Calolfornia

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 hours ago, floplag said:

This isnt partisan, i said nothing about one party or the other im neither pro rep or dem, i think both are asinine trainwrecks right now and would prefer to vote for deex nutz.   Both parties have failed us in recent years to staggering levels and are less intellectual than your average kindergarten class at this point. 

Your entire post reaks of petty bullshit assumptions that are not accurate.  I am not pro red or blue. 

My point is very simple, im fine with the EC, im fine with districts, im fine with the entire process save for the fact that I simply think its one failure is in how most states cast as blocks.   To me this overrides the minority votes regardless of color that should be considered.   CAs red voters should have counted just as Tex blue.  It goes both ways.   

I will say that your assertion that rural conservatives are just fine or over represented is absurd though, not when CA alone can virtually override the entire SW or MW per EC votes.    That is not "over-represented" by any logical means, quite the contrary all butthurt aside. 

I don't think the issue is with states voting as blocks so much as it is the size of states like California and Texas. The constitution and the rules regarding elections were written with the 13 'colonies' in mind in a much more confederated political climate than today.

States can choose to distribute their votes however they like, which is what allows smaller states to be over represented and in turn prevent their issues from being drowned out. 

California has decided that it can use the same strategy to overrepresent itself, but the effect is the opposite, in that minority opinions and issues are disregarded and ultimately used to bolster the political power of the majority.

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 hours ago, Adam said:

The bigger problem I have is that governmental power is inverted. The Feds wield too much power over the States, States over counties, counties over cities, etc. I think morally, it would be better if that power flowchart went the other way. 

It amazes me how much this goes over people's heads, and it is the result of hundreds of years eroding the principles of the constitution. For whatever reason people get super psyched about pushing their beliefs onto other people to the point that we freely give away power to those who can make that happen when its 'our guy' in charge. When the tables turn everyone suddenly wants to move to Canada.

[red321]

Here's what I don't get...this idea that people in cities shouldn't have the same vote as the people who live in rural areas, that somehow they should have an outsized say in what happens.

But take it a step further...what we've basically done is ceded our national elections to about 100,000 people who live in the a handful of swing states. As if the lower white middle class folks in appalachia and can't figure out how to use a ballot Florida should really be the ones dictating where the country goes.

[mtangelsfan]

11 minutes ago, red321 said:

Here's what I don't get...this idea that people in cities shouldn't have the same vote as the people who live in rural areas, that somehow they should have an outsized say in what happens.

But take it a step further...what we've basically done is ceded our national elections to about 100,000 people who live in the a handful of swing states. As if the lower white middle class folks in appalachia and can't figure out how to use a ballot Florida should really be the ones dictating where the country goes.

The opposite would be true if you did away with the EC.  The national election would always be determined by 4 states and smaller states would be completely screwed.  Talk about never having a vote that mattered.

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, red321 said:

But take it a step further...what we've basically done is ceded our national elections to about 100,000 people who live in the a handful of swing states. As if the lower white middle class folks in appalachia and can't figure out how to use a ballot Florida should really be the ones dictating where the country goes.

Interestingly, I think Flop's suggestion would counter this.

I struggle with this side effect of the EC as well. At the same time I think in some ways this is a figment of our imagination. Kind of like how a walk off two run homer in the 9th isn't actually more valuable than a 2 run homer in the second inning. The other states do get votes as well, and if the people are not suitably happy with their party of majority things could shift the other way. 

1 hour ago, red321 said:

Here's what I don't get...this idea that people in cities shouldn't have the same vote as the people who live in rural areas, that somehow they should have an outsized say in what happens.

Back in the day this was known as 'the great compromise' which was instrumental in getting all of the small states on board with signing the constitution and throwing out the articles of confederation. Without it the nation that we have today may never have come together. The founding fathers did not see this as a flaw but as a feature and I doubt they ever thought the electoral college would see so much scrutiny when it serves the exact same function as the senate. That we argue about the merits of the electoral college without ever batting an eye towards the senate is testament to just how much authority has been ceded to the executive branch since it was originally formed. 

[floplag]

18 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

He answered this.  Because it would be “mob rule”

To clarify, it would give all power to one group, whatever that group might be.  We've seen this abused time and time again when either party has control in government, why would this suddenly not be if it was national?  Why would it be ok to let a half dozen cities rule this country?
Clearly you are OK with this as part of the larger group in CA, i am not regardless of who that group is. 
A simple majority in this state made gay marriage illegal, by your logic this should be law.   If the liberal extremists in CA made being conservative illegal, you'd be ok with this i assume? 
Yes im exaggerating, but considering our past is it that far fetched?
Simple majority is the mob, and the mob  is fickle. 

[floplag]

17 hours ago, red321 said:

Here's what I don't get...this idea that people in cities shouldn't have the same vote as the people who live in rural areas, that somehow they should have an outsized say in what happens.

But take it a step further...what we've basically done is ceded our national elections to about 100,000 people who live in the a handful of swing states. As if the lower white middle class folks in appalachia and can't figure out how to use a ballot Florida should really be the ones dictating where the country goes.

It isnt a question of equal power, its a question of protecting the minority view from being overrun by the majority.   You cant have both, choose. 
Put it in perspective outside of politics and it makes much more sense.  

[red321]

So it’s more appropriate to have the minority view overpower the majority?

[Adam]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

It isnt a question of equal power, its a question of protecting the minority view from being overrun by the majority.   You cant have both, choose. 
Put it in perspective outside of politics and it makes much more sense.  

We can appreciate what the early Statesman did to try and prevent complete majority rule but over time democracy allows the majority to overwhelm the minority by making safeguards less impactful. 

[Blarg]

When I think of minority segments of society it seems like the Democratic process capitulates to them more now than ever in American history. They are the new majority rule.

[floplag]

24 minutes ago, Adam said:

We can appreciate what the early Statesman did to try and prevent complete majority rule but over time democracy allows the majority to overwhelm the minority by making safeguards less impactful. 

I dont believe that is necessarily inevitable.  Safeguards can be amended to prevent it as much as possible.  They must be or the entire system fails.  The entire point of democracy is to prevent exactly that in my view. 
Prop 8 was a legally binding simple majority issue, one of many such examples in history.  
I understand the frustrations over recent elections but you cant do knee jerk reactions over a single issue, it has to be a bigger picture thing . 

[Adam]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

I dont believe that is necessarily inevitable.  Safeguards can be amended to prevent it as much as possible.  They must be or the entire system fails.  The entire point of democracy is to prevent exactly that in my view. 
Prop 8 was a legally binding simple majority issue, one of many such examples in history.  
I understand the frustrations over recent elections but you cant do knee jerk reactions over a single issue, it has to be a bigger picture thing . 

Why would the majority want to enforce or amend safeguards that might prevent them from executing their agenda? It's 2017. Respect for people who view things differently is out the window. Everyone has an opinion on everything. 

Here's an excerpt from an email newsletter I get. Seems pretty on point. 

Ideological and cultural differences have reached a point at which huge pluralities simply loathe each other. What one group considers holy and praiseworthy the other considers abominable and deplorable.

When people of a particular political persuasion are the victims of violent assault, the media downplays it and half of social media suggests they had it coming. Meanwhile, when someone slightly right-of-center wonders if six-year-olds should really be encouraged to transition to another gender, the knives come out.

This was not always the case. Check out an episode of the old show What's My Line? on YouTube. Panelist Bennett Cerf was one of the founders of Random House publishing. He was a left-liberal by the standards of his day. But he was gentlemanly, well dressed, charming, affable, courteous, well mannered -- the very opposite of his counterparts today.

And he still believed in that now discarded idea: the honorable disagreement. He could call Ayn Rand a "brilliant woman" while still disagreeing with her "cockamamie philosophy."

Whatever political disagreements there were, Americans shared quite a bit in common culturally, morally, and in the most basic standards of civilized behavior.

That's all gone now.

[Tank]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

When I think of minority segments of society it seems like the Democratic process capitulates to them more now than ever in American history. They are the new majority rule.

i hope you typed this while you were sitting on the can in a non-gender specific bathroom.

[Blarg]

I'm so liberal my dogs drink out of the same toilet. 

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

Why would the majority want to enforce or amend safeguards that might prevent them from executing their agenda? It's 2017. Respect for people who view things differently is out the window. Everyone has an opinion on everything. 

Here's an excerpt from an email newsletter I get. Seems pretty on point. 

Ideological and cultural differences have reached a point at which huge pluralities simply loathe each other. What one group considers holy and praiseworthy the other considers abominable and deplorable.

When people of a particular political persuasion are the victims of violent assault, the media downplays it and half of social media suggests they had it coming. Meanwhile, when someone slightly right-of-center wonders if six-year-olds should really be encouraged to transition to another gender, the knives come out.

This was not always the case. Check out an episode of the old show What's My Line? on YouTube. Panelist Bennett Cerf was one of the founders of Random House publishing. He was a left-liberal by the standards of his day. But he was gentlemanly, well dressed, charming, affable, courteous, well mannered -- the very opposite of his counterparts today.

And he still believed in that now discarded idea: the honorable disagreement. He could call Ayn Rand a "brilliant woman" while still disagreeing with her "cockamamie philosophy."

Whatever political disagreements there were, Americans shared quite a bit in common culturally, morally, and in the most basic standards of civilized behavior.

That's all gone now.

I dont disagree with this point, but its also one of the reasons dont support either major political ideology right now.  But its also why those safeguards are more critical than ever.  Its cant be up to the mob/majority to make those choices.  I think we all know consideration of the other guy isnt any part of their concerns.
The basics in the constitution keep getting "fine tuned" out of existence by modern judges with agendas.  
We need to look at ways to ensure more voices are heard, not stone them out of existence.  
I realize my view isnt practical in todays reality, but im too damned old to let it change me now i guess. 

[well_red]

11 minutes ago, floplag said:

I dont disagree with this point, but its also one of the reasons dont support either major political ideology right now.  But its also why those safeguards are more critical than ever.  Its cant be up to the mob/majority to make those choices.  I think we all know consideration of the other guy isnt any part of their concerns.
The basics in the constitution keep getting "fine tuned" out of existence by modern judges with agendas.  
We need to look at ways to ensure more voices are heard, not stone them out of existence.  
I realize my view isnt practical in todays reality, but im too damned old to let it change me now i guess. 

you sound like you are in favor of proportional representation, as opposed to our uber-american winner take all.  that exists in a lot of democracies around the world.  can't imagine we'd ever get there but it would put an end to our existing two-party stalemate joke of a government.  though such systems also have big problems with factions and stoppages etc.   plus the us is probably too big for people to accept not directly voting for their representatives.  

[UndertheHalo]

I will agree that the 2 party system isn’t great.  That said, the founders had a purpose.  They specifically pursued a 2 party system because it guarantees that there will always be a powerful opposition.  The idea being forced compromise.  Unfortunately, that isn’t happening these days. 

[floplag]

34 minutes ago, well_red said:

you sound like you are in favor of proportional representation, as opposed to our uber-american winner take all.  that exists in a lot of democracies around the world.  can't imagine we'd ever get there but it would put an end to our existing two-party stalemate joke of a government.  though such systems also have big problems with factions and stoppages etc.   plus the us is probably too big for people to accept not directly voting for their representatives.  

I don't know that i would go that far, anything that based on pure math tends to become majority based in the end.  I guess i would say that all voices need to be heard and counted regardless of representation. 
The 2 party system today is becoming an utter failure, it isn't even a stalemate is parts of it literally refusing to take part at various times, that cant be allowed. Especially when you consider that they have been allowed to exclude all other parties even when they are possibly viable for reasons i cant understand.  87 Dems/Reps in primary debates they couldn't fit 3 or a few more in the most important one of all?  When the other 2 were trainwreck extremist polarizing candidates?  I've yet to hear an acceptable answer for that one and doubt i ever will.   Its probably the one thing that Reps and Dems actually worked together one in the last decade. 

[floplag]

42 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I will agree that the 2 party system isn’t great.  That said, the founders had a purpose.  They specifically pursued a 2 party system because it guarantees that there will always be a powerful opposition.  The idea being forced compromise.  Unfortunately, that isn’t happening these days. 

Agreed, but you cant compromise when you dont even take part, and both parties in the last decade have literally refused to even make an effort or take part.  That to me is the most egregious of failures. 

[gotbeer]

 

It's a tightening race for governor and Sen. Dianne Feinstein holds strong lead for reelection

Proof that Calolfornians are the retards of the US. 

Quote

Voters are more divided in the governor’s race, creating a closer contest between Democrats Gavin Newsomand Antonio Villaraigosa.

Newsom leads Villaraigosa by more than 10 percentage points in an election that is shaping up to be competitive, the USC/Times poll found. 

 

[Lou]

anyone else think some guy named Julio banged cals' high school gf ? 

 

[Lou]

Villaraigosa is a POS 

[Lou]

Newsome is a POS

[Lou]

Feinstein is a POS 

[Lou]

thanks, libs