Weighting Rural Votes?/Election Reform

[San Lumen]

Hey, you two, come on. We should be trying to have a civil discussion on this issue, and if neither of you can stay calm, we're not gonna get anywhere. Now, to repeat what I stated earlier:

It is absolutely necessary to restrict the majority's capacity to govern. Hence why we've been doing it since the beginning of the country.

Yes that is what we have constitutions for to limit what the government can do. But what we dont do is give the minority more power than majority and the ability to veto what the majority wants done legislatively or voted for in an election

We don’t have slavery anymore so can you stop stalling and answer the question

"Your question is functionally incomplete" is not stalling.

Its not functionally incomplete you simply dont want to give an answer because it presents a major flaw in your argument

[Ors Might]

It is absolutely necessary to restrict the majority's capacity to govern. Hence why we've been doing it since the beginning of the country.

Yes that is what we have constitutions for to limit what the government can do. But what we dont do is give the minority more power than majority and the ability to veto what the majority wants done legislatively or voted for in an election

"Your question is functionally incomplete" is not stalling.

Its not functionally incomplete you simply dont want to give an answer because it presents a major flaw in your argument

You don’t see the quality of the sheriff as important in regards to whether or not you should listen to them? If a sheriff makes it a policy to target and extort minorities in my community, I’m sure as fuck not going to help them do their job.

[San Lumen]

Yes that is what we have constitutions for to limit what the government can do. But what we dont do is give the minority more power than majority and the ability to veto what the majority wants done legislatively or voted for in an election

Its not functionally incomplete you simply dont want to give an answer because it presents a major flaw in your argument

You don’t see the quality of the sheriff as important in regards to whether or not you should listen to them? If a sheriff makes it a policy to target and extort minorities in my community, I’m sure as fuck not going to help them do their job.

Ok but that was not part of the hypothetical. We are talking about rank and file officers not obeying the sheriff because they dont like that the people voted for someone of the other party.

[Ors Might]

You don’t see the quality of the sheriff as important in regards to whether or not you should listen to them? If a sheriff makes it a policy to target and extort minorities in my community, I’m sure as fuck not going to help them do their job.

Ok but that was not part of the hypothetical. We are talking about rank and file officers not obeying the sheriff because they dont like that the people voted for someone of the other party.

From what I’ve seen, your hypothetical isn’t directly applicable to what Telconi has been arguing. He isn’t calling those policies horrific because they came from Democrats. He’s calling them awful because they restrict constitutional rights.

[San Lumen]

Ok but that was not part of the hypothetical. We are talking about rank and file officers not obeying the sheriff because they dont like that the people voted for someone of the other party.

From what I’ve seen, your hypothetical isn’t directly applicable to what Telconi has been arguing. He isn’t calling those policies horrific because they came from Democrats. He’s calling them awful because they restrict constitutional rights.

So screw the will of the people then? Was what Republicans in Wisconsin did to restrict the power of Governor Evers ok to you?

[Ors Might]

From what I’ve seen, your hypothetical isn’t directly applicable to what Telconi has been arguing. He isn’t calling those policies horrific because they came from Democrats. He’s calling them awful because they restrict constitutional rights.

So screw the will of the people then? Was what Republicans in Wisconsin did to restrict the power of Governor Evers ok to you?

If the will of the people is to restrict the rights of others, would you be okay with that?

[San Lumen]

So screw the will of the people then? Was what Republicans in Wisconsin did to restrict the power of Governor Evers ok to you?

If the will of the people is to restrict the rights of others, would you be okay with that?

There is something called a court

[Ors Might]

If the will of the people is to restrict the rights of others, would you be okay with that?

There is something called a court

And if the courts obey the will of the people? You’re putting a lot of faith into a fallible institution.

[San Lumen]

There is something called a court

And if the courts obey the will of the people? You’re putting a lot of faith into a fallible institution.

That is the job of a judge to interpret the law.

[Ors Might]

And if the courts obey the will of the people? You’re putting a lot of faith into a fallible institution.

That is the job of a judge to interpret the law.

Some judges are pretty shitty at their job. Some might go so far as to say that a lot of judges are.

You still haven’t answered if you’d be okay if the people voted to restrict rights.

[San Lumen]

That is the job of a judge to interpret the law.

Some judges are pretty shitty at their job. Some might go so far as to say that a lot of judges are.

You still haven’t answered if you’d be okay if the people voted to restrict rights.

It depends on what your referring to. If someone feels a law violates their rights they bring the issue to court. What you dont do is hamstring the government

[Ors Might]

Some judges are pretty shitty at their job. Some might go so far as to say that a lot of judges are.

You still haven’t answered if you’d be okay if the people voted to restrict rights.

It depends on what your referring to. If someone feels a law violates their rights they bring the issue to court. What you dont do is hamstring the government

And if the court unholds the violation?

Why would I, an anarchist, be against hamstringing an abusive government?

[San Lumen]

It depends on what your referring to. If someone feels a law violates their rights they bring the issue to court. What you dont do is hamstring the government

And if the court unholds the violation?

Why would I, an anarchist, be against hamstringing an abusive government?

Then that's how the court ruled.

Why is the government abusive because you disagree with who got elected?

[Ors Might]

And if the court unholds the violation?

Why would I, an anarchist, be against hamstringing an abusive government?

Then that's how the court ruled.

Why is the government abusive because you disagree with who got elected?

Then the courts are in support of violating rights because the majority is. Why are you okay with that?

The government is abusive because it abuses those it governs.

[San Lumen]

Then that's how the court ruled.

Why is the government abusive because you disagree with who got elected?

Then the courts are in support of violating rights because the majority is. Why are you okay with that?

The government is abusive because it abuses those it governs.

So what do you propose regarding judges they be removed because of how they ruled?

Give an example of this alleged abuse

[Ors Might]

Then the courts are in support of violating rights because the majority is. Why are you okay with that?

The government is abusive because it abuses those it governs.

So what do you propose regarding judges they be removed because of how they ruled?

Give an example of this alleged abuse

I propose that the will of the majority can go get fucked if it leads to the removal of rights.

Are you not the same person that posted a thread on voter I.D laws de facto restricting, if not altogether removing, the right to vote from hundreds of communities?

[San Lumen]

So what do you propose regarding judges they be removed because of how they ruled?

Give an example of this alleged abuse

I propose that the will of the majority can go get fucked if it leads to the removal of rights.

Are you not the same person that posted a thread on voter I.D laws de facto restricting, if not altogether removing, the right to vote from hundreds of communities?

By doing what?

I never advocated for people to be denied the right to vote.

[Ors Might]

I propose that the will of the majority can go get fucked if it leads to the removal of rights.

Are you not the same person that posted a thread on voter I.D laws de facto restricting, if not altogether removing, the right to vote from hundreds of communities?

By doing what?

I never advocated for people to be denied the right to vote.

Ideally by putting laws in place that prevent the will of the majority from mattering enough to remove rights. If push comes to shove, a coup is an option as a last resort.

Good for you? But if the will of the majority was to place entirely legal restrictions upon the right to vote and voted in someone who’d do that, what right would you have to complain, according to your own values?

[San Lumen]

By doing what?

I never advocated for people to be denied the right to vote.

Ideally by putting laws in place that prevent the will of the majority from mattering enough to remove rights. If push comes to shove, a coup is an option as a last resort.

Good for you? But if the will of the majority was to place entirely legal restrictions upon the right to vote and voted in someone who’d do that, what right would you have to complain, according to your own values?

What are these laws?

Yes and that happened in several states and they got voted out of office last year

[Ors Might]

Ideally by putting laws in place that prevent the will of the majority from mattering enough to remove rights. If push comes to shove, a coup is an option as a last resort.

Good for you? But if the will of the majority was to place entirely legal restrictions upon the right to vote and voted in someone who’d do that, what right would you have to complain, according to your own values?

What are these laws?

Yes and that happened in several states and they got voted out of office last year

Laws that make it so that you can’t vote on whether or not certain rights can be removed.

Alright and what if they had never been voted out? What if the people loved restricting the rights of minorities to vote so much that they voted to keep them in?

[San Lumen]

What are these laws?

Yes and that happened in several states and they got voted out of office last year

Laws that make it so that you can’t vote on whether or not certain rights can be removed.

Alright and what if they had never been voted out? What if the people loved restricting the rights of minorities to vote so much that they voted to keep them in?

Therefore a constitutional amendment?

Then thats who the people voted for. The law is the law and the courts can strike it down and many times voting restrictions have been struck down.

[Ors Might]

Laws that make it so that you can’t vote on whether or not certain rights can be removed.

Alright and what if they had never been voted out? What if the people loved restricting the rights of minorities to vote so much that they voted to keep them in?

Therefore a constitutional amendment?

Then thats who the people voted for. The law is the law and the courts can strike it down and many times voting restrictions have been struck down.

Something along those lines. One that restricts mob rule at any rate.

But you can understand why Tel would call certain politicians and those that vote for them awful?

[San Lumen]

Therefore a constitutional amendment?

Then thats who the people voted for. The law is the law and the courts can strike it down and many times voting restrictions have been struck down.

Something along those lines. One that restricts mob rule at any rate.

But you can understand why Tel would call certain politicians and those that vote for them awful?

That amendment would still have to passed and voted on via referendum if we are talking about it at a state level

Yes but they were voted into office in a free and fair election

[Ors Might]

Something along those lines. One that restricts mob rule at any rate.

But you can understand why Tel would call certain politicians and those that vote for them awful?

That amendment would still have to passed and voted on via referendum if we are talking about it at a state level

Yes but they were voted into office in a free and fair election

True but that’s in the best case scenario. Coups are always an option.

Free and fair elections evidently aren’t inherently good if they can lead to something awful.

[San Lumen]

That amendment would still have to passed and voted on via referendum if we are talking about it at a state level

Yes but they were voted into office in a free and fair election

True but that’s in the best case scenario. Coups are always an option.

Free and fair elections evidently aren’t inherently good if they can lead to something awful.

Coups are not the solution.