General politics

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm in Amarillo, and listened to conservative talk radio this morning. They are pounding the mob rule scare tactic and praising the electoral college.

The message revolved around those elitist liberals from big cities don't know what is best for rural America. My issue with that is, currently we have a minority of Americans in rural areas, deciding what is best for the entire country, not just rural America. The Republican message works really well at the state and local level... Not so well when you expand it to an entire country.

 

The truth is that both rural America and urban America know nothing about what's best for the other.  The disconnect in lived experience is incredible.  (I've had first hand experience rectifying this in my own head)

 

But it's not impossible to keep both white rural folks and black urban folks in the same voting bloc.  You just have to be very crafty in what you talk about and how you talk about it.

[Badsmerf]

You're not quite getting it, and/or I'm not quite explaining it right.

 

Take Ballotpedia, for starters. It lists 79 House seats as "battleground races". Only 9 are held by Democrats. That gives them 70 battleground opportunities to gain the necessary 23 seats.

 

Even more dramatically, the "leans" incumbent seats are 52 Republican vs 10 Democrat according to the Cook Report, while the "toss-up" seats are a nearly unanimous 46-3 Republican headache.

 

The "map" component of the discussion is just the overall picture of House incumbents vs. the historic redness or blueness trend of their district. Maybe you were taking the map reference literally in terms of district boundaries, since you brought up gerrymandering, but that's not what I'm referring to.

I did take the map part literally. It isn't the map that is favoring democrats, it is an overwhelming opinion of Americans. I think they are different. The only reason so many of those seats are up for grabs is the enthusiasm by Democratic voters....

[Badsmerf]

I went and looked at vote totals for mid term elections vs presidential elections. Man, there is a huge difference. Typically, a party can expect astound 60m for presidential, and 40m for midterms. Democrats only turned out 35m in 2010 and got rocked. I have to wonder why people don't care enough about Congress to vote in midterms.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm in Amarillo, and listened to conservative talk radio this morning. They are pounding the mob rule scare tactic and praising the electoral college.

 

The message revolved around those elitist liberals from big cities don't know what is best for rural America. My issue with that is, currently we have a minority of Americans in rural areas, deciding what is best for the entire country, not just rural America. The Republican message works really well at the state and local level... Not so well when you expand it to an entire country.

And I'm an idiot for saying the Constitution should be looked at..... There is no way we would design this system today, even putting aside politics, no one designs it this way.

[TheLeviathan]

 

And I'm an idiot for saying the Constitution should be looked at..... There is no way we would design this system today, even putting aside politics, no one designs it this way.

 

I'm sorry...but the EC (and other elements of our republic) were designed specifically to stop strict majority rule.  So....I don't think this is true at all.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm sorry...but the EC (and other elements of our republic) were designed specifically to stop strict majority rule.  So....I don't think this is true at all.

 

If you were going to write the constitution right now, you'd make it so that 30% of the population will be electing 68% of the Senate in 20 years? That's a good idea for the nation? We will never agree on that.

 

And, there are still state governments.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

If you were going to write the constitution right now, you'd make it so that 30% of the population will be electing 68% of the Senate in 20 years? That's a good idea for the nation? We will never agree on that.

 

And, there are still state governments.....

 

Doom and gloom about 20 years from now doesn't do much for me as an argument.  It's far too much projecting.

 

The Constitution was always intended to mitigate the impact of any one faction/majority from overriding the interests of the entire population.  It's intended to push leaders to reach out to all walks of life in building their voting bloc.  I find that to be a wise and valuable part of our republic.  So it's just false to claim things would be much different today, the principles at root in these institutions were there by design.

 

So I again point you back to not complaining about the structure, the problem rests with other issues.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Doom and gloom about 20 years from now doesn't do much for me as an argument.  It's far too much projecting.

 

The Constitution was always intended to mitigate the impact of any one faction/majority from overriding the interests of the entire population.  It's intended to push leaders to reach out to all walks of life in building their voting bloc.  I find that to be a wise and valuable part of our republic.  So it's just false to claim things would be much different today, the principles at root in these institutions were there by design.

 

So I again point you back to not complaining about the structure, the problem rests with other issues.

 

I already said, we won't agree that 30% of the population should be allowed to elect 68% of the US Senate. We just won't. It isn't fair to the other 70% of the US at all. There isn't anything you can type that will make me feel otherwise. I'm happy to discuss other things, but we won't get anywhere on this topic.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I already said, we won't agree that 30% of the population should be allowed to elect 68% of the US Senate. We just won't. It isn't fair to the other 70% of the US at all. There isn't anything you can type that will make me feel otherwise. I'm happy to discuss other things, but we won't get anywhere on this topic.

 

We won't agree because what you're stating isn't a fact.  

[Mike Sixel]

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/By-2040-americans-senate-represented-pence-warren-12389306.php

 

Sure it is.

 

"David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states," Seib wrote. "They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them."

[TheLeviathan]

That is not a fact.  That is someone's projection.  It's a hypothetical.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Projecting that kind of thing is part of the problem. We've created such a rift between rural and urban that many rural Americans literally have no choice but to leave for the city.

 

I'm not going to lay blame because I think we all agree where the majority of blame goes for that problem... but urban areas will reach critical mass at some point. Housing will become a combination of too expensive or too remote from a city center to continue growing forever. That will make rural areas more appealing.

 

The sad thing is that this is SOOOOOOO fixable. Now, more than any point in history, it is possible to earn a good living in a rural area because you no longer need to live where you work.

 

What we need is a real bridge between these two groups of people. How do we get there? Dunno, but it's certainly not impossible. There's so much in common and so much that can be gained by everyone that it's pretty idiotic we haven't already created that bridge.

[Mike Sixel]

 

That is not a fact.  That is someone's projection.  It's a hypothetical.

 

Want to place a bet? I will. Any amount. For someone that seems to believe in analytics in baseball, this projection should be easy to support. The odds of this being off by more than a couple seats is pretty low.

 

Question.....if this is true....would you be in favor of changing the makeup of the Senate?

[Mike Sixel]

Interestingly, equal representation in the Senate was opposed by James Madison, and passed by a 5-4 vote at the constitutional convention, with one state divided in it's vote. Even then, the founders were not all that certain it was a good idea. 

[TheLeviathan]

Bets about 2040?  Yeesh Mike.

 

Studies about human behavior that far away are predicated on variables that are highly volatile.  We've heard this from rain forests to the extinction of white people.  It's silly to get too far into the weeds.

 

I like that our republic is setup to deny majority tyranny in all forms.  Even in a super urban America, I don't think 30% will ever decide anything.

[Badsmerf]

Levi, the failure of this reasoning, is to project the idea that it is ok letting the minority of Americans make decisions for the majority. If requiring leaders to reach out to people in all walks of life is the reasoning, why is it ok for the gop to rely on rural America to to dictate policy? I don't think our constitution was created with this in mind, or they electoral college. When the union was formed with a dozen states, is argue it was to prevent a few of the largest states from creating policy/leaders that only benefited them. Now, we have only a handful of states that matter in our election.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Bets about 2040?  Yeesh Mike.

 

Studies about human behavior that far away are predicated on variables that are highly volatile.  We've heard this from rain forests to the extinction of white people.  It's silly to get too far into the weeds.

 

I like that our republic is setup to deny majority tyranny in all forms.  Even in a super urban America, I don't think 30% will ever decide anything.

 

You are actually comparing this study to the "extinction of white people"? I was right the first time, we can't have this discussion.

 

Why is it ok for a very small percent of the population to have this much power? How is that better? I am genuinely curious to understand your position on that. Not in slogans, but, like, how is that good for the the nation and world?

[Brock Beauchamp]

The biggest flaw in this argument is that you're decrying 30% of the population ruling the rest of us while ignoring that if trends truly do continue to move in that direction, cities overwhelm virtually every state worth taking and turn them blue.

 

Under this model, how do Arizona, Texas, Ohio, Florida, et al stay red or even purple?

 

And then you get your way anyway. Sure, you don't get Montana or the Dakotas but you're so dominating the House and Presidency that I don't think it really matters.

[ashbury]

That is not a fact.  That is someone's projection.  It's a hypothetical.

It's a projection, but not that much different than today. Adding up some numbers at

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

I come up with the top 15 states at 66% of the total US population, meaning that 35 states (70 senators) are 34%. For the sake of this discussion, that seems strong enough, even if someday it drops even further to 30% or whatever.

 

On the other side of the coin, it's not the case that small states monolithically vote a certain way. Tiny little Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Delaware reliably vote for the Democratic ticket, and various other low-population states can be considered swing states, although not very important swing states in presidential elections since they don't control a lot of electoral college votes.

 

I don't like it, but it's not hopeless.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The biggest flaw in this argument is that you're decrying 30% of the population ruling the rest of us while ignoring that if trends truly do continue to move in that direction, cities overwhelm virtually every state worth taking and turn them blue.

 

Under this model, how do Arizona, Texas, Ohio, Florida, et al stay red or even purple?

 

And then you get your way anyway. Sure, you don't get Montana or the Dakotas but you're so dominating the House and Presidency that I don't think it really matters.

 

So the alternative is to give the power to less people? 

 

I don't care who the winners are, not in this argument. I'm interested in closing in on 1 vote being close to equal to another.....not exactly. Also, state lines are arbitrary, and really don't reflect much in some ways. Is it true that rural MN is more like the Dakotas, or like the metro? 

 

It's hard to understand how we would want 30% of the population deciding how healthcare, the judiciary, pollution laws, etc work for the other 70%. Can anyone explain how that is a good/fair idea? 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

So the alternative is to give the power to less people? 

 

I don't care who the winners are, not in this argument. I'm interested in closing in on 1 vote being close to equal to another.....not exactly. Also, state lines are arbitrary, and really don't reflect much in some ways. Is it true that rural MN is more like the Dakotas, or like the metro? 

 

It's hard to understand how we would want 30% of the population deciding how healthcare, the judiciary, pollution laws, etc work for the other 70%. Can anyone explain how that is a good/fair idea? 

I'm all for EC reform and have said it in the past. But I see no issues with how the Senate is constructed, as we *are* a republic.

 

I'd be happy if the EC became representative of the state vote. If a state has 10 votes and one candidate gets 60% of the popular vote, they get six EC votes. That in itself would go a loooong way to fixing the rural/urban divide. Republicans would have to go into places like CA and NY and fight for a handful of votes. Democrats would have to head to places like Alabama, Oklahoma, Montana, etc. and fight for a few votes. No candidate would be allowed to just write off 40%+ of the country and take a win, they'd have to listen to the rest of the country as well, at least to an extent.

[Badsmerf]

I did the math once, but I'll have to do it again for the past 5 presidential elections for what you're describing Brock.

 

We are a representative democracy, but I don't think it is fair the lowest population states have so much say over our politics. Republican or Democrat, that isn't how it should work. My only solution Mike, is to add more states.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I did the math once, but I'll have to do it again for the past 5 presidential elections for what you're describing Brock.

We are a representative democracy, but I don't think it is fair the lowest population states have so much day over our politics. Republican or Democrat, that isn't how it should work. My only solution Mike, is to add more states.

 

I have been noodling that......

[TheLeviathan]

 

You are actually comparing this study to the "extinction of white people"? I was right the first time, we can't have this discussion.

 

Why is it ok for a very small percent of the population to have this much power? How is that better? I am genuinely curious to understand your position on that. Not in slogans, but, like, how is that good for the the nation and world?

 

Mike - you declared a projection a fact.  Will you cut the melodramatics please?

 

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with that kind of framework.  My rainforest/white extinction remark was just exasperation with dealing with your repeated insistence on framing the conversation in absurdities and talking about it as fact.

 

So you're right, we can't hvae that discussion.  I prefer to stay further away from absurdity and closer to fact.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's a projection, but not that much different than today. Adding up some numbers at

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

I come up with the top 15 states at 66% of the total US population, meaning that 35 states (70 senators) are 34%. For the sake of this discussion, that seems strong enough, even if someday it drops even further to 30% or whatever.

 

On the other side of the coin, it's not the case that small states monolithically vote a certain way. Tiny little Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Delaware reliably vote for the Democratic ticket, and various other low-population states can be considered swing states, although not very important swing states in presidential elections since they don't control a lot of electoral college votes.

 

I don't like it, but it's not hopeless.

 

That's the issue here, the 30% argument is far too ham-handed to be taken as a plausible scenario.  It's neither true now, nor is it certain for the future.  The tiny states you listed are just as much an affront as Wyoming and Montana.  But that's the purpose of hte Senate - to represent states as a whole and not be population dictated.  That is their exact purpose in existence.

 

There is no doubt that there is slight power advantage given to rural over urban.  But there are valid reasons for that - if the large population centers are given full reign over everyone, it will create disparities so stark and unfair that it can jeopardize the health of the republic.  Right now, where there are major urban centers, this already happens.  In Illinois with Chicago and NY come quickly to mind.  Voters on that outside of those cities have very different needs, needs that are often utterly ignored in favor of the urban needs.

 

Now, do I want rural needs to trump them?  Of course not, but the risk is high that if they aren't at least given some extra weight....they may be ignored (or exploited) entirely.  And that's a not a healthy recipe.  

 

I can't envision a rational scenario in which large urban centers ever get ignored or exploited in the way that the reverse could happen.  There is simply too much inherent political power contained in those places that rural america cannot match.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm all for EC reform and have said it in the past. But I see no issues with how the Senate is constructed, as we *are* a republic.

 

I'd be happy if the EC became representative of the state vote. If a state has 10 votes and one candidate gets 60% of the popular vote, they get six EC votes. That in itself would go a loooong way to fixing the rural/urban divide. Republicans would have to go into places like CA and NY and fight for a handful of votes. Democrats would have to head to places like Alabama, Oklahoma, Montana, etc. and fight for a few votes. No candidate would be allowed to just write off 40%+ of the country and take a win, they'd have to listen to the rest of the country as well, at least to an extent.

 

I'm also in favor of this change.  It keeps the purpose of the EC intact (Read: not strictly population driven) but allows for better representation of certain state populations.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

Mike - you declared a projection a fact.  Will you cut the melodramatics please?

 

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with that kind of framework.  My rainforest/white extinction remark was just exasperation with dealing with your repeated insistence on framing the conversation in absurdities and talking about it as fact.

 

So you're right, we can't hvae that discussion.  I prefer to stay further away from absurdity and closer to fact.

 

Ok, it's a projection (very likely to come true) based on decades of trends in where people are moving.....

apologies for calling it a fact. 

 

 

I assume from your responses above that if the projection is true, you are ok with 30% or so of the people electing 70% or so of the Senate?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I assume from your responses above that if the projection is true, you are ok with 30% or so of the people electing 70% or so of the Senate?

Again, how is this even possible if people continue to move to the cities and cities gain even more in-state power over rural areas?

 

How does a place like Arizona stay red under that scenario? How do Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, etc. stay purple and not turn blue?

 

If your nightmare scenario actually plays out, entire states begin to drift to the left, negating (if not eliminating) the problem in the first place.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ok, it's a projection (very likely to come true) based on decades of trends in where people are moving.....

apologies for calling it a fact. 

 

 

I assume from your responses above that if the projection is true, you are ok with 30% or so of the people electing 70% or so of the Senate?

 

I don't want to get into how likely it is, but just consider all of hte other factors that can also change by 2040.  Will today's 50 year old be the same 70 year old voter we see right now?  How would the states breakdown in such a super-urban environment?  There is simply too much variability to put the kind of stock into that projection that you are.

 

And frankly - I don't think 30% would ever have that power.  Ever.  I don't think there is a reasonable scenario where that happens.  If it did....we probably aren't even America any more and the point is rendered moot.  So...I guess...no?  In general I don't feel particularly tied to answers I have to give to questions I find really implausible.

[LaBombo]

 

 

I assume from your responses above that if the projection is true, you are ok with 30% or so of the people electing 70% or so of the Senate?

 

If you're advocating for something other than the abolition of the Senate, and with it states' rights, then I apologize for missing it.

 

But if you are, then several follow-up questions spring to mind. But maybe your answer to the first one will clear up some of the other ones, and that first question is: what's your model for succeeding as a capitalist democracy with no meaningful governing structure other than an omnipotent federal government?