Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[JustWinBaby]

(10-17-2017, 08:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Turn the question around and it might be easier to answer.   Why are rural areas more conservative? Less diversity, and people still influenced by the groups around them.

But it's a smaller, less populous echo chamber that has less impact on voting.

And I've worked all over the US, big cities and small cities.  Conservative values and politics were not worn on the sleeve in podunk towns....But in the "liberal meccas" the BS can't be avoided.

IMO, the liberals are far more aggressive about imposing their views.  And I'd say it's a much bigger, much more powerful echo chamber.  I've seen it - and you see it on message boards - the liberal game right now is identity politics, and you see people reluctant to express conservative views because liberals come along to shout them down as racist, sexist, whatever.  "If I can't get you to agree with me, at least I can use vilify your position to get you to shutting up"

I don't want either extreme choosing the direction of the country.  The left wing view IS overrepresented, it IS taking over the Democratic party, and it IS dangerous and reckless

[JustWinBaby]

(10-17-2017, 08:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: I happen to not agree with that point at all. You cannot just tell a certain american citizen that his vote should count, albeit slightly, less because (s)he's part of a "highly populated echo chamber."
States rights are a completely different cup of tea. Federal overreach has nothing to do inherently with how the votes are counted though.

But it's true, and it's a founding principle that mob/herd mentality won't trample minority rights.  It is very strongly based on population, but offers some balance and protection for the minority.  The Senate is there to check the populous rule of the House, and offer some protection/preservation of the independence of states.

All votes are indeed equal, it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of how we're voting and what it represents. Each voter counts equally with every other voter in their State. And that's where the individual weight of your vote stops, because States matter.

This isn't a "right" or "wrong" debate, this is a federalist vs. anti-federalist argument that the founding fathers themselves struggled with.  I would suggest the country is too big and too diverse to continue giving more power to the Feds.

[hollodero]

(10-18-2017, 04:15 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But it's true, and it's a founding principle that mob/herd mentality won't trample minority rights.  It is very strongly based on population, but offers some balance and protection for the minority.  The Senate is there to check the populous rule of the House, and offer some protection/preservation of the independence of states.

This isn't a "right" or "wrong" debate, this is a federalist vs. anti-federalist argument that the founding fathers themselves struggled with.  I would suggest the country is too big and too diverse to continue giving more power to the Feds.

But it isn't a federalist vs. anti-federalist debate. To see it as such, you would have to assume that liberals would want to dissolve states rights, which micht very well be true, but that is not the initial argument. Nor is it democratic to advocate a counter-reaction to that in the sense that you argue those people's vote should be capped in its relevance by making them slightly less decisive. Thats no offense, it's just what you do, you advocate that because you do not agree with the alleged ideas coming out of this "echo chamber".

One could very well argue if you see that objectively as well. I do not know about the US too much, so I can be easily refuted. In my country, the diverse places are the cities. The echo chambers, the life-long (conservative or more extreme right) voters no matter what, the regions where talking points get handed out and shared uncritically, is the countryside. I would never argue their votes should count less because they only listen to certain outlets and certain political figures. You. on the other hand, would. And that is not the kind of democracy I have in mind, the kind that has safeguards put in so your alleged minority opinion is protected against the opinions of the majority.

In the end, you devaluate an alleged majority's opinion just because you disagree with said opinion. Which leads to you not granting every american citizen the same right. You would argue because someone lives in a place you consider to be a BS echo chamber, his voice should be devalued a little compared to yours. That it's only a little doesn't make better what I consider a flawed understanding of the democratic principle. Your own words lead to that, not so much my interpretation.

[Dill]

(10-18-2017, 04:00 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But it's a smaller, less populous echo chamber that has less impact on voting.

And I've worked all over the US, big cities and small cities.  Conservative values and politics were not worn on the sleeve in podunk towns....But in the "liberal meccas" the BS can't be avoided.

IMO, the liberals are far more aggressive about imposing their views.  And I'd say it's a much bigger, much more powerful echo chamber.  I've seen it - and you see it on message boards - the liberal game right now is identity politics, and you see people reluctant to express conservative views because liberals come along to shout them down as racist, sexist, whatever.  "If I can't get you to agree with me, at least I can use vilify your position to get you to shutting up"

I don't want either extreme choosing the direction of the country.  The left wing view IS overrepresented, it IS taking over the Democratic party, and it IS dangerous and reckless

I'm a little puzzled at these comments. We have a Republican president who lost the popular vote. Republicans control the House and Senate, but represent fewer citizens.  How is the out-of-power party representing the most voters over represented in this scenario? Or do you mean there is a left wing over represented within the Democratic party? The Democratic party is centrist with an emerging "left"?

When both sides fight over issues like gay marriage, it seems they are equally trying to "impose their views."  Whenever Americans collide on political issues, it seems "both sides" do a lot of shouting. But to speak as if this is somehow the defining characteristic of one--I couldn't be more surprised if you had said Trump is a polished, civil public speaker while Obama is a public boor and master of the personal attack.

 No doubt Democrats address more issues favorable to some groups than others, like women and African Americans, but it's not clear why representing underrepresented groups in a democracy is suddenly a "game" rather than what politicians are supposed to do.  It is not a game to represent whites or evangelicals or some such?  No "identity politics" in a Muslims ban or the wall?  I cannot discern the metric(s) behind claims like "the liberal game right now is identity politics."  Is the metric applied to only one side? (just asking.) You say I "have seen it" but I am not sure what you are referring to. Is it something "everyone knows" in a specific media audience?

Speaking of which, I listen to Hannity a couple times of week on the radio. He frequently says "leftists" shout everyone down and call conservatives racist and sexist "just for expressing their views."  He never seems to talk specific cases though. Who does this? Where?  I'd like to know more about views which are "just being expressed" before I decide people are shouted down and unfairly labeled.  And then he suddenly shifts ground, calling those shouting leftists snowflakes" because they don't like hate speech. You say you do not want either extreme directing the country, but you seem to be defending one of those extremes, adopting their language, concerns and talking points.


Finally, I am quite baffled by the assumption that "reckless endangerment" is the consequence of "leftist" over representation somewhere in the polity. 

We have a president who is trying to blow up the current Iran deal and Obamacare at the same time, while pushing us towards war with North Korea. He cannot seem to get his policy pronouncements straight from one day to the next. He insults his own cabinet members and leaders of his party, then blames them for policy/legislative failures in one breath while expanding promises of what he will accomplish next (a much better health care policy. The best).  One "extreme" is directing the country right now.

Mightn't there be more pressing dangers than "LEFTISTS" at the moment?






 

[Dill]

(10-18-2017, 04:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: One could very well argue if you see that objectively as well. I do not know about the US too much, so I can be easily refuted. In my country, the diverse places are the cities. The echo chambers, the life-long (conservative or more extreme right) voters no matter what, the regions where talking points get handed out and shared uncritically, is the countryside. I would never argue their votes should count less because they only listen to certain outlets and certain political figures. You. on the other hand, would. And that is not the kind of democracy I have in mind, the kind that has safeguards put in so your alleged minority opinion is protected against the opinions of the majority.

In the end, you devaluate an alleged majority's opinion just because you disagree with said opinion. Which leads to you not granting every american citizen the same right. You would argue because someone lives in a place you consider to be a BS echo chamber, his voice should be devalued a little compared to yours. That it's only a little doesn't make better what I consider a flawed understanding of the democratic principle. Your own words lead to that, not so much my interpretation.

Hollo, I am not sure how you understand this point about checking the majority, but I think Justwin's view is more in line with "the founding fathers" here.

The federalists among them were not particularly worried about the majority. It was assumed they could take care of themselves. They were worried about how to protect the minority--which in their democracy would be the rich merchants and landowners. As the franchise began to widen, including white males who did not own property, this was a concern for them. Also, many of them were steeped in Greek and Roman classics, which abound in stories of states degraded by democracy, the more numerous poor voting to separate the rich minority from their money and the like.

We have different minorities nowdays, but protection of minority rights is, I think, still a democratic ideal. It will mean that sometimes the vote of the individual majority member counts less. Hence the Senate and the electoral college The alternative is worse.

[hollodero]

(10-18-2017, 05:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Hollo, I am not sure how you understand this point about checking the majority, but I think Justwin's view is more in line with "the founding fathers" here.

The federalists among themj were not particularly worried about the majority. It was assumed they could take care of themselves. They were worried about how to protect the minority--which in their democracy would be the rich merchants and landowners. As the franchise began to widen, including white males who did not own property, this was a concern for them. Also, many of them were steeped in Greek and Roman classics, which abound in stories of states degraded by democracy, the more numerous poor voting to separate the rich minority from their money and the like.

We have different minorities nowdays, but protection of minority rights is, I think, still a democratic ideal. It will mean that sometimes the vote of the individual majority member counts less. Hence the Senate and the electoral college The alternative is worse.

I do not argue against minority rights. These rights, however, do not include that their votes count more than the votes of other citizens. It cannot be part of minority rights to say, oh you live in that region, your voice needs protection from the larger group of people living somewhere else by making yours more decisive at the voting booth. That's not what minority rights is about.

In a young, unstable democracy with different ethnics groups, I could understand that approach. To avoid oppression. But it is not and can not be seen as oppression when you want protection against an alleged majority in a voting booth voting differently than you'd approve of. And you cannot base that demand on the claim that others do live in a "BS echo chamber".

[Belsnickel]

(10-18-2017, 04:00 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But it's a smaller, less populous echo chamber that has less impact on voting.

And I've worked all over the US, big cities and small cities.  Conservative values and politics were not worn on the sleeve in podunk towns....But in the "liberal meccas" the BS can't be avoided.

IMO, the liberals are far more aggressive about imposing their views.  And I'd say it's a much bigger, much more powerful echo chamber.  I've seen it - and you see it on message boards - the liberal game right now is identity politics, and you see people reluctant to express conservative views because liberals come along to shout them down as racist, sexist, whatever.  "If I can't get you to agree with me, at least I can use vilify your position to get you to shutting up"

I don't want either extreme choosing the direction of the country.  The left wing view IS overrepresented, it IS taking over the Democratic party, and it IS dangerous and reckless

I think what you are seeing is what has been going on for a long time, which is the identity politics game being played by the Democrats because that is what they can use to differentiate themselves from the GOP. We've seen this crop up ever since the Democrats have started espousing neo-liberal positions, which means that economically they don't differ a ton from their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Because of this, the only way to try to sway voters is to play the identity game and get people of color, women, and the LGBT community to think that they have their best interests in mind while the other guys don't. Spoiler: that's always been a lie. This isn't to say that the idea of equity among the citizens of this country and equal protection under the law isn't something we should be striving for and is a valuable thing, but there is a reason that the biggest efforts on that front in recent years have come about from the judiciary.

Now, this is me coming in to say that I disagree that the actual liberals coming in and trying (because they haven't done it, at least not yet) to take over the Democratic party is a bad thing. I know you probably aren't someone that necessarily agrees with social liberalism or the New Deal type of Democratic ideals, but I feel like having a party with those positions again would be a good thing. I know the identity politics stuff is really what gets a lot of attention, but liberalism and those of us that are trying to pull the party more to the left aren't just about that. We want that equity for these people, but we want equity for all people and we want the programs and policies we advocate for to help all people.

[Dill]

(10-18-2017, 05:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I do not argue against minority rights. These rights, however, do not include that their votes count more than the votes of other citizens. It cannot be part of minority rights to say, oh you live in that region, your voice needs protection from the larger group of people living somewhere else by making yours more decisive at the voting booth. That's not what minority rights is about.

In a young, unstable democracy with different ethnics groups, I could understand that approach. To avoid oppression. But it is not and can not be seen as oppression when you want protection against an alleged majority in a voting booth voting differently than you'd approve of. And you cannot base that demand on the claim that others do live in a "BS echo chamber".

Well, James Madison begs to differ with you. If you live in Rhode Island then your voice does need protection from populous New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. So yes, you get two senators and New York gets two senators. Without those two senators the role of your state at the federal level is practically nil. Justwin was correct to insert the state between the federal government here.

I did not read Justwin's "echo chamber" comments as justification for senatorial representation and the electoral college. He was addressing why country folk seem more conservative than city folk, if I understand him.

[Dill]

(10-18-2017, 05:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what you are seeing is what has been going on for a long time, which is the identity politics game being played by the Democrats because that is what they can use to differentiate themselves from the GOP. We've seen this crop up ever since the Democrats have started espousing neo-liberal positions, which means that economically they don't differ a ton from their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Because of this, the only way to try to sway voters is to play the identity game and get people of color, women, and the LGBT community to think that they have their best interests in mind while the other guys don't. Spoiler: that's always been a lie. This isn't to say that the idea of equity among the citizens of this country and equal protection under the law isn't something we should be striving for and is a valuable thing, but there is a reason that the biggest efforts on that front in recent years have come about from the judiciary.

The "other side" does have their best interests in mind?

[Belsnickel]

(10-18-2017, 05:40 PM)Dill Wrote: The "other side" does have their best interests in mind?

No, the Democrats don't have their best interests in mind. No one does.

[hollodero]

(10-18-2017, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, James Madison begs to differ with you.

That's a bummer.

(10-18-2017, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: If you live in Rhode Island then your voice does need protection from populous New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. So yes, you get two senators and New York gets two senators. Without those two senators the role of your state at the federal level is practically nil.  Justwin was correct to insert the state between the federal government here.

I did not read Justwin's "echo chamber" comments as justification for senatorial representation and the electoral college. He was addressing why country folk seem more conservative than city folk, if I understand him.

I did not argue any of that as far asI 'm aware. Of course the senate is disproportionate representation when broken down to cizizen numbers, but you're a federalistic country (as is mine, as little as we are), so I get the principle. There's a senate, a chamber that takes that aspect into account. I did not so much question that as questioning an addtional -additional - need to also imply disproportionate represantation in the other chamber and when it comes to electing a president. To quote Pat's numbers, "California gets 1 electoral vote for every 713,636 citizens. Wyoming gets 1 for every 195,167 citizens". And even though a senate does also exist, it's argued that this is just the way to go to protect a minority against a majority. Which in the end can just as well lead to the minority ruling over the majority, like in a sense it happened when Trump won even though losing the popular vote.

Mind you, I do not say he shouldn't have won and it was unfair and it's not about Trump or anyone else. It's just hard to defend in principle for me, as I think the most democratic way to go would indeed be: Every citizen votes, all votes are collected in one big bowl, and whoever gets most votes win. - There might be good reason to abandon that principle; protecting the political opinions of a minority against a larger population number, however, doesn't seem like one of them.

And this is what JustWin said: "But it's a smaller, less populous echo chamber that has less impact on voting. / And I've worked all over the US, big cities and small cities. Conservative values and politics were not worn on the sleeve in podunk towns....But in the "liberal meccas" the BS can't be avoided." - this very much looks like saying "city votes are more influenced by BS echo chambers and hence it's perfectly fine to let these votes count less". I can be corrected any time though.

[Dill]

(10-18-2017, 05:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, the Democrats don't have their best interests in mind. No one does.

I am trying to reconcile that statement with the progress that "identity" groups have made over the last 60 years. Since the 1950s, it seems to me that the civil rights of, women, African Americans and LGBT Americans are much more secure now than when I was young. And this is in part because of federal legislation, which had to be introduced by some party other. Certainly Republicans helped with the Civil Rights Act of 1965. But since then it seems defense of traditionally excluded minorities has fallen to the Democrats, right up until the recent battles over voting rights.

Would you say that there has been no progress? Or that there has been progress, but not owing to either party? Or that Democrats have actually helped these groups and do fight for their rights--just not with their bests interests in mind? You have expressed the same goals for the Democratic party that I have, but I guess I don't understand what, in your view, would count as having their interest in mind.

[Dill]

(10-18-2017, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I did not argue any of that as far asI 'm aware. Of course the senate is disproportionate representation when broken down to cizizen numbers, but you're a federalistic country (as is mine, as little as we are), so I get the principle. There's a senate, a chamber that takes that aspect into account. I did not so much question that as questioning an addtional -additional - need to also imply disproportionate represantation in the other chamber and when it comes to electing a president. To quote Pat's numbers, "California gets 1 electoral vote for every 713,636 citizens. Wyoming gets 1 for every 195,167 citizens". And even though a senate does also exist, it's argued that this is just the way to go to protect a minority against a majority. Which in the end can just as well lead to the minority ruling over the majority, like in a sense it happened when Trump won even though losing the popular vote.

Mind you, I do not say he shouldn't have won and it was unfair and it's not about Trump or anyone else. It's just hard to defend in principle for me, as I think the most democratic way to go would indeed be: Every citizen votes, all votes are collected in one big bowl, and whoever gets most votes win. - There might be good reason to abandon that principle; protecting the political opinions of a minority against a larger population number, however, doesn't seem like one of them.

And this is what JustWin said: "But it's a smaller, less populous echo chamber that has less impact on voting. / And I've worked all over the US, big cities and small cities.  Conservative values and politics were not worn on the sleeve in podunk towns....But in the "liberal meccas" the BS can't be avoided." - this very much looks like saying "city votes are more influenced by BS echo chambers and hence it's perfectly fine to let these votes count less". I can be corrected any time though.

The goal of checks and balances is not to insure that no majority or minority is ever in power. It is assumed one or the other will be every election. The "balance" to that is that they are "checked" by further elections. As majorities--made of different interest groups -- become too powerful, they generate opposition and internal frictions. People go to the other side. Another, differently composed majority forms. So no permanent majority can permanently control a minority. In theory. The framers were classical liberals, building their conception of market self-regulation (e.g. of supply and demand) into government.

If all the votes are thrown in one big bowl, I don't see how the checks and balances would continue. It is a proposal which seems to erase the state.

I'm not sure what you mean about protecting the political "opinions" of the minority in a discussion about proportional representation.  The issue is minority representation--but here "minority" is more broadly conceived than the usual identities. People living in large beautiful states like Montana are a minority when it comes to federal representation, with only ONE congressman. Neighboring Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota are in the same boat. Collectively they don't have the population of Houston. Pittsburgh has more people than Alaska.

Final point, I thin Justwin's talk of echo chambers was a response to my comment about why rural folks tend to be more conservatives.

[hollodero]

(10-18-2017, 11:53 PM)Dill Wrote: The goal of checks and balances is not to insure that no majority or minority is ever in power. It is assumed one or the other will be every election. The "balance" to that is that they are "checked" by further elections. As majorities--made of different interest groups -- become too powerful, they generate opposition and internal frictions. People go to the other side. Another, differently composed majority forms. So no permanent majority can permanently control a minority. In theory. The framers were classical liberals, building their conception of market self-regulation (e.g. of supply and demand) into government.

If all the votes are thrown in one big bowl, I don't see how the checks and balances would continue. It is a proposal which seems to erase the state.

I get the first part, albeit thinking that's not an ideal model, but that's argueable for sure. But why would the states be erased if I abandoned the electoral college. If the popular vote would decide presidential elections, no states would be erased, I fail to see that and even fail to see why the principle you describe would be endangered. Now with House or Senate elections, that's something different and I am not proposing counting all votes across state lines there. But with a presidential election, sure, every vote should count equally (at least I think that's a reasonable way to look at every person's right to vote) from whomever living wherever, and using the electoral college does not quite enforce that. Now on a partisan level I might understand why a conservative voter would want to keep the electoral college, and fair enough, but it isn't a necessity to ensure American federalism.

(10-18-2017, 11:53 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not sure what you mean about protecting the political "opinions" of the minority in a discussion about proportional representation.

Oh but it's easy, I don't take a very sophisticated approach here. When a Californian seat takes more than three times as large an electorate as a Wyoming one, Wyoming is overrepresented. That's the whole premise. Now OK, you say they only have one seat, that's hard to reduce, I get that. But there is overrepresentation compared to California. And the opinions that are to a degree protected with overrepresentation is, of course, whatever opinions people in those overrepresented states hold. Up to the point where "they" (meaning the overrepresented citizens in the House) could be in a minority in total supporters and still get their way/their results/their majority of Congressmen or however you want to measure it. That's just a logical conclusion to me. I didn't quite specify what these opinions could be, as it seemed unnecessary to get my point.

What did JustWin say? Cities are far bigger echo chambers... and I think it's not far fetched to spin that thought to an "there needs to be a safeguard against the big numbers of voters in said echo chambers, hence underrepresenting those votes a little is good and necessary". But sure, that was just the way I read it.

I did not advocate an attack on your states rights, your federalism or checks and balances, I understand the senate and why this overrepresentation of smaller states is part of an unity like the USA and all that. I just babble about the equality of individual votes and how I think that's desirable. Then again, Puerto Ricans are US citizens with no vote at all, so maybe the US just isn't a stickler for details there.

[Belsnickel]

(10-18-2017, 09:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I am trying to reconcile that statement with the progress that "identity" groups have made over the last 60 years. Since the 1950s, it seems to me that the civil rights of, women, African Americans and LGBT Americans are much more secure now than when I was young. And this is in part because of federal legislation, which had to be introduced by some party other. Certainly Republicans helped with the Civil Rights Act of 1965. But since then it seems defense of traditionally excluded minorities has fallen to the Democrats, right up until the recent battles over voting rights.

Would you say that there has been no progress? Or that there has been progress, but not owing to either party? Or that Democrats have actually helped these groups and do fight for their rights--just not with their bests interests in mind? You have expressed the same goals for the Democratic party that I have, but I guess I don't understand what, in your view, would count as having their interest in mind.

I would make the argument that the progress made is not due to any party. It is due to the societal changes that forced the hands of those in power. CRAs are tied to liberal ideologies because they represent change and they represent government efforts to increase equity among the citizenry, but apart from those moves where hands were forced there isn't a good effort by those in power. They use the issues of people of color, women, religious minorities, and the LGBT community to gain votes, but they don't follow through on anything. They ignore systemic problems that exist throughout our country that perpetuate the problems of inequity. I know I probably sound like a broken record, but it is because the idea of equity is damaged by the neo-liberal movement. As long as the Democratic party latches onto those ideals, they will continue to only pay lip service to these issues.

[Dill]

(10-19-2017, 12:55 AM)hollodero Wrote: I get the first part, albeit thinking that's not an ideal model, but that's argueable for sure. But why would the states be erased if I abandoned the electoral college. If the popular vote would decide presidential elections, no states would be erased, I fail to see that and even fail to see why the principle you describe would be endangered. Now with House or Senate elections, that's something different and I am not proposing counting all votes across state lines there. But with a presidential election, sure, every vote should count equally (at least I think that's a reasonable way to look at every person's right to vote) from whomever living wherever, and using the electoral college does not quite enforce that. Now on a partisan level I might understand why a conservative voter would want to keep the electoral college, and fair enough, but it isn't a necessity to ensure American federalism.


Oh but it's easy, I don't take a very sophisticated approach here. When a Californian seat takes more than three times as large an electorate as a Wyoming one, Wyoming is overrepresented. That's the whole premise. Now OK, you say they only have one seat, that's hard to reduce, I get that. But there is overrepresentation compared to California. And the opinions that are to a degree protected with overrepresentation is, of course, whatever opinions people in those overrepresented states hold. Up to the point where "they" (meaning the overrepresented citizens in the House) could be in a minority in total supporters and still get their way/their results/their majority of Congressmen or however you want to measure it. That's just a logical conclusion to me. I didn't quite specify what these opinions could be, as it seemed unnecessary to get my point.

What did JustWin say? Cities are far bigger echo chambers... and I think it's not far fetched to spin that thought to an "there needs to be a safeguard against the big numbers of voters in said echo chambers, hence underrepresenting those votes a little is good and necessary". But sure, that was just the way I read it.

I did not advocate an attack on your states rights, your federalism or checks and balances, I understand the senate and why this overrepresentation of smaller states is part of an unity like the USA and all that. I just babble about the equality of individual votes and how I think that's desirable. Then again, Puerto Ricans are US citizens with no vote at all, so maybe the US just isn't a stickler for details there.

I think the electoral college is out of balance, but that could be corrected by adding a few electors to California and Texas. I am for exploring the idea of splitting the electoral college votes to reflect party line voting in the state rather than "winner take all."

But I still don't like the ideal of the big bowl. It erases the states because suddenly their territory and resources become subject to greater federal control. You are thinking one man one vote; I am thinking of Californians and Texans choosing an exec who might open Montana to unrestricted mining and forestry.  People who don't live there get to run the place. So the presidential vote is about territory, in this case, more than "opinions" right and left. Who controls the territory you live on? You and other people who live on it--or Texas corporate locusts who are eating up their own resources as fast as they can and looking to crack open states who have protected theirs.

Maybe you are right about Justwin and I am reading him through my own "filter." In the past I have often noted the qualitative difference between different mediascapes, the right wing media being an echo chamber of disinformation and a prime culprit in the dysfunction of our politics. H has previously expressed irritation with these claims, so I thought he was just equalizing the field now by suggesting the MSM was an echo chamber too, just bigger. I did not take him to be arguing that the electoral college, etc. are meant to equalize "opinions" between the smaller and the larger  echo chambers. I thought he was just speculating on why US political values take the particular urban/rural distribution that they do. 

[Dill]

(10-19-2017, 10:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would make the argument that the progress made is not due to any party. It is due to the societal changes that forced the hands of those in power. CRAs are tied to liberal ideologies because they represent change and they represent government efforts to increase equity among the citizenry, but apart from those moves where hands were forced there isn't a good effort by those in power. They use the issues of people of color, women, religious minorities, and the LGBT community to gain votes, but they don't follow through on anything. They ignore systemic problems that exist throughout our country that perpetuate the problems of inequity. I know I probably sound like a broken record, but it is because the idea of equity is damaged by the neo-liberal movement. As long as the Democratic party latches onto those ideals, they will continue to only pay lip service to these issues.

I think I understand you point here. E.g., Johnson et al. did not decide one day to "help negroes" because civil rights violations outraged them. Kennedy was pushed by MLK to support civil rights. But it still required party machinery to pass civil and voting rights acts. And not all the people passing those laws were cynical about it. I don't think John Lewis' hands are "forced" when it comes to defending or advancing civil rights legislation.

Party certainly became a tool of reaction, too, if you agree the Republicans had a "southern strategy" in the 70s and 80s to harvest southern Democrats disgruntled by the Dems civil rights turn. This is before neoliberalism permeates the Democratic party. 

To me it seems your charges are most apt when applied to Bill Clinton's years in office. I do cut him a little slack, in that in order to stay in power, parties have to make compromises. Very hard to force laws on people before they are ready for them. Hence DOMA.  I'm not sure I would say they "ignore" problems. They just grease the squeakiest wheel. 

When all is said and done, I still see a political landscape in which battles are fought over legislation and the values embedded in them. It matters what laws are proposed and implemented and which judges are appointed to the bench. Sometimes things don't get done because they are actively blocked by the other side.  I'll keep thinking about what you said though, concerning the responsibility of parties for progress.

[hollodero]

(10-19-2017, 09:23 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the electoral college is out of balance, but that could be corrected by adding a few electors to California and Texas. I am for exploring the idea of splitting the electoral college votes to reflect party line voting in the state rather than "winner take all."

OK alright. But if you get rid of the majority voting like you suggested, and if you add electors to balance the numbers, you basically have the same system I propose. Only difference would be electors bundling a certain number of votes into one block (the elector), but apart from minor rounding errors stemming from that in the respective states you would have a "big bowl". There's really no important difference.

(10-19-2017, 09:23 PM)Dill Wrote: But I still don't like the ideal of the big bowl. It erases the states because suddenly their territory and resources become subject to greater federal control. You are thinking one man one vote; I am thinking of Californians and Texans choosing an exec who might open Montana to unrestricted mining and forestry.

Apart from my belief that your idea matches mine anyway, Montana would still be a state with a governor and all, you couldn't just do anything without their consent there just like now; also Montana would still have quite a massive overrepresentation by the two senators. I don't really grasp the new danger here. Also, your point could easily be turned around into an opposite hypothesis. What if an exec would want to build a nuclear waste disposal (or whatever they don't like) in Texas or California. Sure that state would turn against said candidate probably, but then again they are underrepresented in total and others could vote against Texas/California interests. Things like that always can happen no matter who is overrepresented, so I argue that the fairest solution, in principle, is to not over- oder underrepresent any citizens from anywhere. I do have a hard time following the logic of the arguments to not do so.

[Dill]

(10-20-2017, 12:41 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK alright. But if you get rid of the majority voting like you suggested, and if you add electors to balance the numbers, you basically have the same system I propose. Only difference would be electors bundling a certain number of votes into one block (the elector), but apart from minor rounding errors stemming from that in the respective states you would have a "big bowl". There's really no important difference.


Apart from my belief that your idea matches mine anyway, Montana would still be a state with a governor and all, you couldn't just do anything without their consent there just like now; also Montana would still have quite a massive overrepresentation by the two senators. I don't really grasp the new danger here. Also, your point could easily be turned around into an opposite hypothesis. What if an exec would want to build a nuclear waste disposal (or whatever they don't like) in Texas or California. Sure that state would turn against said candidate probably, but then again they are underrepresented in total and others could vote against Texas/California interests. Things like that always can happen no matter who is overrepresented, so I argue that the fairest solution, in principle, is to not over- oder underrepresent any citizens from anywhere. I do have a hard time following the logic of the arguments to not do so.

Got interrupted by the weekend black out. 

I don't mind giving California a little electoral relief. They are so out of balance even with the other large states. But I did not say I was for making the electoral college equally representative in all states.

And actually having a governor and all does not always help.  
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-reversed-citzens-united-montana_n_1605355.html

[hollodero]

(10-23-2017, 05:49 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't mind giving California a little electoral relief. They are so out of balance even with the other large states. But I did not say I was for making the electoral college equally representative in all states.

I see.... yet, you still want to split the electors for each state. For me, that's close enough.

(10-23-2017, 05:49 PM)Dill Wrote: And actually having a governor and all does not always help.  
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-reversed-citzens-united-montana_n_1605355.html

I insist that this does not have anything to do with voting rights, but with the law of the land. In the very principle, no voting system could protect from that. Being for more state rights as a whole isn't linked to overrepresentation of smaller states... at least in my fine little theory. Advocating inbalance always struck me as strange; so I might see the reasoning, I do still think that overrepresenting certain states isn't the right way to correct things. Maybe it is though, what do I know really.

I know half of the people in your country don't bother to vote, and that is astonishing and, in my opinion, alarming. I always guessed your whole winner takes all and unbalanced voting system has something to do with that. I also would gladly leave that to you if the whole world weren't affected by what I consider to be the result of that broad disinterest.