Politics 2020 Field - DNC

[Lanny]

Invitations out for Debate Watch Party #3, any East Bay lurkers still welcome.

The spread you lay out is so irresistible that I wish I could drive the 600 miles from Portland just to partake in the food. Damn you, Red Baron.

 

[crandc]

I will post a picture of the table.

 

[Lanny]

I will post a picture of the table.

Everybody likes food. It's a great uniter.

 

[e_blazer]

Everybody likes food. It's a great uniter.

Who said anything about food? She said she’d post a picture of the table. Do you prefer oak or walnut?

 

[Lanny]

Who said anything about food? She said she’d post a picture of the table. Do you prefer oak or walnut?

Walnut, cracked and roasted.

 

[jonnyboy]

Unfortunately, the Electoral Vote (a fine idea for the 18 century but an idea that does not really make sense in a world where we can talk to millions of people across the world within seconds of trying to provide our answer) is discrimination against people based on their geographic location. A questionable idea for a country that was founded on the idea that all people are created equal.

Basically you are against the equal rights of people because they choose to live in a populated area.

That could be easily turned around by making the claim that popular vote is discrimination and misrepresentation of people in rural areas.

 

[andalusian]

That could be easily turned around by making the claim that popular vote is discrimination and misrepresentation of people in rural areas.

How? Any one of them gets exactly the same vote as someone from a populated area. How is that discriminatory? Explain to me how the electoral vote does not discriminate against the republican in California whose vote does not count or the Democrat in Alaska whose vote does not count.

One person, one vote. Nothing is more equal than that.

Right now, the the system basically says that people in rural areas are more important than people from urban areas. That's discrimination.

This country was founded on two principals - end taxation without representation and all men are created equal. It's ironic that the 'conservatives' that always go back to the founding fathers are so against these basic principles.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

How? Any one of them gets exactly the same vote as someone from a populated area. How is that discriminatory? Explain to me how the electoral vote does not discriminate against the republican in California whose vote does not count or the Democrat in Alaska whose vote does not count.

One person, one vote. Nothing is more equal than that.

Right now, the the system basically says that people in rural areas are more important than people from urban areas. That's discrimination.

This country was founded on two principals - end taxation without representation and all men are created equal. It's ironic that the 'conservatives' that always go back to the founding fathers are so against these basic principles.

Would like to know when I ever “went back to the founding fathers”, Im not 100% averse to a national popular vote, but I see a possibility of unintended consequences as well. I also see it as well our popular vote is state wide, because were members of states, who have a certain number of representatives the popular vote does happen its just at a state to state level.

Obviously there is a downside to the electoral college as well, I dont feel like my vote is “worth less than a democrats in Oregon” because in Oregon our votes are worth the same. Its just that the state sides with the popular vote. If Im on the losing end, its not really much different to me then when a governer is elected I didn't vote for. Im a member of Oregon, who is a member of a union, and Oregons votes go to represent Oregon voters.

 

[tlongII]

How? Any one of them gets exactly the same vote as someone from a populated area. How is that discriminatory? Explain to me how the electoral vote does not discriminate against the republican in California whose vote does not count or the Democrat in Alaska whose vote does not count.

One person, one vote. Nothing is more equal than that.

Right now, the the system basically says that people in rural areas are more important than people from urban areas. That's discrimination.

This country was founded on two principals - end taxation without representation and all men are created equal. It's ironic that the 'conservatives' that always go back to the founding fathers are so against these basic principles.

What do you mean "how?"? People will vote for what they want in their immediate vicinity above all else. That obviously puts the less populous residents of middle America at a disadvantage.

 

[andalusian]

Would like to know when I ever “went back to the founding fathers”, Im not 100% averse to a national popular vote, but I see a possibility of unintended consequences as well. I also see it as well our popular vote is state wide, because were members of states, who have a certain number of representatives the popular vote does happen its just at a state to state level.

Obviously there is a downside to the electoral college as well, I dont feel like my vote is “worth less than a democrats in Oregon” because in Oregon our votes are worth the same. Its just that the state sides with the popular vote. If Im on the losing end, its not really much different to me then when a governer is elected I didn't vote for. Im a member of Oregon, who is a member of a union, and Oregons votes go to represent Oregon voters.

I guess that I am an American first and Californian second. As such, I know and do not like the fact that my vote is not worth as much as my fellow Americans in less populated parts of the country, despite the fact that a portion of my taxes go to support their area (not something I oppose to, as an American I want to help all Americans) while their taxes do not come to support my area.

You can't have it both ways, either we are all Americans and support each other or we are not.

Any way you paint it - the current system is discriminatory.

I am sure there are always consequences, but I want to get to them form a level and fair starting point. In the current system, I am, to put it bluntly, treated like a second rate citizen (voting wise).

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I guess that I am an American first and Californian second. As such, I know and do not like the fact that my vote is not worth as much as my fellow Americans in less populated parts of the country, despite the fact that a portion of my taxes go to support their area (not something I oppose to, as an American I want to help all Americans) while their taxes do not come to support my area.

You can't have it both ways, either we are all Americans and support each other or we are not.

Any way you paint it - the current system is discriminatory.

I am sure there are always consequences, but I want to get to them form a level and fair starting point. In the current system, I am, to put it bluntly, treated like a second rate citizen (voting wise).

We want to regulate gun laws state to state, and make it so someone cant buy a gun out of state, each state has their own laws and rules, and out of staters come in and on occasion are discriminated from doing certain things in that state.

So yes were Americans, but you’re also a californian and Im an Oregonian.

I understand the point you’re making and again not 100% against it. Just think if they want to go that route it needs to be discussed nationally, its needs regulated and to be more thought out than just, “flip a switch”.

In terms of what I am “first” I kind of think of it the opposite, the more local, the closer that is to 1st. Like, Husband, Father, Employee, City, County, State, Nation, World. I understand your point, and I appreciate the discussion.

 

[jonnyboy]

How? Any one of them gets exactly the same vote as someone from a populated area. How is that discriminatory? Explain to me how the electoral vote does not discriminate against the republican in California whose vote does not count or the Democrat in Alaska whose vote does not count.

One person, one vote. Nothing is more equal than that.

Right now, the the system basically says that people in rural areas are more important than people from urban areas. That's discrimination.

This country was founded on two principals - end taxation without representation and all men are created equal. It's ironic that the 'conservatives' that always go back to the founding fathers are so against these basic principles.

Popular vote completely negates the vote of anyone living outside of major metropolitan areas. You say it’s fair, and according to your own metrics (one person one vote) you could technically be right. But there are more factors to consider. How about land mass? Why do people who inhabit 5% of the land mass get to legislate those who inhabit the other 95%? Especially when that 5% has no fucking clue how to live in or care for that 95% of the land, or the unique dynamic living in those areas presents.

 

[andalusian]

I understand the point you’re making and again not 100% against it. Just think if they want to go that route it needs to be discussed nationally, its needs regulated and to be more thought out than just, “flip a switch”.

In terms of what I am “first” I kind of think of it the opposite, the more local, the closer that is to 1st. Like, Husband, Father, Employee, City, County, State, Nation, World. I understand your point, and I appreciate the discussion.

About flipping a switch - I can't imagine it will happen in my life time - but my opinion is that the current system is antiquated and causes more problems than it is worth. The fact is that people move to urban centers - and their "rights" diminish because of it. We already see how much more divided this country is becoming - and I am afraid that there would be a tipping point where the majority will resent more and more being subservient to the minority. This unfortunately usually leads to revolutions.

FWIW - If California tomorrow decided to fight the rest of the United States and I had to choose who to fight for - it would not be for California. I lived in NY, Oregon, San Francisco and SoCal and loved each and every one of them, I traveled all over the country and again, enjoyed all of it - one of the greatest things about this country is that you can experience different things in different places but still be an American. To me at least, the important word in the country's name is "United" not "States".

 

[andalusian]

Popular vote completely negates the vote of anyone living outside of major metropolitan areas. You say it’s fair, and according to your own metrics (one person one vote) you could technically be right. But there are more factors to consider. How about land mass? Why do people who inhabit 5% of the land mass get to legislate those who inhabit the other 95%? Especially when that 5% has no fucking clue how to live in or care for that 95% of the land, or the unique dynamic living in those areas presents.

Because a country is for the people, not for the land. It's really that simple. The country was founded so the people would govern themselves instead of a remote king. It's about the people. You could homestead and own vast land tracts without fighting for independence.

I will repeat what I said before - the electoral college made sense in the 18 century where people were not able to discuss everything with the candidate and elected officials in real time, where their problems were not going to reach everyone in the union for weeks (or longer as the country expanded). It has lost it's point in the 21st century. You think that people in California do not want to support the people of the Gulf when hurricanes happen? I also do not believe that people in Wyoming want people in urban centers to die from cancer because of smog. If we are one country and we are united - everyone should be equal.

 

[jonnyboy]

Because a country is for the people, not for the land. It's really that simple. The country was founded so the people would govern themselves instead of a remote king. It's about the people. You could homestead and own vast land tracts without fighting for independence.

I will repeat what I said before - the electoral college made sense in the 18 century where people were not able to discuss everything with the candidate and elected officials in real time, where their problems were not going to reach everyone in the union for weeks (or longer as the country expanded). It has lost it's point in the 21st century. You think that people in California do not want to support the people of the Gulf when hurricanes happen? I also do not believe that people in Wyoming want people in urban centers to die from cancer because of smog. If we are one country and we are united - everyone should be equal.

That’s all fine, when it comes to helping and caring for one another the people in this country are far superior than any government could be. I guess the point I’m making is different geographical areas require vastly different legislation. If California and New York get to make all the rules then life changes drastically for those in rural areas, no matter how few and far between they are. I don’t want you to breathe shitty air any more than you want me to get eaten by a bear. That’s why you have DEQ and I have a handgun. People in all areas need to be adequately represented according to their circumstances.

 

[andalusian]

That’s all fine, when it comes to helping and caring for one another the people in this country are far superior than any government could be. I guess the point I’m making is different geographical areas require vastly different legislation. If California and New York get to make all the rules then life changes drastically for those in rural areas, no matter how few and far between they are. I don’t want you to breathe shitty air any more than you want me to get eaten by a bear. That’s why you have DEQ and I have a handgun. People in all areas need to be adequately represented according to their circumstances.

Explain to me why you, that lives in Wyoming (based on your profile) - is 3 times more important than me in California when we vote for the president and 57 times more important when we vote for the senate? (For the record, my next door neighbor is a Republican and I know for a fact voted for Trump, the idea that we all need to vote by geographic location is absurd).

Also, allow me to remind you that California produces 13% of the agricultural product of the US - it's not like California is all urban places with no input on rural issues. For the record - there are 3 times as many people living in rural California than Wyoming.

Anyway you slice it - the electoral college is discriminatory - and is basically making a mockery of the idea of a united and equal country.

 

[e_blazer]

Because a country is for the people, not for the land. It's really that simple. The country was founded so the people would govern themselves instead of a remote king. It's about the people. You could homestead and own vast land tracts without fighting for independence.

I will repeat what I said before - the electoral college made sense in the 18 century where people were not able to discuss everything with the candidate and elected officials in real time, where their problems were not going to reach everyone in the union for weeks (or longer as the country expanded). It has lost it's point in the 21st century. You think that people in California do not want to support the people of the Gulf when hurricanes happen? I also do not believe that people in Wyoming want people in urban centers to die from cancer because of smog. If we are one country and we are united - everyone should be equal.

In a lot of ways I agree with you on the popular vote for election of president (although I stand firmly for a thorough debate on the topic before any change to the current system is made). As it stands now, I would agree that the Electoral College process is hardly a "fair" system. I would imagine that California is much like Oregon in terms of its presidential election voting patterns. The last time a presidential candidate won Oregon's electoral votes was in 1988, which effectively means that no Republican votes for president have been "counted" in over 30 years. That's hardly "fair" yet that's what the current electoral college system brings about. There are certainly many Red states where the opposite is true.

The EC is established by the Constitution so changing to a straight popular vote election would require a constitutional amendment. Politics being what they are, and the constitutional process for amendment being what it is, that's unlikely to happen. The current end around move by Blue states to give all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote has multiple problems, as discussed above in this thread. There's no reason that states couldn't distribute their electors based upon the popular vote in each state election. That doesn't require a constitutional amendment and two states (Maine and Nebraska) already do that. The problem with that, of course, is that each state is independent and can do whatever it wants with its electoral vote process. States where one party has had control for many years are unlikely to give up the iron fist that the dominant party has on its electoral votes. Even if all states agreed to go to a distributional system, there are many ways that it can be gamed to the advantage of one party or the other. See this site for an interesting interactive map: https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

Bottom line, if you're looking for "fair" politics isn't your game. In my view, despite all of the consternation that occurs each presidential election cycle when the "wrong" candidate wins, nothing is going to change. The basic problem is the political party process itself. That least democratic of American political institutions is not something that the Constitution mentions or that the Founders even considered. IMO, the notion that two dominant parties should control the entire political landscape in this country is the biggest impediment to the notion of one person, one vote "fairness" in the governance of this country.

 

[e_blazer]

Explain to me why you, that lives in Wyoming (based on your profile) - is 3 times more important than me in California when we vote for the president and 57 times more important when we vote for the senate? (For the record, my next door neighbor is a Republican and I know for a fact voted for Trump, the idea that we all need to vote by geographic location is absurd).

Also, allow me to remind you that California produces 13% of the agricultural product of the US - it's not like California is all urban places with no input on rural issues. For the record - there are 3 times as many people living in rural California than Wyoming.

Anyway you slice it - the electoral college is discriminatory - and is basically making a mockery of the idea of a united and equal country.

I would point out that in many ways California's government is a micro version of what you're calling for in the election of the president. There is a pure popular vote for governor and there's actually been a pretty even split between political parties in electing gubernatorial candidates. Despite that, there are constant calls from rural counties for a State of Jefferson to split off to more "fairly" represent rural interests. I just don't see that we ever get to "fair" in politics.

 

[andalusian]

In a lot of ways I agree with you on the popular vote for election of president (although I stand firmly for a thorough debate on the topic before any change to the current system is made). As it stands now, I would agree that the Electoral College process is hardly a "fair" system. I would imagine that California is much like Oregon in terms of its presidential election voting patterns. The last time a presidential candidate won Oregon's electoral votes was in 1988, which effectively means that no Republican votes for president have been "counted" in over 30 years. That's hardly "fair" yet that's what the current electoral college system brings about. There are certainly many Red states where the opposite is true.

The EC is established by the Constitution so changing to a straight popular vote election would require a constitutional amendment. Politics being what they are, and the constitutional process for amendment being what it is, that's unlikely to happen. The current end around move by Blue states to give all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote has multiple problems, as discussed above in this thread. There's no reason that states couldn't distribute their electors based upon the popular vote in each state election. That doesn't require a constitutional amendment and two states (Maine and Nebraska) already do that. The problem with that, of course, is that each state is independent and can do whatever it wants with its electoral vote process. States where one party has had control for many years are unlikely to give up the iron fist that the dominant party has on its electoral votes. Even if all states agreed to go to a distributional system, there are many ways that it can be gamed to the advantage of one party or the other. See this site for an interesting interactive map: https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

Bottom line, if you're looking for "fair" politics isn't your game. In my view, despite all of the consternation that occurs each presidential election cycle when the "wrong" candidate wins, nothing is going to change. The basic problem is the political party process itself. That least democratic of American political institutions is not something that the Constitution mentions or that the Founders even considered. IMO, the notion that two dominant parties should control the entire political landscape in this country is the biggest impediment to the notion of one person, one vote "fairness" in the governance of this country.

That is an excellent post - and I generally agree with it - I am under no illusion that anything will change any time soon.

I am tired however of people peddling "independent" and "fair" claims about the electoral college and claiming that the people that want it only want it because they lost the last election. This is grade-a bullshit, and the irony is that the people that call themselves conservatives and adhering to the founding fathers are basically going against the reason we had founding fathers and what they tried to achieve.

As for Governors in California, California had a democrat governor since 2012, before that Arnold (republican) was governor. Of the last 6 governors - California had 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats. If you actually look at California's long-term history - it was a republican stronghold for a long time - it started to change in the 70s. In a way, Texas is starting to look like California was in the 70s - it becomes younger, more urban and seems to slowly become more Left leaning in the process.

 

[andalusian]

I would point out that in many ways California's government is a micro version of what you're calling for in the election of the president. There is a pure popular vote for governor and there's actually been a pretty even split between political parties in electing gubernatorial candidates. Despite that, there are constant calls from rural counties for a State of Jefferson to split off to more "fairly" represent rural interests. I just don't see that we ever get to "fair" in politics.

I agree. However, the most fair starting point is - everyone has the same rights and the same vote 'weight'. We certainly can not even strive for fair when the starting point is so absurdly tilted.

 

[e_blazer]

I agree. However, the most fair starting point is - everyone has the same rights and the same vote 'weight'. We certainly can not even strive for fair when the starting point is so absurdly tilted.

The thing is, you're looking at "fair" being whatever the most people want. The Founders thought "fair" meant ensuring that the interests of independent states were evenly represented. You may be right that that viewpoint doesn't make as much sense today, but it will take a whole lot of political pressure to change it. Given that a pure popular vote would generally be seen as being advantageous to the more populous coastal regions of the country, I don't see middle-America being keen to change things. And given that in today's political climate it would largely be seen as favoring Democrat candidates, you can bet Republican states aren't going to back a change. Bottom line, I think we're stuck with what we have. If you don't think your vote is being "fairly" counted in California, you're always welcome to vote with your feet.

 

[andalusian]

Bottom line, I think we're stuck with what we have. If you don't think your vote is being "fairly" counted in California, you're always welcome to vote with your feet.

And that's exactly where the discrimination comes from. It is telling me - if you want to be treated equally - go live somewhere else. A sad state of affairs for the land of the free where all men are created equal.

 

[e_blazer]

And that's exactly where the discrimination comes from. It is telling me - if you want to be treated equally - go live somewhere else. A sad state of affairs for the land of the free where all men are created equal.

Sexist.

 

[andalusian]

Sexist.

Why do you hate the founding fathers so much?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

[e_blazer]

And that's exactly where the discrimination comes from. It is telling me - if you want to be treated equally - go live somewhere else. A sad state of affairs for the land of the free where all men are created equal.

You can console yourself to a degree, California has only the 39th worst net distribution of federal taxes paid vs federal dollars returned to the state. Much of the middle part of America gets screwed worse. We in the Great Northwest thank you for your support.

https://www.moneytips.com/is-your-state-a-net-payer-or-a-net-taker/356

 

[e_blazer]

Why do you hate the founding fathers so much?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By today's standards, they were sexist, racist, elitist pigs who just happened to invent a pretty good model of government. Except for those damned Electoral College, women's vote and slavery issues, of course.

 

[andalusian]

By today's standards, they were sexist, racist, elitist pigs who just happened to invent a pretty good model of government. Except for those damned Electoral College, women's vote and slavery issues, of course.

I agree. They had good ideas and it was mostly appropriate for the time. Unfortunately, parts of it did not age well and we are doing a disservice to their efforts by not fixing what they got wrong.

“Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny . . . ” - Thomas Jefferson.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Why should it necessarily be one person one vote? We're the United States, maybe it should just be one state, one vote. Just because one state has more people doesn't make it more important.

Or going the other direction, if more populated states are in fact more important than the less populated ones, why do we say that each voter should carry equal weight? Sure all [people] are created equal, but do they really remain that way? Why do people--for example--who don't contribute financially to the budget get a say in how it's spent?

Any method of vote weighting is in some way arbitrary.

 

[e_blazer]

I agree. They had good ideas and it was mostly appropriate for the time. Unfortunately, parts of it did not age well and we are doing a disservice to their efforts by not fixing what they got wrong.

“Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny . . . ” - Thomas Jefferson.

"Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof"

Get 'er done! (And good luck with that)

 

[e_blazer]

Why should it necessarily be one person one vote? We're the United States, maybe it should just be one state, one vote. Just because one state has more people doesn't make it more important.

Or going the other direction, if more populated states are in fact more important than the less populated ones, why do we say that each voter should carry equal weight? Sure all [people] are created equal, but do they really remain that way? Why do people--for example--who don't contribute financially to the budget get a say in how it's spent?

Any method of vote weighting is in some way arbitrary.

Remind me again, what the heck does red font mean?

Are you one of "THOSE" Republicans?