Minority rule

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not talking about percentage of any party.  I am talking about percentage of the entire population.  Since more Republican states have smaller populations but still have the same number of Senators it allows for states that account for only 42% of the total population to elkect a majority of the Senators.

Ok, but wasn't the idea behind the Senate not so much population representation but state representation?

(10-14-2020, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just two simple steps.

1.  Make all elections publicly funded.

2.  Have Representatives run at large in bigger districts and take the top group (2,3,4, whatever) instead of having many small districts with just one winner. 

I don't know if I would call those simple, but I can't say I have a problem with the 1st one. I can't comment on the 2nd one without more information, more detail.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 04:13 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I thought the electoral college was compromised on to balance the Prez election between the big cities and the non-big citiy areas of the country.

No.  Cities have nothing to do with it.  It is about States.  When the electoral college was created the Southern States were less populated, but they all had the same economic interests.  Today the smaller states have nothing in common.  For example Rhode island and Wyoming have about the same population, but Rhode Island is all urban cities while Wyoming is mostly rural small towns. 

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 04:24 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Ok, but wasn't the idea behind the Senate not so much population representation but state representation?

Yes, but at that time the less populated states were mostly the southern states who had the common interests of argriculture.

Now the less populated States don't necessarily have anything in common.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 04:24 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I can't comment on the 2nd one without more information, more detail.

Say a state has 9 seats in the house of Representatives.  Instead of having 9 different districts with one winner from each they could have 3 districts and take the top 3 finishers from each district.  Party affiliation would not mean anything because the votes from any one party would either be split or they would all go to just one candidate.  So the three best candidates would be selected instead of just one from one party.

[Millhouse]

(10-14-2020, 04:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  Cities have nothing to do with it.  It is about States.  When the electoral college was created the Southern States were less populated, but they all had the same economic interests.  Today the smaller states have nothing in common.  For example Rhode island and Wyoming have about the same population, but Rhode Island is all urban cities while Wyoming is mostly rural small towns. 

I am talking about back then, that the ec was created to keep the electing power balanced between the populated cities and elsewhere, mainly the south. Otherwise the President would have always come from the North via popular vote as that is where the population was, which were in the cities like Philly and New York.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 04:13 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Also the founders had to know they were creating a two party system by default of how the Constitution was formed. 

Thy could not have known because there were no parties back then.

The framers envisioned multiple candidates splitting the popular vote so much that no one person would get a true majority.  Therefore they expected the House of Representatives to pick the President.  But each Sate only got ONE vote instead a vote for each seat they have in the house.

Trump would win the 2020 election if it went to the House of Representatives even though Democrats hold a majority of the seats.  This is because a majority of the Sates would vote Republican. 

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 04:36 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I am talking about back then, that the ec was created to keep the electing power balanced between the populated cities and elsewhere, mainly the south. Otherwise the President would have always come from the North via popular vote as that is where the population was, which were in the cities like Philly and New York.

Correct.

But that is not the case now.  Now some of the smallest states by population, like Rhode Island, are all large urban cities.

This is another reason the electoral college does not make as much sense any more.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 04:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Say a state has 9 seats in the house of Representatives.  Instead of having 9 different districts with one winner from each they could have 3 districts and take the top 3 finishers from each district.  Party affiliation would not mean anything because the votes from any one party would either be split or they would all go to just one candidate.  So the three best candidates would be selected instead of just one from one party.

I don't really have a problem with that as long as the districts aren't too large.

[BmorePat87]

(10-14-2020, 04:13 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I thought the electoral college was compromised on to balance the Prez election between the big cities and the non-big citiy areas of the country.

Also the founders had to know they were creating a two party system by default of how the Constitution was formed. Practically every election after Washington it was a two party race, with a few rare times a minority party replaced one of the two parties. Maybe a college professor of mine in poliical science was wrong, but he even clearly taught that the two party system is solely because of how the founders framed the constitution.

It wasn't really big city versus rural.

There were a number of compromises that created the EC. They included:

-Representation for slaves
-Desire for the legislative to elect the President
-Big states vs small states
-only the educated can vote
-let state legislature get involved

the EC created a very open system. States could allow everyone to vote or just a few. States could allocate electors however they wanted. States didn't have to hold elections unless they wanted to. 

[*bfine32*]

Are those not in favor of Minority Rule in favor of a Minority paying more than their fair share while to majority pay less?

[*Nately120*]

(10-20-2020, 11:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Are those not in favor of Minority Rule in favor of a Minority paying more than their fair share while to majority pay less?

You'd have to be able to operationally define "fair share" to get into that. 

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2020, 11:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Are those not in favor of Minority Rule in favor of a Minority paying more than their fair share while to majority pay less?

Every country on earth with an income tax has a progressive rate.  That is what "fair share" means.

The richest person in America pays the exact same percentage of taxes on his first 100K of earned income that I do.  That seems pretty fair to me.

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2020, 11:48 AM)Nately120 Wrote: You'd have to be able to operationally define "fair share" to get into that. 

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/]

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.9 percent).

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.8 percent average individual income tax rate, which is more than six times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (4.0 percent).

[*Nately120*]

(10-20-2020, 11:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/]

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.9 percent).

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.8 percent average individual income tax rate, which is more than six times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (4.0 percent).

The argument to that is usually that the top 1 percent benefits the most from our capitalistic and trickle down market. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2020, 11:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Every country on earth with an income tax has a progressive rate.  That is what "fair share" means.

The richest person in America pays the exact same percentage of taxes on his first 100K of earned income that I do.  That seems pretty fair to me.

Of course it seems fair to you

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2020, 12:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The argument to that is usually that the top 1 percent benefits the most from our capitalistic and trickle down market. 

I just posed the question.

If we want "all things equal". Let's support a flat tax. if not, let's understand there is a hierarchy in our society and accept it at all times, not just when we want to and curse it when we don't.

[BmorePat87]

(10-20-2020, 12:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The argument to that is usually that the top 1 percent benefits the most from our capitalistic and trickle down market. 

the argument is that cherry picking only federal income taxes is disingenuous at best and just demonstrates the massive wealth disparity in the US.

If you look at all taxes paid, it's not nearly as "unfair" 




https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/

We have a slightly progressive tax system 

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2020, 12:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just posed the question.

If we want "all things equal". Let's support a flat tax. if not, let's understand there is a hierarchy in our society and accept it at all times, not just when we want to and curse it when we don't.

The entire point of having a democracy is to give power to citizens that would otherwise be exploited by the people at the top of the hierarchy.

Claiming that rich should be allowed to rule because they have more money is pretty much the opposite of what the United Sates is supposed to stand for.

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2020, 12:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: the argument is that cherry picking only income taxes is disingenuous at best and just demonstrates the massive wealth disparity in the US.

If you look at all taxes paid, it's not nearly as "unfair" 




https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/

We have a slightly progressive tax system 

Rep.

[*Nately120*]

(10-20-2020, 12:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just posed the question.

If we want "all things equal". Let's support a flat tax. if not, let's understand there is a hierarchy in our society and accept it at all times, not just when we want to and curse it when we don't.

There are arguments to be made over the fairness of a flat tax. Life just ain't fair.