Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Elegiac]

Off the top of my head, laws that negatively impact low population states to benefit the higher population states just because they can.

Y'all really be out here repeating right wing talking points like this crap without realising the OG "law that negatively impacts low population states" was abolition, huh?

The other laws under this umbrella invariably boil down to shit like not being able to rape the landscape for profit, discriminate against minorities, or exploit your workers and children for fun and profit, so..

[Mormolyce]

No, sorry, that's a crass oversimplification. We're not talking about counties voting here. States as separate voting entities is at the heart of the United States, hence the name.

Do member nations of the UN vote by weight according to their population? Does China get 21x the vote of the UK in the UN? Do you consider their land voting instead, then?

Nobody (well, nobody outside desperate Republicans) is suggesting that "land voting" is a desired thing. But having one chamber of Congress there to represent the states equally is not the same thing at all. The Senate is (supposed to be) balanced by the House of Representatives.

You could hardly pick a better example of an inequitable system than the UN Security Council lol.

Why should states, which are arbitrary lines drawn on a map a hundred plus years ago, have this kind of special treatment? What is it about a state that makes it a special interest group deserving of disproportionate representation, where any number of other special interest groups do not?

Should you have another chamber made up of each race? Two representatives for all white people, two for all black people and so on? I mean, why not, if simply having special interests is enough to justify disproportionate legislative power? Black Americans are a much more cohesive special interest group than most states are. Or maybe along other lines - two representatives of Christians, two of Jews, two of Atheists, two of Muslims, etc? Or two representatives of each tax bracket? Two gay, two straight, two bi? Maybe two for PC users, two for Mac, two for console peasants... these are all obviously appalling, so why is it okay when it's arbitrary chunks of geography?

States are actually a very poor representative of the interests of their people - the real divisions in America are along urban/rural lines. Most of the cities in deep red states are bright blue. Rural California is dark red. So if geography is for some reason so important, why not elect Senators from counties instead of states? That would be far more representative of their actual interests. Or maybe postcodes? Or maybe... and hear me out... in direct ratio to the number of people?

The states are the common unit of US politics for historical political reasons that have long since ceased to be relevant. It's just an archaic system exploited by whichever party happens to profit from it, essentially by accident. Disproportionate representation like the US Senate compromise democracy for no good reason.

[PhaelixWW]

So you are saying that if we actually got rid of Winner take all and had the electors awarded proportionally to that states popular vote, the net impact of the Wyoming option would still be virtually nil?

Yes. Changing the FPTP would be the bigger change. But whether we have the current 435 House Reps or the Wyoming Rule makes very little difference.

Just seems weird when we are in a system where Wyoming should only have like a third of a single representative if they were to stay in proportion with the country.

But that's not the case. Right now, there are 435 Representatives for ~308m people (2010 census numbers, excluding DC, Puerto Rico, etc.), which means that each Representative nominally represents ~708k people. Wyoming is 537k people. So still 76% of the nominal amount.

Rhode Island and Montana are actually the two most lopsided states. Rhode Island has 2 Reps for 1,053k people, meaning 526k people per Rep. Montana has 1 Rep for 989k people, so 989k people per 1 Rep. The larger the state gets, of course, the closer they tend to get towards the mean of 708k.

- - - Updated - - -

You could hardly pick a better example of an inequitable system than the UN Security Council lol.

That's because those countries are hardly equal in the first place.

Why should states, which are arbitrary lines drawn on a map a hundred plus years ago, have this kind of special treatment? What is it about a state that makes it a special interest group deserving of disproportionate representation, where any number of other special interest groups do not?

States are not just "arbitrary lines drawn on a map" any more than they're "just land". By your argument, what are country borders but arbitrary lines on a map? Why not just let China take over Australia and the whole Southwest Pacific? I mean, countries are arbitrary, right?

States are actually a very poor representative of the interests of their people - the real divisions in America are along urban/rural lines. Most of the cities in deep red states are bright blue. Rural California is dark red. So if geography is for some reason so important, why not elect Senators from counties instead of states? That would be far more representative of their actual interests. Or maybe postcodes? Or maybe... and hear me out... in direct ratio to the number of people?

Congratulations. You just described the House of Representatives! We've got one of those! Job done!

The states are the common unit of US politics for historical political reasons that have long since ceased to be relevant. It's just an archaic system exploited by whichever party happens to profit from it, essentially by accident.

I mean, this is incredibly not true. But I can understand how someone who's not from this country might be fooled into thinking so. Don't worry; I forgive you.

[Kellhound]

You spent hours defending racism.

It's all right there.

Explaining isn't defending, if you are smart enough to understand the difference, which it appears you are not.
[Infraction]

[Mormolyce]

States are not just "arbitrary lines drawn on a map" any more than they're "just land". By your argument, what are country borders but arbitrary lines on a map?

Gonna have to give you the "no shit, Sherlock" award of the month for that one lol.

Congratulations. You just described the House of Representatives! We've got one of those! Job done!

Congratulations! You got the point!

I mean, this is incredibly not true. But I can understand how someone who's not from this country might be fooled into thinking so. Don't worry; I forgive you.

It's incredibly true, in fact. States do a very poor job of representing the interests of US voters. Just look at the results of the most recent election:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_U...ntial_election

And frankly, that's just by county, and counties are arbitrary lines on the map too. If you made the regions more granular (and less gerrymandered...) you'd see an even more complex picture. Almost as if arbitrary lines drawn in a fight between free and slave states in the bloody antebellum years didn't accurately capture the political interests of future residents of those states (which were at the time almost empty) over a century later (which is not to imply that lines drawn earlier than that, from political issues no living person remembers, are any better).

You know, I would've thought you'd know all this given your position of superior knowledge of the issue, living in the US as you do. It's almost as if once again, geography is irrelevant.

[PhaelixWW]

Gonna have to give you the "no shit, Sherlock" award of the month for that one lol.

Sounds like you don't mind if China annexes Australia, then. Interesting.

It's incredibly true, in fact. States do a very poor job of representing the interests of US voters. Just look at the results of the most recent election:

I mean, that point was not in the quote that was being responded to. Are you sure you read it carefully? Or is this just some strawman shenanigans?

Regardless, you linked a map showing a presidential election. I'm not sure if you grasp this, but there are other types of shared ideology aside from simply a preference in political party and choice of President. Besides, a two-tone map, while easy to read, is intentionally limited in contextual information.

Now, before you pop a gasket, keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that state representation is more important that popular representation. I'm not even suggesting that it's as important as popular representation. It is, however, an important counterpoint to popular representation and one that serves a useful purpose.

[Crissi]

Man, just imagine if the other states could force the midwest to accept potential pollution of the Ogallala Aquifer because the midwest suddenly loses power by making the Senate the House. Like, I remember Nebraska distinctly objecting to that stupid pipeline running through their state because of the risk to their farmland if the Aquifer gets tainted.

The Senate is the Senate for reasons like that, because whats good for the coasts (where much of the population is) is not necessarily good for the midwest (where there is much less population)

[Mormolyce]

I am not racist at all. I do not judge people by their skin color, but by the culture they embrace and the actions they take.

Me too lol.

[Themius]

I know the proportional per state would have a greater impact, but was thinking about them combined.

If we have the proportional per state implemented, how much of an impact would that have on that system? Was thinking of them eventually getting both done at which point the order doesn't matter so long as we get there and baby steps if need be so long as we got there.

- - - Updated - - -



Off the top of my head, laws that negatively impact low population states to benefit the higher population states just because they can. While I am a believer in having the overall rule being decided by the people democratically, that is just too much abuse if a group manages to take over that entity.

I know it isn't the most efficient to have them both, but those guard rails are a good thing to have so long as we can keep those guard rails from basically being used to hold us down in the process.

.... do you have any rational reason to actually believe this??? Like an actual quantifiable reason to believe that the majority would suddenly do something like that considering the ideology of most large states being about EXPANDING spending in order to you know... progress. You are repeating the same shit conservative say and it didn’t have any backing when they said it.

- - - Updated - - -

Man, just imagine if the other states could force the midwest to accept potential pollution of the Ogallala Aquifer because the midwest suddenly loses power by making the Senate the House. Like, I remember Nebraska distinctly objecting to that stupid pipeline running through their state because of the risk to their farmland if the Aquifer gets tainted.

The Senate is the Senate for reasons like that, because whats good for the coasts (where much of the population is) is not necessarily good for the midwest (where there is much less population)

Majority is very pro environment and most environmental destruction and roll back of laws have come from mostly right wing representatives that represent a small number of people....

[Mormolyce]

Sounds like you don't mind if China annexes Australia, then. Interesting.

Maybe you should lay off the reply guy stuff for a minute, go back and remind yourself what we're talking about lol. Since you bring them up - no, Australia's Senate is not representative either. Indeed, just like the US our divisions are largely urban/rural and the states are a relic of British colonisation from before living memory.

China isn't a proper democracy of course, but I'm sure its Provinces don't accurately reflect the interest groups of the people there either. This phenomenon is pretty universal.

I mean, that point was not in the quote that was being responded to. Are you sure you read it carefully? Or is this just some strawman shenanigans?

Regardless, you linked a map showing a presidential election. I'm not sure if you grasp this, but there are other types of shared ideology aside from simply a preference in political party and choice of President. Besides, a two-tone map, while easy to read, is intentionally limited in contextual information.

Look I'm sorry you're having trouble keeping up with the argument but there simply aren't any smaller words I can choose. I really don't think it's that complicated, look at the map, it's pretty self-explanatory. Voting blocs in no way align to state lines. And no, the situation is no better in the Senate, House or state elections (I don't know why you think that would help your argument - if it were true that would mean the concept of states representing defined interest groups is totally bunk).

[Crissi]

Majority is very pro environment and most environmental destruction and roll back of laws have come from mostly right wing representatives that represent a small number of people....

Depends. You may gain dems in Texas, but you'd also gain Rep's in Cali and New York. Why would republicans in states that dont have that aquifer give a damn? Hell, Cornyn has does pushback on the wall nonsence himself because that affects his constituents unlike other states (that arent Cali, NM, or Arizona who are basically dmeocratic and would object regardless)

Basically, states have a bunch of local concerns that other states may not share (even on the Dem side of things), so its important that no state can override that through sheer population in the Senate. Balance is important.

[DarkTZeratul]

.... do you have any rational reason to actually believe this??? Like an actual quantifiable reason to believe that the majority would suddenly do something like that considering the ideology of most large states being about EXPANDING spending in order to you know... progress.

Majority is very pro environment and most environmental destruction and roll back of laws have come from mostly right wing representatives that represent a small number of people....

So... Your argument basically boils down to "obviously a large group of people would never screw over a smaller group," only without any sarcasm?

[Zaktar]

Look I'm sorry you're having trouble keeping up with the argument but there simply aren't any smaller words I can choose. I really don't think it's that complicated, look at the map, it's pretty self-explanatory. Voting blocs in no way align to state lines. And no, the situation is no better in the Senate, House or state elections (I don't know why you think that would help your argument - if it were true that would mean the concept of states representing defined interest groups is totally bunk).

Geographical boundaries will always be arbitrary to some extent, but you're stuck with them regardless, at least in the United States. I can think of no way to abolish the senate or radically alter States' position in the government without dealing with senators or state legislatures, neither of which are likely to cooperate.

[Machismo]

Explaining isn't defending, if you are smart enough to understand the difference, which it appears you are not.

Oh, I think everyone is smart enough to see it. People really aren't that complicated.

[Mormolyce]

Geographical boundaries will always be arbitrary to some extent, but you're stuck with them regardless, at least in the United States. I can think of no way to abolish the senate or radically alter States' position in the government without dealing with senators or state legislatures, neither of which are likely to cooperate.

If Phaelix had simply said that it's unlikely states or the Senate will be abolished, we wouldn't have been having that discussion. He was implying that it's a good system of government and justified. It isn't, it's just stuck that way because of history and political intransigence.

[Themius]

So... Your argument basically boils down to "obviously a large group of people would never screw over a smaller group," only without any sarcasm?

So your answer is no you are unable to quantify your bs position. Thanks for playing.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends. You may gain dems in Texas, but you'd also gain Rep's in Cali and New York. Why would republicans in states that dont have that aquifer give a damn? Hell, Cornyn has does pushback on the wall nonsence himself because that affects his constituents unlike other states (that arent Cali, NM, or Arizona who are basically dmeocratic and would object regardless)

Basically, states have a bunch of local concerns that other states may not share (even on the Dem side of things), so its important that no state can override that through sheer population in the Senate. Balance is important.

Why do we spend so much time talking about fracking?

[Felya]

Sheldon Adelson just died... another huge blow to GOP...

[Themius]

If Phaelix had simply said that it's unlikely states or the Senate will be abolished, we wouldn't have been having that discussion. He was implying that it's a good system of government and justified. It isn't, it's just stuck that way because of history and political intransigence.

I’m still waiting for someone to show me historical evidence large states will suddenly turn to polluting small ones... so far it’s been very much the opposite. With large states wanting to pass harsher laws against such actions.

[Mormolyce]

I’m still waiting for someone to show me historical evidence large states will suddenly turn to polluting small ones... so far it’s been very much the opposite. With large states wanting to pass harsher laws against such actions.

These are just post-hoc justifications made up after the fact to make it look like there's some ideological reason for it and it isn't just detritus of history clogging up the works.

[Poopymonster]

Sheldon Adelson just died... another huge blow to GOP...

Remember, we're not supposed to celebrate or figuratively "dance on the grave" of people who were gigantic flaming assholes who died.

To avoid the figuratively, one must literally know how to dance, and dance appropriately. I hope this helps.