I'm not really sure what your point here is other than the fed doesn't act in the interest of rural communities 100% of the time.
Which is, you know, a good thing.
What do you mean, Quid?
Honestly, I'm not sure why we let city-folk vote at all. If only our country could be run by folksy wisdom, and down-home common sense, all of our problems would be solved!
I already live in a state that proportionally hands out electoral votes (Nebraska). It is awesome.
However, switching to pure popular vote solves absolutely nothing if we retain First Past the Post elections in the first place.
It doesn't solve the issue of electing the legislature, and it's easy to argue that's where reform of some sort is needed, but it does make electing the executive more simple.
Easy. Do what Nebraska did and abolish the two house system and become a Unicameral.
And ban First Past the Post voting, and go to the Alternative Vote at the very minimum.
The elegant part of the NPVIC is that it doesn't require a Constitutional amendment. Switching Congress to a unicameral body will never happen because you'd never get close to ratifying it.
I agree whole-heartedly about replacing FPTP elections, though, and it's another effective reform that could occur at the state level.
That video is great (right up until the end, when they advocate alternative vote) and I wholly agree with the bolded. NPV is a very small step in the right direction for voting reform, in that it actually is a kind of voting reform (and it would have avoided a Bush presidency), but it still keeps the two party system firmly in place.
If you really want to talk about reform, most people who advocate reform advocate the alternative voting system. While allowing for more than two parties, it's fraught with some enormous issues. One is that voters can sometimes get better outcomes by voting dishonestly or not voting at all, and yet it's usually not possible for them to see this before they cast their vote, so they are justifiably upset when their honest vote gets them a worse outcome. (FPTP also encourages dishonest voting, but the issues are magnified, and truly absurd examples are constructible, in the alternative vote system - in alternative vote, for example, it's sometimes possible for a group of voters to get their favorite candidate to win by voting against him, when he would have lost if they had voted for him, which is clearly impossible under FPTP.) My current opinion is that the right action for reform is to advocate either approval voting or range voting.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
You know, I think part of the problem here is that we keep using the term "minority." What do we mean by "minority?" Well, we mean small, rural states.
These states are overwhelmingly populated by old, white, Christians. Now, let's take a look at the makeup of Congress:
Assuming that old, white christians have the same concerns in rural areas as in urban areas is pretty much the silliest thing I've seen in this thread. At a minimum you're ignoring a wage disparity. Also, data (legitimately curious as to the breakdown)?
So, we know that a vast majority of the country is white, a vast majority of the country is Christian, and a vast majority of non-white citizens live in urban areas.
So, I guess the only point I don't see as blatantly obvious is that they're overwhelmingly old.
The FAA thing wasn't about rural areas in any way whatsoever - the subsidies they were bitching over cost less per year than they lost in taxes not collected in day during the fight. What it was about what unionization; Delta has some fucked-up exception where every non vote counts as a NO vote in any unionization , effectively preventing their workforce from ever organizing. the House of course included this anti-labor provision in their bill, and the Senate told them to fuck off with that shit.
Until they caved. Again. FYI, that labor issue is why they're constantly doing short term funding shit for the FAA. I think there hasn't been a long-term FAA budget funded since the GOP was happy to put through one with all the anti-labor bullshit in 2005.
Heh, I always forget how silly it feels thinking about rural votes not being important in popular votes, then I remember stuff like CA gets 55 electoral votes and NY gets 29 and how the fuck do the Democrats not win more often anyway? And meh, while I don't really see the EC fucking up that often (I thought it only happened twice, in 2000 and 1820 something). What are the other two?
In 1824, Andrew Jackson won more votes and more states than anyone else, but didn't manage a majority; the House proceeded to elect the first runner-up, John Quincy Adams, as President, and a lot of his votes came from Henry Clay supporters, whom Adams subsequently appointed Secretary of State. In 1876, the South was being bitterly fought over, and Democratic control was not yet consolidated; Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina all sent two delegations to the Electoral College because they couldn't agree on who won. A Congressional committee was created to determine who won those states, along with one Republican elector from Oregon who had been annulled and replaced with a Democrat by the governor on the grounds that, at the time of the election, he had been a postmaster, and no electors were allowed to hold posts in the federal government. The committee was initially composed of 6 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and an avowedly independent Supreme Court Justice who gave Democrats a decent chance of getting the one vote Tilden needed to win, having 184 votes to Republican Hayes' 165. However, some truly shortsighted Illinois Democrats elected that Justice as their new Senator in hopes of winning his vote - he promptly resigned from the Supreme Court, and was replaced on the committee by a Republican-leaning Justice who voted with the Republicans to assign every single disputed vote to Hayes, who got 185 electoral votes and the presidency. In 1888, there was no major scandal, really, it's just that Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in his reelection attempt, but his challenger Benjamin Harrison won the electoral vote, largely by flipping New York and Indiana; Cleveland returned to the White House in 1892, and would be the only one to do so ever, as well as the last Democrat to win a presidential election for twenty years.
Perhaps someone has addressed it, but it seems the issue here ought to be not so much that rural people would be disenfranchised in their vote, but that rural interests would be permanently relegated to second-class importance. Why do, say, rural broadband initiatives if you can win elections by spending that money on urban renewal? Why worry about the skyrocketing price of gasoline if your constituents mostly want you to subsidize mass transit? Why even worry about the condition of state highways and secondary roads? I mean, you could even close some interstates without really worrying about losing an election.
Also, has anyone been honest enough yet to admit that NPV is a trojan horse for permanent Democratic majorities?
spool32 on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Why isn't there a permanent Democratic majority in the House, then?
Also: Interstates affect a lot more than simply rural interests. Rural broadband initiatives would be pushed by internet/cable companies, which have plenty of lobbying power. Wouldn't mass transit infrastructure reduce demand for gasoline? Isn't the ethanol subsidy a huge waste of money that benefits rural areas at the expense of everyone else?
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
Also, has anyone been honest enough yet to admit that NPV is a trojan horse for permanent Democratic majorities?
Well, no, the national popular vote is for the PRESIDENT, not Congress. They're two different things, and elected in two different ways. It'll take some digging, but I can find you an eighth grade civics textbook, if you need more. And, hey, I don't think it would lead to a permanent Democratic presidency. Sure, Dems would have been in office in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2008, but Republicanss won 2004, 1988, 1984, 1980.
edit: Also, yes, Los Angeles and Houston are aaaaaaaall about public transportation. No one there complains about high gas prices. :?
Why isn't there a permanent Democratic majority in the House, then?
Also: Interstates affect a lot more than simply rural interests. Rural broadband initiatives would be pushed by internet/cable companies, which have plenty of lobbying power. Wouldn't mass transit infrastructure reduce demand for gasoline? Isn't the ethanol subsidy a huge waste of money that benefits rural areas at the expense of everyone else?
Because gerrymandering. Perhaps I should have said "permanent Democratic Executive", which means eventually a permanent Democratic Judicial. So permanent Democratic majorities in Congress might take 30 years to realize.
Also, you're touching the specifics rather than the theme behind them. Why should rural interests ever matter under NPV, unless those interests can be convincingly shown to harm urban voters?
As an aside, it's sort of crazy to suggest the cable companies would promote rural broadband initiatives. Wide swaths of the country wouldn't even have telephones except for government initiatives that, when urban interests dominate all politics, don't benefit urban people at all?
You know, we just had an example of how rural areas get fucked over federally. But please, keep telling me how it won't happen.
What example is this?
The fight over the FAA.
That's more a fight over how rural voters get oversized support to maintain their lifestyles. The feds dump shitloads of money into convincing people to service rural areas, because it wouldn't be cost effective otherwise. Isn't the fight over the FAA an example of how Rural Voters get additional advantages over urban voters?
Or an example of how without very strong obligations from all branches of government they risk losing air travel. That is to say, the FAA thing is about not making long distance travel drastically more expensive for rural folks than it is for urban folks.
You know, I think part of the problem here is that we keep using the term "minority." What do we mean by "minority?" Well, we mean small, rural states.
These states are overwhelmingly populated by old, white, Christians. Now, let's take a look at the makeup of Congress:
Assuming that old, white christians have the same concerns in rural areas as in urban areas is pretty much the silliest thing I've seen in this thread. At a minimum you're ignoring a wage disparity. Also, data (legitimately curious as to the breakdown)?
The EAS routes in Montana services several of the reservations here, and made it feasable for them to attract economic development that didn't involve a casino.
Why isn't there a permanent Democratic majority in the House, then?
Also: Interstates affect a lot more than simply rural interests. Rural broadband initiatives would be pushed by internet/cable companies, which have plenty of lobbying power. Wouldn't mass transit infrastructure reduce demand for gasoline? Isn't the ethanol subsidy a huge waste of money that benefits rural areas at the expense of everyone else?
Because gerrymandering. Perhaps I should have said "permanent Democratic Executive", which means eventually a permanent Democratic Judicial. So permanent Democratic majorities in Congress might take 30 years to realize.
Also, you're touching the specifics rather than the theme behind them. Why should rural interests ever matter under NPV, unless those interests can be convincingly shown to harm urban voters?
As an aside, it's sort of crazy to suggest the cable companies would promote rural broadband initiatives. Wide swaths of the country wouldn't even have telephones except for government initiatives that, when urban interests dominate all politics, don't benefit urban people at all?
Cable companies push the government to subsidize the broadband initiative so they get the customers without having to pay for the infrastructure.
I honestly don't see this changing Presidential elections outcomes, except in the cases where the electoral college went against the popular vote.
How is that a bad thing?
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Um without those interstates I can't get my custom made Ikea furniture for my 400 sqft flat in the lower west side so I'd still care enough to maintain them thank you very much. GOD.
Why isn't there a permanent Democratic majority in the House, then?
Also: Interstates affect a lot more than simply rural interests. Rural broadband initiatives would be pushed by internet/cable companies, which have plenty of lobbying power. Wouldn't mass transit infrastructure reduce demand for gasoline? Isn't the ethanol subsidy a huge waste of money that benefits rural areas at the expense of everyone else?
Because gerrymandering. Perhaps I should have said "permanent Democratic Executive", which means eventually a permanent Democratic Judicial. So permanent Democratic majorities in Congress might take 30 years to realize.
Also, you're touching the specifics rather than the theme behind them. Why should rural interests ever matter under NPV, unless those interests can be convincingly shown to harm urban voters?
As an aside, it's sort of crazy to suggest the cable companies would promote rural broadband initiatives. Wide swaths of the country wouldn't even have telephones except for government initiatives that, when urban interests dominate all politics, don't benefit urban people at all?
Rural electrification and broadband benefit urban interests a ton. And urban folk are way more likely to support that kind of spending for rural folk than rural folk are for urban folk. I mean, shit, I fucking hate those people, and I still support rural broadband and rural electrification.
Also, why would this make a "permanent Democratic executive?" I mean, true, no Republican has won a plurality of votes in a presidential election since... the presidential election before last.
Um without those interstates I can't get my custom made Ikea furniture for my 400 sqft flat in the lower west side so I'd still care enough to maintain them thank you very much. GOD.
Would you care enough to make sure the interstate network covered a decent portion of the US? Or would you be content with just key corridors being maintained?
The FAA thing wasn't about rural areas in any way whatsoever - the subsidies they were bitching over cost less per year than they lost in taxes not collected in day during the fight. What it was about what unionization; Delta has some fucked-up exception where every non vote counts as a NO vote in any unionization , effectively preventing their workforce from ever organizing. the House of course included this anti-labor provision in their bill, and the Senate told them to fuck off with that shit.
Until they caved. Again. FYI, that labor issue is why they're constantly doing short term funding shit for the FAA. I think there hasn't been a long-term FAA budget funded since the GOP was happy to put through one with all the anti-labor bullshit in 2005.
Did they cave on the anti-labor legislation or just the rural airport shutdowns?
Um without those interstates I can't get my custom made Ikea furniture for my 400 sqft flat in the lower west side so I'd still care enough to maintain them thank you very much. GOD.
Would you care enough to make sure the interstate network covered a decent portion of the US? Or would you be content with just key corridors being maintained?
Um without those interstates I can't get my custom made Ikea furniture for my 400 sqft flat in the lower west side so I'd still care enough to maintain them thank you very much. GOD.
Would you care enough to make sure the interstate network covered a decent portion of the US? Or would you be content with just key corridors being maintained?
Yeah, because if anyone is deeply concerned with making sure that public works systems and infrastructure are maintained, it's the small-government Teabaggers being elected by rural America.
Thanatos on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Um without those interstates I can't get my custom made Ikea furniture for my 400 sqft flat in the lower west side so I'd still care enough to maintain them thank you very much. GOD.
Would you care enough to make sure the interstate network covered a decent portion of the US? Or would you be content with just key corridors being maintained?
Urban people should subsidize my shitty podunk area chock full of "rugged individualists" and give people in mine and other backwater shitholes their money as well as a disproportionate influence in presidential elections.
Um without those interstates I can't get my custom made Ikea furniture for my 400 sqft flat in the lower west side so I'd still care enough to maintain them thank you very much. GOD.
Would you care enough to make sure the interstate network covered a decent portion of the US? Or would you be content with just key corridors being maintained?
The people looking to cut infrastructure funding are the ones elected by rural constituencies.
If they want to electorally fuck themselves, I'm not really inclined to stop them.
I think it's a fallacy to try and refute arguments about what a future presidential contest would look like by pointing to results produced by the current system. Right now, candidates must deal with urban / rural tension within each state in the effort to win electoral votes. With NPV, a candidate could focus solely on a few major population centers as a winning strategy. It would fundamentally change the political calculus of the Presidential contest.
I also think it's a shortsighted to say "well I care about this, or that, rural issue, so of course I'd vote to support their interests" because this isn't the choice that would be before voters. It would be which interests are most important and best served, and nobody votes for a supporter of rural issues because they like Ikea or think more Appalachian families should have access to Youtube, when their own self interest is at stake. And isn't that one of the main progressive criticisms of the voting public right now? That thy don't vote based on self-interest? The preferred progressive voting behavior would make it far more likely that rural interests get short shrift under NPV. You can't have your cake and eat it too, guys.
The FAA thing wasn't about rural areas in any way whatsoever - the subsidies they were bitching over cost less per year than they lost in taxes not collected in day during the fight. What it was about what unionization; Delta has some fucked-up exception where every non vote counts as a NO vote in any unionization , effectively preventing their workforce from ever organizing. the House of course included this anti-labor provision in their bill, and the Senate told them to fuck off with that shit.
Until they caved. Again. FYI, that labor issue is why they're constantly doing short term funding shit for the FAA. I think there hasn't been a long-term FAA budget funded since the GOP was happy to put through one with all the anti-labor bullshit in 2005.
Did they cave on the anti-labor legislation or just the rural airport shutdowns?
The House was out of session; the only way to end the shutdown of the FAA was for them to accept the House version as it was passed by the House. So in other words, they caved on everything. Just like they've been doing since 2005. They might as well just pass the fucking long term funding with this shit in there, since they are utterly spineless and end up including it every fucking time anyway.
Um without those interstates I can't get my custom made Ikea furniture for my 400 sqft flat in the lower west side so I'd still care enough to maintain them thank you very much. GOD.
Would you care enough to make sure the interstate network covered a decent portion of the US? Or would you be content with just key corridors being maintained?
Yeah, because if anyone is deeply concerned with making sure that public works systems and infrastructure are maintained, it's the small-government Teabaggers being elected by rural America.
:^:
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I think it's a fallacy to try and refute arguments about what a future presidential contest would look like by pointing to results produced by the current system. Right now, candidates must deal with urban / rural tension within each state in the effort to win electoral votes. With NPV, a candidate could focus solely on a few major population centers as a winning strategy. It would fundamentally change the political calculus of the Presidential contest.
I also think it's a shortsighted to say "well I care about this, or that, rural issue, so of course I'd vote to support their interests" because this isn't the choice that would be before voters. It would be which interests are most important and best served, and nobody votes for a supporter of rural issues because they like Ikea or think more Appalachian families should have access to Youtube, when their own self interest is at stake. And isn't that one of the main progressive criticisms of the voting public right now? That thy don't vote based on self-interest? The preferred progressive voting behavior would make it far more likely that rural interests get short shrift under NPV. You can't have your cake and eat it too, guys.
So, hypothetical situations are only valid if they support your argument?
Um without those interstates I can't get my custom made Ikea furniture for my 400 sqft flat in the lower west side so I'd still care enough to maintain them thank you very much. GOD.
Would you care enough to make sure the interstate network covered a decent portion of the US? Or would you be content with just key corridors being maintained?
The people looking to cut infrastructure funding are the ones elected by rural constituencies.
If they want to electorally fuck themselves, I'm not really inclined to stop them.
This is another wrongheaded comparison. The option to choose between an Executive who supports rural spending and one who supports urban spending, nationwide, isn't one that has come before voters.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
If, under the new system, rural votes won't matter... why would that option suddenly exist?
I think it's a fallacy to try and refute arguments about what a future presidential contest would look like by pointing to results produced by the current system. Right now, candidates must deal with urban / rural tension within each state in the effort to win electoral votes. With NPV, a candidate could focus solely on a few major population centers as a winning strategy. It would fundamentally change the political calculus of the Presidential contest.
I also think it's a shortsighted to say "well I care about this, or that, rural issue, so of course I'd vote to support their interests" because this isn't the choice that would be before voters. It would be which interests are most important and best served, and nobody votes for a supporter of rural issues because they like Ikea or think more Appalachian families should have access to Youtube, when their own self interest is at stake. And isn't that one of the main progressive criticisms of the voting public right now? That thy don't vote based on self-interest? The preferred progressive voting behavior would make it far more likely that rural interests get short shrift under NPV. You can't have your cake and eat it too, guys.
So, hypothetical situations are only valid if they support your argument?
Why did you even bother asking this? Does it add, at all, to the discussion? Or was it just your knee-jerk reaction? What was the point of this, besides thinking you had an opening to get in a quick jab at me, personally?
This happens every time I express an opinion around here. Of course, now, people will start ridiculing me for pointing it out. Later we'll have an argument about whether or not the liberals effectively police themselves in D&D, and it will be just as devoid of clarity or perspective as the last one.
Um without those interstates I can't get my custom made Ikea furniture for my 400 sqft flat in the lower west side so I'd still care enough to maintain them thank you very much. GOD.
Would you care enough to make sure the interstate network covered a decent portion of the US? Or would you be content with just key corridors being maintained?
The people looking to cut infrastructure funding are the ones elected by rural constituencies.
If they want to electorally fuck themselves, I'm not really inclined to stop them.
This is another wrongheaded comparison. The option to choose between an Executive who supports rural spending and one who supports urban spending, nationwide, isn't one that has come before voters.
People in the boonies elect people who don't want to pay for things, completely oblivious to the fact that they benefit more dollar for dollar from government spending than people who live in cities.
This is absolutely a point worthy of being made when we're considering the merits of a system that removes a little bit of the extra leverage the boonies have on our political system.
I think it's a fallacy to try and refute arguments about what a future presidential contest would look like by pointing to results produced by the current system. Right now, candidates must deal with urban / rural tension within each state in the effort to win electoral votes. With NPV, a candidate could focus solely on a few major population centers as a winning strategy. It would fundamentally change the political calculus of the Presidential contest.
I also think it's a shortsighted to say "well I care about this, or that, rural issue, so of course I'd vote to support their interests" because this isn't the choice that would be before voters. It would be which interests are most important and best served, and nobody votes for a supporter of rural issues because they like Ikea or think more Appalachian families should have access to Youtube, when their own self interest is at stake. And isn't that one of the main progressive criticisms of the voting public right now? That thy don't vote based on self-interest? The preferred progressive voting behavior would make it far more likely that rural interests get short shrift under NPV. You can't have your cake and eat it too, guys.
So, hypothetical situations are only valid if they support your argument?
Why did you even bother asking this? Does it add, at all, to the discussion? Or was it just your knee-jerk reaction? What was the point of this, besides thinking you had an opening to get in a quick jab at me, personally?
This happens every time I express an opinion around here. Of course, now, people will start ridiculing me for pointing it out. Later we'll have an argument about whether or not the liberals effectively police themselves in D&D, and it will be just as devoid of clarity or perspective as the last one.
My point is that you are countering what you perceive to be invalid arguments based on their being hypothetical... with hypothetical arguments.
If, under the new system, rural votes won't matter... why would that option suddenly exist?
There's legitimate reason to believe that it would not. It's certainly plausible to imagine a Presidential contest that focuses narrowly on 8-10 urban centers, with the rest of the nation ignored except as a My-Fellow-Americans rhetorical device.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
If, under the new system, rural votes won't matter... why would that option suddenly exist?
There's legitimate reason to believe that it would not. It's certainly plausible to imagine a Presidential contest that focuses narrowly on 8-10 urban centers, with the rest of the nation ignored except as a My-Fellow-Americans rhetorical device.
You mean like every Presidential contest of the last forty or more years?
If, under the new system, rural votes won't matter... why would that option suddenly exist?
There's legitimate reason to believe that it would not. It's certainly plausible to imagine a Presidential contest that focuses narrowly on 8-10 urban centers, with the rest of the nation ignored except as a My-Fellow-Americans rhetorical device.
As opposed to the presidential elections now that run a circuit through Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania and fly down to Florida in the last week or so.
This isn't a good case for the current system, is what I'm saying.
When candidates are insisting that rural villagers are the only real Americans and are still viewed as viable candidates, I think it's safe to say that villagers have too much political power.
If, under the new system, rural votes won't matter... why would that option suddenly exist?
There's legitimate reason to believe that it would not. It's certainly plausible to imagine a Presidential contest that focuses narrowly on 8-10 urban centers, with the rest of the nation ignored except as a My-Fellow-Americans rhetorical device.
You mean like every Presidential contest pretty much ever?
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure I would consider Iowa rural in the context of a presidential election. It's not like the candidates go there to talk about Iowa-based issues. It's just a platform.
I think it's a fallacy to try and refute arguments about what a future presidential contest would look like by pointing to results produced by the current system. Right now, candidates must deal with urban / rural tension within each state in the effort to win electoral votes. With NPV, a candidate could focus solely on a few major population centers as a winning strategy. It would fundamentally change the political calculus of the Presidential contest.
I also think it's a shortsighted to say "well I care about this, or that, rural issue, so of course I'd vote to support their interests" because this isn't the choice that would be before voters. It would be which interests are most important and best served, and nobody votes for a supporter of rural issues because they like Ikea or think more Appalachian families should have access to Youtube, when their own self interest is at stake. And isn't that one of the main progressive criticisms of the voting public right now? That thy don't vote based on self-interest? The preferred progressive voting behavior would make it far more likely that rural interests get short shrift under NPV. You can't have your cake and eat it too, guys.
So, hypothetical situations are only valid if they support your argument?
Why did you even bother asking this? Does it add, at all, to the discussion? Or was it just your knee-jerk reaction? What was the point of this, besides thinking you had an opening to get in a quick jab at me, personally?
This happens every time I express an opinion around here. Of course, now, people will start ridiculing me for pointing it out. Later we'll have an argument about whether or not the liberals effectively police themselves in D&D, and it will be just as devoid of clarity or perspective as the last one.
My point is that you are countering what you perceive to be invalid arguments based on their being hypothetical... with hypothetical arguments.
No. I'm questioning the validity of arguments projecting a certain outcome (namely, that NPV would produce similar outcomes to past contests) from a future NPV system by looking back at outcomes produced by the electoral system. That's very clear from the first sentence I wrote. Then, I offered what I think is a plausible reason why I think NPV would produce different outcomes, namely that it creates the possibility of an entirely different configuration in the nature of the contest.
I'm questioning the basis for the "it won't matter much" hypothetical because I think it's flawed. That's nothing at all like what you accused me of.
I'm not sure I would consider Iowa rural in the context of a presidential election. It's not like the candidates go there to talk about Iowa-based issues. It's just a platform.
On the other hand, I have yet to see an Iowa press conference anywhere three story buildings, and even the Florida conferences are all about "small town values."
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Changing the system would be totes bad because then some people would suddenly have less power relative to other people.
UM!
This is already happening. Albeit to democrats, but perhaps they don't count. This really is a zero-sum situation, and claiming one system is "better" or more "proper" or some other weasel word is pretty disgusting.
If, under the new system, rural votes won't matter... why would that option suddenly exist?
There's legitimate reason to believe that it would not. It's certainly plausible to imagine a Presidential contest that focuses narrowly on 8-10 urban centers, with the rest of the nation ignored except as a My-Fellow-Americans rhetorical device.
You mean like every Presidential contest of the last forty or more years?
No, I mean very narrowly, like not even bothering to buy TV time outside the major media markets. Not campaigning at all in states without a major metropolis, not even bothering to get on the ballot.
Posts
Honestly, I'm not sure why we let city-folk vote at all. If only our country could be run by folksy wisdom, and down-home common sense, all of our problems would be solved!
That video is great (right up until the end, when they advocate alternative vote) and I wholly agree with the bolded. NPV is a very small step in the right direction for voting reform, in that it actually is a kind of voting reform (and it would have avoided a Bush presidency), but it still keeps the two party system firmly in place.
If you really want to talk about reform, most people who advocate reform advocate the alternative voting system. While allowing for more than two parties, it's fraught with some enormous issues. One is that voters can sometimes get better outcomes by voting dishonestly or not voting at all, and yet it's usually not possible for them to see this before they cast their vote, so they are justifiably upset when their honest vote gets them a worse outcome. (FPTP also encourages dishonest voting, but the issues are magnified, and truly absurd examples are constructible, in the alternative vote system - in alternative vote, for example, it's sometimes possible for a group of voters to get their favorite candidate to win by voting against him, when he would have lost if they had voted for him, which is clearly impossible under FPTP.) My current opinion is that the right action for reform is to advocate either approval voting or range voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
For starters...
So, we know that a vast majority of the country is white, a vast majority of the country is Christian, and a vast majority of non-white citizens live in urban areas.
So, I guess the only point I don't see as blatantly obvious is that they're overwhelmingly old.
Until they caved. Again. FYI, that labor issue is why they're constantly doing short term funding shit for the FAA. I think there hasn't been a long-term FAA budget funded since the GOP was happy to put through one with all the anti-labor bullshit in 2005.
Also, has anyone been honest enough yet to admit that NPV is a trojan horse for permanent Democratic majorities?
Also: Interstates affect a lot more than simply rural interests. Rural broadband initiatives would be pushed by internet/cable companies, which have plenty of lobbying power. Wouldn't mass transit infrastructure reduce demand for gasoline? Isn't the ethanol subsidy a huge waste of money that benefits rural areas at the expense of everyone else?
Well, no, the national popular vote is for the PRESIDENT, not Congress. They're two different things, and elected in two different ways. It'll take some digging, but I can find you an eighth grade civics textbook, if you need more. And, hey, I don't think it would lead to a permanent Democratic presidency. Sure, Dems would have been in office in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2008, but Republicanss won 2004, 1988, 1984, 1980.
edit: Also, yes, Los Angeles and Houston are aaaaaaaall about public transportation. No one there complains about high gas prices. :?
Because gerrymandering. Perhaps I should have said "permanent Democratic Executive", which means eventually a permanent Democratic Judicial. So permanent Democratic majorities in Congress might take 30 years to realize.
Also, you're touching the specifics rather than the theme behind them. Why should rural interests ever matter under NPV, unless those interests can be convincingly shown to harm urban voters?
As an aside, it's sort of crazy to suggest the cable companies would promote rural broadband initiatives. Wide swaths of the country wouldn't even have telephones except for government initiatives that, when urban interests dominate all politics, don't benefit urban people at all?
The EAS routes in Montana services several of the reservations here, and made it feasable for them to attract economic development that didn't involve a casino.
Cable companies push the government to subsidize the broadband initiative so they get the customers without having to pay for the infrastructure.
I honestly don't see this changing Presidential elections outcomes, except in the cases where the electoral college went against the popular vote.
How is that a bad thing?
Also, why would this make a "permanent Democratic executive?" I mean, true, no Republican has won a plurality of votes in a presidential election since... the presidential election before last.
Would you care enough to make sure the interstate network covered a decent portion of the US? Or would you be content with just key corridors being maintained?
Decent coverage for some, monorails for others!
Urban people should subsidize my shitty podunk area chock full of "rugged individualists" and give people in mine and other backwater shitholes their money as well as a disproportionate influence in presidential elections.
If they want to electorally fuck themselves, I'm not really inclined to stop them.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I also think it's a shortsighted to say "well I care about this, or that, rural issue, so of course I'd vote to support their interests" because this isn't the choice that would be before voters. It would be which interests are most important and best served, and nobody votes for a supporter of rural issues because they like Ikea or think more Appalachian families should have access to Youtube, when their own self interest is at stake. And isn't that one of the main progressive criticisms of the voting public right now? That thy don't vote based on self-interest? The preferred progressive voting behavior would make it far more likely that rural interests get short shrift under NPV. You can't have your cake and eat it too, guys.
:^:
So, hypothetical situations are only valid if they support your argument?
Why did you even bother asking this? Does it add, at all, to the discussion? Or was it just your knee-jerk reaction? What was the point of this, besides thinking you had an opening to get in a quick jab at me, personally?
This happens every time I express an opinion around here. Of course, now, people will start ridiculing me for pointing it out. Later we'll have an argument about whether or not the liberals effectively police themselves in D&D, and it will be just as devoid of clarity or perspective as the last one.
This is absolutely a point worthy of being made when we're considering the merits of a system that removes a little bit of the extra leverage the boonies have on our political system.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
My point is that you are countering what you perceive to be invalid arguments based on their being hypothetical... with hypothetical arguments.
You mean like every Presidential contest of the last forty or more years?
This isn't a good case for the current system, is what I'm saying.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
No. I'm questioning the validity of arguments projecting a certain outcome (namely, that NPV would produce similar outcomes to past contests) from a future NPV system by looking back at outcomes produced by the electoral system. That's very clear from the first sentence I wrote. Then, I offered what I think is a plausible reason why I think NPV would produce different outcomes, namely that it creates the possibility of an entirely different configuration in the nature of the contest.
I'm questioning the basis for the "it won't matter much" hypothetical because I think it's flawed. That's nothing at all like what you accused me of.
On the other hand, I have yet to see an Iowa press conference anywhere three story buildings, and even the Florida conferences are all about "small town values."
UM!
This is already happening. Albeit to democrats, but perhaps they don't count. This really is a zero-sum situation, and claiming one system is "better" or more "proper" or some other weasel word is pretty disgusting.
No, I mean very narrowly, like not even bothering to buy TV time outside the major media markets. Not campaigning at all in states without a major metropolis, not even bothering to get on the ballot.