Miami Herald: I’m done trying to understand Trump supporters. Why don’t they try to understand me?

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Such stats are fun I suppose.  But hardly relevant.   

 

All stats. 

 

But that one makes me feel better. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Btw it was mentioned the other day, but we getting closer to it. The Popular Vote Interstate Compact is about 6-8 states away from reaching the 270 to enact it.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

6-8 is still a lot of states to need to get on board.  If something like this came to be though, that I could see as being a tipping point big enough to spark a revolt.  And I can't say I wouldn't be inclined to join.

 

 

Also, I think we already have a thread regarding the the EC so we might want to get back on topic here.

[Renegade7]

29 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

The reason we don't, and shouldn't, have a 1 person 1 vote rule is because then a handful of cities would have complete say over everything.  And the rest of the country outside of those few cities would essentially get no say at all. 

You mean president, right?  And the fundamental problem with this argument is that it's heading in that direction anyway and the reason GOP will lose the cities is because of their policies towards minorities.  If they refuse to change, that's their problem, not the rest of the country.

 

You right, I think we're getting off track here, where is that EC thread?

Edited May 17, 2018 by Renegade7

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

You right, I think we're getting off track here, where is that EC thread?

Anyone remember what it was called?  Electoral College title search did not yield any results.

[Riggo-toni]

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

11 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

The reason we don't, and shouldn't, have a 1 person 1 vote rule is because then a handful of cities would have complete say over everything.  And the rest of the country outside of those few cities would essentially get no say at all. 

1. As pointed out, the system is flawed in it's current form as well.

2. I'm not so sure your second sentence moves my position in the direction you'd like it to. I mean... look how good they done.

[mcsluggo]

17 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

The reason we don't, and shouldn't, have a 1 person 1 vote rule is because then a handful of cities would have complete say over everything.  And the rest of the country outside of those few cities would essentially get no say at all. 

 

really??   a person's vote in Gotham City would count more than a person's vote in Smallville?

[twa]

Should we eliminate the Senate as well?

Maybe redraw congressional districts based simply on the number of registered voters.

 

Change is fun.

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

1. As pointed out, the system is flawed in it's current form as well.

2. I'm not so sure your second sentence moves my position in the direction you'd like it to. I mean... look how good they done.

 

38 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

really??   a person's vote in Gotham City would count more than a person's vote in Smallville?

If you all want to discuss the merits or lack thereof regarding the EC, I suggest finding the thread for it or starting a new one.  I think we have derailed this thread enough. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

41 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

really??   a person's vote in Gotham City would count more than a person's vote in Smallville?

No, these fine people just oppose democracy. They want the vote of a man living in Wyoming to be counted as 3 votes and a woman’s vote in Florida to only count as 3/4’s a vote. 

Seems reasonable.

32 minutes ago, twa said:

Should we eliminate the Senate as well?

Maybe redraw congressional districts based simply on the number of registered voters.

 

Change is fun.

 

 

What does the Senate have to do with anything?

Oh wait, nothing at all you’re just trying to obfuscate. Per the norm.

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

No, these fine people just oppose democracy

 

If you want a democracy, you should go find one to live in.  The USA isnt set up to be a democracy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

If you want a democracy, you should go find one to live in.  The USA isnt set up to be a democracy.

Ugh...no kidding. The US is a Constitutional Republic founded upon democratic principles.

Please save your condescending BS for the idiots on twitter.

 

But, if you’re so opposed to democratic principles then just remrmber that the next time you elect your Congressional Rep, your Senator, your governor, your state reps. Also remember it when there are local and state referendums.

Edited May 18, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan

[twa]

12 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

What does the Senate have to do with anything?

Oh wait, nothing at all you’re just trying to obfuscate. Per the norm.

 

It allows small states out sized influence

 

Counting non registered voters  in congressional districts  makes voting power unequal in areas.

 

I think I'm going to cry

[AsburySkinsFan]

If t

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

It allows small states out sized influence

 

Counting non registered voters  in congressional districts  makes voting power unequal in areas.

 

I think I'm going to cry

The Senate is balanced by the House, or do you need a civics lesson?

 

Oh snd your brilliant idea of only counting registered voters would cause the redrawing of districts before every election.

But yeah, keep obfuscating.

 

Looks like Dimitry’s shift ended, we’ve got a new commdrade at the bot controls.

[twa]

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

If t

The Senate is balanced by the House, or do you need a civics lesson?

 

Oh snd your brilliant idea of only counting registered voters would cause the redrawing of districts before every election.

But yeah, keep obfuscating.

 

Looks like Dimitry’s shift ended, we’ve got a new commdrade at the bot controls.

 

And the POTUS is balanced by congress and the court

 

Why would who we count change the frequency of redrawing differently than population?

 

Civics lessons are nice, but inequality or sumthin 

[DogofWar1]

The governing systems of our country were never really meant to take the demographic strains we're seeing.

 

There is indeed a point to be made about the Senate.  The bottom 21 states, or 42 Senators, have only 36.2M people (2016 estimate from wikipedia).

 

That is a mere 11.23% if the population.

 

This is ultimately why the filibuster was always doomed.  If we assume that rural and urban areas vote differently, and that state population is causally linked to status as rural or urban, then we would eventually hit a point where increasingly small minorities would wield incredible power.

 

But the Senate more generally is facing a long term crisis as a result of demographic shifts.

 

Bottom 26 states by pop estimated at 56.9M people (2016).  That's a mere 17.6% of the population.

 

Now, for the time being not all small states vote one way and not all large states vote the other.  But the fissures are becoming visible.

 

The EC, having the Senate votes integrated into it, shares a number of the same problems.

 

 

Now, how do we address these issues?  How do we keep cities from overrunning rural political power completely, while keeping a small percentage of the population in rural areas from overruning city political power?

 

There really isn't a good easy answer.  Strong state and local protections would help counterbalance a move to pure majority wins with regards to Presidency, but the Senate issue remains and would require significantly more work.

 

Something I've mulled over would be the idea of a 3rd house of Congress, much larger than the House or Senate, locked in at, say, 100,000 or 250,000 people per rep, instead of trying to keep the number of reps stable at a certain number while population changes.

 

Then introduce the ability of two houses to, with a sufficiently large majority, overrule the 3rd house.  Thus if the Senate ever became an unworkable mess that had Senators representing 17% of the population totally blocking the other 83%, the other two houses could, with large enough majorities of course, step in and override, as with a veto.

 

 

But, uhhhh, I'm not holding my breath for anything like that, its basically an almost impossible thing.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I am against amy idea that includes adding more politicians to the mix.  I think they are a big cause of our current perils.  

[AsburySkinsFan]

On 5/18/2018 at 10:38 AM, twa said:

 

And the POTUS is balanced by congress and the court

 

Why would who we count change the frequency of redrawing differently than population?

 

Civics lessons are nice, but inequality or sumthin 

Now you’re just rambling to make sure we stay off topic.

[twa]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Now you’re just rambling to make sure we stay off topic.

 

so you are done trying to understand?..... 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Now you’re just rambling to make sure we stay off topic.

 

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

so you are done trying to understand?..... 

 

Nope.  He's saying that he understands you.  

 

[No Excuses]

Best of luck to America:

 

Quote

Political scientists Steven V. Miller of Clemsonand Nicholas T. Davis of Texas A&M have released a working paper titled "White Outgroup Intolerance and Declining Support for American Democracy." Their study finds a correlation between white American's intolerance, and support for authoritarian rule. In other words, when intolerant white people fear democracy may benefit marginalized people, they abandon their commitment to democracy.

 

Quote

 

The growing concentration of intolerant white voters in the GOP, on the other hand, has created a party which appears less and less committed to the democratic project. When faced with a choice between bigotry and democracy, too many Americans are embracing the first while abandoning the second.

 

"Social intolerance isn't just leading to GOP support as we know it and see it now," Miller says. "It's leading to preferences in favor of the kind of candidate the GOP ultimately nominated and supported for president." In embracing the politics of white identity, then, the GOP made a Trump possible — and is likely to make more Trump-like candidates successful in the future.

 

 

 

[Llevron]

Well duh

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

They hate being called racist though so don’t go there.

[Warhead36]

Nothing worse than hateful, ignorant people who are PROUD to be hateful and ignorant.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

9 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Nothing worse than hateful, ignorant people who are PROUD to be hateful and ignorant.

I said it during the campaign, Donald Trump is making being an asshole great again.

 

That’s a fact. Hateful, ignorant jackanapes are emboldened by this asshat and the right wing propaganda machine... that and the entire GOP is a bunch of spineless, unprincipled *******.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff