4 ms·

What if the left just figure out how many people to move into right leaning states to make a sweep? The left has been the majority for a while, but not in char

What if the left just figure out how many people to move into right leaning states to make a sweep? The left has been the majority for a while, but not in charge because 1 person != 1 vote (2 senators / state regardless of population, no D.C. senator, electoral college system.. any more?)

mikeash 11y ago
It would be even easier if the left would just get off its collective butts and go vote. Disproportionate representation is a problem, for sure, but the American left would have far more success despite that problem if only they would go vote in off-year elections. Either way, I don't think it would help the fundamental problem, which is that roughly half of the voters in this country don't accept climate science, and their party and associated media have set up a huge feedback loop to keep it that way. Helping the Democrats isn't really a solution, because we need two healthy parties.
- codecamper 11y ago
  Well said Mike. I agree with you completely. People just don't get that this could be a serious problem & that once you notice you have a problem, you've got 250 years of locked in effects. Here's hoping that SolarCity, Tesla, and others can make a technological difference.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Another problem is you cannot vote Sanders without voting to keep the current abortion laws. Many totally different questio ns meaning different things to different people. To many people I guess voting is choosing the lesser evil.
- pklausler 11y ago
  So long as a dangerously insane candidate is in danger of winning an election, the only ethical choice is to vote for the sane candidate most likely to win in any race. Agree that we need multiple functional sane parties, but we haven't had that happy situation in the US for forty years.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I totally agree, you have to work within the framework you have, and in this case that means voting against the crazies. It just doesn't work very well. I don't claim to have any answers for what would work better, it's just that this particular answer is unsatisfying.
refurb 11y ago
The left has been the majority for a while Really? So you're saying every person in America can be neatly defined as either right or left? That's odd because I know a lot of conservative folks who are for marriage equality and left-wing folks who love guns and are members of the NRA.
- username223 11y ago
  > So you're saying every person in America can be neatly defined as either right or left? For hysterical raisins, the US has a basically permanent two-party system. Charitably speaking, you can be socially and economically either conservative or liberal, R or D. There are some people who are economically conservative and socially liberal -- "do what you want, and leave me alone." There are others who are economically liberal and socially conservative -- "we should help the less fortunate, because that is what Christ and compassion demand." And there are plenty of other positions, but the only two real options are R and D. Tweaking the meanings of those two letters is your best bet.
  - tremon 11y ago
    you can be socially and economically either conservative or liberal, R or D. That merely means voters are severely limited in their ways to express their opinion. It doesn't mean every person is reducible to a single bit.
    - username223 11y ago
      That was more or less my point.

mikeash 11y ago

It would be even easier if the left would just get off its collective butts and go vote. Disproportionate representation is a problem, for sure, but the American left would have far more success despite that problem if only they would go vote in off-year elections. Either way, I don't think it would help the fundamental problem, which is that roughly half of the voters in this country don't accept climate science, and their party and associated media have set up a huge feedback loop to keep it that way. Helping the Democrats isn't really a solution, because we need two healthy parties.

codecamper 11y ago
Well said Mike. I agree with you completely. People just don't get that this could be a serious problem & that once you notice you have a problem, you've got 250 years of locked in effects. Here's hoping that SolarCity, Tesla, and others can make a technological difference.
reitanqild 11y ago
Another problem is you cannot vote Sanders without voting to keep the current abortion laws. Many totally different questio ns meaning different things to different people. To many people I guess voting is choosing the lesser evil.
pklausler 11y ago
So long as a dangerously insane candidate is in danger of winning an election, the only ethical choice is to vote for the sane candidate most likely to win in any race. Agree that we need multiple functional sane parties, but we haven't had that happy situation in the US for forty years.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I totally agree, you have to work within the framework you have, and in this case that means voting against the crazies. It just doesn't work very well. I don't claim to have any answers for what would work better, it's just that this particular answer is unsatisfying.

refurb 11y ago

The left has been the majority for a while Really? So you're saying every person in America can be neatly defined as either right or left? That's odd because I know a lot of conservative folks who are for marriage equality and left-wing folks who love guns and are members of the NRA.

username223 11y ago
> So you're saying every person in America can be neatly defined as either right or left? For hysterical raisins, the US has a basically permanent two-party system. Charitably speaking, you can be socially and economically either conservative or liberal, R or D. There are some people who are economically conservative and socially liberal -- "do what you want, and leave me alone." There are others who are economically liberal and socially conservative -- "we should help the less fortunate, because that is what Christ and compassion demand." And there are plenty of other positions, but the only two real options are R and D. Tweaking the meanings of those two letters is your best bet.
- tremon 11y ago
  you can be socially and economically either conservative or liberal, R or D. That merely means voters are severely limited in their ways to express their opinion. It doesn't mean every person is reducible to a single bit.
  - username223 11y ago
    That was more or less my point.