4 ms·

American democracy’s built-in bias towards rural Republicans

16 points by farseer 8y ago

viburnum 8y ago
The Constitution wasn't created by wizards, it's bad, and can be replaced. It's not a democracy if you're ruled by the dead.
- isostatic 8y ago
  With what? On a simple 50%+1 majority of those that vote? There's a process for changing the constitution, use it.
  - wl 8y ago
    The process of amending the US constitution is exceedingly difficult. Whether that's wise or not, telling someone who is unhappy with the US constitution to change it is unproductive.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      There have been 27 ammendments, including 12 in the last 100 years.
guard0g 8y ago
Given voter turnout rates around 50% for presidential elections and even lower for House and Senate votes, getting the vote out is an old-fashioned but still viable strategy without resorting to ranked choice. I doubt voters are sufficiently aware or engaged in most issues to make ranked choice effective.
- snarf21 8y ago
  I think it is also missing the point that the voting machines are in no way set up for ranked. There hasn't even been money to update machines that are 50 years old and punch paper.
- tzs 8y ago
  Ranked choice would be much much more effective than getting the vote out for addressing the problem of in a more than two way election having the least desired candidate win because the more desired candidates split the vote. The more good candidates that are widely approved that run, the better the chance in our current system that we'll select someone who is widely disapproved. We can elect someone who would have lost one on one verses any of the other candidates.
selimthegrim 8y ago
https://mobile.twitter.com/NormOrnstein/status/1016789064379334656 https://mobile.twitter.com/NormOrnstein/status/1016789064379...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- doitmw 8y ago
  I don't know who "Ornstein" is, but he sounds racist. Using "whiter" as if that was a problem. Just change "whiter" for "blacker" and you'll see.
  - tzs 8y ago
    He's a political scientist at a conservative think tank. And no, he's not using "whiter" as if it were a problem. He's saying that different age, race, density, and sex groups becoming massively disproportionately represented in the Senate is a problem. He specifically mentioned "older", "whiter", "rural", and "male" because those are the groups that are the ones that will be massively overrepresented. You can only infer racism (or ageism, sexism, or whatever ism bias related to urban/rural is called) if you have some reason to believe he would not be saying it was a problem if the skew was in favor of blacks (or the young, urban, or female).
lizardskull 8y ago
I just inhaled the dirty hot dog water smell of cosmopolitan bias because of this article.
- sctb 8y ago
  Alright, but could you please not post about it? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tomohawk 8y ago
In the 2016 election, no candidate received a majority of the popular vote. Bill Clinton never received a majority of the popular vote either time he won. George W Bush also didn't the first time, but he did the 2nd time. Get over it. The US is not a democracy - its a federal republic. The US Presidential election is not decided by popular vote. It's decided by individual elections in the states. It forces the candidates to care about what's going on in all the states instead of visiting the top 8 cities and calling it a day.
wikigrrrrl 8y ago
Rural Republicans are the small town folks whose education does not exceed high school. They mostly work in dead-end, low-skill jobs. They're the ones the Republicans come running to when they need votes in an election year or when they need young, impressionable kids to go fight their wars so they won't have to send their own kids or risk unbearable backlash against a military draft. The GOP has a name for rural Republicans - useful idiots. It's an insult, but how do you convince them that Republicans simply don't care about them unless they need votes or troops? The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to favor helping illegal immigrants get settled in over helping down-and-out homeless Americans get back on their feet. While more than half the Americans who voted for Trump now regret it, the Democrats, unfortunately, are too busy bashing Trump to even notice the opportunity for a comeback that awaits them. Will they seize it or will they continue to obsess over an incumbent who may not be in office a year from now?

16 points by farseer 8y ago

The Constitution wasn't created by wizards, it's bad, and can be replaced. It's not a democracy if you're ruled by the dead.

isostatic 8y ago
With what? On a simple 50%+1 majority of those that vote? There's a process for changing the constitution, use it.
- wl 8y ago
  The process of amending the US constitution is exceedingly difficult. Whether that's wise or not, telling someone who is unhappy with the US constitution to change it is unproductive.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    There have been 27 ammendments, including 12 in the last 100 years.

guard0g 8y ago

Given voter turnout rates around 50% for presidential elections and even lower for House and Senate votes, getting the vote out is an old-fashioned but still viable strategy without resorting to ranked choice. I doubt voters are sufficiently aware or engaged in most issues to make ranked choice effective.

snarf21 8y ago
I think it is also missing the point that the voting machines are in no way set up for ranked. There hasn't even been money to update machines that are 50 years old and punch paper.
tzs 8y ago
Ranked choice would be much much more effective than getting the vote out for addressing the problem of in a more than two way election having the least desired candidate win because the more desired candidates split the vote. The more good candidates that are widely approved that run, the better the chance in our current system that we'll select someone who is widely disapproved. We can elect someone who would have lost one on one verses any of the other candidates.

selimthegrim 8y ago

https://mobile.twitter.com/NormOrnstein/status/1016789064379334656 https://mobile.twitter.com/NormOrnstein/status/1016789064379...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
doitmw 8y ago
I don't know who "Ornstein" is, but he sounds racist. Using "whiter" as if that was a problem. Just change "whiter" for "blacker" and you'll see.
- tzs 8y ago
  He's a political scientist at a conservative think tank. And no, he's not using "whiter" as if it were a problem. He's saying that different age, race, density, and sex groups becoming massively disproportionately represented in the Senate is a problem. He specifically mentioned "older", "whiter", "rural", and "male" because those are the groups that are the ones that will be massively overrepresented. You can only infer racism (or ageism, sexism, or whatever ism bias related to urban/rural is called) if you have some reason to believe he would not be saying it was a problem if the skew was in favor of blacks (or the young, urban, or female).

lizardskull 8y ago

I just inhaled the dirty hot dog water smell of cosmopolitan bias because of this article.

sctb 8y ago
Alright, but could you please not post about it? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tomohawk 8y ago

In the 2016 election, no candidate received a majority of the popular vote. Bill Clinton never received a majority of the popular vote either time he won. George W Bush also didn't the first time, but he did the 2nd time. Get over it. The US is not a democracy - its a federal republic. The US Presidential election is not decided by popular vote. It's decided by individual elections in the states. It forces the candidates to care about what's going on in all the states instead of visiting the top 8 cities and calling it a day.

wikigrrrrl 8y ago

Rural Republicans are the small town folks whose education does not exceed high school. They mostly work in dead-end, low-skill jobs. They're the ones the Republicans come running to when they need votes in an election year or when they need young, impressionable kids to go fight their wars so they won't have to send their own kids or risk unbearable backlash against a military draft. The GOP has a name for rural Republicans - useful idiots. It's an insult, but how do you convince them that Republicans simply don't care about them unless they need votes or troops? The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to favor helping illegal immigrants get settled in over helping down-and-out homeless Americans get back on their feet. While more than half the Americans who voted for Trump now regret it, the Democrats, unfortunately, are too busy bashing Trump to even notice the opportunity for a comeback that awaits them. Will they seize it or will they continue to obsess over an incumbent who may not be in office a year from now?