"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

JoeMorgue said:
Guys can we spin off the "Proportional / Direct representation" debate to another thread or at least tie it back into the topic?

Endless hijacks away from the topic aren't better when we do it.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you noticed but our resident conservatives have for now high tailed it out of here. I guess even they didn't find their own denials very convincing.

But fine. I guess I shouldn't address claims made in a thread if they're not on topic. It's fine if the other poster makes the claims, however.
 
Belz... said:
You do understand that this is what the Senate and EC were supposed to address, correct?
Click to expand...

I don't understand that. In the late 18th century, the country was pretty much rural. In 1776, Philadelphia was the largest city (with a population under 50,000). The Senate was a concession granted to small states, one Madison regarded as a defeat for his nationalist vision.

Nobody really knew what the hell they were doing with the Electoral College, which was reflected in the 12th Amendment. We are projected to see 70% of the population residing in 15 states. So, 70% of the population gets 30% of the vote. Hell, California and Texas are projected to have a quarter of the population, but they'll only get 4% of the Senate.

The result is essentially vote inflation for rural white voters. Super white Wyoming balances out Hispanic California. Even if this were intended -- and it wasn't -- it's morally unjustifiable.

When the Articles of Confederation became untenable, the Founders met in secret to have it thrown out (despite that it was supposed to forge a "perpetual Union" and amendments needed unanimous consent). Little Rhode Island is the only state that subjected the Constitution to a popular referendum (voters overwhelmingly rejected it).
 
Cain said:
I don't understand that. In the late 18th century, the country was pretty much rural. In 1776, Philadelphia was the largest city (with a population under 50,000). The Senate was a concession granted to small states, one Madison regarded as a defeat for his nationalist vision.

Nobody really knew what the hell they were doing with the Electoral College, which was reflected in the 12th Amendment. We are projected to see 70% of the population residing in 15 states. So, 70% of the population gets 30% of the vote. Hell, California and Texas are projected to have a quarter of the population, but they'll only get 4% of the Senate.

The result is essentially vote inflation for rural white voters. Super white Wyoming balances out Hispanic California. Even if this were intended -- and it wasn't -- it's morally unjustifiable.

When the Articles of Confederation became untenable, the Founders met in secret to have it thrown out (despite that it was supposed to forge a "perpetual Union" and amendments needed unanimous consent). Little Rhode Island is the only state that subjected the Constitution to a popular referendum (voters overwhelmingly rejected it).
Click to expand...

Certainly the unequal representation works in favor of rural voters in the Senate, and to some extent in the House, but not quite the same in the EC. While it's true that the number of voters in a bloc is unequal, the anomalous result can be the opposite. If a small state has only a small number of electoral votes, it's true that the weight of individual votes in each electoral vote is greater, but because those votes are bundled, the entire state's vote can be nullified by a vote in one urban district, which is why the electoral and popular votes can differ so. A state like Vermont might support candidate A by 9 to 1, but its 3 electoral votes can be cancelled if one district in Florida supports candidate B even by the slimmest plurality.

In theory, of course, if the contest were nearly even, and if the distribution of votes were also fairly even, a small state could make a difference, and if it did, that difference would be disproportionately large, but in practice, I don't think it likely. In national elections, despite what appears like gross over-representation, a vote in Vermont is only symbolic.
 
I think the issue of proportional representation deserves a thread of its own, and I hope a mod can look at this and sort the various posts out accordingly.

However, at the risk of further derailing this thread (and in anticipation that a mod will create a new thread) I wanted to put this idea for a proportionally represented US Senate.

I know its not perfect, but its a start, and I have tried to keep it uncomplicated.

Criteria
1. All States shall be entitled to at least one Seat in the Senate. This Seat is the Minimum Representation (MR) Seat.
2. A State will be required to have a total population of 1.5% of the National population in order to be entitled to additional Population Based Representation (PBR) Seats
3. The Percentage population is rounded up or down to the nearest whole percentage point to determine the number of PBR Seats.
4. Under most circumstances, this will result in a Senate of more than 100 Seats. If required, this can be corrected back to 100 by adjusting the divisor downwards until the resulting Senate is exactly 100 Seats. This will result in some States not being allocated one of their PBR Seats due to their population percentage being marginal.

Example
ProportionalSenate.png


This one results in 109 Senate seats. If you want to reduce the number of Seats to 100, but keep it near proportional, then reducing the divisor from 100 to 89 will do the job, but nine states will not be allocated one of their PBR seats.

California
Texas
New York
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
New Jersey
Virginia
South Carolina

As I said, its not perfect, but it would be a fairer and more representative system than the current one, which grossly over-represents lower populated states, and grossly under represents higher populated states.

NOTE: I anticipate there will be all sorts of objections that the US Constitution says it can't be done because of this or that or the next thing. To those arguments, I would reply that the US Constitution is a living document, as evidenced by its 27 ratified Amendments. Indeed, the way Senators are elected was changed by the 17th amendment in 1913.

I would also argue that the US Constitution doesn't mean much in a country where the president routinely ignores it for his own personal and political purposes.

I also anticipate arguments from some that the system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. To those people I say, you have not been paying attention.
 
smartcooky said:
However, at the risk of further derailing this thread (and in anticipation that a mod will create a new thread) I wanted to put this idea for a proportionally represented US Senate.
Click to expand...

If you're doing this much of an overhaul, why not toss DC a bone and give them a senator, too? Their population is higher than the bottom two states.
 
Back on topic, however briefly - the defenses offers in this thread are outstandingly pathetic. I think even those defenders realize this and have slunk away.
 
These proposals to change the makeup of the Senate are Darth Vader tier crap.

States joined the union in part because the Senate guaranteed them an equal say in the administration of the union.

Now the citizens of some states wish to change the the makeup of the Senate, in order to impose their will on the citizens of the other states.

"I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."
 
Belz... said:
I'm sure rural Americans having essentially no representation on the Federal level would be quite ok for you, but not for them. You do understand that this is what the Senate and EC were supposed to address, correct?
Click to expand...

Where has anyone said to give some people No Representation. You do know what proportional means, I assume. The problem with the proportional portions of the current system is that they're not proportional at all, other than in name. The Senate is pretty clear. Everyone (with "one" meaning "state") gets two of 'em. It ain't proportional, though, and wasn't intended to be.

The House, and thus the Electoral College are supposed to be proportional according to the design, but they aren't. The chief reasons for this being the intentionally not-proportional Senators each being counted in the Electoral College allotment for a state, and the ceiling on Members being set at 438 back when the population of the country was less than a quarter of what it is currently. The Great White North has about 1/10th the US population and 338 seats in Parliament!
 
Upchurch said:
Those two twits are saying opposite things.
Click to expand...

The point that needs to be repeated is that the person he's retweeting and in whose support he's wallowing is generally tied for first in the UK vote for "Who's the Most Xenophobic Bigot in the Country". Some polls she finishes in first. But then Tommy Robinson will get into the news for a few days and he wins the next poll.

That's some fine company... Katie and Tommy... and Trump!
 
Ziggurat said:
Willem Van Spronsen. His attack was all over the news, didn't you see it? And his manifesto justifying his attack specifically referred to CBP facilities as "concentration camps", which is terminology that AOC helped push.
Click to expand...

This. Is. Pathetic.

Personally, I think he's a Travis follower (Travis called 'em concentration camps in a thread starter in November, last year.)
 
theprestige said:
These proposals to change the makeup of the Senate are Darth Vader tier crap.

States joined the union in part because the Senate guaranteed them an equal say in the administration of the union.

Now the citizens of some states wish to change the the makeup of the Senate, in order to impose their will on the citizens of the other states.

"I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."
Click to expand...

States also entered the Union on the condition they got to keep their slaves. And, of course, nobody from the Independence era is still alive, so the people currently affected did not consent to the current state of affairs.

The citizens of other states unfairly impose their will on me by non-democratic, non-representative means. That is wrong, and it should be changed.
 
smartcooky said:
This one results in 109 Senate seats. If you want to reduce the number of Seats to 100, but keep it near proportional, then reducing the divisor from 100 to 89 will do the job, but nine states will not be allocated one of their PBR seats.
Click to expand...

Keeping it near 100 is an example of anchoring bias. In reality, it should just be abolished. Keeping membership low results in states with twice as many people getting the same number of votes. Indeed, our House of Representatives is insufficiently representative, and not just because of gerrymandering. We have been capped at 435. Meanwhile, England has approximately one-sixth our population, and 650 representatives. France has almost 600.
 
Hey, remember that time when we ignored the right-wing distractions for like a full day? That was pretty cool.
 
To bring this thread back on track, here's a story about a gas station attendant who got fired after telling some POC customers to go back to their country.

For those keeping score, this means that a gas station attendant his held to a higher standard than the president.
 
bruto said:
Certainly the unequal representation works in favor of rural voters in the Senate, and to some extent in the House, but not quite the same in the EC. While it's true that the number of voters in a bloc is unequal, the anomalous result can be the opposite. If a small state has only a small number of electoral votes, it's true that the weight of individual votes in each electoral vote is greater, but because those votes are bundled, the entire state's vote can be nullified by a vote in one urban district, which is why the electoral and popular votes can differ so. A state like Vermont might support candidate A by 9 to 1, but its 3 electoral votes can be cancelled if one district in Florida supports candidate B even by the slimmest plurality.

In theory, of course, if the contest were nearly even, and if the distribution of votes were also fairly even, a small state could make a difference, and if it did, that difference would be disproportionately large, but in practice, I don't think it likely. In national elections, despite what appears like gross over-representation, a vote in Vermont is only symbolic.
Click to expand...

All individual votes are symbolic, even in states where the elections are close. In the EC, small states are like points scored in the first half of a basketball game: They only seem to matter if the end is tight. The EC benefits large swing states. However, a select few small rural states can have an outsized influence in the primary process, but that's primarily due to the parties, especially the Democratic Party, rather than than the Constitution.
 
Cain said:
Keeping it near 100 is an example of anchoring bias. In reality, it should just be abolished. Keeping membership low results in states with twice as many people getting the same number of votes. Indeed, our House of Representatives is insufficiently representative, and not just because of gerrymandering. We have been capped at 435. Meanwhile, England has approximately one-sixth our population, and 650 representatives. France has almost 600.
Click to expand...

Well that is why I said it was an option. I wasn't sure if there were some hard and fast rule that it had to be exactly 100

Oh, and we have a population of less than five million; our Parliament has ~120 seats.
 
Belz... said:
Or I'm illustrating what WOULD likely happen.
Click to expand...
So liberals can have "no" representation, that's OK?

You don't seem to be acknowledging it's one or the other, can't be both.


Belz... said:
Well clearly you don't quite understand the arguments in favour of it. Which, by the way, does not require you to agree with the EC.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly. When people don't agree with you it doesn't mean they don't understand.

I'm underrepresented, it pisses me off and it's one reason we got the Iraq war and Trump.

You're not even from here, you are arguing the EC gives rural population more representation (d'uh) like that's a good thing, no it isn't. Living in Wyoming should not give someone over-representation.

The EC is outdated and needs to change. It has gotten much too far out of proportion.

Again, I never said or implied this.
Click to expand...
I repeat YOUR QUOTE: You said "rural Americans having essentially no representation on the Federal level"."

That is not me saying you suggested it. It's you claiming if the rest of us got fair representation rural areas would get none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom