US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1596
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41094 Posts
| ||
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
Say there are 11 districts with a million people each. Party A wins district 1 through 3 by a vote of 900k to 100k Party B wins districts 4 through 11 by 550k to 450k So currently it would be 3 rep for party A and 8 for party B. Is oneofthem arguing that party A should get 6 reps because they win the big pool 6.3 mil to 4.7 mil? | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the point was holding the # of reps constant, you would always be redistributing votes, and not diluting the votes. it's equality vs inequality, and while there may be particular reasons for wanting inequality, dilution of votes isn't one of those reasons. this guy is trying to say "oh but you are diluting the rural votes" but that's not the same as saying vote is diluted. for each voter whose vote is 'diluted' there is another that is favored. so the guy really should be arguing that we SHOULD favor rural voters in some way, not that rural voters or some other group being given equal rather than favorable representation is dilution of 'each vote.' i feel bad for wasting time to explain this because it is absurd to accuse a situation that is literally the limit scenario for equal representation of the opposite. | ||
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
Is the ballot party A or party B or are individual names on the ballot? Is there any way that prevents all eleven reps being selected from district 1 by party heads in the back room? I personally would much prefer the individual candidates be accountable to the million that elected them than voters in another city indirectly choosing who represents me. | ||
Introvert
United States4435 Posts
It's equal by your own math: same number of voters, same number of reps. If I were to characterize your position unfairly, I would say that your position is to favor urban voters in some way. Your way isn't any more fair. We have no reason to prefer it as of right now. Never mind the million other problems this situation creates. Edit: also, my focus wasn't on rural voters, that was just one example that you latched onto. | ||
Simberto
Germany11032 Posts
Oppose that to a system where out of the whole pool, Party A gains 2.8 million votes and has 3 representatives. Party B gains 1.1 Mvotes and thus has 1 representative Party C gains 5.6 Mvotes and has 6 representatives. Party D gains 0.9 Mvotes and has 1 representative. The remainder of the votes are split in really small crazy parties. Suddenly instead of ~1/3 of the people not having ANY representation whatsoever (And most likely NEVER going to have any because the districts are set up in a way that there is not actually a fight between the really rightwing party and the crazy rightwing party, now figure why these people might feel betrayed by the system), only the few people who did not manage to actually rally enough votes to even justify one 1 rep are not represented. Every vote in every district matters and gets representation, not just that of the people voting for the winning guy. | ||
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On January 26 2015 17:22 Simberto wrote: And in your example, the 100k from Districts 1-3 and the 450k from districts 4-11 don't have ANY representation whatsoever. Oppose that to a system where out of the whole pool, Party A gains 2.8 million votes and has 3 representatives. Party B gains 1.1 Mvotes and thus has 1 representative Party C gains 5.6 Mvotes and has 6 representatives. Party D gains 0.9 Mvotes and has 1 representative. The remainder of the votes are split in really small crazy parties. Suddenly instead of ~1/3 of the people not having ANY representation whatsoever (And most likely NEVER going to have any because the districts are set up in a way that there is not actually a fight between the really rightwing party and the crazy rightwing party, now figure why these people might feel betrayed by the system), only the few people who did not manage to actually rally enough votes to even justify one 1 rep are not represented. Every vote in every district matters and gets representation, not just that of the people voting for the winning guy. Right, but Republican Democracy is about people, not just parties. Under your system, there's little way to punish individual candidates for anything, making them beholden only to party, not to the electorate at large. I'd like to avoid a system where I'm just voting for a party. I'm a centrist and one of the plurality of Americans who are nonaligned. We get to choose candidates we like from either party. This is good. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21792 Posts
On January 26 2015 17:53 Yoav wrote: Right, but Republican Democracy is about people, not just parties. Under your system, there's little way to punish individual candidates for anything, making them beholden only to party, not to the electorate at large. I'd like to avoid a system where I'm just voting for a party. I'm a centrist and one of the plurality of Americans who are nonaligned. We get to choose candidates we like from either party. This is good. So are you against closed primaries? And/or do you advocate top 2 type primaries? | ||
Introvert
United States4435 Posts
Also, you'll never be more motivated to just vote for whoever has the R- or D- next to their name than if you have pick for 53 seats. Even if it's a smaller amount, anything above 5 seems excessive. This is one of the major advantages of the current system that's being overlooked. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
On January 26 2015 11:18 Sub40APM wrote: and the previous governing coalition was the SPD and the Greens...sort of like the if the Democrats divided their party into two, one called "California Democrats" and the other called "Democrats" correction - one of the previous ones was Green and SPD - during 98 - 05 in the Schröder era. the one before the "great coalition" of SPD-CDU/CSU under Merkel was actually FDP-CDU/CSU. the FPD that's greatly pro business and special interest got voted out of the Bundestag. so there is quite the difference... and considerable (and visible) shifts from time to time. //edit: and I appreciate the discussion about the majority voting system vs. alternative ones etc... gives good insight and understanding - and the shortcomings of each one. ////edit: On January 26 2015 13:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWbqwh4PB0 and that is HUGE... even parts of fox news think that move's kind of fucked up. maybe there is hope yet to exposing and finally ousting fucks like netanyahu. | ||
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On January 26 2015 17:53 Yoav wrote: Right, but Republican Democracy is about people, not just parties. Under your system, there's little way to punish individual candidates for anything, making them beholden only to party, not to the electorate at large. I'd like to avoid a system where I'm just voting for a party. I'm a centrist and one of the plurality of Americans who are nonaligned. We get to choose candidates we like from either party. This is good. I know you were kind of oversimplifying for the sake of argument, but I would point out that the system demands accountability to both, since a candidate needs to win over a majority of his own party and then a majority of the electorate at large, which might be especially difficult if he represents a minority party. It does often force the party into dilemmas of whether they are better served playing to an enthusiastic base vs less enthusiastic competitors or if they should tack to the center and try to appeal to neutrals or moderates from the other side. We happen to live in an era where both parties have found it easier to fire up the base than try to poach groups from the other side, but that is by no means a fact of US political life. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21792 Posts
WASHINGTON – Rand Paul is demonstrating how he could disrupt the Republican presidential field if he seeks the nomination, sparring with potential rivals over Iran, Cuba and the Pentagon's budget in a face-to-face forum that offered an early preview of the feisty policy debate to come. The Kentucky Republican joined fellow first-term senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida on stage Sunday evening in California for a summit organized by Freedom Partners. That group is the central hub of the powerful network of organizations backed by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch. Each likely candidate has broad backing from tea party activists, who helped push them to victory over establishment-minded rivals in their most recent races. But a split is already starting to emerge even before they formally decide if they will run, and Paul seems to be an eager wedge. "I'm a big fan of trying the diplomatic option as long as we can," Paul said of talks with Iran over its nuclear plan. "I do think diplomacy is better than war." Lawmakers from both parties are pushing for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The White House and foreign leaders have urged Congress to not do that, for fear it would agitate Iran and prompt them to end negotiations over its nuclear abilities. Cruz and Rubio were sharply critical of negotiations, backed by President Barack Obama. "This is the worst negotiation in the history of mankind," Cruz said, predicting an Iranian nuclear strike in "Tel Aviv, New York or Los Angeles." Added Rubio: "At this pace, in five years, we're going to build the bomb for them." Paul urged his colleagues to have patience. "Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran?" Cruz was having none of it. "The problem with Iran is Khomeini and the mullahs are radical Islamic nutcases," he said. It was as intense a disagreement on Cuba. Obama late last year sent shockwaves across the hemisphere by restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba after more than a half-century of estrangement and embargoes. Politicians from corner of both parties were critical. Cruz and Rubio, both Cuban-Americans fiercely opposed to the Castro regime's hold on power there, have been outspoken critics of Obama's move, while Paul notes the embargo has not ousted Fidel or Raul Castro. "I'm kind of surrounded on this one," Paul said, sitting between Cruz to his right and Rubio to his left. "The Castros are brutal dictators," Cruz said. He also said the potential for U.S. dollars flooding into Cuba would only keep the Castro regime in power longer. "Maybe. Maybe not," Paul said. Even on military spending, which is typically sacrosanct among Republicans, Paul needled his colleagues. Paul said national security is the most important spending in the budget, but "I'm not for a blank check." Rubio said the United States' economic challenges did not stem from defense spending and smaller budgets would only threaten its future economic growth. "Try economic growth while you're under attack," Rubio said. The trio of lawmakers is laying the groundwork for presidential bids that are expected to launch in the coming months and will be competing for many of the same donors, including those the Kochs count as allies and who joined the weekend summit in Palm Springs, California. Source | ||
farvacola
United States18768 Posts
| ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 26 2015 21:23 farvacola wrote: Such foreign policy genius. I can see why xDaunt identities as a Republican When the alternative is what we've seen from Obama over the past 6 years, there really isn't much choice. As I've said repeatedly around here, there's no dancing around the fact that Obama has been terrible at foreign relations throughout his term. You know its bad when pretty much everyone (ie not just republicans) is in agreement on that point. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
In the late 1960s, more than half of the households in the United States were squarely in the middle, earning, in today’s dollars, $35,000 to $100,000 a year. Few people noticed or cared as the size of that group began to fall, because the shift was primarily caused by more Americans climbing the economic ladder into upper-income brackets. But since 2000, the middle-class share of households has continued to narrow, the main reason being that more people have fallen to the bottom. At the same time, fewer of those in this group fit the traditional image of a married couple with children at home, a gap increasingly filled by the elderly. Continue reading the main story RELATED COVERAGE Dorine Poole lost a job when her employer closed, then got a job that paid more, but less than she made before the recession.Uneven Progress for 3 Chicagoans Janet Yellen Held Up as SymbolsJAN. 25, 2015 Representative Paul D. Ryan, center, praised the president for avoiding “partisan class-warfare rhetoric” in his State of the Union address.News Analysis: Talk of Wealth Gap Prods the G.O.P. to Refocus JAN. 21, 2015 The world’s business elite will meet this week at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.Oxfam Study Finds Richest 1% Is Likely to Control Half of Global Wealth by 2016JAN. 19, 2015 The public has a bleaker view of upward mobility than it did after the 2008 financial crisis, according to a New York Times poll, despite an improving economy and an increase in jobs.Many Feel the American Dream Is Out of Reach, Poll ShowsDEC. 10, 2014 This social upheaval helps explain why the president focused on reviving the middle class, offering a raft of proposals squarely aimed at concerns like paying for a college education, taking parental leave, affording child care and buying a home. what would you have done differently? Nuke the whales! | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21792 Posts
"The Castros are brutal dictators," Cruz said. He also said the potential for U.S. dollars flooding into Cuba would only keep the Castro regime in power longer. "Maybe. Maybe not," Paul said. Paul is definitely going to ruffle some feathers. Wish Steele was still the RNC head. Reince is going to have the debates be practically scripted, so the fun will be limited that way :- /. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently? Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21792 Posts
| ||
| ||