Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
Michigan has more water than any of you all. Should California be able to divert it? Or should California have more say in that question than Michigan? We don't have complete power over any question as the House is still tied to population, but I see value to the Senate being equal.
|
Let's just go back and forth with examples. That will be productive.
The simple facts are these: We are moving away from agrarian- and industrial-based economies towards technology. That means we are going to be more concentrated. The more concentrated we become, the more antiquated our voting system becomes. It makes absolutely
zero sense for Montana to have the same amount of power in the Senate as NY, CA, or TX. And the more people move from states that have very few people and who produce very little, the less sense it makes. We should be about efficiency and representing people in a way that makes sense in our current and changing reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
For that matter, throw out the electoral college (which is really the same question) and when do you think we will ever get another Presidential candidate not from NY/Ill/Ca or Texas? And, no offense, I am not so in love with the one NY just gave us.
|
Yes. Throw the electoral college all the fucking way out. It's stupid.
And do you think your argument about not having a President from NY or CA is convincing?
That's where all the people live. As for your dumbass example of our current President being from NY, I'm going to let you sit and think about who elected him (here's a hint--it wasn't NY, IL, or CA). Be consistent with your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
Bad facts lead to bad laws/rules. We need to get some balance in congress and get someone who doesn't have bad chemicals in his brain in the white house. that might mean dealing with gerrymandering and insulting third party voters every chance we get until 2020, but it doesn't justify throwing out the baby.
|
I'm not sure your first sentence makes any sense at all in the context of this discussion, but okay.
Let's look at the rest of your statement. If I say the system is flawed and becoming more flawed
because it rewards states more power than they should have based on their population and production and punishes states where all the people live and work, then I am
necessarily saying that we need to change it. Yes, I know that the proposal is different than how we've always done it. But if representation is no longer even close to fair (the President won while losing the popular vote by 3 million fucking votes!) and is getting worse, why wouldn't we change it? Again, it was set up the way it was set up in a completely different era. And it no longer makes sense.
And here's another reason why our current system doesn't work: White people in this country do not act rationally.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/o...publicans.html
TM
