AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by butterfly
That's not how it turned out in the 2019 or 2021 Canadian elections.
The suggestions of how to change the electoral process seem designed to answer the question of "How can my preferred candidate win?"
Sort of a different ballgame in Canada with the PM holding a seat in the lower house. Not sure why you're conflating the two situations. Rhetoric advantage at the horror induced by the thought of Erin O'Toole being PM?
Sort of a different ballgame in Canada with the PM holding a seat in the lower house. Not sure why you're conflating the two situations. Rhetoric advantage at the horror induced by the thought of Erin O'Toole being PM?
Maybe; did it work? It would have been the two opposite parties in power with Trump and Trudeau both losing. In Trudeau's case, twice and running. There's a reason that some countries do not directly elect their head of government.
An "obvious first step" on the path to where? Erin O'Toole and Hillary Clinton winning, I guess.
The point of not having that is to prevent strongly concentrated regional interests from winning elections.
except the electoral college does precisely the opposite of that, it gives enormous power to regional interests, Presidents spend their time pandering to Southern or North Eastern voting blocks, if a President doesn't have to worry about any state or region at all, just has to worry about appealing to the most voters in the whole country that would firstly be the only actual act of democracy in the US, secondly encourage a moderate President of either party, and thirdly would actually allow the occasional independent if not to win then at least to scare the bejuses out of the establishment.
The ability to become President without a plurality encourages extreme positions
Each one of these varying systems and terms were designed to protect the rights of the states and the people. It's imperfect, sure, but I can't imagine anything better. It's intended to make things difficult for the federal government to do anything to us.
True, but it also means they can't do anything FOR us, which is the purpose of government in the end.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
Nothing down there will change but the obvious first step would be to make the Presidential election a straight nation wide first past the post, reducing the term limits on the senate down to 4 years would also probably help
but again, never ever going to happen
I actually would prefer ranked choice voting for President. That way you would possibly have real third party candidates who could garner support because people wouldn't be worried about "wasting their vote" voting for a 3rd party. It would help to get away from the strict bipartisan divide.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Why did it make sense at the founding and it's nonsense now?
Because the world has changed. We live in a world and a country that would make the founding fathers shat their proverbial britches. The idea of a truly global economy was beyond them. The geopolitical and economic ramifications were well beyond their context or understanding. Just the sheer size and complexity of the United States itself is something that they didn't have answers for. They never would have thought of the great population disparities that exist today in the republic they would found.
The founding fathers established a system to pull 13 geographically limited colonies together into a loose federation of states under the same banner. They were working under their context and addressing their needs as the elites of the time. They never would have envisioned a world where cities with tens of millions of people peacefully co-exist but can then be wiped off the face of the map in minutes because of the weapons available to nations. The context of their world was monarchies and fiefdoms, not the many various forms of democracy we see today. The United States was a great experiment and at the time that experiment was just in its first generation of growth in a small Petrie dish. The founders had no idea what the country would ultimately become and did not design a system of government to address those concerns, especially the one of population and economic inequality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by butterfly
Actually, the Southern states were growing at a faster rate than the Northern states at the time of the Great Compromise. The Southern states advocated for proportional representation, as they anticipated the faster growth rate to continue. They accepted the "three-fifths" calculation of the slave population as part of the Great Compromise.
It was the smaller states like Delaware that were protective of their own interests and insisted on equal representation in order to join the union.
This is a gross simplification of the great compromise and a conflation with the 3/5ths compromise as the same thig, which they were not. The great compromise was a means to establish fair representation and a contrast between the Virginia and New Jersey plans for establishment of governance.
This was an answer to the concerns of the various colonies and their ability to maintain their independence in governance. These were not states, these were individual colonies with individual governments who each had claims of sovereignty. There were some that were still pro-British because they did not trust their fellow colonists and their representatives to not turn into despots themselves. The smaller states wanted guarantees of fair and equal representation or they would be forced to establish foreign alliances to protect their own well being. This is where the great compromise came into being and the bicameral form of governance being adopted.
The 3/5th compromise was a means to establish what was fair representation and how taxation would be applied to each state. The southern states wanted to have their cake and eat it in this regard. They wanted their slaves to count when it came to representation but not have them count when it came to taxation. The northern states wanted it the other way around. The southern states wanted their slaves to count for representation, even though the slaves would be unable to vote or own property. The compromise ultimately gave both parties a fair and equitable means to enter into the fold and birth the nation, even if it game more electoral power to the southern states. The terms really are reprehensible in our modern context, which is why an amendment would later be needed to the constitution. This is the language of the 3/5ths compromise that made it into Article 1 of the constitution.
“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by butterfly
In 1780, the population of Delaware was 8% of the population of Virginia. They were not similarly sized.
Why would the economy of California matter at all in this debate? If our economy was smaller than Wyoming, North Dakota, or Vermont, and the populations remained the same, should we have less representation?
For the very same reason that you bring up Delaware's population in relation to Virginia. The system was not fair then and remains inequitable now, just for slightly different reasons. Also, your comment on scales of economies doesn't make sense. The populations would not remain the same if the scales of economies shifted. The reason their is a population advantage is because there is an economic advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by butterfly
I happen to enjoy divided government, and I'm happy when there's a major bottleneck for legislation. I don't think we need more of it.
That's your view on government, which is kind of messed up. Government should be effective and willing to find compromise, not deadlocked because ideological differences. Legislation is the means by which we reach compromise and put into play systems that work for everyone, and not just the select few. Laws and regulation level the playing field, provide protections to the have-nots, and make our country stronger.
Quote:
When the Senate and the presidency are divided, we typically get more mainstream SCOTUS appointments, although there hasn't been one of these in over 30 years. Rehnquist and Kennedy were both cut from this particular cloth.
Don't agree with this. The history of the court is filled with nominations that sailed through regardless of the alignment of the Senate to that of the nominating President. The problem is the court has been very much become a politicized body because of the coordinated power grab by Republicans. This is not about governance, this is about enforcing the will of the minority on the majority and usurping the long held neutrality of the judiciary. There have been controversial appointments throughout history, like Rehnquist, but the court managed to maintain its separation as a political body. The stacking of the courts has punched a hole in the firewall between the branches and function of government.
Quote:
California's economy shouldn't matter a hill of beans when it comes to apportionment, in my opinion. I believe more strongly in an egalitarian system of apportionment based on population. Although, I'm sure there's a reasonable argument you can make in favor of apportionment weighted by per capita GDP. People who pay more in taxes ought to matter more at the ballot box? I hadn't considered it, but my initial reaction is to oppose it.
I agree with you here. Economics shouldn't be a big driver in fair and equal representation, but it must be considered in some mechanism, like the Senate. It is why the House of Representatives is the body that creates laws and budgets and the Senate is responsible for oversight and approval. But there needs to be a change in the system to be more representative of the make up of the country today. California generates a disproportionately larger economic benefit to the whole of the country than 20 of the red states together. Those red states are an economic vacuum and suck off the teet of the blue states like California, yet those same lower populated and less economically viable red states have a disproportionately larger say in governance that impacts those economic engines. The states that generate the revenue should have a greater say in how the taxes are spent. That should come through an oversight chamber which is the Senate. A fair and equitable Senate is open to debate, but I would argue the current institution is not set up to be fairly representative of the people nor the common good of the nation. The system needs amending to be more reflective of the 21st century context and not that of an 18th century context.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
This is the most encouraging tone in a talk I've heard from Biden recently. The tone here seems a sharp contrast to the actual policy decisions made recently, but hopefully the relationship between the US and China really can interact more through a mix of competition and cooperation without elevating conflict.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
This is the most encouraging tone in a talk I've heard from Biden recently. The tone here seems a sharp contrast to the actual policy decisions made recently, but hopefully the relationship between the US and China really can interact more through a mix of competition and cooperation without elevating conflict.
Seems clear the talks went well so hopefully the lines of communication can stay open.
Appears very likely that the Republicans will take the house after yesterday's vote. Likely somewhere around 220-222 seats for Republicans vs 213-215 for Democrats.
So very tiny majority and potentially room for some bipartisan action as you don't need to convince many people in either the Senate or the House to agree to get something through.
Honestly if you could just warp back in time in terms of the ability of the parties to work across the aisle (not in terms of actual ideology or policy positions obviously) about 30-40 years, you'd have a pretty functional democracy with that makeup of the three levels... but probably not now. Thanks, Newt!
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The vote for speaker should be pretty interesting, not sure how McCarthy gets the votes from the "McCarthy is a RINO" Trump reps if the margin is that thin. I guess he gives them some more power in the House rules?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
This is the most encouraging tone in a talk I've heard from Biden recently. The tone here seems a sharp contrast to the actual policy decisions made recently, but hopefully the relationship between the US and China really can interact more through a mix of competition and cooperation without elevating conflict.
Agree with you completely. Was encouraged to hear Biden say that he's "not looking for conflict" with China, but "looking to manage this competition responsibly" (though I question if cutting off supplies to a competitor is responsible in what's supposed to be a fair world economy, but I digress) and also that "our One China policy has not changed" and "we oppose unilateral changes to the status quo" since it means a lot to China and is a key thing they needed to hear from the US after Pelosi's friendship tour. Biden later said he believes "there need not be a new cold war between the two countries".
The world will be immensely safer and more prosperous if the two top dogs can stamp out conflicts between each other when they come up and be able to work together in business. Some very good news for the world on a Monday.
