California Law trumps Federal Law

[Yojimbo]

(04-06-2018, 12:54 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: And orange county is the 3rd largest by population in the state according to the 2010 census. 

Orange County is where all the rich white people in L.A., that are afraid of Hispanics, hide.

[mallorian69]

(04-06-2018, 11:42 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: Orange County is where all the rich white people in L.A., that are afraid of Hispanics, hide.

Not sure what point you are trying to make with this statement but whatever it happens to be it doesn't change the fact that a county that has a larger population than several entire states is bucking the wack jobs that run their state.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 11:39 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: Escondido is not part of San Diego, it’s just in San Diego County which covers the bottom third of the state. I used to live in San Diego (coastal part of the county) and commuted an hour to work in Escondido. It would be like saying Dayton is part of Cincinnati.

Wouldn't it be more like saying Forest Park is part of Cincinnati as they are in the same county? I think Dayton has its own county.

[Yojimbo]

(04-06-2018, 01:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Wouldn't it be more like saying Forest Park is part of Cincinnati as they are in the same county? I think Dayton has its own county.

I was going with more of a distance, size and affiliation because Escondido is semi-rural (not that Dayton is all that rural) and San Diego is urban. Other than being in the same enormous county the two places couldn’t be more diffferent from each other.

[Yojimbo]

(04-06-2018, 01:29 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: Not sure what point you are trying to make with this statement but whatever it happens to be it doesn't change the fact that a county that has a larger population than several entire states is bucking the wack jobs that run their state.

Point was the local government of Orange County is mostly wealthy Republicans, they have always been against the state when it comes to immigration. It’s The least diverse (major) county in the state.

They county governments near the big cities in California are virtually powerless compared to the city governments. To better understand California’s politics, consider the big metropolitan areas and not just county lines.

[mallorian69]

(04-06-2018, 02:31 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Point was the local government of Orange County is mostly wealthy Republicans, they have always been against the state when it comes to immigration. It’s The least diverse (major) county in the state.

They county governments near the big cities in California are virtually powerless compared to the city governments. To better understand California’s politics, consider the big metropolitan areas and not just county lines.

That maybe true but any county with over 3 million mostly wealthy residents still has a good bit of clout. Maybe not as much as LA but it still wouldn't be smart to just dismiss that much money. 

With such a large county getting on board it may embolden some of the smaller conservative counties in the western and northern parts of the state to join as well making things more difficult for the nut jobs in Sacramento. 

[Yojimbo]

(04-06-2018, 04:35 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: That maybe true but any county with over 3 million mostly wealthy residents still has a good bit of clout. Maybe not as much as LA but it still wouldn't be smart to just dismiss that much money. 

With such a large county getting on board it may embolden some of the smaller conservative counties in the western and northern parts of the state to join as well making things more difficult for the nut jobs in Sacramento. 

All 3 million aren’t the rich elite. They just control the county. The majority of the county are just regular ol’ Angelinos.

[mallorian69]

(04-06-2018, 07:03 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: All 3 million aren’t the rich elite. They just control the county. The majority of the county are just regular ol’ Angelinos.

If the majority of orange county residents were "just regular ol' Angelinos" the county government wouldn't be controlled by Republicans. 

You act as if an area that holds 13% of the entire state's population is something that can be easily dismissed. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I have to say, having grown up in Orange County, that your back and forth on this subject has been entertaining. Orange County used to be staunchly GOP and largely white. Of late both statements are much less true. What you're also ignoring is that CA was very GOP oriented until the past twenty years or so. Additionally, the rural areas are, as is often the case, still very red. The problem we're having in CA is that the urban areas have gotten more and more extreme in their ideology and they can, by dint of their population, force their agenda down the throats of others. People make a lot of hay over Clinton winning CA by 3 million votes. What that ignores is that 4 million people in this state voted for Trump, a number larger than the population of almost half the states in the Union. How disenfranchised do you think those people feel? That's why you're getting this blow back now, Sacramento went too far.

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2018, 11:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to say, having grown up in Orange County, that your back and forth on this subject has been entertaining. Orange County used to be staunchly GOP and largely white. Of late both statements are much less true. What you're also ignoring is that CA was very GOP oriented until the past twenty years or so. Additionally, the rural areas are, as is often the case, still very red. The problem we're having in CA is that the urban areas have gotten more and more extreme in their ideology and they can, by dint of their population, force their agenda down the throats of others. People make a lot of hay over Clinton winning CA by 3 million votes. What that ignores is that 4 million people in this state voted for Trump, a number larger than the population of almost half the states in the Union. How disenfranchised do you think those people feel? That's why you're getting this blow back now, Sacramento went too far.

I am sitting on the urge, right now, to discuss how this would be good evidence for removing the electoral college and how proportional representation (potentially with in larger districts for state level) would be superior in the representation of the people when compared to the current system of districts for becoming a more representative and democratic society.

But I won't harp on those issues.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2018, 01:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am sitting on the urge, right now, to discuss how this would be good evidence for removing the electoral college and how proportional representation (potentially with in larger districts for state level) would be superior in the representation of the people when compared to the current system of districts for becoming a more representative and democratic society.

But I won't harp on those issues.

Removing the EC would certainly remove the perception of disenfranchisement in the presidential election.  A side effect is it would curtail the electoral power of states with lower populations.  I get the arguments against it, but I think the EC fits our system of government well, giving even small states (population wise) a significant voice in our elections.  If you're talking about state legislatures and HoR seats being assigned by percentages of votes, I quite like the idea.

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2018, 03:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Removing the EC would certainly remove the perception of disenfranchisement in the presidential election.  A side effect is it would curtail the electoral power of states with lower populations.  I get the arguments against it, but I think the EC fits our system of government well, giving even small states (population wise) a significant voice in our elections.  If you're talking about state legislatures and HoR seats being assigned by percentages of votes, I quite like the idea.

The EC is antiquated and undemocratic. It's based on the idea that the general populous would not know the candidates for the position and/or would be too dumb to make an informed decision, therefore they elected someone they would know better in order to make the decision for them. It's not relevant anymore. The idea that it was intended to give small states more say is getting things confused with the formation of our bicameral legislature. It was more to placate the slavery states, which were wealthier but would have a disadvantage in a popular election. Anyway, enough on that part.

To the other, proportional representation, that is exactly to what I am referring. People don't like the idea because they are concerned that they will lose the "personal touch" that a district representative would have. I contend that we have already lost it. I live in a district that is 3 hours away from DC and every so often we get our Rep around here. It isn't often, and when it is he shows up at a business, says some words to the press, and buggers off for a dinner with donors. Especially when it comes to the HoR, proportional representation just makes more sense and eliminates the issue of gerrymandering that is all over the news these days (at least for Congress). You can still have districts, still have local offices with staffers in them, but they work for the state's contingent in the HoR. They can be chosen proportionally by the representatives, as well.

Anyway, enough on this for now.