Texas Republicans propose State Electoral college

[Punished UMN]

What silly billies.

Electoral Colleges don't help democracies.

Sounds like the Texan Republican upper echelon have never lost before and thus now hate democracy because they might not win.

As society advances, people do become more progressive and less conservative, so it is only natural to see a rise in progressive attitudes in once strong red Texas.

What comes first, the chicken, or the egg?

Also when your definitions for an advanced society and a progressive society are synonymous, of course they will correlate.

[Anderr]

Im left leaning....egalitarian libertarianism infact but I support it. There are alot and I mean ALOT of rural Texans who control alot of land and no matter my views I think those who own this land should have a say. Democracy's biggest flaw is its insistence on majority rule....the 51% ability to oppress the 49%.....not really effective governance in fact thats why we have the electoral college....so you either need more political diversity, options and a more dynamic democracy OR you can, if the 49% are lucky enough to exist in a relatively fair capitalist society which they do....use there money and intellectual property to shape the economy. Though i do think Texas republicans need to stop bitching. Commies control and manipulate the political process...China conservative!....they can take that shit ova der. lol Make America Great Again!!!! HAH REPUBLICANS!!!! WHERE DID YOU GO WRONG. They didn't even let Obama pass shit...its yall country...yall must have f'd it up. I think its those damn Monopolist at the top who got a bag and left yall high and dry or your inability to realize Suburbanism and sprawl invites socialism. Who knew that your biggest love affair...the country and open land might spell your demise. So yeah I support It go ahead Texas....It doesnt change the fact that there are 4 or 5 places we shop and 4 or 5 companies I can get a car.... and thats already half the economy

I mean my thing is if you know money dont grow on trees then , hell it dont grow on dirt or grass or moss. land cost you and me.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Im left leaning....egalitarian libertarianism infact but I support it. There are alot and I mean ALOT of rural Texans who control alot of land and no matter my views I think those who own this land should have a say.

The Federal government own quite a lot of land you know. Should we give the Federal Government 28% of the votes?

Democracy's biggest flaw is its insistence on majority rule....the 51% ability to oppress the 49%.....not really effective governance in fact thats why we have the electoral college

Nonsense. You're mistaking cause and effect. The EC distorts the vote for President purposefully, therefore it's purpose is to just randomly distort the vote.

It's not a simple point I admit. But if you give it some thought you can draw wider conclusions about the difference between past and future!

....so you either need more political diversity, options and a more dynamic democracy OR you can, if the 49% are lucky enough to exist in a relatively fair capitalist society which they do....use there money and intellectual property to shape the economy.

Wow, an actual point. Capitalism is in fact an alternative power structure to government. It's up to you if you see their interlocking parts as wrestling, or lovemaking.

Though i do think Texas republicans need to stop bitching. Commies control and manipulate the political process...China conservative!....they can take that shit ova der. lol Make America Great Again!!!! HAH REPUBLICANS!!!! WHERE DID YOU GO WRONG. They didn't even let Obama pass shit...its yall country...yall must have f'd it up. I think its those damn Monopolist at the top who got a bag and left yall high and dry or your inability to realize Suburbanism and sprawl invites socialism. Who knew that your biggest love affair...the country and open land might spell your demise. So yeah I support It go ahead Texas....It doesnt change the fact that there are 4 or 5 places we shop and 4 or 5 companies I can get a car.... and thats already half the economy

"Suburbanism promotes socialism" because ... the workers should not be allowed to own land?

[Cordel One]

Owww. Mods took away my chew-toy. I wanted to hear more about this sexist and racist branch of libertarianism

It's called the CSA.

They are libertarian, they're just, uh, libertarian with American characteristics. Yeah, that's definitely it.

What comes first, the chicken, or the egg?

The egg. Something that wasn't quite a chicken laid an egg that hatched into something that could be considered a chicken. I think.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I mean my thing is if you know money dont grow on trees then , hell it dont grow on dirt or grass or moss. land cost you and me.

Land is a limited resource, but there's still plenty to go around. The rising land price is just older generations who have already made their money and bought up all the land, exploiting the need of younger generations for a share of the limited resource.

See what I did there? I avoided using the categorization "capitalists". D'oh!

[Punished UMN]

It's called the CSA.

They are libertarian, they're just, uh, libertarian with American characteristics. Yeah, that's definitely it.

What comes first, the chicken, or the egg?

The egg. Something that wasn't quite a chicken laid an egg that hatched into something that could be considered a chicken. I think.

Good job missing the point of the metaphor.

[Celritannia]

What comes first, the chicken, or the egg?

Also when your definitions for an advanced society and a progressive society are synonymous, of course they will correlate.

Yes, they are synonymous, but when the ideas of Progressive ideals, e.g. Universal Healthcare, Welfare, Paid Vacation time, Paid Maternity/Paternity Leave, %15 minimum wage, are held back in the US, or in this case Texas, then of course people will turn to a party that will hopefully implement these things.

This is why people are voting more for the Democratic Party, instead of the Republicans, in hopes of implementing the same policies with Eu and Commonwealth Realm Countries.

[Celritannia]

As society advances, people do become more progressive and less conservative, so it is only natural to see a rise in progressive attitudes in once strong red Texas.

Sure, because Texas is going progressive because progressive ideals are naturally just, and not because it's had an influx of liberal voters from states with more expensive costs of living like California, and because the immigrants coming from Central America tend to vote Democrat because that party represents them more.

Politics is not a spectrum. Nor does it exist in a vacuum. Though I did enjoy the assessment of conservative ideals as naturally outdated and thus inferior, destined to be gradually replaced by progressive ones, despite historical evidence not supporting that at all.

EDIT: Genuinely curious, how does an electoral college encourage a two-party system? I understood that two-party systems tend to emerge naturally unless they are dissuaded from emerging, like in the Parliamentary system.

Please tell me when I said Politics is a spectrum?

I am merely pointing out that more people in the US are wanting the same basic progressive policies as Japan, South Korea, EU and Commonwealth Realm Countries.

Also, not all Democratic States are as expensive as California, and that also assumes all of California has the same price everywhere. So that's just sounds like an X = Y concept.

These basic progressive policies are also not partisan, but which party is more likely to implement them? The Republicans who has ties to the rich, or the Democrats, who are more or less the party to somewhat help the people?

"Immigrants from Central America" cannot vote if they are illegal, and that just sounds like blatant racism.

Also not true. The UK has a two party system more or less, but that's due to the FPTP.

The 2 Party system in the US happens via the electoral college because of the Winner Take all system. If a Presidential vote in Texas let's say wins 51% of the state, then they win Texas as a whole. Multiply they through 48 out of 50 state, and that's how the 2 Party System maintains dominance.

[Celritannia]

Doesn’t make it remotely fair no matter how you spin it

No, it's a compromise, and that's how functioning societies get made.

HA!
Compromise? That's not how democracies are supposed to work.

[San Lumen]

No, it's a compromise, and that's how functioning societies get made.

HA!
Compromise? That's not how democracies are supposed to work.

What some people claim are compromised are not and this proposal in Texas is certainly not one

[Punished UMN]

Also when your definitions for an advanced society and a progressive society are synonymous, of course they will correlate.

Yes, they are synonymous, but when the ideas of Progressive ideals, e.g. Universal Healthcare, Welfare, Paid Vacation time, Paid Maternity/Paternity Leave, %15 minimum wage, are held back in the US, or in this case Texas, then of course people will turn to a party that will hopefully implement these things.

This is why people are voting more for the Democratic Party, instead of the Republicans, in hopes of implementing the same policies with Eu and Commonwealth Realm Countries.

Prove it.

What you've basically done here is to, instead of proving a point, you have defined your terms so that you are a priori correct. That is, you defined your terms so that it is a logical impossibility to agree with you rather than show that an advanced society cannot be conservative.

[Celritannia]

Yes, they are synonymous, but when the ideas of Progressive ideals, e.g. Universal Healthcare, Welfare, Paid Vacation time, Paid Maternity/Paternity Leave, %15 minimum wage, are held back in the US, or in this case Texas, then of course people will turn to a party that will hopefully implement these things.

This is why people are voting more for the Democratic Party, instead of the Republicans, in hopes of implementing the same policies with Eu and Commonwealth Realm Countries.

Prove it.

What you've basically done here is to, instead of proving a point, you have defined your terms so that you are a priori correct. That is, you defined your terms so that it is a logical impossibility to agree with you rather than show that an advanced society cannot be conservative.

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/progressive

Third column, third row.

[Punished UMN]

Prove it.

What you've basically done here is to, instead of proving a point, you have defined your terms so that you are a priori correct. That is, you defined your terms so that it is a logical impossibility to agree with you rather than show that an advanced society cannot be conservative.

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/progressive

Third column, third row.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... Definition

[Celritannia]

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/progressive

Third column, third row.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... Definition

You asked me to give you proof they are synonyms, not specifics, there you go.

[Punished UMN]

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... Definition

You asked me to give you proof they are synonyms, not specifics, there you go.

I asked you to prove that it is impossible for an advanced society to not be progressive in nature.

Your argument is founded upon the idea that advancement and progressive are synonymous and therefore it is logically impossible for a society to be advanced and conservative at the same time, which is historically and politically difficult to argue.

[Punished UMN]

And that's not even getting into that your ideas of advanced and progressive are essentially just defined by how similar a society is to Western societies, and then extrapolating it to mean that Western societies are the only real advanced societies and that therefore the only way for non-western societies to become advanced is to abandon their cultural traditions and become Western.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

With the exception of the Holy See, the US is the only First World country that uses an Electoral College system, and it is generally terrible.
Unless the Electoral College was proportional based and not Winner Take All.
Plus, an Electoral college maintains the 2 party system which damages democracy even further, just as FPTP does.

Proportionally based instead of Winner Takes All is a little better, but can break rather badly when 3rd parties get represented.

Removing the requirement for one candidate to get an absolute majority (using FPTP instead) would stop it breaking, but also gives the third party no role at all, or else the oversize power of being a tie-breaker. Perhaps they could be required to give their Electors to one of the other parties if neither has a majority, but I feel this would give third parties too much power in close elections.

The EC is unlike a parliament, in which it is meaningful for a third party to enter a coalition to form majority government, because the EC only sits to select the new President, and any third party influencing that loses all it's influence the moment the vote is final. They could ask their "coalition partner" to bomb some penguins for them, as a condition of putting them in, but once the new President is decided the minor "partner" has no way of making them do what they promised.

But after all, third parties shouldn't expect much say in who becomes President. Anything but two big parties barely makes sense: there is one office to fill, whatever system you use is going to tend towards a head-to-head. Third (and fourth etc) parties make sense in a proportionally-represented Parliament. They don't make sense in the US Senate, because all offices there are single offices each from its own constituency. This, more than FPTP or the EC, is what gravitates US politics towards two parties.

As to why single-member constituencies with FPTP lead to Two Party in the US, but not so clearly in the UK (where the Liberal Democrats have been a persistent influence on the others and even spent a term in coalition with the Tories), I think it's because of the strong States in the US. They all (?) use single-member constituencies, and mostly FPTP (Louisiana uses runoffs). And many Federal politicians start out as State politicians, and any who were true independents at that level can only practically move up to Federal government by joining one of the two big parties.

[Comfed]

Electoral colleges are known to have a slightly republican bias due to their over representation of rural areas, which are often more conservative. If you can’t stand losing power, that’s too bad, don’t try to oppress democracy.

[Punished UMN]

Electoral colleges are known to have a slightly republican bias due to their over representation of rural areas, which are often more conservative. If you can’t stand losing power, that’s too bad, don’t try to oppress democracy.

The reason they do that is because if rural areas aren't over-represented, they don't have enough representation to push for their local interests at state and federal levels.

[Comfed]

Electoral colleges are known to have a slightly republican bias due to their over representation of rural areas, which are often more conservative. If you can’t stand losing power, that’s too bad, don’t try to oppress democracy.

The reason they do that is because if rural areas aren't over-represented, they don't have enough representation to push for their local interests at state and federal levels.

But the trouble is that we’re electing one person here, not multiple people, therefore, the majority should triumph. I agree that we can’t quash the interests of rural or smaller areas, but we have the senate for that. If the president isn’t elected by popular vote, then it’s not very democratic.

[San Lumen]

The reason they do that is because if rural areas aren't over-represented, they don't have enough representation to push for their local interests at state and federal levels.

But the trouble is that we’re electing one person here, not multiple people, therefore, the majority should triumph. I agree that we can’t quash the interests of rural or smaller areas, but we have the senate for that. If the president isn’t elected by popular vote, then it’s not very democratic.

In a statewide election whomever gets the most votes ought to be elected no if’s and’s or but’s

[Dresderstan]

But the trouble is that we’re electing one person here, not multiple people, therefore, the majority should triumph. I agree that we can’t quash the interests of rural or smaller areas, but we have the senate for that. If the president isn’t elected by popular vote, then it’s not very democratic.

In a statewide election whomever gets the most votes ought to be elected no if’s and’s or but’s

Again, your simple black and white mentality is wrong.

[Fahran]

But the trouble is that we’re electing one person here, not multiple people, therefore, the majority should triumph. I agree that we can’t quash the interests of rural or smaller areas, but we have the senate for that. If the president isn’t elected by popular vote, then it’s not very democratic.

The president and governor generally have a lot of power when it comes to appointing people to executive offices and, beyond that, the executive on some level has to operate in conjunction with the legislature and judiciary. You're asking rural areas to confine their effective representation to the legislature and, in some circumstances, the judiciary with little to no representation in the executive branch. Again, the distinction here is communal representation vs. individualistic representation. There are arguments to be made for both and a decent level of criticism has been levelled against electoral colleges, though I'd argue that many of these arguments tend to downplay the advantages in representation to less populous communities by using problematic methodologies to determine whether or not those communities are represented. Partisan politics really serves to muddy the whole affair.

[San Lumen]

In a statewide election whomever gets the most votes ought to be elected no if’s and’s or but’s

Again, your simple black and white mentality is wrong.

The person with the most votes shouldn’t win a statewide election? Oh that’s right I forgot farmland matters more than someone in a large city or town and more representation ought to be given to farms as well cuz crops and cattle

[Dresderstan]

Again, your simple black and white mentality is wrong.

The person with the most votes shouldn’t win a statewide election? Oh that’s right I forgot farmland matters more than someone in a large city or town and more representation ought to be given to farms as well cuz crops and cattle

Show me where I said that?