Oregon Republicans facing arrest

[San Lumen]

Why should someone have more power in one chamber because they are on a farm or in a small town?

The bicameral chambers would be there so that theres balance. Yes the rural areas would most likely be over represented in the senate but the urban areas would be over represented in the house so it all works out. Neither House would have more power than the other.

In order for a democracy to work everyone must have a voice. The fact that you refuse to allow people to have a voice proves that you don’t like democracy

Do you not believe in one man one vote?

No I don’t. I believe in one man as many votes as needed

Given the demographics and partisan lean of rural Oregon it’s likely they would always vote republican

Doubt it. New parties would form pretty quickly. You could have the Oregon Agrarian Party, the Cascadian Party, and the Rural Association of Oregonians all running for election in addition to the dozens of other parties the US already has. Like I said there would probably be 26 parties running in the election.

and the upper house would never change hands. That would not be a free and fair election

Again under an STV system I fail to see how that’s possible

[qoute]I have said many times I support irv or mmp but if I don’t support the system you do then I’m supporting the status quo.

Because you literally shoot down any attempt or suggestion of a more democratic system with shit like “it violates the VRA” or “it violates one man one vote” or “it would get overturned”. Because of all that I don’t believe you even want a change in the election system.

I dare you to explain to me what STV and Party List PR elections are and how they work. I dare you

I don’t think you understand what contiguous and compact means

So you’re admitting that you support Gerrymandering? Because that’s the natural outcome of that line[/quote]
Why should your zip code determine how much your vote counts and if your party controls a chamber?

70 percent of the state gets shafted in the upper house because farming communities get an unfair advantage. That's not balance when a house cannot change hands. That's rigged no matter how you spin it.

STV is what Australia uses. Party list PR is a party picks candidates and based on the percentage of the vote you get that's how many seats you get?

I never said I supported gerrymandering. Stop misrepresenting what I said. I dont shoot down every proposal we have a difference of opinion on what system we support but I guess in your book someone is not allowed to have a disagreement.

In addition we have the voting rights act for reason. It is to prevent abuses and to ensure certain groups aren't locked out of government.

[Thermodolia]

The bicameral chambers would be there so that theres balance. Yes the rural areas would most likely be over represented in the senate but the urban areas would be over represented in the house so it all works out. Neither House would have more power than the other.

In order for a democracy to work everyone must have a voice. The fact that you refuse to allow people to have a voice proves that you don’t like democracy


No I don’t. I believe in one man as many votes as needed


Doubt it. New parties would form pretty quickly. You could have the Oregon Agrarian Party, the Cascadian Party, and the Rural Association of Oregonians all running for election in addition to the dozens of other parties the US already has. Like I said there would probably be 26 parties running in the election.


Again under an STV system I fail to see how that’s possible


Because you literally shoot down any attempt or suggestion of a more democratic system with shit like “it violates the VRA” or “it violates one man one vote” or “it would get overturned”. Because of all that I don’t believe you even want a change in the election system.

I dare you to explain to me what STV and Party List PR elections are and how they work. I dare you


So you’re admitting that you support Gerrymandering? Because that’s the natural outcome of that line

Why should your zip code determine how much your vote counts and if your party controls a chamber?

It doesn’t. You just think that rural people suck

70 percent of the state gets shafted in the upper house because farming communities get an unfair advantage.

Again how? How do farming communities get an unfair advantage under a STV system?

That's not balance when a house cannot change hands. That's rigged no matter how you spin it.

You’re the only one who’s been claiming that the senate won’t change hands. I fail to see how it wouldn’t change hands

STV is what Australia uses. Party list PR is a party picks candidates and based on the percentage of the vote you get that's how many seats you get?

Ireland also uses STV but it seems that you don’t understand what STV actually is so here’s two videos explaining it: https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI https://youtu.be/Ac9070OIMUg

I never said I supported gerrymandering. Stop misrepresenting what I said.

You keep repeating lines and policy that makes Gerrymandering possible. That’s not misrepresenting anything you say

I dont shoot down every proposal we have a difference of opinion on what system we support but I guess in your book someone is not allowed to have a disagreement.

Dude you pretty much shoot down every single thing with bullshit excuses. I don’t mind disagreeing but you refuse to see that your supporting a less democratic system

In addition we have the voting rights act for reason. It is to prevent abuses and to ensure certain groups aren't locked out of government.

Like the rural poor?

[San Lumen]

Why should your zip code determine how much your vote counts and if your party controls a chamber?

It doesn’t. You just think that rural people suck

70 percent of the state gets shafted in the upper house because farming communities get an unfair advantage.

Again how? How do farming communities get an unfair advantage under a STV system?

That's not balance when a house cannot change hands. That's rigged no matter how you spin it.

You’re the only one who’s been claiming that the senate won’t change hands. I fail to see how it wouldn’t change hands

STV is what Australia uses. Party list PR is a party picks candidates and based on the percentage of the vote you get that's how many seats you get?

Ireland also uses STV but it seems that you don’t understand what STV actually is so here’s two videos explaining it: https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI https://youtu.be/Ac9070OIMUg

I never said I supported gerrymandering. Stop misrepresenting what I said.

You keep repeating lines and policy that makes Gerrymandering possible. That’s not misrepresenting anything you say

I dont shoot down every proposal we have a difference of opinion on what system we support but I guess in your book someone is not allowed to have a disagreement.

Dude you pretty much shoot down every single thing with bullshit excuses. I don’t mind disagreeing but you refuse to see that your supporting a less democratic system

In addition we have the voting rights act for reason. It is to prevent abuses and to ensure certain groups aren't locked out of government.

Like the rural poor?

I never said rural people suck.Under your system it does in the upper house. There are far more rural counties than urban ones and in Oregon they are probably about 20 percent of the population if we count the coast. They would control the upper house and a minority would likely block bills popular with the majority even under STV likely due to the fact there are more rural counties than urban. What is so hard for you to understand about this? Its a rigged system and simple geography.

A legislative chamber decided by counties is unfair and undemocratic hence why it was struck down in court. Your zip code doesnt mean you should get more representation because of smaller population.

I think gerrymandering ought to be outlawed and legislative lines drawn by a independent commission Under your system your giving an unfair advantage to rural communities in the upper chamber.

How is IRV or MMP less democratic? Why is your system the only way?

The Voting Rights is biased against the rural poor? Please explain how.

[Neutraligon]

It doesn’t. You just think that rural people suck


Again how? How do farming communities get an unfair advantage under a STV system?


You’re the only one who’s been claiming that the senate won’t change hands. I fail to see how it wouldn’t change hands


Ireland also uses STV but it seems that you don’t understand what STV actually is so here’s two videos explaining it: https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI https://youtu.be/Ac9070OIMUg


You keep repeating lines and policy that makes Gerrymandering possible. That’s not misrepresenting anything you say


Dude you pretty much shoot down every single thing with bullshit excuses. I don’t mind disagreeing but you refuse to see that your supporting a less democratic system


Like the rural poor?

I never said rural people suck. They shouldn't get a house only those they vote for have a reasonable chance of controlling. That is is a rigged system.

There are far more rural counties than urban ones and in Oregon they are probably about 20 percent of the population if we count the coast. They would control the upper house and a minority would likely block bills popular with the majority even under STV likely due to the fact there are more rural counties than urban. What is so hard for you to understand about this? Its simple geography.

A legislative chamber decided by counties is unfair and undemocratic hence why it was struck down in court. Your zip code doesnt mean you should get more representation because of smaller population.

I think gerrymandering ought to be outlawed and legislative lines drawn by a independent commission Under your system your giving an unfair advantage to rural communities in the upper chamber.

How is IRV or MMP less democratic? Why is your system the only way?

The Voting Rights is biased against the rural poor? Please explain how.

That is precisely why districts are used, to prevent overpopulated areas from having tyranny of the majority. There is a reason small states insisted on having something like the senate while larger states wanted something like the house.

[San Lumen]

I never said rural people suck. They shouldn't get a house only those they vote for have a reasonable chance of controlling. That is is a rigged system.

There are far more rural counties than urban ones and in Oregon they are probably about 20 percent of the population if we count the coast. They would control the upper house and a minority would likely block bills popular with the majority even under STV likely due to the fact there are more rural counties than urban. What is so hard for you to understand about this? Its simple geography.

A legislative chamber decided by counties is unfair and undemocratic hence why it was struck down in court. Your zip code doesnt mean you should get more representation because of smaller population.

I think gerrymandering ought to be outlawed and legislative lines drawn by a independent commission Under your system your giving an unfair advantage to rural communities in the upper chamber.

How is IRV or MMP less democratic? Why is your system the only way?

The Voting Rights is biased against the rural poor? Please explain how.

That is precisely why districts are used, to prevent overpopulated areas from having tyranny of the majority. There is a reason small states insisted on having something like the senate while larger states wanted something like the house.

Ive never heard that argument. The more populous areas get the most representation because of their population hence why the valley in Oregon has the most seats.

And county based state senates were struck down because it gave an unfair advantage to rural communities.

[Thermodolia]

It doesn’t. You just think that rural people suck


Again how? How do farming communities get an unfair advantage under a STV system?


You’re the only one who’s been claiming that the senate won’t change hands. I fail to see how it wouldn’t change hands


Ireland also uses STV but it seems that you don’t understand what STV actually is so here’s two videos explaining it: https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI https://youtu.be/Ac9070OIMUg


You keep repeating lines and policy that makes Gerrymandering possible. That’s not misrepresenting anything you say


Dude you pretty much shoot down every single thing with bullshit excuses. I don’t mind disagreeing but you refuse to see that your supporting a less democratic system


Like the rural poor?

I never said rural people suck. Under your system it does in the upper house.

Dude you bang on and on about how their voices and votes don’t matter because they don’t make up a majority.

There are far more rural counties than urban ones and in Oregon they are probably about 20 percent of the population if we count the coast. They would control the upper house and a minority would likely block bills popular with the majority even under STV likely due to the fact there are more rural counties than urban. What is so hard for you to understand about this? Its a rigged system and simple geography.

Did you not see where I said we could use the shortest splitline method or MMIQ to draw 15 districts each with 6 seats? Why are you still banging on the county thing? STV is not going to produce a rigged result. Did you not even watch the videos?

A legislative chamber decided by counties is unfair and undemocratic hence why it was struck down in court. Your zip code doesnt mean you should get more representation because of smaller population.

See above. Also the district in the county example would be the exact same size as the counties. The counties wouldn’t be deciding anything

I think gerrymandering ought to be outlawed and legislative lines drawn by a independent commission Under your system your giving an unfair advantage to rural communities in the upper chamber.

In my system you get rid of districts all together and you use either natural or political boundaries or you use shortest splitline or MMIQ to draw the districts no independent commission required.

How is IRV or MMP less democratic? Why is your system the only way?

First off IRV is still Gerrymanderable to hell. It’s literally no better than FPTP. MMP is super complex and it still uses FPTP to decide the electoral seats.

STV and Party List PR are both simple, unable to be Gerrymandered, and they don’t use FPTP

The Voting Rights is biased against the rural poor? Please explain how.

I said nothing of the sort. You said the VRA is designed to make sure that certain groups have representation. And that’s when I said you mean like the rural poor?

The fact that you took that to mean the VRA is biased against the rural poor says more about you than me

[San Lumen]

I never said rural people suck. Under your system it does in the upper house.

Dude you bang on and on about how their voices and votes don’t matter because they don’t make up a majority.

There are far more rural counties than urban ones and in Oregon they are probably about 20 percent of the population if we count the coast. They would control the upper house and a minority would likely block bills popular with the majority even under STV likely due to the fact there are more rural counties than urban. What is so hard for you to understand about this? Its a rigged system and simple geography.

Did you not see where I said we could use the shortest splitline method or MMIQ to draw 15 districts each with 6 seats? Why are you still banging on the county thing? STV is not going to produce a rigged result. Did you not even watch the videos?

A legislative chamber decided by counties is unfair and undemocratic hence why it was struck down in court. Your zip code doesnt mean you should get more representation because of smaller population.

See above. Also the district in the county example would be the exact same size as the counties. The counties wouldn’t be deciding anything

I think gerrymandering ought to be outlawed and legislative lines drawn by a independent commission Under your system your giving an unfair advantage to rural communities in the upper chamber.

In my system you get rid of districts all together and you use either natural or political boundaries or you use shortest splitline or MMIQ to draw the districts no independent commission required.

How is IRV or MMP less democratic? Why is your system the only way?

First off IRV is still Gerrymanderable to hell. It’s literally no better than FPTP. MMP is super complex and it still uses FPTP to decide the electoral seats.

STV and Party List PR are both simple, unable to be Gerrymandered, and they don’t use FPTP

The Voting Rights is biased against the rural poor? Please explain how.

I said nothing of the sort. You said the VRA is designed to make sure that certain groups have representation. And that’s when I said you mean like the rural poor?

The fact that you took that to mean the VRA is biased against the rural poor says more about you than me

Im not sure shortest spit line would be constitutional

Do you not realize that counties are unequal in population? Using county districts Portland and the whole valley gets shafted. The rest of the state has more representation than them combined. How is that fair?

what is wrong with IRV or MMP? In IRV no vote is wasted. How is MMP complex? Its the system i would use to satisfy everyone. Those who want proportional representation get it and those who want districts get what they want. To me its the ideal solution

[Neutraligon]

That is precisely why districts are used, to prevent overpopulated areas from having tyranny of the majority. There is a reason small states insisted on having something like the senate while larger states wanted something like the house.

Ive never heard that argument. The more populous areas get the most representation because of their population hence why the valley in Oregon has the most seats.

And county based state senates were struck down because it gave an unfair advantage to rural communities.

...That is basic US history on why Congress is a bicameral system with two very different numbers of representatives/senators. The senate was created so that the less populous states would still be represented and would not simply become unimportant due to other states being much more populous, hence the 2 senators for each state. However, that would mean that highly populated states would not be well represented, hence a House based on the population of each state (and why a census is taken). By removing that, Oregon has forced one set of counties to seriously lose out.

[San Lumen]

Ive never heard that argument. The more populous areas get the most representation because of their population hence why the valley in Oregon has the most seats.

And county based state senates were struck down because it gave an unfair advantage to rural communities.

...That is basic US history on why Congress is a bicameral system with two very different numbers of representatives/senators. The senate was created so that the less populous states would still be represented and would not simply become unimportant due to other states being much more populous, hence the 2 senators for each state. However, that would mean that highly populated states would not be well represented, hence a House based on the population of each state (and why a census is taken). By removing that, Oregon has forced one set of counties to seriously lose out.

I understand that. The Senate is biased towards rural states yet no one is talking about abolishing the Senate.

A system of by county for state senates though is inherently unfair and undemocratic as the Supreme Court showed in Reynolds v Sims establishing one man one vote. Trees and farms dont vote. People do. It would be biased towards rural areas as has been shown in Oregon. There are other states I could use an example too but I doubt want to go off topic.

[Telconi]

...That is basic US history on why Congress is a bicameral system with two very different numbers of representatives/senators. The senate was created so that the less populous states would still be represented and would not simply become unimportant due to other states being much more populous, hence the 2 senators for each state. However, that would mean that highly populated states would not be well represented, hence a House based on the population of each state (and why a census is taken). By removing that, Oregon has forced one set of counties to seriously lose out.

I understand that. The Senate is biased towards rural states yet no one is talking about abolishing the Senate.

A system of by county for state senates though is inherently unfair and undemocratic as the Supreme Court showed in Reynolds v Sims establishing one man one vote. Trees and farms dont vote. People do. It would be biased towards rural areas as has been shown in Oregon. There are other states I could use an example too but I doubt want to go off topic.

Is the United States Senate unfair? If not, why would an equivalent system at the state level be unfair?

[Neutraligon]

...That is basic US history on why Congress is a bicameral system with two very different numbers of representatives/senators. The senate was created so that the less populous states would still be represented and would not simply become unimportant due to other states being much more populous, hence the 2 senators for each state. However, that would mean that highly populated states would not be well represented, hence a House based on the population of each state (and why a census is taken). By removing that, Oregon has forced one set of counties to seriously lose out.

I understand that. The Senate is biased towards rural states yet no one is talking about abolishing the Senate.

A system of by county for state senates though is inherently unfair and undemocratic as the Supreme Court showed in Reynolds v Sims establishing one man one vote. Trees and farms dont vote. People do. It would be biased towards rural areas as has been shown in Oregon. There are other states I could use an example too but I doubt want to go off topic.

In which case there is a problem, and is precisely why people are arguing with you, namely that smaller rural districts can then basically be entirely ignored meaning their issues and views are effectively no represented. Tyranny of the majority is a thing. The same reason we have two different methods of electing the house/senate is precisely why there is an issue with what you have been talking about.

[San Lumen]

I understand that. The Senate is biased towards rural states yet no one is talking about abolishing the Senate.

A system of by county for state senates though is inherently unfair and undemocratic as the Supreme Court showed in Reynolds v Sims establishing one man one vote. Trees and farms dont vote. People do. It would be biased towards rural areas as has been shown in Oregon. There are other states I could use an example too but I doubt want to go off topic.

In which case there is a problem, and is precisely why people are arguing with you, namely that smaller rural districts can then basically be entirely ignored meaning their issues and views are effectively no represented. Tyranny of the majority is a thing. The same reason we have two different methods of electing the house/senate is precisely why there is an issue with what you have been talking about.

Then you’d have to overturn Reynolds v Sims

[Telconi]

In which case there is a problem, and is precisely why people are arguing with you, namely that smaller rural districts can then basically be entirely ignored meaning their issues and views are effectively no represented. Tyranny of the majority is a thing. The same reason we have two different methods of electing the house/senate is precisely why there is an issue with what you have been talking about.

Then you’d have to overturn Reynolds v Sims

Or invalidate it.

[San Lumen]

Then you’d have to overturn Reynolds v Sims

Or invalidate it.

How would you do that?

[Akaran Islands]

Or invalidate it.

How would you do that?

Just violate it, then see if people care enough to bring it to the Supreme Court, where you can try to have it overturned.

[San Lumen]

How would you do that?

Just violate it, then see if people care enough to bring it to the Supreme Court, where you can try to have it overturned.

To violate it you would first have to wait until the census data and redraw the the lines in 2022. In many states you would likely have to amend many state constitutions to go back to a by county system. Its not as simple as you think

Many would care under a biased system like that and its very unlikely any court would overturn it as its well established precedent and has not been challenged since in was decided it 1964.

[Thermodolia]

Or invalidate it.

How would you do that?

Pass a law overturning it

[San Lumen]

How would you do that?

Pass a law overturning it

I just explained how it’s not that simple

[Thermodolia]

Dude you bang on and on about how their voices and votes don’t matter because they don’t make up a majority.


Did you not see where I said we could use the shortest splitline method or MMIQ to draw 15 districts each with 6 seats? Why are you still banging on the county thing? STV is not going to produce a rigged result. Did you not even watch the videos?


See above. Also the district in the county example would be the exact same size as the counties. The counties wouldn’t be deciding anything


In my system you get rid of districts all together and you use either natural or political boundaries or you use shortest splitline or MMIQ to draw the districts no independent commission required.


First off IRV is still Gerrymanderable to hell. It’s literally no better than FPTP. MMP is super complex and it still uses FPTP to decide the electoral seats.

STV and Party List PR are both simple, unable to be Gerrymandered, and they don’t use FPTP


I said nothing of the sort. You said the VRA is designed to make sure that certain groups have representation. And that’s when I said you mean like the rural poor?

The fact that you took that to mean the VRA is biased against the rural poor says more about you than me

Im not sure shortest spit line would be constitutional

It would be constitutional. Besides we can change it

Do you not realize that counties are unequal in population? Using county districts Portland and the whole valley gets shafted. The rest of the state has more representation than them combined. How is that fair?

Did you not see the part where I said that Portland and the Valley get Representation in the house? Because the house is elected as a single district the areas with more people would have more say in that chamber.

what is wrong with IRV or MMP? In IRV no vote is wasted.

That’s IRVs only good thing though. STV does the same without being gerrymanderable. IRV can be Gerrymandered and leads to a two party system which I can’t stand.

How is MMP complex? Its the system i would use to satisfy everyone. Those who want proportional representation get it and those who want districts get what they want. To me its the ideal solution

You have two different votes. One for party and one for an electorate. You pretty much have to follow two different things if you want to be informed.

Besides it also uses FPTP to elect those in the districts and the chamber isn’t a set number of seats but can change based on elections.

Besides you can have district elections in one chamber, the senate, while having Party List PR in another, the House

[Thermodolia]

Pass a law overturning it

I just explained how it’s not that simple

It’s pretty simple. You’d just have to pass a federal voting reform act and add in that it supersedes all state legislation on the matter.

Boom problem solved

[San Lumen]

Im not sure shortest spit line would be constitutional

It would be constitutional. Besides we can change it

Do you not realize that counties are unequal in population? Using county districts Portland and the whole valley gets shafted. The rest of the state has more representation than them combined. How is that fair?

Did you not see the part where I said that Portland and the Valley get Representation in the house? Because the house is elected as a single district the areas with more people would have more say in that chamber.

what is wrong with IRV or MMP? In IRV no vote is wasted.

That’s IRVs only good thing though. STV does the same without being gerrymanderable. IRV can be Gerrymandered and leads to a two party system which I can’t stand.

How is MMP complex? Its the system i would use to satisfy everyone. Those who want proportional representation get it and those who want districts get what they want. To me its the ideal solution

You have two different votes. One for party and one for an electorate. You pretty much have to follow two different things if you want to be informed.

Besides it also uses FPTP to elect those in the districts and the chamber isn’t a set number of seats but can change based on elections.

Besides you can have district elections in one chamber, the senate, while having Party List PR in another, the House

at large districts are not allowed for legislatures under federal law.

Are you deliberately not listening? A county system for the Senate is unfair due to population inequality alone. why should 30 percent outvote 70 percent as is the case in Oregon?

I dont see how MMP is that complex. You simply inform people of how it works and it appeases both sides. To me it is the ideal solution.

I just explained how it’s not that simple

It’s pretty simple. You’d just have to pass a federal voting reform act and add in that it supersedes all state legislation on the matter.

Boom problem solved

I doubt such a law would ever pass. States run their own elections and with few exceptions Congress does not get involved in that.

[Thermodolia]

It would be constitutional. Besides we can change it


Did you not see the part where I said that Portland and the Valley get Representation in the house? Because the house is elected as a single district the areas with more people would have more say in that chamber.


That’s IRVs only good thing though. STV does the same without being gerrymanderable. IRV can be Gerrymandered and leads to a two party system which I can’t stand.


You have two different votes. One for party and one for an electorate. You pretty much have to follow two different things if you want to be informed.

Besides it also uses FPTP to elect those in the districts and the chamber isn’t a set number of seats but can change based on elections.

Besides you can have district elections in one chamber, the senate, while having Party List PR in another, the House

at large districts are not allowed for legislatures under federal law.

You do realize that’s how a lot of Party List PR systems work right? A region or the entire nation is one district.

Are you deliberately not listening? A county system for the Senate is unfair due to population inequality alone. why should 30 percent outvote 70 percent as is the case in Oregon?

I can ask you the same. Why are you still banging on about the county thing? Also why should the 70% completely run roughshod over the 30%? What about their rights?

If a state was 70% white and 30% non-white you would pitch a fit if the 70% constantly overruled the 30%. Why then is it any different when the majority constantly overrules the minority? Why is it different to you when the urban majority overrules the rural minority?

I dont see how MMP is that complex. You simply inform people of how it works and it appeases both sides. To me it is the ideal solution.

It really doesn’t. STV, especially when combined with Party List PR does pretty much the exact same thing. Yet it’s a lot simpler for people to follow and you can easily add more seats

It’s pretty simple. You’d just have to pass a federal voting reform act and add in that it supersedes all state legislation on the matter.

Boom problem solved

I doubt such a law would ever pass. States run their own elections and with few exceptions Congress does not get involved in that.

There you go again

[Telconi]

It would be constitutional. Besides we can change it


Did you not see the part where I said that Portland and the Valley get Representation in the house? Because the house is elected as a single district the areas with more people would have more say in that chamber.


That’s IRVs only good thing though. STV does the same without being gerrymanderable. IRV can be Gerrymandered and leads to a two party system which I can’t stand.


You have two different votes. One for party and one for an electorate. You pretty much have to follow two different things if you want to be informed.

Besides it also uses FPTP to elect those in the districts and the chamber isn’t a set number of seats but can change based on elections.

Besides you can have district elections in one chamber, the senate, while having Party List PR in another, the House

at large districts are not allowed for legislatures under federal law.

Are you deliberately not listening? A county system for the Senate is unfair due to population inequality alone. why should 30 percent outvote 70 percent as is the case in Oregon?

I dont see how MMP is that complex. You simply inform people of how it works and it appeases both sides. To me it is the ideal solution.

It’s pretty simple. You’d just have to pass a federal voting reform act and add in that it supersedes all state legislation on the matter.

Boom problem solved

I doubt such a law would ever pass. States run their own elections and with few exceptions Congress does not get involved in that.

You do understand it's possible for people to listen, and still disagree with your concept of equality or fairness right?

[San Lumen]

at large districts are not allowed for legislatures under federal law.

You do realize that’s how a lot of Party List PR systems work right? A region or the entire nation is one district.

Are you deliberately not listening? A county system for the Senate is unfair due to population inequality alone. why should 30 percent outvote 70 percent as is the case in Oregon?

I can ask you the same. Why are you still banging on about the county thing? Also why should the 70% completely run roughshod over the 30%? What about their rights?

If a state was 70% white and 30% non-white you would pitch a fit if the 70% constantly overruled the 30%. Why then is it any different when the majority constantly overrules the minority? Why is it different to you when the urban majority overrules the rural minority?

I dont see how MMP is that complex. You simply inform people of how it works and it appeases both sides. To me it is the ideal solution.

It really doesn’t. STV, especially when combined with Party List PR does pretty much the exact same thing. Yet it’s a lot simpler for people to follow and you can easily add more seats

I doubt such a law would ever pass. States run their own elections and with few exceptions Congress does not get involved in that.

There you go again

Go ask Israel how well a at large legislature works. There has never been a majority government in the entire history of the country. And the coalitions that form are often very unstable. I would rather not have election after election.

The seventy percent in the valley are the majority of the state. They therefore get the lions share of representation. That's how a representative democracy works. I dont see why some small town in far southeastern Oregon should get veto power over the majority.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that under your system you are giving an unfair advantage to the rural minority in the upper house? Your giving them veto power over the majority. Would you think it was fair if the Governor despite getting fifty percent of the vote last year lost the election because her opponent won the majority of counties?

I did not make any issue about race so why are you bringing that up?

What do you mean there I go again regarding a federal law on elections? Congress is very unlikely to interfere in how a state runs its elections. I dont think many states would take kindly to the federal government telling them how to elect people and its even more likely many towns and cities wouldn't like it either.

You will be glad to hear that in November there will likely be a referendum on the ballot in my city on whether to adopt Ranked Choice Voting

[Thermodolia]

You do realize that’s how a lot of Party List PR systems work right? A region or the entire nation is one district.


I can ask you the same. Why are you still banging on about the county thing? Also why should the 70% completely run roughshod over the 30%? What about their rights?

If a state was 70% white and 30% non-white you would pitch a fit if the 70% constantly overruled the 30%. Why then is it any different when the majority constantly overrules the minority? Why is it different to you when the urban majority overrules the rural minority?


It really doesn’t. STV, especially when combined with Party List PR does pretty much the exact same thing. Yet it’s a lot simpler for people to follow and you can easily add more seats


There you go again

Go ask Israel how well a at large legislature works. There has never been a majority government in the entire history of the country.

Um the government had a majority until last year. Also that’s kinda the point. MMP would also require government coalitions.

And the coalitions that form are often very unstable. I would rather not have election after election.

Most coalitions in Israel and other nations that use single district Party List PR have an average of four years between elections.

The US has elections more frequently than Israel and the Netherlands. Between 2016 and 2019 the US has had two elections while Israel and the Netherlands had just one.

The seventy percent in the valley are the majority of the state. They therefore get the lions share of representation. That's how a representative democracy works.

No that’s not how representative democracy works. It’s supposed to represent the entire population not just 70% of it.

I dont see why some small town in far southeastern Oregon should get veto power over the majority.

I don’t see why some urban assholes should get to run rampant over rural people in places that said urban assholes probably didn’t even know existed.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that under your system you are giving an unfair advantage to the rural minority in the upper house?

Why do you keep defending a system which silenced the voice of the rural people to the point that their representatives have to hold the government hostage?

Also I fail to see how a senate elected by STV in 15 6 member districts would be a problem. Maybe you just hate democracy.

Your giving them veto power over the majority.

No I’m giving them a voice.

Would you think it was fair if the Governor despite getting fifty percent of the vote last year lost the election because her opponent won the majority of counties?

That’s not what’s even being discussed.

I did not make any issue about race so why are you bringing that up?

It was to show you how hypocritical you are. Yet apparently it didn’t work.

What do you mean there I go again regarding a federal law on elections? Congress is very unlikely to interfere in how a state runs its elections.

Because the VRA definitely isn’t a thing, or the laws lowering the voting age to 18, or the laws allowing women to vote.

I dont think many states would take kindly to the federal government telling them how to elect people and its even more likely many towns and cities wouldn't like it either.

What is the VRA?

You will be glad to hear that in November there will likely be a referendum on the ballot in my city on whether to adopt Ranked Choice Voting

So STV? Or are we talking about IRV? Because in both you rank your choices