General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, but California doesn't need 127 senators to de facto write many regulations for the manufacture and sale of products, like cars, in the US. It just does it in its own statehouse. It only needs 127 senators to make sure that it never has to listen to feedback about Kansas from a Kansan again. The mighty demographs are not losing on the systemic measures. Claiming they have too much representation in government and that's what's doing it is... pretty funny, really.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The measure is fine, its relevance to determining how much people's votes should count is what I'm dubious about.

I posted that graphic because it shows us that actually some of the highest GDP per capita states are also those favored by the electoral college, which I think casts some significant doubt on your argument that the electoral college acts as a counter to concentrated economic power.

I guess at the end of the day maybe we think about this differently. The way I see things, the GDP per capita of New York state not primarily because of governance issues but because of the fact that New York state contains New York City.

This segues into the next point that most of the states are arbitrary rectangles and that makes using states (as opposed to something like a metropolitan statistical area) as a proxy for the geographic apportionment of political power quite counterproductive to what you say you want, which is "correcting" for concentrated economic power.

I thought the 2016 Democratic Primary results for New York were illustrative of this, where Clinton won the cities and Sanders won the rest. Sort of.



Green is Sanders; Gold is Clinton; darker colors are a larger margin of victory. Clinton won a lot of the wealthy places: Westchester County, Nassau County, Kings County (Brooklyn), New York County (Manhattan), Rockland County. I'm a little surprised to see that Clinton walloped Sanders in Bronx County and Queens County. The Bronx was Clinton's biggest victory, the little dark-brown bit, 68.76% to 30.04%. Not that I know much about the Bronx, but that surprised me.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Yeah, but California doesn't need 127 senators to de facto write many regulations for the manufacture and sale of products, like cars, in the US. It just does it in its own statehouse. It only needs 127 senators to make sure that it never has to listen to feedback about Kansas from a Kansan again. The mighty demographs are not losing on the systemic measures. Claiming they have too much representation in government and that's what's doing it is... pretty funny, really.

Who said California should have 127 Senators? If that was just a typo and you meant the House, by my reckoning, California would have 67 Representatives and Kansas would have 5. How those states' congressional districts are drawn would matter, but why should rural farmers in California be less well-represented in the House than rural farmers in Kansas?

 

[Farm Boy]

They're more susceptible to having been jerrymandered(systemic, not specific to CA), for one, they trade on and under different sets of state rules, for two? They owe tax to different overlords. To different schools. Hospitals.

 

[EgonSpengler]

They're more susceptible to having been jerrymandered(systemic, not specific to CA), for one, they trade on and under different sets of state rules, for two? They owe tax to different overlords. To different schools. Hospitals.

I don't understand how any of that explains why rural farmers in Kansas should be given more weight in the House than rural farmers in California. And I'm only picking 'rural farmers' because I'm trying for some kind of 1-to-1 comparison. There's no reason wealthy land-owners in Kansas should get more representation than urban working poor in California, either. Or any other group in Kansas over any other group in California. In the House, I mean. I'm not talking about the Senate. If there are compelling reasons for why Kansans as a group (as opposed to any other way we might group people) deserve to be over-represented in the legislature, they already have that, in the Senate.

 

[Lexicus]

It just does it in its own statehouse. It only needs 127 senators to make sure that it never has to listen to feedback about Kansas from a Kansan again.

This is an incoherent argument. California can de facto set standards for the country not because of anything in the Constitution, but because profit-seeking corporations attempt to cut costs by designing products for the largest market and not accepting the costs of the inefficiency of having many different variations of products to fit different regulatory regimes.

Claiming they have too much representation in government and that's what's doing it is... pretty funny, really.

You are the only one who is making claims like this. I don't think the amount of representation a state has in Congress has a significant effect on its economy or how wealthy its residents are. The local government matters much more than Congress for that, and even then those effects are gonna be marginal compared to simple facts of geography.

In a broader sense I think the structure of state institutions is absolutely an important determinant for the economy, but these factors are way, way upstream of the ratios of congressional representation between different states.

 

[Farm Boy]

We don't need to use wealth, though it's not a bad measure of government's hand, pick your metric.

Edit: though it might be more useful to simply break it down to federal spending per capita instead, to help clear clutter. Does it fall progressively or regressively with senators vis a vie wealth?

 

[Broken_Erika]

'Contrarian' doctor a good choice to lead COVID-19 data review, Alberta premier says​

Dr. Gary Davidson, who accused province of exaggerating COVID-19's impact on hospitals, to lead data review ​

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says it's a good idea to have a physician who accused the province of exaggerating COVID-19's impact on hospitals now lead a review of pandemic-era health data.

Smith says Dr. Gary Davidson was selected to lead the data review because she wants to hear a range of viewpoints, including from those "shouted down in the public sphere."

"I needed somebody who was going to look at everything that happened with some fresh eyes and maybe with a little bit of a contrarian perspective because we've only ever been given one perspective," Smith told reporters at the legislature Tuesday.

"I left it to [Davidson] to assemble the panel with the guidance that I would like to have a broad range of perspectives."

The work of the task force is nearly complete but few details have been publicized since it was struck in 2022.

UCP vowed to correct COVID-19 grievances​

The Globe and Mail reported Tuesday that Davidson, the former chief of emergency medicine at the Red Deer Regional Hospital Centre, was appointed chair of the task force a year ago.

During the height of the fourth wave of the pandemic in 2021, Davidson claimed hospital admission numbers were overblown and being manipulated to justify public health restrictions.

The provincial health authority, Alberta Health Services, rejected those accusations as false.

Davidson did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment.

In 2022, Smith swept to power in a vote by United Conservative Party members. Her campaign capitalized on and promised to redress COVID-19 grievances.

Amnesty promise fell through​

Smith promised to seek amnesty for those who violated COVID public health restrictions. She did not follow through, saying later she did not realize she didn't have the authority to do so.

In late 2022, Smith directed the creation of what would become Davidson's task force with a mandate to review data and to offer recommendations on how to better manage a future pandemic.

• These graphics show just how deeply COVID-19 has infiltrated Alberta

Smith said Tuesday she wanted it to look at how to better analyze public health data and to fact-check concerns about vaccine side-effects.

The government earmarked $2 million for the project, but Smith said she expects it to come in under budget. The final report is expected to go to the government next month and Smith has said the findings will be made public.

2nd COVID analysis​

It is the second third-party COVID analysis ordered up by Smith's government.

Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning filed a report last year reviewing Alberta's COVID experience through the lens of improving laws and regulations governing future pandemics.

• Alberta cabinet needs final say in health crises, Preston Manning's COVID-19 panel says
• Analysis
  Preston Manning's fiction made real in his Alberta pandemic report

Manning's report recommended the province consider "alternative scientific narratives" as part of a "balanced response" in future crises.

When asked why the details of the Davidson task force weren't publicized by the government as much as the work of the Manning panel, Smith replied, "We wanted them to do their work."

NDP calls secret consultation a waste of money​

Opposition New Democrat Leader Rachel Notley lambasted the panel and Smith, calling it a waste of public money to launch a secret consultation led by someone with "fringe views."

Notley said, "I believe the Earth is round, and I don't think that the people of Alberta should be paying for people who believe it's flat to be engaging in the conversation."

• Analysis
  Danielle Smith believes she's found the org chart that saves health care

During COVID, Smith publicly questioned the efficacy of pandemic rules and gathering restrictions, particularly when compared with the potential for long-term harms to mental and physical well-being.

Smith questioned the mainstream science approach to the pandemic and endorsed debunked COVID-19 treatments, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

She embraced the Great Barrington Declaration, a theory that called for protecting the elderly and frail but otherwise letting COVID-19 run free to build up herd immunity.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo...ds-alberta-covid-review-health-data-1.7182891

 

[Lexicus]

Edit: though it might be more useful to simply break it down to federal spending per capita instead, to help clear clutter. Does it fall progressively or regressively with senators vis a vie wealth?

I don't think this is good analysis. The low-population states will tend to be biased toward higher per capita federal spending and also have the lowest population:Senator ratios simply as a result of their lower populations.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why?

 

[Lexicus]

Why?

Uhh..math? Because of how fractions work?
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

 

[Crezth]

ctrl f Alabama 0 results.

Y’all still avoiding the actual evidence of democracy just so you can repeat the talking points of the blue party that wants you to think a popular vote for the presidency is the solution to all problems.

 

[Lexicus]

ctrl f Alabama 0 results.

Y’all still avoiding the actual evidence of democracy just so you can repeat the talking points of the blue party that wants you to think a popular vote for the presidency is the solution to all problems.

Well yes, as we all know, True Democracy is when the Party controls society, the Central Committee controls the Party, and one guy controls the Central Committee.

 

[Crezth]

No, true democracy is when a landowner doesn’t have the right to bulldoze people into mass graves just because his “property” which is actually something necessary to feed say ten thousand people is threatened. Anything short of that is just bourgeois circling the drain with extra steps. If you can’t punish the enemies of freedom for anyone then you will not have freedom for everyone.

 

[EgonSpengler]

ctrl f Alabama 0 results.

Y’all still avoiding the actual evidence of democracy just so you can repeat the talking points of the blue party that wants you to think a popular vote for the presidency is the solution to all problems.

Have a nice day, though.

 

[JPetroski]

I don't really know which thread to put this in, but having Trump and the Republicans be the group to take on Citadel and Virtu in the quest for market fairness was not on my 2024 bingo card (link). I'll take it though. Naked shorts, yeah.

Edit - bear in mind Ken Griffin of Citadel is a top Republican donor. Imagine the predicament this puts GOP lawmakers into now. Do you commit career suicide by defying Trump or do you commit fundraising suicide by going after Kenny?

 

[Farm Boy]

Uhh..math? Because of how fractions work?

Spending happens places. Why the bias?

 

[Lexicus]

Spending happens places. Why the bias?

Your hypothesis is that giving some states greater representation in the Senate leads to higher-than-otherwise levels of spending in those states. The null hypothesis of this would be that spending levels in each state is not impacted by the population-to-Senator ratio. My point is that if we accept that null hypothesis as true, then spending per capita will still skew higher in states with lower populations because of the inverse relationship between x and y in the following function:
100/x = y

Now, let's turn to reality.

Which states rely the most on federal aid?

A fifth of state and local government revenues come from federal funding.

usafacts.org

Scroll down in this link and the blue map is federal spending per capita. Much like with the state GDP per capita map, this reality simply does not support the argument you're trying to make. The small-population states do not consistently receive more federal dollars per capita than large-population states. In any case, the rise of anti-government ideology in the GOP, the nationalization of the parties and the decline in local patronage, means that the last couple of decades have seen fundamental changes in how federal spending is actually allocated. Remember, the incoming GOP congress banned pork spending in 2011, a move undone by Democrats in 2021.

Anyway, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that someone's vote should count more or less based on metrics thay apply to where they live rather than to them as individuals. And if we're insisting on doing this, then allocating voting power by state, when most of the states are basically arbitrary rectangles encompassing a socioeconomically diverse population, is a terrible way to do it.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't really know which thread to put this in, but having Trump and the Republicans be the group to take on Citadel and Virtu in the quest for market fairness was not on my 2024 bingo card (link). I'll take it though. Naked shorts, yeah.

Edit - bear in mind Ken Griffin of Citadel is a top Republican donor. Imagine the predicament this puts GOP lawmakers into now. Do you commit career suicide by defying Trump or do you commit fundraising suicide by going after Kenny?

These fudging Nazis want to make it illegal to sell DJT stock because price go down could hurt his pwecious feewings and you're actually dumb enough to think it has anything to do with a "quest for market fairness"??

 

[JPetroski]

These fudging Nazis want to make it illegal to sell DJT stock because price go down could hurt his pwecious feewings and you're actually dumb enough to think it has anything to do with a "quest for market fairness"??

I mean I think my post was pretty clearly tongue in cheek, but if you hate Trump so much that you'd like to take the side of the Hedge Funds and Market Makers, by all means?