Jump to content

Three Californias?


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

The EC “adjustment” of voteing between urban and rural is skewed well beyond the intentions of the founders at this point.  Up until 1900 the size of the House of Representatives (HOR) was increased every 10 years to keep the level of represtation relatively stable.  In 1900 the number of Representatives was locked at 438.  So we’ve spent the last century and a bit shuffling the number of Representatives between areas as populations shift.

The lock on the number of Representatives means that the EC becomes more and more skewed in favor of the rural areas with time.  An easy stopgap (that doesn’t require a Constitutional Amendment) to reduce the skewing towards the rural areas in the EC is to lift the cap on the number of Representatives in the HOR the EC will increase in size and the vast majority of Representatives and Electors will go to urban areas.

 

That's a plausible idea but most people I know are arguing for abolishing the EC and establishing popular vote ,which I think isn't a good idea at all .

Your suggestion is worth considering but I fear anything to do with the EC will be difficult to pass because it would look like we're complaining about the rules of the game and will face massive republican push back .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

It’s sad we really need to look at foreign news to find objectivity about current events in the US.

I wouldn't go as far as calling the BBC objective but yeah it's pretty sad .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vin said:

That's a plausible idea but most people I know are arguing for abolishing the EC and establishing popular vote ,which I think isn't a good idea at all .

Your suggestion is worth considering but I fear anything to do with the EC will be difficult to pass because it would look like we're complaining about the rules of the game and will face massive republican push back .

My suggestion needs only a majority in Congress and Presidential approval to pass.  Eliminating the EC requires supermajorities in the HOR and Senate then ratification by 3/4th of all State legislatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

My suggestion needs only a majority in Congress and Presidential approval to pass.  Eliminating the EC requires supermajorities in the HOR and Senate then ratification by 3/4th of all State legislatures.

I know it's harder, that's part of why I said it wasn't a good idea .

I still think the issue is a tough sell pr wise . And we definitely aren't passing shit in the near future with Trump pulling the peace maker card before the midterm elections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Vin said:

That's a plausible idea but most people I know are arguing for abolishing the EC and establishing popular vote ,which I think isn't a good idea at all .

Your suggestion is worth considering but I fear anything to do with the EC will be difficult to pass because it would look like we're complaining about the rules of the game and will face massive republican push back .

Why isn't popular vote a good idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Why isn't popular vote a good idea?

Because it threatens the union . We know that a popular vote would mean domination by New York, California and Texas and fuck all for the other smaller states . I know that the threat of civil war and secession is considered an improbability now but I think it's a very dangerous concept to toy with for the US . It can probably work in other countries that don't have a history of potent statehood rule.

1 hour ago, Pierre Le Harceleur said:

Why isn't ze BBC objective? Sandwich eating English salauds, certainement, but biased?

Eh, most of their coverage is left leaning and their presenters are definitely left leaning . That's fine of course but I think it would not be honest to say they're a bastion of objectivity (which is a bit of an oxymoron I guess since no news outlet is truly striving for objectivity.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vin said:

Eh, most of their coverage is left leaning and their presenters are definitely left leaning . That's fine of course but I think it would not be honest to say they're a bastion of objectivity (which is a bit of an oxymoron I guess since no news outlet is truly striving for objectivity.)

Citation, s'il vous plait. And yes, it is striving for objectivity, it is in their governing documents that they must do so, and also in ze UK's broadcasting law that all broadcasting companies must strive for and demonstrate objectivity as a condition of their licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Vin said:

Because it threatens the union . We know that a popular vote would mean domination by New York, California and Texas and fuck all for the other smaller states . I know that the threat of civil war and secession is considered an improbability now but I think it's a very dangerous concept to toy with for the US . It can probably work in other countries that don't have a history of potent statehood rule.

And the current system has the candidates focusing on Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I'm kind of sick of Florida deciding the presidency, aren't you?

Any system will leave someone feeling left out. But at least in a popular vote system, everyone's votes would be meaningful. Isn't that the point of voting? And candidates might actually have to campaign in the most populous states, instead of spending their time in the most evenly divided mid-sized states.

Meanwhile, the smaller states still get the Senate in which to exercise their over-representation.

The rebellion angle is nonsensical to me, since 45 or so states already get treated like afterthoughts in the current system. The states that would rebel are the ones that already benefit from Senate over-representation, and also tend to be the states sucking more money out of the federal government than they pay in.

I don't think this is a well reasoned objection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pierre Le Harceleur said:

Citation, s'il vous plait. And yes, it is striving for objectivity, it is in their governing documents that they must do so, and also in ze UK's broadcasting law that all broadcasting companies must strive for and demonstrate objectivity as a condition of their licence.

Citation of what ? That I think it's left leaning? Don't think I need a citation to observe stuff but I won't deny you a Google Search  *Blop* .

Ya that's bull . Most if not all News outlets have a narrative they like to push that's why I think people should get their info from multiple places from across the spectrum and cross check to try and weed out the ideology from the reporting . But that's just my take .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

Quote

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.  These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH

Notes: The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a British public service broadcaster. It is headquartered at Broadcasting House in London, and is the world’s oldest national broadcasting organisation and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees. The BBC is an outstanding journalistic source.  They have just a slight left of center political bias in reporting coverage and they are always impeccably sourced. (5/15/2016) Updated (6/26/2017)

Mild bias with exceptional sourcing. 

Of course, take everything with a grain of salt, but the BBC is not a liberial bastion a la Mother Jones or Vox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vin said:

Citation of what ? That I think it's left leaning? Don't think I need a citation to observe stuff but I won't deny you a Google Search  *Blop* .

Ya that's bull . Most if not all News outlets have a narrative they like to push that's why I think people should get their info from multiple places from across the spectrum and cross check to try and weed out the ideology from the reporting . But that's just my take .

Your Wikipedia link notes that Right-wing politicians accuse it of being biased against them, while Left-wing politicians accuse it of being biased against them, so it's proof of nothing. Show me the biased coverage. And a citation for your claim that its journalists are left leaning, please.

And it most certainly is not "bull". The law does say exactly that. And the BBC does do exactly that. I was a journalist and senior editor in the BBC for 25 years (and a member of the Conservative Party). The guidance on ensuring objectivity is voluminous, exacting and taken extremely seriously. Coverage is constantly reviewed and challenged, and anyone found to have knowingly failed to be objective was disciplined and/or sacked. What is your in-depth knowledge to call that "bull" derived from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

And the current system has the candidates focusing on Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I'm kind of sick of Florida deciding the presidency, aren't you?

Any system will leave someone feeling left out. But at least in a popular vote system, everyone's votes would be meaningful. Isn't that the point of voting? And candidates might actually have to campaign in the most populous states, instead of spending their time in the most evenly divided mid-sized states.

Meanwhile, the smaller states still get the Senate in which to exercise their over-representation.

The rebellion angle is nonsensical to me, since 45 or so states already get treated like afterthoughts in the current system. The states that would rebel are the ones that already benefit from Senate over-representation, and also tend to be the states sucking more money out of the federal government than they pay in.

I don't think this is a well reasoned objection.

Well I'm not sure making it all about California,new York or Texas is better .and no one likes Florida .

Well that would stand better if statehood wasn't a thing ,not to mention that it might prompt states to try to get back at each other . 

I think you're way too relaxed on the rebellion angle .we had a huge number of people take to the streets and things got violent in some places over this election . I think you're overestimating how nuanced the average american's  political research and insight and motivations are .

Overall I don't think it's worth the risk to destabilize the country to see if you're right which is why I think a middle ground like what Scott suggested is a more reasonable approach .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pierre Le Harceleur said:

Your Wikipedia link notes that Right-wing politicians accuse it of being biased against them, while Left-wing politicians accuse it of being biased against them, so it's proof of nothing. Show me the biased coverage. And a citation for your claim that its journalists are left leaning, please.

And it most certainly is not "bull". The law does say exactly that. And the BBC does do exactly that. I was a journalist and senior editor in the BBC for 25 years (and a member of the Conservative Party). The guidance on ensuring objectivity is voluminous, exacting and taken extremely seriously. Coverage is constantly reviewed and challenged, and anyone found to have knowingly failed to be objective was disciplined and/or sacked. What is your in-depth knowledge to call that "bull" derived from?

 

18 minutes ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

Mild bias with exceptional sourcing. 

Of course, take everything with a grain of salt, but the BBC is not a liberial bastion a la Mother Jones or Vox.

This basically .

They like to frame news . I never said they weren't factually correct , I said they show bias which is evident .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vin said:

 

This basically .

They like to frame news . I never said they weren't factually correct , I said they show bias which is evident .

Mild left-center bias. Nothing to be hysterical about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Vin said:

Well I'm not sure making it all about California,new York or Texas is better .and no one likes Florida .

Well that would stand better if statehood wasn't a thing ,not to mention that it might prompt states to try to get back at each other . 

I think you're way too relaxed on the rebellion angle .we had a huge number of people take to the streets and things got violent in some places over this election . I think you're overestimating how nuanced the average american's  political research and insight and motivations are .

Overall I don't think it's worth the risk to destabilize the country to see if you're right which is why I think a middle ground like what Scott suggested is a more reasonable approach .

This is difficult to parse, but I will try to engage with the intelligible parts.

What's wrong with the principle of one person, one vote? As it is, a Californian's vote is worth 1/4 of the Electoral College representation of someone from Wyoming. How is that just or fair?

Moreover, a Republican in California and a Democrat in Kentucky know their vote for President is essentially worthless. A lot of people just don't vote, for that very reason. How that a good outcome? Voter apathy is part of the reason we have Trump and a dysfunctional, non-representative Congress.

And again, I don't think rebellion is any more likely in a popular vote system than in the current system where a handful of states get all the attention. You're trying to convince us that an antiquated and anti-democratic election system is the only thing holding this fragile union together? This feels like a made-up fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vetrani Weekić said:

Mild left-center bias. Nothing to be hysterical about.

I agree , I don't think I showcased in hysteria in my post. 

6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

This is difficult to parse, but I will try to engage with the intelligible parts.

What's wrong with the principle of one person, one vote? As it is, a Californian's vote is worth 1/4 of the Electoral College representation of someone from Wyoming. How is that just or fair?

Moreover, a Republican in California and a Democrat in Kentucky know their vote for President is essentially worthless. A lot of people just don't vote, for that very reason. How that a good outcome? Voter apathy is part of the reason we have Trump and a dysfunctional, non-representative Congress.

And again, I don't think rebellion is any more likely in a popular vote system than in the current system where a handful of states get all the attention. You're trying to convince us that an antiquated and anti-democratic election system is the only thing holding this fragile union together? This feels like a made-up fear.

Heh, nice dig .

Im aware of those points and I think they hold some validity .

But again I don't see how my points are invalid other than the fact that you don't think so . 

I think my fears over the unity of the country are perfectly rational . You don't and that's fine . If there's a vote on the matter I will vote against and you will vote for . I'm willing to consider voting for a middle path as Scott said because I think that's better . This is fine . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vin said:

I agree , I don't think I showcased in hysteria in my post. 

Heh, nice dig .

Im aware of those points and I think they hold some validity .

But again I don't see how my points are invalid other than the fact that you don't think so . 

I think my fears over the unity of the country are perfectly rational . You don't and that's fine . If there's a vote on the matter I will vote against and you will vote for . I'm willing to consider voting for a middle path as Scott said because I think that's better . This is fine . 

 

I think making sure everyone's votes are worth something and weighted equally is a bigger deal than some made-up fear that smaller states will somehow decide to rebel if they don't get to keep their thumbs on the scale of democracy. Those states will still get their Senate representation, where the two people who represent 500,000 people from Wyoming get as much say as the two people who represent 40,000,000 Californians.

Your rebellion argument may be convincing if you could actually show me some evidence that smaller states feel really resentful of the idea of a popular vote for President. It's not like candidates go to South Dakota now anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Why isn't popular vote a good idea?

It is fair to argue that small and medium sized states would get completely ignored in favor of a handful of states and cities. Honestly there should be a healthy compromise in which a candidate must win both the popular vote and the Electoral College to win the presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chiKanery et al. said:

It is fair to argue that small and medium sized states would get completely ignored in favor of a handful of states and cities. Honestly there should be a healthy compromise in which a candidate must win both the popular vote and the Electoral College to win the presidency.

Honestly I think Scot's suggestion is fine, I just wanted to see why Vin thought the current system is better than popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...