Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

Just putting some hard numbers to the issue here to illustrate the severity of what we're actually talking about, because its easy to lose sight of the forest through the trees when you aren't talking hard numbers.

There are 578,000 people in the state of Wyoming. They have 2 Senators.

737,000 people in Alaska. 2 Senators.

760,000 in North Dakota. 2 Senators.

882,000 in South Dakota. 2 Senators.

1 million in Montana. 2 Senators.

Thats four million people in five states. They send 10 Senators to Congress and have 10% of the say in lawmaking, court appointments, and impeachment.
__________


...There are 10 million people in the city of Los Angeles...

The City of Los Angeles alone would send 25 Senators to Congress, if its population was (over)represented at the same levels as small red states 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour 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).

The most heavily populated states having the highest number on paper is a typical thing because you know, they have the highest numbers overall. But when you look at it by percentage of the population, you yourself admit that California's case is 10% and if we want to see which states are most dependent on SNAP based on the percentage of the population requiring SNAP, well there you go.

All this talk of which states are most dependent on X, which states contribute more of X is just more evidence that anything but the popular vote will just lead to endless debate as to which contribution deserves the most power. Having the vote equal for each individual puts a stop to all that.

Also, according to the orange turd, the popular vote is "easier to win than the electoral votes". If so, why aren't the Republicans for the popular vote?

LOL they really know how fucked they should be

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

all that shit which conveniently avoids my inquiry and argument yet again

Lol

56 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

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

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

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?

I misspoke, and it's fair to point that out. My point was that the top 50% of food producing states are red per 2016 outside of California - ten states. The blue states produce comparatively meager amounts (mainly New York, despite its over-representation given its size and contributions to the nation)

55 minutes ago, Johann said:

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.

I fully understood why he said that, but he is an idiot who said it to avoid rebutting my argument (which he has shown that he is apt to do). He mentioned the right to vote in a social democracy which has no bearing on the argument at hand because we do not live in a socially democratic country.

Here is the chain for those who are unable to comprehend (a common trend here!)

I asked Ursaring why the number of people is the most important factor.

He said it is because a social democracy is a government whose decisions are made on the will of all people, not the utility of its voters.

I told him, "We don't live in a social democracy, that wasn't the point of the discussion, and furthermore social democracy leads to Ochlocracy."

He then failed to address this and blabbered on about "our problems." I called him out for this, and he continues to fail to address my actual points because he is incapable of doing so.

Also - no, of course economic status should not be the sole factor...and it isn't!

17 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The most heavily populated states having the highest number on paper is a typical thing because you know, they have the highest numbers overall. But when you look at it by percentage of the population, you yourself admit that California's case is 10% and if we want to see which states are most dependent on SNAP based on the percentage of the population requiring SNAP, well there you go.

Here I was expecting a red wave to challenge women's bathrooms in liberal arts colleges one week out of the month! And yet, we see...a healthy mix of blue, red, and swing states (plus DC).

That all being said - I never intended this to turn into a dick-measuring contest between red and blue states. My point was that we cannot ignore those who live in "backwater farmer states" simply because there are fewer of them.

Edited by De Geso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, De Geso said:

I fully understood why he said that, but he is an idiot who said it to avoid rebutting my argument (which he has shown that he is apt to do). He mentioned the right to vote in a social democracy which has no bearing on the argument at hand because we do not live in a socially democratic country.

Here is the chain for those who are unable to comprehend (a common trend here!)

I asked Ursaring why the number of people is the most important factor.

He said it is because a social democracy is a government whose decisions are made on the will of all people, not the utility of its voters.

I told him, "We don't live in a social democracy, that wasn't the point of the discussion, and furthermore social democracy leads to Ochlocracy."

He then failed to address this and blabbered on about "our problems." I called him out for this, and he continues to fail to address my actual points because he is incapable of doing so.

Yeah, you still missed the point: The method of selecting our leaders can be changed. The problems he pointed out are directly tied to how our governing bodies are selected. 

Comparing social democracy to mob rule is pretty absurd. One favors creating universal equality (which is vital for healthy democracy), and the other favors their own exclusive interests.

24 minutes ago, De Geso said:

That all being said - I never intended this to turn into a dick-measuring contest between red and blue states. My point was that we cannot ignore those who live in "backwater farmer states" simply because there are fewer of them.

I know this was your main intent, but you went pretty far off the rails. The trouble is that "backwater farmer states" vote against their own interests and everyone else has to suffer for it. Giving them an absurdly disproportionate amount of power in elections does nothing to help them, and instead sets them back further. The irony here is that their dilemma is much closer to your idea of ochlocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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).

Almost every Blue state has enough food production to feed itself. We do not need Red state agricultural production to survive. We can afford to depend on trade with allies and import food from friends instead of shamelessly begging and kissing the filthy feet of Communist swine. If Trump had any sense of balls and masculinity, he would have an embargo against China right now, but no, that pussy is bowing his head and spreading his legs so he can have a fucking partial trade deal that benefits those assholes more than it benefits us. We can let all the Red states form their own disgusting Confederacy and we would still dominate the traitors in terms of GDP and GDP per capita. Without the Red states, we would still remain the largest economy in the world; even if the Red states joined the Communist pigs, we would still dominate Red Dawn in GDP and GDP per capita. That is how massive America's economy is and Blue states are the ones trying to keep it that way. 

We have the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country because we have the largest population in the country and Californians make up about 10% of the entire freaking country. If you look at the states with the highest percentage of population on SNAP, it is dominated by Red states. Unlike Red states whose only interest in "ME! ME! ME!" we actually care about our fellow countrymen and support welfare to help the poor and needy. These downtrodden people already have enough shit and shame to deal with and I do not mind giving them a hand to help them pull out of poverty.

1 hour ago, De Geso said:

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.

Gee, I wonder why their income is so low? Take a hint, get a better education and job and, I do not know, maybe join a freaking union and strengthen them. Cannot afford an education? Try making it low cost or free. Do not have a job? Then what the fuck are Republicans doing with MY money that is supposed to be subsidizing YOUR job and dinner table? Have shit unions? Try voting for a better politician, which also help tackle the previous two problems.

 
1 hour ago, De Geso said:

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

 

Yeah, I agree that California does not have the best infrastructure, and that is why we are raising taxes to fix our own shit like a man. I have voted for hiking taxes on gas to repair our roads.

However, I do not see Red states doing their share and spending money on my state despite using our roads and ports to export their soybeans to pigs across the ocean.

10 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

All this talk of which states are most dependent on X, which states contribute more of X is just more evidence that anything but the popular vote will just lead to endless debate as to which contribution deserves the most power. Having the vote equal for each individual puts a stop to all that.

You know what I think? Fuck the popular vote. With the way we are spoken to and treated with disrespect, I would argue our votes should matter more because we are feeding the people on both sides of the aisle. Across the aisle, they have done nothing for at this point besides shoving Vodka bottles up their ass and sleeping with Communist pigs.

Sarcasm aside, I still lean towards the popular vote, for now, even if I do not think the other side deserves it.

7 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Here I was expecting a red wave to challenge women's bathrooms in liberal arts colleges one week out of the month! And yet, we see...a healthy mix of blue, red, and swing states (plus DC).

I was not expecting having to do math and educate either. I thought my tax dollars would be sufficient, but I guess if you want something done you have to do it yourself.

1. New Mexico
2. Louisiana
3. West Virginia
4. District of Columbia
5. Oregon
6. Mississippi
7. Alabama
8. Georgia
9. Tennessee
10. Delware
11. Oklahoma
12. Florida You wanted Florida, so it is your problem now.
13. Nevada
14. Kentucky
15. Illinois

6 out of 15 states are Blue while 9 are Red, and one of the Blue "states" is a literal city with little no more land beyond that to grow food and not a real state. In the top 14, 9 states (64%) are Red. If you look at the top ten real states, 7 out of 10 are Red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, XRay said:

Communist swine

10 minutes ago, XRay said:

the Communist pigs

11 minutes ago, XRay said:

pigs across the ocean

12 minutes ago, XRay said:

sleeping with Communist pigs

zeSqSmsyJt9wfy_aJWB0KZH9hc0=.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, De Geso said:

That all being said - I never intended this to turn into a dick-measuring contest between red and blue states. My point was that we cannot ignore those who live in "backwater farmer states" simply because there are fewer of them.

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

A popular vote doesn't automatically result in the smaller states being ignored. Smaller states and the minority in general have a lot of power as is. Let's take for example the biggest issue of all: Corporate money in politics.

As far back as 2012, 81% of the people surveyed on the matter thought that the campaign spending rules are "bad for democracy" and that sentiment hasn't changed very much today as you can ask anyone and most will agree that our politicians are bought by companies. A solution to this is a constitutional amendment to rule out corporate PACs and donations and for that you need 2/3 majority support in congress or a convention called by 2/3 of the state legislature and with the current Senate rules and majority in place, the numbers don't even matter because Mitch McConnell himself can just block any debate.

Let that sink in, the minority of the country has the power to stop legislation that over 2/3 of the country want. You talk to about a potential disenfranchisement of the smaller states while there's disenfranchisement when it comes to voting for every state that isn't a Swing state. That's not even going into detail how the orange turd and the current administration is basically saying "Fuck you" to states that didn't vote for Trump, specially California even though such states are actually contributing more money to the government... money that the orange turd is funneling to his pockets with all those golf trips. Money that was used to pay the fine of $100,000 when Betsy Devos was held in contempt (which she could've payed herself obviously but it still came out of the Taxpayer's dime).

48.18% of those who voted saw Trump for the racist con man he actually is, many simply choosing the lesser of 2 evils. 46.09% said nuts to that and voted for him for various reasons, most of them not being very good. At the end of the day, both sides pay for his fuck ups even though the majority chose to reject him.

Lastly, I want to re-iterate a presidential candidate can win both the Popular AND Electoral vote but still not get the Presidency because the Electors gave the vote to Candidate X even though their state voted for Candidate Y. It's a really bad Pandora's box just waiting to happen and defenders of the Electoral College don't even consider removing this issue out of the equation.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Johann said:

Yeah, you still missed the point: The method of selecting our leaders can be changed.

Thank you.

40 minutes ago, De Geso said:

I told him, "We don't live in a social democracy, that wasn't the point of the discussion, and furthermore social democracy leads to Ochlocracy."

Okay--stop. Don't go any further.

A responsive argument has been made that although we were founded as a 'republic,' this is now an antiquated form of 18th century government that other first world countries do not use; favoring instead social democracy as a freer and fairer form of representative government.

We can also choose to do this.

And we could actually make real advancement on issues where we've been politically stagnant for decades if we modernized our electoral system to one-person-one-vote, instead of sticking with a state-based model of representation that lets ~30-40% national opposition indefinitely block reforms supported by ~60-70% of the country.  

A responsive answer from you would now be to argue why you believe we shouldn't do this. And why you believe we are better governed when ~30-40% national opposition can indefinitely block reforms supported by ~60-70% of the country. On issue after issue after issue where you can look at the polls and see ~60-70% of the country is opposed to what our government is doing. Because the way we've structured lawmaking power in the Senate is such that ~30-40% national opposition is a legislative majority.  

I invite you to give a responsive answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johann said:

zeSqSmsyJt9wfy_aJWB0KZH9hc0=.gif

They took my Blizzard and ruined the company forever, so I am taking their name and plowing it through the pigsty as much as I can. They steal our ideas, they steal our manufacturing, and they spit our food back at our farmers. It is absolutely personal.

But I will apologize to pigs everywhere for comparing such a vile government to such a tasty animal. Bacon is still one of my favorite meats.

Free Hong Kong Forever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Lastly, I want to re-iterate a presidential candidate can win both the Popular AND Electoral vote but still not get the Presidency because the Electors gave the vote to Candidate X even though their state voted for Candidate Y. It's a really bad Pandora's box just waiting to happen and defenders of the Electoral College don't even consider removing this issue out of the equation.

You know what bites about us having electors rather than distributing electoral votes dispassionately as they have been earned? The punishment for being a faithless elector doesn't sound very strict. They face fines, but never jail time. A couple thou for attempting to obstruct a national election. And most electors are kind of wealthy, or at least appointed by wealthy sponsors. 

10 minutes ago, XRay said:

They took my Blizzard and ruined the company forever, so I am taking their name and plowing it through the pigsty as much as I can. They steal our ideas, they steal our manufacturing, and they spit our food back at our farmers. It is absolutely personal.

But I will apologize to pigs everywhere for comparing such a vile government to such a tasty animal. Bacon is still one of my favorite meats.

Free Hong Kong Forever

I wish even half of the folks upset about Blizzard could channel their "heated gamer moments" into political action, but then again the narrative is so easy to warp here on the internet. Some of the memes and screengrabs of channers I've seen deny any similarity between Hong Kong and anti fascist movements in the US because antifa  "actually supports communist rule". Like it's some kind of company. With a mission statement. And a donation link. Or a twitter account. Those poor kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 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.

I mean, we can argue about the value of not totally suppressing minority groups in a political system, but saying the electoral college as undemocratic is just dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, XRay said:

They took my Blizzard and ruined the company forever, so I am taking their name and plowing it through the pigsty as much as I can. They steal our ideas, they steal our manufacturing, and they spit our food back at our farmers. It is absolutely personal.

But I will apologize to pigs everywhere for comparing such a vile government to such a tasty animal. Bacon is still one of my favorite meats.

Free Hong Kong Forever

I just really wanted to use that gif! But yeah fuck imperialism. No country deserves that kind of treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, XRay said:

They took my Blizzard and ruined the company forever, so I am taking their name and plowing it through the pigsty as much as I can. They steal our ideas, they steal our manufacturing, and they spit our food back at our farmers. It is absolutely personal.

But I will apologize to pigs everywhere for comparing such a vile government to such a tasty animal. Bacon is still one of my favorite meats.

Free Hong Kong Forever

The Chinese government is responsible for many crimes but ruining Blizard isn't one of them. Caving in was Blizard's choice and they didn't have to do it. No scratch that...it was likely Activision's choice and they didn't have to do that. 

We can blame China for putting the pressure on them but caving in to that pressure under the assumption that the sweet, sweet China money was more important than free speech and human rights lies is primarily something to blame Blizzard/Activision for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

 saying the electoral college as undemocratic is just dumb.

Undemocratic compared to what though.

Undemocratic compared to mainland China? (yeah--thats pretty dumb)

Undemocratic compared to--Taiwan???

Try telling someone from Taipei that Tsai Ing-Wen should have won the 2012 presidential election even though Ma-Ying Jeaou got 51.6% of the vote, because the mountain jungle provinces where almost no one lives but you occasionally run into a village of rice farmers all voted for Tsai.

And 1 vote There = 3 Votes in a Coastal City; Ma-Ying Jeaou only won the Coastal Cities   

They'll probably tell you that sounds very undemocratic. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

The Chinese government is responsible for many crimes but ruining Blizard isn't one of them. Caving in was Blizard's choice and they didn't have to do it. No scratch that...it was likely Activision's choice and they didn't have to do that. 

We can blame China for putting the pressure on them but caving in to that pressure under the assumption that the sweet, sweet China money was more important than free speech and human rights lies is primarily something to blame Blizzard/Activision for. 

If there were no communist swine in the first place, there would be no money for corrupting Blizzard. I am still blaming Blizzard for caving in so I am boycotting them, but the greater evil are the communist pigs and the Pooh hole leading them. Since they are taking every effort to put their slimy hands on our media, I am going to take a giant dump in their mouth every time they open it so people can smell their propaganda if they have not already heard it.

Edited by XRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

I mean, we can argue about the value of not totally suppressing minority groups in a political system, but saying the electoral college as undemocratic is just dumb.

As Shoblongoo said, compared to what? Sure, compared to a dictatorship, undemocratic is hyperbolic.

Not comparing it like that, though, I would say valuing people's votes differently is pretty undemocratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Johann said:

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

I'm all for ranked voting.

4 hours 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).

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 also has a very high homeless population.

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Just putting some hard numbers to the issue here to illustrate the severity of what we're actually talking about, because its easy to lose sight of the forest through the trees when you aren't talking hard numbers.

There are 578,000 people in the state of Wyoming. They have 2 Senators.

737,000 people in Alaska. 2 Senators.

760,000 in North Dakota. 2 Senators.

882,000 in South Dakota. 2 Senators.

1 million in Montana. 2 Senators.

Thats four million people in five states. They send 10 Senators to Congress and have 10% of the say in lawmaking, court appointments, and impeachment.
 

This is so that small states don't get thoroughly fucked over.  It looks like a flaw due to the way politics has moved, but IMO it isn't.

1 hour ago, Glennstavos said:

I wish even half of the folks upset about Blizzard could channel their "heated gamer moments" into political action, but then again the narrative is so easy to warp here on the internet. Some of the memes and screengrabs of channers I've seen deny any similarity between Hong Kong and anti fascist movements in the US because antifa  "actually supports communist rule". Like it's some kind of company. With a mission statement. And a donation link. Or a twitter account. Those poor kids.

You mean, vote while never buying stuff from Blizzard again?  Check.

---

So, about this entire discussion: Why not hear from someone that's in the unique position of being in a small, blue state?

Hawaii's main industries aren't goods-based, they're service-based.  Namely, tourism, military, and supporting the homeless population of other states who fly them here (I am not making this up).  Inflation is stupidly high - if I want to eat a local ribeye, it's $20/lb.  Our gas prices are the highest in the nation.  We have to juggle development (both from the continental US and other countries) with the brain drain, because why make an office complex for a tech company when a hotel will pay a higher price for the land?  And to top it off, we're stuck with the consequences of the nuclear testing way back when, which means we're getting immigrants that most of the continental US will never see.  But at least we know why health insurance is a good idea.

I want my state's voice to be heard, and to be heard loud and clear.  That's why I'm happy with how the Senate/House are set up, and why I don't want a full popular vote.  I'm all for ranked voting paired with the electoral college, and for more regulation on gerrymandering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I want my state's voice to be heard, and to be heard loud and clear.  That's why I'm happy with how the Senate/House are set up, and why I don't want a full popular vote.  I'm all for ranked voting paired with the electoral college, and for more regulation on gerrymandering.

Both your Reps voted for the HR 1 "For the people Act of 2019" and that's sitting in the Senate graveyard. I assume you're not counting the fact that McConnell can just block it like he has when you say the bolded?

Secondly, what's your reasoning for opposing the popular vote and how would you pair the electoral college with ranked choice voting? What would you change from the Electoral College and do you think that's easier to achieve than just switching to popular vote for the Presidency? Why keep the Electoral College at all?

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, eclipse said:

So, about this entire discussion: Why not hear from someone that's in the unique position of being in a small, blue state?

Hawaii's main industries aren't goods-based, they're service-based.  Namely, tourism, military, and supporting the homeless population of other states who fly them here (I am not making this up).  Inflation is stupidly high - if I want to eat a local ribeye, it's $20/lb.  Our gas prices are the highest in the nation.  We have to juggle development (both from the continental US and other countries) with the brain drain, because why make an office complex for a tech company when a hotel will pay a higher price for the land?  And to top it off, we're stuck with the consequences of the nuclear testing way back when, which means we're getting immigrants that most of the continental US will never see.  But at least we know why health insurance is a good idea.

I want my state's voice to be heard, and to be heard loud and clear.  That's why I'm happy with how the Senate/House are set up, and why I don't want a full popular vote.  I'm all for ranked voting paired with the electoral college, and for more regulation on gerrymandering.

Well then, how well represented do you feel by your House members and Senators? Do you feel that other House members and Senators from other states are, to whatever degree, addressing issues that affect you (even if not exclusively)? Additionally, what do you think about statehood for island territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc which have similar issues but even less representation?

No question that gerrymandering needs to end, anyone who says otherwise would be arguing in extremely bad faith. Ranked voting is long overdue and could help reshape the way we look at our current two-party system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, eclipse said:

And to top it off, we're stuck with the consequences of the nuclear testing way back when, which means we're getting immigrants that most of the continental US will never see.  But at least we know why health insurance is a good idea.

Hawaii's definitely not the only state who suffered from nuclear testing, even freaking Utah included a high profile case - from detonations in Nevada because nuclear fallout is a pretty compelling reason to ban atmospheric testing. But I bet those nuclear viewing parties in Vegas were pretty rad.

As for whether states should receive more power than their population proportionally suggests, well, we had that debate in 1787. I think the bicameral legislature is still a novel idea. For Congress. The question lies in whether basing our presidential elections on congressional representation is equitable. We're not voting to pass block laws, we're voting in a popularity contest where if your vote conflicts with your state's majority it will be arbitrarily changed to reflect your state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

As for whether states should receive more power than their population proportionally suggests, well, we had that debate in 1787. I think the bicameral legislature is still a novel idea. For Congress. The question lies in whether basing our presidential elections on congressional representation is equitable. We're not voting to pass block laws, we're voting in a popularity contest where if your vote conflicts with your state's majority it will be arbitrarily changed to reflect your state. 

I just wanna point out that as originally drafted in 1787 the bicameral legislature only allowed for popular election of House Representatives. People didn't even vote for their Senators.  People voted for their representatives, and then their representatives appointed senators.  

...And this wasn't changed until 1913...

Appointment of Senators by party bosses was a thing in this country for longer than electing them by statewide vote. (and this was of course a change made because people didn't like how undemocratic the process of unelected Senators being appointed by party bosses was)

So the idea that we're going to go back and completely rework the way the Senate was set-up in 1787 after longstanding adherence thereto, because in retrospect we've decided that the institution as originally set up is intolerably undemocratic, is not an unprecedented one. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Both your Reps voted for the HR 1 "For the people Act of 2019" and that's sitting in the Senate graveyard. I assume you're not counting the fact that McConnell can just block it like he has when you say the bolded?

Secondly, what's your reasoning for opposing the popular vote and how would you pair the electoral college with ranked choice voting? What would you change from the Electoral College and do you think that's easier to achieve than just switching to popular vote for the Presidency? Why keep the Electoral College at all?

I'm not going to fully agree with my reps on every single subject matter, nor would I expect to.

Popular vote means that my state gets screwed purely because a single big city in the US already outnumbers the entire state's population by a factor of 7.  Thing is, it's Everyone Else that's doing shit like throwing their homeless population at my state (California most likely has a similar issue).  If our state had things our way, that would be stupidly illegal on the federal level.  But it's not, and will likely never be.

It also ties into Hawaii's history of being forcibly turned into a US territory - while it has its benefits (like me being here to type this instead of not being born at all), it also shows that a smaller entity would be happily screwed by the government should it NOT have a voice.  We were also insanely lucky that the majority of the Japanese population wasn't subject to the internment camps (something tells me that if it had been left up to the federal government, I'd have very different stories to tell about that era).  I'd like to think that our state learned from history.

5 minutes ago, Johann said:

Well then, how well represented do you feel by your House members and Senators? Do you feel that other House members and Senators from other states are, to whatever degree, addressing issues that affect you (even if not exclusively)? Additionally, what do you think about statehood for island territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc which have similar issues but even less representation?

No question that gerrymandering needs to end, anyone who says otherwise would be arguing in extremely bad faith. Ranked voting is long overdue and could help reshape the way we look at our current two-party system.

It's a cool thing to call Trump out on his nonsense here in Hawaii, and it has been used by several politicians in their campaign commercials.  Since they're mostly following the Democratic line (along with Schatz calling out Trump a couple of times), I'm not too bothered by them.

If the island territories want statehood, let 'em have it.  I'd want it for them just so that they'd get federal aid faster when natural disasters hit.  But since I'm not versed on their political atmosphere, I think the decision should ultimately be left up to them.

5 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

Hawaii's definitely not the only state who suffered from nuclear testing, even freaking Utah included a high profile case - from detonations in Nevada because nuclear fallout is a pretty compelling reason to ban atmospheric testing. But I bet those nuclear viewing parties in Vegas were pretty rad.

As for whether states should receive more power than their population proportionally suggests, well, we had that debate in 1787. I think the bicameral legislature is still a novel idea. For Congress. The question lies in whether basing our presidential elections on congressional representation is equitable. We're not voting to pass block laws, we're voting in a popularity contest where if your vote conflicts with your state's majority it will be arbitrarily changed to reflect your state. 

Utah isn't looking at immigrants from another country that we screwed over due to nuclear testing.  Travel between states, at least, is a little less strict.

That's why I want ranked voting in combination with the electoral college.  It'll give the smaller states their voice, while hopefully allowing those who have weird splits to distribute their votes accordingly (I think Georgia is one example).  It would also make California's vote look really different, since IIRC that state has a non-trivial number of red counties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eclipse said:

It's a cool thing to call Trump out on his nonsense here in Hawaii, and it has been used by several politicians in their campaign commercials.  Since they're mostly following the Democratic line (along with Schatz calling out Trump a couple of times), I'm not too bothered by them.

I guess what I meant to ask was, do you feel that there are Hawaii-specific issues being ignored that having more Senators would fix? Conversely, are there Hawaii-specific issues that you feel are being addressed only because you have equal representation in the Senate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johann said:

I guess what I meant to ask was, do you feel that there are Hawaii-specific issues being ignored that having more Senators would fix? Conversely, are there Hawaii-specific issues that you feel are being addressed only because you have equal representation in the Senate?

The homeless issue is huge here, and part of the issue is that other states (both governments and private citizens) will give their homeless a one-way ticket to our state.  Then it's our problem to deal with.  I don't think we're the only state that deals with this issue, but those of us on the receiving end of this nonsense are outnumbered by everyone else.  But attempting to regulate it via "you need to have a valid home address to fly to Hawaii" will also complicate things, since we have a lot of tourists, and they will most likely be staying in a hotel.

Next is the massive AirBnB issue, which means less housing for the locals.  I don't know how it would be addressed, short of banning BnBs entirely.

There's also the issue on Mauna Kea regarding protesters and the Thirty Mile Telescope, but it looks like the weather might solve it instead.  I'm not sure if anyone would care if we didn't have representatives from our state.

Don't get me started on the disaster that is the rail project in Honolulu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I just wanna point out that as originally drafted in 1787 the bicameral legislature only allowed for popular election of House Representatives. People didn't even vote for their Senators.  People voted for their representatives, and then their representatives appointed senators.  

...And this wasn't changed until 1913...

Oh, right...

But hey these mishaps are what amendments are for. More, please.

21 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Utah isn't looking at immigrants from another country that we screwed over due to nuclear testing.  Travel between states, at least, is a little less strict.

Hmm...Yeah, i guess I just took it as an excuse to talk about nukes. Hard to tell after I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...