Print

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

[Aqizzar]

Nenjin, would it kill you to form more coherent responses, instead of individual lines to each individual line of posts you want to respond to?  If nothing else, it's really hard to read, and really discredits your viewpoint by making it sound like all you have to respond with is snarky quips.

I'm getting a little tired, we've been at this a while. Plus, I'm getting fed a lot of one line responses too.

Yeah, I was overlooking Leafsnail's posts a bit.  It's a pet peeve of mine.

And I'd spend more time worrying about what my state is doing within its own turf than how much play it has on the national stage. I live in a Red state, surrounded by conservatives. So I can't really imagine a reality where they don't have a seat at the table and have to be respected on some level, even if it pisses me off to have to do so.

In otherwords, they have every incentive to demands 100% compliance with their minority opinions, believe they have full license by their constituencies to drive the nation into the ground in the process, and absolutely no check or structure suggesting otherwise, thanks to a system that puts about one-fifth of the population on par with the entire rest of the country.

I don't see the solution as trying to deprive their constituents of the power of their vote. I'm irritated with a large segment of this country for voting how they do despite the evidence. [insert folksy axiom here about horse and water] You create more turmoil when you try to say they can't manage themselves so they need to lose more representation so "people that know better can get on making decisions." They pay taxes, they live here, they're scared just like everyone else. I wouldn't do that to someone whose politics I agree with....to be a politically moral individual, I can't do it people I disagree with, either.

You go on and on beating up an imaginary Californian, and then - "of course I'm happy with this system, because I'm in one of the states that benefit from it."  You can certainly imagine a reality where your state and views have a seat at the table, it's called the House of Representatives.  What you're unwilling to see the fault in is a system where your seat at the table is many times bigger and fancier than any particular Californian's, that's the Senate.

That's the argument everyone here was making - equal representation is equal representation.  The Senate is not equal representation, it's the enshrinement of a minority over the majority.  And it becomes the minority creating laws over the will of the majority, when the majority have to concede to the minority to get anything at all to pass so that the government doesn't collapse - see today's announcement of the extension of the over-$250k tax cuts for two years in exchange for 1.06 years of extended unemployment benefits.

[Earthquake Damage]

In another thread, some time back, someone hit the nail on the head.  The primary political division in the US is demographic in nature.  Large, dense urban populations compete with small, sparse rural ones.  No system of representation can please both.

[Leafsnail]

Eh, I stopped doing it when I realised.  It's meant to be more tying each point I make to part of someone else's post, but it ends up looking like a series of fractured replies.

[smjjames]

What the hell do you guys have against California anyway??

Yes we have a large chunk of represenatives, but so does Texas and other states with large populations.

[Renault]

What the hell do you guys have against California anyway??

Yes we have a large chunk of represenatives, but so does Texas and other states with large populations.

I'm thinking its just an example, being the largest state. Or at least, so I hope, haha.

[Andir]

Look, imagine you lived in California.  Would you be happy with this system?

I know this is a bit sensational... but if I lived in California sure, I'd be upset that my vote didn't count as much as Farmer Joe... I'd be happy to tell my senator we need to enslave all farmers to work for the better good of me and my neighbor and without any knowledge of how much land it takes to grow crops, I'd vote up land taxes to the point where I could afford it (I mean, I only have an acre of land)  Those bastard farmers with their hundred or thousands of acres should have to pay more!

The problem with direct democracy is that the cities and high populous areas always win.  Presidents would only really need to visit and convince 10 states to vote for them.  Sucks to be the other 40.  I hope you like hearing politicians sell themselves to California because they aren't going to talk to the folks in Wyoming.  Sure there's equal vote between all people, but when a majority of the people have never lived in a certain environment they don't know enough to make an informed decision when it comes to making law for everyone in the country.  If we had smaller, regional "countries" I'd agree that the people within that zone would know better what to vote for.  That's why I still fall back on the States to decide... but you all call me crazy for that.

[smjjames]

Yea well, consider this, California has 50 something represenatives and there are 406 or so represenatives total. The chunk that California has will get balanced by everybody else.

[nenjin]

What you're unwilling to see the fault in is a system where your seat at the table is many times bigger and fancier than any particular Californian's, that's the Senate.

Uh hello? Nebraska? Ben Nelson? Believe me, I have ne'er do-wells in my state too. He held the entire Healthcare Bill hostage and he's a democrat.

Like I said, democrat in a red state. My views aren't well represented here, although I live in a liberal enclave in an otherwise conservative state. I accept the system even though it currently doesn't produce optimal results for me. I accept that politicians will be sleezy regardless of the system in place. I'd prefer to see the populist mob checked, not given the reigns. You think politics is bad now? Just wait until every politician is talking to the super majority and no one else.

The Senate is not equal representation, it's the enshrinement of a minority over the majority.

It's the enshrinement of the judgment of elected individuals and political compromise over pure representation. That someone might shockingly extend something to the other side even though they don't have to, because they might actually care about the other side in the context of this thing we call a union.

It's failing because people want it to fail. People want to be self-interested and grab as much of the pie for themselves as they legally can, and fight tooth and nail for the rest. We talk a great deal in America about our unity, but that makes for soundbites and little else. Or does the fact that under proportional representation, some states would have fractions of a vote for thousands of people sit well with you guys? What's the point of having a union, for those people? What's the point of having any of their assets tied to the nation if they honestly have no say over them? You may feel under-represented now, but do the math. Under your system they'll be far more under-represented than you currently are.

What the hell do you guys have against California anyway??

I was savagely beaten as a child to the Beach Boy's sound track. It's fostered in me a life-long hatred of temperate weather, beaches, fake breasts and celebrities.

If we had smaller, regional "countries" I'd agree that the people within that zone would know better what to vote for.  That's why I still fall back on the States to decide... but you all call me crazy for that.

And you would be, in this current political environment. Like someone being guilty of say, abortion, the minute they crossed state lines. Having a bumber sticker that defames the lord jebus, a capital offense in wherever. The fact we have to have a union means we have to find compromise on issues like that, or debate them into eternity. Better than needing a "Traveler's Guide to the U.S. law" as a native.

[Aqizzar]

I guess what I'm saying more than anything is that no legislative process should have one irreproachable roadblock, and the Senate has one.  Without the power of the filibuster, I'd be pretty satisfied.  I think the individual personalities of the Senate can do a good enough job of forestalling anything unacceptable to any particularly large minority, without giving any such minority the power to unilaterally stop the government from functioning if they don't get what they want.  Maybe do like some other countries, where the executive can force the legislature to take a vote at standing, instead of having to wait for every individual to come to a "consensus".

[Lord Shonus]

1 senator per state...

So, uh, basically massively weight the balance of power towards smaller states?  I mean, that might be acceptable in a country with a reasonably even population spread, but the US is not like that at all.  I mean, 36 million people in California would receive the same representation as half a million people in Wyoming.

That's the entire point to having the same number of senators (2) from every state, to keep the interests of high-population states from steamrollering those of low population states. This makes Rhode Island's interests relevant at a national level even competing against Texas. Population based representation in the House keeps Texas from being overwhelmed by a coalition of New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. (All states named are purely examples of large and small states.) This keeps the system from favoring either possible power bloc.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Lord Shonus]

Because then one or two large states have a huge dominance over areas far away from them. Having both systems keeps both groups in balance.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Lord Shonus]

No, they have exactly the same influence, because the population-based House checks them.

[Andir]

Let's put it this way... if we went to a pure democracy based system... if I lived in a small state, I'd be talking about succession because there would be no way for that state to have a choice in anything.  They'd be better off as a country of their own so they could make their own laws without having to bend to the will of California.