MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[Givienci]

Evidently, the tens of millions of people living outside of urban centers were protected from urbanites. As I've already said, Attitudes, needs, and interests will invariably change with geography. Which issues specifically resonated with each non-urban voter is hard to say--they're not a monolith. Some would be highly attracted to Trumps refreshingly non-market fundamentalist approach to trade and the economy, some would attracted to the fact that he wasn't a moralizing relic, some would be attracted to voting against an urbanite view on gun rights, some would be attracted to immigration reform/immigration reduction, some would be attracted to a reduction in international entanglements that we disproportionately pay in to, some would be attracted to a reduction in foreign free-riding on the US military, etc. or any combination thereof.

The way the system works shows this to be bull. No matter the total the urbanites outweigh nons even on a state by state basis. This would give them the advantage not the other way around.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say. For one, urbanites don't outnumber non-urbanites in every state--just in the particularly large metropolitan areas. In those states, the interests, needs, and attitudes of the metro areas tend to dictate the outcome of that state's elections and the metro areas are thereby represented. The "advantage" that non urban areas (in the case of the last election) get really just boils down to their attitudes, needs, and interests can't be safely ignored in national politics--it's not a winning strategy for candidates to only consider urbanites, or only farmers and hunters, or only moralizing suburban busybodies, and so on.

[Valrifell]

So I can't quit my job if I feel oppressed. Or unhappy. Or feel stuck. etc. etc.

This is why midlife crises are a thing.

You can still quit your job if you feel oppressed because corporations will never be the same in condition.
And lazy people deserve to be unhappy.

If you prefer unregulated capitalism, that corporations will reduce working conditions over time in an unspoken oligopoly (stuff like that happens right now) where shitty and oppressive working conditions are non-negotiable wherever you go.

Nobody deserves to be unhappy, though. A bit of a cruel and humanless position to take.

[Uiiop]

The way the system works shows this to be bull. No matter the total the urbanites outweigh nons even on a state by state basis. This would give them the advantage not the other way around.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say. For one, urbanites don't outnumber non-urbanites in every state--just in the particularly large metropolitan areas. In those states, the interests, needs, and attitudes of the metro areas tend to dictate the outcome of that state's elections and the metro areas are thereby represented. The "advantage" that non urban areas (in the case of the last election) get really just boils down to their attitudes, needs, and interests can't be safely ignored in national politics--it's not a winning strategy for candidates to only consider urbanites, or only farmers and hunters, or only moralizing suburban busybodies, and so on.

Again: https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/pop ... pct-states
While i admit the statement wasn't technically correct it was only a mild exaggeration.
This system only gives 4 states what you claim it does and only gives them 6% of voting power.

Meanwhile the 10 most populous states who are all majority urban have 78%

[Northern Davincia]

You can still quit your job if you feel oppressed because corporations will never be the same in condition.
And lazy people deserve to be unhappy.

If you prefer unregulated capitalism, that corporations will reduce working conditions over time in an unspoken oligopoly (stuff like that happens right now) where shitty and oppressive working conditions are non-negotiable wherever you go.

Nobody deserves to be unhappy, though. A bit of a cruel and humanless position to take.

My sympathies are reserved for the hard-working. Your claim is untrue regardless, corporations have every incentive to attract talented workers by offering good conditions.

[Givienci]

Because the electoral college isn't a monolithic winner take all system. It's winner take all divided by 48 states--each with their own regional attitudes, interests, and needs--and two non-winner take all states. There is no "oppression" involved; candidates actually have to canvas outside of a few urban centers and take into account the attitudes, needs, and interests of a wide plurality of people.

https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/pop ... pct-states
So only 3 states were helped by this and since the states are given their numbers via population those states have little influence.

The EC is pretty useless under the merits you claim it has.

I think you'll find that "urban" in what you cite is a lot more technical and broad than you think. Regardless, it's a moot point because it doesn't diminish what I was getting at from the start. I'll illustrate with a specific issue:

The attitudes, needs, and interests of people living in Los Angeles are substantially different from the attitudes, needs, and interests of people living in Alaska. Having a gun in Alaska is a matter of necessity, while it isn't in LA. LA's dense population would, in a majority-based voting system, easily overwhelm the votes of people in Alaska and excessively restrictive gun legislation with a strongly urbanite view could be passed with impunity and without even having to consider the attitudes, genuine needs, and interests of Alaskans. This is tyranny of the majority; it doesn't matter if there's 500 trillion people packed into that 'SoCal' urban slum vs only 700 thousand in the whole of Alaska--Alaskans would get no representation despite the vastly different lifestyle they have.

[Uiiop]

https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/pop ... pct-states
So only 3 states were helped by this and since the states are given their numbers via population those states have little influence.

The EC is pretty useless under the merits you claim it has.

I think you'll find that "urban" in what you cite is a lot more technical and broad than you think. Regardless, it's a moot point because it doesn't diminish what I was getting at from the start. I'll illustrate with a specific issue:

The attitudes, needs, and interests of people living in Los Angeles are substantially different from the attitudes, needs, and interests of people living in Alaska. Having a gun in Alaska is a matter of necessity, while it isn't in LA. LA's dense population would, in a majority-based voting system, easily overwhelm the votes of people in Alaska and excessively restrictive gun legislation with a strongly urbanite view could be passed with impunity and without even having to consider the attitudes, genuine needs, and interests of Alaskans. This is tyranny of the majority; it doesn't matter if there's 500 trillion people packed into that 'SoCal' urban slum vs only 700 thousand in the whole of Alaska--Alaskans would get no representation despite the vastly different lifestyle they have.

But CA has 55 votes and Alaska only has 11 votes.
How many votes each states gets is literally based on how populated there are. So in this illustration Alaska would get way less votes than it currently has.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Everyone’s arguing about capitalism and I’m just sitting here as a sex worker because it the only way I’m legally employable

[The Dacian League]

Everyone’s arguing about capitalism and I’m just sitting here as a sex worker because it the only way I’m legally employable

LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION! LASSIEZ-FAIRE SEX INDUSTRY! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Uiiop]

I think you'll find that "urban" in what you cite is a lot more technical and broad than you think. Regardless, it's a moot point because it doesn't diminish what I was getting at from the start. I'll illustrate with a specific issue:

The attitudes, needs, and interests of people living in Los Angeles are substantially different from the attitudes, needs, and interests of people living in Alaska. Having a gun in Alaska is a matter of necessity, while it isn't in LA. LA's dense population would, in a majority-based voting system, easily overwhelm the votes of people in Alaska and excessively restrictive gun legislation with a strongly urbanite view could be passed with impunity and without even having to consider the attitudes, genuine needs, and interests of Alaskans. This is tyranny of the majority; it doesn't matter if there's 500 trillion people packed into that 'SoCal' urban slum vs only 700 thousand in the whole of Alaska--Alaskans would get no representation despite the vastly different lifestyle they have.

But CA has 55 votes and Alaska only has 11 votes.
How many votes each states gets is literally based on how populated there are. So in this illustration Alaska would get way less votes than it currently has.

Again the most populous states outnumber the little ones by 78%. So under the merits of your illustration it fails.

There may be a way to proceed but you're going to have to unpack your no true urbanite argument.

[Givienci]

I think you'll find that "urban" in what you cite is a lot more technical and broad than you think. Regardless, it's a moot point because it doesn't diminish what I was getting at from the start. I'll illustrate with a specific issue:

The attitudes, needs, and interests of people living in Los Angeles are substantially different from the attitudes, needs, and interests of people living in Alaska. Having a gun in Alaska is a matter of necessity, while it isn't in LA. LA's dense population would, in a majority-based voting system, easily overwhelm the votes of people in Alaska and excessively restrictive gun legislation with a strongly urbanite view could be passed with impunity and without even having to consider the attitudes, genuine needs, and interests of Alaskans. This is tyranny of the majority; it doesn't matter if there's 500 trillion people packed into that 'SoCal' urban slum vs only 700 thousand in the whole of Alaska--Alaskans would get no representation despite the vastly different lifestyle they have.

But CA has 55 votes and Alaska only has 11 votes.
How many votes each states gets is literally based on how populated there are. So in this illustration Alaska would get way less votes than it currently has.

Well, Alaska actually has 3 EC votes which is the minimum. On a population adjusted basis, Alaska gets more representation than California because alaska effectively gets 1 EC vote per ~246k people vs 1 EC vote per ~719k people in California. In a sense, it helps act as an equalizer.

[Northern Davincia]

Everyone’s arguing about capitalism and I’m just sitting here as a sex worker because it the only way I’m legally employable

LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION! LASSIEZ-FAIRE SEX INDUSTRY! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Now you're speaking my language.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Everyone’s arguing about capitalism and I’m just sitting here as a sex worker because it the only way I’m legally employable

LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION! LASSIEZ-FAIRE SEX INDUSTRY! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Id prefer it to be regulated to help preserve the health of the workers, complete with free access to testing and contraception

[The Dacian League]

LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION! LASSIEZ-FAIRE SEX INDUSTRY! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Id prefer it to be regulated to help preserve the health of the workers, complete with free access to testing and contraception

I was being facetious, but I have negative knowledge on how a sex industry works so I agree with you?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Id prefer it to be regulated to help preserve the health of the workers, complete with free access to testing and contraception

I was being facetious, but I have negative knowledge on how a sex industry works so I agree with you?

Neat

[Northern Davincia]

LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION! LASSIEZ-FAIRE SEX INDUSTRY! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Id prefer it to be regulated to help preserve the health of the workers, complete with free access to testing and contraception

You think too small.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Id prefer it to be regulated to help preserve the health of the workers, complete with free access to testing and contraception

You think too small.

Sigh
Dare I ask what you’re implying?

[Telconi]

I suggest you quit your job if you feel oppressed.

The system doesn't allow for someone to be unemployed and exist happily. If all corporations filed equally shitty conditions (which they are wont to do) then I'm fucked.

I've been unemployed and existed happily.

[Uiiop]

But CA has 55 votes and Alaska only has 11 votes.
How many votes each states gets is literally based on how populated there are. So in this illustration Alaska would get way less votes than it currently has.

Well, Alaska actually has 3 EC votes which is the minimum. On a population adjusted basis, Alaska gets more representation than California because alaska effectively gets 1 EC vote per ~246k people vs 1 EC vote per ~719k people in California. In a sense, it helps act as an equalizer.

Mixed it up with Arizona. That i'll concede.
Your correction only shows to prove that your equalizer does jack shit. 5% would still be overwhelmed by the 95%.

[Northern Davincia]

You think too small.

Sigh
Dare I ask what you’re implying?

In an unregulated setting, it would be extremely irrational to engage in prostitution. Immoral behavior falls to the wayside.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The system doesn't allow for someone to be unemployed and exist happily. If all corporations filed equally shitty conditions (which they are wont to do) then I'm fucked.

I've been unemployed and existed happily.

What’s your secret cuz it’s a pretty shit way to live

[Internationalist Bastard]

Sigh
Dare I ask what you’re implying?

In an unregulated setting, it would be extremely irrational to engage in prostitution. Immoral behavior falls to the wayside.

Oh Buddha thank you
Yes it would also improve business as it’d be cleaner

[The Black Forrest]

The system doesn't allow for someone to be unemployed and exist happily. If all corporations filed equally shitty conditions (which they are wont to do) then I'm fucked.

I've been unemployed and existed happily.

Up where you live; it's possible. Not down here.

[Northern Davincia]

In an unregulated setting, it would be extremely irrational to engage in prostitution. Immoral behavior falls to the wayside.

Oh Buddha thank you
Yes it would also improve business as it’d be cleaner

In an actual brothel, yes. Street prostitution would be eliminated overnight.

[Telconi]

I've been unemployed and existed happily.

Up where you live; it's possible. Not down here.

I don't see the difference.

[The Black Forrest]

Up where you live; it's possible. Not down here.

I don't see the difference.

What's rent on a one bed room flat your way?