In article <6719c06b$0$3493322$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 23, 2024 at 8:22:49 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
> <drejhjl617d1j7ij6sf9i2lbpi3f1ikv8o@4ax.com>:
>
> > 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.
>
> I think there has been some miscommunication along the way.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Right... and I think it is a flawed system that leads to a lot of issues.
> >
> >>> 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?
>
> Because I think it causes a lot of problems. As I have said, I know it will
> not change -- but to me it is a HUGE weakness of our system. It means some
> people have more influence than others. I would prefer equal 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.
>
> If you look at national polling, each of those issues has pretty strong
> consensus... but little action is done. I wish the will of the people was
> better respected.
>
> >
> >>>>>> 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.
>
> Not quite... but pretty close (CA:IA = 763:800).
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree with you that I wish we did not have just two major parties.
> >
> > NP: The Who - See Me, Feel Me

TRUMP 2024