Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Slates articles do seem rather opinion based than fact based, kind of soapbox almost maybe.

How did The Guardian mistake them for being a conservative newsgroup?

[smjjames]

I fear you may have been misled about what a bastion of fine reporting the Grauniad actually is.

The politics section is generally okay.

Also, anti-environmentalist? Well, they ARE steam engines, which.... guess what.. run on coal.

[Loud Whispers]

Slates articles do seem rather opinion based than fact based, kind of soapbox almost maybe.

How did The Guardian mistake them for being a conservative newsgroup?

Because anything that leans more right than a war veteran who stood on a landmine with his left leg is conservative to the guardian

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

They hire the people who say aircon is a patriarchal conspiracy

Their tech section is high quality most of the time tho. Otherwise it's just SWPLs the paper

*EDIT
You know in Interstellar, you have the college teacher who goes on about how the moon landing was faked and was just a ploy by the Americans to cause the economic collapse of the USSR? That's the Guardian

*EDITx2
Ahaha today's one is the patriarchy's hidden agenda in razor blades and hairy women I'm fucking dyin im ded
*EDITx3
Oh my fucking god my sides they're even supporting statutory rape haah why is it everywhere progressive inevitably supports pedophiles, this fucking slippery slope aachkhhah it's covered in lube ahahah LOL
Love is love lmao

[smjjames]

Those are all opinion peices I don't really look outside the US and Politics (US politics that is, not British) sections in there.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

The way I see it, there will always be some states that matter more than others. Why not have those states be the populous ones, instead of the swing ones?

[Loud Whispers]

The way I see it, there will always be some states that matter more than others. Why not have those states be the populous ones, instead of the swing ones?

Because that will always favour the densest populated areas where politicians can spend the least amount of funds campaigning to the most number of important voters. This will lead to the USA being led by 3 cities, all of which will dominate the landscape with democrats, whilst the heavily armed countryside has two options: kill urban power or obey them

Swing states system is bad. Populous states system is scarier; all the economic wealth, political control, media HQs, tech, energy - all in one place, held by very few, behold to fewer. With such concentration of power, who can oppose candidates who aren't already entrenched in the city network?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

"Populous states" isn't real, as the rarity of EC disparities demonstrates. When you can get minority vote populations the urban=blue rural=red paradigm breaks down. I won't stand for this "New York and California" nonsense being used to defend the EC.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

LW: Oh come on, quit the fearmongering. There's always been minorities and majorities; what about this situation is so special that it will bring disaster?

Larger populations will have more say in what goes on. This is clearly better than smaller populations having more of the power. But a politician that caters to urban and rural populations, rather than alienating rural populations, will be more likely to succeed.

[origamiscienceguy]

Because having the urban areas ruling the rural areas is a bad idea.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

...right now, swing states largely decide who wins. By your logic, that means the swing states are currently ruling the solid states. Why hasn't California been enslaved yet? Why hasn't Texas been turned into a third-world country? Why hasn't Rhode Island revolted and attacked New York? This is what your model predicts in the current political system. Your model fails.

[smjjames]

The way I see it, there will always be some states that matter more than others. Why not have those states be the populous ones, instead of the swing ones?

One problem though is that things aren't evenly represented, lets look at the top 10 states by population, which make up over half the US population.

California: Only western state in the top 10, though granted, it takes up half the Pacific coast for the continential US. Primarily Democrat.

Texas: Could be considered Western because cowboys, but more midwest or maybe south. One of those multi-straddle places. Primarily Republican, though it's been getting bluer over time.

New York: NorthEast representative, NYC, primarily Democrat.

Florida: Southern representative, classical swing state.

Illinois: Great Lakes region rep, Chicago. Primarily Democrat, but I've heard pretty much everything outside of Chicago and its suburbs are Republican.

Pennsylvania: New England rep, maybe Appalachia as well. Possibly a swing state? WAS primarily Democrat and part of the 'blue wall', but I think I've read on 538 that it's been becoming more Republican.

Ohio: Great Lakes rep, typical swing state.

Michigan: Great Lakes rep, may be a swing state? It's certainly not a safe Dem state anymore and there's hardly any Dem lawmakers in the state.

Georgia: Deep South rep, Republican.

North Carolina: Deep South Rep, it wants to be a swing state, if only the dang Republicans would let it.

The first thing I notice is that there are no midwestern plains states or the mountain states, all of which is currently 'flyover country'.

[Loud Whispers]

LW: Oh come on, quit the fearmongering. There's always been minorities and majorities; what about this situation is so special that it will bring disaster?

I just told you, it concentrates all political power in the hubs that dominate media, finance, tech, energy and shit

The hell is that fearmongering simply looking that actions have consequences fam and your proposal would allow a handful select few to spend the fewest resources campaigning to the fewest people to hold all the power; it would be impossible for anyone born outside a few well-connected families in the important cities to have any influence on the entire nation whatsoever

Larger populations will have more say in what goes on. This is clearly better than smaller populations having more of the power. But a politician that caters to urban and rural populations, rather than alienating rural populations, will be more likely to succeed.

You're ignoring that these smaller populations have fuck all in power that urban centres do, as urban centres are already where most all power resides
Power is already consolidated amongst too few, you want is consolidated amongst even fewer. This is reckless, dangerous and there is no reason why rural populations should stand to obey such a system except with their physical subjugation, otherwise they have nothing. Urban centres decide all things academic, thus they control the future ideologies of the nation. Urban centres decide all things financial, thus they decide where all money goes in the nation. Urban centres are most of the economy itself. They decide the media, the popular culture that defines the nation for such heavy influence. They are the most interconnected, lines of communication smallest, elites most well-connected; giving them guaranteed victories in every election is gamebreaking more than the game is already broken

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The best way to protect the interests of the urban and rural populations equally doesn't have anything to do with this at all. It is reliant upon districting for the House of Representatives. Those reps will protect the interests of their constituencies in order to ensure their own reelection, no matter what those constituencies are.

Currently the districts are a fucking mess of gerrymandering beyond gerrymandering, even the gilded age would blush. Shortest-splitline districting has a known outcome, and that is one where:

A. No human involvement = No more politicians spinning their wheels trying to get an advantage here and fuck over the electorate.

B. Districts are either fully urban/fully rural or an approximately equal amount of both.


This will result in less bullshit politicians who also will also be inevitably balanced on both the personal and state-collective scale regarding urban and rural populations, regardless of the percentage of the population that is rural.

[smjjames]

Offtopic @ LW: One of your rotating avatar pics is partially broken. It's flashing between an ASCII dorf and an 'image not available' pic. I think it might be the one with several rotating ASCIIs.

Back ontopic: How do countries that use the popular vote to elect their leader for government do it then to have it be fair?

@MSH: Still doesn't solve the problem of the EC, Presidential votes are national and ignore the gerrymandering. Though I agree that eliminating the gerrymandering will help make politics less shitty.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I didn't say it solved the problem of the EC, I'm saying that rural and urban interests regarding the Presidential elections are a third-rate concern, at best.

It is most affected by the Representatives, and somewhat by the Senators, both far more than the President.