NationStates

Conserative Morality wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:So a modified house of representatives.

There is exactly no difference between the house of representatives, which is partitioned among the states according to their relative populations, and a senate the likes you propose: partitioned between the states according to their relative populations.

There is exactly no difference between the house of representatives, which is elected by the voting population directly, and a senate the likes that is proposed: elected by the voting population directly.

t. an opponent of the 17th amendment

See? I can ignore literally everything else to make retarded comparisons as well.

I mean, if you don't want to define it just because my question seems confrontational is fine, but you are the one who is allowing a bad interpretation of it by not clarifying when someone asks you to.

Senkaku wrote:

Reikoku wrote:
Though NYC becoming the new Athens would be cool.

nyc can't even keep the fucking subway running, I'm pretty sure it can't subjugate America

I said "cool," I didn't say "possible."

Senkaku wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
So yes, what India did with the Rajya Sabha. Its makeup is more or less what you're suggesting. Nonetheless, that runs contrary to one of the founding tenets of our country, that all of the states should be equal regardless of size.

TRICAMERAL GANG

Why stop there?! We could go quadracameral or even PENTACAMERAL! Hexacameral is off limits, tho, verboten knowledge.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:There is exactly no difference between the house of representatives, which is elected by the voting population directly, and a senate the likes that is proposed: elected by the voting population directly.

t. an opponent of the 17th amendment

See? I can ignore literally everything else to make retarded comparisons as well.

I mean, if you don't want to define it just because my question seems confrontational is fine, but you are the one who is allowing a bad interpretation of it by not clarifying when someone asks you to.

Literally clarified where you underlined, not my fault you don't feel like reading that which you emphasized in my post.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
I mean, if you don't want to define it just because my question seems confrontational is fine, but you are the one who is allowing a bad interpretation of it by not clarifying when someone asks you to.

Literally clarified where you underlined, not my fault you don't feel like reading that which you emphasized in my post.

If you did I wouldn't have to ask you to clarify it in the first place, boyo.

Tarsonis wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:They shouldn't. Good thing I am not recommending rule by city-state.

You really are. CA and NY are two of three most populace states of the union and the politics are pretty much dominated by their major cities. Many people Buffalo and rural favor cutting NYC out if Nay stars because they dominate the state politics. What you propose is exactly that. The populous states will dominate politics while the less populous states will be dictated to, even though cultures and needs are different.

Say rather five states instead of two. When we say cities would rule, it's kind of a misnomer, we mean urban areas as a whole. There's a difference between the 12 million that make up NY and LA and the 50 million that make up their metro areas as a whole, but it's the latter that we actually see as a problem.

Tarsonis wrote:Why should LA and NYC get to dictate nationwide policy?

Also ik I've been rather rude triple posting but I'd just like to say-

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?"

But it sounds better when you can cast democracy as some terrifying regime of imperial rule by distant coastal cities over the REAL American people living in the long-suffering heartland

Shrillland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
You really are. CA and NY are two of three most populace states of the union and the politics are pretty much dominated by their major cities. Many people Buffalo and rural favor cutting NYC out if Nay stars because they dominate the state politics. What you propose is exactly that. The populous states will dominate politics while the less populous states will be dictated to, even though cultures and needs are different.

Say rather five states instead of two. When we say cities would rule, it's kind of a misnomer, we mean urban areas as a whole. There's a difference between the 12 million that make up NY and LA and the 50 million that make up their metro areas as a whole, but it's the latter that we actually see as a problem.

Why should urban areas dictate what happens in the rest of the country?

Senkaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:Why should LA and NYC get to dictate nationwide policy?

Also ik I've been rather rude triple posting but I'd just like to say-

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?"

But it sounds better when you can cast democracy as some terrifying regime of imperial rule by distant coastal cities over the REAL American people living in the long-suffering heartland

Direct democracy sucks in every way shape and form.

Republicanism isn't great, but it's better.

Federalism is even better.

And oh what I wouldn't do for a Heinleinian Confederacy.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Literally clarified where you underlined, not my fault you don't feel like reading that which you emphasized in my post.

If you did I wouldn't have to ask you to clarify it in the first place, boyo.

>> not reading a post lambasting you for not reading

Astounding.

Senkaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:Why should LA and NYC get to dictate nationwide policy?

Also ik I've been rather rude triple posting but I'd just like to say-

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?"

But it sounds better when you can cast democracy as some terrifying regime of imperial rule by distant coastal cities over the REAL American people living in the long-suffering heartland

"We r not a democracy"

Senkaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:Why should LA and NYC get to dictate nationwide policy?

Also ik I've been rather rude triple posting but I'd just like to say-

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?"

But it sounds better when you can cast democracy as some terrifying regime of imperial rule by distant coastal cities over the REAL American people living in the long-suffering heartland

No, it's a legitimate question when the system is set up so only one set of interests and ideals is given total control. And race doesn't come into it..at least not in my view.

Senkaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:Why should LA and NYC get to dictate nationwide policy?

Also ik I've been rather rude triple posting but I'd just like to say-

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?"

But it sounds better when you can cast democracy as some terrifying regime of imperial rule by distant coastal cities over the REAL American people living in the long-suffering heartland

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

Shrillland wrote:

Senkaku wrote:TRICAMERAL GANG

Why tricameral? What would the third house's use be?

Y'all want to keep the Senate, CM wants a more proportional thing, so why not compromise and do both

Shrillland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
You really are. CA and NY are two of three most populace states of the union and the politics are pretty much dominated by their major cities. Many people Buffalo and rural favor cutting NYC out if Nay stars because they dominate the state politics. What you propose is exactly that. The populous states will dominate politics while the less populous states will be dictated to, even though cultures and needs are different.

Say rather five states instead of two. When we say cities would rule, it's kind of a misnomer, we mean urban areas as a whole. There's a difference between the 12 million that make up NY and LA and the 50 million that make up their metro areas as a whole, but it's the latter that we actually see as a problem.

I mean, for starters those 50 million are less politically homogeneous than you give them credit for (@Staten Island and Orange County, for example), and secondly- if a majority or large plurality of the American people are concentrated in the metro areas/combined statistical regions surrounding several major cities, what the fuck is wrong with giving them adequate representation?

The real issue here is that some people happen not to agree with the party that tends to do well in many large regions of those metropolitan areas, so they paint giving them adequate representation as giving them undue power.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:There is exactly no difference between the house of representatives, which is elected by the voting population directly, and a senate the likes that is proposed: elected by the voting population directly.

t. an opponent of the 17th amendment

See? I can ignore literally everything else to make retarded comparisons as well.

I mean, if you don't want to define it just because my question seems confrontational is fine, but you are the one who is allowing a bad interpretation of it by not clarifying when someone asks you to.

I think CM already identified single-member districts in speaking of election directly by the voting population, though I could be mistaken, and STV rather than FPTP like the Rajya Sabha is a big change, so characterizing there as being "exactly no difference" is quite silly, and being belligerent about your error is even sillier

Shrillland wrote:No, it's a legitimate question when the system is set up so only one set of interests and ideals is given total control. And race doesn't come into it..at least not in my view.

Tell me, how has that interplay of interests and ideals worked out for us? Increasing polarization, crippled national government, inability to respond to serious national concerns with coherent policy, rampant corruption, pork for miles...

The founding of this country was dependent, explicitly stated by many of the Founding Fathers, on the idea that we all had more-or-less the same general goal for the nation; that we were one nation of many parts. The nation has quadrupled in size and become a breeding ground for several conflicting ideologies. That is no longer the case.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
If you did I wouldn't have to ask you to clarify it in the first place, boyo.

>> not reading a post lambasting you for not reading

Astounding.

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, and unicameral legislatures are not that uncommon anyways.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Also ik I've been rather rude triple posting but I'd just like to say-

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?"

But it sounds better when you can cast democracy as some terrifying regime of imperial rule by distant coastal cities over the REAL American people living in the long-suffering heartland

"We r not a democracy"

we

r

R E P U B L I K

Tarsonis wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Also ik I've been rather rude triple posting but I'd just like to say-

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?"

But it sounds better when you can cast democracy as some terrifying regime of imperial rule by distant coastal cities over the REAL American people living in the long-suffering heartland

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

Shrillland wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Also ik I've been rather rude triple posting but I'd just like to say-

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?"

But it sounds better when you can cast democracy as some terrifying regime of imperial rule by distant coastal cities over the REAL American people living in the long-suffering heartland

No, it's a legitimate question when the system is set up so only one set of interests and ideals is given total control.

It wouldn't be be given "total control" lmfao it would be being given proportional control

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

Conserative Morality wrote:

Shrillland wrote:No, it's a legitimate question when the system is set up so only one set of interests and ideals is given total control. And race doesn't come into it..at least not in my view.

Tell me, how has that interplay of interests and ideals worked out for us? Increasing polarization, crippled national government, inability to respond to serious national concerns with coherent policy, rampant corruption, pork for miles...

The founding of this country was dependent, explicitly stated by many of the Founding Fathers, on the idea that we all had more-or-less the same general goal for the nation; that we were one nation of many parts. The nation has quadrupled in size and become a breeding ground for several conflicting ideologies. That is no longer the case.

That was never the case

Len Hyet wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Also ik I've been rather rude triple posting but I'd just like to say-

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?"

But it sounds better when you can cast democracy as some terrifying regime of imperial rule by distant coastal cities over the REAL American people living in the long-suffering heartland

Direct democracy sucks in every way shape and form.

Republicanism isn't great, but it's better.

Federalism is even better.

And oh what I wouldn't do for a Heinleinian Confederacy.

Which is why I'm not proposing ditching all aspects of indirect democracy lmao

If it's any reassurance to those of you who I'm sure are preparing to mischaracterize me as a proponent of mob rule ( ), I'd not be totally opposed to having senators be indirectly elected again, since it might make people actually give more of a fuck about state legislatures


furthermore portraying "republicanism" and "federalism" as somehow at odds with "democracy" remains idiotic

Valrifell wrote:

Senkaku wrote:TRICAMERAL GANG

Why stop there?! We could go quadracameral or even PENTACAMERAL! Hexacameral is off limits, tho, verboten knowledge.

no no, tricameral will be sufficient

Senkaku wrote:

Len Hyet wrote:Direct democracy sucks in every way shape and form.

Republicanism isn't great, but it's better.

Federalism is even better.

And oh what I wouldn't do for a Heinleinian Confederacy.

Which is why I'm not proposing ditching all aspects of indirect democracy lmao

If it's any reassurance to those of you who I'm sure are preparing to mischaracterize me as a proponent of mob rule ( ), I'd not be totally opposed to having senators be indirectly elected again, since it might make people actually give more of a fuck about state legislatures

17th Amendment worst Amendment.

Except the 12th which also kinda sucks. As does the 16th. The 18th was stupid too but it got repealed so that's okay.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote: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.

And hey to some election news Kyrsten Sinema's currently leading in Arizona by like 9.6k votes with around 99% of the ballots already counted

Pasong Tirad wrote:And hey to some election news Kyrsten Sinema's currently leading in Arizona by like 9.6k votes with around 99% of the ballots already counted

I saw that...well, here's hoping.

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?

Valrifell wrote: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.