3 ms·

you didn't even read what I wrote, or, if you did, you didn't actually respond to it, and instead chose to try to connect entirely unrelated points. as I said,

you didn't even read what I wrote, or, if you did, you didn't actually respond to it, and instead chose to try to connect entirely unrelated points. as I said, there is nothing wrong with trying to change things in state and local politics, it's the best part of our political system and woefully underappreciated by most. the point of my above post, which I repeated like three times within it to the point where I thought I was being overly-redundant, was that encouraging mass migrations of people in order to achieve your political goals, in a Republic of fifty States, is ridiculous. if everyone played that game, things would not end well for anyone. I was going to refrain from commenting on this directly, but if I "can't put away the specific political affiliations in this discussion," then, well: I've only ever seen this from "the left"/"liberals"/the Democratic party, and I find this interesting.

unethical_ban 5y ago
Ah, I see. Well, I disagree with your implication that by being a republic of fifty states, that one state does not affect the other. See, critically, the Senate. You don't see the GOP mobilizing voters to flip states red so much, because the GOP is already over-represented in the Senate. It's unlikely that liberals will move to Wyoming in numbers sufficient to flip it. But the demographics and economy and geography of Texas do seem to suggest that becoming a swing state is a possibility in the near future. So to reiterate my answer to your question "Why move to other states instead of being happy to change your own?" - Because we are one country, and because until the Senate as an institution is dissolved or reformed beyond recognition, the political affiliations of each state matter to the others. Extra credit commentary: We aren't functionally a republic of fifty semi-independent states. In many critical issues that require federal answers (climate change, welfare, healthcare, and military) we are one nation afflicted with a potentially lethal vestige of our Constitution: The Senate. The miscommunication between you and me(and the other person) is that you don't see (or at least, acknowledge) how different states' politics affect each other's, whereas I and the other person took it as a given that they do.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  I completely agree with everything you wrote above, except for the last sentence—I don't disagree that state politics affect each other because of the existence of a federal government, and therefore this is not the miscommunication between us. the interesting part to me is exactly what you highlighted in your third paragraph: Democrat voters encourage each other to move to certain states that meet certain criteria, and, as far as I can tell, no other group of citizens in the country engages in similar behavior. I believe the miscommunication here is more ideological: I cannot imagine myself moving to a given state with given criteria in order to alter elections, or to otherwise bolster any kind of ideology or demographic. this is really interesting to me because it for me this is just an idea that would never cross my mind, and I'm trying to figure out why that is, because this ideological distinction seems significant. I don't buy that it's just because of Senate seats.

unethical_ban 5y ago

Ah, I see. Well, I disagree with your implication that by being a republic of fifty states, that one state does not affect the other. See, critically, the Senate. You don't see the GOP mobilizing voters to flip states red so much, because the GOP is already over-represented in the Senate. It's unlikely that liberals will move to Wyoming in numbers sufficient to flip it. But the demographics and economy and geography of Texas do seem to suggest that becoming a swing state is a possibility in the near future. So to reiterate my answer to your question "Why move to other states instead of being happy to change your own?" - Because we are one country, and because until the Senate as an institution is dissolved or reformed beyond recognition, the political affiliations of each state matter to the others. Extra credit commentary: We aren't functionally a republic of fifty semi-independent states. In many critical issues that require federal answers (climate change, welfare, healthcare, and military) we are one nation afflicted with a potentially lethal vestige of our Constitution: The Senate. The miscommunication between you and me(and the other person) is that you don't see (or at least, acknowledge) how different states' politics affect each other's, whereas I and the other person took it as a given that they do.

adamrezich 5y ago
I completely agree with everything you wrote above, except for the last sentence—I don't disagree that state politics affect each other because of the existence of a federal government, and therefore this is not the miscommunication between us. the interesting part to me is exactly what you highlighted in your third paragraph: Democrat voters encourage each other to move to certain states that meet certain criteria, and, as far as I can tell, no other group of citizens in the country engages in similar behavior. I believe the miscommunication here is more ideological: I cannot imagine myself moving to a given state with given criteria in order to alter elections, or to otherwise bolster any kind of ideology or demographic. this is really interesting to me because it for me this is just an idea that would never cross my mind, and I'm trying to figure out why that is, because this ideological distinction seems significant. I don't buy that it's just because of Senate seats.