hawaiian... but everyone hates Phil so who cares, that's about how we all feel about third party voters, right?).

All together 8 people want pepperoni, 10 people want veggie, and one person wants Hawaiian.

But in the beginning they determined that since they were five separate groups coming together they didn't want any one large group dictating what the 4 other groups get to do purely based on size. Otherwise they may feel that this combination didn't represent their individual groups well. So decisions as a whole have to represent and appeal to all groups, not just the one group with the most individuals.

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 2:52pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#216 Nov 20 2016 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
It's not really about the pizza analogy.

The bigger point is that you believe you are helping one group of people at a larger cost to another group of people. You're playing favorites, and in such a way that there is a net cost to everyone. A popular vote doesn't favor big cities, it only favors an area exactly to the extent that the area has people. Most people consider this voting system in most situations to be fair.

I don't think it fundamentally makes sense to give different people a different number of votes or vote weighting. In pretty much any other context based on any other criteria, most societies have decided this is wrong.

I live in the suburbs, yet my vote for Texas State Senator counts just as much as someone in a 1,000 pop rural Texas town or someone in Houston, the 4th largest city in the U.S. Even though each municipality is its own differing legal zone with its own set of rules, we don't weight votes differently going from the municipality to the states, yet we do with states going to the Federal level. Should my vote count for more than someone in Dallas, Austin, or Houston? Should a rural town like Cedar Springs have 4 or even 7 times the say in a state senator than Houston does?



If I were being petty, you and Gbaji both think that EC is fine, so your state of mind is more densely populated than mine. Shouldn't you concede victory of the argument to me then?
#217 Nov 20 2016 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,320 posts
TirithRR wrote:
If you had 5 different groups of people that came together and decided to order pizza an as one large entity,

Group 1 had 2 people
Group 2 had 2 people
Group 3 had 2 people
Group 4 had 10 people
Group 5 had 3 people

Group 4 wants Veggie, Groups 1-3, and 5, all want Pepperoni (except 1 person in group 5, who wanted Hawaiian... but everyone hates Phil so who cares, that's about how we all feel about third party voters, right?).

All together 8 people want pepperoni, 10 people want veggie, and one person wants Hawaiian.

But in the beginning they a long time ago, it was determined by people who had to use rotary phones, and to whom had never been delivered a pizza because it was a brand new thing, and the majority of these groups didn't even exist yet, let alone any of the members of the group today, that since they were five separate groups coming together they didn't want any one large group dictating what the 4 other groups get to do purely based on size, even though chinese used to be ordered differently, and they changed that, because it seemed more fair. Otherwise they may feel that this combination didn't represent their individual groups well. So decisions as a whole have to represent and appeal to all groups, not just the one group with the most individuals.

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 2:52pm by TirithRR


Edited, Nov 20th 2016 12:25pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#218 Nov 20 2016 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,824 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
a long time ago


So?

Allegory wrote:
A popular vote doesn't favor big cities, it only favors an area exactly to the extent that the area has people


What is a big city but an area that has a lot of people? I didn't care about the Pizza either. Just illustrated a situation where 1 group was favored more than the other 4 combined. Their interests were ignored. Now instead of Group 4 trying to compromise and maybe going Pepperoni with Mushrooms and Green Peppers to appeal to some of the other 4 groups, they can just focus on that veggie pizza.





Quote:
think that EC is fine, so your state of mind is more densely populated than mine.


Silly, but then you'd be in a "State of Mind" with 2 Senate representations and 1 House rep, and we'd be in a State of Mind with 2 Senate Reps, and 2 House Reps (assuming no other states..) So it'd be a 4 to 3 EC split? Instead of a 2 to 1 Popular Vote split? Or maybe it's only 1 Senate per... so 3 and 2?


Edited, Nov 20th 2016 3:39pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#219 Nov 20 2016 at 3:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If you had five different entities who all came together to order pizza based on units comprised of weighted votes, I'd first and foremost wonder what was wrong with them that they couldn't order pizza like normal, sane, people.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#221 Nov 20 2016 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If you had five different entities who all came together to order pizza based on units comprised of weighted votes, I'd first and foremost wonder what was wrong with them that they couldn't order pizza like normal, sane, people.


Sometimes I wonder why the States originally came together too, since they have such a hard time agreeing on things.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#222 Nov 20 2016 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
I don't want to get too bogged down by analogies, but your scenario is flawed TirithRR. If a plurality of people want Veggie (10 people in your example), then I'm arguing that they should have Veggie. You're the one arguing that a minority of people should have their way based on their grouping.
#223 Nov 20 2016 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,320 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
a long time ago
So?


So, those people are no longer around, the reasons that they made the decisions that they did are not always valid (because of new technologies, mass media, etc), and the other things they decided to decide that same way are no longer decided that way.

Edited, Nov 20th 2016 4:23pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#224 Nov 20 2016 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,824 posts
Allegory wrote:
I'm arguing that they should have Veggie. You're the one arguing that a minority of people should have their way based on their grouping.


Yes. That's the difference in the two view points. Though not just a minority of people but a majority of groups that joined this little make believe Union. (No points/counterpoints to be made by stating them.)

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. And the EC as a way to mitigate that problem. It doesn't make it a purely equalized vote by State (like if they just went EC by Senate or something. 100 total, who ever gets 51+ wins, like my previous analogies which I don't like to make). And it doesn't make a purely popular vote.

Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
a long time ago
So?


So, those people are no longer around, the reasons that they made the decisions that they did are not always valid (because of new technologies, mass media, etc), and the other things they decided to decide that same way are no longer decided that way.


I don't buy the argument that it should be changed because it's old. (Hence the, "So?")

I also don't know how the people of North Dakota being able to read news about happenings California would actually change what is important to them vs what's important to California.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#225 Nov 20 2016 at 7:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,320 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
a long time ago
So?
So, those people are no longer around, the reasons that they made the decisions that they did are not always valid (because of new technologies, mass media, etc), and the other things they decided to decide that same way are no longer decided that way.
I don't buy the argument that it should be changed because it's old. (Hence the, "So?")

Then I guess it's a good thing that's not what I said.

My point was that because it is old, and the world has changed, technology has changed, jobs have changed, transportation has changed, communication has changed, and so has the way that we access the world and the way we access the information available to us has changed, maybe the old way is no longer the best way. I mean, doctors used to punch holes in peoples skulls to let the humours escape!

TirithRR wrote:
I also don't know how the people of North Dakota being able to read news about happenings California would actually change what is important to them vs what's important to California.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, I'll give you a chance to clarify before responding.


Man, the reconstruction of a quote pyramid when you accidentally mess it up is a lengthy process Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#226 Nov 20 2016 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,824 posts
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?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#227 Nov 20 2016 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 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
Avatar
***
3,320 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
Avatar
***
3,320 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!
*****
16,824 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
******
20,908 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!
*****
16,824 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
******
20,908 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!
*****
16,824 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!
*****
16,824 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
Avatar
***
3,320 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
******
20,908 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!
*****
16,824 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
*****
13,215 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!
*****
16,824 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
Avatar
***
3,320 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
******
20,908 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!
*****
16,824 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
Avatar
***
3,320 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!
*****
16,824 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
Avatar
***
3,320 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: 71 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (71)