JJ @ 28/11/2018 18:45

Primate @ 28/11/2018 18:46 JJ @ 28/11/2018 11:18 Primate @ 28/11/2018 12:13 The reason it is set up that way is so that the less populous states have a say in a government that effects them. It is set up to give them a voice on things that uniquely impact them. Even in today's climate it's necessary that these regions have an actual voice. I mean 81% of the population lives in urban areas. Should their vote carry 4 times the weight on issues that they know nothing about. 81% of the population should be able to decide what happens in the country. It should be by popular vote. Luckily our founding fathers disagreed, or the United States wouldn't exist. Please don't be one of those - our founding fathers also had slaves.

You going to tell me why you disagree, or just keep building strawfolk?

JJ @ 28/11/2018 19:41

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 12:44 JJ is clearly pro-city, and fuck everyone else. I'm clearly for the majority of the country making the decisions, electing their representatives. It has nothing to do with "pro-city and fuck everyone else." That's just such an illogical conclusion to draw from what I've said.

In my opinion a pure democracy is not feasible here. If nothing else. The country is too big and this approach would alienate the majority of the country land-mass wise.

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 18:49

JJ @ 28/11/2018 19:41 Timmah @ 28/11/2018 12:44 JJ is clearly pro-city, and fuck everyone else. I'm clearly for the majority of the country making the decisions, electing their representatives. It has nothing to do with "pro-city and fuck everyone else." That's just such an illogical conclusion to draw from what I've said. In my opinion a pure democracy is not feasible here. If nothing else. The country is too big and this approach would alienate the majority of the country land-mass wise.

97 percent of the land mass.

Maybe a true democracy could work here? Idk? I think you would run the risk of actual revolt if the owners of such huge chunks of the land mass had no representation. That would be my fear, at least.

I'm not against the idea outright. I just don't think it would work.

Primate @ 28/11/2018 19:58

Maybe a true democracy could work here? Idk? I think you would run the risk of actual revolt if the owners of such huge chunks of the land mass had no representation. That would be my fear, at least.

It may work for a period, but eventually human nature will take over. People will inherently do what is best for them and those around them. I don’t mean this in an evil or bad sort of way. What I mean is that if the people making all of the decisions are in New York or California, those people don’t likely have much perspective on what people in Nebraska are going through or need. Those in charge may even try to do what they think is right for the people of Nebraska, but they don’t have any connection or ultimately, any accountability, to Nebraskans thousands of miles away.

Living in a small state that would not have any representation that matters, civil war wouldn’t be too far down the road. It wouldn’t be north versus south, though, it would probably ultimately be all of middle America versus the coasts. Well, and Texas would just declare itself it’s own country again and tell us all to piss off.

There’s no way to know what would happen, but in my opinion this is pretty likely.

JJ @ 28/11/2018 19:44

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 12:44 JJ is clearly pro-city, and fuck everyone else. Timmah @ 28/11/2018 12:42 JJ @ 28/11/2018 12:00 Timmah @ 28/11/2018 11:26 JJ @ 22/11/2018 13:47 Timmah @ 14/11/2018 10:54 JJ @ 13/11/2018 22:21 Timmah @ 13/11/2018 16:40 Because it is the United States of America, not the United States of California and New York. I'm referring to population but, thanks. :) I know. My response was sarcastic, but each State has 2 Senators because the system is designed for each State to be represented equally, at least on some level. Otherwise, the large States would have full control of everything all of the time. That's not the way our system was designed. It may have been a good idea at one time but I just don't think it is, anymore. The system needs to change. So in other words, you believe that much of America should not have any say in how things are run? In other words, I think it should be based on population. If one state has 39 million people and one state has 800K people, they should not each have two senators. It's very lopsided. What you are describing is the House of Representatives. If the Senate also worked that way, what would be the point in having the Senate? What you are saying is that smaller states with lower population should have no say in how things work. You may not understand that this is what you are saying, but it is what you are saying. I know what the House of Representatives is, thank you. There is a definite reason and need for the people to be represented equally and just because the Senate was created that way doesn't mean it needs to stay that way. Congress could use an overhaul, just like the stupid and outdated electoral college system we have.

I didn’t say you don’t know what the house is. Maybe I am confused by what you are saying then. You say the senate should be determined based on population. Which I assume means you think small states should have less senators than more populated states? My question, if that is what you think is, why would we need a senate in that case? That is already how the house is comprised, more or less. If the senate is decided that way, then we have 2 branches of the legislature that are basically the same. What is the point of that redundancy? Where exactly are the checks and balances? Or do you not care to have any checks and balances? If that is what you are saying, what is the point of having it that way? There is a definite point to the way it is set up, whether you agree or disagree with the point.

You say that there is a reason and need for people to have equal representation. How do you propose the people of small states get that equal voice in your system? Or do you not believe that their voice should matter simply because there is a larger population in New York or Los Angeles? Do you not believe that there are any differences between what people living in NYC need versus what people living in Monroe, Louisiana need?

Do you believe that in the absence of a standard distribution of the population throughout the country, that a simple majority rules system actually provides for the representation of all? In other words, let’s say we’re all in a room. In the top left, 10 people make food. In the top right, 10 people make clothes. I’m the bottom left, 10 people purify drinking water. In the bottom right, 10 people make the power for the lights. In the center of the room are 200 people. They have 1 person each that does those 4 tasks. A government is created and each corner gets 1 representative and the center gets 20. In a system with a simple majority rules, the center of the room makes every decision. Are the people from the corners actually represented? Do they have a voice?

I gather that you think majority should rule, but I’m not sure if your point is that simple so I am asking questions to try and understand your viewpoint.

Both sides of this argument have valid points. I tend to side with the one which is the most pro-democracy, but I don't think it's so obvious which side that is in this instance. On the surface it would be the popular vote argument; every vote counts, and the majority of the country as a whole decides. As far as numbers are concerned, it's definitely more democratic.

But what happens when you have people in less populous areas constantly getting outvoted by those in more populous ones? You've effectively disenfranchised them. The whole point of your current system is to maximise the amount of say everyone has across the entire country.

I'm not saying that proportional representation couldn't work, or that it wouldn't be desirable. I think people on either side of the argument in this thread would agree that your two party system is stifling and makes it effectively impossible for new parties to come to the fore and challenge the status quo. If you want to loosen their stranglehold abolishing the electoral college and implementing proportional representation would be a good place to start I suppose.

And PR obviously works in some countries, such as Sweden or the Netherlands. That said, I suspect those countries still have some means of accounting for voters who tend to find themselves in the minority, but I wouldn't know what those means are. Maybe Herm can chime in on that. But it should also be noted that these countries are much smaller than the US.

We have a first past the post system in the UK. Many over here argue for PR instead. I myself lean more towards keeping first past the post, but I do see the appeal of PR. UKIP got 4 million votes in the 2015 general election, which under PR would have granted them a large amount of seats in Parliament. But under our current system, they didn't gain even one. Which doesn't seem fair. Despite that, their influence was still felt, as it was those 4 million votes that pressured Cameron into granting us a chance to make a huge decision by popular vote in 2016 (:

And this is where I run the risk of sounding like a massive hypocrite. The Brexit referendum was decided by popular vote, and I don't think it could have been decided any other way, as it was such a big decision for the country and it's effects so widespread. To have decided it any other way would have been ridiculous.

And I think there is a parallel between that and your Presidential election. That election could be described as a country wide referendum that you hold every four years. It is a huge decision which has implications for the country as a whole. And put in that context, it does seem kind of ridiculous that it isn't decided by popular vote. I can see why you use first past the post to elect Congress/Senate, but the Presidency is a very different matter in my opinion.

I just wanted to point out one thing that irked me too reading this thread; citing the founding fathers shouldn't be frowned upon because they were slave owners. The ideas are bigger than the people who came up with them, and they aren't invalidated simply because said people also did something that we disapprove of. Judging people from the past from the standards of today has never made sense to me. And you know, we're not so perfect. In a few hundred years, don't you think many of the beliefs we hold today will be considered ridiculous too?

Also, you should all count your blessings...we don't even get to elect our second house over here. Westminster doesn't believe in granting that much power to the peasantry.

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 19:12

Primate @ 28/11/2018 19:58 Maybe a true democracy could work here? Idk? I think you would run the risk of actual revolt if the owners of such huge chunks of the land mass had no representation. That would be my fear, at least. It may work for a period, but eventually human nature will take over. People will inherently do what is best for them and those around them. I don’t mean this in an evil or bad sort of way. What I mean is that if the people making all of the decisions are in New York or California, those people don’t likely have much perspective on what people in Nebraska are going through or need. Those in charge may even try to do what they think is right for the people of Nebraska, but they don’t have any connection or ultimately, any accountability, to Nebraskans thousands of miles away. Living in a small state that would not have any representation that matters, civil war wouldn’t be too far down the road. It wouldn’t be north versus south, though, it would probably ultimately be all of middle America versus the coasts. Well, and Texas would just declare itself it’s own country again and tell us all to piss off. There’s no way to know what would happen, but in my opinion this is pretty likely.

Thinking about it some more. It may be just as likely that the politicians from the GOP would still find some lies to make their followers believe they were being served. It may not change anything as deep in the shit as we are right now.

Wikey

And PR obviously works in some countries, such as Sweden or the Netherlands. That said, I suspect those countries still have some means of accounting for voters who tend to find themselves in the minority, but I wouldn't know what those means are. Maybe Herm can chime in on that. But it should also be noted that these countries are much smaller than the US.

I had to look up PR and I concluded it means Proportional Representation.

I think our population is somewhere around 10 million.

Majority rules here, screw the minority lol. JK.

We currently have 8 political parties elected in Congress, some of them get like 5% of the vote, which is just a percentage point above the 4% barrier. The three big parties here only get 18-28% of the vote here, not even close to create a 50% majority, so they have to include the smaller parties into the mix to create a 50% majority. That way, the minority parties with just 4% of the vote can still get into a government, they're not just calling the shots, but they have a seat at the table.

Although, if your party is too extreme chances are none of the other parties want to work with you, because political parties are controlled by the people, and if you do something the people don't like, you're going to lose supporters.

Supporters = Votes

The political parties pander to the public as much as possible, especially during election year.

Wikey

Judging people from the past from the standards of today has never made sense to me. And you know, we're not so perfect. In a few hundred years, don't you think many of the beliefs we hold today will be considered ridiculous too?

Women have only had the right to vote in the civilized parts of the world for like, 100 years or something lol. We're getting there, one generation at a time.

The human species definitely hold so many different beliefs depending on where you live, or grew up, that we're most likely wrong about most of it.

Future generations are 100% gonna look at us, like we look at people 200-300 years ago.

Mike @ 29/11/2018 8:16

I just wanted to point out one thing that irked me too reading this thread; citing the founding fathers shouldn't be frowned upon because they were slave owners. The ideas are bigger than the people who came up with them, and they aren't invalidated simply because said people also did something that we disapprove of. Judging people from the past from the standards of today has never made sense to me. And you know, we're not so perfect. In a few hundred years, don't you think many of the beliefs we hold today will be considered ridiculous too? Also, you should all count your blessings...we don't even get to elect our second house over here. Westminster doesn't believe in granting that much power to the peasantry.

I wasn't trying to invalidate their ideas, I was just trying to say that things change. Ideas people may have had back when our country was founded were or may be outdated now. The way Congress is set up was designed before there was such a disproportion between city/country dwellers and maybe it's time to re-think that idea. Just like it was time to re-think many other things along the way - including allowing women to vote, etc.

Also, I guess I'm just not into the idea that each state should have equal representation because of land mass. Land does not vote. It gives some people more of a voice and that's not fair. We have such corruption going on in this country right now partially because of systems which are, imo antiquated and need to be re-vamped.

JJ @ 29/11/2018 11:17

Mike @ 29/11/2018 8:16 I just wanted to point out one thing that irked me too reading this thread; citing the founding fathers shouldn't be frowned upon because they were slave owners. The ideas are bigger than the people who came up with them, and they aren't invalidated simply because said people also did something that we disapprove of. Judging people from the past from the standards of today has never made sense to me. And you know, we're not so perfect. In a few hundred years, don't you think many of the beliefs we hold today will be considered ridiculous too? Also, you should all count your blessings...we don't even get to elect our second house over here. Westminster doesn't believe in granting that much power to the peasantry. I wasn't trying to invalidate their ideas, I was just trying to say that things change. Ideas people may have had back when our country was founded were or may be outdated now. The way Congress is set up was designed before there was such a disproportion between city/country dwellers and maybe it's time to re-think that idea. Just like it was time to re-think many other things along the way - including allowing women to vote, etc. Also, I guess I'm just not into the idea that each state should have equal representation because of land mass. Land does not vote. It gives some people more of a voice and that's not fair. We have such corruption going on in this country right now partially because of systems which are, imo antiquated and need to be re-vamped.

So 20% of the population and 97% of the land should be subjegated?

Where did I say that?