US Midterm Elections Megathread III: Hitting The Wall

[Tarsonis]

Yeah I don’t actually give a shit about racial demographics. Shove your race baiting up your ass

Care to identify what about this is race baiting lmfao, was it saying the word "brown"? Feel free to ignore it if even mentioning race is now "race baiting" but my point still stands regardless of it

Sure


When people say this, what they're basically saying is "why should a majority of the American people (who, by and large, live in urban areas and on the coasts, but LA and NYC are easily villainized metonyms for places with lots of scary brown urbanites) get to dictate national policy?"

And race doesn't come into it..at least not in my view.

literally I say the word "brown" fucking ONCE and everyone fucking fixates on race suddenly rather than paying attention to my point jesus fucking christ on a rusty bronze pike

Because your point was to slander us as racists and insinuate our real motive is we just don’t those uppity niggers to touch our white democracy. And then when we call you on it you deflect and deny “I didn’t do anything! You’re missing my point”. FFS my high school students have more integrity than you do, and that’s saying something.

[Len Hyet]

For some bad news, Scott is suing several Florida counties alleging that Democrats were trying to rig the election.

Well apparently they did a piss-poor job at that, didn't they?

tbqf if we ever tried to rig an election that's about the outcome I would expect.

I wasn't gonna say anything cuz I knew it'd be interpreted as an attack but... and I mean this in the least aggressive or gloaty way possible, the DNC is kinda atrocious at getting things done.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I read it, but I didn't understanding among all that gourmet cheese wording.

Which is why I asked the question I asked, considering apportioning is: "the determination of the proportional number of members each US state sends to the House of Representatives, based on population figures.".

So essentially a senate partitioned by states depending on population figures, just like the House of Representatives. To do that, you would have to keep count of the population every few years, meaning a census. Same like the House of Representatives.

And if you are basically going to make it proportional to state populations, just like the house of representatives, why not just get rid of the senate and just keep the house of representatives with the rules you propose instead? Which is essentially what I was wondering. I mean, it's more efficient than to modify an old structure you despise anyways because it represents an entire landmass, not the people living in it.

Because the Senate provides a more stable rotation of representatives rather than being replaced all at once.

Because the Senate has a number of procedural duties and responsibilities not shared by the House.

Because the Senate would represent larger areas as a whole proportional to their population rather than House representatives, who represent smaller areas piecemeal proportional to their population that are often gerrymandered to hell.

Because the overhaul of the US system would actually be much more difficult if you just 'removed' the Senate, regardless of your claim.

Take your pick.

Combine the duties and rotation of representatives of the senate and the house. And make it so that the territories each representative represents are fixed and not mutable by the states, only through a supermajority process much like the one to enter a new amendment into the constitution.

Also, a constitutional convention at this point would represent a wiping of the slate for either party successful to do it to actually go ahead and create a new constitution, you could then, if your party gets a majority of delegates into it, be able to create an unicameral legislature as well as pass other measures. The overhauling of the US system would happen anyways at that point.

Now if you mean through the supermajority process that's a different bag.

[Petrasylvania]

For some bad news, Scott is suing several Florida counties alleging that Democrats were trying to rig the election.

Well apparently they did a piss-poor job at that, didn't they?

Guess Mr. Medicare Fraudster Rick Scott learned projection from Donnie.

[Conserative Morality]

I wasn't gonna say anything cuz I knew it'd be interpreted as an attack but... and I mean this in the least aggressive or gloaty way possible, the DNC is kinda atrocious at getting things done.

We are excellent at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

[Valrifell]

tbqf if we ever tried to rig an election that's about the outcome I would expect.

I wasn't gonna say anything cuz I knew it'd be interpreted as an attack but... and I mean this in the least aggressive or gloaty way possible, the DNC is kinda atrocious at getting things done.

I mean, yeah.

[Len Hyet]

I wasn't gonna say anything cuz I knew it'd be interpreted as an attack but... and I mean this in the least aggressive or gloaty way possible, the DNC is kinda atrocious at getting things done.

We are excellent at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

Dude I vote Libertarian. Believe me I feel your pain.

[Valrifell]

I wasn't gonna say anything cuz I knew it'd be interpreted as an attack but... and I mean this in the least aggressive or gloaty way possible, the DNC is kinda atrocious at getting things done.

We are excellent at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

One time, two years ago.

This went exactly as expected. Except Florida. Fuck Florida.

[Conserative Morality]

We are excellent at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

One time, two years ago.

This went exactly as expected. Except Florida. Fuck Florida.

2010, 2014, 2016, almost 2018, essentially my whole political life.

Most Dems don't seem to know how to talk to anyone outside of the base.

[Valrifell]

One time, two years ago.

This went exactly as expected. Except Florida. Fuck Florida.

2010, 2014, 2016, almost 2018, essentially my whole political life.

Not quite sure why you were expecting gains or victories in 2010 or 2014, but okay.

[Tarsonis]

One time, two years ago.

This went exactly as expected. Except Florida. Fuck Florida.

2010, 2014, 2016, almost 2018, essentially my whole political life.

2000 /2004

[Shrillland]

I read it, but I didn't understanding among all that gourmet cheese wording.

Which is why I asked the question I asked, considering apportioning is: "the determination of the proportional number of members each US state sends to the House of Representatives, based on population figures.".

So essentially a senate partitioned by states depending on population figures, just like the House of Representatives. To do that, you would have to keep count of the population every few years, meaning a census. Same like the House of Representatives.

And if you are basically going to make it proportional to state populations, just like the house of representatives, why not just get rid of the senate and just keep the house of representatives with the rules you propose instead? Which is essentially what I was wondering. I mean, it's more efficient than to modify an old structure you despise anyways because it represents an entire landmass, not the people living in it.

Because the Senate provides a more stable rotation of representatives rather than being replaced all at once.

Because the Senate has a number of procedural duties and responsibilities not shared by the House.

Because the Senate would represent larger areas as a whole proportional to their population rather than House representatives, who represent smaller areas piecemeal proportional to their population that are often gerrymandered to hell.

Because the overhaul of the US system would actually be much more difficult if you just 'removed' the Senate, regardless of your claim.

Take your pick.

It couldn't be as small as that because you'd still need to have at least two per state(and one per territory, but that's for another day). The closest we have to what you're proposing is the Rajya Sabha, as I've shown. They, however, are elected by their legislatures, so the next best solution is to do what Australia does: Have all the states receive an even-numbered amount and elected half of them at each election, which would solve the national popular vote problem. Then, however, we'd run into the problem of one man, one vote, in an entirely unforeseen way. The smaller states with just two members wouldn't be able to implement the proportional electoral system that the larger states would need, and we can't have different electoral systems for big and small states.

I'll say no more about this subject, but it is my view.

[Valrifell]

2010, 2014, 2016, almost 2018, essentially my whole political life.

2000 /2004

2000 I get, 2004? Again, weird to expect victory after 9/11.

I asked for examples of when Dems lost an expected victory, not every instance of a Democrat losing.

[Shrillland]

For some bad news, Scott is suing several Florida counties alleging that Democrats were trying to rig the election.

Well apparently they did a piss-poor job at that, didn't they?

Guess Mr. Medicare Fraudster Rick Scott learned projection from Donnie.

I don't get it. Scott's going to win, how could he complain about nonexistent voter fraud?

[Conserative Morality]

Not quite sure why you were expecting gains or victories in 2010 or 2014, but okay.

Shiny fresh new president, healthcare reform, improving economy... and an inability to capitalize.

Unprecedented obstructionism, re-elected Obaba, a government shutdown costing obscene amounts of money, some really great soundbites to use against them... and we shat the bed again.

We apologize for our failures too much. Better to double down.

[Valrifell]

Guess Mr. Medicare Fraudster Rick Scott learned projection from Donnie.

I don't get it. Scott's going to win, how could he complain about nonexistent voter fraud?

In the age of the eternal election campaign? Probably relates to getting a head start on making Dems look bad in a crucial swing state for 2020.

[Tarsonis]

2000 /2004

2000 I get, 2004? Again, weird to expect victory after 9/11.

I asked for examples of when Dems lost an expected victory, not every instance of a Democrat losing.

From what I remember of 2004, apparently Kerry losing was a surprise to everyone, on the left at least.

[Valrifell]

Not quite sure why you were expecting gains or victories in 2010 or 2014, but okay.

Shiny fresh new president, healthcare reform, improving economy... and an inability to capitalize.

Unprecedented obstructionism, re-elected Obaba, a government shutdown costing obscene amounts of money, some really great soundbites to use against them... and we shat the bed again.

We apologize for our failures too much. Better to double down.

The sitting president's party always fails to capitalize during midterms, you're practically guaranteed to lose seats in the midterm. It's just a matter of how much, and Obama was extremely unpopular during his terms. The Democrats did make a deal about the government shutdown, nobody gave a fuck.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

2000 I get, 2004? Again, weird to expect victory after 9/11.

I asked for examples of when Dems lost an expected victory, not every instance of a Democrat losing.

From what I remember of 2004, apparently Kerry losing was a surprise to everyone, on the left at least.

Frankly, I saw the 2004 election, too young to find any significance in it.

As a 14-15-ish year old kid, I remember thinking Bush was going to win considering the attacks on Kerry. Or so I recall right now anyways.

The fact everyone made fun of Kerry's "thrice purple hearts" became, for the most part, the joke of that election among people my age.

Edit because I can't into math right now, and I usually forget my actual age at the time considering I have a pretty odd month.

[Tarsonis]

From what I remember of 2004, apparently Kerry losing was a surprise to everyone, on the left at least.

Frankly, I saw the 2004 election, too young to find any significance in it.

As a 14 year old kid, I remember thinking Bush was going to win considering the attacks on Kerry. Or so I recall right now anyways.

The fact everyone made fun of Kerry's "thrice purple hearts" became, for the most part, the joke of that election among people my age.

Ahhhh Jib Jab

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Shiny fresh new president, healthcare reform, improving economy... and an inability to capitalize.

Unprecedented obstructionism, re-elected Obaba, a government shutdown costing obscene amounts of money, some really great soundbites to use against them... and we shat the bed again.

We apologize for our failures too much. Better to double down.

The sitting president's party always fails to capitalize during midterms, you're practically guaranteed to lose seats in the midterm. It's just a matter of how much, and Obama was extremely unpopular during his terms. The Democrats did make a deal about the government shutdown, nobody gave a fuck.

I remember that, when the first shutdown happened, it was like "um... what now?"

After it was shown they were essentially cutting funds to vital services and leaving people without pay and that everything kept on keeping on in my life, it was just like "meh, must not have been a big deal then", so since then a government shutdown I see it more as a dick move, but not as the catastrophe it was portrayed to be.

[Tarsonis]

Not quite sure why you were expecting gains or victories in 2010 or 2014, but okay.

Shiny fresh new president, healthcare reform, improving economy... and an inability to capitalize.

Unprecedented obstructionism, re-elected Obaba, a government shutdown costing obscene amounts of money, some really great soundbites to use against them... and we shat the bed again.

We apologize for our failures too much. Better to double down.

Remember kids when the Republicans do it, it’s #obstruxtionism . When the Democrats do it, it’s #resistance.

[Valrifell]

Shiny fresh new president, healthcare reform, improving economy... and an inability to capitalize.

Unprecedented obstructionism, re-elected Obaba, a government shutdown costing obscene amounts of money, some really great soundbites to use against them... and we shat the bed again.

We apologize for our failures too much. Better to double down.

Remember kids when the Republicans do it, it’s #obstruxtionism . When the Democrats do it, it’s #resistance.

When Republicans do it, it's stopping the evil Socialists from getting control of government. When Democrats do it...

Well, shit, they haven't done it at all!

[Ifreann]

Why should LA and NYC get to dictate nationwide policy?

Relevant post in which I did maths.

Do you think New York City, Los Angeles, and maybe one or two other cities should decide who the president is, regardless of what the entire rest of the country thinks?

Would those cities decide the president if you used a simple popular vote? Let's have a think about that. The population of New York is 8.6 million. The population of LA is just under 4 million. Chicago is 2.7 million. Houston is 2.3 million. Phoenix is 1.6 million. Philadelphia is 1.5 million, San Antonio is 1.5 million, San Diego is 1.4 million, Dallas is 1.3 million, and San Jose is a little over 1 million.

That's the ten most populous cities in the Unites States, and coincidentally the only cities with populations over 1 million. Total population of all ten: ~25.9 million. Couple million off the entire population of Texas.
In 2016, Clinton got 65.8 million votes to Trump's 62.9 million.

I'm not going to keep counting up city populations, and I'm certainly not going to go to all the trouble to work out the number of voters in those cities, but I would guess that to win a popular vote in the US by carrying cities alone would require winning 100% of the vote of at least the top fifty most populous cities in the US. City number 50, for reference? Wichita, Kansas. Allowing for city dwellers not all voting for the same candidate, you'd need to win majorities of, I would guess, well over a hundred cities. City number 100? Des Moines, Iowa.

Not exactly NYC and LA and a few other cities choosing the president regardless of what the rest of the country wants.

[Petrasylvania]

Remember kids when the Republicans do it, it’s #obstruxtionism . When the Democrats do it, it’s #resistance.

When Republicans do it, it's stopping the evil Socialists from getting control of government. When Democrats do it...

Well, shit, they haven't done it at all!

They laugh that the Democrats never do what works, but when they finally learn from the Republicans what works the outrage is going to be rich.