General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Birdjaguar]

Or if that 'compact' gets enough states to simply award their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote.

I wonder if SCOTUS would/will find that unconstitutional if they reach the threshold?

 

[EgonSpengler]

I wonder if SCOTUS would/will find that unconstitutional if they reach the threshold?

People who would benefit from keeping it in place would probably try anything, I suppose. The Constitution seems pretty clear to me, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't try to come up with something.

Article II, Section I: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The constitution has never stopped Thomas and Alito,

 

[Sommerswerd]

Add PR, DC and NYC. All have more people than Wyoming or Vermont.

As it happens, DC's population (vis-a-vis) Wyoming, etc., does not matter... Per the 23rd Amendment, no matter how populous DC gets, they can never have more EC votes allocated than whatever the smallest state in the Union has.

me, an intellectual: make American Samoa a state

Again, referencing the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution, we don't have to even give PR or Samoa (or any territory FTM) statehood to give them EC representation. DC got their EC points through a Constitutional amendment, and the same could be done for PR, Samoa, US Virgin Islands, etc., without even bothering with the question of statehood.

I still think the Constitution should be Amended to remove Senators from the EC calculation. That alone would reduce the disproportionate representation that voters in states like VT and WY get.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The constitution has never stopped Thomas and Alito,

Right, someone making the case only has to present an argument good enough that the justices looking for a reason to rule in their favor can do so. Give them something to hang their hat on, so to speak.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Right, someone making the case only has to present an argument good enough , , ,

or cash.

 

[Akka]

That's right, everybody has a certain amount of authoritarianism in their political makeup. Years ago, I recall someone talking about a survey that purported to measure an individual's authoritarian leanings, and basically everyone had some. I never took the survey myself, so I don't know what any of the questions are, but the assertion made some sense to me. For example, if you believe in taxation, or if you think the government should enforce private property rights (rather than just letting/requiring people to defend their property themselves, I guess). Would an anarchist say that people can own as much property as they can defend against other people taking it from you? (I can't pretend to understand anarchism. It seems like it would just evolve into tribalism, and then feudalism. Like, it seems it'd just reset everything to zero and then let individuals' authoritarian streaks run amok.) It feels like we need a certain amount of authority to reign in the bullying, might-makes-right qualities of authoritarianism.

What you describe here is, like you said, rather "authority" than "authoritarianism". Any group that needs any amount of organization needs some level of authority, to enforce rules and protect its constituants.
I was more speaking on the "respecting the democratic game" side - the fundamental needed to keep any democracy legitimate. The biggest sin Trump commited is not in the content of his policies, but in his attempt to ignore the democratic rules when he's not on the winning side, going as far as downright sedition. And the biggest sin of his supporter is not in supporting his policies, but in following him in his undermining of democratic rules.

 

[Hygro]

Still is, by every metric offered in this conversation other than simple flat tax fairness. Deficiencies in who was considered a full human were not withstanding.

I don't think so.

It's like the electoral college itself. Its entire purpose is to prevent fake ass presidents run by charlatans like... the only two presidents in my lifetime to lose the popular vote. Especially the more recent one. It was created out of anxiety of a particular kind of outcome, that a lying, profiteering, monarchist demagogue could never be president. And it is what gave us his presidency.

I don't think it succeeds in giving "the poor" a class-correcting advantage, for a few reasons. One is that it disenfranchises the urban poor. But more so, regardless of its logical and intended function, for all the reasons, it has almost always, if not always, given a larger share of the vote to regressive outcomes. People, parties, policies. Quite consistently.

I do believe there's some un-defined, understudied magic that comes from our system, but something's gotta give. It's really a problem.

1) The presidency keeps going back and forth between crooks and centrists, where Biden is by far the most progressive we've gotten, undoing some damage. It "should" be tick tocking left and right, not center and righter.
2) The Senate is entirely lower-case R republican+landocracy by design, and it's a miracle Democrats ever get a majority. But okay.
3) The House, in being limited in the number of its members, has changed from a democratic representation to a republican one.

We should change 2 of 3. Start with #1, then figure out which of the following two gets made more democratic, and do that one. Keep going until we've it feels we've gone just a bit too far, and then stay there for while.

 

[Arwon]

As it happens, DC's population (vis-a-vis) Wyoming, etc., does not matter... Per the 23rd Amendment, no matter how populous DC gets, they can never have more EC votes allocated than whatever the smallest state in the Union has.

Again, referencing the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution, we don't have to even give PR or Samoa (or any territory FTM) statehood to give them EC representation. DC got their EC points through a Constitutional amendment, and the same could be done for PR, Samoa, US Virgin Islands, etc., without even bothering with the question of statehood.

I still think the Constitution should be Amended to remove Senators from the EC calculation. That alone would reduce the disproportionate representation that voters in states like VT and WY get.

Electoral college votes isn't full representation, need to give residents of the territories votes on members of the house of reps and senate, too. Like normal federations.

 

[Arwon]

Sex work decriminalised in Queensland, the third Australian state to do so after NSW in the mid 90s and Victoria a few years ago.

Sex work was previously legal, but like most places with "legalised" sex work a lot of workers were still effectively criminalised.

The attorney general, Yvette D’Ath, who sponsored the bill, told parliament that “discrimination and stigma” were common because about 90% of sex workers were forced to operate outside the law.

“[A parliamentary] committee heard that people in the industry suffer from unwanted advances and aggression from clients. Others have described facing discrimination and stigma as a result of their job. These experiences are felt across the sex work industry,” she said.

Prior to the reforms, sex workers were permitted to operate in Queensland either as a sole trader or in a brothel. There were fewer than two-dozen licensed brothers in the entire state.

Scores of sex workers watched on as Labor, Greens and independent members voted to pass the bill.

The sex worker and Respect Inc state coordinator, Lulu Holiday, said it had been “stressful” and at times “traumatic” working under the state’s regulatory system, though she has avoided any criminal punishment.

“However, I do know many people that have been criminalised, have had multiple charges against them, have been threatened with deportation, been absolutely harassed and abused by police under these laws,” she said.

The new law regulates sex work the same way as all other businesses, imposing planning and workplace health and safety and other rules.

Unfortunately since the conservatives oppose it, there's a good chance they'll recriminalise by implementing some variation of the so-called "Nordic model" of criminalisation, as advocated by christian lobby groups:

The shadow attorney general, Tim Nicholls, said it was unclear how “the world’s oldest profession” would be regulated from a planning perspective, raising concerns it could prove a “nuisance” to neighbours.

“While the intention might be to treat sex work businesses just like any other, the reality is that very many people in the community do not regard it as just another business,” he said.

Nicholls said the government ought to have considered submissions proposing the so-called Nordic model, which prohibits sex work but only punishes the client, not the employee.

The opposition MP Mark Robinson described the Nordic model as “best practice”, telling parliament that “it is only a matter of time that more effective laws will be passed across Australia”.

The Labor MP Chris Whiting said “nowhere else in Australia is going down that path”, and the Australian Christian Lobby had pushed it in the parliamentary committee inquiring into the bill, which he chaired.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't think so.

It's like the electoral college itself. Its entire purpose is to prevent fake ass presidents run by charlatans like... the only two presidents in my lifetime to lose the popular vote. Especially the more recent one. It was created out of anxiety of a particular kind of outcome, that a lying, profiteering, monarchist demagogue could never be president. And it is what gave us his presidency.

I don't think it succeeds in giving "the poor" a class-correcting advantage, for a few reasons. One is that it disenfranchises the urban poor. But more so, regardless of its logical and intended function, for all the reasons, it has almost always, if not always, given a larger share of the vote to regressive outcomes. People, parties, policies. Quite consistently.

I do believe there's some un-defined, understudied magic that comes from our system, but something's gotta give. It's really a problem.

1) The presidency keeps going back and forth between crooks and centrists, where Biden is by far the most progressive we've gotten, undoing some damage. It "should" be tick tocking left and right, not center and righter.
2) The Senate is entirely lower-case R republican+landocracy by design, and it's a miracle Democrats ever get a majority. But okay.
3) The House, in being limited in the number of its members, has changed from a democratic representation to a republican one.

We should change 2 of 3. Start with #1, then figure out which of the following two gets made more democratic, and do that one. Keep going until we've it feels we've gone just a bit too far, and then stay there for while.

I fundamentally disagree that politics of the minority justify removing thier representation. The logistics webs and shared interests are real regardless of the refusal to engage along those lines or the measurable outcomes lines*. Because decreased enfranchisement should always be our goal for the relatively marginalized.

*which makes sense l. It's easier to make a holistic argument when you're right. You just have to keep watching the sample reshuffle.

 

[Cutlass]

I fundamentally disagree that politics of the minority justify removing thier representation. The logistics webs and shared interests are real regardless of the refusal to engage along those lines or the measurable outcomes lines*. Because decreased enfranchisement should always be our goal for the relatively marginalized.

*which makes sense l. It's easier to make a holistic argument when you're right. You just have to keep watching the sample reshuffle.

But you do agree that the politics of the majority justifies removing their representation.

 

[JollyRoger]

The logistics webs and shared interests are real

So just combine bordering low population states into one given the logistical webs and shared interest. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota ae contiguous. 10 Senators and freebie electoral votes when 2 will more than do.

 

[Hygro]

I fundamentally disagree that politics of the minority justify removing thier representation. The logistics webs and shared interests are real regardless of the refusal to engage along those lines or the measurable outcomes lines*. Because decreased enfranchisement should always be our goal for the relatively marginalized.

*which makes sense l. It's easier to make a holistic argument when you're right. You just have to keep watching the sample reshuffle.

Why are we privileging this minority? We can find “minority” any which way.

 

[Lexicus]

The logistics webs and shared interests are real regardless of the refusal to engage along those lines or the measurable outcomes lines*.

Even in the District, I have more shared interest through the logistics web with people who live a couple of miles away in Maryland than I do with people who live five miles away on the other side of the Anacostia River, still in the District. I pointed this out for NY and NJ and your reply was not a rebuttal of what I said.

I also said the measurable outcome lines are more justly applied to individuals or census tracts than to entire states and you had no real answer for that either.

 

[Farm Boy]

I called you an outlier.

Then you challenged the lines, and I iterated my boredom with speculating on imaginary lines when we have real imaginary lines already.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Ron DeSantis bans 'global elite' lab-grown meat​

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has banned lab-grown meat, saying he will "save our beef" from the "global elite" and its "authoritarian plans".

"Florida is fighting back against the global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs," Mr DeSantis said in a statement.

The first-in-the-nation law prohibits anyone from selling or distributing lab-grown meat in Florida.

Similar efforts are under way in Alabama, Arizona and Tennessee.

Lab-grown or "cultivated" meat was first cleared for consumption in the US in 2022.

The process of making cultivated meat involves extracting cells from an animal, which are then fed with nutrients such as proteins, sugars and fats. The end product is genetically indistinguishable from traditionally produced meat.

Studies have suggested that eating cultivated meat can cut carbon emissions and water usage, and free up land for nature, compared to eating traditionally produced meat.

The World Economic Forum has for years touted lab-grown meat as an efficient and environmentally-friendly way to produce food, and feed a rapidly growing global population. It has also promoted insect farming as a "credible and alternative protein source".

Lobbyists for edible insects have launched a campaign asking the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to add mealworms, crickets protein powder and other insect products to the agency's database of safe ingredients.

These unconventional food sources have become fodder for the US culture wars. Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene made headlines two years ago after she insinuated the government was monitoring whether Americans were eating fake meat grown in a petri dish.

At an event on Wednesday announcing the new law, Mr DeSantis said he was "fighting against an ideology that ultimately wants to eliminate meat production in the US and around the globe".

"In the state of Florida we've put down the marker very clearly; we stand with agriculture. We stand with the cattle ranchers," he said.

Florida's commissioner of agriculture Wilton Simpson applauded the legislation as a "tremendous step in the right direction".

"Florida is taking a tremendous step in the right direction by signing first-in-the-nation legislation banning lab-grown meat," Mr Simpson said.

But the move was also supported by an unlikely supporter of Mr DeSantis, Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania. It "pains me deeply" to agree with Mr DeSantis, Mr Fetterman wrote on X, "but I co-sign this".

Good Meat, a cultivated meat company which says it is the first in the world to sell lab-grown meat, wrote on X it was "disappointed" by the new Florida law.

"In a state that purportedly prides itself on being a land of freedom and individual liberty, its government is now telling consumers what meat they can or cannot purchase," it said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68947766

 

[Arwon]

What a cooked country lol

 

[Arakhor]

Has De Santis run out of culture war issues, such that he needs to tilt against windmills?

 

[EgonSpengler]

Ron DeSantis, champion of the free market.

This part sounds deranged. It's like something you'd expect to read in an Onion article:

"Florida is fighting back against the global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs," Mr DeSantis said in a statement.