3 ms·

That is a very appropriate user name. Why should the most populous state out of 50 states get to decide how the other 49 go about their business? State lines ar

That is a very appropriate user name. Why should the most populous state out of 50 states get to decide how the other 49 go about their business? State lines are borders, which are arbitrary delineations within a given region according to many. What makes California so important? Is it the money potential, which implies the wealthy should rule (AKA aristocracy)? Is it the fact that it is 12% of the total population? It also doesn't happen to lean democratic. That is the product of years of manipulation, lobbying, and cultural shift. Regardless, the point of the EC is to balance out population centers and rural areas as their contributions are different in terms of the Nation. It is an apples to oranges situation. Leaving aside the fact that California is an absolute disaster in terms of social and ecological management by their government, there is no logic outside of Marxist dialectical approach that makes a coherent argument for why they should get to pick the president.

helen___keller 7y ago
I don't actually know what you're arguing for so I'm not going to engage any of your points. Power is distributed according to a set of rules spelled out in the Constitution, so I have no idea what you're talking about with California being so important or whatever. I'm just making fun of the argument that the voter landscape looks different if we omit state X. No shit. Omit Texas and you get a different picture. Omit new York and you get another picture still. This kind of argument is the political equivalent of p-hacking.
- classicsnoot 7y ago
  The realities of Winner Take All is that the US regularly omits wide swathes of people from the vote. Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation. Stating that power is distributed based on the constitution is naive, given what the constitution says taken in context with how things are. Omit Iowa and/or North Dakota and it doesn't change all that much. Both sides of this same argument are precisely the point of the Electoral College. It handicaps high density populations and skews toward rural areas. It is electoral affirmative action.
  - helen___keller 7y ago
    Yes, that is how the electoral college in FPTP works. What's your point?
  - trehalose 7y ago
    > Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation. Their votes would count as much as anyone else's if the presidency were decided by popular vote. Why should all the Republicans in these blue states be censored by the Electoral College when electing the president? You said earlier that every Californian's vote should be lesser than everyone's vote in smaller and redder states, right? But this censoring of Republicans is a direct consequence of this affirmative action. And what happens, with the Electoral College in place, if someday the Democrats gain majority in some small states with amplified voting power? The USA would become a one-party state.
thrax 7y ago
>absolute disaster Citation needed. 5th largest economy ON EARTH. By that metric, every other state is a disaster. But.. whatever helps you sleep at night.. I guess.
- classicsnoot 7y ago
  If GDP is the only metric you are going to consider, then the US and China are doing just fine. But, and i don't think this is a stretch, there may be some other factors to consider. For California in particular, i suggest you look up what percentage of the population pays the taxes the state runs on, how many of the state's population subsist on social welfare benefits, and what how much federal assistance ameliorates state debt concerns. I posit that California as a stable state is a house of cards, both economically and ecologically speaking.
deusofnull 7y ago
I have an idea then, lets break up california into 6 smaller states [0]. oh wait, that would give the formerly californian democrats more federal power through the senate... woops. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
- classicsnoot 7y ago
  I absolutely support that for two reasons. 1) all six would not be monolithic in their values, temperament, and concerns. 2) the point of my position is not to have more opportunities for my way of thinking to prevail.
  - deusofnull 7y ago
    How about statehood for DC and Peurto Rico? Oceana too. As far as Cali goes, i think the plan would be to break Cali into as many pieces as you could with each new state retaining a major city (Sacremento, San Fran, San Diego, LA, idk Cali cities that well beyond those but you get the point). to make it a perfect plan, chuck in mathematically defined congressional districts to avoid the stupid game of gerrymandering. interesting extra piece, i believe Texas has gone on record saying that if California ever broke up, it would also break up into smaller states. goes along the logic of maintaining what Texas lawmakers believe to be republican constituencies in senate. how that would play out considering texas has been purple AF recently is anyones guess. but in general I also support the idea of breaking up states into smaller bodies.

helen___keller 7y ago

I don't actually know what you're arguing for so I'm not going to engage any of your points. Power is distributed according to a set of rules spelled out in the Constitution, so I have no idea what you're talking about with California being so important or whatever. I'm just making fun of the argument that the voter landscape looks different if we omit state X. No shit. Omit Texas and you get a different picture. Omit new York and you get another picture still. This kind of argument is the political equivalent of p-hacking.

classicsnoot 7y ago
The realities of Winner Take All is that the US regularly omits wide swathes of people from the vote. Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation. Stating that power is distributed based on the constitution is naive, given what the constitution says taken in context with how things are. Omit Iowa and/or North Dakota and it doesn't change all that much. Both sides of this same argument are precisely the point of the Electoral College. It handicaps high density populations and skews toward rural areas. It is electoral affirmative action.
- helen___keller 7y ago
  Yes, that is how the electoral college in FPTP works. What's your point?
- trehalose 7y ago
  > Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation. Their votes would count as much as anyone else's if the presidency were decided by popular vote. Why should all the Republicans in these blue states be censored by the Electoral College when electing the president? You said earlier that every Californian's vote should be lesser than everyone's vote in smaller and redder states, right? But this censoring of Republicans is a direct consequence of this affirmative action. And what happens, with the Electoral College in place, if someday the Democrats gain majority in some small states with amplified voting power? The USA would become a one-party state.

thrax 7y ago

>absolute disaster Citation needed. 5th largest economy ON EARTH. By that metric, every other state is a disaster. But.. whatever helps you sleep at night.. I guess.

classicsnoot 7y ago
If GDP is the only metric you are going to consider, then the US and China are doing just fine. But, and i don't think this is a stretch, there may be some other factors to consider. For California in particular, i suggest you look up what percentage of the population pays the taxes the state runs on, how many of the state's population subsist on social welfare benefits, and what how much federal assistance ameliorates state debt concerns. I posit that California as a stable state is a house of cards, both economically and ecologically speaking.

deusofnull 7y ago

I have an idea then, lets break up california into 6 smaller states [0]. oh wait, that would give the formerly californian democrats more federal power through the senate... woops. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias

classicsnoot 7y ago
I absolutely support that for two reasons. 1) all six would not be monolithic in their values, temperament, and concerns. 2) the point of my position is not to have more opportunities for my way of thinking to prevail.
- deusofnull 7y ago
  How about statehood for DC and Peurto Rico? Oceana too. As far as Cali goes, i think the plan would be to break Cali into as many pieces as you could with each new state retaining a major city (Sacremento, San Fran, San Diego, LA, idk Cali cities that well beyond those but you get the point). to make it a perfect plan, chuck in mathematically defined congressional districts to avoid the stupid game of gerrymandering. interesting extra piece, i believe Texas has gone on record saying that if California ever broke up, it would also break up into smaller states. goes along the logic of maintaining what Texas lawmakers believe to be republican constituencies in senate. how that would play out considering texas has been purple AF recently is anyones guess. but in general I also support the idea of breaking up states into smaller bodies.