|
SlothfulCobra posted:Democracy historically has mainly been a farce to cover the fact that one group or family has taken control and rigged the vote or a power-sharing agreement between the powerful ruling families. ftfy
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Byzantine posted:ftfy I mean if you're gonna go there then that's also every human society that's ever existed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Well Congo is pushing 100 million people so those fish won't be lasting much longer I bet. DRC:  Me: oh
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:ftfy I didn't realize you were such a fan of medieval Italian city-state governments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
Compromise: the US government remains as is, but state and congressional district borders are determined once every three years by selecting a random US citizen and handing them a blank US map.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
The randomly selected citizen is Al Franken.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Compromise: the US government remains as is, but state and congressional district borders are determined once every three years by selecting a random US citizen and handing them a blank US map. Umm, pick one or the other, there is no way that would consistently produce 50 (or 48) states. Also way too much Texas probably. I was trying to think of a snarky counter example to all government being used to reinforce the power of the ruling elite. All my examples are either "right after a revolution", "I don't actually know how it worked in reality" or "failed state lol".
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
There are parts of the Congo River that are nearly a thousand feet deep and NOPE THAT'S TOO DEEP FOR A RIVER IM SORRY.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:the most confederate thing of all, states with more people getting more votes than states with less people very good and normal system where a state that gains population loses representation definitely nothing wrong with that Rah! fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Apr 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
Rah! posted:texas has more people than california? Individually? No. By biomass? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
the first one is a texan boomer from Hale County and he chuckles to himself as he draws circles around all the major cities and assigns them as exclaves of Commiefornia
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Individually? No. By biomass? Yes. lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
again you fuckin morons do realize that the size of the house of representatives is fixed by our dumbass federal law, the vast majority of states gained population between 2010 and 2020, and therefore states that grew more get more and states that were average or below average lose seats? California still has nearly 20 more than Texas. The relative size of the population of the one grew in relative size compared to the other compared to 2010 and that is forced to be reflected into 435 assholes.
Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Apr 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I didn't realize you were such a fan of medieval Italian city-state governments. Venice aka Democracy, where you are controlled by powerful families: Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced by lot to nine; the nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve, who chose twenty-five. The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine, and the nine elected forty-five. These forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and the eleven finally chose the forty-one who elected the doge. Election required at least twenty-five votes out of forty-one, nine votes out of eleven or twelve, or seven votes out of nine electors. Blessed Imperium, where anybody can rise to the top: kill the emperor to become the emperor
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:Me: no loving way, the population was like 50 million last time I checked. Although that was closer to 2000... what exactly is meant by male/female "surplus"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
yikes! posted:what exactly is meant by male/female "surplus"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
yikes! posted:what exactly is meant by male/female "surplus"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
yikes! posted:what exactly is meant by male/female "surplus"? It sounds really bad yeah, but it's just how many more males/females are in each age group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:Me: no loving way, the population was like 50 million last time I checked. Although that was closer to 2000... Yeah but Congo is enormous and the entire country is in theory a great place for people to live, minus all the horrible diseases that have largely been wiped out or mitigated in the last 100 years. It could easily support hundreds of millions of people. To put in perspective, the Netherlands has 13x the population density of the DRC, meaning if Congo was as densely populated as the Netherlands, it would have a population of like 1.1 billion people. I'm not sure if the Netherlands could actually be food sufficient, possibly not, but in any case there's clearly a lot of room for the DRC to grow in population without becoming directly Malthusian, which will probably happen, and hopefully them destroying the Congo Rainforest won't have massive global repercussions. Africa had a crazy low population density until recently; I'm sure people have posted these maps before:  The entirety of of sub-Saharan Africa had an equivalent population to Germany in 1900 (65 m sub-Saharan Africa, 56 m Germany). What seems more terrifyingly Malthusian is projections putting like 750 million people in Nigeria by 2100. That is not a large country and it is not exactly a farming paradise. Congo is only projected to have 350 million which seems like it would be manageable if the government could handle it: https://www.populationpyramid.net/democratic-republic-of-the-congo/1995/ Saladman fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Apr 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:again you fuckin morons do realize that the size of the house of representatives is fixed by our dumbass federal law, the vast majority of states gained population between 2010 and 2020, and therefore states that grew more get more and states that were average or below average lose seats? California still has nearly 20 more than Texas. The relative size of the population of the one grew in relative size compared to the other compared to 2010 and that is forced to be reflected into 435 assholes. Any system where a state with a bigger population gets fewer representatives is a bad system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
Saladman posted:
what are the sources for this map? i mean, the danish census in 1901 for a fact missed a number of people*, so i figure colonial administrations missed a lot of people. even now in america, there's been murmurs of lots of latinos not being counted in texas etc * by the 50s they were probably fully accurate, since we started tracking everyone from birth to death by hand in the 1920s and with computers since 1968 Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Apr 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:
It helps if you're born in the Magic Room
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
ultrafilter posted:Any system where a state with a bigger population gets fewer representatives is a bad system. 1) that's not what's happening. New York has a growth in population, not in relative population size. It gets fewer representatives because the other states grew more. 2) there's an argument to be made that representing small (often rural) populations disproportionally (in their favour) is a good idea, to prevent the majority from just loving up the minority. Denmark uses a system like that, where a vote in Vestjylland is worth more representation than a vote in Copenhagen. 3) any system is a bad system, so yeah, agreed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Small rural populations often love loving up minorities though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
imo we should go back to the Andræ Method (aka single transferable vote), which denmark used 1855–1915, before switching to the much dumber current proportional system. It would weaken the bigger bloc parties which is always a good thing, and theres still room to balance Jutes, Zealanders, etc https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/Andr%E6s_metode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Christoffer_Georg_Andr%c3%a6
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
BonHair posted:
Yes, a terrible argument. Other minorities don't get any special voting privileges, location based ones make no more sense than say, ethnic ones. One vote one man, anything else is just arbitrarily giving one minority an unfair edge. Well I can maybe see the argument if that minority is an indigenous one who has been in the geographic area of a given nation before there even was one...but even then I'd go with autonomous areas over having greater share of the vote on a country-wide basis. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Apr 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Well Congo is pushing 100 million people so those fish won't be lasting much longer I bet. Well, the map you're referring to showed that the Congolese get most of their animal protein from fish, not that they are getting a lot of protein in absolute terms. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:again you fuckin morons do realize that the size of the house of representatives is fixed by our dumbass federal law, the vast majority of states gained population between 2010 and 2020, and therefore states that grew more get more and states that were average or below average lose seats? California still has nearly 20 more than Texas. The relative size of the population of the one grew in relative size compared to the other compared to 2010 and that is forced to be reflected into 435 assholes. states should not lose seats after gaining population. gently caress this relative growth garbage it almost like the system is loving stupid, and the house of representatives shouldn't be fixed in size, which is the entire point of the posts where people are complaining about it 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
How is it any better if let's say California keeps its number of Reps, but Texas and Florida gain an additional rep on top of the ones they gained under the current system, because the representation is still proportional. What sort of baffling pseudo-logic is that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:How is it any better if let's say California keeps its number of Reps, but Texas and Florida gain an additional rep on top of the ones they gained under the current system, because the representation is still proportional. maybe they could both gain reps, because they both grew lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Yes, a terrible argument. Other minorities don't get any special voting privileges, location based ones make no more sense than say, ethnic ones. One vote one man, anything else is just arbitrarily giving one minority an unfair edge. Indigenous peoples being given complete control of the entire federal government to do with as they please would own pretty hard, actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
Rah! posted:maybe they could both gain reps, because they both grew OK, so if the ratio of reps between two hypothetical states is tied to population and doesn't change, why does it matter if the number of representatives is 100:150 or 50:75 or 200:300, with large assemblies and large states the rounding differences are marginal. Redistricting, which would matter, is a separate issue that isn't addressed by this either. Entirely pointless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
It's less of an issue now with phones and the internet but a single politician covering a very large geographic area can lead to inequalities. Canada is bit of an exception compared to most countries but an MP in downtown Toronto might cover a few square kilometres while the Nunavut MP (there's only one) covers an area about 4 times the size of Spain. So the Toronto MP can have a day in the office where every single person in the riding can access the office should they want to, then the MP can go out to a fundraising event, attend a community forum, and be back in their own bed all in one day. The Nunavut MP would be literally unable to do that in an entire week and would need a budget of thousands of dollars for airfare. Nunavut is obviously the extreme example, but even the rural but not remote riding I grew up in is about the size of Montenegro. You can definitely drive across it and back in a day if you need to but it makes community engagement much more difficult. Again this is less of an issue now with all of our communications technology (and much more of an issue in Canada than most countries) but there are strong historical reasons for it. And from speaking to my local MP, the people who come into the office are generally also the people who might have the least knowledge of how to use that technology so some face to face contact is still important. Plus, rural and remote regions are also the areas most likely to have lovely internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Chicken posted:It's less of an issue now with phones and the internet but a single politician covering a very large geographic area can lead to inequalities. Canada is bit of an exception compared to most countries but an MP in downtown Toronto might cover a few square kilometres while the Nunavut MP (there's only one) covers an area about 4 times the size of Spain. So the Toronto MP can have a day in the office where every single person in the riding can access the office should they want to, then the MP can go out to a fundraising event, attend a community forum, and be back in their own bed all in one day. The Nunavut MP would be literally unable to do that in an entire week and would need a budget of thousands of dollars for airfare. Nunavut is obviously the extreme example, but even the rural but not remote riding I grew up in is about the size of Montenegro. You can definitely drive across it and back in a day if you need to but it makes community engagement much more difficult. how much land would I need to buy for a rotten borough
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Chicken posted:It's less of an issue now with phones and the internet but a single politician covering a very large geographic area can lead to inequalities. Canada is bit of an exception compared to most countries but an MP in downtown Toronto might cover a few square kilometres while the Nunavut MP (there's only one) covers an area about 4 times the size of Spain. So the Toronto MP can have a day in the office where every single person in the riding can access the office should they want to, then the MP can go out to a fundraising event, attend a community forum, and be back in their own bed all in one day. The Nunavut MP would be literally unable to do that in an entire week and would need a budget of thousands of dollars for airfare. Nunavut is obviously the extreme example, but even the rural but not remote riding I grew up in is about the size of Montenegro. You can definitely drive across it and back in a day if you need to but it makes community engagement much more difficult. More seats for Wyoming, then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:More seats for Wyoming, then? The size of a seat should be inversely proportional to the quality of internet and the availability of transit. So Wyoming should have a lot of seats while the NYC-Washington DC corridor should have one at most.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
 Distribution of the genus Acacia You thought that mainland Africa had acacia trees? Think again, dumbass. (What actually happened is that the genus was stolen. The name and original type species are from Egypt, but hundreds of Australian species were added, far outnumbering the African ones. When genetic studies forced a split, it was considered less disruptive to move the African species to their own genus, Vachellia.) HookShot posted:There are parts of the Congo River that are nearly a thousand feet deep and NOPE THAT'S TOO DEEP FOR A RIVER IM SORRY. The Nile carved a canyon hundreds of metres deep during the Messinian salinity crisis, but it’s mostly full of sediment now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:the most confederate thing of all, states with more people getting more votes than states with less people I mean, it still is the most important city in the country and the world. Texas is allowed to dump on NY when it stops being a petro-state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
The most important and famous city in the world is Washington DC. You know, the place where the world's largest military is headquartered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Saladman posted:What seems more terrifyingly Malthusian is projections putting like 750 million people in Nigeria by 2100. That is not a large country and it is not exactly a farming paradise. Congo is only projected to have 350 million which seems like it would be manageable if the government could handle it: https://www.populationpyramid.net/democratic-republic-of-the-congo/1995/ Best-case scenario is that further improvements in agricultural technology would comfortably be able to feed a population of 750M in a country the size of Nigeria. Remember that in the 1970s the Club of Rome warned of overpopulation as one of the main roads into an unsustainable world, whereas in reality it turned out population wasn't the problem, but greed. 1970s tech could absolutely not feed the entirety of the 2021 world population, but 2020s tech could, with some to spare. Also, while Africa will very likely continue to boom in terms of population, other regions won't. Asia and South America are likely to stall and Europe will even see a drop in population. We may see the day the world reaches 10 billion people, but that is likely going to be the peak as African nations become more literate and literacy is directly proportional to fertility rates (literate women basically means more empowered women who have a greater say in bodily autonomy, this is true even for repressive regimes like Iran). As a sidenote, it's also why frequently-touted 'Great Replacement' theories espoused by the far-right are so incredibly dumb: immigrant populations tend to come down to the fertility rate of the host population as generations go by, unless the host population was killed off in a rather brief period beforehand due to all-out genocide, natural disasters or disease.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2021 00:11
|
|
