NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
You're right, is there a point here?

Yes that you only like elections when your candidates win and if not it should be rigged so they do and if the other side manages to win the people should be punished.

You want nothing more than a de facto dictatorship. with statements like that its quite scary and you ought to move to Budapest or Moscow. You'd be happy there but I am done having this debate with you.

You've made you beliefs clear.

Thank God. All you ever seem to talk about are free and fair elections. I get it's important, but you assume people allude to it and all when they arnt. Perhaps we wont have to hear about it now

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
You're right, is there a point here?

Yes that you only like elections when your candidates win and if not it should be rigged so they do and if the other side manages to win the people should be punished.

You want nothing more than a de facto dictatorship. with statements like that its quite scary and you ought to move to Budapest or Moscow. You'd be happy there but I am done having this debate with you.

You've made you beliefs clear.

Quite contrarily, I don't "like" elections at all, they're a tool, liking an election is akin to liking a power saw or a bench vise.

Or, alternatively. I can stay and work to make my home country a better place for my child. But tell me more about how people should move of they dislike the way their government treats them, because this very same idea is one you've attacked yourself.

Yes, I have, as have you, so feel free to get lost.

San Lumen wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
As of this post, nothing on google suggests a ruling has been made. So unless the media gives zero fucks, we haven’t got an official ruling yet.

It was denying a stay. that nots something the media reports on often.

Telconi wrote:
Well shit...

Yeah having election districts drawn fairly is a terrible thing right? Getting the popular vote but not the majority is totally fair.

Except in this case that would be a huge stay, with huge ramifications for future elections. Should be all over the blogosphere and media yet nary a peep is said about it.

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
You're right, is there a point here?

Yes that you only like elections when your candidates win and if not it should be rigged so they do and if the other side manages to win the people should be punished.

You want nothing more than a de facto dictatorship. with statements like that its quite scary and you ought to move to Budapest or Moscow. You'd be happy there but I am done having this debate with you.

You've made you beliefs clear.

To be honest I can’t say your beliefs are any better. You want tyranny of the majority where there are no checks and balances to protect minority interests. It’s still tyranny, but now instead of one tyrant you’ve got 160 million.

So Australia's conservative PM won re-election despite all the polls pointing to the contrary. The Democrats should take note.

Tarsonis wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Yes that you only like elections when your candidates win and if not it should be rigged so they do and if the other side manages to win the people should be punished.

You want nothing more than a de facto dictatorship. with statements like that its quite scary and you ought to move to Budapest or Moscow. You'd be happy there but I am done having this debate with you.

You've made you beliefs clear.

To be honest I can’t say your beliefs are any better. You want tyranny of the majority where there are no checks and balances to protect minority interests. It’s still tyranny, but now instead of one tyrant you’ve got 160 million.

I never said that. If the majority of the population of Washington state which is in the Puget sound area chooses Democrats that’s who should win

San Lumen wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
To be honest I can’t say your beliefs are any better. You want tyranny of the majority where there are no checks and balances to protect minority interests. It’s still tyranny, but now instead of one tyrant you’ve got 160 million.

I never said that. If the majority of the population of Washington state which is in the Puget sound area chooses Democrats that’s who should win

As I said, absolute majority rule.

San Lumen wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
To be honest I can’t say your beliefs are any better. You want tyranny of the majority where there are no checks and balances to protect minority interests. It’s still tyranny, but now instead of one tyrant you’ve got 160 million.

I never said that. If the majority of the population of Washington state which is in the Puget sound area chooses Democrats that’s who should win

Something something city slickers don't know anything about farming so they shouldn't be allowed to vote

Tarsonis wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I never said that. If the majority of the population of Washington state which is in the Puget sound area chooses Democrats that’s who should win

As I said, absolute majority rule.

What would you have then whoever wins the most counties gets elected? It would be nearly impossible for a Democrat to win even though they got the most votes

San Lumen wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
As I said, absolute majority rule.

What would you have then whoever wins the most counties gets elected? It would be nearly impossible for a Democrat to win even though they got the most votes

>implying that he has a problem with tyranny as long as it isn't of the majority

San Lumen wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
As I said, absolute majority rule.

What would you have then whoever wins the most counties gets elected? It would be nearly impossible for a Democrat to win even though they got the most votes

More like an electoral system, each county weighted to a certain degree. Won't guarantee any victory to either side, but will provide a check against Seattle ruling over the rest of the state like Winterfell. I support majority rule to agree so long as there are protections in place to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority and that includes sometimes the less popular candidate wins.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What would you have then whoever wins the most counties gets elected? It would be nearly impossible for a Democrat to win even though they got the most votes

>implying that he has a problem with tyranny as long as it isn't of the majority

We're gonna start this again are we?

Tarsonis wrote:

San Lumen wrote:What would you have then whoever wins the most counties gets elected? It would be nearly impossible for a Democrat to win even though they got the most votes

More like an electoral system, each county weighted to a certain degree. Won't guarantee any victory to either side, but will provide a check against Seattle ruling over the rest of the state like Winterfell. I support majority rule to agree so long as there are protections in place to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority and that includes sometimes the less popular candidate wins.

Why should we have that? Why shouldn’t the person with the most votes win statewide office?

Cindy Axne of Iowa is a congresswoman because she carried Polk County which is Des Moines by a wide margin. She lost every other county in the district. Is that unfair to you too?

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:>implying that he has a problem with tyranny as long as it isn't of the majority

We're gonna start this again are we?

Shall we start with you explaining how this ideal system of yours would actually work? Would each county get a flat number of votes, or would it be weighted by population (just less so than it is now), or would it involve breaking up urban counties and/or merging rural ones to make the situation somewhat less unequal than it could be?

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I never said that. If the majority of the population of Washington state which is in the Puget sound area chooses Democrats that’s who should win

Something something city slickers don't know anything about farming so they shouldn't be allowed to vote

You mock, but California has this issue right now, city politicians passing laws that are bad for farmers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelb ... 8f39af7465

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Something something city slickers don't know anything about farming so they shouldn't be allowed to vote

You mock, but California has this issue right now, city politicians passing laws that are bad for farmers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelb ... 8f39af7465

And you expect that farmers will never pass laws that are bad for cities?
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying that urbanites know their way around farming. I'm just saying that A) they'll be paying for basically everything and B) farmers probably don't know how to run a city any more than urbanites know how to run a farm.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
We're gonna start this again are we?

Shall we start with you explaining how this ideal system of yours would actually work? Would each county get a flat number of votes, or would it be weighted by population (just less so than it is now), or would it involve breaking up urban counties and/or merging rural ones to make the situation somewhat less unequal than it could be?

I don't have specifics in mind, as I said the system would have to be tailored to each state, censuses taken districts redrawn. Something like the the EC where each county has a fixed amount of electoral votes rated for population would work in theory, but exactly how the rating system would work would be unique to each state.

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Shall we start with you explaining how this ideal system of yours would actually work? Would each county get a flat number of votes, or would it be weighted by population (just less so than it is now), or would it involve breaking up urban counties and/or merging rural ones to make the situation somewhat less unequal than it could be?

I don't have specifics in mind, as I said the system would have to be tailored to each state, censuses taken districts redrawn. Something like the the EC where each county has a fixed amount of electoral votes rated for population would work in theory, but exactly how the rating system would work would be unique to each state.

Who would that be fair? In a state like Washington or Nevada under such a system s Republican would be almost guaranteed of winning

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
You mock, but California has this issue right now, city politicians passing laws that are bad for farmers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelb ... 8f39af7465

And you expect that farmers will never pass laws that are bad for cities?
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying that urbanites know their way around farming. I'm just saying that A) they'll be paying for basically everything and B) farmers probably don't know how to run a city any more than urbanites know how to run a farm.

Sure, I agree. I don't know why you can't get over this false dichotomy, but its not about one side dictating to the other, it's about a system that requires these groups of people to work together.

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Shall we start with you explaining how this ideal system of yours would actually work? Would each county get a flat number of votes, or would it be weighted by population (just less so than it is now), or would it involve breaking up urban counties and/or merging rural ones to make the situation somewhat less unequal than it could be?

I don't have specifics in mind, as I said the system would have to be tailored to each state, censuses taken districts redrawn. Something like the the EC where each county has a fixed amount of electoral votes rated for population would work in theory, but exactly how the rating system would work would be unique to each state.

How am I supposed to debate the merits of your ideal system if you don't have a system to debate?
Wait, no, I do have one question you can probably answer. How do you plan on setting this up so that state governments can't just keep themselves in power indefinitely? They are, after all, the ones who will end up deciding how the elections are run.

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:And you expect that farmers will never pass laws that are bad for cities?
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying that urbanites know their way around farming. I'm just saying that A) they'll be paying for basically everything and B) farmers probably don't know how to run a city any more than urbanites know how to run a farm.

Sure, I agree. I don't know why you can't get over this false dichotomy, but its not about one side dictating to the other, it's about a system that requires these groups of people to work together.

Why should the people who pay most of the taxes not get most of the say in how those taxes are used?

San Lumen wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
I don't have specifics in mind, as I said the system would have to be tailored to each state, censuses taken districts redrawn. Something like the the EC where each county has a fixed amount of electoral votes rated for population would work in theory, but exactly how the rating system would work would be unique to each state.

Who would that be fair? In a state like Washington or Nevada under such a system s Republican would be almost guaranteed of winning

It's fair because it balances needs and requires people to work together. As it stands, sides don't need to work together, they can get a simple majority and rule unchecked power. A balancing mechanic would require them to coalition build.

As it further stands I'm also in favor of the status quo and not changing anything.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Sure, I agree. I don't know why you can't get over this false dichotomy, but its not about one side dictating to the other, it's about a system that requires these groups of people to work together.

Why should the people who pay most of the taxes not get most of the say in how those taxes are used?

That's just a nice way of saying "Why shouldn't the city folk get to dictate to the farmers?"

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
I don't have specifics in mind, as I said the system would have to be tailored to each state, censuses taken districts redrawn. Something like the the EC where each county has a fixed amount of electoral votes rated for population would work in theory, but exactly how the rating system would work would be unique to each state.

How am I supposed to debate the merits of your ideal system if you don't have a system to debate?
Wait, no, I do have one question you can probably answer. How do you plan on setting this up so that state governments can't just keep themselves in power indefinitely? They are, after all, the ones who will end up deciding how the elections are run.

I don't. I'm perfectly fine with the status quo as is. San Lumen keeps trying to make me advocate for a state system and I keep falling into the trap.

Tarsonis wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Who would that be fair? In a state like Washington or Nevada under such a system s Republican would be almost guaranteed of winning

It's fair because it balances needs and requires people to work together. As it stands, sides don't need to work together, they can get a simple majority and rule unchecked power. A balancing mechanic would require them to coalition build.

As it further stands I'm also in favor of the status quo and not changing anything.

No it isn’t fair your weighting statewide elections in favor of one side because of less population.