May 12, 20223 yr Author 5 minutes ago, BBE said: Complains about Senate as being tyranny of the minority, but claims "Framers intent" for increasing the size of the House... Just another a-hole who oversimplifies and misrepresents peoples views in order to avoid the hard work of having to actually justify his own positions. No point in discussing complex matters of this nature with a mental midget like you.
May 12, 20223 yr Just now, downundermike said: If you read it that way, which I don't as I read the entire thing, why have those judges not called the police and has those folks arrested ?? Yeah, if you read it as it is written you’re wrong, but you wouldn’t want to be wrong, so you’ll just ignore the actual law and pretend it says something that it does not. Who says they haven’t been called? Who says the police would actually respond? BLM burned neighborhoods to the ground. Was that legal? Was the law enforced on them? Its all politics.
May 12, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I totally agree that my suggested solution is politically infeasible, it's purely an academic exercise. But it does demonstrate the issues with how representation is apportioned. There's no way that if the constitutional convention happened today with the states populated as they are that we'd settle on anything close to what we have now. It's completely perverted. Ranked choice voting, proportional allocation of EC votes within states rather than winner take all, and open primaries - which I used to be very much against but have come around on - are all reforms I think would be positive for restoring some sense of confidence that the republic can be responsive to the people. I actually want primaries abolished. Only the fanatics come out and vote in primaries, and that advances the most extreme nutjob candidates to the general election. When a wiccan beat Mike Castle in the 2010 Delaware GOP Senate primary, that was when I flipped and decided that the party leaders should simply pick the candidates.
May 12, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Just another a-hole who oversimplifies and misrepresents peoples views in order to avoid the hard work of having to actually justify his own positions. No point in discussing complex matters of this nature with a mental midget like you. Except you display exactly what I characterized. It is OK and completely not hypocritical when it suits you. Never mind that you stated that the Senate was tyranny of the majority and then claimed framers intent not an hour later when it suits your politics.
May 12, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, vikas83 said: I actually want primaries abolished. Only the fanatics come out and vote in primaries, and that advances the most extreme nutjob candidates to the general election. When a wiccan beat Mike Castle in the 2010 Delaware GOP Senate primary, that was when I flipped and decided that the party leaders should simply pick the candidates. abolishing primaries would be a trick. the parties themselves would embrace it, but the useful idiots would revolt.
May 12, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: abolishing primaries would be a trick. the parties themselves would embrace it, but the useful idiots would revolt. And go where?
May 12, 20223 yr Author 21 minutes ago, BBE said: Never mind that you stated that the Senate was tyranny of the majority and then claimed framers intent not an hour later when it suits your politics. Except I never said that. In fact, I specifically recognized that minority rights is baked into our Constitution but said that it had been made disproportionate by political chicanery and partially by demographic shifts. Apparently this was way too nuanced of an argument for you to comprehend, so you started flailing and throwing barbs like a little manchild. You're a complete d|ckhead who, as JohnSnow said, is incapable of arguing in good faith. Since you lack the maturity and cognitive ability to argue logically, you resort to sarcasm and misrepresentation of the other side in order to distract from the holes in your argument. We're done here, d-bag.
May 12, 20223 yr 35 minutes ago, vikas83 said: So we get a "fairer" system (in your opinion), but an even more dysfunctional government? That's not a win. That's more MTGs and Cawthorns. The issue with all liberal priorities is the same -- trying to find cute ways to circumvent the Constitution, or complaining about doing things that are hard. It's supposed to be hard...but it can be done. circling back to this. I'd say that there have always been MTGs and Cawthorns, they just didn't have a following. now we have twitter allowing idiots to find one another and revel in their idiocy, reinforcing their whackadoodle beliefs in their minds as somehow part of the mainstream. that said, there's only a few true crackpots in the House. most are harmless incompetents swimming with the political currents, some mediocre hangers on who will carve out a dozen years and retire, and a handful of actual doers (for good or for bad) who manage this caucus of unwashed mouth-breathers. I don't think adding more will make it worse. my main issue isn't political, it's paying more of these idiots to .... do whatever it is they do. seems overkill as a way to fix the EC.
May 12, 20223 yr Author 43 minutes ago, TEW said: What part of this do you not comprehend? "with the intent of influencing any judge” I know a few lawyers, and from my discussions with them on a variety of matters, proving intent is often harder than you'd think. It might be a little easier in this case, though.
May 12, 20223 yr 13 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: abolishing primaries would be a trick. the parties themselves would embrace it, but the useful idiots would revolt. So less democracy is good?
May 12, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, TEW said: So less democracy is good? Have you seen the voters in primaries?
May 12, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, TEW said: So less democracy is good? primaries aren't democracy. it's taking the most extreme parts of the population and saying "hey pick someone that you want the rest of the nation to vote for. make them just disgusting and extreme enough to make them hold their nose but still vote for."
May 12, 20223 yr Author 43 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I'm talking more on the Senate side. As an imperfect but easy to convey analysis, let's cut the nation in half. When the Constitution was put in place roughly half the nation's population resided in 4 states (VA, PA, MA, MD). The remaining 9 states had roughly the same population. This meant that the hedge against the tyranny of the majority had 8 Senators representing the four "metropolitan" states (for lack of a better term) and 18 Senators representing the more rural/less populous states. Broken down, this meant that the bottom 69%* (9 of 13) of states in population had a 2.25x (18 / 8 ) multiplier of representation in the Senate. Currently, the 9 most populous states house half of the population. This means that the bottom 82% (41 of 50) of states in population have 4.56x multiplier of representation in the Senate. MUCH more lobsided. *nice The above is imperfect and naïve approach, but simple enough. In 1787 the population distribution was actually much more even in general, and our population distribution in 2022 is very top heavy. There are better ways I might slice and dice the states up, but however you cut it you have a system where low-population states in 2022 are MUCH more overrepresented in the Senate than they were in 1787. And because the EC is derived from a combination of the house reps and Senators, this legislative advantage passes along in a slightly lesser form electorally, but still strong. Because the current political parties have coalesced roughly around interests of urban and rural populations, Republicans have a very strong built in advantage that allows them to wield more political power than their numbers suggest. Which is ok, as long as it doesn't go so far as it has. I do actually believe that something like the system we have setup is essential to prevent the tyranny of the majority that can come with simple representative systems, especially for a nation with as varied interests as the US has. We could never operate for long in a system where metro areas dominate and the interests of others are shoved aside. The problem now is that we've gone too far the other way. If you want to have a system that tries to balance these interests it needs to also be responsive to population shifts. If I could wave a magic wand and fix it, maybe something as simple as a rule that states cannot have more Senators than they have House reps, with those senate seats allocated in reverse order to the largest states. I dunno, haven't thought it through, but that would mean that Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, and Rhode Island lose one senator each and California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia and North Carolina each gain one. I think that would probably strike a better balance than what we have currently. I only like that because it's simple, and we need simple, but it's something. It might be a little rough, but this is really good analysis worth getting on the next page. Good work!
May 12, 20223 yr Just now, vikas83 said: Have you seen the voters in primaries? Oh, I don’t disagree. But not 24 hours ago I was dealing with the zealots of democracy. I think democracy/universal suffrage is stupid. Basically this, without any irony:
May 12, 20223 yr 32 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Awwww does another trumpbot have the sads because Joe Biden of all people beat him like a drum in the last election? avid porn consumer to the rescue!
May 12, 20223 yr Author 40 minutes ago, vikas83 said: I get the rationale and the approach, and I see some merit to it. But the issue remains that this requires a Constitutional Amendment. The left should have spent the last 40 years laying the groundwork at the local levels to try and advance a plan like this. But instead they just complain that the EC sucks (not you, talking about the party in general). It's the same thing as abortion, healthcare, voting...the Democrats are simply incapable of actually working the system. FWIW, I prefer keeping the Senate the same and pushing for an end to winner takes all for each state. Let's give Republicans a reason to campaign in CA, and Democrats a reason to campaign in Texas. Getting politicians outside of their bubbles and doing more than preaching to the choir to try and drive turnout would have long-term benefits, IMO. Also a great post.
May 12, 20223 yr 28 minutes ago, vikas83 said: I actually want primaries abolished. Only the fanatics come out and vote in primaries, and that advances the most extreme nutjob candidates to the general election. When a wiccan beat Mike Castle in the 2010 Delaware GOP Senate primary, that was when I flipped and decided that the party leaders should simply pick the candidates. I like the idea, but the problem with this is if the party is controlled by the crazy extreme, then this solution doesn't work (and in fact has the opposite effect). In 2010, the Republicans were still half-way sane, but now? If the party leadership were in charge of picking the candidates, do you really think there's any chance they wouldn't just choose whoever Trump wanted them to? On the Dem side, the selections would be a little more sane, but Dem voters wouldn't go for it anyway because they want to vote on every little thing.
May 12, 20223 yr Author 32 minutes ago, vikas83 said: I actually want primaries abolished. Only the fanatics come out and vote in primaries, and that advances the most extreme nutjob candidates to the general election. While it definitely gives them influence, it doesn't always translate in that way. It did turn out that way with Trump, but the Republicans have very simple nominating process. The Dems stymied Bernie both times.
May 12, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: I like the idea, but the problem with this is if the party is controlled by the crazy extreme, then this solution doesn't work (and in fact has the opposite effect). In 2010, the Republicans were still half-way sane, but now? If the party leadership were in charge of picking the candidates, do you really think there's any chance they wouldn't just choose whoever Trump wanted them to? On the Dem side, the selections would be a little more sane, but Dem voters wouldn't go for it anyway because they want to vote on every little thing. The takeover of the state parties by the MAGA imbeciles has been impressive. I hold out some hope that without having to fear their irrational voters that adults on both sides might step forward. But that's uniklely. We get the government we deserve. Moron voters elect moron representatives, and round and round we go.
May 12, 20223 yr 21 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Except I never said that. In fact, I specifically recognized that minority rights is baked into our Constitution but said that it had been made disproportionate by political chicanery and partially by demographic shifts. Apparently this was way too nuanced of an argument for you to comprehend, so you started flailing and throwing barbs like a little manchild. You're a complete d|ckhead who, as JohnSnow said, is incapable of arguing in good faith. Since you lack the maturity and cognitive ability to argue logically, you resort to sarcasm and misrepresentation of the other side in order to distract from the holes in your argument. We're done here, d-bag. Awwww...the self declared "expert" has his feelings hurt. Hoe dare anyone point out the hypocrisy of his pseudointellectual drivel to support his conclusion that if it agrees with his politics it's ok.
May 12, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: I like the idea, but the problem with this is if the party is controlled by the crazy extreme, then this solution doesn't work (and in fact has the opposite effect). In 2010, the Republicans were still half-way sane, but now? If the party leadership were in charge of picking the candidates, do you really think there's any chance they wouldn't just choose whoever Trump wanted them to? On the Dem side, the selections would be a little more sane, but Dem voters wouldn't go for it anyway because they want to vote on every little thing. The GOP Party Leadership does not like Trump. None of the consultants like Trump. Literally no one in any kind of entrenched position within the Party likes Trump. And yeah, I’m sure the party that thinks men can get pregnant and the oceans were going to swallow Miami negative ten years from now will be totally sane.
May 12, 20223 yr Author 2 minutes ago, BBE said: Awwww...the self declared "expert" has his feelings hurt. Oh, look, something else I didn't say being misattributed. You're a such a pathetic loser and intellectual lightweight, you must feel right at home with the modern right.
May 12, 20223 yr 12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: primaries aren't democracy. it's taking the most extreme parts of the population and saying "hey pick someone that you want the rest of the nation to vote for. make them just disgusting and extreme enough to make them hold their nose but still vote for." It’s absolutely democracy. It’s the people voting. You don’t get to say it’s not democracy because you don’t like the outcome.
May 12, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, vikas83 said: The takeover of the state parties by the MAGA imbeciles has been impressive. I hold out some hope that without having to fear their irrational voters that adults on both sides might step forward. But that's uniklely. We get the government we deserve. Moron voters elect moron representatives, and round and round we go. We need more uniparty swamp republicans in office! They're the only ones who can right the ship that they've helped steer horribly, irrevocably off course.
Create an account or sign in to comment