Jenksismyhero Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) Say hello to the coasts choosing the presidency every election. Nobody in "fly-over" country would have their concerns listened to. Yep, there'd be no reason to campaign in any place but major cities. "Who gives a s*** about farming? I'll boost mass transit funding. New trains for all!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:21 PM) The vast majority of Americans live on the coasts, though? There are completely different concerns in rural areas compared to metropolitan areas. If you only ever care about the majority, then they can just run over any minority. Sounds like the American dream to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 06:25 PM) There are completely different concerns in rural areas compared to metropolitan areas. If you only ever care about the majority, then they can just run over any minority. Sounds like the American dream to me... But that's what congress is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 06:22 PM) Historically, it is how we have done business. They also started out with chattel slavery. If these places have a voice in congress, then they are being heard. They could make their own farmers party that sells their votes to whoever gives them the most goodies to their areas. Just because something is done some way doesn't mean it's the best way of doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) They also started out with chattel slavery. If these places have a voice in congress, then they are being heard. They could make their own farmers party that sells their votes to whoever gives them the most goodies to their areas. Just because something is done some way doesn't mean it's the best way of doing things. Just having a vote isn't always being heard. If so, why do we need anti-discrimination laws? After all they could just make their own (insert minority group here) party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) Say hello to the coasts choosing the presidency every election. Nobody in "fly-over" country would have their concerns listened to. Instead nobody listens to the most populous areas of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:22 PM) Yep, there'd be no reason to campaign in any place but major cities. "Who gives a s*** about farming? I'll boost mass transit funding. New trains for all!" Now there's no reason to campaign in California or Chicago or New York. Instead the only thing that matters is OH or PA or FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:21 PM) Not at all. In this scenario there is no need to contest lower populated areas. The payoff isn't worth it. Just like today campaigning in California isn't worth it. So wouldn't it be better for them to concentrate on actual US citizens instead of arbitrary boundaries? Why shouldn't they campaign for the tens of millions of Californians, Illinoisans and New Yorkers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) So wouldn't it be better for them to concentrate on actual US citizens instead of arbitrary boundaries? Why shouldn't they campaign for the tens of millions of Californians, Illinoisans and New Yorkers? People in swing states aren't actual citizens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) Now there's no reason to campaign in California or Chicago or New York. Instead the only thing that matters is OH or PA or FL. Actually, it would be a complete shift in the issues. It would turn into "should we build more roads or have more subways?". You'd effectively remove any voice for a large amount of issues that should be represented. I'm surprised that any liberal would be in favor of removing the ability for a minority population to have their concerns addressed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) People in swing states aren't actual citizens? They are, but there are a lot less of them. It's more a response to caring "only" about the coasts and not the vast, mostly-empty spaces in between. Well, in an election for a national office, shouldn't we care about citizens and not where they happen to live? Plus the EC doesn't actually tie our votes to anything. It's an antiquated 18th century aristocratic relic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) Actually, it would be a complete shift in the issues. It would turn into "should we build more roads or have more subways?". You'd effectively remove any voice for a large amount of issues that should be represented. I'm surprised that any liberal would be in favor of removing the ability for a minority population to have their concerns addressed... These issues would still be represented in Congress, which is where they actually matter. What will Obama or Romney do specifically for Ohio that they wouldn't do if it was a truly national election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 06:48 PM) Actually, it would be a complete shift in the issues. It would turn into "should we build more roads or have more subways?". You'd effectively remove any voice for a large amount of issues that should be represented. I'm surprised that any liberal would be in favor of removing the ability for a minority population to have their concerns addressed... But they would have their concerns address because we have a US congress. BUt more subways than roads? That's a great idea! It would be amazing if that was covered on a national level! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:50 PM) These issues would still be represented in Congress, which is where they actually matter. What will Obama or Romney do specifically for Ohio that they wouldn't do if it was a truly national election? Great. Good to know that representation would be in only 1 of 2 of the elected branches. And since the President has such a large say in the appointment of Supreme Court justices, there goes the 3rd branch as well... I would like the President to actually have a concern for other parts of the country. If we are talking "National", then the President should have concerns for the entire "Nation", not just the larger subset that lives in large cities on the coasts. It is always a bad idea to focus in on one area. A leader of the nation should have a broad view of the concerns of the entire nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:49 PM) They are, but there are a lot less of them. It's more a response to caring "only" about the coasts and not the vast, mostly-empty spaces in between. Well, in an election for a national office, shouldn't we care about citizens and not where they happen to live? Plus the EC doesn't actually tie our votes to anything. It's an antiquated 18th century aristocratic relic. A true "one vote" system would just lead to an over-representation of the people living in urban settings. Instead of caring mostly about people in one specific setting, it would be traded for another. It wouldn't really fix anything, it would just change the "chosen" people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) This video even addresses why politicians couldn't focus solely on cities in a reformed system.The best part is that the system is just as inequitable, even if every single state was competitive. Edited October 23, 2012 by Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Why should Obama and Romney care more about Ohio and Pennsylvania citizens than Illinois, New York and California citizens? How does that not represent focusing on a few particular areas to the exclusion of all others? As you say vandy, the President runs one branch and controls nominations to another. Why should the residents of Ohio have such a disproportionate impact on the election in 2012? Just because, as a whole, they are about split? Edited October 23, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) A true "one vote" system would just lead to an over-representation of the people living in urban settings. Instead of caring mostly about people in one specific setting, it would be traded for another. It wouldn't really fix anything, it would just change the "chosen" people. It would change it in a manner such that every single vote has exactly equal impact instead of the situation we have now. "Urban settings" would be over-represented only in the sense that that's where most people actually live. Plus, I don't even know how true the charge that they'd focus on big cities even holds. Would they really spend significant time campaigning in LA, NY or Chicago? Don't they focus on the urban areas in swing states (which change election-by-election and don't necessarily represent any particular setting) already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I don't at all understand the idea of choosing land over people when it comes to voting. One person, one vote - when you are talking about the Presidency, which is a national office. Anything else you do is disenfranchising people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) I don't at all understand the idea of choosing land over people when it comes to voting. One person, one vote - when you are talking about the Presidency, which is a national office. Anything else you do is disenfranchising people. I have the same problem with the outsized influence of rural states in the Senate, but there's at least a good case to be made for disproportionate representation there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) I have the same problem with the outsized influence of rural states in the Senate, but there's at least a good case to be made for disproportionate representation there. Well yeah, Congress is intended to be a representative body - of both individuals, and states, in a federation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 08:03 PM) Great. Good to know that representation would be in only 1 of 2 of the elected branches. And since the President has such a large say in the appointment of Supreme Court justices, there goes the 3rd branch as well... I would like the President to actually have a concern for other parts of the country. If we are talking "National", then the President should have concerns for the entire "Nation", not just the larger subset that lives in large cities on the coasts. It is always a bad idea to focus in on one area. A leader of the nation should have a broad view of the concerns of the entire nation. How would representation be in only 1 of the 2 branches? They could still vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:09 PM) Why should Obama and Romney care more about Ohio and Pennsylvania citizens than Illinois, New York and California citizens? How does that not represent focusing on a few particular areas to the exclusion of all others? As you say vandy, the President runs one branch and controls nominations to another. Why should the residents of Ohio have such a disproportionate impact on the election in 2012? Just because, as a whole, they are about split? Do I really need to tell you that Illinois, New York, etc have already pretty much made up their mind? There is a reason that a big part of the state of Illinois would like to split off from Chicago. It is because their concerns are not addressed. In Illinois, it is all about Chicago. Chicago/Cook county picks everything regardless of the concerns of those in the other parts of the state. That in itself is a small subset of exactly what would happen in the National election. There are all kinds of examples of this exact thing happening within individual states. See New York City and the rest of New York as well as East Washington State vs West Washington State as more examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) I don't at all understand the idea of choosing land over people when it comes to voting. One person, one vote - when you are talking about the Presidency, which is a national office. Anything else you do is disenfranchising people. You'll just be choosing different patches of land to over represent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) It would change it in a manner such that every single vote has exactly equal impact instead of the situation we have now. "Urban settings" would be over-represented only in the sense that that's where most people actually live. Plus, I don't even know how true the charge that they'd focus on big cities even holds. Would they really spend significant time campaigning in LA, NY or Chicago? Don't they focus on the urban areas in swing states (which change election-by-election and don't necessarily represent any particular setting) already? In that sense, urban areas are already have their higher impact by having the lions share of the electoral college votes going to the polls for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts