Minority rule

[GMDino]

Land does not vote.
People do.pic.twitter.com/lGK8gg9ZEn

— Lincoln's Bible (@LincolnsBible) November 5, 2020

 

[*michaelsean*]

(11-03-2020, 04:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: Saw this on the 538 Live Election Blog:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2020-election-results-coverage/

So they are saying Republicans are smart.

[GMDino]

(11-05-2020, 10:32 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So they are saying Republicans are smart.

To maintain a system where they can maintain power while representing a minority?  Sure.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-05-2020, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: To maintain a system where they can maintain power while representing a minority?  Sure.

It’s called the Senate not the House of Representatives. Senators represent the states. Each state is its own sovereign entity. Each state was admitted into the union with the full knowledge they would get two senators regardless of their population. If you just want it to be another House of Representatives then it serves no real purpose and should just be done away with.

[GMDino]

(11-05-2020, 10:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It’s called the Senate not the House of Representatives. Senators represent the states.  Each state is its own sovereign entity.   Each state was admitted into the union with the full knowledge they would get two senators regardless of their population.  If you just want it to be another House of Representatives then it serves no real purpose and should just be done away with.

I'm talking more about the POTUS but sure it is set up for each state to have 2 reps.  Some represent a could hundred thousand people and some represent millions.  Fair?  Not really.  But that is the system we have. I assume we can never ever change it though because we never change anything about the constitution and government.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-05-2020, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm talking more about the POTUS but sure it is set up for each state to have 2 reps.  Some represent a could hundred thousand people and some represent millions.  Fair?  Not really.  But that is the system we have. I assume we can never ever change it though because we never change anything about the constitution and government.

Oh ok on the prez. I have no problem if we went to majority vote. But the senate is entirely different and to make it a second representative house is merely redundant. They represent the state.

[Belsnickel]

I forget where I was reading it, but we often hear about the Democratic sour grapes being the reason for the support of the dismantling of the EC. But before 2016, there was majority support for getting rid of that system among Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The change in opinion between 2012 and 2016 went from 69% in favor of NPV to 81% on the Democratic side, while it went from 54% in favor of NPV to 19% on the Republican. Seems the shifting on this issue isn't the Democrats.

[*bfine32*]

I'm against 100% popular vote. I'd prefer states go more to something like Nebraska and Maine.

[treee]

(11-05-2020, 06:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm against 100% popular vote. I'd prefer states go more to something like Nebraska and Maine.

We should probably expand the size of the House of Representatives while we're at it. Right now the ratio of representative to citizen is not ideal. The less people a rep has to represent, the more in tune they can be with local happenings.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-05-2020, 06:39 PM)treee Wrote: We should probably expand the size of the House of Representatives while we're at it. Right now the ratio of representative to citizen is not ideal. The less people a rep has to represent, the more in tune they can be with local happenings.

Well hell then we'd have to build a new Capitol.

[treee]

(11-05-2020, 06:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well hell then we'd have to build a new Capitol.

The symbolism of that would be pretty cool.

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2020, 06:39 PM)treee Wrote: We should probably expand the size of the House of Representatives while we're at it. Right now the ratio of representative to citizen is not ideal. The less people a rep has to represent, the more in tune they can be with local happenings.

I've been advocating for this for a while. Our population has tripled since the number of Representatives was set. We need to tie the number to the population in some way. Maybe make it where the number of Representatives is based on the lowest population state, or something.

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2020, 06:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I've been advocating for this for a while. Our population has tripled since the number of Representatives was set. We need to tie the number to the population in some way. Maybe make it where the number of Representatives is based on the lowest population state, or something.

The great compromise this time would be letting an in utero fetus count as three-fifths of a human.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2020, 10:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The great compromise this time would be letting an in utero fetus count as three-fifths of a human.

I think you are referring to the 3/5 compromise.  

Can someone educate me on that by the way.  My entire life I was taught that the 3/5 compromise was anti-slavery.  Or at least anti-southern states.  The southern states wanted them counted as whole persons, and the northern states wanted them not counted at all.  Was this teaching wrong, because everyone talks about it like it was a bad thing.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2020, 10:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The great compromise this time would be letting an in utero fetus count as three-fifths of a human.

Well we damn sure cannot let them count as a real human.

[Belsnickel]

(11-06-2020, 11:30 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think you are referring to the 3/5 compromise.  

Can someone educate me on that by the way.  My entire life I was taught that the 3/5 compromise was anti-slavery.  Or at least anti-southern states.  The southern states wanted them counted as whole persons, and the northern states wanted them not counted at all.  Was this teaching wrong, because everyone talks about it like it was a bad thing.

It wasn't really anti-slavery. The whole reason behind it was to not give slave-holding states more outsized power in the government. Since slaves, which were property, couldn't vote the non-slave states did not want them counted for apportionment.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2020, 11:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It wasn't really anti-slavery. The whole reason behind it was to not give slave-holding states more outsized power in the government. Since slaves, which were property, couldn't vote the non-slave states did not want them counted for apportionment.

Yes I knew it was to keep their representative power down. I guess the reason may not be so gregarious. Or is it magnanimous?

Edit: OK I looked it up. Definitely not gregarious. Maybe i meant magnanimous the whole time.

[fredtoast]

(11-06-2020, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well we damn sure cannot let them count as a real human.

It is a recognized legal standard that you can't give lindividual rights to something that is not an individual.

But I don't think that is what you were saying.

BTW sperm are alive, so if we can get them the right to vote men will run everything again.  Women will just have one vote for each egg, while we men will have thousands.

[masterpanthera_t]

(11-06-2020, 11:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes I knew it was to keep their representative power down. I guess the reason may not be so gregarious. Or is it magnanimous?

Edit:  OK I looked it up.  Definitely not gregarious.  Maybe i meant magnanimous the whole time.

Well, the first time I read your sentence ( pre-edit), I thought you meant egregious. You sure that's not what you meant the whole time? As in the 3/5 thing wasn't done egregiously (in this case under racist beliefs) so much as just a way to reduce representative power when a significant part of the counted population could not vote.

As someone that helped you once when you were looking for a word, I took the liberty of going to the well one more time. Perhaps I'm overreaching  

[masterpanthera_t]

(11-06-2020, 12:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is a recognized legal standard that you can't give lindividual rights to something that is not an individual.

But I don't think that is what you were saying.

BTW sperm are alive, so if we can get them the right to vote men will run everything again.  Women will just have one vote for each egg, while we men will have thousands.

Well, by this logic, the fattest people of any gender will have the most voting power, since they likely would have the most living cells, no?