Minority rule

[fredtoast]

(10-23-2020, 03:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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?

I am not saying it is impossible for some red state to flip blue or some blue states to flip red.  I made that point repeatedly earlier in this thread.

The point that you are missing is that the majority would not have anything to do with state size because if there is a majority of blue states it would include 5 of the 10 least populated states. Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, Main, and New Hampshire.

The fact is that you don't really care about state size by population.  All you care about is if the states are conservative or liberal.  You don't care about a tyranny of a MAJORITY.  All you are afraid of is a tyranny of LIBERALS.  It is about protecting the control by the people who share your ideology instead of protecting the interests of the less populated states.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(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.

The post was on the same page as this response, but if you feel the need for me to quote it, again, I'll humor you.

(10-23-2020, 12:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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

The bold is yours, the underlined is mine.  You state that Delaware and New York have the same interests, which are different from Wyoming.  You then immediately follow that by stating "So the interests of the large population states are no longer different from the small population states." And that "The concerns of the tyranny of the majority by big population states no longer exists" 

Wyoming is a small population state.  There is no other way to read your statement, as written, other than Wyoming does not count.  If that's not what you meant, then fine, I'll take you at your word.  But if that's the case then you phrased your argument in this post in extremely poor terms.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-23-2020, 03:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not saying it is impossible for some red state to flip blue or some blue states to flip red.  I made that point repeatedly earlier in this thread.

The point that you are missing is that the majority would not have anything to do with state size because if there is a majority of blue states it would include 5 of the 10 least populated states. Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, Main, and New Hampshire.

The fact is that you don't really care about state size by population.  All you care about is if the states are conservative or liberal.  You don't care about a tyranny of a MAJORITY.  All you are afraid of is a tyranny of LIBERALS.  It is about protecting the control by the people who share your ideology instead of protecting the interests of the less populated states.

If liberals are the majority then wouldn't their rule be a "tyranny of the majority"?  If you had bothered to respond to my sourced statement earlier in this thread you'd see that "the majority" was not necessarily the most populous states.  The concept is of a majority imposing their will on a minority in which the minority have no recourse and the possible (likely?) toxicity this would engender.  Hence, you have once again made my own argument for me.  My thanks again.

[fredtoast]

(10-23-2020, 04:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I "the majority" was not necessarily the most populous states. 

Yes it was.

That is exactly the reason that the Senate gave equal representation not based on population.   That was the compromise created to avoid a "tyranny of the majority OF THE POPULATION".

Otherwise the entire system makes no sense because there is no way to stop a majority of states from creating a "tyranny of the majority".

The system was created the way it was because the southern states all had the same interests but had a lot less population.  All the big population states were on one side and all the small population states were on the other.  That system is outdated now because many of the States with the smallest populations share interests with some of the states with the biggest populations.  

THERE IS NO LONGER A COMMON INTEREST AMONG ALL OF THE BIG POPULATION STATES THAT WOULD JOIN THEM TOGETHER TO OPPRESS SMALLER POPULATION STATES WHO ALL HAVE THE SAME SHARED INTERESTS.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-23-2020, 04:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it was.

That is exactly the reason that the Senate gave equal representation not based on population.   That was the compromise created to avoid a "tyranny of the majority OF THE POPULATION".

Otherwise the entire system makes no sense because there is no way to stop a majority of states from creating a "tyranny of the majority".

The system was created the way it was because the southern states all had the same interests but had a lot less population.  All the big population states were on one side and all the small population states were on the other.  That system is outdated now because many of the States with the smallest populations share interests with some of the states with the biggest populations.  

THERE IS NO LONGER A COMMON INTEREST AMONG ALL OF THE BIG POPULATION STATES THAT WOULD JOIN THEM TOGETHER TO OPPRESS SMALLER POPULATION STATES WHO ALL HAVE THE SAME SHARED INTERESTS.

Shouting doesn't improve the quality of your argument.  The idea of a tyranny of the majority is not inextricably joined to the concept of States.  The idea is applicable to any instance in which a majority can impose their will on a minority and the possible, if not likely, abuses that can entail.

[GMDino]

So, using round numbers, lets say there are 100 millions voters in the US.

But 15 million live in California, 10 million in Florida, 10 million in NY and 15 million in Texas. 

The rest are spread out over the remaining states.

The last Gallup poll shows that voters consider themselves affiliated as such: 28% republican, 27% democrat and %42 Independent.

Gonna round those too to 30, 25, 45.

Then let's assume California and NY skew Democrat while Texas and Florida skew Republican.

As it is now California and NY are not counting the votes of republicans in the national elections because there are simply more democrats there.

Texas and Florida, if they skew Republican, are not counting the votes of democrats in the national elections because there are simply more republicans there.

The rest of the country is doing the same.  Whichever state you live in you are at the mercy of the majority when it comes to who you want to be POTUS. 

But if every person got a vote and the winner was the person who got the most votes...not won the most states...then every vote would matter.  

Republicans would have to care if people in California voted and voters in California would not feel disenfranchised from voting because they felt their votes wouldn't matter since it was most Democrats.  Same with Democrats in Texas.

Same with every vote.

Rhode Island would have fewer voters but if their votes were split 75/25 in either directions they would matter more than their EC does now even if it is split 51/49.  Every voting citizen in every state would have a say and not have to feel like it doesn't matter because of the R/D make up of the entire state.  

That's why I want one person - one vote.  Because it would make every vote matter no matter where you lived or the happenstance of how people are registered where you live.

Obviously I could be wrong...lol.

I'm not a voting expert...I'm just a guy with an opinion on a message board.  

[fredtoast]

(10-23-2020, 05:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Shouting doesn't improve the quality of your argument.  The idea of a tyranny of the majority is not inextricably joined to the concept of States.  The idea is applicable to any instance in which a majority can impose their will on a minority and the possible, if not likely, abuses that can entail.

Okay then.

Your entire argument seems to be that a "tyranny of a majority of states" is just fine, but a "tyranny of a majority" of citizens is not?

Why is that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-23-2020, 05:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: So, using round numbers, lets say there are 100 millions voters in the US.

But 15 million live in California, 10 million in Florida, 10 million in NY and 15 million in Texas. 

The rest are spread out over the remaining states.

The last Gallup poll shows that voters consider themselves affiliated as such: 28% republican, 27% democrat and %42 Independent.

Gonna round those too to 30, 25, 45.

Then let's assume California and NY skew Democrat while Texas and Florida skew Republican.

As it is now California and NY are not counting the votes of republicans in the national elections because there are simply more democrats there.

Texas and Florida, if they skew Republican, are not counting the votes of democrats in the national elections because there are simply more republicans there.

The rest of the country is doing the same.  Whichever state you live in you are at the mercy of the majority when it comes to who you want to be POTUS. 

But if every person got a vote and the winner was the person who got the most votes...not won the most states...then every vote would matter.  

Republicans would have to care if people in California voted and voters in California would not feel disenfranchised from voting because they felt their votes wouldn't matter since it was most Democrats.  Same with Democrats in Texas.

Same with every vote.

Rhode Island would have fewer voters but if their votes were split 75/25 in either directions they would matter more than their EC does now even if it is split 51/49.  Every voting citizen in every state would have a say and not have to feel like it doesn't matter because of the R/D make up of the entire state.  

That's why I want one person - one vote.  Because it would make every vote matter no matter where you lived or the happenstance of how people are registered where you live.

Obviously I could be wrong...lol.

I'm not a voting expert...I'm just a guy with an opinion on a message board.  

Respectfully, this argument has been made several times here.  I don't think anyone here doesn't understand the underlying logic, they just disagree with the conclusion.  For me the unique structure of our government lends itself to states having their own individual say on the election of the POTUS, hence I very much approve of the current system.  Additionally, part of my issue, albeit a smaller portion, is that the concern over the current system is driven by dislike of the outcome of the 2016 election.  If Hillary had won with less popular vote in 2016 the same people decrying the current system would be its staunchest defenders.  Hence I take a bit of a jaundiced view of the objections to the system we've been operating under for almost 200 years.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-23-2020, 06:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay then.

Your entire argument seems to be that a "tyranny of a majority of states" is just fine, but a "tyranny of a majority" of citizens is not?

Why is that?

I didn't say anything of the sort, please feel free to pull a quote that states otherwise.  The concept of tyranny of the majority covers both instances.  The Senate is specifically designed to guard against the former, but also, albeit to a potentially lesser degree, the latter.  Regardless, the concept, and my adherence to it, is not entrenched in either scenario.

[*Nately120*]

(10-23-2020, 06:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Additionally, part of my issue, albeit a smaller portion, is that the concern over the current system is driven by dislike of the outcome of the 2016 election.  If Hillary had won with less popular vote in 2016 the same people decrying the current system would be its staunchest defenders.  Hence I take a bit of a jaundiced view of the objections to the system we've been operating under for almost 200 years.

I'd agree with that, but twice in the past 20 years republicans have lost the popular vote and still won the presidency and the odds of it happening the other way around are virtually impossible.

Hell, you may as well just say if the Steelers end up finishing 4th in the AFC North this year and the Bengals win the division you'll change your team allegiance! 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-26-2020, 03:55 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd agree with that, but twice in the past 20 years republicans have lost the popular vote and still won the presidency and the odds of it happening the other way around are virtually impossible.

Hell, you may as well just say if the Steelers end up finishing 4th in the AFC North this year and the Bengals win the division you'll change your team allegiance! 

Only because California felt REAAAAAAAALLLY strongly about voting D.

Clinton popular vote victory: 2.9m votes
Clinton California vote victory: 4.3m votes

Meaning the popular vote in the other non-CA 49 states was Trump: 1.4m

That is exactly why we have the EC. We're 50 States, not just one mass of people.

[*Nately120*]

(10-26-2020, 11:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Only because California felt REAAAAAAAALLLY strongly about voting D.

Clinton popular vote victory: 2.9m votes
Clinton California vote victory: 4.3m votes

Meaning the popular vote in the other non-CA 49 states was Trump: 1.4m

That is exactly why we have the EC. We're 50 States, not just one mass of people.

I guess I never quite got why an uneven distribution of people should affect things so much. I've lived in different states in my life and never felt like my sway over the election should grow or shrink depending on where I was.  I will say neo-cons are lucky California wasn't divided into about 15 different states when the borders were drawn up.

Hell, from Eisenhower to Bush #1 CA went republican 9 out of 10 times. Methinks the right wing just needs to up their campaign game.

At any rate, I can grasp the idea of the EC but I'd have an easier time just rolling with it if we hadn't reached a point where the will of Florida has so much sway over the entire country.

[BmorePat87]

(10-26-2020, 11:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Only because California felt REAAAAAAAALLLY strongly about voting D.

Clinton popular vote victory: 2.9m votes
Clinton California vote victory: 4.3m votes

Meaning the popular vote in the other non-CA 49 states was Trump: 1.4m

That is exactly why we have the EC. We're 50 States, not just one mass of people.

That's not exactly why we have it, but the glaring flaw in this argument is that it ignores what voter turnout would be if there was a popular vote. Winner take all discourages minority party voters in non-swing states. The immediate solution is banning winner take all and doing proportional allocation (you can't do district based because of gerrymandering). 

The top 10 populated states split 36.44m to 31.29m (Clinton-Trump) in 2016, though it was a 150-104 electoral split for Trump. Even if you take out California, it went 27.69m Clinton to 26.81m Trump. Trump still wins 150-49 electoral votes. Clinton's 3rd largest haul of voters (Florida) nets her nothing because she lost by 

Even within this system that you're praising for making states matter, Florida had 500k more voters than Texas but 7 less electoral votes. North Carolina also had more voters than Georgia but less electoral votes. 

It's not just because of California. 

[fredtoast]

(10-26-2020, 11:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Meaning the popular vote in the other non-CA 49 states was Trump: 1.4m

Why shouldn't votes from California count?

This reminds me of people who like to play make believe and say stuff like "Except for those three 50 yard td runs our defense was pretty good".

I have never understood why people think they can prove a point by eliminating facts that don't agree with their opinion.  What difference would it make if California was split into 4 different states and everyone still voted the same?  Would their votes still not count?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-26-2020, 11:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I guess I never quite got why an uneven distribution of people should affect things so much.  I've lived in different states in my life and never felt like my sway over the election should grow or shrink depending on where I was.  I will say neo-cons are lucky California wasn't divided into about 15 different states when the borders were drawn up.

Hell, from Eisenhower to Bush #1 CA went republican 9 out of 10 times.  Methinks the right wing just needs to up their campaign game.

At any rate, I can grasp the idea of the EC but I'd have an easier time just rolling with it if we hadn't reached a point where the will of Florida has so much sway over the entire country.

Outside of the major cities CA leans heavily conservative.  A very extreme brand of far left belief has taken root in parts of CA, so much so that the quality of life here has dropped dramatically over the past two decades.  The crazy part is people are fleeing the state because of this and the rampant taxes, then they move to other states and vote the exact same way that created the reasons they fled CA.  I've mentioned this before, but we provide free health care to illegal migrants, but my nephews have to pay (well their parents do) for their own school supplies for the year.  It's far from the most egregious example of the far left idiocy in this state, but it's one that obviously hits close to home for me.

[*Nately120*]

(10-27-2020, 02:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Outside of the major cities CA leans heavily conservative.  A very extreme brand of far left belief has taken root in parts of CA, so much so that the quality of life here has dropped dramatically over the past two decades.  The crazy part is people are fleeing the state because of this and the rampant taxes, then they move to other states and vote the exact same way that created the reasons they fled CA.  I've mentioned this before, but we provide free health care to illegal migrants, but my nephews have to pay (well their parents do) for their own school supplies for the year.  It's far from the most egregious example of the far left idiocy in this state, but it's one that obviously hits close to home for me.

So Ca is the gathering of stupidly liberals types to the right that the south is as a gathering of stupidly conservative types to the left?  

I always hear a sort of argument that "Yes those people vote but they shouldn't really count" kind of argument from both sides.  If you don't count people from ____ then our side would win. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 03:11 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So Ca is the gathering of stupidly liberals types to the right that the south is as a gathering of stupidly conservative types to the left?  

I always hear a sort of argument that "Yes those people vote but they shouldn't really count" kind of argument from both sides.  If you don't count people from ____ then our side would win. 

I can't really comment on the South.  The closest I came to living there was when my dad was stationed at Ft. Lee, Virginia and I was 4-6 years old at the time.  I can tell you that for most self described liberals here there isn't a cause too far left that they aren't willing to flush billions down the toilet to support.

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2020, 03:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I can tell you that for most self described liberals here there isn't a cause too far left that they aren't willing to flush billions down the toilet to support.

That is strange because the only people who oppose school funding around here are conservatives who claim schools are just for liberal indoctrination.

[*Nately120*]

(10-27-2020, 03:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't really comment on the South.  The closest I came to living there was when my dad was stationed at Ft. Lee, Virginia and I was 4-6 years old at the time.  I can tell you that for most self described liberals here there isn't a cause too far left that they aren't willing to flush billions down the toilet to support.

Florida is too important to elections and too unpredictable to be lumped in woth the south.  I guess I'm talking more about how you have red and blue guarantees and about 5 states that flip and decide stuff. 

Ohio and Florida especially. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Florida is too important to elections and too unpredictable to be lumped in woth the south.  I guess I'm talking more about how you have red and blue guarantees and about 5 states that flip and decide stuff. 

Ohio and Florida especially. 

We also just don't claim Florida. Pretty much, if it ain't the panhandle, it ain't southern.