US Politics: Red Whine Hangover

[Ran]

1 hour ago, argonak said:

Wait, are we still pretending confirmation hearings matter?

They absolutely do when it comes to swaying public opinion. Kavanaugh is the least popular Supreme Court nominee in history. Still got the job, but a good part of why he's so unpopular are those hearings. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are overtly protective of their reputation, planting a lot of "positive" stories and so on, and they are not going to like what comes out in public hearings. Hence, they won't be Trump's pick to succeed Haley.

 

ETA: So there are rumors that Trump is considering Ivanka. I am dubious it's anything serious, but it's also been noted that UN ambassador would fall squarely within the purview of anti-nepotism laws preventing presidents appointing family members to agencies, something they sidestepped by claiming it didn't cover the White House proper... but UN ambassador is definitely such a post. Trump may not care, and I suppose he might push for a change in the law, but... everything tells me it won't be Ivanka Trump or Jared Kushner.

[James Arryn]

5 hours ago, Frog Eater said:

Alaska, Idaho, and Alabama deserve a voice in the discussion, and if you went with mob rule democracy, their voice would be ignored

Democracy is not mob rule. It’s democracy. The only voices that ‘deserve’ to be heard are those reflective of the majority of Americans choices. You keep talking about places being held hostage by ‘California and NY’, but what you mean is ‘America’. The only way anyone is actually ignored is when some votes are arbitrarily assigned more weight than others.

This is honestly one of those arguments where only one side attempts to use reason, the other just pumps empty ideological slogans that wouldn’t pass muster in an elementary school debate. I’d love to follow through on that nonsense. Okay, but within Missouri we’re giving the 4th and 7th Districts 5 times the representation of the others. Because reasons. But within the 4th and 7th we’re giving...’ down to 3 people > the rest of the state because they are most Missourian of all, as decided by outsiders.

[Martell Spy]

13 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Democracy is not mob rule. It’s democracy. The only voices that ‘deserve’ to be heard are those reflective of the majority of Americans choices. You keep talking about places being held hostage by ‘California and NY’, but what you mean is ‘America’. The only way anyone is actually ignored is when some votes are arbitrarily assigned more weight than others.

This is honestly one of those arguments where only one side attempts to use reason, the other just pumps empty ideological slogans that wouldn’t pass muster in an elementary school debate. I’d love to follow through on that nonsense. Okay, but within Missouri we’re giving the 4th and 7th Districts 5 times the representation of the others. Because reasons. But within the 4th and 7th we’re giving...’ down to 3 people > the rest of the state because they are most Missourian of all, as decided by outsiders.

Apparently mob rule by Democrats are today's Republican talking-points.

Republicans: Protesters Are an Unruly Mob — Unless They’re Heavily Armed and Support Us

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-left-protests-mob-republicans-bundy-midterms.html

Quote

Democrats “have encouraged mob rule,” Judiciary committee chair Chuck Grassley lamented from the Senate floor Friday, before proceeding to tell Fox Business that he believed the protesters were mercenaries employed by George Soros, as “it fits in his attack mode and how he uses his billions and billions of resources.” Utah senator Orrin Hatch echoed this assessment, decrying the self-proclaimed sexual assault survivors who’d gathered in the capitol as “a paid mob trying to prevent senators from doing the will of their constituents.” 

 

[argonak]

44 minutes ago, Ran said:

They absolutely do when it comes to swaying public opinion. Kavanaugh is the least popular Supreme Court nominee in history. Still got the job, but a good part of why he's so unpopular are those hearings. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are overtly protective of their reputation, planting a lot of "positive" stories and so on, and they are not going to like what comes out in public hearings. Hence, they won't be Trump's pick to succeed Haley.

 

ETA: So there are rumors that Trump is considering Ivanka. I am dubious it's anything serious, but it's also been noted that UN ambassador would fall squarely within the purview of anti-nepotism laws preventing presidents appointing family members to agencies, something they sidestepped by claiming it didn't cover the White House proper... but UN ambassador is definitely such a post. Trump may not care, and I suppose he might push for a change in the law, but... everything tells me it won't be Ivanka Trump or Jared Kushner.

Oh yes, the GOP majority in the House and Senate will be very quick to punish Trump for disobeying nepotism laws!  Just like they were quick to punsih him for the emoluments laws.

Nothing matters anymore to the GOP.  They're completly corrupt and morally bankrupt.

[Ran]

19 minutes ago, argonak said:

Oh yes, the GOP majority in the House and Senate will be very quick to punish Trump for disobeying nepotism laws!  Just like they were quick to punsih him for the emoluments laws.

Nothing matters anymore to the GOP.  They're completly corrupt and morally bankrupt.

Haley is going to be ambassador to the end of the year. Odds are the Democrats will hold the House after the mid-terms.

[Rippounet]

46 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Democracy is not mob rule. It’s democracy. The only voices that ‘deserve’ to be heard are those reflective of the majority of Americans choices. You keep talking about places being held hostage by ‘California and NY’, but what you mean is ‘America’. The only way anyone is actually ignored is when some votes are arbitrarily assigned more weight than others.

This is honestly one of those arguments where only one side attempts to use reason, the other just pumps empty ideological slogans that wouldn’t pass muster in an elementary school debate. I’d love to follow through on that nonsense. Okay, but within Missouri we’re giving the 4th and 7th Districts 5 times the representation of the others. Because reasons. But within the 4th and 7th we’re giving...’ down to 3 people > the rest of the state because they are most Missourian of all, as decided by outsiders.

To be fair with Frog Eater, the founders' distrust of democracy is well-known and the US was thus deliberately created as undemocratic. His confusion comes from the fact that at some point in the story US propaganda started selling itself as "democratic" even though people were supposed to know better. So of course he's having a little trouble dealing with the fact that what he thinks of as "mob rule" is actually democracy.

[King Ned Stark]

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

To be fair with Frog Eater, the founders' distrust of democracy is well-known and the US was thus deliberately created as undemocratic. His confusion comes from the fact that at some point in the story US propaganda started selling itself as "democratic" even though people were supposed to know better. So of course he's having a little trouble dealing with the fact that what he thinks of as "mob rule" is actually democracy.

Which is why we have the constitution to protect the people from government abuse, as well as the abuse of the majority over the minority.  Right?  The US is a republic, and a democracy.

[Durckad]

18 hours ago, Frog Eater said:

the values of Los Angeles are not the same as Alaska, or Idaho, or Alabama. Not everyone should be held subject to the wants of Los Angeles and New York. 

And the values of Bumfuck, Nowhere* are not the values of everywhere else. It's a two way street you know.

* Speaking as someone who lives in Bumfuck, Nowhere.

[Ran]

They were very afraid of the tyranny of the majority, it's true, and for good reason. They feared demogogues and they feared the establishment of a new anarchy at the urging of populists. Unfortunately, the balance that was carefully struck began to go increasingly out of whack thanks to the Reapportionment Act which capped the total number of representatives, which in turn capped the total number of electoral college members... and as time passed, this has led to a real imbalance between less populated states and more populated states.

Repealing the Reapportionment act would probably mean tripling the electoral college and congress. Which, to be fair, is unwieldy -- there's literally no room in Congress for 1300 representatives, and how things would get done is a mystery. But if you did that, well, we know that if Congress had 500 seats in 2000, Al Gore would have clearly won the electoral college... 

Another thing to get around the imbalance, of course, is to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C. Their senators would presently skew liberal.

[DMC]

20 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I would say it probably all started to go seriously downhill with Watergate, then you saw  overall belief/trust in U.S. institutions. Bork was a big turning point.  The liberals went nutty when Reagan won, and then the conservatives went just as nutty when Clinton won.  There are lot of other smaller issues, like the various tinkerings that have been done w/how Congress works starting in the 70s, that yeah, they took power away from the chairs and now nothing gets done, so was that really, in hindsight, good? or not so good. 

Well you're right about one thing - the 1970s House reforms were a key contributor to congressional polarization (the best book on that, while old, can be found here).  This led to the cartelization of the majority party in the House through agenda setting (as described by Cox & McCubbins 2004) which exacerbated the polarization already emanating from ideological realignment and rising income inequality.  You're also right that this 90/10 number seems pulled out of someone's ass.  However, there is a reason asymmetric polarization is a common term among congressional researchers and has been pointed out by many including Mann and Ornstein as @Ran mentioned. 

So, let's try to derive a percentage that is actually based on something.  In terms of Congress, the standard way to measure polarization is the difference in the two parties' medians regarding DW-NOMINATE scores.  A basic visual can clearly show you that the GOP has become far more "conservative" than the Dems have become "liberal" in recent years, but let's look at the actual data.  How about we start at the 97th Congress - 1981 to 1983?  It was Reagan's first two years, the GOP had a stronger majority in the Senate than they do now, and while the Dems still had a stranglehold on the House, Reagan won with a mandate by far more than Trump.  I think that's as fair a comparison as I can come up with for the current session - the 115th - and political environment.  So, to the numbers:

• 97th House Dem: -.320, 115th House Dem: -.395; Change: -.075
• 97th House GOP: .307, 115th House GOP .503; Change: .196

So the difference between the party medians - which is the standard way to measure congressional polarization - rose .271 overall from Reagan's first two years to Trump's.  The GOP accounted for (.196/.271) 72 percent of the increased polarization.  So not quite 90/10, but in the ballpark.  How bout the Senate:

• 97th Senate Dem: -.314, 115th Senate Dem: -.328; Change: -.014
• 97th Senate GOP: .294, 115th Senate GOP .463; Change: .169

Here the difference in party medians only rose .183 (another demonstration the House drives polarization), but the GOP accounted for .169 of it.  That's 92 percent of the increased polarization.  Damn, so that 90/10 ain't looking so bad.  Seems pretty clear that at least in terms of institutional, or elite level, polarization, there's one side that is doing almost all the heavy lifting. 

And this is ignoring the substance of the argument - the fact that just since 2000 the GOP has unilaterally changed the goal posts repeatedly on tax cuts, the debt ceiling, health care, immigration, climate change, gun control, SC nominations, what constitutes news, and now with Trump we can include trade, Russia, North Korea, and basic human thought.

[lokisnow]

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

there's literally no room in Congress for 1300 representatives, and how things would get done is a mystery.

How 120,000,000 voters get anything done is a mystery.

How 55,000,000 Californians get anything done is a mystery

How 3,000,000 Iowans get anything done is a mystery

How 500,000 Wyoming denizens get anything done is a mystery

How 30,000 students get anything done at their university is a mystery

How 2,800 companies on the stock exchange get anything done is a mystery

How 435 members of Congress get anything done is a mystery

How 40 member of Congress on a committee get anything done is a mystery

How a 9 member supreme court gets anything done is a mystery

SOO many mysteries, just how on earth is anything ever accomplished or solved with all the mysteries of mysterious and suspiciously large groups everywhere at all times doing things. No one can understand it!

And finally:

(how to build a room that holds more than 435 people is a mystery! science has never solved it!)

[Ran]

Just now, lokisnow said:

How 120,000,000 voters get anything done is a mystery.

You're being facetious, surely? 120m, 55m, 2.8k companies -- these are not deliberative legislative bodies. Just try to imagine 120,000,000 people attempting to craft and implement a law! The closest you get are state referendums, which basically order representatives to craft and implement the laws because 120,000,000 people ain't gonna do it.

The problem is the U.S. has built a great body of law and legislation making certain assumptions, assumptions that are very hard to turn over.   You don't need a constitutional convention to repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929, but you're going to have to figure out how to square it with the great mass of law that will speak against it.

As to expanding the Capitol or creating a new building... yeah, man, that's nothing that will realistically happen outside of a couple of decades, minimum. 

[Rippounet]

52 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Which is why we have the constitution to protect the people from government abuse, as well as the abuse of the majority over the minority.  Right?  The US is a republic, and a democracy.

Nope, you're just spouting propaganda.

Madison made it quite clear what the American republic was supposed to be about:

Quote

Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.

It's great that there can be no tyranny of the majority. But if the majority can't "carry into effect schemes of oprression," can it carry into effect any schemes at all?

Madison had an answer to that as well:

Quote

[...] it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

 

Does that sound like democracy to you? Sounds like something else to me.

Starting from there, it's hardly surprising that federalism was designed to give the people of some states slightly more political influence than the people of others. The "Great compromise," was not meant to preserve or respect the power of the people any more than the rest of the constitution.

[Ran]

Representative democracy is still a democracy.

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

You're being facetious, surely? 120m, 55m, 2.8k companies -- these are not deliberative legislative bodies. Just try to imagine 120,000,000 people attempting to craft and implement a law! The closest you get are state referendums, which basically order representatives to craft and implement the laws because 120,000,000 people ain't gonna do it.

The problem is the U.S. has built a great body of law and legislation making certain assumptions, assumptions that are very hard to turn over.   You don't need a constitutional convention to repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929, but you're going to have to figure out how to square it with the great mass of law that will speak against it.

As to expanding the Capitol or creating a new building... yeah, man, that's nothing that will realistically happen outside of a couple of decades, minimum. 

well, yes of course its sarcasm. somehow humans have created numerous ways for large masses of people--of any order of magnitude--to accomplish one thing or another. Organizing large groups of people is merely a matter of scaling logistics properly, not "a mystery".

To say that a government with 1300 representatives will be "mysteriously" different in operations from a government of 435 representatives is materially absurd, it will simply scale up appropriately probably by dividing and specializing labor in exactly the same manner that it currently dispenses.

You don't really even need to expand the capitol or build a new building. You just need to donate 435 wooden monstrosity antique desks to various museums in the fifty states. Once the furniture is removed, you should be able to easily fit a large number of people within said large venue. Not really a problem.

Or we could consider furniture more important than people and say that we can't possibly allow the number of representatives to increase because the furniture issue is simply impossible.

And beyond that, if the House of Reps numbers were to increase to appropriate levels of 5000 or more representatives, given technology, there's no real reason for DC to be such a wretched hive of scum and villainy, why even convene congress except on special occasions? if congress gets big enough, leave representatives in their districts and have them legislate by videochat. :-p

while we're at it, we should take as many DC based federal agencies as possible (and add twenty percent more than what is deemed "possible") and relocate said agencies to the various fifty states. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Representative democracy is still a democracy.

Well, yeah, but it also covers a pretty broad spectrum of participation and how much weight certain votes have.  If my vote is only worth half of yours I don't feel much better knowing it's still technically a democracy 

[lokisnow]

btw, ACTBLUE for Heidi Heitkamp y'll, there is no better senate race bang for your buck than North Dakota. I donated, you should too.

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/heidi-heitkamp-1

[Rippounet]

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

Representative democracy is still a democracy.

That would very much depend on the quality of the representation, of the political process generally speaking, and of the degree of accountability to which the representatives are held (among other things). Since -kratia means power, many representative democracies are really not democracies, because people end up having a ridiculously limited amount of influence over vast areas of the public affairs. They're slightly more democratic than, say, North Korea, but that doesn't make them democracies in the literal sense.
To borrow Madison's terminology, most of us live in republics. Very few of us experience anything even remotely close to actual democracy however. It might seem pedantic to point that out, but it's not. It really explains a great deal of the mess we're in right now.

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Add Wyoming to that list. More people live in Alaska than Wyoming, and there are countless counties across the US that have larger populations than that entire state. And yet they get equal representation. 

North Dakota should be on the list!

For voting no Heitkamp and her family are now receiving really horrendous threats of death, rape and mutilation.  Ah.  My people. And others wonder still why I got the eff outta there as fast as possible.

As for those going that representative democracy always works -- well, it doesn't does it?  The vast majority of the US voters DID NOT THINK KAVANAUGH SHOULD BE ON SCOTUS.

[illrede]

12 hours ago, felice said:

Having the interests of larger states ignored by the smaller ones is clearly worse, though, since that's more people having their interests ignored. And there's the question of whether state of residence is of that much importance in determining the interests of individual people anyway; eg I'd say poor people in California and poor people in Wyoming have far more interests in common with each other than they do with rich people living in the same state.

The obvious example that has been true for "modern" times (as in 1950s+) is that "commodities" orientated "small" states are pretty much in "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" territory when it comes to "big" state legislative priorities. That crosses class (and party) boundaries, it's a regional thing.