Ending America's Oldest Affirmitive Action Program

[Farm Boy]

What on earth does that even mean Zk?

 

[Silurian]

I' m not interested in the land.

The US chose to have a federal system.
Doing so it is logical that the systems is designed to put the states on a more equal footing.

 

[BvBPL]

Seriously, farmers are 5% of rural people. It's 2016. Anytime a coaster says rural, they might mean farmers, but they're describing dezinens of small cities and towns at a 19 to 1.

Farmers are good example because their political influence is so outsized relative to their population. They are there because they are dramatic example, not a representative one.

The solution is, therefore, to change this system.

Great. Go change it. A good first step is to vote. As in do the simplest thing you can to engage in the process, something that most Americans didn't do in November.

 

[Zkribbler]

.the USA is a federal system so that does not seem so bad if you want to protect the smaller and less populated states.

Silurian argues we should be protecting states, i.e. land. I'm saying that, with a popular-vote system where the majority rules, then people are protected. In two out of the last five Presidential elections, the candidate with the fewest votes won. In our rush to protect "states," we're trampling the democratic principle of majority rule.

Admittedly, in America's early days, the Electoral College made some sense. Then, Virginians tended to vote like Virginians; Rhode Islanders like Rhode Islanders. There was a danger of larger states swamping smaller ones. However, the difference between states qua states has evaporated. Northern California tends to vote like upstate New York like rural Mississippi, like Montana. Meanwhile, the city dwellers in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami and Madison tend to vote alike. States need no protection.

The residual effect of the Electoral College is that people in the states where few people want to live because they're unproductive and stagnate have more voting power, person per person, than people in the vibrant, productive, successful states.

 

[civvver]

The problem is the winner-take-all nature of it, not the slight overrepresentation of small states vs large ones. Rust Belt states matter because they're split about 50-50, not because they're overrepresented in the EC - in fact, the larger ones are underrepresented.

Yes exactly, that's what I was trying to say. It's not like rural votes matter more just cus they are rural, but cus they compete in states where the split is close, swing states like florida, michigan and wisconsin (which weren't really swing states til 16), ohio. If all the rural people in those states always voted blue, but the cities like LA and NYC were split 50/50 then the opposite effect of urban votes having more weight would be true. So it's really more circumstance with where you live. A swing state voter has more voting power, and it just so happens that the swing states are the less urban ones.

 

[civvver]

Silurian argues we should be protecting states, i.e. land. I'm saying that, with a popular-vote system where the majority rules, then people are protected. In two out of the last five Presidential elections, the candidate with the fewest votes won. In our rush to protect "states," we're trampling the democratic principle of majority rule.

Except that america has never been a democracy. It's a representative republic. Usually the majority rules but not always.

 

[Farm Boy]

States represent people. And perhaps there should be some goddamned introspection when somebody who lives as an unproductive stagnate informs you Northern Californians and Dakotans do not share his interests closely nor to Maine fishermen and are in fact often economically and socially antagonistic, but those people and their interests still wind up united in large margins against the "vibrant, productive, and successful."

Pah!

 

[Silurian]

I have no objection if US citizens vote to change it.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I remember someone once tried to tell the 1% demonstrators, "Corporations are people.". That didn't go over well. I'm surprised to see that tried again in such a liberal environment.

I happen to think corporations and states are "made of people", but I doubt that's going to fly, either.

 

[Farm Boy]

Liberals usually aren't hostile to government entities representing their citizens. Just when it's the mechanism enforcing their electoral losses.

Corporations are owned. Godblessit, I think we sorted whether or not you can do that one with people at a high enough cost.

 

[Lexicus]

Great. Go change it. A good first step is to vote. As in do the simplest thing you can to engage in the process, something that most Americans didn't do in November.

Ironically, I think a response like this is effectively a non-answer that demonstrates you aren't very interested in effecting change within the system. That's alright I guess; as JFK said "those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Personally I think an orgy of revolutionary violence is one of the more desirable outcomes of this mess we're in.

Still waiting on those sources for urban vs rural 'involvement' in politics, by the way.

 

[BvBPL]

Ironically, I think a response like this is effectively a non-answer that demonstrates you aren't very interested in effecting change within the system.

The only non-violent means by which change can be effected in a democratic system is through engagement of the citizenry, Alanis.

 

[Lexicus]

The only non-violent means by which change can be effected in a democratic system is through engagement of the citizenry, Alanis.

Still waiting on those sources for rural vs urban 'involvement' in the political process. Do you consider asking for substantiation for your claims to be uncivil and insulting, or are you just ignoring me because you made that up and can't find any information to back it up?

 

[BvBPL]

Do you suggest a pair of absurd responses as though they were the only two possible answers because you think only one could be the case or because your self-image as a beleaguered, powerless victim is so central to your worldview that you invent enemies everywhere as a defense mechanism?

I don’t have the time to perform the research necessary to definitively demonstrate that thesis to the extent I would like. The circumstantial evidence clearly points in that direction as you can contrast the rural nature of the state with the highest rate of turn out, Maine, with the urban nature of the state with the lowest rate of turnout, Hawaii. That figures points to it, but it is obviously not definitive. Or I could point to a news story that out and out says rural voters turned out big but urban voting dropped, but doesn’t give actual statistics. Those, and other, half-hearted measures seem insufficient, so I’m delaying response until such a time as I can perform greater research.

The difficulty in finding participation statistics by population density is rather odd given it would be pretty easy to figure it out. I bet I could demonstrate it with the GSS.

But in the meantime, you can trust me. I was right about low engagement by Democrats causing GOP gains, after all.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Democrats should have campaigned harder, instead of seeing Clinton as a given.

I don't mean that in a taunting way. I mean dems really should have campaigned harder.

I think this was a key takeaway of that election.

 

[Lexicus]

your self-image as a beleaguered, powerless victim is so central to your worldview

Is this serious?

But in the meantime, you can trust me.

 

[Akka]

Except that america has never been a democracy. It's a representative republic. Usually the majority rules but not always.

"republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive, we're not in Civilization, only in forums talking about it.

 

[Arwon]

The US Senate is the correct way to do federalism. Equal representation in an upper house for the different federal units is a reasonably common principle, and a large part of why federations exist.

The Electoral College is rank lunacy. It was created to let slave states count their slaves toward representation share, without letting them vote. And the "give small states a voice" justification doesn't make sense. Firstly, the states given "voice" via sitting near the centre of a pendulum are almost completely random and often aren't particularly small. Secondly, the president is just one person - he can't have "multiple voices" - and the electoral college voters by design have no voice beyond a one-and-done choice. Multiple voices, and voice for small federal units, is what the legislature is for.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why would you be more concerned with protecting land than people?

Due to the size of the US, if those states with very small population don't get +2 votes they would be rendered inconsequential for politicians, and thus the politicians would not even feign interest as they have to do now. For a federal system, i think it is not bad.

I think that a bigger issue is the states where a party will win anyway, so many people there probably don't bother to vote to add to a huge surplus for said party. Proportional electoral votes there might be a good idea, although it would mean the politicians have to campaign there too- so tiresome for those creeps

 

[Commodore]

A quick skim of this thread tells me the whining about the election still hasn't stopped. Are we going to be doing this for Trump's entire term, or just until the inauguration?

Why would you be more concerned with protecting land than people?

Because land is more important than people. Everything we have comes from the land. Without the land, there is no us. Why do you think nations fight over land and not over people? It's because it is the wealth of the land that makes a nation strong, not the number of people it has.