On 22 Oct 2024 01:31:41 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 21, 2024 at 4:03:19?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
><52ndhjdmt3smapo64btptiooeqbrb0ncv7@4ax.com>:
>
>> On 21 Oct 2024 01:05:39 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2024 at 5:17:41?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>> <d65bhjpm6220b9joe669sugmv9bt0utpdh@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 20 Oct 2024 03:31:33 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:35:57?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>>> On 19 Oct 2024 18:01:32 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 8:18:36?AM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>>>>> On 18 Oct 2024 21:46:15 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I wish we had something closer to equal representation. With the Senate and
>>>>>>>>> the Electoral College we are FAR from that. Even the House is pretty far from
>>>>>>>>> it. I think the US would be MUCH better off if we had one adult citizen = one
>>>>>>>>> vote, and each vote counted the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pure democracy? That would be untenable in a nation of more than 300,000,000
>>>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, we would still have representatives... but something closer to equal
>>>>>>> representation. Not the nonsense now where some people have 20x the
>>>>>>> representational power of others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does that occur?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wyoming vs. California. Doing some research now.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was what I was thinking for the Senate... but it is MUCH worse than that
>>>>> there.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the Senate:
>>>>>
>>>>> Wyoming: 1 senator represents about 290,000 people.
>>>>> California: 1 senator represents about 20 million people.
>>>>>
>>>>> That means about a 1:69 representational inequality.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the House:
>>>>>
>>>>> Wyoming: 1 representative for ~580,000 people
>>>>> California: 1 representative for every ~770,000 people
>>>>
>>>> Then the solution is to send 200,000 Californians to Wyoming?
>>>
>>> A friend of mine has said he wants to see state lines redrawn every 10 years
>>> to keep roughly the same level of population in each state. Not sure I like
>>> your idea any better than his. LOL!
>>>>
>>>>> That means even in the house a about a 1:1.3 representational inequality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for about 580,000 people, or ~193,000 people per
>>>>> electoral vote.
>>>>> California has 55 electoral votes for nearly 40 million people, or ~727,000
>>>>> people per electoral vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> This means a 1:3.8 representational inequality
>>>>
>>>> I agree that in modern times the EC is not a good idea. However, the
>>>> representational issues you note are due to the fact that every state gets two
>>>> senators regardless of population.
>>>
>>> Right. But that leads to GROSSLY disproportionate representation, 5x worse
>>> than what we had at the start of the country.
>>
>> You're wrong here.
>>
>> Every state has always had two Senators.
>
>Where did you think I said otherwise? The states were not as disproportionate
>in numbers at the time.

Either we're at cross purposes or you're missing some things.

Early in the Republic, the south was deliberately over represented by
Constitutional decree. That error has been repaired. As it stands, the average
rep represents about 700k constituents. There are states with less people than
that but they are few and not enough to skew representation.

The Senate has nothing to do with proportionate representation, that's the job
of the House.
>> This is why we have two legislative Houses. The House is the house of the
>> people (representation by population), the Senate is the house of the states
>> (each state gets an equal voice).
>
>This is not in contention.

Then why do you complain above about disproportionate representation?
>
>> I have no problem with that system. I have no problem with the EC, as such.
>> The
>> problem I have is with the winner take all system most states employ. Imo,
>> electors should be apportioned according to the distribution of votes among the
>> candidates. If Joe Schmo gets 60% of the votes, he should get 60% of the
>> electors, not all of them.
>
>The system is not going to change, but I see it as a bit issue. It is why the
>will of the people is largely ignored on gun control, climate change, health
>insurance, abortion, and many more issues.

I disagree, given the structure of the country. The bigger problem is the
winner-takes-all method of selecting electors.
>>>>> And yet California citizens give, on average, about $5000 a year to the US
>>>>> government, and each Wyoming citizen GETS a bit under $7000.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those who have the least representation are giving the most. Those with the
>>>>> most representation are getting massive support from the Federal government.
>>>>
>>>> These things are all arguable.
>>>>
>>>> It would require a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution to change this.
>>>
>>> Right. I do not expect it to change. It is, though, key to many of the issues
>>> we have in this country, IMNSHO.
>>
>> It does prevent the majority from riding roughshod over the minority, but it
>> also sometimes allows the minority to dictate to the majority.
>
>That is the issue: the minority controls the majority, and it leads to those
>in CA getting the least say but putting the most into the Federal system. This
>is contrary to the idea of no taxation without representation -- those with
>the least representing are taxed the most.

Californians have the same House representation as Texans or Iowans.

The Senate is proportionate to the number of States in the Union. The
foundation of the disagreement with the Senate is that this is the United STATES
of America. Technically, each state is sovereign. The Constitution never
created a country called America.
>>>> Do
>>>> you really think that in such a divisive, highly partisan political environment
>>>> as we have today, that such a rewrite would be a good idea?
>>>
>>> Good idea or not, it would never pass.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that, like most foreigners, you do not understand the "United
>>>> STATES of America". The US is not as singular a country as most, but is in
>>>> fact, an assemblage of separate countries, aka 'states'.
>>>>
>>>> The House represents the population of the US, the Senate represents the States
>>>> of the US.
>>>>
>>>> The population votes and each state votes.
>>>
>>> And this leads to many issues.
>>>>
>>>> It is the states, not the population, who ultimately select the POTUS.
>>>>
>>>> I find that a better solution than Britain's of allowing the Parliament
>>>> (Congress) to select the Prime Minister (POTUS) any time the PM (POTUS) no
>>>> longer has the support of a majority of the members of Parliament (Congress).
>>>
>>> I *wish* we had something closer to equal representation but I know we are not
>>> going to get it. Might lead to the downfall of the country.
>>
>> Representation in Congress works fine. It's the two party system that's
>> bleeding us dry.
>
>Sadly even that is SOMEWHAT cooked into our constitution. If you have more
>than two parties it is unlikely any one would get the majority vote for the
>president, and then it goes to the House, with each state getting equal votes.
>This means the will of the people would largely be ignored.

A part of it is the desire of every voter to vote for the 'winner'. Their
chance of doing that is better if there are only two candidates.

NP: The Who - See Me, Feel Me

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 13 days.

57) Trump said he would be "the voice" of American workers.
(Trump "I am your voice!") But he filled the National Labor
Relations Board with anti-union flacks who made it harder for
workers to unionize.

58) Trump's Labor Department made it easier for bosses to get
out of paying workers overtime, which cheated 8 million workers of extra pay.