NationStates

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
It maintains a competitive split.

Any kind of voting maintains a competitive split. If you give one vote to, say, a socialist at a street corner, and one vote to the rest of the US, you will have a competitive split. It won’t look like the split there is today, of course, but there will always be two opposing parties. If you adhere more to the one person, one vote principle, politics will slide a bit, but it will settle into a new two-party opposition in no-time. Even in communist countries there were huge ideological differences between the different schools of socialism. Not to say that it desirable, but you will always have a competitive split. Just with different ideologies.

The problem is that the Republicans get way more power not because they have more popular support, but just because the electoral mechanics favour them. The argument that is made about representation of the rural areas can be made about any minority, and you will see how artificial it is. Jews, for example, should get more representation in the electoral college because otherwise the Gentiles will decide national politics. Suddenly, such a split doesn’t seem equitable.

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Any kind of voting maintains a competitive split. If you give one vote to, say, a socialist at a street corner, and one vote to the rest of the US, you will have a competitive split. It won’t look like the split there is today, of course, but there will always be two opposing parties. If you adhere more to the one person, one vote principle, politics will slide a bit, but it will settle into a new two-party opposition in no-time. Even in communist countries there were huge ideological differences between the different schools of socialism. Not to say that it desirable, but you will always have a competitive split. Just with different ideologies.

The problem is that the Republicans get way more power not because they have more popular support, but just because the electoral mechanics favour them. The argument that is made about representation of the rural areas can be made about any minority, and you will see how artificial it is. Jews, for example, should get more representation in the electoral college because otherwise the Gentiles will decide national politics. Suddenly, such a split doesn’t seem equitable.

If Jewish people constituted an ideologically opposed demographic from the Gentile, then such an act would be reasonable to defend one from the other.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
If Jewish people constituted an ideologically opposed demographic from the Gentile, then such an act would be reasonable to defend one from the other.

Why? Why do ideologies have rights? Why is keeping a partisan divide more important than actually following the vote of the people? Why don’t we protect the authoritarians from the democracy-loving? Why don’t we protect communists from capitalists? It’s because, in a democracy, ideas get big and small through popular support, and not through rigging an electoral system in their favour.

Telconi wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
I'd like to remind that, even in this day and age, it's very difficult to win on a base solely comprised of your most diehard voters. Didn't the 2018 elections kind of prove that with the House?

That's the point though, you don't have to be a diehard supporter to gravitate towards him of you think the impeachment is a partisan attack.

Telconi wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
I'd like to remind that, even in this day and age, it's very difficult to win on a base solely comprised of your most diehard voters. Didn't the 2018 elections kind of prove that with the House?

That's the point though, you don't have to be a diehard supporter to gravitate towards him of you think the impeachment is a partisan attack.

Bombadil wrote:

Telconi wrote:
That's the point though, you don't have to be a diehard supporter to gravitate towards him of you think the impeachment is a partisan attack.

Until the weight of evidence crushes that view. Trump is a massive liar on a daily basis and there's no reason to think that hasn't seeped into both his business and election dealings.

The truth will out.

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Why? Why do ideologies have rights? Why is keeping a partisan divide more important than actually following the vote of the people? Why don’t we protect the authoritarians from the democracy-loving? Why don’t we protect communists from capitalists? It’s because, in a democracy, ideas get big and small through popular support, and not through rigging an electoral system in their favour.

Why do we protect homosexuals from homophobes? Why do we protect Jews from anti-semites? Why do we protect blacks from white supremacists?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Clinton gained popularity during his impeachment proceedings, maybe Trump would too...

Probably not. He will have his established base who believe in the phrase "fake news"

Ol' Slick Willy had that silver tongue. donnie just can't pull that off.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Why do we protect homosexuals from homophobes? Why do we protect Jews from anti-semites? Why do we protect blacks from white supremacists?

Because those are people, and people do have rights. Those rights have been democratically voted on and accepted in parliament. Political opinions by themselves do not have rights. People have a right to be communist, but they do not have a right to have their views implemented. They will have to work democratically towards that. Ideologies do not have feelings and cannot be hurt. People can.

Gran Virginia wrote:

Tobleste wrote:

Or, if I were to be as uncharitable as you, we could say that to democrats, this is unfair because they hate federalism and want America to be a unitary state that they can dominate.

Tobleste wrote:

Gran Virginia wrote:Or, if I were to be as uncharitable as you, we could say that to democrats, this is unfair because they hate federalism and want America to be a unitary state that they can dominate.

No electoral college =/= a unitary state. That would require abolishing states and democrats would never support that (unless it's Kansas).

Valrifell wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
No electoral college =/= a unitary state. That would require abolishing states and democrats would never support that (unless it's Kansas).

I supported abolishing Kansas way back when it was bleeding.

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Because those are people, and people do have rights. Those rights have been democratically voted on and accepted in parliament. Political opinions by themselves do not have rights. People have a right to be communist, but they do not have a right to have their views implemented. They will have to work democratically towards that. Ideologies do not have feelings and cannot be hurt. People can.

Indeed, you know who else isn't entitled to having their views implemented, urbanites...

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Indeed, you know who else isn't entitled to having their views implemented, urbanites...

No, it’s not a right. And rurals also don’t have a right to have their views implemented. How do we decide what views to implement then? Well, we vote om it. Everyone may vote om what we want to do, and the people with the most votes win.

Instead in America, where it has been decided that the rurals need to be protected from the democratic vote at the expense of wha the actual majority wants.

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:No, it’s not a right. And rurals also don’t have a right to have their views implemented. How do we decide what views to implement then? Well, we vote om it. Everyone may vote om what we want to do, and the people with the most votes win.

Instead in America, where it has been decided that the rurals need to be protected from the democratic vote at the expense of wha the actual majority wants.

We do vote on issues, hence why we have like a congress and stuff.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Telconi wrote:
We do vote on issues, hence why we have like a congress and stuff.

Yes. Indeed.

So why do rurals get more places than their votes would allow?

Telconi wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Yes. Indeed.

So why do rurals get more places than their votes would allow?

They get exactly what their votes allow.

Bombadil wrote:I feel we should get back to the imminent downfall of Trump..

Bombadil wrote:I feel we should get back to the imminent downfall of Trump..

Valrifell wrote:

Bombadil wrote:I feel we should get back to the imminent downfall of Trump..

"The Sword of Damocles" applies to Trump perfectly, always an imminent downfall of his administration but never a follow-through.

Valrifell wrote:

Bombadil wrote:I feel we should get back to the imminent downfall of Trump..

"The Sword of Damocles" applies to Trump perfectly, always an imminent downfall of his administration but never a follow-through.

Tobleste wrote:

Bombadil wrote:I feel we should get back to the imminent downfall of Trump..

That's been imminent for 3 years. His career is like Mr. Burns physical health; kept alive only by how dysfunctional it is.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
"The Sword of Damocles" applies to Trump perfectly, always an imminent downfall of his administration but never a follow-through.

Sadly, y'all are stuck between a rock (the screeching Democrats) and a hard place (the vehemently unreasonable Republicans).

National salvation coup when?

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
"The Sword of Damocles" applies to Trump perfectly, always an imminent downfall of his administration but never a follow-through.

Sadly, y'all are stuck between a rock (the screeching Democrats) and a hard place (the vehemently unreasonable Republicans).

National salvation coup when?