On 24 Oct 2024 03:35:07 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

The issues are dealt with in the House which *is* population proportionate. Each
State gets two Senators and the People get a rep for about every 700k. What's
the point of two Houses if both are constructed the same way? Even the Brits
have Commons and Lords.

I still say the *real* issue is the winner take all systems in the states.
>>>> 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.

You keep complaining about the structure of the Senate, one of two Houses,
without specifying that it is only the Senate with which you have issue. This
make be the source of my confusion. You don't have any problem with the House
structure?

>>>> 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.

It would be if the Democrats weren't so good at snatching defeat from the jaws
of victory?

Why isn't Harris taking credit for the sharp drop in new illegals?

That's just one of many issues she isn't handling within the campaign. Another
should be, if you liked Obamacare that survived the Republicans' attempts to
erase them (enumerate them), then why wouldn't you vote for Democrats to do more
of the same? She can't depend on abortion alone, to do it. She should be
beating Republicans' over the head with EVERY single unpopular choice they have
made. She should be haunting them with 1929 and 2008 while giving Obama credit
for economic recovery that was complete and happened in less that fifteen years
and without a major global war to get us out of it.

The Democrats don't seem to even remember the great things they've done over the
past century and another score years.

<snip>

>> Californians have the same House representation as Texans or Iowans.
>
>Not quite... but pretty close (CA:IA = 763:800).

Close enough, don't you think? Another six hundred thousand new Iowans and that
ratio will be virtually 0/0.

>> 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.

You keep ignoring this. Why?
>>>>>> 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.

Then why moan about it? Deal with the reality?
<snip>

>>>> 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.

If only a quarter of the votes were fringe parties, we'd see more positive
change.

NP: Deep Purple - Super Trouper

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 11 days.

59) Trump repeatedly suggested he might serve more than
two terms in violation of the Constitution. And continues
to do so! (Trump: "We may have to go for an extra term."

60) Trump called Haiti and African nations "sh*thole countries."