|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US election aftermath
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You might want to go and do some thinking on why we bother with states at all, as opposed to countries who keep everything in a single population group.
The states are precisely administrative units. That is why they were developed.
No country is homogeneous. And yet many manage to have a more centralised government. I am suggesting that states are less necessary now than in the past.
I have always been a bit (not a lot) puzzled as to why there has been no serious move to redraw state boundaries. The logic for a number of states no longer exists, either because the politics of their formation no longer applies (e.g., Nevada) or the improvement in communications renders their continuance wasteful (why two Dakotas?). Surely Alabama and Mississippi could be united? as could Idaho and Montana, saving a substantial sum in state government. Bits of states could be hived off to form a more natural entity, such as northern Minnesota and Wisconsin with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
How would a similar proposal be met in Canada? Particularly if Quebec was involved?
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It's kind of immaterial anyway. You fight elections with the electoral system your country's got, not the sort that you would design if you were allowed to start from scratch.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
cliffdweller quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM the two-vote state element in the college is of no great importance, and has far as I am aware has not been decisive in determining the outcome of any presidential election, at least in recent times. It's a red herring.
[Confused] How is it NOT a factor in this election? Is this not precisely the reason that HIllary lost, despite being ahead more than 2 million votes in the overall tally?
Trump 30 States = 60 college votes
Clinton 20 States = 40 college votes
If the 2- vote state element is removed the result is:
Trump 306-60 = 240 votes
Clinton 232-40 = 192 votes
Therefore Trump still wins without the 2- vote per state element
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Combining small states would reduce their representation in Congress so would never be allowed. Same with dividing up big states - chop up California into several pieces and we'd have more Senators. It's not administrative convenience or sense that matters, it's power.
Trump has now gone against decades of carefully worked out US foreign policy and had a chat with Taiwan's president. I am no huge fan of much is US foreign policy, but I do appreciate that people generally sit down and think about it before making a move. If Trump persists in conducting it on the fly, he stands a good chance of getting us all killed.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Trump 30 States = 60 college votes
Clinton 20 States = 40 college votes
If the 2- vote state element is removed the result is:
Trump 306-60 = 240 votes
Clinton 232-40 = 192 votes
Therefore Trump still wins without the 2- vote per state element
This is because Representatives are not, in fact, doled out among the states based on equal numbers of population. In California each Representative represents 465k people. In Arkansas, 29k. So the House is skewed toward smaller states also. Grossly so.
Source
[ 03. December 2016, 16:34: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mousethiief, I think you are confusing the ratio of population per state senator not United States Senator. That has nothing to do with the distribution of electors in the electoral college. (Check your source).
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
House representation isn't as skewed as that, and it's not so clearly in favor of small states; the most over-represented per (voting) House seat are in small states (RI, WY, WV) but so are some of the most under-represented (MO, DE, SD). Basically it's a small-integer problem - states just under the cutoff for getting a second rep will be under-represented; states just over will be over-represented.
But even if you equalized the representation so that each state got a number of electors strictly proportional to its population, Trump still would have won if all the states were winner-take-all, as nearly all of them now are: although she won a plurality of the popular vote overall, the 20 states Clinton won have 43% of the population.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mousethiief, I think you are confusing the ratio of population per state senator not United States Senator. That has nothing to do with the distribution of electors in the electoral college. (Check your source).
Here is a mjor flaw in how the electoral college is set up.
quote:
most states have an all-or-nothing approach to the Electoral College. A candidate can win a state by just a handful of votes but get all the electors. That happened in 2000, when George W. Bush, after much dispute, won Florida by 537 votes out of about 6 million and got all 27 electoral votes. He won the presidential election but lost the national popular vote that year.
{From a Huffington Post article on the 2012 election.)
So not only is the electoral college a misrepresentation of the population in general, but of many states as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The thing about states is that they are essentially 50 tiny (or not so tiny) cultures. Each has its own origin story (one of the thirteen colonies? Part of the Louisiana Purchase? Spanish or Russian history?). Each came into the Union at different times and under different circumstances—Texas was briefly an independent republic; California history involves a military “do-over” if I recall correctly, in which someone raised a flag a couple days early and had to take it down, then officially do it right a few days later. Hawaii had royalty. Pennsylvania had a considerably more relaxed history of religious tolerance than its neighbors with a lot of Quaker influence. Missouri was one of the states that came into the Union in pairs, one slave and one free, in order to keep the numbers balanced.
As a result, each state has its own local cultural traditions (including food, language, architecture, etc.) California is heavily influenced by Spain and Mexico, of course, but also by Asia (Chinese laborers were IRC the first big influx). School flyers always came home in Spanish as well as English. Oklahoma had Indian territory, where some of my ancestors lived. Louisiana of course has a heavy French influence.
Civil War history divides the states still. There are Northern states, former Confederate states, and states like Missouri, where you can find monuments to both sides—the result of being caught in the middle. There are also states like California for whom the Civil War is largely “something that happened elsewhere” and does not loom nearly so large in the public consciousness as it does elsewhere.
There are climate and weather differences—desert, coastal regions, forest, Great Plains. There are industry differences—Michigan with its auto industry has had very different concerns to Iowa with farming, or California with fruit growing and Silicon Valley and communications/media.
The point I’m trying to make is that these 50 cultures grew from the bottom up to form the United States—it was never the case that someone in the federal government simply marked out 50 administrative divisions which were more or less arbitrary and called it good. Which is why it is virtually impossible to imagine simply redrawing state boundaries or combining states without a huge mess. The people would refuse. Imagine what it would be to expect, say, Scotland, Wales, and England to give up their own distinctness and form one big blob. Not happening.
(This, by the way, is why the people of Washington D.C. just voted to petition for statehood. They did not vote to ask to be absorbed by either neighboring state, which would have made more sense, administratively speaking. They have their own culture, their own industry (government, ach!) and want to be treated as the states are. But separately, on their own.)
And this (the culture thing) is the deepest reason why the electoral college (and Congress) give every state a guaranteed allotment of representatives. It is not, and has never, been about simply dealing with individuals in the population as a whole. The U.S. has always had to give voice, not just to persons, but to each of those 50 cultures I mentioned—that is, the states. It is the states which built the Union. It was never the other way around. Even within the gigantic semi-empty-slate territories, it was left to the local people to get their act together, establish a government, and petition for admission as a state—or not, as they chose. The proto-state had to start it.
No state is going to accept the federal government hacking away at it. (It MAY accept its own population choosing to redraw stuff, but those weirdos from Washington? Heck no.) No state is going to give up its precious two senators in Congress, or the corresponding bare minimum number of electors in the college, no matter how low its population. A state is a living community, a group organism of sorts, if you will. And it’s not going to accept being voiceless. (IMHO the only people who would consider such possibilities are those who come from high population states, as they know they will have a voice regardless.)
Oh, and it's not going to allow the feds to dictate how its electors get used either. Whether all its electors vote as a bloc, or whether they get apportioned to reflect the state popular vote--and what happens in the case of a faithless elector--those are local state considerations, and the federal government gets no say in it. You'd probably need a Constitutional amendment to rip that decision out of individual state hands.
[ 03. December 2016, 19:02: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
To me that's an argument for precisely why the EC should be eliminated. We aren't apt to redraw the arbitrary state lines, but as long as they are drawn in this way, it means certain interests are over-represented and others are under-represented. Some special interests fall along geographical lines (e.g. rural vs. urban, immigration) but others much less so (disabilities, LGBT issues). The current division amplifies division and advocates for some special interests over others.
Of course, changing anything about the current system which is pretty much impossible-- precisely because it is already stacked with representatives who advocate for those prioritized geographical special interests and therefore have no motivation to change anything to advocate for different (non-geographical interests).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If you want to get rid of the electoral college, I have one question for you: If this election had turned out the other way (and how I wish it did!), would you honestly still want the EC gone?
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If you're going to kill the thing, first figure out how you're going to handle fairness to places like Alaska.
Again that begs the question. What you're describing as "fair" is that in addition to a slightly disproportionate advantage in the House of Representatives and a massively disproportionate advantage in the Senate, the people of Alaska also need to have a disproportionate amount of influence over the selection of the President. Left unsaid is why this qualifies as "fair". What so special about the 710,231 residents of Alaska (2010 census) that makes it "fair" to boost their electoral influence in a way that's not extended to the 839,631 residents of Kern County, California? I'm not convinced by your argument that an oil rig worker in Kern County (primary economic activities: agriculture and fossil fuel extraction) has a "shared interest" with a computer engineer in Santa Clara County (so they can be lumped together in an electorally disadvantageous configuration) but an Alaskan oil rig worker is so different he needs his vote boosted.
Even if we were to accept that this is in some way "fair", it seems to fail in practical terms. How many visits did each candidates in the last election make to Alaska? What proportion of their advertising budget was spent trying to convince Alaskans that Alaskan concerns would be addressed? If the purpose of the electoral college is to make the president address the concerns of Alaska (and other low-population states), it would seem to fail on those terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM the two-vote state element in the college is of no great importance, and has far as I am aware has not been decisive in determining the outcome of any presidential election, at least in recent times. It's a red herring.
The 2000 election comes to mind. Without the +2/state boost the final count would have been Gore 224, Bush 211. That seems like "recent times" to me, but YMMV.
Now I'll agree that the +2 EV/state is usually a minor factor, but it's just one of a number of anti-democratic thumbs the electoral college puts on the political scales. A far more serious one is the winner-take-all system, which is not constitutionally mandated but is an obvious logical outgrowth of the development of the party system. If a state's electoral weight all goes to the candidate with a plurality of the votes you can end up with a result where a razor-thin margin in just enough states carries a victory despite massively lopsided losses elsewhere, leading to a winner who received fewer votes than his chief opponent. In other words, the situation in 2016.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
To me that's an argument for precisely why the EC should be eliminated. We aren't apt to redraw the arbitrary state lines, but as long as they are drawn in this way, it means certain interests are over-represented and others are under-represented. Some special interests fall along geographical lines (e.g. rural vs. urban, immigration) but others much less so (disabilities, LGBT issues). The current division amplifies division and advocates for some special interests over others.
Of course, changing anything about the current system which is pretty much impossible-- precisely because it is already stacked with representatives who advocate for those prioritized geographical special interests and therefore have no motivation to change anything to advocate for different (non-geographical interests).
Presumably LGBT and disability populations are spread evenly, as you point out, and therefore should be fine with the current representation. (The responsibility to lobby one's neighbors is a universal one, and not something to duck by gerrymandering borders or Macgyvering election procedures. Particularly because doing so will only set up further problems for an endless set of other special interests, which will then call for new gerrymandering.)
Racial and ethnic stuff is NOT spread evenly,
*****************
Look, as long as we have differences at all (geographical, climate, racial, ethnic, linguistic, sexual, whatever) any system will appear to overrepresent certain interests and underrepresent others. That includes the system of a straight popular vote. Swapping our current system for another (of any stripe) is not going to change the problem. It will just shove it off on to a different set of people. How is that fair?
What we really should NOT do is to visualize the kind of country we personally want to see (left-leaning, Democrat, LGBTwhatever, city-dwelling, and so forth) and then redraw the lines, or the election process, to get what we want. Because a) it's not fair, and b) we'll get screwed in the end anyway, because people change. 100 years from now whatever special interests we are attempting to privilege will have morphed into something else, and we'll have to MacGyver the process again. (For example, it's not completely impossible that the urbanization we see now could reverse itself with the rise of doing-everything-over-the-internet. At which point everything has to be revisited again, with the same dislocation to society. And shouts of unfairness.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look, as long as we have differences at all (geographical, climate, racial, ethnic, linguistic, sexual, whatever) any system will appear to overrepresent certain interests and underrepresent others. That includes the system of a straight popular vote.
How would a straight popular vote over- or under-represent interests?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Presumably LGBT and disability populations are spread evenly,
Well, this is problematic. Even if LGBT people are born with the same percentage in any given area, they will not be treated the same. Let's give the commonly accepted percentage of just under 4%. This means, in lower population density, a lot fewer people and that means less exposure and less influence. It is no accident that acceptance of LGBT+ follows population density. And not only will you have more LGBT+ people, those born in rural areas will more likely move to areas where there is support and acceptance, thereby skewing the numbers further.
[ 04. December 2016, 00:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look, as long as we have differences at all (geographical, climate, racial, ethnic, linguistic, sexual, whatever) any system will appear to overrepresent certain interests and underrepresent others. That includes the system of a straight popular vote.
How would a straight popular vote over- or under-represent interests?
Okay, let's take a very real example. Imagine you live in California (along with roughly 39 million other people.) You need water, because most parts of the state are undersupplied for the number of people living there and growing fruit etc. You therefore hold certain views about the Colorado River, which supplies much of California's water needs.
Your sister lives in Arizona, along with less than 7 million other people. Her state, too, has an interest in the water of the Colorado (which, incidentally, gets to her state before it reaches yours).
Say we handle this water issue on a straight popular vote. Who do you think is going to win the bulk of the water, hands down, every freaking time?
This is why Arizona needs its two Senators in Congress. In the Senate, no state can simply overpower another one through pure population weight. Arizona gets a hearing just as California does, and the fact that one has vastly more people is accounted for in the House (where California gets 53 and Arizona only 9, as of 2013, anyway).
It's a balancing act.
And it would not be hard to think up parallel scenarios involving theoretical presidential candidates, which is why the number of electors is set equal to total number of reps in Congress, both House and Senate.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Presumably LGBT and disability populations are spread evenly,
Well, this is problematic. Even if LGBT people are born with the same percentage in any given area, they will not be treated the same. Let's give the commonly accepted percentage of just under 4%. This means, in lower population density, a lot fewer people and that means less exposure and less influence. It is no accident that acceptance of LGBT+ follows population density. And not only will you have more LGBT+ people, those born in rural areas will more likely move to areas where there is support and acceptance, thereby skewing the numbers further.
Who said anything about being treated the same? I'm talking about the number of human beings for whom this is an issue, and who can get politically active about it. Moving is a solution to personal needs, but not a solution to changing the country as a whole, which is presumably what you're wanting. And speaking mathematically, I don't see that you're going to be better off with a popular vote as opposed to an electoral vote. Remember, the heavy hitters in the electoral college are the high population states. These are precisely the ones that you are identifying as already LGBT friendly. Won't you get the same result?
Really, if you imagine a rather heartless chess player moving people all over the country at whim, the LGBT community / disabled / mentally ill / immigrants / etc. would be better served to leave the high population states and go and concentrate themselves in the lower ones. There they would quickly become a sizable percentage of the voting population (which is smaller) and be changing a hostile climate, to boot.
As for this,
quote:
Let's give the commonly accepted percentage of just under 4%. This means, in lower population density, a lot fewer people and that means less exposure and less influence.
I think you've got a math problem. If 4% of the population have influence amounting to x, scaling up the population (and the absolute number of people belonging in the 4%) does not translate into extra influence power. That is still x--because the number of people to be influenced has increased at the same rate.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mousethiief, I think you are confusing the ratio of population per state senator not United States Senator. That has nothing to do with the distribution of electors in the electoral college. (Check your source).
So I see. Sorry about that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There are industry differences—Michigan with its auto industry has had very different concerns to Iowa with farming,
Actually they will share a lot more than you suppose. from the US department of Agriculture: quote:
64 percent of all vegetable sales and 66 percent of all dairy sales come from the 3 percent of farms that are large or very large family farms.
This means those "family" farms are actually big business.
This does not include corporate farms or that farmers are beholden to corporations to sell their goods. Or the corporate entities that produce the equipment that family farms use. Or that family farms employ fewer people and can be as automated as they can afford to be.
The image of Ma and Pa farmer is one used politically, but not quite accurate any longer.
quote:
The point I’m trying to make is that these 50 cultures grew from the bottom up to form the United States
I'm not arguing this. I am saying that the reasons less valid today.
quote:
—it was never the case that someone in the federal government simply marked out 50 administrative divisions which were more or less arbitrary and called it good.
This is actually the case for a fair percentage of the states. But the specific reasons for the bordering of certain states are less relevant today and the source of unnecessary division.
quote:
Which is why it is virtually impossible to imagine simply redrawing state boundaries or combining states without a huge mess.
I'm not actually suggesting redrawing the state boundaries, just changing the way they are represented. A simple change that would help would be to assign all electors proportionately to the vote.
quote:
Imagine what it would be to expect, say, Scotland, Wales, and England to give up their own distinctness and form one big blob. Not happening.
This is how things are seen now by some. But remember England itself was many kingdoms.
quote:
The U.S. has always had to give voice, not just to persons, but to each of those 50 cultures I mentioned—that is, the states. It is the states which built the Union.
Not my understanding of US history. There has always been a mix of state v federal. From the country's very inception. The federal government has redrawn state boundaries more than once, it has curbed state ambition more than once.
Given that the lower density states do not wish to cede perceived importance, I think change would be difficult. This is not to say change is not needed or that the current system is equitable.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think you've got a math problem. If 4% of the population have influence amounting to x, scaling up the population (and the absolute number of people belonging in the 4%) does not translate into extra influence power. That is still x--because the number of people to be influenced has increased at the same rate.
So, 4 people out of 100 are LGBT+. This means in a group of 10, there may not be any. In a group of 100, there may only be 4. Those 4 will be directly opposing 96 people. In a city of 100,000, there would be 4,000 people. No 4,000 grouping of any sort will have direct contact with all the other 96,000, 4,000n people nhave a greater voice among 100,000 than 4 among 96. Everything scales this way.
BTW, if you are interested in grouping people by culture, here is a map that makes more sense.
[ 04. December 2016, 01:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
LC: I think I understand. I take under- or over-representation to be deviation from equal representation, of the one-person-one-vote variety, and so your example seems to me to illustrate exactly the opposite of what you seem to think it does. I'd say you're arguing that certain small groups of people should be over-represented, and certain large groups of people should be under-represented. In your usage, interests are under- or over-represented to the extent that you think they're going to be unfairly disadvantaged or advantaged, but your notion of fairness isn't linked to a principle of numerical equality.
quote:
Say we handle this water issue on a straight popular vote. Who do you think is going to win the bulk of the water, hands down, every freaking time?
Well, the 39 million people who need a lot more water than the 7 million, I should hope! Do you think the water should be split half for one state and half for the other? I don't find this example to be a very compelling argument for giving a small number of people a great deal more leverage. It's not like industrious Arizonans are themselves creating the water and then being robbed of the product of their virtuous labor by those lazy Californians who can't be arsed to make their own damn water.
I grew up in the most populous state and now live in a relatively small one; I don't think the small state bias in the EC is particularly fair, especially since the presidency isn't a regional office unlike those of representative or senator. If reform were on offer, though, I'd get rid of the winner-take-all aspect first in preference to fighting about the extra two electors.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Maybe it's even more fundamental than that. I'm not arguing for "fair" in the sense that one person has one right, which they themselves are fully aware of and control. Because people just aren't that smart.*
Why should California not have all the water? Because a) it's bad for the ecology (only humans get a vote) and b) because the more you divide up water on the basis of current population (rather than, say, logic and foreseeable consequences), the more you encourage people to move to the already highly-populated-and-thus-entitled California. You see the problem? At what point do we call a halt to increasing that supply? The Colorado is not an unlimited supply. But the number of people who would like to move to California if constraints like water are removed is overwhelming. It's a really, really nice place. I'd like to be there myself. And of course I'd be interested in the (population) "might is right" argument. Except for conscience...
* When I say "people aren't that smart," I am referring to the fact that we regularly vote like dumbasses on subjects that will eventually bit us in the butt, like climate change. Some of those issues may be localized (for now). And thus the people most concerned will be making a stink (as they have every right to do). But suppose the issue is in a low population area (like the planned pipeline through sacred sites in North Dakota). Don't you think that a nationwide popular vote on the issue is going to come down to "Eh, it's just a bunch of Indians out in the middle of nowhere. We need that pipeline for the rest of us"? I think it would. But fucking with people's religion and local ecology is a bad principle with bad effects on the whole nation's character. Seen as a moral issue, it has a national impact. But do I trust a straight popular vote to get it right? No. The local people need the voice that their Constitutionally-mandated two senators give them. Otherwise they have nothing but a single representative in the House--that's what low population gets you. And a potentially nation-wide impact gets buried.
Or suppose the local population is yuuuuugge as an unbeloved Person of Interest has it, and they use that population size to push a really iffy solution. That's another time you want to have a state-based vote (and not straight popular). Take the case of Florida--or any other low-lying coastal state. Sooner or later (sooner, if Trump has his way) they are going to face the question of what to do when the ocean comes lapping up their city streets. Move, or attempt shenanigans with dikes and levees and islands and .... ??? all of which are temporary and extremely expensive, not to mention hazardous and destructive of wildlife, and basically doomed in the (not very) long haul anyway.
If the Floridians are like ordinary people, they will naturally prefer the levee/dike solution. It HURTS to move--to leave beloved places behind--to start over. It sucks like a sucky thing. And naturally they will want the federal government (read: the whole United States) to pump money and labor into their preferred solution. Now this is a local problem, but if it's going to happen, it's going to take national resources. Should it happen? That's the question everyone's going to be asking. And the time will come when the sane answer will be "no," and the last people to see it will be the Floridians. Because human.
Do you see why I don't believe every human body should be handed a single vote's worth of power without the checks and balances that states' votes provide?
People don't always think about what's best for them, let alone for everybody. And given the opportunity, they screw their neighbors in the process of (maybe) figuring it out. Better to give those neighbors a fighting chance.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
lilBuddha, given that my understanding is based on study plus lifelong experience, and yours is based on a couple of articles plus I-have-no-idea, it's really hard to keep having this conversation. Essentially you are telling me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. And since I cannot ask whether you have personal experience of the U.S. or not, it's hard to know what credence to give to you.
I do note that as far as I can see, no known American shipmates are chiming in to say that states are arbitrary and unimportant. They may wish the electoral college gone for other reasons, but I don't see them supporting the the idea that all that matters is one body, one vote, and where that body is located makes no difference. Would someone like to correct me?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
Regarding representation level, and the perceived over-representation of interests of less populated states, and L.C.s water rights example.
I do have a question as to whether that isn't already addressed at the senate/congressional level? In fact the representatives at that level have an ongoing say on such issues, and so can represent the state interests as the issues arise.
At the presidential level, could it be time to consider the notion of president for the people, by the people? Rather than for the states, by the states? Genuine question from someone outside the system.
As previously noted, I appreciate the unique character of the states, and why the elections are framed as they are now. And I don't know that the system needs radical revamp as reaction to the 2016 election outcome. Every system will spit out odd results. (In fact, a system of direct representation would have meant a different campaign strategy, and different voter turnout in "safe" states.) It would certainly reduce the focus on the half dozen or so swing states.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It is indeed addressed in Congress--I brought it up as a (sadly long-winded) way of pointing out that you could have parallel problems with a particular presidential candidate. Sheesh, alliteration!
Sorry if I'm being as clear as mud. I'm not saying it would have made a difference this time around, but that in some future race a parallel could arise, and you'd want those less populated areas to have a say.
There's also the fact that the president represents the third branch of our system, the executive, in distinction to the Congress (legislative). Congress has checks and balances between states vs population; one could argue that the executive branch ought to have similar ones. I think they're built into the electoral college.
[ 04. December 2016, 02:46: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
lilBuddha, given that my understanding is based on study plus lifelong experience, and yours is based on a couple of articles plus I-have-no-idea, it's really hard to keep having this conversation. Essentially you are telling me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
I am not telling you that you do not know what you are talking about. I am telling you I see things differently.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I can tell that. But I think we've come down to the point of "I say this, you say that" and we're not getting any forwarder. We're into the realm of flat contradiction, and must agree to disagree.
[ 04. December 2016, 03:25: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
How would a similar proposal be met in Canada? Particularly if Quebec was involved?
There have been years of proposals to unite the four Atlantic provinces (NS having 920k, NB 751k, PEI 141k, and Newfoundland & Labrador 514k) and occasional mutterings about uniting the three prairie provinces. Québec nationalists used to muse on extending its boundaries into norther New Brunswick & Ontario, with substantial francophone populations). There is a specific constitutional provision against altering provincial boundaries or merging provinces without the consent of their legislatures and I imagine that provincial parliamentarians would be as enthusiastic as would US legislators to merge states.
In the case of either country, mergers and alterations would be highly rational, greatly advantageous, and extremely unlikely. And as one of my polisci friends noted, to even think that state structures should serve the citizenry rather than those who run the structures is downright bolshie.
I have often wondered what would happen if the electoral college, meeting in each state on the 19th December, would do as the authors of the constitution intended, and review the candidates and nominees, and then cast their votes. This is entirely the world of speculative fiction unless, as is not impossible with elderly candidates, of being faced with candidates expiring between the general election and the meetings of electors.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Just a small thing--in the US, at least, the people doing the resisting would be the citizenry, much more so than the legislators (who spend much of their lives out of state, after all, and have the temptations of self-serving gerrymamdering to contemd with). But the citizens are the ones who are emotionally attached. They aren't going to be happy on purely emotional grounds if (having been a lifelong Missouri mule) they wake up one day to find themselves Hawkeyes (Iowans). Think of it--new tax codes, new criminal laws, and worst of all, new football teams! The horror. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I think the lawmakers would be at least as resistant to changes in the power structure as the citizenry. There's no benefit to legislators in it. Not to mention other state workers. Combining small states would mean fewer state capital jobs of every kind at every level. No one's going to go for that.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
lilBuddha, given that my understanding is based on study plus lifelong experience, and yours is based on a couple of articles plus I-have-no-idea, it's really hard to keep having this conversation. Essentially you are telling me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. And since I cannot ask whether you have personal experience of the U.S. or not, it's hard to know what credence to give to you.
I do note that as far as I can see, no known American shipmates are chiming in to say that states are arbitrary and unimportant. They may wish the electoral college gone for other reasons, but I don't see them supporting the the idea that all that matters is one body, one vote, and where that body is located makes no difference. Would someone like to correct me?
Um...yes. I'm an American shipmate, and I've been arguing vs your point all along.
I appreciate your greater knowledge, but I simply can't see the argument you're making here. What am I missing?
To review what's already been said so you can show me the step I'm missing: people in under-populated areas have particular interests (water usage, as you note, being a good one). The EC and Congressional rep. systems are "rigged" (to use loaded language, "designed" to be less so) to allow for that and give those areas an "amplified" vote to prevent those interests from being overwhelmed by the majority voters living in more populated areas.
But there are other minority groups which are not dispersed geographically-- disabilities, LGBT, etc. Their interests are just as important to them as the interests of those in underpopulated areas. They have the exact same danger of having their interests (e.g. marriage equality) ignored or trampled over by a majority population with different interests. BUT they are not given the same amplification that under-populated states are given. That seems incredibly unfair, and even though you've been dialoguing consistently with us about that for days, I still am not recognizing your essential argument about why this should be so.
You make the point that minority groups have to make their argument, to "sell" the majority on why their interests should be addressed. I agree. I just don't see why we're going to such extremes to assist one particular group in doing so without doing the same for others.
This scale-tipping seems to magnify the marginalizing effect for the non-geographic minorities. Not only do they have to content with the simple math of being the minority view, they also have to content with the additional multiplication of one interest groups' votes that are not necessarily aligned with their own. Marriage equality would seem to be a good example of this.
If populated/non-populated interests were the only interests that needed preserving, then why aren't we doing anything to preserve those interests within states? As noted above, the San Joaquin Valley in California is the most productive agricultural region in the world-- immensely important, and concerned about things like, yes, water rights. And yet it is sparsely populated, and thus generally outvoted by the vast majority of Californians clumped together in large urban areas along the coastline.
I'm a lifelong Californian, and have lived both in the high-density coastal areas as well as the very rural sparsely populated San Joaquin valley. As others have noted, the sparsely populated population is often portrayed in heroic terms-- the noble, struggling mom & pop farmer unable to come up against the interests of those wealthy big city businessfolks. But today this is not the norm. In many (though of course not all) of these under-populated areas, what you have is massive agri-businesses who's interests are already being amplified by the other major factor "rigging" the system: money. They have the wealth to exert undo influence over the legislature thru lobbying, etc. Which is why, for example, even though populous California gets an undo share of Colorado river water, a disproportionate percentage at a discount price goes to the underpopulated San Joaquin valley. Which might not be a bad outcome, given that we all need the food they grow. But it does show they're not exactly little David coming up against the massive coastal Goliath..
So again, despite all you're written I'm just not seeing the argument for advantaging this one particular special interest above all other special interests.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
to further pile on: if the states were as naturally organic and effective in representing shared interests as you seem to be arguing, I don't think they'd look like what we have. You have states that are very homogenous, able to "speak with one voice" because they are very similar in population. Then you have states (particularly the geographically larger ones) where you have vast differences in interests, economy and lifestyle-- California being a prime example-- it's not hard to choose 3 cities like Compton, San Jose, and Bakersfield that are so vastly different in their interests and needs that they might as well be three different states.
I don't think there's anything "natural" or "organic" about this. I think it began rather capriciously, with states coming into the union at very different times for very different reasons and in very different ways. This then was further manipulated in the normal sort of gerrymandering that political interests will do. But no, I don't see anything natural or essential to the division, especially when it comes to federal elections and federal policies/budgeting.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The point I’m trying to make is that these 50 cultures grew from the bottom up to form the United States—it was never the case that someone in the federal government simply marked out 50 administrative divisions which were more or less arbitrary and called it good.
I disagree that there are only (and exactly) 50 different cultures in the U.S. and that these happen to map exactly to state boundaries. Nor does it seem reasonable to argue that because each state is so culturally homogeneous its entire electoral weight can be concentrated unanimously in support of one presidential candidate.
To pick a real life example, you seem to be arguing that John Lewis and Lester Maddox lived in the same culture and therefore had the same political interests and views. The assumption could even be made that they both supported George Wallace for president in 1972, since that's who all of Georgia's presidential electors voted for.
I'd argue that reverse; that despite coming from the same state the cultures in which Lewis and Maddox lived were very different indeed, starting with the fact that Maddox could be reasonably certain that his constitutional rights would be respected while Lewis had good reason to believe othewise [violent imagery]. I'd further argue that Lewis lived in a culture much more similar to that inhabited by the rest of the "Big Six", despite the fact that there was only one other Georgian among them besides Lewis, and Maddox had much more in common, both culturally and politically, with non-Georgians like Orbal Faubus and T. E. Connor than he ever had with Lewis. Claiming that Lewis and Maddox share the same political interests because of shared geography is downright perverse.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Presumably LGBT and disability populations are spread evenly, as you point out, and therefore should be fine with the current representation.
Which, in your analysis, means that LGBT people and the disabled do not share a culture and therefore do not have any common political interests. All their political positions are allegedly the product of geography.
[ 04. December 2016, 14:46: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
If the state divisions were natural there wouldn't be so many straight state lines. The decision about where to draw California's northern and eastern boundaries was a political one. The southeastern border runs along the Colorado River, so is a natural boundary, but the straight lines are anything but. When they met in Monterey to create the state, they thought about including a lot more territory, but decided that they couldn't go as far east as where the Mormons lived because the Mormons weren't represented at the convention, and they also thought about how much representation the west would eventually have - they rightly figured that more western states would mean more influence for the west in Washington, DC. So they drew straight lines through the Sierras. Dividing Lake Tahoe between California and Nevada is not natural! And the exact line between California and Nevada was only settled in 1980 in the Supreme Court.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
How would a similar proposal be met in Canada? Particularly if Quebec was involved?
There have been years of proposals to unite the four Atlantic provinces (NS having 920k, NB 751k, PEI 141k, and Newfoundland & Labrador 514k) and occasional mutterings about uniting the three prairie provinces.
We could unite Manitoba with Kenora and west, separating it from Ontario. They are even in the same time zone.
I liked the idea of the Province of Buffalo which took in a bit of southern Manitoba, all of southern Saskatchean and Alberta. But Laurier had different ideas to prevent dethronement of Ontario and Québec, which may happen anyway.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think the lawmakers would be at least as resistant to changes in the power structure as the citizenry. There's no benefit to legislators in it. Not to mention other state workers. Combining small states would mean fewer state capital jobs of every kind at every level. No one's going to go for that.
Agreed. The process TO a more equitable system is fraught, precisely because the system is currently designed for the outcome we see (as is usually the case). I'm not even sure how the citizenry could come together to bring about a change.
But that is a far different question than the question of whether or not there should be a change. I believe, for the reasons outlined above, the current system is rigged in ways that are not only unfair, but unjust and perpetuate a whole host of social ills, of which Trump's presidency is only the most obvious example. I think there are many, many alternative systems of representative government around the world we could turn to for a better system of representing the people as a whole while preserving the rights and interests of ALL minority groups.
What to do about it/how to get there-- well, yes, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
LC: I'm not at all convinced by your updated water rights argument. While I've got some sympathy for the position that majority rule should be limited to avoid the minority rights from being trampled, I think you've now gone far beyond that.
Now it seems you think the decisions of large numbers of people are inherently worse than those of small numbers of people. Arizona has seen a lot of growth in its population, despite severe water stress - but for some reason you think it makes sense for them to be given the power to throttle the growth of California. Why should the decisions of people in that state be privileged over those of people in California, just because Arizona is smaller? What makes you think small states won't make environmentally disastrous decisions?
Your Florida example is just bizarre. You're arguing that the preferences of people in a large state have to be subordinated to national opinion because "people aren't that smart" and they might be making a bad choice based on misperceptions of their own interest. But this seems to be exactly the kind of majoritarian position you were arguing against when it came to the interests of small states. I can't for the life of me understand why this means small states should have more representation. Aren't they just as likely to make bad choices based on misperceptions of their own interests? At least a one-person-one-vote framework doesn't imply that a person living in Wyoming should have more influence over federal spending in Florida than a person in California.
quote:
I do note that as far as I can see, no known American shipmates are chiming in to say that states are arbitrary and unimportant. They may wish the electoral college gone for other reasons, but I don't see them supporting the the idea that all that matters is one body, one vote, and where that body is located makes no difference. Would someone like to correct me?
For the record - as far as I can tell, you're the only American shipmate who's really pushing the vital importance of unequal representation in Congress or the EC. I think state boundaries are the result of historical contingencies and are largely arbitrary, and I don't think they're particularly meaningful as demarcations of 50 separate cultures. I seriously doubt that there's such a huge cultural distinction between North Dakota and South Dakota that it's imperative for each of them to have 2 senators. There's probably a bigger difference between eastern and western Washington.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So again, despite all you're written I'm just not seeing the argument for advantaging this one particular special interest above all other special interests.
Obviously I'm doing a crap job of communicating.
I am not saying that one special interest ought to be privileged above all others. I am saying that there is a way (which we are already using, and I don't think we should stop using) to rectify one particular problem with one particular set of special interests.
As for other special interests that don't get this treatment, that sucks. I don't know how to fix those situations, as they are not geographically based. And to avoid dragging dead horses further into this thread, I'm going to talk about disability from this point on.
Disability stuff is a special interest. It needs rectifying, it needs a voice. But it isn't geographically related and it therefore cannot be rectified by giving a geographical area two guaranteed votes in the EC and in Congress. Some other way will have to be found.
But in the meantime, there's no reason we should not go on rectifying the geographical problems. You don't quit treating leukemia because there's no cure for glioblastoma.
That's all I was saying.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Back to the culture thing.
People, seriously. do you really think I'm such an idiot to think that everyone within a certain state border is going to be little clones of one another?
Apparently you do.
I think I need to bail out of this discussion. I'm making a huge FAIL when it comes to communication. Sorry, folks.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Back to the culture thing.
People, seriously. do you really think I'm such an idiot to think that everyone within a certain state border is going to be little clones of one another?
Apparently you do.
I think I need to bail out of this discussion. I'm making a huge FAIL when it comes to communication. Sorry, folks.
I understand you're bowing out, but I think it's fair to respond to your complaint that your argument is being unfairly caricatured.
You said:
quote:
The thing about states is that they are essentially 50 tiny (or not so tiny) cultures.
That's what people are contesting, not some nonsense about clones. I don't believe state boundaries are at all significant markers of cultural distinction. And I don't see any reason at all to believe that small states are more likely to make wise decisions - certainly not to the extent that would justify the nine smallest states with a combined population of 8 million having an equal voice to the 20 million residents of Florida, on a matter which (in your hypothetical example) is critical to Floridians and would entail the deployment of resources to which Floridians had made a substantially larger contribution than those small state residents.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I question whether the Missouri suburbs of St. Louis are more different from East St. Louis, IL, than inner city Chicago is from its more affluent suburbs. Or indeed are Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota all that different culturally from one another, compared to the difference between Watts and Beverly Hills, all within the city limits of Los Angeles? This whole "50 distinct cultures" thing is wishful thinking at best, total crap in reality.
[ 04. December 2016, 18:22: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, let's take a very real example. Imagine you live in California (along with roughly 39 million other people.) You need water, because most parts of the state are undersupplied for the number of people living there and growing fruit etc. You therefore hold certain views about the Colorado River, which supplies much of California's water needs.
Your sister lives in Arizona, along with less than 7 million other people. Her state, too, has an interest in the water of the Colorado (which, incidentally, gets to her state before it reaches yours).
Say we handle this water issue on a straight popular vote. Who do you think is going to win the bulk of the water, hands down, every freaking time?
This is not "a very real example". The federal government of the United States is a representative democracy, rather than a direct one, and does not submit public works projects or public resource allocations to a referendum or plebiscite. I suppose you could posit a case where the distribution of Colorado River water became the primary campaign issue in a presidential election. Even in that case the pro-California candidate would still have the advantage, 55 electoral votes to 11.
How about an actual "real example"? What if Americans were tasked with selecting someone to administer the powers of the executive branch of the federal government? One way would be conduct this process the same way the chief executive is selected in every other state, county, and municipal election: by having citizens vote and whoever has the most votes at the end of the process wins.
On the other hand you claim that this is unfair (but not so unfair it bothers you about every other elected post in the U.S.) and a more equitable way to proceed would be for citizens to vote by state, for those states to be given a certain weight based mostly (but not entirely) on population, and then for the entire electoral weight of each state to be awarded as a bloc to the plurality winner of that state regardless of electoral margin. And this would be fairer because culture or something.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Obviously I'm doing a crap job of communicating.
No, I just think that the electoral college system as it presently exists is indefensible in pragmatic or philosophical terms. The flaws are fairly obvious to any mathematical examination and the fact that it's produced two anti-democratic results in the past five elections means that this is a persistent problem.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So again, despite all you're written I'm just not seeing the argument for advantaging this one particular special interest above all other special interests.
Obviously I'm doing a crap job of communicating.
I am not saying that one special interest ought to be privileged above all others. I am saying that there is a way (which we are already using, and I don't think we should stop using) to rectify one particular problem with one particular set of special interests.
As for other special interests that don't get this treatment, that sucks. I don't know how to fix those situations, as they are not geographically based. And to avoid dragging dead horses further into this thread, I'm going to talk about disability from this point on.
Disability stuff is a special interest. It needs rectifying, it needs a voice. But it isn't geographically related and it therefore cannot be rectified by giving a geographical area two guaranteed votes in the EC and in Congress. Some other way will have to be found.
But in the meantime, there's no reason we should not go on rectifying the geographical problems. You don't quit treating leukemia because there's no cure for glioblastoma.
That's all I was saying.
Yeah, but giving the geographic interests an amplified voice and NOT giving the non-geographic minority interests a similarly amplified voice seems to only marginalize those minority interests all the more. Any group that's in the minority is going to be disadvantaged in a democracy-- as you said before, you've got to advocate loudly or persuasively enough to convince the majority to provide for your interests even if there is no benefit for the majority. That's just inherent to the suckiness of being in a minority position.
BUT-- by privileging this ONE group-- non-densely populated areas-- over all others you really are creating even greater marginalization. The "rectifying" you're talking about really creates an artificial majority voice for the non-densely populated areas-- essentially creating TWO majorities (the actual majority and the artificial one) that any minority interests have to appeal to in order to see their minority needs addressed. You have made life doubly hard for those groups.
Further, the nature of non-densely populated areas is often mischaracterized. In some cases, yes, "sparsely populated" does translate into poverty-- rural areas, small towns where the loss of a key industry has left the town hollowed out, parts of Appalachia or Alaska. They are sparsely populated because those who can get out, do.
But other places are sparsely populated for the exact opposite reason: because they are such attractive places to live that wealthy people come in, buy up huge swaths of land, drive up prices. They are densely populated precisely because the wealthy can afford to buy enough house/land to set them far apart from their neighbors. This for example would be the key difference between East L.A. or South-Central and the Westside. Parts of Wyoming and Montana, some of the less urban areas of Hawaii show this sorts of discrepancy. I'm not sure we need to provide a built-in mechanism to give more political power to the wealthy-- their money has always given them plenty of access, even before Citizen's United. So whatever inequities the EC is designed to address seem to me to be accomplished so clumsily and inaccurately as to create more inequity, not less.
Speaking again, as an American-- albeit one from a large & populous state.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Dave W.:
quote:
The problem may simply be incoherence in the WaPo article itself: quote:
In between those elections, U.S. economic activity has grown increasingly concentrated in large, “superstar” metro areas, such as Silicon Valley and New York.
In what sense has economic activity grown increasingly concentrated if the counties in question have about the same share of the economy as before?
It’s possible they were extrapolating that since Clinton won fewer counties than Gore, but more of the economy, economic output has condensed within counties that both Clinton and Gore won. They don’t cite any data and it seems very possible to me Gore won some of the low output counties that Trump took this time and that accounts for the difference. The Brookings article makes no mention of concentration within specific metro areas.
In terms of the outsized place of large metropolitan areas in the economy, and the concentration of income in these areas; I do believe that is going on (irrespective of whether or not that had any effect on the election). The U.S. Department of Commerce numbers for 2012 have the ten largest metropolitan areas responsible for 34% of the national GDP. A 2013 report prepared for the U.S. Conference of Mayors show that the GDP of the top ten metro areas is more than the combined GDP of 36 states. Someone took the data in that report and mapped it here. This article is interesting as well showing the uptick in employment rates in large cities.
None of that may have had an effect on this election. It seems to me inevitable that it will, given the power the Electoral College still has in deciding who is president.
quote:
I was referring to your surprise that Clinton won low income voters, a fact that contradicted what you said you expected.
Trump carrying this demographic was not what I expected (Trump winning was also not what I expected). What I said, having looked at the Brookings tiled map of income by county, is that I would not be surprised if Trump carried median level income voters below $50k given the number of low economic output counties he won. Turns out I was not surprised because he didn’t, but I would also say I was not surprised that Clinton did. So this was not a negation of something I was looking for. Just for clarity.
quote:
And if I had, I doubt it could be entirely based on "data" - certainly not just on things at the level of county wealth statistics. It would have to take into account such things as the fact people's preference for Trump over Clinton was better predicted by their belief that Obama is a Muslim than by their level of economic anxiety, the collapse of the Republican party establishment's role as gatekeeper to its own nomination process, and the Democratic party's own severe but different failures in that process.
Fair enough, but taking in to account there might be errors with the way the economic data is collected or confusing ways to present it, those statistics I think have a lot of reach and depth in terms of what the numbers help us understand; and hopefully minimize subjectivity. The analysis you mentioned is certainly interesting, and gives a lot more credence to vote behavior being dictated by antipathy and not economic self interest. Based on what I read about the underlying data, it came from an online poll of 1,000 individuals carried out around the time of the primaries. I’m sure such data has its own issues in terms of drawing broad conclusions.
I do believe in at least some critical way shifts in the economy played a part in what happened. I have to believe Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had to have voters in some substantial numbers that went Trump that likely voted for Obama previously (and perhaps more than once).
Changing the subject, I am interested to see where the Democrats go from here. I can’t say so far I’ve seen a lot to indicate any major changes in direction or strategy. Pelosi keeping her position seems to be an indication of maintenance of the status quo.
[ 05. December 2016, 02:02: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Changing the subject, I am interested to see where the Democrats go from here. I can’t say so far I’ve seen a lot to indicate any major changes in direction or strategy. Pelosi keeping her position seems to be an indication of maintenance of the status quo.
Yeah, that doesn't exactly excite me. And the election for DNC chair doesn't inspire hope -- Howard Dean has pulled out, Keith Ellison turns out to have some very serious baggage, and I've never heard of the other people in the running.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I do believe in at least some critical way shifts in the economy played a part in what happened. I have to believe Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had to have voters in some substantial numbers that went Trump that likely voted for Obama previously (and perhaps more than once).
There is some evidence emerging that fewer voters switched than might look to be the case from looking at the bottom line figures, it looks like there a reasonably large factor was democratic voters staying at home, and more republicans turning up to vote.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Back to the culture thing.
People, seriously. do you really think I'm such an idiot to think that everyone within a certain state border is going to be little clones of one another?
Nope, I didn't really. As I said about a week ago on this thread, one thing I note (and kind of like) about when I meet someone from the US of A is when introducing themselves they identify by state, with a bit of pride. There's something about state identity which makes it more than just an arbitrary boundary. That plus state laws.
Of course state borders (like national borders) are arbitrary administrative borders. But some administrative divisions are more arbitrary meaning than others. For example, electorate boundaries in NZ get redrawn every few years to reflect population. So there's every possibility that the electorate I am in will change in the next few years. Or even cease to exist. And stuff all people identify with their electorate.
But I don't think anyone was suggesting redrawing state boundaries every 10 years to reflect population changes. Instead, there is suggestion that EC representation be amended to be more or less proportional to population to state populations, or in fact the presidential process be amended to reflect the will of wider population of America
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I do believe in at least some critical way shifts in the economy played a part in what happened. I have to believe Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had to have voters in some substantial numbers that went Trump that likely voted for Obama previously (and perhaps more than once).
There is some evidence emerging that fewer voters switched than might look to be the case from looking at the bottom line figures, it looks like there a reasonably large factor was democratic voters staying at home, and more republicans turning up to vote.
As well as (arguably) the GOP doing a really good job of creating barriers for certain marginalized groups to voting in key battleground states.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
