Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

So let me get this straight...


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#41 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,062
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:23 PM

hahaha objectively wrong

want to actually make campaigns more receptive to all americans? go to a popular vote


Popular vote is assinine as it would be worse than what we have now and just cater to population centers. What's good for Newark, NJ isn't necessarily good for BFE, Idaho.

lol no "a good thing" would be equal representation. the democratic house candidates took 49.15% of the vote in the house, with republicans taking 48.03%. however, the 113th house will be 46.2% democratic and 53.8% republican. this is problematic, provided you're not an authoritarian


States choose their representation through districting. Feds stepped in and tried/succeeded in controlling that in the south. You have a problem with redistricting altogether? How do you propose it's done. It's the United States...not the united state.

#42 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,012
  • Reputation: 440
HUDDLER

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:25 PM

Popular vote is assinine as it would be worse than what we have now and just cater to population centers. What's good for Newark, NJ isn't necessarily good for BFE, Idaho.



cater? how is numerically fair representation catering to anyone? wouldn't anything other than that be catering?

#43 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,062
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:30 PM

cater? how is numerically fair representation catering to anyone? wouldn't anything other than that be catering?


There's a reason we have the Senate. Why did the framers give numerically unfair representation to small states?

http://www.congressl...hingssenate.htm

As decided by the Great Compromise of 1787, each state is represented by two senators; therefore each state has an equal voice in the Senate. In the House, large states enjoy a numerical advantage in representation, but in the Senate every state—large or small—has equal representation.
In creating the Senate, the framers were careful to provide a safeguard against majority rule. Giving the small state of Delaware the same voting power as the large state of Virginia, for example, provided protection for the voice of the minority.
Knowing this is crucial to understanding the framers’ design for the Senate, but of equal importance is the number itself. Why two senators? Why not three or four per state? The framers wanted the Senate always to be a comparatively smaller body than the House. This smaller size has allowed the Senate to maintain its more deliberative nature and to persist in its tradition of unlimited debate, including the use of the filibuster, long after the House abolished that privilege in its chamber. Having a smaller body has allowed for flexibility in Senate rules and procedures, and has accommodated the need for secrecy in deliberations on sensitive matters, such as foreign policy.
Having a smaller body has meant that each member’s voice can be heard.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison commented that one of the problems to be solved by a new government was “that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an overbearing majority.”
As part of the solution, the framers designed a small, deliberative Senate where even a minority of one must be heard.



#44 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,012
  • Reputation: 440
HUDDLER

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:38 PM

There's a reason we have the Senate. Why did the framers give numerically unfair representation to small states?

http://www.congressl...hingssenate.htm


now can you bring that around to your opposition to a popular vote?

(honestly i fail to see how a popular vote would cater to urban areas anyway, if anything it seems like it would do the opposite.)

#45 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:42 PM

The electoral college system is a relic from before instantaneous cross country electronic communication. It has no place here today.

#46 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,501
  • Reputation: 3,467
SUPPORTER

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:44 PM

This would all be solved by increasing economic growth by 1 point long term.

#47 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,113
  • Reputation: 2,945
  • LocationMontford
HUDDLER

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:14 PM

that's what happens when they've gerrymandered themselves into untouchable positions...


you might have seen the same thing i did on Meet the Press when Tom Brokaw casually tossed out a stat that 75% of those in Congress were from gerrymandered districts. and my jaw dropped.

he just more or less said we are cooked because of this. and i tend to agree.

#48 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,012
  • Reputation: 440
HUDDLER

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:17 PM

you might have seen the same thing i did on Meet the Press when Tom Brokaw casually tossed out a stat that 75% of those in Congress were from gerrymandered districts. and my jaw dropped.

he just more or less said we are cooked because of this. and i tend to agree.


must've missed that, i was barely paying attention to meet the press this week... i was reading about it in a politico article. but, agreed... it's quite bad.

#49 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 17,903
  • Reputation: 6,250
  • LocationMatthews, NC
Administrators

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:03 PM

Too much.

The SS tax is probably the tax that I hate the most.

14.2 % of my taxable income going to fund that program. If I make 90K per year, do you think I will ever see more than 5% of the cash that I sent to SS in my retirement years.


You should like it, There is a regressive cap on it. They don't tax you on anything you make over $114,000.

#50 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,911
  • Reputation: 5,441
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon
HUDDLER

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:50 PM

The electoral college system is a relic from before instantaneous cross country electronic communication. It has no place here today.


Exactly.

True popular vote is exactly the best solution.

A vote in NY should carry exactly the same weight as a vote in Montana.

A Repub vote in Mass is worthless...just as a Dem vote in Wyoming is worthless.

Can't think of any logical reason to keep the electoral college.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users