|
iospace posted:When was the last time they increased the count in the house? Oh right, 1922. I like the "it's because we've run out of room" argument. Sir Tonk posted:This is a fair point, the cable channels carried Trump's rallies start to finish and the only time they carried Clinton was the Pepe speech and the DNC. A friend of mine's been rattling off the talking point that the media didn't cover Trump's Gettysburg speech. Is that correct or is my bullshit alarm going off properly?
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:"ugh my vote counts for .33267 less electoral votes than another person's vote, this is an outrage!" *proceeds to ignore fact that millions of americans cast votes worth .0 of an electoral vote* You're right the EC also prevents citizens that live in territories from having their votes counted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:way more people's votes would matter if we got rid of winner take all voting - this can even be done on the state level, and doesn't require a constitutional amendment. and yet you're hung up on the EC. from a purely rational standpoint, you shouldn't be No I get that you're being facetious but your fundamental argument is flawed. Expecting the states to uniformly enforce proportional representation in a way that doesn't end up in the swing states gaining even more leverage in the electoral process is way more of a pipe dream than removing the EC. The amount of influence a California Republican or an Oklahoma Democrat has on the process with their individual vote isn't the only problem with the EC, it also skews national political discourse towards focusing the prevailing issues of states like Ohio and Florida which is why we're all sitting around talking about unemployed former-factory workers even though they composed a relatively small minority of the electorate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:This is a fair point, the cable channels carried Trump's rallies start to finish and the only time they carried Clinton was the Pepe speech and the DNC.  One of the reasons her team went so hard as "anti Trump" was because it was the only way to get coverage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:You're right the EC also prevents citizens that live in territories from having their votes counted. Territories like California or Wyoming too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Niton posted:It is fine for you to be just as important as anyone else. Disagreed, apparently we do or the dems would just leave us to rot. That you think abolishing the EC is easier than appealing to just a few more voters makes that crystal clear
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:You're right the EC also prevents citizens that live in territories from having their votes counted. We should probably be pushing, in a long term sense, to either get territories to become states or gain their independence, because the Puerto Rico situation isn't very good. We also should do something about DC. I kind of doubt we could get people sold on DC statehood, but isn't most of the land that's left from Virginia? If we could get them to take it back it would still help us out because it would push Virginia more solidly into the blue column.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
iospace posted:When was the last time they increased the count in the house? Oh right, 1922. The worst part about the "flyover states won't matter!:" argument is that you already matter. Not only do you matter, you matter a whole fuckin lot more than anyone else. Because of the age of the House of Representatives' districts, the most recently updated metric for electoral votes is the Senate. The Senate, where Wyoming (pop. 584k) stands on equal billing as California (pop. 38800k) on issues like LGBT rights and the environment. America's political system is super hosed now that young people are (rightly) abandoning places with no opportunity and it's really frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You're comically stupid. The Electoral College was specifically designed to put somebody like Hillary in power over somebody like Trump. The people who wrote the Constitution would loathe the people in the Rust Belt. the electoral college was actually created as a compromise because nobody could agree on how exactly the president should be chosen, with a side of allowing southern slavers to count 3/5 of their black people towards their share of the vote
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Lesson for the Dems in 2020: only talk about cartoon frogs if you want to get media attention
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:the electoral college was actually created as a compromise because nobody could agree on how exactly the president should be chosen Yes, it was created as a compromise between northern trade magnates and southern plantation aristocracy. They quibbled over the details of which rich bastards would get to pick who ran things but they weren't under any illusions of "protecting the downtrodden working class people from the evil coastal elite" because they were the coastal elite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:I like the "it's because we've run out of room" argument. It's bullshit, I watched it live on MSNBC, CNN and FoxNews at the gym.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:No I get that you're being facetious but your fundamental argument is flawed. Expecting the states to uniformly enforce proportional representation in a way that doesn't end up in the swing states gaining even more leverage in the electoral process is way more of a pipe dream than removing the EC. The amount of influence a California Republican or an Oklahoma Democrat has on the process with their individual vote isn't the only problem with the EC, it also skews national political discourse towards focusing the prevailing issues of states like Ohio and Florida which is why we're all sitting around talking about unemployed former-factory workers even though they composed a relatively small minority of the electorate. ...and that's why we can expect 34 states to ratify this amendment!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Disagreed, apparently we do or the dems would just leave us to rot. That you think abolishing the EC is easier than appealing to just a few more voters makes that crystal clear Rural states run the Senate compared to their heavily-populated counterparts, and become increasingly more powerful every cycle in which the House isn't expanded. It's not a problem because the Republicans won the electoral vote - it's a problem because the Electoral college is gradually becoming worse at representing the will of the people, rather than better. This is the second time in my lifetime this has happened, and there's little suggesting it won't happen a third time - or that it won't happen NEXT ELECTORAL CYCLE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:We should probably be pushing, in a long term sense, to either get territories to become states or gain their independence, because the Puerto Rico situation isn't very good. Ah, the old school filibuster approach. (Note that I agree with you) Xae posted:It's bullshit, I watched it live on MSNBC, CNN and FoxNews at the gym. Thought so. Hilariously enough her husband, who is also conservative (engineer, Texan, Catholic - checks all the boxes) went for Hillary with a "the republic can survive this kind of corruption much better than the other kind" viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:...and that's why we can expect 34 states to ratify this amendment! Yes it's not a reasonable expectation that either abolishing the EC or enacting proportional representation will actually occur but we're talking about what should happen, not what could
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Ah, the old school filibuster approach. I'll be perfectly honest and say I don't understand the joke here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
We just need to get rid of states imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yes, it was created as a compromise between northern trade magnates and southern plantation aristocracy. They quibbled over the details of which rich bastards would get to pick who ran things but they weren't under any illusions of "protecting the downtrodden working class people from the evil coastal elite" because they were the coastal elite. I can't tell if you're terribly misinformed on what the framers stood for or just carrying a cross. Alexander Hamilton posted:That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity. James Madison, Federalist Papers 10 posted:[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. They didn't quibble over the details principally for the reasons you ascribe, they quibbled because they knew mass consensus of the people should not directly control policy and leadership. Think Brexit on a national scale. Think of office leadership or team leadership on a small scale. Boon fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Boon posted:I can't tell if you're terribly misinformed on what the framers stood for or just carrying a cross. The context for the quotes that you're leaving out is that their definition of who should be allowed to vote in said pure democracies was straight white landowning men. I don't think we need direct democracy in most cases and I'm not even arguing for direct democracy. I'm arguing for direct election of a specific position when that one position has a shitload of power in our government and I feel that progressives are fooling themselves if they think the system presently benefits them. One fifth of the country just elected a moron to office who is going to tear apart every good thing we've done for the past twenty years. Edit: Actually, in fairness to you, I misread the quotes. But the material point, which is that their argument against pure democracy includes "because then non-rich white dudes would get to have a say," still stands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
There needs to be some kind of major scifi reconstruction of the rural America to not be lovely but this also means shifting a few million people out of there one way or another; free market forces will take care of most of it over time if you give them enough money in their pocket but at some point the government just needs to be willing to go "Sorry, it isn't cost effective when robots can do the work you're doing here, here take some cash and gtfo." The US needs a new New Deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The context for the quotes that you're leaving out is that their definition of who should be allowed to vote in said pure democracies was straight white landowning men. Yeah I think we're somehow conflating no EC = direct democracy in all things. We still are electing a president who leads an Executive branch of a representative Republic, with a bicameral legislature and etc etc. We would still be functionally mostly the same, electing representatives to run things. Full direct democracy is the citizenry going to the polls every few weeks to pass national laws, etc. Unrealistic, and quite different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Boon posted:I can't tell if you're terribly misinformed on what the framers stood for or just carrying a cross. You realize this is exactly what they mean by the coastal elite running things, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Yeah, it's almost like labor has been left out in the cold for 40 years and now people are wondering where they are after they stopped showing up for their team You keep banging on about Democrats having no plans for white blue collar guys. What do you think they should have said?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:no, they didn't OH BOY DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS!? TIME TO POST THIS ARTICLE AGAIN! http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/public-editor/the-truth-about-false-balance.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:It's really funny to me in a dark, depressing way to read goons who never gave Hillary any credit in the first place screeching about how "she woulda won if she just focused on policy!" when she gave lots of policy speeches and they received no coverage or attention. I think it was bad that Clinton and the media let Trump's "Maybe they did a bad job" response when asked why he didn't pay the people who built his supposedly awesome buildings. Clinton should have done ads based on that in the rust belt, and it should have gotten more play in the media than montages of Trump sniffling. However, that's in hindsight. Clinton's focus post-debate wasn't on jobs, but Trump's wasn't either. Remember how he responded to Alicia Machado. He quintupled down! The smart move was to say people cared more about jobs than his comments on women, but instead he spent days ranting unbidden to newscasters and rally crowds about how unattractive he thought she was. How could Clinton have known that she should have taken people's attention away from such a spectacular meltdown?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Also literally none of this matters cause the GOP and Trump are in power and they will make enfranchisement worse, not better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I'll be perfectly honest and say I don't understand the joke here. Not a joke. Pre-Civil War you had Southern states looking to take over new territories south of the border to get around the Missouri Compromise. The general idea was to create new pro-slavery states to add additional weight in Congress. Part of the push-back for D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood is an attempt to keep additional votes out of the Democrats' hands. *EDIT* The root of filibuster is actually "pirate". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(military) citybeatnik fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Not a joke. Pre-Civil War you had Southern states looking to take over new territories south of the border to get around the Missouri Compromise. The general idea was to create new pro-slavery states to add additional weight in Congress. Oh, ok. I knew that, I just didn't connect it to the filibuster I guess. You know what though, there's immense comedy value in Americans  ing it up about Mexican immigrants when literally half of the country, including one of the two most valuable states, were taken at gunpoint from Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:...and that's why we can expect 34 states to ratify this amendment! Also why reapportioning seats using the Wyoming rule is the target and this talk of getting rid of the EC is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/801110690387857408
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Oh, ok. I knew that, I just didn't connect it to the filibuster I guess. Part of the American experience is a willful blindness to our past.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
The apportionment issue is hosed since some people being counted as 3/5 of a person would be a step up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Part of the American experience is a willful blindness to our past. And a fear that your victims will treat you in the same way, like an abused daughter who abuses her parent when they in turn are old and frail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:You realize this is exactly what they mean by the coastal elite running things, right? Not really, but that's a whole rabbit hole that isn't worth fighting about over the next 10 pages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Didn't Carson already turn down a cabinet post Did... did Trump already forget
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:And a fear that your victims will treat you in the same way, like an abused daughter who abuses her parent when they in turn are old and frail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPVG4vgPWAc
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Didn't Carson already turn down a cabinet post Carson negged him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
Aside from Chief of Staff, is there any position that we're absolutely sure is going to be filled come January? I feel like we've seen at least 3 candidates for every one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:41
|
|
