4 ms·

What is partisan about what I said? I didn’t mention party, so it doesn’t fall apart. Further the people making the claim I referenced are talking about gettin

by benf76 4y ago

What is partisan about what I said? I didn’t mention party, so it doesn’t fall apart. Further the people making the claim I referenced are talking about getting rid of the electoral college and 2 votes in senate which is essentially disenfranchising those people. How is it ‘reciprocating’ the vote? Your concept of equality doesn’t work here because it wasn’t the original deal and the distances and other things at play (water rights, starting wars, etc) don’t translate exactly to one vote one person. I argue your premise is wrong for the situation “one person one vote” works locally and at the state level, but when applied federally it actually nullifies the smaller state voter and our ancestors were smart enough to design for that. Thank you for your feedback I am eager to explore this idea further.

divided 4y ago
To be clear, black people having the right to vote wasn’t the original deal, either. Was them achieving the right to vote disenfranchising white people? That’s the problem here. Yes, black people achieving a say in how they were governed lessened white people’s power. Clearly it was the right thing to do. Unless you’d like to argue against this point? My argument is that favoring rural over urban is not dissimilar. As a matter of practice, favoring rural _is_ the same as favoring white, Christian (especially evangelical) land owners. Your fears over “one person one vote” nullifying smaller states is just not reality. Most countries don’t have a Senate-like body and their smaller territories are not wastelands. Thinking it would nullify their voters is not based on real world observation. As a matter of fact, smaller states derive more benefit from cleaving to bigger ones than the other way around in nearly every way. The world provides plenty of evidence that disproves your arguments, we don’t have to fear theoreticals.
- divided 4y ago
  Oh and the hyper-partisan part was you were taking a statement and contorting it into something no one was saying. This is strawmanning an argument so it becomes trivial to argue against. It’s very, very often used to contort political positions into outlandish caricatures. Pretending the other side was arguing that we shouldn’t listen to 40 states because LA is larger is simply not what’s being argued here.

by benf76 4y ago

divided 4y ago

To be clear, black people having the right to vote wasn’t the original deal, either. Was them achieving the right to vote disenfranchising white people? That’s the problem here. Yes, black people achieving a say in how they were governed lessened white people’s power. Clearly it was the right thing to do. Unless you’d like to argue against this point? My argument is that favoring rural over urban is not dissimilar. As a matter of practice, favoring rural _is_ the same as favoring white, Christian (especially evangelical) land owners. Your fears over “one person one vote” nullifying smaller states is just not reality. Most countries don’t have a Senate-like body and their smaller territories are not wastelands. Thinking it would nullify their voters is not based on real world observation. As a matter of fact, smaller states derive more benefit from cleaving to bigger ones than the other way around in nearly every way. The world provides plenty of evidence that disproves your arguments, we don’t have to fear theoreticals.

divided 4y ago
Oh and the hyper-partisan part was you were taking a statement and contorting it into something no one was saying. This is strawmanning an argument so it becomes trivial to argue against. It’s very, very often used to contort political positions into outlandish caricatures. Pretending the other side was arguing that we shouldn’t listen to 40 states because LA is larger is simply not what’s being argued here.