Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We have a default rule that doesn't make sense, and it remains the default rule because inertia is a powerful thing. Obviously, the Electoral College is good for the few swing states and bad for the rest. No need to pretend there's some principle justifying it.

It will go away as soon as the GOP decides it's not in their interest anymore. Just don't know when that will be, as at they moment they're the party of empty land and tyranny of the minority.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I still call people about stuff. I text re: scheduling meetings, and I'll reply to email if it's something that can be addressed concisely. But on substance, I like to change my mind, or think through a situation as I'm discussing it. Sometimes you call with one idea and realize as a result of the call that another idea is better.

I think some people these days view being called as rude. They're either young and can't hold a useful conversation, or they want to frame the matter at hand as they want it framed.

Fuck you. We'll frame it cooperatively, fairly, and constructively. As polite adults should do.

I do miss the days of working in a larger organization sometimes. Among the amusing moments was walking down to someone's office to reply to a CYA email that framed an issue in a self-serving manner.

"Did you get my email?"

"That's why I'm here. To respond to it in person."

It's fun to add Slack to the mix also.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There's a huge principle justifying it. The country would collapse if we allowed a few states to control everything.

You can't give people the right to vote for what they want because they'll just keep voting for more and more things that benefit them. Exhibit A on this issue is the corporate control of our economy. The rich get whatever they want, everybody else gets scraps. If we gave NY and CA control of the country, we'd see this reversed. Regular people would vote themselves all sorts of benefits.

Voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire have much more of a say than voters in states like California and Texas. That is true regardless of party. Californians and Texans are taken for granted with the Electoral College, because their votes won't matter. So we spend money on ethanol instead of mass transit. With a national popular vote, politicians would be likelier to cater to swing voters everywhere, rather than just the swing voters in swing states.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I still call people about stuff...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire have much more of a say than voters in states like California and Texas. That is true regardless of party. Californians and Texans are taken for granted with the Electoral College, because their votes won't matter. So we spend money on ethanol instead of mass transit. With a national popular vote, politicians would be likelier to cater to swing voters everywhere, rather than just the swing voters in swing states.

There will always be flaws. But are you aware of any truly pure democracy that's worked?

And I say pure democracy because merely eliminating the electoral college is inadequate to render all voters' power equal. You also have to get rid of the 2 senators per state structure, which confers unfair power to voters in less populated states.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It will go away as soon as the GOP decides it's not in their interest anymore. Just don't know when that will be, as at they moment they're the party of empty land and tyranny of the minority.

Is a tyranny of 60% of the population over the other 40% much better?

Somebody's always going to be "tyrannized" in the system.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But are you aware of any truly pure democracy that's worked?

This is a stupid pro-EC talking point and I don't know where it's coming from. Choosing the executive by popular vote isn't some weird, unusual thing. We do it in all 50 states and, to the extent there is a single executive, in every democracy in the world except ours, I think.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is a tyranny of 60% of the population over the other 40% much better?

Yes. Obviously. Duh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There will always be flaws. But are you aware of any truly pure democracy that's worked?

And I say pure democracy because merely eliminating the electoral college is inadequate to render all voters' power equal. You also have to get rid of the 2 senators per state structure, which confers unfair power to voters in less populated states.

Wake me up when you tell me that pure democracy is a bad idea because children will be able to vote.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is a tyranny of 60% of the population over the other 40% much better?

Somebody's always going to be "tyrannized" in the system.

A lot of people lost their heads in the French Revolution, but you would have been one of the first.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes. Obviously. Duh.

You missed me... The point there was nobody is being “tyrannized.” We have a dumb zero-sum contest selection process. And the fed govt may be a bit too involved in micromanaging the states. Maybe we should let those who wish to live in a progressive world do so and allow those who wish to live in a conservative world do so.

Maybe a less united union is needed. Maybe allow for regional autonomies. The coasts and cities are already economically and culturally separating from flyoverland. And Trumpland wants to live in its own world. We should find a way to give these disparate regions and populations the ability to exist without having to take orders from each other.

How? That’s beyond my pay grade.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes. Obviously. Duh.

So I know MSP/StP has a big Hmong population? Is there a neighborhood to get that kind of food?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A lot of people lost their heads in the French Revolution, but you would have been one of the first.

Merde! I’d have been embraced for my anti-corporatist rants and saucy critiques of the Royal Court.

Then I’d have fucked up, grown a Danton-like ego and found myself victim to a Robespierre I’d long before insulted. (I’d have been Heismanned by Charlotte Corday in jail as one final insult the eve before meeting the national razor.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You missed me... The point there was nobody is being “tyrannized.” We have a dumb zero-sum contest selection process. And the fed govt may be a bit too involved in micromanaging the states. Maybe we should let those who wish to live in a progressive world do so and allow those who wish to live in a conservative world do so.

Maybe a less united union is needed. Maybe allow for regional autonomies. The coasts and cities are already economically and culturally separating from flyoverland. And Trumpland wants to live in its own world. We should find a way to give these disparate regions and populations the ability to exist without having to take orders from each other.

How? That’s beyond my pay grade.

More people voted for Trump in California than in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, both Dakotas, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas combined.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

More people voted for Trump in California than in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, both Dakotas, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas combined.

Let them all move to Trump Cities. Other people can move to Progressive Cities.

Like I said, idk how to fix it. But people this polarized simply won’t get along. Let them all live free in their own siloed communities.