Minority rule

[Belsnickel]

(10-21-2020, 08:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's an interesting dichotomy here.  CA is obviously extremely liberal, so you'd assume that they'd be very pro union.  Well, they are, for the private sector.  The political tide is definitely turning against public sector unions.  It's interesting and rather revealing, ideology can definitely take a back seat to financial considerations, especially when the public mood is in your favor.

It has been illegal for a long time here in Virginia for the public sector to engage in collective bargaining. So they didn't say "no unions!" but they made them pointless. As of July 1, local governments in Virginia now have the ability to engage in collective bargaining (we're Dillon Rule, so localities only have authorities expressly granted to them by the state) but state agencies still lack any ability to do it. Even the four higher ed institutes which have unique management agreements that grant them a high level of autonomy from the state remain unable to do so.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-21-2020, 12:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're confusing single-payer with socialized medicine. Single-payer is Medicare for everyone, which Medicare is actually an efficiently run system. Socialized medicine is like the VA system or the NHS over in the UK. Two different ideas, and the latter isn't what is being advocated for.

Thanks, I was. In that case...

Isn't there a pretty big cost attached to Medicare for everyone? Looked it up and saw 58 million people were covered in 2017 and it cost $706b.. if you figure x6 for the whole population, that's roughly $4.24tr dollars a year assuming there isn't increased cost/waste with the increased size of the system. That's... a significant amount.

Also I am always hesitant for a solution that includes people paying into something that they don't want/need. Would there be the ability to opt out if you want?

Anything that requires people to pay into something they may not want in order for everyone else to get something always seems an awful lot like a pyramid scheme (*cough*Social Security*cough*) or at least exploitative. Doubly so if you're young and healthy.

[fredtoast]

(10-22-2020, 11:27 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Thanks, I was. In that case...

Isn't there a pretty big cost attached to Medicare for everyone? Looked it up and saw 58 million people were covered in 2017 and it cost $706b.. if you figure x6 for the whole population, that's roughly $4.24tr dollars a year assuming there isn't increased cost/waste with the increased size of the system. That's... a significant amount.

Also I am always hesitant for a solution that includes people paying into something that they don't want/need. Would there be the ability to opt out if you want?

Anything that requires people to pay into something they may not want in order for everyone else to get something always seems an awful lot like a pyramid scheme (*cough*Social Security*cough*) or at least exploitative. Doubly so if you're young and healthy.

The problem is that people who claim they don't need health insurance end up getting taken care of by everyone else when they get sick.  Dying people with no insurance still get treated at emergency rooms and paying customers absorb the cost when hospitals write off the loss.

And most people who claim Social Security is a pyramid scheme don't have disability insurance or enough money to live on or provide for their children if they were to become disabled at a young age.  How much disability insurance coverage do you have right now?

[GMDino]

The 12 Republicans who voted to allow the SCJ nomination to move to a vote represent 9 million fewer people than the 10 Democrats that protested the vote.

"Minority rule".

[*bfine32*]

(10-23-2020, 11:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: The 12 Republicans who voted to allow the SCJ nomination to move to a vote represent 9 million fewer people than the 10 Democrats that protested the vote.

"Minority rule".

12 is greater than 10.

Majority ruled.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-23-2020, 11:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: The 12 Republicans who voted to allow the SCJ nomination to move to a vote represent 9 million fewer people than the 10 Democrats that protested the vote.

"Minority rule".

To be clear, is it your desire for America to become a straight up democracy?

[GMDino]

(10-23-2020, 11:19 AM)PhilHos Wrote: To be clear, is it your desire for America to become a straight up democracy?

One person one vote for POTUS.  I still fail to see what is wrong with that in 2020.

That's how we elect our governors and US Reps and Sens.  My county doesn't get more or less votes because of its size.

I'd add in SW PA you'll sometimes get the argument that we don't have as much say because the more populated Eastern part of the state has more votes...but we all get one vote.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-23-2020, 11:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: One person one vote for POTUS.  I still fail to see what is wrong with that in 2020.

That's how we elect our governors and US Reps and Sens.  My county doesn't get more or less votes because of its size.

I'd add in SW PA you'll sometimes get the argument that we don't have as much say because the more populated Eastern part of the state has more votes...but we all get one vote.

Thank you for not answering the question.

[GMDino]

(10-23-2020, 11:32 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Thank you for not answering the question.

That's part of the problem today...I gave a very specific answer to what *I* want.  If it doesn't fit whatever you were looking for I can't help that. I didn't dodge or ask a question back. I answered what I would like to see.

I told you what I want.  You can label it whatever you like.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-23-2020, 11:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's how we elect our governors and US Reps and Sens.  My county doesn't get more or less votes because of its size.

While true in theory, that is demonstrably untrue in practice.  Larger population cities, counties and states absolutely have a greater share of influence than others, often disproportionately so.  Los Angeles County probably holds more political sway than every rural county in CA combined.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-23-2020, 11:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's part of the problem today...I gave a very specific answer to what *I* want. 

You're right, answering questions NOT asked is definitely part of the problem today.

(10-23-2020, 11:34 AM)GMDino Wrote:  If it doesn't fit whatever you were looking for I can't help that.  I didn't dodge or ask a question back.  I answered what I would like to see.

But that doesn't answer what I asked. I didn't ask what you would like to see. I was following up on your complaint that millions of people's wants were being overruled by those representing a fewer number. It sounded to me like you were in favor of having a straight up democracy. So, I asked if that were truly the case. 

Instead you evaded the question and answered something I didn't ask. 

(10-23-2020, 11:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: I told you what I want.  You can label it whatever you like.

For what it's worth, I, too would like to see 1 person = 1 vote. That's why, even if voter fraud is not rampant, I would still like to have in place policies to prevent as best as possible voter fraud from happening. 

Now, back to my ACTUAL question: are you in favor of a straight up democracy? I don't know why it's so hard to answer.

[GMDino]

(10-23-2020, 11:55 AM)PhilHos Wrote: You're right, answering questions NOT asked is definitely part of the problem today.


But that doesn't answer what I asked. I didn't ask what you would like to see. I was following up on your complaint that millions of people's wants were being overruled by those representing a fewer number. It sounded to me like you were in favor of having a straight up democracy. So, I asked if that were truly the case. 

Instead you evaded the question and answered something I didn't ask. 


For what it's worth, I, too would like to see 1 person = 1 vote. That's why, even if voter fraud is not rampant, I would still like to have in place policies to prevent as best as possible voter fraud from happening. 

Now, back to my ACTUAL question: are you in favor of a straight up democracy? I don't know why it's so hard to answer.

Hang on...I get it now.  You meant did I want to see all of those represented voting for the SCJ nomination.  My bad.  The answer to that is no.  LOL

Since the thread was about minority rule I thought you were going back to the main gist of the thread about how we elect reps and how the public is misrepresented in congress that way.

I'd rather our reps be more representative of our make up as a country.  

My apologies for getting the two things confused.

[fredtoast]

(10-23-2020, 11:55 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Now, back to my ACTUAL question: are you in favor of a straight up democracy? I don't know why it's so hard to answer.

It is not that easy to answer because it is not a simple question.

For example I have no problem with elections being based on popular vote, but I would still want a Supreme Court with the power to overturn laws passed by the majority that violate the Constitution.

So would that be a "straight up" democracy?

There are no longer a group of lower population states that all share the same interests and concerns like the Southern States when the Constitution was  drafted, so the idea of protecting the interests of lower population states is outdated.  Delaware and Wyoming have nothing in common.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-23-2020, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not that easy to answer because it is not a simple question.

For example I have no problem with elections being based on popular vote, but I would still want a Supreme Court with the power to overturn laws passed by the majority that violate the Constitution.

So would that be a "straight up" democracy?

No it wouldn't, it would be minority rule, in this case by nine people over the will of millions.

Quote:There are no longer a group of lower population states that all share the same interests and concerns like the Southern States when the Constitution was  drafted, so the idea of protecting the interests of lower population states is outdated.

Incorrect.  Such a statement ignores the S in U.S.A.  We are rather unique in that we area collection of semi-autonomous states under a shared overall government.  There may be an example I'm missing, but I'm reasonably sure that laws don't vary as widely as they do form state to state in other nations.  My girlfriend is from North Carolina, she was shocked that we could buy liquor in the grocery store here in CA.  The laws can be radically different from one state to another.  This idea is a bedrock principle of the United States.  Also, let's please not pretend that the population of different states absolutely have their own flavor and character.  Many/most foreign visitors who tour the US comment on how it feels like there are several different countries within out borders.  

You never responded to my sourced comments on the tyranny of the majority.  The Senate was specifically designed to give every member state an equal voice.  In fact in that way it is the ultimate expression of egalitarianism, only applied to member states and not individual citizens.  What could be more in keeping with the principles of equal and fair treatment under the law than that?

[fredtoast]

(10-23-2020, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  Such a statement ignores the S in U.S.A.  We are rather unique in that we area collection of semi-autonomous states under a shared overall government.  There may be an example I'm missing, but I'm reasonably sure that laws don't vary as widely as they do form state to state in other nations.  My girlfriend is from North Carolina, she was shocked that we could buy liquor in the grocery store here in CA.  The laws can be radically different from one state to another.  This idea is a bedrock principle of the United States.  Also, let's please not pretend that the population of different states absolutely have their own flavor and character.  Many/most foreign visitors who tour the US comment on how it feels like there are several different countries within out borders.  

It is absolutely correct.

I am not saying that different states can't have different laws.  What I am saying (and this goes to the original "tyranny of the majority") is that there is no longer a group of small population states that are in danger of being over ruled by large population states because the small population state s no longer have common interests.  That was the case when the Constitution was written and the founding fathers were afraid of the large population states exploiting the small population states in the south.  But today Delaware has the same interests as New York and nothing in common with Wyoming.  So the interests of the large population states are no longer different from the small population states.  The concerns of the tyranny of the majority by big population states no longer exists

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-23-2020, 12:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is absolutely correct.

It's not, and you'll prove it for me in this post.

Quote:I am not saying that different states can't have different laws.  What I am saying (and this goes to the original "tyranny of the majority") is that there is no longer a group of small population states that are in danger of being over ruled by large population states because the small population state s no longer have common interests.  That was the case when the Constitution was written and the founding fathers were afraid of the large population states exploiting the small population states in the south.  But today Delaware has the same interests as New York and nothing in common with Wyoming.

So why does Delaware count but not Wyoming?  Your argument flatly contradicts itself. It's ok because Delaware has the same "interests" as Wyoming but it's also ok that Wyoming doesn't have the same interests as New York?

 

Quote:So the interests of the large population states are no longer different from the small population states.  The concerns of the tyranny of the majority by big population states no longer exists

Except you just admitted that this is precisely the case, just not with Delaware.  Do you think Wyoming, Wisconsin, Indiana, the Dakotas, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Montana and West Virginia have the same "interests" as New York or California?  If the answer is no, which it is, than I thank you for making my point for me.

[fredtoast]

(10-23-2020, 01:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So why does Delaware count but not Wyoming?  Your argument flatly contradicts itself. It's ok because Delaware has the same "interests" as Wyoming but it's also ok that Wyoming doesn't have the same interests as New York?

Delaware does NOT have the same interest as Wyoming.

And I never said one counts and the other does not.

(10-23-2020, 01:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except you just admitted that this is precisely the case, just not with Delaware.  Do you think Wyoming, Wisconsin, Indiana, the Dakotas, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Montana and West Virginia have the same "interests" as New York or California?  If the answer is no, which it is, than I thank you for making my point for me.

Again I have no idea what you are talking about.

Delaware shares interests with some large states like New York, but not large states like Texas.

Wyoming shares some interests with large states like Texas but not other large States like New York.

There are lots of big population states that are conservative like Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Florida.

Not all big states have the same interests and not all small states have the same interests.  There is no common interests among all of the big population states that would lead to a "tyranny by the majority"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-23-2020, 01:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Delaware does NOT have the same interest as Wyoming.

And I never said one counts and the other does not.

Yeah, actually you did.  If that was not your intention then rephrase, because as written that's exactly how it reads.

Quote:Again I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a hard time believing that's true.

Quote:Delaware shares interests with some large states like New York, but not large states like Texas.

I see.  What other large states does Delaware share interests with?

Quote:Wyoming shares some interests with large states like Texas but not other large States like New York.

I see.  What other large states does Wyoming share interests with?

Quote:There are lots of big population states that are conservative like Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Florida.

North Carolina and Florida are both swing states so that's not a great example for your point.  That leaves you with Georgia.

Quote:Not all big states have the same interests and not all small states have the same interests.  There is no common interests among all of the big population states that would lead to a "tyranny by the majority"

All of the big population states have to be on the same page for this to be a concern?  You're looking at this from a very black and white, all or nothing perspective.  Also, your position presupposes that these positions are static and fixed, not constantly in flux.  Is there not a concerted effort to "make Texas blue" or "flip Georgia".  If either, or both of these things happen does that not bolster my position and weaken yours?  Or are you saying such an occurrence is impossible and therefore nothing to ever be considered?

[fredtoast]

(10-23-2020, 03:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, actually you did.  If that was not your intention then rephrase, because as written that's exactly how it reads.

Then show me the direct quote.  That is what the quote function is for when people dispute what has been said.

[*bfine32*]

(10-23-2020, 03:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then show me the direct quote.  That is what the quote function is for when people dispute what has been said.

Hell, that doesn't work, because it then becomes "What I meant".