Midterms 2018

[pettie4sox]

32 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

LOL, talk about gerrymandering!

I call it balancing the power.  I'm sorry but in all those flyover states, you could fit the population of a few metro suburbs.  If you want more power, you should have people in your state.

[pettie4sox]

25 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Bigotry, nice. 

I'm actually trying to help them.  People would have actually have to make campaign stops in "<insert witty state name here>", since they will have more people and similar problems for the most part.

[Chisoxfn]

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

Yes. The Senate is a bad model by design that no one else in the world uses. You can still have a bicameral legislature without the current structure of the Senate. Almost every state in the US does this. Illinois does that.

I don't think we should advantage land over people, especially not at the massive scale we do. There's no reason for Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Montana to all be separate states with 8 total Senators and a fraction of the population of many other states. The federal government should represent the people, not the states, and we've otherwise largely moved away from late 18th century political thoughts. I don't think it's good for our democracy to give someone 100x more Senatorial representation simply because they happen to live in Wyoming instead of California, or 50x more because they don't live in NY. It gives a political minority a strongly disproportionate amount of power over the minority. We'll see the effects of that in the judiciary for decades to come.

Like I said though, it's a pipe dream. We're stuck with the Senate until the US Federal Government collapses at some point. More realistically to restore some balance would be DC and PR statehood. DC has a larger population than two states, and PR would rank 29th overall.

The flipside to that is you essentially give all of the control to a minority of states, which I don't think is a good thing either. The views of California, New York, Florida and Texas shouldn't be forced on the other 46 states.  

[Chisoxfn]

41 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Bigotry, nice. 

There is no bigotry in there. I don't agree with the comment, but I don't see it as bigotry.  Lets make sure we all stay on topic here.  It is purely a view that the more populous regions should have far more say than everywhere else. Its a view I fundamentally disagree with because what is important to an urban dweller can be much different than what is politically important to people who don't live in Chicago, New York or Dallas.  The beauty of our system is it does provide some pretty good healthy checks on the entire nation (not just a pocket or two of the nation). 

[raBBit]

14 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

I'm actually trying to help them.  People would have actually have to make campaign stops in "<insert witty state name here>", since they will have more people and similar problems for the most part.

Trying to help them by taking away their voting power?

EDIT: Now see Jason's post. I am good here.

Edited November 7, 2018 by raBBit

[bmags]

4 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

The flipside to that is you essentially give all of the control to a minority of states, which I don't think is a good thing either. The views of California, New York, Florida and Texas shouldn't be forced on the other 46 states.  

In terms of adding statehood though, this is traditionally how the US has solved this problem, and it should be noted the US has considered this a problem in the past. Even the capping of house seats now becomes this status quo even though it is fairly arbitrary and the house used to grow with population. Although, obviously the adding of states um, also was a considerable source of conflict.

[StrangeSox]

4 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

The flipside to that is you essentially give all of the control to a minority of states, which I don't think is a good thing either. The views of California, New York, Florida and Texas shouldn't be forced on the other 46 states.  

You give control to a majority of people instead. We've long since moved away from the model of "the Senate represents the statehouses" when we went to direct election of Senators. Now it's just two chambers of a legislative body. 

We don't replicate that model at any other governmental level. California doesn't have a House with single representative districts and then a state Senate where every county gets two equal representatives. It was a 1780's political compromise, maybe necessary at the time, but that's not a justification for not reforming it. We've come a very long way democratically in many other ways since then.

[pettie4sox]

11 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Trying to help them by taking away their voting power?

EDIT: Now see Jason's post. I am good here.

Your statement is ironic because that's exactly what they are doing to bigger states.  My vote does not hold weight to a person in the Dakotas or any of those areas.  They essentially have 2 senators that rep their 200k people in a massive land confirming a SC judge that could affect my life.  When 200k people have the power to mess with 15 million people in a state, that's a huge problem.  Combining them allows for them to have a seat at the table because guess what, politicians don't even bother to look their way come election time and these are facts.  These flyover states have similar problems and most are Midwestern agricultural states.

If I had to choose a nuke wiping out a metro area or a rural low population state...  you get the picture.

 

EDITED: for clarity; like a situation where I have to make a choice because it's going to happen

Edited November 7, 2018 by pettie4sox

[StrangeSox]

Speaking of statehouses, here's a pretty wild result:

 

 

[illinilaw08]

7 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

There is no bigotry in there. I don't agree with the comment, but I don't see it as bigotry.  Lets make sure we all stay on topic here.  It is purely a view that the more populous regions should have far more say than everywhere else. Its a view I fundamentally disagree with because what is important to an urban dweller can be much different than what is politically important to people who don't live in Chicago, New York or Dallas.  The beauty of our system is it does provide some pretty good healthy checks on the entire nation (not just a pocket or two of the nation). 

There are a couple problems with the current system nationally.

First, a lot of American citizens don't have a voice in the Senate, period (see D.C. and Puerto Rico) because they are not states.

Second, the system provides a lot of checks on the entire nation if political parties aren't monoliths.  But they pretty much are (with a couple outliers in either party).  Why is coal policy a national issue?  Because states with large coal industries are important political votes for Republicans. 

We don't see votes at the national level divided by region.  If we did, you would see more Republican reps from Florida cross the aisle on climate change, and more Democratic reps from Colorado cross the aisle on oil and gas issues.

[StrangeSox]

Democrats are announcing that they will request Trump's tax returns, will bring Mueller in for televised hearings if Trump fires him.

Trump threatening retaliatory Senate investigations of House Democrats.

Next two years gonna be lit.

[Soxbadger]

If DC and PR get 2 Senators each and they increase the amount of Reps, it would go a long way to fixing some of the issues. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Soxbadger

[pettie4sox]

3 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Democrats are announcing that they will request Trump's tax returns, will bring Mueller in for televised hearings if Trump fires him.

Trump threatening retaliatory Senate investigations of House Democrats.

Next two years gonna be lit.

Yep I am glad Trump is going to get checked into a wall finally, it was long overdue.

[bmags]

1 minute ago, pettie4sox said:

Yep I am glad Trump is going to get checked into a wall finally, it was long overdue.

And especially his insanely corrupt administration that has just been looting the public trust for years with rarely any consequences.

[pettie4sox]

2 minutes ago, bmags said:

And especially his insanely corrupt administration that has just been looting the public trust for years with rarely any consequences.

I'm kind of excited about the fireworks that are about to go down.  Maybe Trump will change his tune since he's the leader of this brigade.  Whatever he says, the republicans will fall in line.

[Soxbadger]

Just now, pettie4sox said:

I'm kind of excited about the fireworks that are about to go down.  Maybe Trump will change his tune since he's the leader of this brigade.  Whatever he says, the republicans will fall in line.

Trump isnt going to change his tune. He is just going to keep saying he won and everything else is false. Im not a Dr., but I think that he borders on being a sociopath and therefore expecting any sort of reasonable response is completely out of the question.

[Jack Parkman]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

Trump isnt going to change his tune. He is just going to keep saying he won and everything else is false. Im not a Dr., but I think that he borders on being a sociopath and therefore expecting any sort of reasonable response is completely out of the question.

I wish I could give my truthful opinion, but I can't because the Filibuster is gone. 

What is shocking to me is the amount of people that have no empathy or compassion for their fellow human beings. This is what I think is the most telling sign of political affiliation. Individualism and selfishness vs. collectivism and compassion. There should be a healthy balance. There isn't anymore, and we keep getting more and more polarized in response to pushing more and more boundaries. 

[pettie4sox]

5 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Trump isnt going to change his tune. He is just going to keep saying he won and everything else is false. Im not a Dr., but I think that he borders on being a sociopath and therefore expecting any sort of reasonable response is completely out of the question.

It's funny but I was one of those guys who said, he won't be that bad, give him a chance.  I was hoping he'd prove me wrong but you are right, the guy is hopeless nitwit.

[Jenksismyhero]

20 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

You give control to a majority of people instead. We've long since moved away from the model of "the Senate represents the statehouses" when we went to direct election of Senators. Now it's just two chambers of a legislative body. 

We don't replicate that model at any other governmental level. California doesn't have a House with single representative districts and then a state Senate where every county gets two equal representatives. It was a 1780's political compromise, maybe necessary at the time, but that's not a justification for not reforming it. We've come a very long way democratically in many other ways since then.

But the fundamental issue remains the same - small states (rural areas) will be substantially disadvantaged and underrepresented. 

If anything this "problem" highlights why the federal government has far too much power in our system. The federal government should be governing our collective concerns (foreign relations, immigration, defense, etc.) but little else.

[raBBit]

5 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I wish I could give my truthful opinion, but I can't because the Filibuster is gone. 

Look at the posts that precede yours you're fine.

Edited November 7, 2018 by raBBit

[Soxbadger]

3 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

But the fundamental issue remains the same - small states (rural areas) will be substantially disadvantaged and underrepresented. 

If anything this "problem" highlights why the federal government has far too much power in our system. The federal government should be governing our collective concerns (foreign relations, immigration, defense, etc.) but little else.

There seems to be no going back on federal power. 

[BigHurt3515]

27 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Democrats are announcing that they will request Trump's tax returns, will bring Mueller in for televised hearings if Trump fires him.

Trump threatening retaliatory Senate investigations of House Democrats.

Next two years gonna be lit.

What a great use of time and money. Focus on real issues when you have some power.

[StrangeSox]

1 minute ago, BigHurt3515 said:

What a great use of time and money. Focus on real issues when you have some power.

Corruption and conflicts of interest are a real issue in my opinion.

How many Benghazi investigations did the GOP launch? It paid off for them politically.

[Soxbadger]

2 minutes ago, BigHurt3515 said:

What a great use of time and money. Focus on real issues when you have some power.

I agree tax returns are a waste. I think they should look into his business dealings after becoming President, his hotels, etc. Also look into his cabinet and other people who may be attempting to profiteer from the office of President.

What happened before he took office is the least of my concerns. 

[illinilaw08]

5 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

But the fundamental issue remains the same - small states (rural areas) will be substantially disadvantaged and underrepresented. 

If anything this "problem" highlights why the federal government has far too much power in our system. The federal government should be governing our collective concerns (foreign relations, immigration, defense, etc.) but little else.

Jenks, IF the Senate is designed to give each state the same voice in one chamber, thereby increasing the rural voice and diluting the urban voice, then shouldn't the House be an actual proportional representation by population?

As things currently stand, urban areas vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and rural votes overwhelmingly Republican.  Yet in the House - which is designed to give proportionate representation to each state - the Democrats need an 8% edge nationally to win the House.  https://www.vox.com/2018/11/6/18068792/midterm-election-results-winners-and-losers

It seems like we can't change House districts - because won't somebody think of the rural areas.  We can't change the Electoral College - because won't somebody think of the small states.  When do urban areas get a voice proportionate with their population?