Hillary vs Bernie coming down to the wire in Iowa, Cruz wins over Trump

[mysticjbyrd]

"Sanders campaign senior campaign adviser Tad Devine has told the AP that the Sanders campaign has no interest in challenging the caucus results in Iowa, which means that Hillary Clinton has officially won the Hawkeye State."

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02...caucus-results-hillary-clinton-wins-iowa.html

No, she won some ridiculous coin flips. It was a tie.

 

[irishScott]

You're arguing that some citizens should be more equal because they live further apart.

You're also invoking the same sort of persecution complex we see in the Bundy Militia.

The degree of big gubmint interference in the lives of rural folk is no greater than for city folk, often a lot less. Here in the West, small town & rural dwellers often have the advantage of much easier access to government lands for hunting, fishing, hiking & etc. In CO, many aren't required to have their vehicles emission tested & often pay lower taxes in general. State & federal subsidies & grants allow them to make more money & to have better schools, roads & sanitation systems than they could muster on their own. They get a lot of other stuff, too, like national defense they seem to love & couldn't possibly afford w/o urbanites. There's a whole package of stuff that rural dwellers manage to overlook when they're getting their oppression complex going- safer pesticides, herbicides, food, water, drugs & cosmetics just to name a few.

You haven't been reading the conversation. Eskimopie was arguing that the rural and suburban regions have too much power and that some of that power should be taken away. I was arguing why I think their extra power is necessary.

I'm also not sure where you got "persecution complex" come from. Rural and suburban people aren't persecuted thanks to current political rules. I was arguing that we should keep it that way.

In a nutshell I think that the massive population of the cities gives them a naturally unfair advantage in philosophical arguments, namely they have millions more people behind their range of philosophies by virtue of their geography. Left unchecked that larger population would dominate the field, effectively disenfranchising smaller rural and suburban populations. So just as we need to regulate business to prevent monopolies, we need to regulate representation based on philosophical perspectives and culture, so that all ideas are given fair consideration and decided on merit, not mere population density.

 

[Meghan54]

No, she won some ridiculous coin flips. It was a tie.

You understand Sanders also won some ridiculous coin flips, almost as many as Clinton did, don't you?

 

[Victorian Gray]

NPR breaks it all down:

Coin-Toss Fact Check: No, Coin Flips Did Not Win Iowa For Hillary Clinton

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/46526...in-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

 

[sportage]

******** BREAKING NEWS **********
*********************************

I have breaking news from the Iowa state caucus.

February 3rd 2016
Iowa GOP Chairman announced on February 3rd 2016, final election results are now in.
Mitt Romney determined winner of 2012 Iowa caucus.
We think?

 

[compuwiz1]

Iowa doesn't mean shit. I don't even understand why people are still talking about it. Dinosaur bones.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think they should be able to "dictate", I think cultural regions should be balanced and allowed substantial self-government. Under our current system I think the big cities still have a significant edge over other populations. So naturally I'm against giving them more power. Ultimately I want a large diversity of competing ideas in government at all levels.

I agree that different regions should be given substantial power to govern themselves. That being said, I see no reason why that means that people in suburban and rural areas should be given extra electoral influence based on population density. The reason why they have an 'edge' is that way more of the citizens that laws are intended to govern live in them. That's like saying the winner of an election has an edge because more people voted for them. Of course! That's the point!

Their disproportionately high populations means that one culture or genre of cultures has millions more voters than another. It's no secret that large cities almost always lean left. That naturally gives the leftist platforms millions and millions more supporters than competing platforms. Hence leftist ideas have disproportionate levels of support, whether they rationally deserve them or not.

So you're saying certain ideas cultures have disproportionate support because way way more people adhere to them. That sounds like basically the dictionary definition of proportionate support. Ideas and cultures do not have some natural level of support they are entitled to.

On top of that I think you're missing a vital point that's being obscured by lumping everyone into 'leftist ideas'. Cities are not monolithic. Sure they might vote democratic in elections, but many people in cities are far more liberal than the Democratic Party, but due to their unnaturally diluted political power our political spectrum is pulled to the right.

You're basically sacrificing diversity of more left leaning opinion for more right leaning opinion instead of letting the marketplace of ideas work that out for itself. Neither left leaning ideas or right leaning ideas are worthy of any special support. Let people decide for themselves.

Such as? I don't feel like conducting an analysis of every Democracy on Earth.

But to use the UK as an example, the House of Commons constituencies are mandated to be roughly equal in population and no larger than 13,000 sq km (with some exceptions). As a result the local cultural divisions within large cities are allowed to represent themselves.

It's not a perfect check on city-statehood, but it's better than nothing. If you compare that election map to a population density map it's clear that Labour's power base is in the big cities and somewhat disproportionately empowered because of that. The UK also has the House of Lords to provide a check independent of population density.

Most developed nations use a proportional representation system or something close to it, which does not give special advantages to low density areas. It works out fine.

Contrast that to the US system, where the (as of 2013) 42,922 registered Republicans in San Francisco might as well not even vote. And you can say the same for Democrat minorities in Red states. Our current county/district system is far too coarse if individually fair representation is the goal. Let alone fair cultural representation.

The funny thing is that what you're describing is actually an artifact of the system which encourages disproportionate rural influence. People have no right to have their political views catered to just because they decided to live somewhere where almost no one agrees with them.

By the way, getting rid of the district system which over represents rural areas would help correct this problem.

Sweet! Then we fundamentally agree. Although I'd like to point out that there usually are some differences in mentality between people who want a house/lawn/car and people who want to live in a city apartment. There are even more when you contrast to people who like small towns/farms.

And there are huge differences in mentality between people who live where I do and people who live on the Upper West Side, those differences are just obscured under the 'democrat' label. This is my whole point. Our system sees fit to give extra representation to the person living in upstate New York's politics preferences over mine because of how dense his town is, but no preference to my politics over the UWS resident. Doesn't make sense.

I'd rather not base policy on geography either. I'd like to find some way of producing a cultural map of the US, updated annually, and base things on that. But seeing as how that's never going to happen geography is a better approximation than nothing.

Meh. A proportional representation system would be best. Let the marketplace of ideas decide. There is no optimal ideology from a societal perspective, so let people figure it out for themselves.

I'd also say "dominate" is too strong a word for the current power levels of rural and suburban areas in the US. Didn't we elect Obama twice? Clinton twice? Didn't the Democrats take congress in Bush's second term? Didn't Obamacare get passed despite every Republican opposing it? Doesn't Sanders poll higher than Trump nationally? Sure we also elected Bush twice, but I'd say the left is plenty powerful.

Take the senate for example. Republicans have about 10% more seats than the Democrats do despite representing 6% less of the population. That's a 16% difference total. In a country where elections are closely divided that's insane.

It's projected that in order to take back the House with a 1 seat majority, Democrats would need to have won the 2012 House elections by more than 7 points. In 2014 a 6 point win for Republicans gave them an advantage of 60 seats. The democrats won by almost twice that amount in 2008 and still had a smaller majority.

It doesn't mean that liberals can't win elections, but it does show how badly skewed our political system is. The kind of majorities the Democrats used to pass the ACA are unlikely to come for them again. The Republicans could easily achieve those in Congress, and with far fewer voters.

 

[SP33Demon]

I agree that different regions should be given substantial power to govern themselves. That being said, I see no reason why that means that people in suburban and rural areas should be given extra electoral influence based on population density. The reason why they have an 'edge' is that way more of the citizens that laws are intended to govern live in them. That's like saying the winner of an election has an edge because more people voted for them. Of course! That's the point!



So you're saying certain ideas cultures have disproportionate support because way way more people adhere to them. That sounds like basically the dictionary definition of proportionate support. Ideas and cultures do not have some natural level of support they are entitled to.

On top of that I think you're missing a vital point that's being obscured by lumping everyone into 'leftist ideas'. Cities are not monolithic. Sure they might vote democratic in elections, but many people in cities are far more liberal than the Democratic Party, but due to their unnaturally diluted political power our political spectrum is pulled to the right.

You're basically sacrificing diversity of more left leaning opinion for more right leaning opinion instead of letting the marketplace of ideas work that out for itself. Neither left leaning ideas or right leaning ideas are worthy of any special support. Let people decide for themselves.



Most developed nations use a proportional representation system or something close to it, which does not give special advantages to low density areas. It works out fine.



The funny thing is that what you're describing is actually an artifact of the system which encourages disproportionate rural influence. People have no right to have their political views catered to just because they decided to live somewhere where almost no one agrees with them.

By the way, getting rid of the district system which over represents rural areas would help correct this problem.



And there are huge differences in mentality between people who live where I do and people who live on the Upper West Side, those differences are just obscured under the 'democrat' label. This is my whole point. Our system sees fit to give extra representation to the person living in upstate New York's politics preferences over mine because of how dense his town is, but no preference to my politics over the UWS resident. Doesn't make sense.



Meh. A proportional representation system would be best. Let the marketplace of ideas decide. There is no optimal ideology from a societal perspective, so let people figure it out for themselves.

Take the senate for example. Republicans have about 10% more seats than the Democrats do despite representing 6% less of the population. That's a 16% difference total. In a country where elections are closely divided that's insane.

It's projected that in order to take back the House with a 1 seat majority, Democrats would need to have won the 2012 House elections by more than 7 points. In 2014 a 6 point win for Republicans gave them an advantage of 60 seats. The democrats won by almost twice that amount in 2008 and still had a smaller majority.

It doesn't mean that liberals can't win elections, but it does show how badly skewed our political system is. The kind of majorities the Democrats used to pass the ACA are unlikely to come for them again. The Republicans could easily achieve those in Congress, and with far fewer voters.

The electoral college is fine. There's no need for city folk to be dictating to rural folk what they should be doing (economically, socially) via federal law when there's vast political, racial, and philosophical differences. Yes, let the people figure it out themselves but not where large population centers dominate outside of their jurisdictions. For example, rural folks should not be paying a gas tax to fix city roads and this is how it's done in the most powerful region of the nation (VA, MD, DC). Liberals in this region would love for everyone in their states to pay for their roads which only they are using.

 

[Sonikku]

I agree that different regions should be given substantial power to govern themselves. That being said, I see no reason why that means that people in suburban and rural areas should be given extra electoral influence based on population density. The reason why they have an 'edge' is that way more of the citizens that laws are intended to govern live in them. That's like saying the winner of an election has an edge because more people voted for them. Of course! That's the point!



So you're saying certain ideas cultures have disproportionate support because way way more people adhere to them. That sounds like basically the dictionary definition of proportionate support. Ideas and cultures do not have some natural level of support they are entitled to.

On top of that I think you're missing a vital point that's being obscured by lumping everyone into 'leftist ideas'. Cities are not monolithic. Sure they might vote democratic in elections, but many people in cities are far more liberal than the Democratic Party, but due to their unnaturally diluted political power our political spectrum is pulled to the right.

You're basically sacrificing diversity of more left leaning opinion for more right leaning opinion instead of letting the marketplace of ideas work that out for itself. Neither left leaning ideas or right leaning ideas are worthy of any special support. Let people decide for themselves.



Most developed nations use a proportional representation system or something close to it, which does not give special advantages to low density areas. It works out fine.



The funny thing is that what you're describing is actually an artifact of the system which encourages disproportionate rural influence. People have no right to have their political views catered to just because they decided to live somewhere where almost no one agrees with them.

By the way, getting rid of the district system which over represents rural areas would help correct this problem.



And there are huge differences in mentality between people who live where I do and people who live on the Upper West Side, those differences are just obscured under the 'democrat' label. This is my whole point. Our system sees fit to give extra representation to the person living in upstate New York's politics preferences over mine because of how dense his town is, but no preference to my politics over the UWS resident. Doesn't make sense.



Meh. A proportional representation system would be best. Let the marketplace of ideas decide. There is no optimal ideology from a societal perspective, so let people figure it out for themselves.



Take the senate for example. Republicans have about 10% more seats than the Democrats do despite representing 6% less of the population. That's a 16% difference total. In a country where elections are closely divided that's insane.

It's projected that in order to take back the House with a 1 seat majority, Democrats would need to have won the 2012 House elections by more than 7 points. In 2014 a 6 point win for Republicans gave them an advantage of 60 seats. The democrats won by almost twice that amount in 2008 and still had a smaller majority.

It doesn't mean that liberals can't win elections, but it does show how badly skewed our political system is. The kind of majorities the Democrats used to pass the ACA are unlikely to come for them again. The Republicans could easily achieve those in Congress, and with far fewer voters.

This is why I have to sigh whenever someone is asking "Will the GoP survive?" because of how nuts they've gotten. So long as they're gerrymandered safe, no amount of crazy will stop them.

 

[feralkid]

No, she won some ridiculous coin flips. It was a tie.

I'm sure you'd feel the same had Bernie won the coin flips.

 

[fskimospy]

The electoral college is fine. There's no need for city folk to be dictating to rural folk what they should be doing (economically, socially) via federal law when there's vast political, racial, and philosophical differences.

So your alternative is the opposite. Why is that better? Why don't we make national law based on what the most people in the nation support? We aren't talking about the first amendment here, we are talking about how we all spend our collective money. Why should someone get more say in how money is spent than another person based on how close their neighbors live?

Yes, let the people figure it out themselves but not where large population centers dominate outside of their jurisdictions. For example, rural folks should not be paying a gas tax to fix city roads and this is how it's done in the most powerful region of the nation (VA, MD, DC). Liberals in this region would love for everyone in their states to pay for their roads which only they are using.

So in other words don't let the people figure it out. Or more accurately, let them figure it out so long as it is rural areas imposing costs on the cities and not the other way around. Cities are generally large net exporters of tax dollars yet you seem perfectly fine with letting them pay for infrastructure in rural areas.

My argument is simple: let every person have an equal say in their local, state, and federal government no matter where they live. No special privileges. The only argument I have heard so far is basically that it's not fair that cities should get most of the representation because it's not fair that's where most of the people are. This is not exactly compelling.

 

[Sonikku]

http://www.conservativeoutfitters.c...ught-on-camera-committing-voter-fraud-in-iowa

I'm sure you'd feel the same had Bernie won the coin flips.

Coin flips are stupid no matter who "wins".

 

[WelshBloke]

http://www.conservativeoutfitters.c...ught-on-camera-committing-voter-fraud-in-iowa



Coin flips are stupid no matter who "wins".

Having a form of election that isn't verifiable, can't be recounted and whose solution to possible fraud is a coin toss sounds like something you'd get in a dodgy African dictatorship.

 

[irishScott]

I agree that different regions should be given substantial power to govern themselves. That being said, I see no reason why that means that people in suburban and rural areas should be given extra electoral influence based on population density. The reason why they have an 'edge' is that way more of the citizens that laws are intended to govern live in them. That's like saying the winner of an election has an edge because more people voted for them. Of course! That's the point!

And left unchecked the large cities are in a position to effectively disenfranchise the rest of the population. I fail to see how simply having more people as a result of socioeconomic factors gives them that right. It's like saying the family with 12 kids has more rights than the family with 2, and should be allowed to dictate how the second family lives on the rational that they're more horny.

In light of our system not being likely to change, we need the geography/density based protections that we currently have, crude though they may be.

So you're saying certain ideas cultures have disproportionate support because way way more people adhere to them. That sounds like basically the dictionary definition of proportionate support. Ideas and cultures do not have some natural level of support they are entitled to.

On top of that I think you're missing a vital point that's being obscured by lumping everyone into 'leftist ideas'. Cities are not monolithic. Sure they might vote democratic in elections, but many people in cities are far more liberal than the Democratic Party, but due to their unnaturally diluted political power our political spectrum is pulled to the right.

You're basically sacrificing diversity of more left leaning opinion for more right leaning opinion instead of letting the marketplace of ideas work that out for itself. Neither left leaning ideas or right leaning ideas are worthy of any special support. Let people decide for themselves.

I'd say if tens of millions of people live a certain way they're entitled to a non-proportional say in how things are run, even if hundreds of millions next to them live differently and disagree with them. Where to draw the line is an open question, obviously we shouldn't be treating every tiny fringe group on par with national parties. But what you seem to be advocating for is strict rule-by-popular-majority in all cases, the problems of which are well known as far back as Ancient Greece and Persia. In fact they were so severe Herodotus used them as a fairly convincing if flawed argument for Oliagarchy. When our Constitution was created abuse of the majority was a prime area of debate and many protections against it are included as a result.

And when masses of the population are extremely liberal things should be pulled to the right, just as when masses of the population are extremely conservative things should be pulled to the left. How to achieve that balance is up for debate, but the balance is needed nonetheless. Otherwise we just stay on this lovely bi-polar political see-saw and hurt people when we go to one extreme or the other.

Letting the marketplace of ideas work itself out would be about as beneficial as letting the economic market work itself out. With strict free-market economics we get monopolies, and with strict free-market politics the large cities would be the monopolies. The cities need to be balanced lest they turn into Comcast, Verizon and AT&T.

I'd be saying this whether the cities leaned left or right. We need a diversity of competing ideas to be a strong country. We can't have that if one groups is allowed to effectively disenfranchise the other based solely on outside socioeconomic factors.

Most developed nations use a proportional representation system or something close to it, which does not give special advantages to low density areas. It works out fine.

It works out OK. As I was pointing out those systems come with their own inherent protections, but they still don't fully account for the natural over-representation of Urban politics.

The funny thing is that what you're describing is actually an artifact of the system which encourages disproportionate rural influence. People have no right to have their political views catered to just because they decided to live somewhere where almost no one agrees with them.

By the way, getting rid of the district system which over represents rural areas would help correct this problem.

I'd once again ask what gives one group the right to effectively disenfranchise the other based solely on population. It's not about catering to every idea under the sun, or some "everyone's a winner" mentality, it's about giving minority groups with broad bases of support a fighting chance. Call it political Affirmative Action, only based on current political dynamics as opposed to historical ones.

I agree if we had a more granular, UK-style proportional representation with smaller electoral territories it would probably help more than hurt, but I'd still argue Urban over-representation would be a problem. Given the system we have we need the extra protections that are currently there.

And there are huge differences in mentality between people who live where I do and people who live on the Upper West Side, those differences are just obscured under the 'democrat' label. This is my whole point. Our system sees fit to give extra representation to the person living in upstate New York's politics preferences over mine because of how dense his town is, but no preference to my politics over the UWS resident. Doesn't make sense.

And I agree things would be better if areas were more electorally granulated, it would give a voice to previously disenfranchised minorities on both sides. But that obscuring "Democrat" label on cities is there for a reason under our current system. Even with more granulated representation cities as a whole would still lean to the left, and still be in a position to abuse other populations by virtue of their size.

Meh. A proportional representation system would be best. Let the marketplace of ideas decide. There is no optimal ideology from a societal perspective, so let people figure it out for themselves.

People don't figure it out for themselves. If they did we wouldn't need any regulation in the first place. Hell if people could figure things out for themselves we could have functional anarchy. I think we've found our core disagreement. I'd argue some societal ideologies are certainly more optimal than others, and that what's optimal for one group of people may be sub-optimal for another.

Take the senate for example. Republicans have about 10% more seats than the Democrats do despite representing 6% less of the population. That's a 16% difference total. In a country where elections are closely divided that's insane.

It's projected that in order to take back the House with a 1 seat majority, Democrats would need to have won the 2012 House elections by more than 7 points. In 2014 a 6 point win for Republicans gave them an advantage of 60 seats. The democrats won by almost twice that amount in 2008 and still had a smaller majority.

It doesn't mean that liberals can't win elections, but it does show how badly skewed our political system is. The kind of majorities the Democrats used to pass the ACA are unlikely to come for them again. The Republicans could easily achieve those in Congress, and with far fewer voters.

So a 2-representative per state Senate is insane? The Senate is there to give states equal representation as opposed to the House's proportional representation. It's a check on abuse of the majority that our Founding Fathers wisely and intentionally baked into the system. It was never supposed to be proportionally "fair" relative to the population. That's what the House is for.

As for the House, while there has been some bullshit gerrymandering on the part of the Republicans I wouldn't say that it indicates a problem with our core system of representation. That being the House and Senate with their respective Constitutionally prescribed allocations. I also wouldn't be pessimistic about the future for the Democrats.

The US has been moving steadily left for just about a century and millennials are massive social liberals by comparison to previous generations, in fact most (including myself) want Sanders at the moment. I hear conservatives whining about it all the time, how fewer young people are showing up at churches and conservative political rallies. We're going to the left for the moment, just a little slower than most liberal might like. I don't think it's worth risking abuse of the majority just so liberals can get their Christmas presents in July.

 

[feralkid]

Having a form of election that isn't verifiable, can't be recounted and whose solution to possible fraud is a coin toss sounds like something you'd get in a dodgy African dictatorship.

You must remember; these are Party Caucuses, not Elections.

They are not part of, nor sanctioned by any Government body.

 

[WelshBloke]

You must remember; these are Party Caucuses, not Elections.

They are not part of, nor sanctioned by any Government body.

That is a fair point.

Then again if the election process is so ropey maybe the party should just decide who to put forward?

 

[irishScott]

That is a fair point.

Then again if the election process is so ropey maybe the party should just decide who to put forward?

That's how it used to be up until about a century ago. The modern party convention is basically a coronation party. Back in the day they were where the party elite went to decide who to nominate. After multiple days of horse-trading, voting and nominating the party elite would put forth a candidate. But the lesser members of the party as well as general public started feeling left out, so over the course of the 20th century the modern primary evolved.

For the Democrats, the party elite retain status as "superdelegates" and can vote any way they want, as opposed to regular delegates who's votes are tied to the results of a given state primary/caucus. Their modern role is to ensure the integrity of the establishment, and thus almost all of them are lined up for Hillary at present. It is possible to override them with enough popular support, but TMK it's never happened. If Sanders wins the popular primary but the superdelegates don't come over to his side, the Democrats could have a little rebellion on their hands.

The Republicans have a similar predicament with Trump and Cruz.

 

[fskimospy]

And left unchecked the large cities are in a position to effectively disenfranchise the rest of the population. I fail to see how simply having more people as a result of socioeconomic factors gives them that right. It's like saying the family with 12 kids has more rights than the family with 2, and should be allowed to dictate how the second family lives on the rational that they're more horny.

In light of our system not being likely to change, we need the geography/density based protections that we currently have, crude though they may be.

How is it disenfranchisement in any way? By that logic every party that loses an election is disenfranchised because they lost. If ideas are unpopular they deserve to lose in a representative democracy. That's the whole point.

I'd say if tens of millions of people live a certain way they're entitled to a non-proportional say in how things are run, even if hundreds of millions next to them live differently and disagree with them. Where to draw the line is an open question, obviously we shouldn't be treating every tiny fringe group on par with national parties. But what you seem to be advocating for is strict rule-by-popular-majority in all cases, the problems of which are well known as far back as Ancient Greece and Persia. In fact they were so severe Herodotus used them as a fairly convincing if flawed argument for Oliagarchy. When our Constitution was created abuse of the majority was a prime area of debate and many protections against it are included as a result.

No, I'm saying that the 'protections' as they currently exist are far, far in excess of what they were when the constitution was written.

Can you explain to me why people are entitled to a non proportional say?

And when masses of the population are extremely liberal things should be pulled to the right, just as when masses of the population are extremely conservative things should be pulled to the left. How to achieve that balance is up for debate, but the balance is needed nonetheless. Otherwise we just stay on this lovely bi-polar political see-saw and hurt people when we go to one extreme or the other.

Why should they be? Other places with parliamentary democracies don't see this happen so why would we be special?

Letting the marketplace of ideas work itself out would be about as beneficial as letting the economic market work itself out. With strict free-market economics we get monopolies, and with strict free-market politics the large cities would be the monopolies. The cities need to be balanced lest they turn into Comcast, Verizon and AT&T.

Of course they wouldn't be, as I explained earlier cities are not monolithic entities, unlike corporations. Invalid comparison.

I'd be saying this whether the cities leaned left or right. We need a diversity of competing ideas to be a strong country. We can't have that if one groups is allowed to effectively disenfranchise the other based solely on outside socioeconomic factors.

I would also be saying this regardless of whether cities leaned left or right. We need a strong marketplace of ideas, and that's why we shouldn't allow people to have special extra representation based on how close their neighbor lives.

It works out OK. As I was pointing out those systems come with their own inherent protections, but they still don't fully account for the natural over-representation of Urban politics.

Well if it works out okay then why do we need all these extra special voting bonuses for rural voters?

I'd once again ask what gives one group the right to effectively disenfranchise the other based solely on population. It's not about catering to every idea under the sun, or some "everyone's a winner" mentality, it's about giving minority groups with broad bases of support a fighting chance. Call it political Affirmative Action, only based on current political dynamics as opposed to historical ones.

I would ask you the same question. You are not disenfranchised if you lose an election. There is a decent argument you are disenfranchised if your vote counts half as much as someone else's though. You are actually the one arguing for disenfranchisement.

I agree if we had a more granular, UK-style proportional representation with smaller electoral territories it would probably help more than hurt, but I'd still argue Urban over-representation would be a problem. Given the system we have we need the extra protections that are currently there.

And I agree things would be better if areas were more electorally granulated, it would give a voice to previously disenfranchised minorities on both sides. But that obscuring "Democrat" label on cities is there for a reason under our current system. Even with more granulated representation cities as a whole would still lean to the left, and still be in a position to abuse other populations by virtue of their size.

Having politics that lean more to the left is not abuse, it's the system in action. You're saying that having national politics a bit to the left of where they are is somehow abuse. That's just winning elections. I would say artificially disadvantaging communities based on density is abuse.

People don't figure it out for themselves. If they did we wouldn't need any regulation in the first place. Hell if people could figure things out for themselves we could have functional anarchy. I think we've found our core disagreement. I'd argue some societal ideologies are certainly more optimal than others, and that what's optimal for one group of people may be sub-optimal for another.

Everyone thinks some ideology is best, and it's their own. I see no reason why anyone should be so sure as to rig the electoral system to ensure that result.

As I keep saying, people in PR systems work it out all the time. Why are we uniquely inept?

So a 2-representative per state Senate is insane? The Senate is there to give states equal representation as opposed to the House's proportional representation. It's a check on abuse of the majority that our Founding Fathers wisely and intentionally baked into the system. It was never supposed to be proportionally "fair" relative to the population. That's what the House is for.

As for the House, while there has been some bullshit gerrymandering on the part of the Republicans I wouldn't say that it indicates a problem with our core system of representation. That being the House and Senate with their respective Constitutionally prescribed allocations. I also wouldn't be pessimistic about the future for the Democrats.

The US has been moving steadily left for just about a century and millennials are massive social liberals by comparison to previous generations, in fact most (including myself) want Sanders at the moment. I hear conservatives whining about it all the time, how fewer young people are showing up at churches and conservative political rallies. We're going to the left for the moment, just a little slower than most liberal might like. I don't think it's worth risking abuse of the majority just so liberals can get their Christmas presents in July.

So you're perfectly comfortable with an electoral system where a 6 point win in the national vote means one party is in the minority while a 6 point win for the other party means one of the largest majorities in modern history. Can you explain how saying that's bad is 'Christmas in July' as opposed to 'what the fuck'?

 

[kage69]

LMAO

:biggrin:

Not far from the mark either IMO...

Way to go Bernie, Wall Street puppets are probably shitting themselves and rightly so!

I'm fine with Cruz or Trump being the GOP nom, different sides of the same retarded coin, which will amount to the same result in November.

 

[Jhhnn]

d say if tens of millions of people live a certain way they're entitled to a non-proportional say in how things are run, even if hundreds of millions next to them live differently and disagree with them.

What are the specific issues underlying that assertion? In the present tense, they should have more say about what, exactly?

What is that the majority wants that you object to?

 

[irishScott]

How is it disenfranchisement in any way? By that logic every party that loses an election is disenfranchised because they lost. If ideas are unpopular they deserve to lose in a representative democracy. That's the whole point.

There's a big difference between losing an election and being denied a place the table. If ideas reach a certain threshold of national popularity then they deserve attention wherever they're found. Your logic produces a system where if an idea isn't popular in the cities it doesn't deserve to be considered. That's a much larger geographical bias than our current protections in the other direction.

No, I'm saying that the 'protections' as they currently exist are far, far in excess of what they were when the constitution was written.

Can you explain to me why people are entitled to a non proportional say?

Because left on their own majorities inevitably abuse minorities, whether by intent or circumstance. And the majority of the population resides in cities, and we're only growing more urbanized as time goes on. Thus those outside cities need extra protection. Non-proportional representation is one way to do that.

Why should they be? Other places with parliamentary democracies don't see this happen so why would we be special?

Once again you decline to provide specific examples of these "other parliamentary democracies", so I have nothing to directly dispute. 2 posts ago I pointed out the various protective checks the UK has, and I could dispute your assertion that parliamentary democracies don't see this "see saw" effect. That would of course require a specific example to analyze.

As for why should we take a balanced approach to the various issues, that's simply because everyone has something to contribute. Liberals have some of the pieces of the puzzle and Conservatives have others, and we're at our best when we take what's good from both sides. Enabling ideological "true believers" is far more dangerous than keeping a few extra protections that slow things down.

Of course they wouldn't be, as I explained earlier cities are not monolithic entities, unlike corporations. Invalid comparison.

Perhaps not Monolithic, but Duolithic or Triolithic certainly. As I stated above, your logic creates a system where the cities are the sole gatekeepers of political discourse. Even if there's multiple perspectives within a city that doesn't account for perspectives outside the city.

I would also be saying this regardless of whether cities leaned left or right. We need a strong marketplace of ideas, and that's why we shouldn't allow people to have special extra representation based on how close their neighbor lives.

Well at least we agree on creating a strong marketplace of ideas.

Well if it works out okay then why do we need all these extra special voting bonuses for rural voters?

For one we don't have a parliamentary-style system or granular electoral allocation. If we did we'd need different protective mechanisms and the disproportionate representation for those outside the cities could be relaxed.

I would ask you the same question. You are not disenfranchised if you lose an election. There is a decent argument you are disenfranchised if your vote counts half as much as someone else's though. You are actually the one arguing for disenfranchisement.

Correct, losing an election is not disenfranchisement. Being denied the opportunity to effectively participate is. You talk about a city person's vote meaning less than a rural person's, but by your logic you'd let city populations walk all over rural populations, in any context, and call it fair. And I guess it is "fair" in the strictly Darwinian sense, but modern democracies are supposed to be above that to a degree. You seem to assume that the rural/non-urban areas will always have large numbers of people who agree with them living in cities. That's not always the case.

Having politics that lean more to the left is not abuse, it's the system in action. You're saying that having national politics a bit to the left of where they are is somehow abuse. That's just winning elections. I would say artificially disadvantaging communities based on density is abuse.

Urban politics being to the left has nothing to do with it. They could be left, right, center, anything. My point is left unchecked they'd have the power to enforce their will, whatever it is, on other populations to such a degree that those populations would have no reasonable chance of resistance. Such a system would be more unjust and a lost less sustainable.

Everyone thinks some ideology is best, and it's their own. I see no reason why anyone should be so sure as to rig the electoral system to ensure that result.

I agree the system shouldn't be rigged to benefit one side over the other. But I'd also argue that a system where left-leaning cities are guaranteed political dominance over other regions is a system rigged for left-leaning cities.

As I keep saying, people in PR systems work it out all the time. Why are we uniquely inept?

Because America was founded and populated by stubborn individualists and it permeates our culture to this day, on both sides. Back in the day if you had a problem with the establishment you just went west over the border, took land from native Americans and did things as you pleased. Now there are no such opportunities. So we butt heads instead, and in the true spirit of stubborn individualism both sides get a few things right and refuse to acknowledge where they're wrong.

So you're perfectly comfortable with an electoral system where a 6 point win in the national vote means one party is in the minority while a 6 point win for the other party means one of the largest majorities in modern history. Can you explain how saying that's bad is 'Christmas in July' as opposed to 'what the fuck'?

"Perfectly comfortable"? No. I attribute a lot of that to bullshit gerrymandering which should be stopped. But no system is perfect, and if the choice is between imperfectly protecting non-urban populations or not protecting them at all, I'll take the imperfect protections. In a perfect world we could design better ones, but even parliamentary systems (at least the ones I'm familiar with) require some countermeasures here and there that are "unfair" toward the popular vote.

In any case I'm spending WAY too much time on these posts, so I'm going to bow out now. I'll happily read any response you post though. Good talking to you!

 

[feralkid]

That is a fair point.

Then again if the election process is so ropey maybe the party should just decide who to put forward?

They do, more or less.

https://votesmart.org/education/presidential-primary#.VrKi8EAvv0s

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I'm sure you'd feel the same had Bernie won the coin flips.

No, I would still say it was a tie, and continue to criticize the ridiculous voting system in Iowa.

 

[theeedude]

Truly a historic Iowa caucus. First woman and first Canadian to win in same year. When it rains, it pours.

 

[werepossum]

The problem is that you appear to be equating representation with influence. It is possible to have greater representation but less actual power on a per capita level. This is the exact reason why we have the numbers of representatives we have in both the House and Senate, to try to strike a balance. Even if rural districts have greater per capita representation, they still can have very little per capita influence because their representation may not be enough to be significant when it comes to votes. You seem to be suggesting that legislation is divied out based on representation. 10% representation nets you essentially nothing if you are opposed by 90%, so it doesn't really make that much of a difference if that 10% is for 5% of the population. Now I'm not saying it should be 50/50, but there is definitely merit to what others are saying here.

For example with the small states vs big states going first in the primaries. Do you think the primaries would ever be decided by a small state going first in the primaries? I doubt it. The big states would still have the majority of the influence. On the other hand, if the big states go first, this can lead to the small states having no influence on the primaries. I don't think anyone is advocating that small states should have a greater proportion of influence than their population. We just recognize that representation and influence are not the same thing. In order to achieve equal relative influence, a minority population needs greater per capita representation. Definitely the challenge is figuring out where we strike that balance.

Good points, and well said.

I agree that different regions should be given substantial power to govern themselves. That being said, I see no reason why that means that people in suburban and rural areas should be given extra electoral influence based on population density. The reason why they have an 'edge' is that way more of the citizens that laws are intended to govern live in them. That's like saying the winner of an election has an edge because more people voted for them. Of course! That's the point!



So you're saying certain ideas cultures have disproportionate support because way way more people adhere to them. That sounds like basically the dictionary definition of proportionate support. Ideas and cultures do not have some natural level of support they are entitled to.

On top of that I think you're missing a vital point that's being obscured by lumping everyone into 'leftist ideas'. Cities are not monolithic. Sure they might vote democratic in elections, but many people in cities are far more liberal than the Democratic Party, but due to their unnaturally diluted political power our political spectrum is pulled to the right.

You're basically sacrificing diversity of more left leaning opinion for more right leaning opinion instead of letting the marketplace of ideas work that out for itself. Neither left leaning ideas or right leaning ideas are worthy of any special support. Let people decide for themselves.



Most developed nations use a proportional representation system or something close to it, which does not give special advantages to low density areas. It works out fine.



The funny thing is that what you're describing is actually an artifact of the system which encourages disproportionate rural influence. People have no right to have their political views catered to just because they decided to live somewhere where almost no one agrees with them.

By the way, getting rid of the district system which over represents rural areas would help correct this problem.



And there are huge differences in mentality between people who live where I do and people who live on the Upper West Side, those differences are just obscured under the 'democrat' label. This is my whole point. Our system sees fit to give extra representation to the person living in upstate New York's politics preferences over mine because of how dense his town is, but no preference to my politics over the UWS resident. Doesn't make sense.



Meh. A proportional representation system would be best. Let the marketplace of ideas decide. There is no optimal ideology from a societal perspective, so let people figure it out for themselves.



Take the senate for example. Republicans have about 10% more seats than the Democrats do despite representing 6% less of the population. That's a 16% difference total. In a country where elections are closely divided that's insane.

It's projected that in order to take back the House with a 1 seat majority, Democrats would need to have won the 2012 House elections by more than 7 points. In 2014 a 6 point win for Republicans gave them an advantage of 60 seats. The democrats won by almost twice that amount in 2008 and still had a smaller majority.

It doesn't mean that liberals can't win elections, but it does show how badly skewed our political system is. The kind of majorities the Democrats used to pass the ACA are unlikely to come for them again. The Republicans could easily achieve those in Congress, and with far fewer voters.

The Senate is so designed because it was designed to protect the states' interests. Without that mechanism, low population states would have every reason to not join into anything like our Union even as originally established. They would be completely at the whim of states with high populations. Without the compromise of the Senate, we would have no Union, only a loose Confederation where each state ceded much less power to a central authority. Same with the electoral college, although it's existence merely follows Congress. Perhaps we could have responded in World War I, as our part wasn't that large, but a coordinated, all-out effort such as in World War II would be out of the question.

It's also amusing that you assert Republicans could easily achieve a supermajority in Congress when only the Democrats have ever held such power. Democrat states tend to be more reliably Democrat, on average. And for my money, I hope no party ever again holds a supermajority.

Truly a historic Iowa caucus. First woman and first Canadian to win in same year. When it rains, it pours.

lol +1