US Midterm Elections Megathread III: Hitting The Wall

[Cannot think of a name]

Are you cats really advocating for some sort of system where everyone gets what they want? We build Schrodenger's Wall that both is and isn't, we both have reasonable gun control and drive around in fully loaded tanks? Accept and reject immigration at the same time? Some sort of wild vortex where the notion of 'no bad ideas' reaches its silliest conclusion? How thin are you going to slice the pie before you just make everyone a representative and what are you hoping is going to happen there? Do you think if you move the fractions a few more fractions all ideas will become valid? At what point do we decide an idea doesn't have enough support and we make a fucking decision?

[San Lumen]

Are you cats really advocating for some sort of system where everyone gets what they want? We build Schrodenger's Wall that both is and isn't, we both have reasonable gun control and drive around in fully loaded tanks? Accept and reject immigration at the same time? Some sort of wild vortex where the notion of 'no bad ideas' reaches its silliest conclusion? How thin are you going to slice the pie before you just make everyone a representative and what are you hoping is going to happen there? Do you think if you move the fractions a few more fractions all ideas will become valid? At what point do we decide an idea doesn't have enough support and we make a fucking decision?

Exactly I gave the example of Albany, Baltimore or the Bronx. Someone the 15 or 20 percent who vote Republican have to represented and its not fair they are not. Or those who didnt vote the statewide officials like the Governor aren't represented by them.

I do not get that logic.

[Valrifell]

Are you cats really advocating for some sort of system where everyone gets what they want? We build Schrodenger's Wall that both is and isn't, we both have reasonable gun control and drive around in fully loaded tanks? Accept and reject immigration at the same time? Some sort of wild vortex where the notion of 'no bad ideas' reaches its silliest conclusion? How thin are you going to slice the pie before you just make everyone a representative and what are you hoping is going to happen there? Do you think if you move the fractions a few more fractions all ideas will become valid? At what point do we decide an idea doesn't have enough support and we make a fucking decision?

It's not the ideas just the representation in government.

Like, in a FPTP system, 50%-1 of people don't necessarily matter. Why, exactly, should that be the case?

[Cannot think of a name]

Are you cats really advocating for some sort of system where everyone gets what they want? We build Schrodenger's Wall that both is and isn't, we both have reasonable gun control and drive around in fully loaded tanks? Accept and reject immigration at the same time? Some sort of wild vortex where the notion of 'no bad ideas' reaches its silliest conclusion? How thin are you going to slice the pie before you just make everyone a representative and what are you hoping is going to happen there? Do you think if you move the fractions a few more fractions all ideas will become valid? At what point do we decide an idea doesn't have enough support and we make a fucking decision?

It's not the ideas just the representation in government.

Representatives who represent positions, positions that could also be called 'ideas.'

Like, in a FPTP system, 50%-1 of people don't necessarily matter. Why, exactly, should that be the case?

This is a hyperbolic interpretation that is exasperated by the relatively new idea in politics that compromise is a dirty word.

I'm not going to drag out the hipster concern of the day that is FPTP, I just want your endgame. How thin do you want the slices and what do you think that's going to do? If you still don't get your way what injustice will it be then? Where's the cut off? When do we make a decision?

[San Lumen]

It's not the ideas just the representation in government.

Representatives who represent positions, positions that could also be called 'ideas.'

Like, in a FPTP system, 50%-1 of people don't necessarily matter. Why, exactly, should that be the case?

This is a hyperbolic interpretation that is exasperated by the relatively new idea in politics that compromise is a dirty word.

I'm not going to drag out the hipster concern of the day that is FPTP, I just want your endgame. How thin do you want the slices and what do you think that's going to do? If you still don't get your way what injustice will it be then? Where's the cut off? When do we make a decision?

Somehow proportional representation magically solves everything and people here have proposed for places like Albany, Philadelphia or Baltimore there ought to be a co mayor to represent the small number of Republicans there.

[Valrifell]

It's not the ideas just the representation in government.

Representatives who represent positions, positions that could also be called 'ideas.'

Like, in a FPTP system, 50%-1 of people don't necessarily matter. Why, exactly, should that be the case?

This is a hyperbolic interpretation that is exasperated by the relatively new idea in politics that compromise is a dirty word.

I'm not going to drag out the hipster concern of the day that is FPTP, I just want your endgame. How thin do you want the slices and what do you think that's going to do? If you still don't get your way what injustice will it be then? Where's the cut off? When do we make a decision?

Whole number percentages of the population?

[Valrifell]

Representatives who represent positions, positions that could also be called 'ideas.'

This is a hyperbolic interpretation that is exasperated by the relatively new idea in politics that compromise is a dirty word.

I'm not going to drag out the hipster concern of the day that is FPTP, I just want your endgame. How thin do you want the slices and what do you think that's going to do? If you still don't get your way what injustice will it be then? Where's the cut off? When do we make a decision?

Somehow proportional representation magically solves everything and people here have proposed for places like Albany, Philadelphia or Baltimore there ought to be a co mayor to represent the small number of Republicans there.

If a state is 35% Republican I see no reason why the state legislature shouldn't also reflect this. Besides, FPTP is only conducive for two "big tents" any proportional system allows for more nuance in opinion.

[Cannot think of a name]

Representatives who represent positions, positions that could also be called 'ideas.'

This is a hyperbolic interpretation that is exasperated by the relatively new idea in politics that compromise is a dirty word.

I'm not going to drag out the hipster concern of the day that is FPTP, I just want your endgame. How thin do you want the slices and what do you think that's going to do? If you still don't get your way what injustice will it be then? Where's the cut off? When do we make a decision?

Whole number percentages of the population?

Cool. You get your 35% (instead of what did someone say earlier, 22%?). Now what. How does that extra 13% work for you? Do you get your wall now? 35% gets out voted just as well as 22%, what's changed? Have we rearranged the deck chairs sufficiently now?

[San Lumen]

Somehow proportional representation magically solves everything and people here have proposed for places like Albany, Philadelphia or Baltimore there ought to be a co mayor to represent the small number of Republicans there.

If a state is 35% Republican I see no reason why the state legislature shouldn't also reflect this. Besides, FPTP is only conducive for two "big tents" any proportional system allows for more nuance in opinion.

You cannot have districts then. The Voting Rights Act does not allow at large representatives.

and what about the small number of Republicans in say New Haven, Albany, Philadelphia, or Baltimore? There ought to be a co-mayor for them? What is that going to accomplish? Nothing

[Trumptonium1]

Are you cats really advocating for some sort of system where everyone gets what they want? We build Schrodenger's Wall that both is and isn't, we both have reasonable gun control and drive around in fully loaded tanks? Accept and reject immigration at the same time? Some sort of wild vortex where the notion of 'no bad ideas' reaches its silliest conclusion? How thin are you going to slice the pie before you just make everyone a representative and what are you hoping is going to happen there? Do you think if you move the fractions a few more fractions all ideas will become valid? At what point do we decide an idea doesn't have enough support and we make a fucking decision?

It's not the ideas just the representation in government.

Like, in a FPTP system, 50%-1 of people don't necessarily matter. Why, exactly, should that be the case?

Why should their concerns matter?

They lost.


50.5% of Quebecois voted to stay in Canada. The solution isn't declare independence but keep the flag.

52% of Britain votes for Brexit. The solution isn't leave the European Union but join the Euro.

66% of Irish voted to have same-sex marriage. Is the solution to limit LGBT rights to civil unions?

[San Lumen]

It's not the ideas just the representation in government.

Like, in a FPTP system, 50%-1 of people don't necessarily matter. Why, exactly, should that be the case?

Why should their concerns matter?

They lost.

52% of Britain votes for Brexit. The solution isn't half-Brexit.

52% of Quebecois voted to stay in Canada. The solution isn't declare independence but keep the flag.

66% of Irish voted to have same-sex marriage. Is the solution to limit LGBT rights to civil unions?

For once I agree with you

[Valrifell]

Whole number percentages of the population?

Cool. You get your 35% (instead of what did someone say earlier, 22%?). Now what. How does that extra 13% work for you? Do you get your wall now? 35% gets out voted just as well as 22%, what's changed? Have we rearranged the deck chairs sufficiently now?

See, the problem is you saw right-wingers advocating for a more proportional government and then associated the two ideas. Pay an ounce of attention and note that I've never been for the wall and consider myself a left-libertarian and a libertarian socialist on Thursdays.

And yes, a more representative government is a good means unto itself. Their being there would have an impact on legislation and whatnot through the majority-rule countermeasures we put in place already. Not to mention, as shown in other democratic systems not using FPTP, new political parties would be able to get in the conversation, which is another good thing.

Not quite sure why you're adamantly against a more representative government considering our Dem won the popular vote and wouldn't have under a system I prefer (oh wait, I outlined the reasons above!)

[Valrifell]

It's not the ideas just the representation in government.

Like, in a FPTP system, 50%-1 of people don't necessarily matter. Why, exactly, should that be the case?

Why should their concerns matter?

They lost.

52% of Britain votes for Brexit. The solution isn't half-Brexit.

52% of Quebecois voted to stay in Canada. The solution isn't declare independence but keep the flag.

66% of Irish voted to have same-sex marriage. Is the solution to limit LGBT rights to civil unions?

Referenda are a different issue than legislative elections and, by nature, are reflective of the popular will.

I love them too, we need moar.

[Trumptonium1]

Why should their concerns matter?

They lost.

52% of Britain votes for Brexit. The solution isn't half-Brexit.

52% of Quebecois voted to stay in Canada. The solution isn't declare independence but keep the flag.

66% of Irish voted to have same-sex marriage. Is the solution to limit LGBT rights to civil unions?

Referenda are a different issue than legislative elections and, by nature, are reflective of the popular will.

They are not different in the principle of representation.

You can have a state divided into 100 districts of 100 representatives, with 51% of the population equally distributed voting for party A.

or you can have a state with at-large voting for 100 representatives, with 51% of the population equally distributed voting for party A.

In either scenario, voters of party B and their wills and whims are and should be irrelevant. They lost. Doesn't matter if they have 0 or 49 seats.

[The Two Jerseys]

Whole number percentages of the population?

Cool. You get your 35% (instead of what did someone say earlier, 22%?). Now what. How does that extra 13% work for you? Do you get your wall now? 35% gets out voted just as well as 22%, what's changed? Have we rearranged the deck chairs sufficiently now?

That 35% now prevents the other party from having a supermajority, so yes, we have rearranged the deckchairs sufficiently.

[San Lumen]

Cool. You get your 35% (instead of what did someone say earlier, 22%?). Now what. How does that extra 13% work for you? Do you get your wall now? 35% gets out voted just as well as 22%, what's changed? Have we rearranged the deck chairs sufficiently now?

That 35% now prevents the other party from having a supermajority, so yes, we have rearranged the deckchairs sufficiently.

and what if a party gets 51 percent of the vote? They have majority in the parliament on their own.

What about a overwhelmingly blue city like Providence who had a mayoral election this year? Are the small number of Republicans not represented by them? should their be a co mayor for them who would achieve what exactly?

[Cannot think of a name]

Cool. You get your 35% (instead of what did someone say earlier, 22%?). Now what. How does that extra 13% work for you? Do you get your wall now? 35% gets out voted just as well as 22%, what's changed? Have we rearranged the deck chairs sufficiently now?

See, the problem is you saw right-wingers advocating for a more proportional government and then associated the two ideas. Pay an ounce of attention and note that I've never been for the wall and consider myself a left-libertarian and a libertarian socialist on Thursdays.

The specific ideas are meaningless. It doesn't matter whatever pet thing you think it is that's not getting addressed. Substitute in 'widgets' for all I give a fuck.

And yes, a more representative government is a good means unto itself. Their being there would have an impact on legislation and whatnot through the majority-rule countermeasures we put in place already. Not to mention, as shown in other democratic systems not using FPTP, new political parties would be able to get in the conversation, which is another good thing.

Again, how thin are we slicing that pie? At what point do we stop whining that we're not represented and just go, "well, we're going to have to do a better job of getting our ideas some support?

Not quite sure why you're adamantly against a more representative government considering our Dem won the popular vote and wouldn't have under a system I prefer (oh wait, I outlined the reasons above!)

I'm not adamantly against shit, except maybe a fucking end to this stupid back and forth that has been going on about this fucking subject where people equate their policy differences with every oppressed peoples in the world. I just want to move it to the fucking point. Where, where's the line. Exactly how much...1000 reps? 2000? A million? When is there enough and we can make a decision?

I'm all for the multiparty system but we romanticize it more than a little in that they coalesce into the same binary in the end, it's just that the factions get cool names and symbols instead of just being factions within the larger parties.

[The Two Jerseys]

That 35% now prevents the other party from having a supermajority, so yes, we have rearranged the deckchairs sufficiently.

and what if a party gets 51 percent of the vote? They have majority in the parliament on their own.

A 51% majority cannot amend the constitution, override vetoes, ratify treaties, remove an official from office, or break a filibuster.

A majority does not give one party the right to run roughshod over the opposition.

What about a overwhelmingly blue city like Providence who had a mayoral election this year? Are the small number of Republicans not represented by them?

Does the percentage of Republicans in the city council equal the percentage of the votes for Republicans in the city council election?
Do those Republican voters all live in districts with Republican councilmen?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then no, they aren't.

should their be a co mayor for them who would achieve what exactly?

Seeing as how I never at any time called for co-mayors, way to miss the point entirely.

[San Lumen]

and what if a party gets 51 percent of the vote? They have majority in the parliament on their own.

A 51% majority cannot amend the constitution, override vetoes, ratify treaties, remove an official from office, or break a filibuster.

A majority does not give one party the right to run roughshod over the opposition.

What about a overwhelmingly blue city like Providence who had a mayoral election this year? Are the small number of Republicans not represented by them?

Does the percentage of Republicans in the city council equal the percentage of the votes for Republicans in the city council election?
Do those Republican voters all live in districts with Republican councilmen?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then no, they aren't.

should their be a co mayor for them who would achieve what exactly?

Seeing as how I never at any time called for co-mayors, way to miss the point entirely.

The city council is all democrat. How is that you ask? Wait for it.... people voted for it

[Proctopeo]

A 51% majority cannot amend the constitution, override vetoes, ratify treaties, remove an official from office, or break a filibuster.

A majority does not give one party the right to run roughshod over the opposition.

Does the percentage of Republicans in the city council equal the percentage of the votes for Republicans in the city council election?
Do those Republican voters all live in districts with Republican councilmen?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then no, they aren't.

Seeing as how I never at any time called for co-mayors, way to miss the point entirely.

The city council is all democrat. How is that you ask? Wait for it.... people voted for it

But not all the people.

While I can't find any specific statistics about the city of Providence itself, if we assume that the sub-county division of Rhode Island that is associated with the city is a close estimate of Providence itself, and that the 2016 election results are a close estimate of the de facto political situation in the city, two members of the city council should be Republicans to be actually representative.
Why? Because 13.9% of 15 is (slightly more than) 2.
Additionally, one Libertarian would need to be on it if there were at least 25 council members instead of 15, if you're rounding up from half a person.

[San Lumen]

The city council is all democrat. How is that you ask? Wait for it.... people voted for it

But not all the people.

While I can't find any specific statistics about the city of Providence itself, if we assume that the sub-county division of Rhode Island that is associated with the city is a close estimate of Providence itself, and that the 2016 election results are a close estimate of the de facto political situation in the city, two members of the city council should be Republicans to be actually representative.
Why? Because 13.9% of 15 is (slightly more than) 2.
Additionally, one Libertarian would need to be on it if there were at least 25 council members instead of 15, if you're rounding up from half a person.

Why should everything be changed to accommodate a small group of people?

What about the mayor? Do they not represent everyone?

[Proctopeo]

But not all the people.

While I can't find any specific statistics about the city of Providence itself, if we assume that the sub-county division of Rhode Island that is associated with the city is a close estimate of Providence itself, and that the 2016 election results are a close estimate of the de facto political situation in the city, two members of the city council should be Republicans to be actually representative.
Why? Because 13.9% of 15 is (slightly more than) 2.
Additionally, one Libertarian would need to be on it if there were at least 25 council members instead of 15, if you're rounding up from half a person.

Why should everything be changed to accommodate a small group of people?

(Approximately) 15% of a city's voting population isn't "small" by any means. Lesser in size than the majority, but not exactly "small". A rough estimate suggests that's around 20,000 people, in a city of about 180,000.
You'd almost have a point if it were, say, 0.2%. Almost.

What about the mayor? Do they not represent everyone?

As fun as having a Mayor and an Antimayor (like an Antipope, but for mayors) would be, that's not exactly practical. But Rhode Island is weird, and they could probably find a way to make it work.

[Thermodolia]

It's not the ideas just the representation in government.

Like, in a FPTP system, 50%-1 of people don't necessarily matter. Why, exactly, should that be the case?

Why should their concerns matter?

They lost.


50.5% of Quebecois voted to stay in Canada. The solution isn't declare independence but keep the flag.

52% of Britain votes for Brexit. The solution isn't leave the European Union but join the Euro.

66% of Irish voted to have same-sex marriage. Is the solution to limit LGBT rights to civil unions?

Government shouldn’t be about winning. Only partisan hacks think that and we seem to have a partisan hack pack here.

Government should be about a consensus where all or almost all voices have a say.

[San Lumen]

Why should everything be changed to accommodate a small group of people?

(Approximately) 15% of a city's voting population isn't "small" by any means. Lesser in size than the majority, but not exactly "small". A rough estimate suggests that's around 20,000 people, in a city of about 180,000.
You'd almost have a point if it were, say, 0.2%. Almost.

What about the mayor? Do they not represent everyone?

As fun as having a Mayor and an Antimayor (like an Antipope, but for mayors) would be, that's not exactly practical. But Rhode Island is weird, and they could probably find a way to make it work.

Its small enough the whole system should not be changed for them. How about statewide officials? Do they not represent all?

Why should their concerns matter?

They lost.


50.5% of Quebecois voted to stay in Canada. The solution isn't declare independence but keep the flag.

52% of Britain votes for Brexit. The solution isn't leave the European Union but join the Euro.

66% of Irish voted to have same-sex marriage. Is the solution to limit LGBT rights to civil unions?

Government shouldn’t be about winning. Only partisan hacks think that and we seem to have a partisan hack pack here.

Government should be about a consensus where all or almost all voices have a say.

And in the government you do. There is this magical thing called a letter or phone. You can contact your representatives and tell them how you feel. What a incredible concept!

[Thermodolia]

But not all the people.

While I can't find any specific statistics about the city of Providence itself, if we assume that the sub-county division of Rhode Island that is associated with the city is a close estimate of Providence itself, and that the 2016 election results are a close estimate of the de facto political situation in the city, two members of the city council should be Republicans to be actually representative.
Why? Because 13.9% of 15 is (slightly more than) 2.
Additionally, one Libertarian would need to be on it if there were at least 25 council members instead of 15, if you're rounding up from half a person.

Why should everything be changed to accommodate a small group of people?

What about the mayor? Do they not represent everyone?

I mean we changed our marriage, job, education, and many other laws for LGBT people so I don’t get why you’re against this.

If 13% of the population doesn’t matter then we shouldn’t have any rights for LGBT people, or Muslims, or Jews, or anyone else that’s only 13% of the population. According to you they don’t matter.

And the mayor is an executive they don’t represent anyone but the government.