Weeping Sore Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said: The States are equal. Why should California have more representation in the Senate by virtue of population? That is why the House exists . Well the House is a fucking mess because of gerrymandering, that's a serious but separate issue that needs to be addressed. Clearly I am saying the States should not be equal because they are not all equally important. A state that is more populous than Canada and produces the majority of the country's food supply (California) should not be on equal footing with a state whose main contribution is de-regulated credit cards (Delaware). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 24 minutes ago, Boris the Blade said: Honestly, fuck the rural voters. Boris, If they respond to such sentiment by refusing to release food to urban areas, take it by force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Part of the problem here is that the HoR has been frozen at 438 members since 1900. The HoR needs to expand dramatically. I'm totally on board with that. There is no reason for one person to represent up to 750,000 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Weeping Sore said: Well the House is a fucking mess because of gerrymandering, that's a serious but separate issue that needs to be addressed. Clearly I am saying the States should not be equal because they are not all equally important. A state that is more populous than Canada and produces the majority of the country's food supply (California) should not be on equal footing with a state whose main contribution is de-regulated credit cards (Delaware). The house is a mess due to Gerrymandering. It is also a mess because the number of House members was frozen at 438 in 1900 because (I'm not kidding) they couldn't get more desks into the House chamber. It is a BS reason to hold the HoR at 438. The HoR needs to be much larger. The longer it stays at 438 the more relative power States with single members in the House of Representative will receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said: Well the House is a fucking mess because of gerrymandering, that's a serious but separate issue that needs to be addressed. Clearly I am saying the States should not be equal because they are not all equally important. A state that is more populous than Canada and produces the majority of the country's food supply (California) should not be on equal footing with a state whose main contribution is de-regulated credit cards (Delaware). You will never get unanimous consent to alter apportionment in the Senate. The only way the Senate will change is if the US ceases to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said: Well the House is a fucking mess because of gerrymandering, that's a serious but separate issue that needs to be addressed. Clearly I am saying the States should not be equal because they are not all equally important. A state that is more populous than Canada and produces the majority of the country's food supply (California) should not be on equal footing with a state whose main contribution is de-regulated credit cards (Delaware). That is like saying people shouldn't be truly equal. Perhaps it's time to re-examine the United States. The States came in as Equal and should remain that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Boris, If they respond to such sentiment by refusing to release food to urban areas, take it by force? Maybe a rural Californian food producer is also super pissed off that he's 1/3 of the worth of a guy from Wyoming too. I'm really skeptical of your claims about food production interests being a crucial reason to keep the EC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 how was the GOP able to win the governor/legislatures necessary to implement gerrymandering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 minute ago, butterbumps! said: Maybe a rural Californian food producer is also super pissed off that he's 1/3 of the worth of a guy from Wyoming too. I'm really skeptical of your claims about food production interests being a crucial reason to keep the EC. Butterbumps, If your right. That's wonderful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Commodore said: how was the GOP able to win the governor/legislatures necessary to implement gerrymandering? Both sides have Gerrymandered. That's why it should be illegal across the board. equalizing population should be the only factor in creating Congressional districts. That can be done with a computer program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said: That is like saying people shouldn't be truly equal. Perhaps it's time to re-examine the United States. The States came in as Equal and should remain that way. This is exactly what I'm saying: If states are equal, people can't be equal, and vise-versa. If we kept the senate at 100 regardless of state populations, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming together might just barely get 1 senator and California would get 11 or 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said: This is exactly what I'm saying: If states are equal, people can't be equal, and vise-versa. If we kept the senate at 100 regardless of state populations, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming together might just barely get 1 senator and California would get 11 or 12. It is a pipe dream to think the Senate will ever change its apportionment without the US collapsing around it. The HoR can be fixed. The Senate literally cannot be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Both sides have Gerrymandered. That's why it should be illegal across the board. equalizing population should be the only factor in creating Congressional districts. That can be done with a computer program. Why does the Supreme Court allow gerrymandering in the House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, Weeping Sore said: This is exactly what I'm saying: If states are equal, people can't be equal, and vise-versa. If we kept the senate at 100 regardless of state populations, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming together might just barely get 1 senator and California would get 11 or 12. You make it sound like individuals should be equal. With 12 Senators California could control a big chunk of business in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Boris, If they respond to such sentiment by refusing to release food to urban areas, take it by force? No, just buy all food from abroad from abroad and abolish all agricultural subsidies and all import tariffs on agricultural production. The urban population will have cheaper food and a bigger share of the federal budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, SeanF said: Why does the Supreme Court allow gerrymandering in the House? I think the logic is that both sides can do it. It is also the method by with Minority Majority districts are created. I strongly disagree with it. Creating Minority Majority districts sweeps Minority voters into single districts and reduces their power to influence non-minority majority districts. Heck, I think it can be argued its part of the reason Republican districts have been able to go so far from the interests of Minority voters since those Minority Majority districts were first created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, David Selig said: No, just buy all food from abroad from abroad and abolish all agricultural subsidies and all import tariffs on agricultural production. The urban population will have cheaper food and a bigger share of the federal budget. With the exception of buying all food from abroad (that's stratigically really dangerous) I agree with eliminating tariffs and subsidies. I don't think they help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I think the logic is that both sides can do it. It is also the method by with Minority Majority districts are created. I strongly disagree with it. Creating Minority Majority districts sweeps Minority voters into single districts and reduces their power to influence non-minority majority districts. Heck, I think it can be argued its part of the reason Republican districts have been able to go so far from the interests of Minority voters since those Minority Majority districts were first created. I could see the logic of majority/minority districts when entire Congressional delegations from Southern States were Democratic. But, I think you're correct that they now work against Democrats, by putting their voters into too few seats, and helping Republicans for the same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: With the exception of buying all food from abroad (that's stratigically really dangerous) I agree with eliminating tariffs and subsidies. I don't think they help. Buying all food from abroad will be temporary until the US farmers cave in and accept the switch to popular vote. But isn't most food in the US produced in big states like Texas and California anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 There should just be a algorithm that gives any proposed district a pass/fail based on geometrical integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.