Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

Willie Tomg posted:

Wyoming: Giving Vermont a state to look down upon

You mean other than the normal :smug:ness about the awesome white Social Democratic culture they have?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

icantfindaname posted:

FPTP is directly responsible for the existence of gerrymandering and getting rid of gerrymandering requires getting rid of FPTP

They're actually completely unrelated, the word you're looking for is Single Member District.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

Lotka Volterra posted:

This isn't true at all.

Literally everything to do with marijuana in the past 4 years or so is directly "states flaunting federal authority and getting cheered on by progressives".

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

VitalSigns posted:

And they're not nullifying federal drug laws. They're just refusing to duplicate some federal laws, which is a common thing states do all the time and isn't some hypocritical neo-Confederate act.

Is it possible to nullify a federal drug law, and how would you do it if so?

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

VitalSigns posted:

Same way South Carolina threatened to nullify the tariff. Arrest any federal agent who tried to enforce it, and secede if the federal government tries to compel them to stop.

So if the feds hadn't fought South Carolina when they nullified the tariff (like how the feds aren't fighting Colorado now), it wouldn't be nullification?

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

VitalSigns posted:

Colorado isn't threatening to secede or stopping federal agents from enforcing the law like South Carolina planned to do.

The decision not to enforce the laws is Obama's and if he changed his mind, Colorado wouldn't use force to stop him. The states asking the federal government nicely to do something isn't a return of the Confederation.

Oh, I almost didn't notice - you shifted rhetorical focus from "flaunting authority" to "nullification". You can flaunt authority without nullifying, and it's objective fact that that's what Colorado is doing.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

VitalSigns posted:

States having different laws is not flaunting authority.

When it differs with federal laws, yes quite often it is.

Especially if the difference is "This is a crime" and "this is a thing we're going to sell and collect taxes on".

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

Shbobdb posted:

Plus, populations tend to self-segregate.

They often self-segregate socially but not geographically.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

Shbobdb posted:

So what?

So it's not a problem solved by "better districting" unless you want to move to non-contiguous districts (which are basically worse in every other way).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

down with slavery posted:

We'll even take some edge cases, like Utah and Wisconsin. Those are red states I can deal with.


This Message Approved by Mitt Romney and Scott Walker.

  • Locked thread