General US Politics

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, De Geso said:

Without the electoral college, the country's president is decided entirely by New York and California. If you're from a big city in one of those large states I can see why you would favor abolishing the electoral college, but if not I think you are unwittingly leaving the fate of the nation in the hands of the increasingly whimsical populations of those states. It might be scary that the system in place is functional, and I understand that your side losing has made you anxious for radical change, but you have to be willing to look at the larger picture. Many Americans will simply not have a voice in this representative republic in the scenario in which you abolish the electoral college.

Before you make assumptive non-arguments directed at me: I am not a Republican.

Republican talking points have a tendency of making someone unwittingly argue things that don't add up the way you think they do.

Quote

Without the electoral college, the country's president is decided entirely by New York and California

That's horseshit. Combined, the population of New York state and California is 18% of the country. Then you also add in the fact that the state's population isn't entirely voting for the winning party as it currently works in the Electoral College. If the electoral votes were awarded proportionally for example, 20 of them from California would've gone to Mitt Romney in 2012 for example. Catering to 18% of the country when that 18% isn't even going to entirely vote for you is a losing strategy and it's a talking point Republicans use because people take it at face value and don't try to think about whether the argument is at the very least mathematically sound. They'll also bring up "But rural states" when the data points to most political events during the Presidential Election happening primarily in Swing states and actually ignoring the most rural states (look up how often Maine and Vermont were visited in 2016 compared to Swing states). The goal is to have each individual have the same voting power when switching to the popular vote and when idiots like Dan Crenshaw try to justify their BS power grab by saying crap like this, remember that it's no better to be ruled by the minority that's overall less educated and unwittingly voting us into an Oligarchy. Hell, New York and California KEEPING the "Winner Take All" vote distribution is technically the unfair power grab they're trying to suggest as the Republicans don't matter at all. Republicans are not complaining about that yet because in the case of other states, it helps them win but the moment that Texas ends up voting Democratic, they'll be singing a different tune.

Quote

If you're from a big city in one of those large states I can see why you would favor abolishing the electoral college, but if not I think you are unwittingly leaving the fate of the nation in the hands of the increasingly whimsical populations of those states.

And yet instead, I'm in one of the cities in Texas where we're more educated and yet our votes amount to exactly 0 for those that vote against the Republican. With this system, we are knowingly leaving the fate of our electoral votes to the increasingly unhinged whims of neo-confederates and white supremacists. It works both ways and a way to make it fair is for every person's vote to count equally.

Quote

It might be scary that the system in place is functional, and I understand that your side losing has made you anxious for radical change, but you have to be willing to look at the larger picture.

It's not, it's made voter turn out in the country terrible by comparison to other nations, rightly so because when it comes to the presidential race, voting only matters in the Swing states. 80% of the country basically has no impact and the larger picture of keeping the Electoral College system in place is as, former GOP governor of Maine Paul LePage has suggested to have keep power to white people because "if minorities had the same power you might as well just turn the country into Venezuela".

Quote

Many Americans will simply not have a voice in this representative republic in the scenario in which you abolish the electoral college.

Ok to anyone reading this and echoing the "we are not a democracy, we are a republic": this is a talking point the right will use when they're trying to convince you that the people they're opposing are wrong and don't even understand the basics of our government, ultimately distracting from the substance.

A Republic is defined as: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

A Representative Democracy: is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

So you see, The US is indeed a Representative Democracy as well as a Republic because the 2 things are not mutually exclusive. The right will often provide quotes from the founding fathers showing their disdain for "Democracy" but what they don't tell you is that their use of that term referred to Direct Democracy where the people directly decided on the policy.

Lastly, the notion that smaller states would have no representation if you switch to popular vote. The president is just 1 individual and regardless of whether it's popular vote or Electoral college he/she is not the ultimate authority on policy, that's what Congress is there for and Senate's representation is distributed in favor of the Smaller states.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[De Geso]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

You mean--the places where people actually live??? 

So, people don't live outside of those cities? Are you serious?

Tell me - what, besides bankers and wall street, does New York produce? What do they contribute? Should the volume of warm bodies carry more weight than what those people can do for the country? Why should their opinions matter simply because there are many of them? Moreover, why should the opinions of people who don't live where you do NOT matter? Because they are "xyz thing I don't like?"

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

But doesn't the electoral collage have the opposite problem? That a bunch of rural states are the ones who primarily decide who gets to be president. That's hardly any better and they were certainly very um...whimsical last election. Isn't some alternative system possible that doesn't dismiss the popular vote entirely while still decreasing the dominance of New York and California? 

Yes, I am sure an alternative is possible. Do you have a suggestion?

I'm not going to respond to Tarrasque's wall of text. If you are incapable of at least pretending to be concise, don't waste my time.

2 hours ago, Slumber said:

Is the country's elections being decided by huge states like New York, California and Texas(Why do people always leave out Texas when they make this comment? It has more electoral power than New York does. Florida also has the same amount of electoral votes as New York.) REALLY any worse than the country being decided by Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Iowa? As it stands, if you're not in a swing state, your vote pretty much already doesn't matter. I live in a state that's been solidly blue since before Reagan. Trump managed actually managed to really electrify the republican base in my state, a blue state that Hillary ignored like many in the midwest, a blue state that went for Bernie over her, and Trump still lost my state. And due to how the Electoral College is handled, it means he lost ALL of those votes that he actually managed to sway here. The Electoral College doesn't magically mean the minority voters get a bigger voice, it just gives certain states way more power than they probably deserve.

And yes, it sucks that smaller states wouldn't have as big of a voice, but that's what state legislature is for. The White House is supposed to be the representative of the people of the US. I don't see why "More people in the country want this person to be president, so now they're president" is somehow worse than "Less people wanted this person to be president, so now they're the president".

Yes, state legislature doesn't always accurately represent their state, but letting the smaller population choose who gets to be president now means that the PotUS no longer represents the majority of Americans. Case in point: Trump dismantling so many environmental regulations, cutting funding to people working towards researching alternative energy, and deciding to fucking pander to coal miners, an industry that has been dying due to lack of demand. Guess what happened? The demand for coal didn't suddenly increase. We just got Trump cutting growing industry that more Americans are aware of and support.

More Americans in less total land. For reference, 57 counties had a majority vote for Clinton in 2016. Out of 3,141. Should so small a portion of the country have sway over the entire rest of it? After all, if we went with a popular vote, this is the result.

[Tryhard]

12 hours ago, De Geso said:

More Americans in less total land. For reference, 57 counties had a majority vote for Clinton in 2016. Out of 3,141. Should so small a portion of the country have sway over the entire rest of it? After all, if we went with a popular vote, this is the result.

Absolutely yes, in terms of population. Doesn't make any sense that a person from Wyoming's vote is worth more than someone from California. If you want to at least pay lip service to the idea of democracy you probably want to have some basic principles in place.

It doesn't always go your way. Where I live, the Brexit vote was a simple majority. Brexit being something I don't support. I live in an area that has proportionally less say in the UK due to population compared to England (at least in terms of this majority referendum). I'd rather that then a dumbass system where for some reason some states or areas are more important than others instead of giving the basic principle of 1 person = 1 vote. This has its own problems as with democracy in general but at least I can see less.

We know why the Republican politicians don't support it (it's beneficial for them, as well as the fact that they do better when less people vote in general, so they like vote suppression) but I'm baffled as to why anyone who isn't a partisan hack would.

Edit: My preference would be for some system of ranked choice voting, something that I believe has been tried out in Maine, but that is more arguable.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Tryhard

[XRay]

2 hours ago, De Geso said:

So, people don't live outside of those cities? Are you serious?

Tell me - what, besides bankers and wall street, does New York produce? What do they contribute? Should the volume of warm bodies carry more weight than what those people can do for the country? Why should their opinions matter simply because there are many of them? Moreover, why should the opinions of people who don't live where you do NOT matter? Because they are "xyz thing I don't like?"

 

Taxes to feed the farmers. Who is working their ass off babying Red states? We Blue states are.

New York is not all about bankers and Wall Street. We have light industry in the city itself (Brooklyn got lots of breweries and industrial kitchens) and agriculture in upstate as well. We also have a huge service industry; somebody has got to do somebody else's hair, maintain cars, clean up trash, etc. and there are a lot of somebody's.

In California, we have light industry throughout the state and we are probably the biggest agricultural producer in the entire country. We are also leading the nation in technology and have a public university system that rivals the entire East Coast's Ivy League.

What are the middle Red states doing? Growing soybeans to feed our enemy's swines? How did that turn out when those Communist pigs spit those soybeans back at our farmers? Yeah, it turned out great because we Blue states are trying to bail out those farmers. If Red states cannot even get their shit together despite electing a dumb ass for President—and the dumb ass is not even feeding farmers properly because most of that subsidy ends up in corporate farms who need it the least—they should not have more voting power than me.

[Slumber]

3 hours ago, De Geso said:

More Americans in less total land. For reference, 57 counties had a majority vote for Clinton in 2016. Out of 3,141. Should so small a portion of the country have sway over the entire rest of it? After all, if we went with a popular vote, this is the result.

I'll ask one simple question:

Why in the world does land matter more than the people in terms of voting power?

[Interdimensional Observer]

4 hours ago, De Geso said:

Tell me - what, besides bankers and wall street, does New York produce? What do they contribute?

Ever heard of impoverished African Americans and Latinos, and ordinary whites? Or is your idea of a city only what you see on TV?

If everyone in New York state was a financier, and everyone in California a millionaire actor/ess or tech innovator, then I can assure you American wealth would be far better distributed. But, it isn't, those are tiny elites. The overwhelming majority of those Northeast Atlantic Seaboard and Californian voters are ordinary. Perhaps generally better educated and wealthier compared to Oklahomans and Mississippians when looking at statistics, but still very ordinary.

Urbanites can mock the rural, the urbanites in power can forget the rurals who are not, this is true. But the urbanites in political power aren't necessarily receptive to solving the problems of the mass of urbanites either. Because California is paradise for all Californians- it's not, poverty still exists, housing prices are a big problem currently, and so is homelessness. Old scars of race riots speak to a failure for Californians politicians to adequately address racial divides.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

5 hours ago, De Geso said:

So, people don't live outside of those cities? Are you serious?

 

Bro the only metro areas that matter are NYC, SF, DC, LA, Boston and Chicago (all six are very blue), the major Texas cities (OK so Houston and Dallas are two red cities, but Austin is blue and the majority that were previously mentioned are still blue. Technically El Paso and Laredo are also blue towns and they play a big role in cross-border produce), and during produce season - Atlanta (Atlanta is a blue city in a red state). 

The rest of the US are fillers

[Shoblongoo]

6 hours ago, De Geso said:

Why should their opinions matter simply because there are many of them? 

Thats—the entire point of holding a vote. That’s what voting is. You find out what the most people want to do and then you do it. You’re literally asking me why should the thing that gets the most votes win an election. It’s tautological. 

[De Geso]

10 hours ago, XRay said:

 

Taxes to feed the farmers. Who is working their ass off babying Red states? We Blue states are.

New York is not all about bankers and Wall Street. We have light industry in the city itself (Brooklyn got lots of breweries and industrial kitchens) and agriculture in upstate as well. We also have a huge service industry; somebody has got to do somebody else's hair, maintain cars, clean up trash, etc. and there are a lot of somebody's.

In California, we have light industry throughout the state and we are probably the biggest agricultural producer in the entire country. We are also leading the nation in technology and have a public university system that rivals the entire East Coast's Ivy League.

What are the middle Red states doing? Growing soybeans to feed our enemy's swines? How did that turn out when those Communist pigs spit those soybeans back at our farmers? Yeah, it turned out great because we Blue states are trying to bail out those farmers. If Red states cannot even get their shit together despite electing a dumb ass for President—and the dumb ass is not even feeding farmers properly because most of that subsidy ends up in corporate farms who need it the least—they should not have more voting power than me.

Lol what in the world are you talking about with all this nonsense? The middle red states grow corn, potatoes, and other crops which Americans eat and feed their livestock with. The service industry in New York only matters in New York. There are huge service and agriculture industries in Ohio as well, which is one of those swing states that EC abolitionists say "should not matter as much as they do."

The taxes from the blue states go back into feeding the welfare-infested cities that make up much of those blue states' populations. I wonder, which party might people on welfare vote for?

7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Thats—the entire point of holding a vote. That’s what voting is. You find out what the most people want to do and then you do it. You’re literally asking me why should the thing that gets the most votes win an election. It’s tautological. 

You didn't answer my question - I asked why the number of bodies should be the sole factor in the vote. Why shouldn't the group of people who contributes more to the welfare of the nation have more say? Why should the only requirement to your vote "mattering" as much as everyone else's be that you really want it to and you have a heartbeat? I know it's a typical tactic of your kind to ignore the point of the discussion and try to "rebut" without actually rebutting anything, but please try to read and comprehend the entire three line post before cherrypicking one sentence that doesn't make much sense out of context.

Can you handle that or am I wasting my time with you?

9 hours ago, Slumber said:

I'll ask one simple question:

Why in the world does land matter more than the people in terms of voting power?

Such a small portion of the country's landmass should not hold power over the rest with impunity because the number of people living there is greater.

Extremely wealthy and extremely poor people comprising those areas will always vote left because the rich know nothing will change either way and voting left (or claiming to vote left) makes them look 'good' and the poor believe that things will change if they believe hard enough in the liars in blue suits rather than the liars in red ones.

On top of that, it's natural that city-dwellers are more apt to vote left than rural individuals and it has been this way for a long time (which is why the Electoral College exists at all - it was made as a reaction to large cities holding too much sway over the country's political landscape thanks to a purely popular vote, not as a preventative measure). They are extremely tightly packed into these metropolitan areas, constantly surrounded by other people who share similar biases and thus feel they've no recourse but to continue voting left.

Many other responses to my post were either bunk nonsense like Ursaring's or in a similar vein to Slumber's.

[Interdimensional Observer]

Agrarian bias I see. Ignoring agribusiness?

We should all be farmers then- except for the fact that those kind of countries end up being export-dependencies that live and suffer according to commodity prices and the whims of other countries. America's transition from overwhelmingly rural to urban, whilst still producing enough food to feed itself and the world, is in fact a sign of its own form of economic "progress". Whilst comparative advantages say countries should specialize, in reality, the stronger economies tend to be those that are diverse, and thereby immune to single-factor economic slowdowns and declines.

If your supposition is that farmers are more valuable than urbanites, so give them a more valuable vote, well it's just plain dated. Who are you, Thomas Jefferson, or Williams Jennings Bryan?

Yes, farming and feeding people is good, it's fundamental to human civilization. It's worthy of being praised as honest hard work, even if the modern tractors decrease the amount of laboring in the field required. You know what is also good? Doctors who went to all those urban universities to save human lives. It's sad that more of them don't afterwards go to rural communities because I am aware rural American hospitals are shutting down, but would you really penalize their vote for not leaving the cities and suburbs?

[Tryhard]

49 minutes ago, De Geso said:

You didn't answer my question - I asked why the number of bodies should be the sole factor in the vote. Why shouldn't the group of people who contributes more to the welfare of the nation have more say? 

even putting aside the plutocratic nature of this (reminds me of the type of arguments that wanted to kept wealthy, white male land owners being the sole voters), this would imply that simply being a resident of a less populated area or state somehow means you contribute more, even if you are dirt poor and can't pay taxes, or are unemployed. (unless you are going to advocate that unemployed people shouldn't be allowed to vote, which by all means, go right ahead.)

this logic is all kinds of fucked. If I move from a city to a rural area in a different state, then suddenly my voting power should increase? Even if I got a similar job and similar living standards? Why?

you simply are trying to defend an undemocratic position. something that isn't very popular, hence why you may get the sense you are being dogpiled. because that's not a position I would want to defend even if I was wanting to play devil's advocate. i have a feeling you don't want a good faith argument though.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Tryhard

[XRay]

2 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Lol what in the world are you talking about with all this nonsense? The middle red states grow corn, potatoes, and other crops which Americans eat and feed their livestock with. The service industry in New York only matters in New York. There are huge service and agriculture industries in Ohio as well, which is one of those swing states that EC abolitionists say "should not matter as much as they do."

The taxes from the blue states go back into feeding the welfare-infested cities that make up much of those blue states' populations. I wonder, which party might people on welfare vote for?

 

Nonsense? Check which states contribute the most to the federal budget. It is the Blue states subsidizing the Red states. Red states as a whole take more from the federal budget than Blue states, so do not act all high and mighty about Red states being self sufficient. My tax dollars goes towards the welfare of Blue states AND Red states. What the fuck has Red state farmers done for me? Corn and potatoes? Yeah, California surprisingly got those too AND more. I live in Sacramento and right outside the city are miles and miles of farmland with corn and potatoes AND fruits AND vegetables. We Californians are self sufficient. Red states are NOT.

I like the welfare and infrastructure in my California and I am proud to be a contributing citizen of this country. And what are Red state voters whining about? High taxes, high taxes, and high taxes! Red states are complaining about fucking high taxes when I and the Blue states are the ones working our butts off putting food on our Blue table AND subsidizing the food on their Red table. Red states are already paying super low taxes so why the fuck are they still complaining about taxes when I am the one paying for them? Roads, education, healthcare, etc. throughout the country all need someone to pay for them and I am footing part of their bill. I am still waiting on Trump making our infrastructure great again, but I do not think that dumb ass is going to do that, so the least I can do is to vote and pay for it at the state level so at least California is not going to end up like one of those shit hole Red states with shit roads, shit education, shit infrastructure, and shit holes everywhere. From our perspective, shit hole states are not very far from being the shit hole countries they despise so much.

Do I mind subsidizing Red states? No. But I DO mind when Red states are biting the hand that feeds them.

For fuck's sake Red states should show some respect to the breadwinners of this family and educate themselves and maybe work a little harder before opening their mouths. Every time they talk right now, they are just acting like lazy entitled brats.

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, De Geso said:

You didn't answer my question - I asked why the number of bodies should be the sole factor in the vote. Why shouldn't the group of people who contributes more to the welfare of the nation have more say? 

Because the right to vote in a social democracy derives from the idea that government should be representative of the will of the people; not from the utility of individual voters. 

The idea that a discreet-and-insular minority can claim superior voting rights to the general populace + govern against its will by virtue of holding what has been deemed a more important position in the social order of things is an undemocratic one.

...Thats Oligarchy...

[One Person = One Vote] is the gold standard for free and fair elections, and governments operating thereupon.

When you move away from that is when government reverts to advancing the interests of the privileged few over the needs of the general population. 

Which is the very problem of government malfeasance that voting rights and free elections are supposed to guard against in the first place. 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[Johann]

On 11/4/2019 at 9:49 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Also apply everything you just said to the Senate, because the electoral college is only half the problem. And if anything, focusing just on the electoral college understates it. 

Republicans got fewer votes then Democrats in 2016 and won the White House.
Republicans got fewer votes than Democrats in 2018 and held the Senate.

Democrats control one-half of 1 of the 3 branches of government despite being the people's choice now in two consecutive national elections.  

(I'm actually inclined to say the Senate is the more severe side of the problem here) 

Also DC/Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands/etc statehood, which would grant Senate seats to parts of the US that currently have no representation. It's absurd that the entire Legislative branch is stymied by a fucking turtle thanks to voters in Kentucky, of all places.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

The argument again goes both ways.

One side will want to argue "Why shouldn't the group of people who contributes more to the welfare of the nation have more say? " while referencing whatever they like to try to make their argument look good (these states provide agriculture, food, etc).

The other will ask "what the fuck are you talking about?" given how the states you're trying to benefit here are the states being subsidized the on Blue states Republicans keep hating on.

At the end of the day, Shoblongoo's right: you get an Oligarchy if you're looking to concentrate power among some because of some arbitrary criteria. Those who suggest going for the popular vote aren't looking to turn an oligarchy in their favor, the goal is fair election.

If the goal of the Blue states was to gain control over the Red States like some Republicans love to suggest, they would do so by getting rid of the subsidies they provide to the Red States and watch them sink under the failing Republican tax policies that were once again proven to be bad thanks to the Kansas tax experiment.

Kentucky is the 3rd most Federally dependent state and it is the state mostly at fault for breaking our politics due to their continuous voting for Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Shoblongoo]

35 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The argument again goes both ways.

One side will want to argue "Why shouldn't the group of people who contributes more to the welfare of the nation have more say? " while referencing whatever they like to try to make their argument look good (these states provide agriculture, food, etc).

The other will ask "what the fuck are you talking about?" given how the states you're trying to benefit here are the states being subsidized the on Blue states Republicans keep hating on.

At the end of the day, Shoblongoo's right: you get an Oligarchy if you're looking to concentrate power among some because of some arbitrary criteria. Those who suggest going for the popular vote aren't looking to turn an oligarchy in their favor, the goal is fair election.

If the goal of the Blue states was to gain control over the Red States like some Republicans love to suggest, they would do so by getting rid of the subsidies they provide to the Red States and watch them sink under the failing Republican tax policies that were once again proven to be bad thanks to the Kansas tax experiment.

Kentucky is the 3rd most Federally dependent state and it is the state mostly at fault for breaking our politics due to their continuous voting for Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

Emphasis on "arbitrary criteria"

The argument that the criteria for who is and is not a 'contributor',  as set forth by De Geso, is arbitrary and capricious is secondary to the primary argument that representation in government is not a thing to be earned by contributing enough to buy your way in. It is a fundamental equal right. 

...but as long as we're bringing up the criteria...





I could say every industry needs planes, ships, and automobiles to move its goods and manpower; the states that are top produces of these things should have more voting power than the states that don't, because they contribute more to other states. 

I could say every industry needs telecommunications, data systems, and consumer electronics; the states that are top produces of these things should have more voting power than the states that don't, because they contribute more to other states. 

I could say everyone needs medicine and medical devices; the states that are top produces of these things should have more voting power than the states that don't, because they contribute more to other states. (it would be in my purely selfish best interest as a citizen of the state of NJ to say this)

_________

Singling out the agricultural sector and only the agricultural sector as productive contribution + so justifying the current system of disproportionate voting power is nothing more than mere pretense for ongoing disenfranchisement of the center-left majority vote. And skewing of public policy in favor of a backwater conservative minority, whose policy preferences are not wanted and would not be chosen by popular vote of the actual populace to-be-governed. 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[Johann]

The election fuckery of 2000, where it came down to 500 vote difference and a Supreme Court decision, should be more than enough reason for anyone to say fuck the EC

[De Geso]

1 hour ago, XRay said:

Nonsense? Check which states contribute the most to the federal budget. It is the Blue states subsidizing the Red states. Red states as a whole take more from the federal budget than Blue states, so do not act all high and mighty about Red states being self sufficient. My tax dollars goes towards the welfare of Blue states AND Red states. What the fuck has Red state farmers done for me? Corn and potatoes? Yeah, California surprisingly got those too AND more. I live in Sacramento and right outside the city are miles and miles of farmland with corn and potatoes AND fruits AND vegetables. We Californians are self sufficient. Red states are NOT.

I like the welfare and infrastructure in my California and I am proud to be a contributing citizen of this country. And what are Red state voters whining about? High taxes, high taxes, and high taxes! Red states are complaining about fucking high taxes when I and the Blue states are the ones working our butts off putting food on our Blue table AND subsidizing the food on their Red table. Red states are already paying super low taxes so why the fuck are they still complaining about taxes when I am the one paying for them? Roads, education, healthcare, etc. throughout the country all need someone to pay for them and I am footing part of their bill. I am still waiting on Trump making our infrastructure great again, but I do not think that dumb ass is going to do that, so the least I can do is to vote and pay for it at the state level so at least California is not going to end up like one of those shit hole Red states with shit roads, shit education, shit infrastructure, and shit holes everywhere. From our perspective, shit hole states are not very far from being the shit hole countries they despise so much.

Do I mind subsidizing Red states? No. But I DO mind when Red states are biting the hand that feeds them.

For fuck's sake Red states should show some respect to the breadwinners of this family and educate themselves and maybe work a little harder before opening their mouths. Every time they talk right now, they are just acting like lazy entitled brats.

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). Meanwhile, California has the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country (about 10 percent of the state's population).

Believe it or not, the case is not so simple: Yes, Americans in red states pay lower taxes per person, but their income is also much lower than that of the average Californian so the impact is greater. I suppose this would be obvious if you thought about it for more than a second, but given that you're a Californian I suppose "thinking ahead" is a challenging prospect.

California infrastructure is decidedly average or below average: https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Because the right to vote in a social democracy derives from the idea that government should be representative of the will of the people; not from the utility of individual voters. 

The idea that a discreet-and-insular minority can claim superior voting rights to the general populace + govern against its will by virtue of holding what has been deemed a more important position in the social order of things is an undemocratic one.

...Thats Oligarchy...

[One Person = One Vote] is the gold standard for free and fair elections, and governments operating thereupon.

When you move away from that is when government reverts to advancing the interests of the privileged few over the needs of the general population. 

Which is the very problem of government malfeasance that voting rights and free elections are supposed to guard against in the first place. 

But we don't live in a social democracy. We live in a representative republic.

One person to one vote leads to Ochlocracy.

[Shoblongoo]

7 minutes ago, De Geso said:

 We live in a representative republic.

I'm aware. 18th century form of government in a 21st century community of nations.

Thats why we have so many problems in this country that the other First World Countries don't have 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[De Geso]

2 hours ago, Tryhard said:

even putting aside the plutocratic nature of this (reminds me of the type of arguments that wanted to kept wealthy, white male land owners being the sole voters), this would imply that simply being a resident of a less populated area or state somehow means you contribute more, even if you are dirt poor and can't pay taxes, or are unemployed. (unless you are going to advocate that unemployed people shouldn't be allowed to vote, which by all means, go right ahead.)

this logic is all kinds of fucked. If I move from a city to a rural area in a different state, then suddenly my voting power should increase? Even if I got a similar job and similar living standards? Why?

you simply are trying to defend an undemocratic position. something that isn't very popular, hence why you may get the sense you are being dogpiled. because that's not a position I would want to defend even if I was wanting to play devil's advocate. i have a feeling you don't want a good faith argument though.

Not popular here, in an insulated leftist environment, does not mean unpopular the country over.

1 minute ago, Shoblongoo said:

I'm aware--18th century form of government in a 21st century community of nations.

Thats why we have so many problems in this country that the other First World Countries don't have 

My point is that you are arguing for a popular vote using the pretense that we live in a social democracy when we do not.

Once again, you ignored half my post (the more significant half). I suppose I shouldn't waste my time on you in the future, given your inability to properly understand what someone is saying to you.

Edited November 5, 2019 by De Geso

[Tryhard]

38 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Not popular here, in an insulated leftist environment, does not mean unpopular the country over.

Support for the electoral college is like 44% or less while the popular vote is closer to 50% or more (Pew Research). And it's not really surprising that it's more of a partisan split because of events. It used to be above 60%.

https://www.people-press.org/2018/04/26/5-the-electoral-college-congress-and-representation/

But of course if we are going by the system in which the electoral college is a better idea than a popular vote that doesn't matter, ha ha ha.

38 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Once again, you ignored half my post (the more significant half). I suppose I shouldn't waste my time on you in the future, given your inability to properly understand what someone is saying to you.

Buddy, you've done this several times already. But keep responding, you are at least entertaining.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

 

17 minutes ago, De Geso said:

you are arguing for a popular vote using the pretense that we live in a social democracy when we do not

I am arguing for good government. You are acting like making law and public policy based on the minority opinions of small farming communities out in the hinterlands while neglecting the needs and preferences of the majority of people is a good way to run a country.

I am telling you it isn't.

And I am telling you that if we had an actual government representative of the country that it governed instead of a conservative oligarchy enabled by voter disenfranchisement of the major population centers:

...We'd have public funding of healthcare and higher education...
...We'd have less gun violence...
...We'd have fewer wars...
...We wouldn't have the worlds largest prison population...
...And we wouldn't have a criminal with 55% disapproval ratings in the White House protected by a Senate that will never remove him for any abuse-of-office or high crime... 


We would be an objectively better country if we updated our form-of-government to the 21st century. And stopped subjecting ourselves in perpetuity to backwater minority rule, on a theory that we can never do it any other way because thats just how our Gen 1 politicians back in the 1780s thought government should function. 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[Zapp Branniglenn]

If I were in favor of oligarchy, I'd want to ditch democracy too. Why should the voices of other folks matter? Especially if they don't own land, or are owned by a true American agrarian business. Perhaps those plantation states ought to have more voting power because of all their hardworking property. 

15 minutes ago, De Geso said:

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). 

Only half in red states? Uh oh.  that's um...where was that figure...

Quote

57 counties had a majority vote for Clinton in 2016. Out of 3,141

99% of the country, right? How do they feed all of those people? Maybe the "other half" of all the country's food in the blue states can help that deficit. What are they hoarding for anyway?

[Johann]

7 minutes ago, De Geso said:

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). Meanwhile, California has the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country (about 10 percent of the state's population).

You do know that most of the food we create is either exported or used in things that aren't going to feed people, right? The red state farmers aren't responsible for feeding the entire country, they're in agriculture just cuz it's profitable. Like maybe 10% of the corn we create is eaten as corn-- most of corn's food production is high-fructose corn syrup, which is not something you can survive on. Every state has some form of food production, coastal states have large fishing & aquaculture industries, for instance. Also farming in general is becoming less and less profitable/sustainable under Republican policies, like the tariffs with China. Red states constantly vote against their own interests while requiring federal funding to bail their industries out.

14 minutes ago, De Geso said:

My point is that you are arguing for a popular vote using the pretense that we live in a social democracy when we do not.

That's one way to admit you don't understand why he said that. Power should not be delegated to states based on something as fluid as economic status. It should also not be as blatantly unbalanced as to give a person in one state 20 times the voting power of a person in another. There are major issues with voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering in these red and swing states, which amplifies the imbalance of voting power. Using an antiquated system for elections allows these issues to persist.

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

39 minutes ago, De Geso said:

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). Meanwhile, California has the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country (about 10 percent of the state's population).

 

Bro.... if California were its own country it would be the sixth largest economy in the world. California is a leader in produce and poultry, home to the busiest international ports which is over in LAX/Long Beach. Shit, even New York state is a leader in flour and bread-products. Granted, the red states have access to most of the oil through Texas and North Dakota but that's about it as far as the red's contributions to the country goes.

Manufacturing right now is in its biggest recession since the economic crisis of 2009. Most of the manufacturing sector went red in the election and now they're paying for it. I know this because I've been a freight broker for four years and run my own show in the industry - I have to read into these kinds of things every day to stay relevant.