Weighting Rural Votes?/Election Reform

[Telconi]

If you had even the faintest idea of how polarized governments work you would know that yes the minority is effectively mute and unable to do anything.

No they aren't. I think what is really the argument here is that my side doenst win therefore things ought to be rigged in my favor. How dare someone in King County vote or have their fair share of representation?

Un-mitigated control by one half of society is not fair.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If you had even the faintest idea of how polarized governments work you would know that yes the minority is effectively mute and unable to do anything.

No they aren't.

Bull fucking shit and you know it Lumen. How much power did House Democrats have for the past 2 years?

The answer is none, and the only reason the GOP didn't completely run over your side without you being able to do a single thing about it is because thus far nobody has been brave enough to use the nuclear option for legislation in the Senate.

[San Lumen]

And do you not have a representative in Sacramento or Washington? Are they totally mute and unable to do anything and just sit in their office or at their desk in the chamber and twiddle their thumbs?

Given that Democrats hold a supermajority in the state legislature, yes, that's basically what he's capable of.

And the people voted for that supermajority and no it isnt. They have a right to speak, sit on committees and introduce amendments. You simply dont like that your side doesnt have the majority and it outvoted.

Should their be more bipartisanship? Absolutely.

[Telconi]

Given that Democrats hold a supermajority in the state legislature, yes, that's basically what he's capable of.

And the people voted for that supermajority and no it isnt. They have a right to speak, sit on committees and introduce amendments. You simply dont like that your side doesnt have the majority and it outvoted.

Should their be more bipartisanship? Absolutely.

I don't care. None of this is relevant, you have the ability to write David Duke a letter and request that he stop being a racist sack of shit, doesn't mean he is going to.

[San Lumen]

And the people voted for that supermajority and no it isnt. They have a right to speak, sit on committees and introduce amendments. You simply dont like that your side doesnt have the majority and it outvoted.

Should their be more bipartisanship? Absolutely.

I don't care. None of this is relevant, you have the ability to write David Duke a letter and request that he stop being a racist sack of shit, doesn't mean he is going to.

How is it not relevant?

And what does David Duke have to do with this?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't care. None of this is relevant, you have the ability to write David Duke a letter and request that he stop being a racist sack of shit, doesn't mean he is going to.

How is it not relevant?

And what does David Duke have to do with this?

His Republican representative has about as much power in Sacramento as you have over David Duke.

None.

[Telconi]

I don't care. None of this is relevant, you have the ability to write David Duke a letter and request that he stop being a racist sack of shit, doesn't mean he is going to.

How is it not relevant?

And what does David Duke have to do with this?

I just provided an example.

He's an accurate analogy for the government in Sacramento. The point is people don't just do what you ask because you say pretty please. If the world worked that way a polite letter to Hitler would have ended the holocaust, didn't happen, literally millions died making it end.

[San Lumen]

How is it not relevant?

And what does David Duke have to do with this?

His Republican representative has about as much power in Sacramento as you have over David Duke.

None.

And therefore the legislature ought to be rigged in favor of areas like his? Someone in Los Angeles ought to get less representation then him?

The same goes for your state? Someone in King County or Thurston county ought to get less representation in favor of someone in a farming community?

Their representative has power they simply cannot set the agenda because they party did not get a majority for which the people voted for

[Telconi]

His Republican representative has about as much power in Sacramento as you have over David Duke.

None.

And therefore the legislature ought to be rigged in favor of areas like his? Someone in Los Angeles ought to get less representation then him?

The same goes for your state? Someone in King County or Thurston county ought to get less representation in favor of someone in a farming community?

Their representative has power they simply cannot set the agenda because they party did not get a majority for which the people voted for

Half of it, yes.

The majority having unchecked power to sethe the agenda is not a good thing.

[San Lumen]

And therefore the legislature ought to be rigged in favor of areas like his? Someone in Los Angeles ought to get less representation then him?

The same goes for your state? Someone in King County or Thurston county ought to get less representation in favor of someone in a farming community?

Their representative has power they simply cannot set the agenda because they party did not get a majority for which the people voted for

Half of it, yes.

The majority having unchecked power to sethe the agenda is not a good thing.

What do you mean half of it?

How do they have unchecked power? What would you change?

[Telconi]

Half of it, yes.

The majority having unchecked power to sethe the agenda is not a good thing.

What do you mean half of it?

How do they have unchecked power? What would you change?

One of two chambers.

There is no check on their power, they, as a political entity, are capable of dictating policy without compromise. What I would change is literally the subject of this thread. Along with stronger and more enforceable protection of rights.

[San Lumen]

What do you mean half of it?

How do they have unchecked power? What would you change?

One of two chambers.

There is no check on their power, they, as a political entity, are capable of dictating policy without compromise. What I would change is literally the subject of this thread. Along with stronger and more enforceable protection of rights.

The democrats control both chambers in California. Duly elected in a free and fair election

In other words you have a hamstrung government unable to get anything done because only your views matter even though the majority disagrees with you.

[The Two Jerseys]

One of two chambers.

There is no check on their power, they, as a political entity, are capable of dictating policy without compromise. What I would change is literally the subject of this thread. Along with stronger and more enforceable protection of rights.

The democrats control both chambers in California. Duly elected in a free and fair election

In other words you have a hamstrung government unable to get anything done because only your views matter even though the majority disagrees with you.

How far backwards did you have to bend to reach that conclusion?

[Telconi]

One of two chambers.

There is no check on their power, they, as a political entity, are capable of dictating policy without compromise. What I would change is literally the subject of this thread. Along with stronger and more enforceable protection of rights.

The democrats control both chambers in California. Duly elected in a free and fair election

In other words you have a hamstrung government unable to get anything done because only your views matter even though the majority disagrees with you.

Debatable.

Unable to get atrocious policies done, yes. And if you think control of a single chamber of a lehislature somehow equates to "only your views matter", you might wish to take a civics class.

[San Lumen]

The democrats control both chambers in California. Duly elected in a free and fair election

In other words you have a hamstrung government unable to get anything done because only your views matter even though the majority disagrees with you.

How far backwards did you have to bend to reach that conclusion?

I didnt have to. They have said in the past that only their views ought to matter and that people are awful for voting for statewide officials or candidates in general he doenst like. Such as calling Orange County residents terrible people for having the audacity to vote out every Republican last year

[San Lumen]

The democrats control both chambers in California. Duly elected in a free and fair election

In other words you have a hamstrung government unable to get anything done because only your views matter even though the majority disagrees with you.

Debatable.

Unable to get atrocious policies done, yes. And if you think control of a single chamber of a lehislature somehow equates to "only your views matter", you might wish to take a civics class.

How is debatable? Are elections in your not state not free and fair? You voted for the people you wanted. I assume state legislative candidates won and obviously not the statewide people you wanted. A majority voted for someone else.

More people voted for the other party to control the legislature.

How is that not free and fair?

What you might call atrocious polices the majority of your state might not.

Why should a chamber be rigged to favor you? In Nevada they would be representing only ten percent of the population.If we elected state senates by county as most seem to want

[Telconi]

How far backwards did you have to bend to reach that conclusion?

I didnt have to. They have said in the past that only their views ought to matter and that people are awful for voting for statewide officials or candidates in general he doenst like. Such as calling Orange County residents terrible people for having the audacity to vote out every Republican last year

The things you make up are not the things I say, please try to be more honest than Donald Trump at the very least.

You yourself have said people are awful for voting for candidates you disliked, IIRC you brought up Fitzgerald here in California by name.

[San Lumen]

I didnt have to. They have said in the past that only their views ought to matter and that people are awful for voting for statewide officials or candidates in general he doenst like. Such as calling Orange County residents terrible people for having the audacity to vote out every Republican last year

The things you make up are not the things I say, please try to be more honest than Donald Trump at the very least.

You yourself have said people are awful for voting for candidates you disliked, IIRC you brought up Fitzgerald here in California by name.

No I have not

[Telconi]

Debatable.

Unable to get atrocious policies done, yes. And if you think control of a single chamber of a lehislature somehow equates to "only your views matter", you might wish to take a civics class.

How is debatable? Are elections in your not state not free and fair? You voted for the people you wanted. I assume state legislative candidates won and obviously not the statewide people you wanted. A majority voted for someone else.

More people voted for the other party to control the legislature.

How is that not free and fair?

What you might call atrocious polices the majority of your state might not.

Why should a chamber be rigged to favor you? In Nevada they would be representing only ten percent of the population.If we elected state senates by county as most seem to want

They are not. There are single party races, which disenfranchised milions, unchecked hostility, and various other flaws which makes the elections neither free, nor fair.

Irrelevant. Majorities have committed atrocities since humanity began.

So as to create a more free and fair election.

[Ors Might]

Because the minority shouldn’t have to rely on the whims of the majority to get what they need. Their needs don’t become less important just because they’re in the minority.

And they dont have to. They have representatives like everyone else. They are not mute and unable to introduce amendments or legislation

If power in a democracy can be reduced to a numbers game, then the minority will always be at the whim of the majority if they lack legal protections. The ability to introduce amendments or leglisation doesn’t change that.

[San Lumen]

How is debatable? Are elections in your not state not free and fair? You voted for the people you wanted. I assume state legislative candidates won and obviously not the statewide people you wanted. A majority voted for someone else.

More people voted for the other party to control the legislature.

How is that not free and fair?

What you might call atrocious polices the majority of your state might not.

Why should a chamber be rigged to favor you? In Nevada they would be representing only ten percent of the population.If we elected state senates by county as most seem to want

They are not. There are single party races, which disenfranchised milions, unchecked hostility, and various other flaws which makes the elections neither free, nor fair.

Irrelevant. Majorities have committed atrocities since humanity began.

So as to create a more free and fair election.

How are millions disenfranchised? What are the other flaws you speak of?

And they would be representing a small population of the state in Nevada. How could they claim any legitimacy?

[Ors Might]

They are not. There are single party races, which disenfranchised milions, unchecked hostility, and various other flaws which makes the elections neither free, nor fair.

Irrelevant. Majorities have committed atrocities since humanity began.

So as to create a more free and fair election.

How are millions disenfranchised? What are the other flaws you speak of?

And they would be representing a small population of the state in Nevada. How could they claim any legitimacy?

They’re legitimate because that’d be the purpose of the chamber. To make sure that the minority still has a voice, one that can’t simply be ignored.

Why do you have an issue with protections for minority groups?

[San Lumen]

How are millions disenfranchised? What are the other flaws you speak of?

And they would be representing a small population of the state in Nevada. How could they claim any legitimacy?

They’re legitimate because that’d be the purpose of the chamber. To make sure that the minority still has a voice, one that can’t simply be ignored.

Why do you have an issue with protections for minority groups?

And when they keep blocking bills supported by a majority of the population because ten percent doesnt want them how can they be? 75 percent of the population of Nevada is in Clark County

Im not but rigging an entire chamber in favor of the minority where it would be all but impossible for it to ever change hands doesnt sound fair or democratic in any way.

[Telconi]

They are not. There are single party races, which disenfranchised milions, unchecked hostility, and various other flaws which makes the elections neither free, nor fair.

Irrelevant. Majorities have committed atrocities since humanity began.

So as to create a more free and fair election.

How are millions disenfranchised? What are the other flaws you speak of?

And they would be representing a small population of the state in Nevada. How could they claim any legitimacy?

Well the U.S. Senate race had two options, Kevin DeLeon and Dianne Feinstein, so anyone with a decent set of morals was effectively disenfranchised there... There's also issues with gerrymandering, and the counting was a nightmare in a lot of counties. Not to mention the restrictive voting availability.

[Ors Might]

They’re legitimate because that’d be the purpose of the chamber. To make sure that the minority still has a voice, one that can’t simply be ignored.

Why do you have an issue with protections for minority groups?

And when they keep blocking bills supported by a majority of the population because ten percent doesnt want them how can they be? 75 percent of the population of Nevada is in Clark County

Im not but rigging an entire chamber in favor of the minority where it would be all but impossible for it to ever change hands doesnt sound fair or democratic in any way.

Why would they always block bills supported by the majority? You have a very dim view of the minority group being represented.

Democracy is inherently flawed and skewed in favor of the majority at the expense of the minority. Why on earth would someone support it in every instance?