President Donald Trump: The Thread

[ptatc]

Not really? You can have a proportional representative democracy wherein rural Americans, who comprise 15% of the population, get roughly 15% of the total representation. You'd still have the Senate as well, which massively favors rural voters. I see no reason why some voters should get more or less voting power based on their proximity to their neighbors.

 

People vote, not acreage.

You could but that isn't the system we currently have.

 

Here is why. How informed are most people on a topic such as farm subsidies? water, land and hunting rights? The people form the urban areas would always vote against these issues because it doesn't affect them. The people in the rural areas would never get anything from anyone because they would ALWAYS be voted against. These people need representation and would never get it under a straight population vote or the proportional vote you propose. The candidates that would support policies to benefit them wouldn't win. People in this forum have said Alabama is a backward state. Do they not have a right for representation?

 

 

[ptatc]

This is not cool. Rural areas need to be heard as well. They have different problems than urban folks and they are often hand-waved by urbanites. I don't have any solutions regarding that atm but it should be looked into to see how they can be better represented.

Exactly.

[Soxbadger]

Correct. but that's not how the voting works. More representative areas voted for Trump. Therefore the candidates need to concentrate their efforts in more areas other than urban, population centers to win.

 

Those are the rules of the game. But significantly more people wanted Clinton than Trump. So its not factually accurate to say the dislike of Clinton was more than Trump.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol..._50_states.html

 

This map shows the problem, someones vote in Wyoming is far more powerful than someone in Illinois. If we want to be fair about elections than a vote in Wyoming shouldnt have 4-5x more impact than a vote in California. Now I understand the fear of just having it be a popular vote, but it should be more fair. Perhaps the rule should be that it is capped at 1.5-2 and therefore larger states would get more electoral votes.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

You could but that isn't the system we currently have.

 

Here is why. How informed are most people on a topic such as farm subsidies? water, land and hunting rights? The people form the urban areas would always vote against these issues because it doesn't affect them. The people in the rural areas would never get anything from anyone because they would ALWAYS be voted against. These people need representation and would never get it under a straight population vote or the proportional vote you propose. The candidates that would support policies to benefit them wouldn't win. People in this forum have said Alabama is a backward state. Do they not have a right for representation?

 

But we don't see that playing out now. Representatives from urban districts don't vote down farm subsidies or water/land/hunting rights. A lot of federal spending that goes to rural communities is more likely to be pushed by Democrats representing urban areas than conservative politicians representing rural ones. One notable example is the opposition to rural projects like TVA--they were proposed and planned and executed by 'coastal elites' like FDR and to this day are opposed by more rural conservative voters. I think at most you could say not that urban voters would vote against those things but that they wouldn't be a priority and maybe not receive the attention they're due.

 

Alabama has major cities and is right at the median in terms of state populations, so that's not a great example.

 

And like BS pointed out, we've already got the Senate. Two Senators for 500k residents in Wyoming, two Senators for 40 million people in California. Why give unequal representation beyond that?

 

What should happen as more and more people move to cities? If we get to say 90% non-rural population, should rural voters still get 25-50% of the say in what our government does or doesn't do?

Edited December 5, 2017 by StrangeSox

[ptatc]

Those are the rules of the game. But significantly more people wanted Clinton than Trump. So its not factually accurate to say the dislike of Clinton was more than Trump.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol..._50_states.html

 

This map shows the problem, someones vote in Wyoming is far more powerful than someone in Illinois. If we want to be fair about elections than a vote in Wyoming shouldnt have 4-5x more impact than a vote in California. Now I understand the fear of just having it be a popular vote, but it should be more fair. Perhaps the rule should be that it is capped at 1.5-2 and therefore larger states would get more electoral votes.

This is true.

 

However, the voting power discussion is a poor comparison. They are basing it on how much a person dictates the decision of the state electoral college vote. This is true. A single person in Wyoming does influence the outcome for the state than a single person in California. However, California has 55 electoral votes and Wyoming has 3. So while a single person in Wyoming has more affect on the state vote, they have a far lesser affect on the election due to the vast difference in the electoral votes. The more populist states still have a greater affect on the election.

[StrangeSox]

This is true.

 

However, the voting power discussion is a poor comparison. They are basing it on how much a person dictates the decision of the state electoral college vote. This is true. A single person in Wyoming does influence the outcome for the state than a single person in California. However, California has 55 electoral votes and Wyoming has 3. So while a single person in Wyoming has more affect on the state vote, they have a far lesser affect on the election due to the vast difference in the electoral votes. The more populist states still have a greater affect on the election.

 

The individual in California is less represented in the House, the Senate, and in their vote for Presidency than the individual in Wyoming.

[whitesoxfan99]

This is true.

 

However, the voting power discussion is a poor comparison. They are basing it on how much a person dictates the decision of the state electoral college vote. This is true. A single person in Wyoming does influence the outcome for the state than a single person in California. However, California has 55 electoral votes and Wyoming has 3. So while a single person in Wyoming has more affect on the state vote, they have a far lesser affect on the election due to the vast difference in the electoral votes. The more populist states still have a greater affect on the election.

 

You are looking at it the wrong way. Small rural states are over represented in the Senate and in the electoral college (much less over represented in the electoral college but the bias is there). California's population is about 12% of the USA's population. Their electoral votes represent a little over 10% of the electoral college. New York has about 6% of the country's population but only 5% of the electoral college votes. Wyoming's population is about .2% of the general population but it has about .55% of the electoral college votes and this trend holds for the lower populated states.

[BigSqwert]

Dumb question: Do they adjust electoral votes every four years to account for population changes?

[southsider2k5]

Dumb question: Do they adjust electoral votes every four years to account for population changes?

 

I believe it is every 10 years corresponding with the census.

[ptatc]

But we don't see that playing out now. Representatives from urban districts don't vote down farm subsidies or water/land/hunting rights. A lot of federal spending that goes to rural communities is more likely to be pushed by Democrats representing urban areas than conservative politicians representing rural ones. One notable example is the opposition to rural projects like TVA--they were proposed and planned and executed by 'coastal elites' like FDR and to this day are opposed by more rural conservative voters. I think at most you could say not that urban voters would vote against those things but that they wouldn't be a priority and maybe not receive the attention they're due.

 

Alabama has major cities and is right at the median in terms of state populations, so that's not a great example.

 

And like BS pointed out, we've already got the Senate. Two Senators for 500k residents in Wyoming, two Senators for 40 million people in California. Why give unequal representation beyond that?

 

What should happen as more and more people move to cities? If we get to say 90% non-rural population, should rural voters still get 25-50% of the say in what our government does or doesn't do?

It is not only a question of how people vote it's still about representation. I was not using Alabama as necessarily rural but more about everyone deserves representation.

 

Yes the rural voters should still get that because they deserve to have their issues count. If they have a 1% vote, it won't count.

[BigSqwert]

I believe it is every 10 years corresponding with the census.

Ah that makes sense. Thanks

[ptatc]

I believe it is every 10 years corresponding with the census.

Correct.

[CrimsonWeltall]

It doesn't really work that way. Perfect example. The City Council in Chicago is 98% Democratic. Pretty sure Chicago is more than 2% Republican.

 

That's not a great example. The further you get away from 50/50, the less proportional representation is going to be. A party with, say, 10% popularity is not going to have 10% of seats. They're likely going to have none. Chicago is overwhelmingly Democratic.

 

Republicans are seeing massive over-representation even in states that are near 50/50. Sometimes they get far more seats even with fewer votes.

[ptatc]

You are looking at it the wrong way. Small rural states are over represented in the Senate and in the electoral college (much less over represented in the electoral college but the bias is there). California's population is about 12% of the USA's population. Their electoral votes represent a little over 10% of the electoral college. New York has about 6% of the country's population but only 5% of the electoral college votes. Wyoming's population is about .2% of the general population but it has about .55% of the electoral college votes and this trend holds for the lower populated states.

That is not what the article presented discussed. The .55% of the electoral college has a much lesser affect than the 10% obviously.

 

But this situation allows the less populated area a representation. Could it be tweaked to be better. Probably. However, the overriding theme is that they deserve the representation that the other proposed processes would not afford.

[southsider2k5]

That's not a great example. The further you get away from 50/50, the less proportional representation is going to be. A party with, say, 10% popularity is not going to have 10% of seats. They're likely going to have none. Chicago is overwhelmingly Democratic.

 

Republicans are seeing massive over-representation even in states that are near 50/50. Sometimes they get far more seats even with fewer votes.

 

If 90% of one group are concentrated in one area, while the other party is better spread out in order to make that 50/50 total, it isn't going to be an even distribution.

[Dam8610]

This is not cool. Rural areas need to be heard as well. They have different problems than urban folks and they are often hand-waved by urbanites. I don't have any solutions regarding that atm but it should be looked into to see how they can be better represented.

 

"Heard" is representation reflecting their portion of the population, rather than land mass. "Gerrymandering" is giving them control they shouldn't have based on their share of population.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Dam8610

[StrangeSox]

If 90% of one group are concentrated in one area, while the other party is better spread out in order to make that 50/50 total, it isn't going to be an even distribution.

 

Which, again, accounts for some of the disproportionate representation but not a majority of it.

Edited December 5, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Big Hurtin]

US to recognize Jerusalem as Israeli capital and relocate embassy.

 

This is going to cause a s***storm in the ME. Turkey has already said it will cut off diplomatic ties.

This sounds encouraging

 

https://twitter.com/malcolmnance/status/938118116596256768

 

[RockRaines]

You are looking at it the wrong way. Small rural states are over represented in the Senate and in the electoral college (much less over represented in the electoral college but the bias is there). California's population is about 12% of the USA's population. Their electoral votes represent a little over 10% of the electoral college. New York has about 6% of the country's population but only 5% of the electoral college votes. Wyoming's population is about .2% of the general population but it has about .55% of the electoral college votes and this trend holds for the lower populated states.

Cook county has a larger population than 19 states.

[RockRaines]

This sounds encouraging

 

https://twitter.com/malcolmnance/status/938118116596256768

Yes, but the evangelicals will be happy.

[Big Hurtin]

Yes, but the evangelicals will be happy.

Trying to expedite the rapture

 

[StrangeSox]

Hugh Hewitt, Republican Hack, you mean.

[Dick Allen]

WaPo: A special counsel needs to investigate the FBI and Justice Department. Now.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-s...m=.0d8cbe887fca

From the wiki page of the author:

 

Hewitt participated in several of the 2016 Republican primary debates, where he clashed with Donald Trump.[20][21] In February 2016, Hewitt wrote that, despite being repeatedly publicly insulted by Trump, he would support him should he become the Republican nominee for President.[22] In June 2016, after Trump's controversial remarks concerning Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Hewitt publicly called on the RNC to disendorse Trump as nominee. A week later, Hewitt reversed his position.[23] On August 3, he publicly floated the idea of replacing Donald with Ivanka Trump on the ticket.[24] On October 8, he called on Trump to drop out of the race because of a controversial recording of Trump that was published the previous day.[25] Hewitt ultimately voted for Trump.[26]

[G&T]

WaPo: A special counsel needs to investigate the FBI and Justice Department. Now.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-s...m=.0d8cbe887fca

 

Investigate the investigators while the investigation is on-going. Right.

[RockRaines]

I love opinion columns. So informative