Author Topic: The Bronx chick strikes out  (Read 110717 times)

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,620
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #425 on: August 28, 2019, 09:07:35 AM »
One thing I was thinking about is that pretty much all these "eliminate the electoral college" imbeciles happen to also be pro-UN. How does the UN vote again? Oh yeah - one state, one vote. Andorra (pop 76,000) gets the same consideration as the US.

And actually, I'd be fine with elimination of the Electoral College if we went to the system a confederated Republic should be: One person, one vote in the states, and one state, one vote for federal elections.
I would consider doing some sort of electoral college in the states by county.  Congressional districts are too gerrymandered to make that work.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,742
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #426 on: August 28, 2019, 09:13:07 AM »
I would consider doing some sort of electoral college in the states by county.  Congressional districts are too gerrymandered to make that work.

I'd be in favor of that with our current electoral system, to moderate the undo influence of urban regions on a state's electoral votes. I don't think it would be necessary if we had a "one state, one vote" system, because that would eliminate the electoral influence of say, CA - or TX for that matter.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #427 on: August 28, 2019, 10:29:48 AM »
How much influence should urban areas have? Do they deserve any? What about suburbs, do they require re-balancing?
Is there an exact ratio or percentage for how much an urban vote should count vs a rural vote?
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,742
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #428 on: August 28, 2019, 10:45:15 AM »
How much influence should urban areas have? Do they deserve any?

They have most of the influence in the electoral system. How much more do you think they should have?

They, in CA, for example, pretty much dictate where CA's 55 electoral votes go. In a "one person/one vote for state, and one state one vote federal" system, they can keep defining the politics of individual states without unduly penalizing other states with their bajillion electoral votes.

In a confederation, why should one state have more influence than another just because it has more people? Each state should have equal influence on the federal level.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #429 on: August 28, 2019, 10:50:00 AM »
How much influence should urban areas have? Do they deserve any? What about suburbs, do they require re-balancing?
Is there an exact ratio or percentage for how much an urban vote should count vs a rural vote?

No, and I very much doubt there is some way to mathematically quantify a metric.

However, I think distance from the urban area (that dominates the state) ought to be considered in value of the vote.

A down-state Illinois resident, for example, lives FAR closer to Memphis or Nashville (that are two states away!) than to Chicago and has almost no say in what occurs in his state. The problem is that urban areas are dictating the policies of an entire state that has concerns far afield of the cloistered views of urbanites.

It was part of the genius of the founders that they realized a large state could quickly overwhelm the concerns of many smaller states that differ or even conflict with the interests of the larger state.

It is part of the blindness of their founders that most states didn't attempt to address this weakness within the states, as well.
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,881
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #430 on: August 28, 2019, 11:09:11 AM »
We need less "unity" not more.

Power needs to be devolved down to the closest level to locally as is practical.

Otherwise I see civil war in the future, I know it's counterintuitive but large swaths of Americans of every race and ethnicity feel somewhat disenfranchised.

Diversity isn't our strength but an obstacle to overcome.

People need to feel like they have skin in the game and have real investment in their "neighborhood" otherwise it becomes tragedy of the commons writ large.

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #431 on: August 28, 2019, 11:36:02 AM »
They have most of the influence in the electoral system. How much more do you think they should have?
They should have proportional influence to their population when electing someone.
I believe that in any given election, 1 person = 1 vote is the best option.
This is because our elections are basic winner-take-all situtations where one person takes office and the loser(s) get nothing.
There is no protection for the minority in an election, it's simple majority rule.
Minority protections are best done through the power structure & rules of the government (filibuster!), not the elections to fill those positions within the government.

In a confederation, why should one state have more influence than another just because it has more people?
Should a state with 1000 people have equal influence as a state with a 1000000 people? At some point it becomes untenable.

The problem is that urban areas are dictating the policies of an entire state that has concerns far afield of the cloistered views of urbanites.
This is the real problem that everyone seems to be trying to "fix", government exerting too much control over people.
Tinkering with vote values so the minority exerts that same control isn't the way to fix that.
Power needs to be devolved down to the closest level to locally as is practical.
This is the correct solution.
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,742
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #432 on: August 28, 2019, 01:34:31 PM »

Should a state with 1000 people have equal influence as a state with a 1000000 people? At some point it becomes untenable.


It's not untenable in a Republic. As I mentioned, even the UN works this way.

"Simple majority rule" on the federal level = places like Greece. No thanks.

Doesn't anyone read the Federalist Papers anymore?
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #433 on: August 28, 2019, 02:11:34 PM »
It's not untenable in a Republic. As I mentioned, even the UN works this way.
You really believe that no matter how far off those balances are, people would just put up with a minority overruling them?
A republic is a good system but it's not magic and the UN is a joke, regularly ignored. Not something we need to try to emulate.
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,742
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #434 on: August 28, 2019, 02:29:34 PM »
You really believe that no matter how far off those balances are, people would just put up with a minority overruling them?
A republic is a good system but it's not magic and the UN is a joke, regularly ignored. Not something we need to try to emulate.

What minority? The balances are off now if you're looking at a popular vote on the federal level vs state, but you seem fine with tossing the electoral college for them and controlling 45 states via the populations of five. Are you sure you're not a Bulwark writer?

Tyranny of the masses.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #435 on: August 28, 2019, 03:01:23 PM »
What minority?
The minority of people who voted.
When it comes to elected positions, I believe people should vote. Not states, not electors, not counties, not regions, not districts. Each person gets to vote for 1 person to fill that position representing you and all votes should be counted equally. There is no reason for an extra layer of abstraction between the person voting and the outcome of an election. I see no need for my vote to be weighted more or less than anyone else's. There is no need for it to be aggregated at any level. I vote directly for my alderperson, my mayor, my county board member, my governor,  my state representatives, my federal representatives, etc. The same system would work fine for president. I see no reason to give more power to the state when it can reside with the individual.

Are you sure you're not a Bulwark writer?
Is this supposed to be slight?  ??? Are they notoriously anti electoral college?

Tyranny of the masses.
We're talking one position within the government and it's being decided by one election. Removing the electoral college doesn't make it tyranny.  ;/
It doesn't destroy all of the safeguards built into our system of government.



Edit: I found this interesting article at the Bulwark about what would change if we switched to a popular vote.
https://thebulwark.com/what-if-we-did-have-a-popular-vote-for-president/
 I swear I didn't write it! :P
« Last Edit: August 28, 2019, 03:24:42 PM by DittoHead »
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,197
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #436 on: August 28, 2019, 03:30:22 PM »

We're talking one position within the government and it's being decided by one election. Removing the electoral college doesn't make it tyranny.  ;/
It doesn't destroy all of the safeguards built into our system of government.


We've already tinkered with one of the safeguards created by the Founders. With the way states have become so polarized it might not make any practical difference today but, originally, congressional representatives were to be elected by popular vote but senators were to be elected by the respective state legislatures. Essentially, as a sort of balance of power, representatives were supposed to represent the people and senators were supposed to represent the states.

And then somebody decided that senators should also be elected by popular vote.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,742
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #437 on: August 28, 2019, 03:31:59 PM »
Quote
I see no need for my vote to be weighted more or less than anyone else's. There is no need for it to be aggregated at any level. I vote directly for my alderperson, my mayor, my county board member, my governor,  my state representatives, my federal representatives, etc. The same system would work fine for president. I see no reason to give more power to the state when it can reside with the individual.

You have your popular vote at the state level. You get to, by a majority, elect someone(s) to represent you and your state's interest at the federal level along with every other state in the confederation. If the confederated states in a Republic aren't treated individually and equally, what's the point?

Then we might as well be one big country with no states or state boundaries, and we can all live under the same gun control laws, or abortion laws, or any other contentious issues that states vehemently disagree on, based on how the majority of the country votes in geographically concentrated population centers.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #438 on: August 28, 2019, 04:15:39 PM »
We've already tinkered with one of the safeguards created by the Founders.
I didn't start this tinkering discussion, but people asked my opinion so I answered even though I've been over it before.
I was just curious about how much more tinkering we apparently need to counteract those urban voters. I guess maybe there isn't a precise amount, gotta go by feel.

Then we might as well be one big country with no states or state boundaries, and we can all live under the same gun control laws, or abortion laws, or any other contentious issues that states vehemently disagree on, based on how the majority of the country votes in geographically concentrated population centers.
Changing who votes on the president from the EC to individuals doesn't suddenly make states disappear or the president all-powerful.
The president would have the exact same powers he had before. There would still be different branches of government with different powers.
The division of powers and structure of the government (which is what protects against tyranny) isn't changing by having a popular vote for that position.
It wouldn't even necessarily change who wins.
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,881
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #439 on: August 28, 2019, 04:37:36 PM »
Electing the President by purely popular vote disenfranchises most of the country known as "flyover country" from ever having a say in presidential elections ever again. With a permanent Democrat presidency there would never be another Republican bill passed into law.

It may very well be the stupidest and most destructive change to the way we are governed that has ever been suggested.

If you want to accelerate reaching the end of the republic you couldn't come up with a better idea.
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #440 on: August 28, 2019, 04:51:47 PM »
Electing the President by purely popular vote disenfranchises most of the country known as "flyover country" from ever having a say in presidential elections ever again.

Being in the minority is not the same as being disenfranchised.
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

RocketMan

  • Mad Rocket Scientist
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,578
  • Semper Fidelis
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #441 on: August 28, 2019, 05:55:37 PM »
Being in the minority is not the same as being disenfranchised.

If you are in a permanent minority, as would develop with the elimination of the EC, then you would be disenfranchised for all practical purposes.
If there really was intelligent life on other planets, we'd be sending them foreign aid.

Conservatives see George Orwell's "1984" as a cautionary tale.  Progressives view it as a "how to" manual.

My wife often says to me, "You are evil and must be destroyed." She may be right.

Liberals believe one should never let reason, logic and facts get in the way of a good emotional argument.

Boomhauer

  • Former Moderator, fired for embezzlement and abuse of power
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,274
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #442 on: August 28, 2019, 06:04:47 PM »
The economy would be *expletive deleted*ed, the justice system would be really *expletive deleted*ed(beyond the *expletive deleted*ed it is now), taxes would be sky *expletive deleted*ing high, crime would be insanely high, etc. do you think San Francisco, NYC, LA, Chicago’s issues becoming the default for the nation would be a good idea?
Quote from: Ben
Holy hell. It's like giving a loaded gun to a chimpanzee...

Quote from: bluestarlizzard
the last thing you need is rabies. You're already angry enough as it is.

OTOH, there wouldn't be a tweeker left in Georgia...

Quote from: Balog
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! AND THROW SOME STEAK ON THE GRILL!

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #443 on: August 28, 2019, 06:20:09 PM »
If you are in a permanent minority, as would develop with the elimination of the EC, then you would be disenfranchised for all practical purposes.

Does that mean all the people in deep red states who vote blue and vice versa are disenfranchised ? I don't think so.
Are green party or libertarian voters disenfranchised because their candidates don't even get on the ballot everywhere? I still don't think so, but you'd have a better argument there.
Words have meaning. Being disenfranchised does not mean "not getting what you want".

And besides that, I still don't believe it would mean permanent Democrat presidency.
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,881
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #444 on: August 28, 2019, 06:45:49 PM »
Does that mean all the people in deep red states who vote blue and vice versa are disenfranchised ? I don't think so.
Are green party or libertarian voters disenfranchised because their candidates don't even get on the ballot everywhere? I still don't think so, but you'd have a better argument there.
Words have meaning. Being disenfranchised does not mean "not getting what you want".

And besides that, I still don't believe it would mean permanent Democrat presidency.

Your theories about what would happen have been tried in the laboratories of the states.

California and Illinois are a great object lesson in leftist rule.

In Illinois I'm effectively without representation, Chicago dominates the state.

Why do you hate America? (said only half joking)
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,742
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #445 on: August 28, 2019, 07:02:34 PM »
Your theories about what would happen have been tried in the laboratories of the states.

California and Illinois are a great object lesson in leftist rule.

In Illinois I'm effectively without representation, Chicago dominates the state.


Exactly an object lesson in why a representative republic is so important. It sucks to have to uproot and move if you're not represented in your state any longer. I was essentially without representation in my old state of CA. I at least had the option to move to Idaho where I can live with like minded people and again have representation for things that are important to me.

With the popular vote within states, each state can decide how they want to be run. US citizens within those states at least have options of moving if they no longer feel their state represents them. If the entire US no longer represents you, you're only option is ex-pating.

CA absolutely was the state that put Hillary Clinton over the top in the popular vote. The voting population of one state would have made her president, even though 40% of Californians voted for someone else.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #446 on: August 28, 2019, 07:12:29 PM »
Why do you hate America? (said only half joking)
Ya know, when I first asked about what percentage an urban vote should count for a rural vote I considered making a 3/5ths joke.
But I saw no need to ruffle feathers with a joke that people would probably be quite sensitive about.
I decided to keep things polite and not be offensive and will continue to do so  :angel:

Exactly an object lesson in why a representative republic is so important.
And to be clear, would having a popular vote for president turn us into something other than a representative republic?
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,881
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #447 on: August 28, 2019, 07:16:46 PM »
What is the good that would come from changing how we elect the President?
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #448 on: August 28, 2019, 07:27:05 PM »
What is the good that would come from changing how we elect the President?
Everyone gets an equal say, it's a better and fairer system for electing someone who ostensibly represents everyone. That's all.
It's not some grand scheme to reconfigure the entire government or destroy America.
There is no reason for an extra layer of abstraction between the person voting and the outcome of an election. I see no reason to give more power to the state when it can reside with the individual.
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,881
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #449 on: August 28, 2019, 07:38:34 PM »
Everyone gets an equal say, it's a better and fairer system for electing someone who ostensibly represents everyone. That's all.
It's not some grand scheme to reconfigure the entire government or destroy America.

Your suicidal commitment to radical egalitarianism is breathtakingly myopic.

That's about the nicest thing I can say.



For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.