"ImmoralMinority" (araimondo)
06/23/2019 at 07:31 • Filed to: None
2
16|
"ImmoralMinority" (araimondo)
06/23/2019 at 07:31 • Filed to: None | 2
| 16 |
Just something to consider.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
pip bip - choose Corrour
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 07:47 |
|
interesting read
jimz
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 07:47 |
|
The author of that piece writes for The Federalist, just to give some indication of his slant.
gin-san - shitpost specialist
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 08:11 |
|
I’m not a political expert or even actively interested in politics, but isn’t that why the electoral college is a good thing? I don’t buy that bullshit about how all the racists and misogynists just came out of the woodwork to vote for Trump despite a black man holding office for two terms.
Gerrymandering is a neat issue in the US, although once again I'm not sure how common this issue is worldwide. Anyway, to me it seems like having proportional representation isn't a bad thing provided that the divisions made are logical and sensible, which is probably easier said than done.
I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 08:39 |
|
Counterpoint: the existence of the EC and the disproportionate influence it gives to agricultural states makes urban dwellers (you know, the people who contribute to the GPD in a greater order of magnitude) underrepresented to the same degree as a EC-less system would make farmers.
This is also a false dichotomy. There’s a middle ground between “abolish EC” and “keep it the way it is”. “Winner takes all” methodology is flawed, as are distributions of Representatives and the demarcation of districts.
Also, wasn’t one of the arguments in favor of a Bicameral legislature equal representation of each state such that underrepresented populations would still have a voice?
fintail
> jimz
06/23/2019 at 08:44 |
|
Oh, that source contributes a lot of nonpartisan unifying material. Like uh um well...I’ll get back to you on that.
So under this system, those who financially bail out the gerrymandered areas which benefit from 18th century ideals (which too often these days have representatives who seem to want to liv e in a totalitarian theocracy/Gilead) have their vote diminished. Sounds like a good trade!
SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 08:47 |
|
Yeah as an Australian...that idea sucks.
We have a thing called the Australian Electoral Commission. Its job is to make sure Federal elections are fair and its controlling legislation is not to be fucked with.
Basically, each representative in Parliament has the same number of constituents. And it’s the AEC’ s job to set the boundaries required to do that. And they do it quite well.
Voting is compulsory here. We don't have to care but we have somebody who does that has our back. So we can compulsory express our right to not give a shit (so to speak) and pretend to be surprised at the outcome.
You lot, on the other hand, appear to be shafted before you even start pretending to care...
This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja:
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 11:45 |
|
I’ve never disagreed with you before.
Today is no different.
nermal
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 12:31 |
|
A change in what is required to win an election will change the way candidates campaign to win an election.
Example is this neat-o gif showing campaign stops prior to the last election :
Notice how many states were completely ignored by both sides ? The current system encourages candidates to favor “battleground” states, while taking for granted traditional blue / red ones. Trump made > 100 stops in the 100 days leading up to the election, enough to hit every state twice. But he didn’t do that, because that wa sn’t what he needed to do to win.
Switching from the EC to a popular vote will simply switch campaigning tactics away from favoring battleground states and towards favoring population centers. It’s like comparing cow poo to dog poo - Regardless of which one you step in, you still have shit on your shoe.
You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 12:44 |
|
As someone who lives in one of the most rural congressional districts east of the Mississippi, in a state that is politically dominated by two urban areas this hits very close to home. The thought of the EC being abolished or otherwise marginalized is absolutely terrifying. At least the urban/rural vote is close enough here that we tend to flip flop control of the state government every couple of terms.
Milky
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 13:59 |
|
My issue with it that this is a lie when someone in Wyoming(?) has 3 times the voting power of someone in California.
Electoral College requires more than just the most raw votes to win — it requires geographic balance.
IIRC the EC has gotten it wrong 4 times out of 45 and twice in the last 20 years. It’s worth the discussion no matter what side lost.
Side note, the author is condescending with his city people think meat comes from the store BS.
wafflesnfalafel
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 15:16 |
|
It is definitely working as designed. Honestly, the only reason why it is a “new” issue now is due to the polarization and population density issues. (Who knew 200 years ago that the US would have a huge population along the west coast, right?)
It will always benefit the well organized/funded minority - whether you agree with that minority is a whole other matter.
VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 15:35 |
|
Oh boy, I’d love to chime in on this, but I’m about to go out of town and I wish this could be discussed in person.
Man. I’ll write it up later.
EngineerWithTools
> ImmoralMinority
06/23/2019 at 21:48 |
|
I hate wading into politics . I have opinions, of course (insert a-hole cliche here), I just feel it’s rare that an intellectual and open conversation can happen, and the fault for that lies with all factions, lots of culture, etc, etc.
That said, and speaking quite specifically about factions, t wo things always come back to me when thinking about these kinds of things:
So much of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Emancipation (yes, it had strategic purposes too) , multiple Civil Rights Acts, the Voting Rights Act, etc, was very purposefully intended to slow down a majority - to check its power - and protect minority factions (divide up minority however you like, the result is the same). The reason is pretty simple - human history is full of examples of majorities (or mobs) , with unchecked power, crushing all others .
The other thing is the reality that no defeat is permanent because no victory is permanent. Even if “you” (your faction, whatever it is ) has an overwhelming majority, crushing your “enemies”, seeing them driven before you and listening to the lamentations of their women is temporary. If any faction (including a voting majority) is allowed to aggregate unchecked powers to itself , that power will eventually be turned on them, furiously and without mercy . It is much safer to want limited, checked power for all, in all cases.
Yes, the entire thing is frustrating ( all sides in almost any political debate are very frustrated) , but the frustration is a feature, not a bug.
(As an aside, I kinda like the crazy idea that the House should be expanded, that the district size should be in the ballpark of what was originally in the Constitution. That would give us thousands of representatives. You could literally go talk to one, or easily become one, without having to be professional politician . The variety of viewpoints, and people, would be wonderful, at least in my opinion.)
|
jimz
> You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
06/23/2019 at 22:10 |
|
why do you think you deserve to have the deck stacked in your favor?
wkiernan
> ImmoralMinority
06/24/2019 at 06:45 |
|
T
h
e
a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t in th
e
l
i
n
k
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
r
e
s
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
v
o
t
e
r
s
i
n
s
t
a
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
l
a
r
g
e
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
ns
a
r
e
a
s
s
p
i
t
e
f
u
l
t
ow
a
r
d
t
h
e
r
u
r
a
l
s
t
a
t
e
s
as rural state voters are toward the so-called “
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
e
l
i
t
e
s
.
”
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
a
t dubiou
s
p
r
e
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
i
t
a
r
g
u
e
s that
“
I
f
T
h
e
y
w
e
r
e
i
n
p
o
w
e
r
t
h
e
y
’
d certainly
r
o
b
u
s
o
f
O
u
r
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
,
s
o
W
e
a
r
e
justified in
continuing to r
o
b
T
h
e
m
o
f
T
heir political rights.”
|
wkiernan
> ImmoralMinority
06/24/2019 at 10:04 |
|
One other thing, the proposal for this “ National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ” is that states should voluntarily pass legislation, one by one, to split their electoral votes. This is an outstandingly stupid suggestion.
This is like one of those “trust-building” exercises, where Democratic legislatures in states with Democratic majorities say to Republican legislatures in states with Republican majori
ties, “We’ll split our electoral votes and water down the effect of our state’s Democratic majority, and you will in turn split your state’s electoral votes and water down your majority’s power. Are we good? Can we trust you?
”
Can you seriously imagine that the party of Mitch McConnell would agree to something like this in good faith? Can you imagine the party that installed
John Roberts in the Supreme Court so he could judicially neuter the Voting Rights Act is interested in joining this “Compact”? Can you imagine that a party practicing brute-force gerrymandering and voter suppression nationwide would ever sign on to such a self-effacing policy?
The sole
effect of any Democrat-majority
state passing a National Popular Vote law would be that a Democratic-leaning state would contribute electoral votes to Republicans, while not even one Republican-leaning state will ever
contribute even one el
ectoral vote
to Democrats.