Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[PhaelixWW]

When you are saying that Wyoming should have equal senate power to California because it is a "state" the argument isn't about "people" but land.

You say it again, and still it's not true.

And California has more power in Congress with 2 Senators and 53 Representatives than Wyoming with 2 Senators and 1 Representative.

"but 300k people voted in their senators!" so the fuck what? That's a small neighbourhood in NYC yet they have just as much power as the entire 19 million people the two senators from NY represent?

And New York has more power in Congress with 2 Senators and 27 Representatives than Wyoming with 2 Senators and 1 Representative.

[Breccia]

Mystery Solved

"Only the best people" right @Edge- ?

[Themius]

And I, for one, would much rather have a system that sometimes allows smaller states to leech off of larger states, rather than a system in which there's no protection should the larger states decide to block equal funding to the smaller states.

You know... checks and balances.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The larger states are the ones generally trying to fucking expand spending while the smaller states block them at every point and then take money because their stats can't run.

I mean we know expanding spending would lead to more money in the long run but instead smaller states castrate that and then demand balls.

- - - Updated - - -

You say it again, and still it's not true.

And California has more power in Congress with 2 Senators and 53 Representatives than Wyoming with 2 Senators and 1 Representative.



And New York has more power in Congress with 2 Senators and 27 Representatives than Wyoming with 2 Senators and 1 Representative.

California doesn't have proportional representation in the house. If only the original planned first amendment actually passed.

[PhaelixWW]

The idea that "tyranny of the majority" is something to be protected against inherently meant that tyranny of the minority is the preferred method. Which is categorically anti-democratic.

Which. Is. Why. There. Are. Two. Chambers.

One for the the people, and one for the states, in order to make the best effort to disallow "tyranny of the majority" and "tyranny of the minority".

I don't know why this concept is difficult for you to grasp.

- - - Updated - - -

What the fuck are you talking about?

The larger states are the ones generally trying to fucking expand spending while the smaller states block them at every point and then take money because their stats can't run.

Yes, right now they are.

But the system should be able to handle all scenarios, not just pave the way for the ones you agree with right now.

Today's excuses are tomorrow's abuses.

[Themius]

Which. Is. Why. There. Are. Two. Chambers.

One for the the people, and one for the states, in order to make the best effort to disallow "tyranny of the majority" and "tyranny of the minority".

I don't know why this concept is difficult for you to grasp.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, right now they are.

But the system should be able to handle all scenarios, not just pave the way for the ones you agree with right now.

Today's excuses are tomorrow's abuses.

Yet the lower house isn't proportional for larger states... and gerrymandering within those states have made sure of that.

"Yes right now"

Things are supposed to be updated every generation... that would handle situations... being that is not the case.... the idea you can just do one thing to handle all situations is bogus ergo, it's fucked and broken.

[Edge-]

Yet the lower house isn't proportional for larger states... and gerrymandering within those states have made sure of that.

Whoa dude, two different issues.

Gerrymandering is one problem.
The freeze on the size of the House is a separate problem.

[Themius]

Whoa dude, two different issues.

Gerrymandering is one problem.
The freeze on the size of the House is a separate problem.

There are a ton of interconnected issues.

The house has proportional issues, the house also has issues with gerrymandering affecting who goes to the house. this is in response to them arguing how the lower house will keep things in check even though the upper is slanted towards smaller states.

The issue here and why they're connected is often enough smaller states ideologies that give us oh so many issues... are conservative ones and currently, the gerrymandering issues means the lower house ends up with people with similar ideology.

[PhaelixWW]

Yet the lower house isn't proportional for larger states... and gerrymandering within those states have made sure of that.

I'm glad you finally agree now that those are the problems, not the Senate.

"Yes right now"

Things are supposed to be updated every generation... that would handle situations... being that is not the case.... the idea you can just do one thing to handle all situations is bogus ergo, it's fucked and broken.

Oops, spoke too soon.

Getting rid of the checks and balances is not what anyone should consider an "update". If you need them later, it's often too late to reinstate them.

[Edge-]

The house has proportional issues, the house also has issues with gerrymandering affecting who goes to the house. this is in response to them arguing how the lower house will keep things in check even though the upper is slanted towards smaller states.

...what? Again, those are two separate but similar problems. If you fix one, the other remains.

As to the why, ostensibly it was to keep the numbers manageable so the House doesn't end up with 800 Reps. which is like...fine by me if it has that many Reps. if people are actually represented equally.

The issue here and why they're connected is often enough smaller states ideologies that give us oh so many issues... are conservative ones and currently, the gerrymandering issues means the lower house ends up with people with similar ideology.

"smaller states ideologies"...what ideologies? You realize there are both liberal/Democrat and conservative/Republican small states, right? That say, New Hampshire or Connecticut are not conservative states sending Republicans to the Senate.

Your posts clearly show you're angry and frustrated, and I totally get that feeling and feel it too. But you're not making much sense, and not pulling from actual reality/history dude.

[Themius]

I'm glad you finally agree now that those are the problems, not the Senate.



Oops, spoke too soon.

Getting rid of the checks and balances is not what anyone should consider an "update". If you need them later, it's often too late to reinstate them.

Argue that the senate has been a check and balance.

Saying "what it is supposed to do" doesn't prove shit. So far the Senate has been a check and balance on what majority reform people from both parties agree with. EVEN AMONG THEIR OWN STATES INDIVIDUALLY

[AntiFascistVoter]

Maggie is retiring since she her leaks from bestie Ivanka wont have much clout.

But this one is a fun hate read.

A lot has happened in the last week, including the president losing his Twitter feed, impeachment coming to the fore and the PGA withdrawing from Trump National. He's "gutted" by the PGA move, a person close to the White House says.

[omeomorfismo]

You say it again, and still it's not true.

And California has more power in Congress with 2 Senators and 53 Representatives than Wyoming with 2 Senators and 1 Representative.



And New York has more power in Congress with 2 Senators and 27 Representatives than Wyoming with 2 Senators and 1 Representative.

it depends, if its like in italy, where laws need the check from both halls then the power its the same with your bipolar system.

[Themius]

...what? Again, those are two separate but similar problems. If you fix one, the other remains.

As to the why, ostensibly it was to keep the numbers manageable so the House doesn't end up with 800 Reps. which is like...fine by me if it has that many Reps. if people are actually represented equally.



"smaller states ideologies"...what ideologies? You realize there are both liberal/Democrat and conservative/Republican small states, right? That say, New Hampshire or Connecticut are not conservative states sending Republicans to the Senate.

Your posts clearly show you're angry and frustrated, and I totally get that feeling and feel it too. But you're not making much sense, and not pulling from actual reality/history dude.

I mean the UK has 650 reps for a population that's 1/5th our size. So it is clearly doable.

"Often enough smaller states..." lately it has skewed more democrat but I wouldn't celebrate over that as the next four years is what will tell us where things lie. Will we go slowly back to 2016 and earlier? Or will we continue the trend? If republicans feign sanity....


2020
leg control - gov control - state control
WY: R-R-R
VT: D-R-DIVIDED
ND: R-R-R
Alaska: R-R-R
SD: R-R-R
DE: D-D-D
MT: R-D-DIVIDED
RI: D-D-D
NH: D-D-D
ME: D-D-D
Hawaii: D-D-D
Idaho: R-R-R
Nebraska: NA-R-NA
WV: R-D-DIVIDED
NM: D-D-D
NV: D-D-D


Now let's take a look at what it was like with Trump but after midterms.


2018

WY: R-R-R
VT: D-R-DIVIDED
ND: R-R-R
Alaska: R-R-R
SD: R-R-R
DE: D-D-D
MT: R-D-DIVIDED
RI: D-D-D
NH: D-D-D
ME: DIVIDED-R-DIVIDED
Hawaii: D-D-D
Idaho: R-R-R
Nebraska: NA-R-NA
WV: R-R-R
NM: DIVIDED-D-DIVIDED
NV: D-R-DIVIDED

Now let's take a look at 2016, which is for me very important. Why? Because right now a lot of people who aren't really democrats or left or progressive are voting against Trump and his particular brand of batshit crazy. However, the issues we have, have been here forever... and when Trump is gone and maybe GOP goes back to feigning sanity we could see dems lose ground.



WY: R-R-R
VT: D-D-D
ND: R-R-R
Alaska: R-I-DIV
SD: R-R-R
DE: D-D-D
MT: R-D-DIV
RI: D-D-D
NH: R-D-DIV
ME: SPLIT-R-DIV
Hawaii: D-D-D
Idaho: R-R-R
Nebraska: NA-R-NA
WV: R-D-DIV
NM: SPLIT-R-DIV
NV: R-R-R


An important thing to note here is that Democrats and Republicans aren't all that far apart on a number of issues and small state Democrats are sometimes more conservative than Democrats in a traditionally more progressive area.

Another point here is that the smallest of small states that are democrat are primarily all in one region.... if we continue down the list it progressively gets more red as we move to states that are still quite small but not concentrated in the North East.

[DarkTZeratul]

Maggie is retiring since she her leaks from bestie Ivanka wont have much clout.

But this one is a fun hate read.

A lot has happened in the last week, including the president losing his Twitter feed, impeachment coming to the fore and the PGA withdrawing from Trump National. He's "gutted" by the PGA move, a person close to the White House says.

Of course that'd be the one he cares most about...

[PhaelixWW]

Argue that the senate has been a check and balance.

Saying "what it is supposed to do" doesn't prove shit. So far the Senate has been a check and balance on what majority reform people from both parties agree with. EVEN AMONG THEIR OWN STATES INDIVIDUALLY

Yes, a veto power is more likely to be abused, by either side. But it's infinitely preferable to a system that doesn't allow any sort of check to the majority's potential abuses.

The only reason we're having so much difficulty now is that there are so many damned idiots in this country.

The solution? Work harder to convince legislators or to win over over enough voters to change the legislators.

Do you realize that the GoP has controlled the House for 20 of the last 26 years? Six of those 20 years were offset by the Senate being controlled by the Democrats. In fact, the Democrats have controlled the Senate for more years (ten) than they have the House (six) in the last 26 years.

If your "solution" is to dissolve the Senate, then you're not living in reality.

[Themius]

Yes, a veto power is more likely to be abused, by either side. But it's infinitely preferable to a system that doesn't allow any sort of check to the majority's potential abuses.

The only reason we're having so much difficulty now is that there are so many damned idiots in this country.

The solution? Work harder to convince legislators or to win over over enough voters to change the legislators.

Do you realize that the GoP has controlled the House for 20 of the last 26 years? Six of those 20 years were offset by the Senate being controlled by the Democrats. In fact, the Democrats have controlled the Senate for more years (ten) than they have the House (six) in the last 26 years.

If your "solution" is to dissolve the Senate, then you're not living in reality.

Dissolve senate. Mandate proportion representation.

[PhaelixWW]

Dissolve senate. Mandate proportion representation.

You're not living in reality, then.

/shrug

Pray tell, though... just who do you think would be able to dissolve the Senate?

[Zaktar]

Dissolve senate. Mandate proportion representation.

So we don't think people organizing into state governments in order to help balance against the possible oppression of a federal government is a good idea anymore? Or that people's needs and tastes can differ by region? Or is it just that you don't think those political entities deserve any representation in the process?

[PhaelixWW]

“Fire me! Now!” - 67 Senators in some alternate reality.

It's the same reason we're unlikely to ever see the House size go up again, as well.

It's "astonishingly" difficult to get a supermajority of politicians to vote against their own immediate self-interest.

[PhaelixWW]

Idk, adding states isn’t necessarily all that unlikely.

Actually, the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 stipulates 435 House Seats, regardless of the number of states.