US Midterm Elections Megathread III: Hitting The Wall

[Frievolk]

It's not supposed to be. The Majority gets its way, because it has a larger voting base. Shutting the majority up so the minority can get its way is what's unbalanced.

It's almost like a compromise is possible, perhaps a great one?

Why should there be compromise in how a democracy functions though? This is about a very simple principle of democracy as an institution. If you want your way, garner a larger base. If you can't get a larger base then that's your problem. (And of course, it is a trend with the Republican-leaning individuals to prefer to silence voter bases due to the fact they know they can't get people to join their own base so I'm not surprised at what you're suggesting.)

EDIT: I'm not sure you understand the point of the Great Compromise if you think it applies here.

[Corrian]

Political analysts for starters.

I bet I could find a 'political analyst' to support essentilly any position.

They're heavily gerrymandered, you don't get such oddly shaped districts unless you're drawing them with an ulterior motive.

California has some of the least oddly shapes districts I've seen.

[Telconi]

It's almost like a compromise is possible, perhaps a great one?

Why should there be compromise in how a democracy functions though? This is about a very simple principle of democracy as an institution. If you want your way, garner a larger base. If you can't get a larger base then that's your problem. (And of course, it is a trend with the Republican-leaning individuals to prefer to silence voter bases due to the fact they know they can't get people to join their own base so I'm not surprised at what you're suggesting.)

So it keeps functioning.

Well if minority oppression is intrinsic to democracy, then democracy sucks.

[Corrian]

Political analysts for starters.

I bet I could find a 'political analyst' to support essentilly any position.

They're heavily gerrymandered, you don't get such oddly shaped districts unless you're drawing them with an ulterior motive.

Usually a group collectively agreeing on something is more accurate than pulling some random political analyst out of a hat like you're an anti-vaxxer trying to find someone who agrees with you.

[Frievolk]

Why should there be compromise in how a democracy functions though? This is about a very simple principle of democracy as an institution. If you want your way, garner a larger base. If you can't get a larger base then that's your problem. (And of course, it is a trend with the Republican-leaning individuals to prefer to silence voter bases due to the fact they know they can't get people to join their own base so I'm not surprised at what you're suggesting.)

So it keeps functioning.

Well if minority oppression is intrinsic to democracy, then democracy sucks.

You do realize "Tyranny of the majority" is about inherent minorities, rather than artificial minorities, right?
What's happening here isn't minority oppression. It's a voter base ceasing to be a majority because it is no longer appealing for various reasons.
The non-urban base became a minority because it was no longer appealing. If you want it to stop being a minority, make it more appealing.

[Telconi]

I bet I could find a 'political analyst' to support essentilly any position.

They're heavily gerrymandered, you don't get such oddly shaped districts unless you're drawing them with an ulterior motive.

Usually a group collectively agreeing on something is more accurate than pulling some random political analyst out of a hat like you're an anti-vaxxer trying to find someone who agrees with you.

Usually, but nobody has provided evidence of a group''s collective belief.

[Freezic Vast]

So it keeps functioning.

Well if minority oppression is intrinsic to democracy, then democracy sucks.

You do realize "Tyranny of the majority" is about inherent minorities, rather than artificial minorities, right?
What's happening here isn't minority oppression. It's a voter base ceasing to be a majority because it is no longer appealing for various reasons.
The non-urban base became a minority because it was no longer appealing. If you want it to stop being a minority, make it more appealing.

Or stop making the urban majority unappealing to non-urban minorities.

[Telconi]

So it keeps functioning.

Well if minority oppression is intrinsic to democracy, then democracy sucks.

You do realize "Tyranny of the majority" is about inherent minorities, rather than artificial minorities, right?
What's happening here isn't minority oppression. It's a voter base ceasing to be a majority because it is no longer appealing for various reasons.
The non-urban base became a minority because it was no longer appealing. If you want it to stop being a minority, make it more appealing.

And what, pray tell, is an 'inherent minority'?

[San Lumen]

Unless you're against the institute of democracy in and of itself simply because California is democrat (and that's a trend, larger urban areas tend to be more progressive on average) then you have no point here.

It's not just because I hate California, I don't like the democratic system at all, and I would support a military coup in a heartbeat just to do away with the insane system and the two parties.

Why should your side get more say beacause you have less population? Why should someone in Philadelphia or Los Angeles have their voices reduced or silenced because they have more population?

A democracy doesn’t give the minority veto power over the majority

[Valrifell]

You do realize "Tyranny of the majority" is about inherent minorities, rather than artificial minorities, right?
What's happening here isn't minority oppression. It's a voter base ceasing to be a majority because it is no longer appealing for various reasons.
The non-urban base became a minority because it was no longer appealing. If you want it to stop being a minority, make it more appealing.

Or stop making the urban majority unappealing to non-urban minorities.

"No, we're the normal ones, you're the smelly weirdos who should change"

[Frievolk]

You do realize "Tyranny of the majority" is about inherent minorities, rather than artificial minorities, right?
What's happening here isn't minority oppression. It's a voter base ceasing to be a majority because it is no longer appealing for various reasons.
The non-urban base became a minority because it was no longer appealing. If you want it to stop being a minority, make it more appealing.

Or stop making the urban majority unappealing to non-urban minorities.

so now you're unironically suggesting that the majority change its opinion to tend to them minority?
I'm not even surprised at this point.

[Freezic Vast]

It's not just because I hate California, I don't like the democratic system at all, and I would support a military coup in a heartbeat just to do away with the insane system and the two parties.

Why should your side get more say beacause you have less population? Why should someone in Philadelphia or Los Angeles have their voices reduced or silenced because they have more population?

A democracy doesn’t give the minority veto power over the majority

Because I'd rather not be shouted down and lectured by a bunch of stubborn city folk like you for example.

Then do away with democracy, because I'm leaning more and more against it.

[Frievolk]

Why should your side get more say beacause you have less population? Why should someone in Philadelphia or Los Angeles have their voices reduced or silenced because they have more population?

A democracy doesn’t give the minority veto power over the majority

Because I'd rather not be shouted down and lectured by a bunch of stubborn city folk like you for example.

Then do away with democracy, because I'm leaning more and more against it.

Then you're the problem, not the institution of democracy.

[The South Falls]

Why should your side get more say beacause you have less population? Why should someone in Philadelphia or Los Angeles have their voices reduced or silenced because they have more population?

A democracy doesn’t give the minority veto power over the majority

Because I'd rather not be shouted down and lectured by a bunch of stubborn city folk like you for example.

Then do away with democracy, because I'm leaning more and more against it.

So you'd like a state where the rural rule, just because you believe it is right? Alright. The Khmer Rouge didn't end very well.

[Major-Tom]

Why should your side get more say beacause you have less population? Why should someone in Philadelphia or Los Angeles have their voices reduced or silenced because they have more population?

A democracy doesn’t give the minority veto power over the majority

Because I'd rather not be shouted down and lectured by a bunch of stubborn city folk like you for example.

Then do away with democracy, because I'm leaning more and more against it.

"Stubborn city folk."

Such a loaded, dumb thing to say tbh. Every vote counts equally, every American is equal in their right to cast a vote and to voice their opinion. While I hold those beliefs sacrosanct, I suppose, well, at least you're consistent. That is, at least you admit that you're not a fan of democracy.

Your reasoning against it, however, that's where I disagree vehemently.

[San Lumen]

Why should your side get more say beacause you have less population? Why should someone in Philadelphia or Los Angeles have their voices reduced or silenced because they have more population?

A democracy doesn’t give the minority veto power over the majority

Because I'd rather not be shouted down and lectured by a bunch of stubborn city folk like you for example.

Then do away with democracy, because I'm leaning more and more against it.

The governor election in your state was therefore unfair because your candidate got more land area but less votes?

Go move to China where there is no democracy or election and one party rule.

[Telconi]

Because I'd rather not be shouted down and lectured by a bunch of stubborn city folk like you for example.

Then do away with democracy, because I'm leaning more and more against it.

Then you're the problem, not the institution of democracy.

Black people's desire for freedom is the problem, not the institution of slavery!

[Freezic Vast]

Because I'd rather not be shouted down and lectured by a bunch of stubborn city folk like you for example.

Then do away with democracy, because I'm leaning more and more against it.

Then you're the problem, not the institution of democracy.

Okay? Not my fault democracy is flawed to Hell and back.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Okay? Not my fault democracy is flawed to Hell and back.

Democracy is flawed because your views are odious and unpopular?

[Frievolk]

Then you're the problem, not the institution of democracy.

Black people's desire for freedom is the problem, not the institution of slavery!

This might be the single falsest equivalence I've ever seen on this site, and that's saying something.

[Freezic Vast]

Okay? Not my fault democracy is flawed to Hell and back.

Democracy is flawed because your views are odious and unpopular?

No, Democracy is flawed because of people like you.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Democracy is flawed because your views are odious and unpopular?

No, Democracy is flawed because of people like you.

Democracy isn't flawed just because it hurt your feelings kiddo :v

[Frievolk]

Then you're the problem, not the institution of democracy.

Okay? Not my fault democracy is flawed to Hell and back.

It's not that democracy is flawed. Its that your views are so unpopular in the place it's being practiced that you have to shut up the majority for it to even become relevant. Which, again, makes you (and your views) the problem

[San Lumen]

Democracy is flawed because your views are odious and unpopular?

No, Democracy is flawed because of people like you.

Because rural areas have less population? Was the governor election in Pennsylvania unfair because your candidate got less votes despite getting more land area?

[Communist Xomaniax]

Okay? Not my fault democracy is flawed to Hell and back.

It's not that democracy is flawed. Its that your views are so unpopular in the place it's being practiced that you have to shut up the majority for it to even become relevant. Which, again, makes you (and your views) the problem

It really is a profound sense of entitlement, isn't it?