American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[Dresderstan]

You therefore deny you ever said it? You also said that it was unfair that Ontario got the most seats in the Canadian parliament or are you going to deny that too?

No it's unfair for a party to receive a plurality of votes i.e not 50% and win a majority.

[San Lumen]

You therefore deny you ever said it? You also said that it was unfair that Ontario got the most seats in the Canadian parliament or are you going to deny that too?

No it's unfair for a party to receive a plurality of votes i.e not 50% and win a majority.

You also said both those things. You said it was gerrymandering to give major metropolitan areas their fair share of representation.

It’s funny how you deny your own words.

RCV can fix that. Why is proportional the only way?

[Dresderstan]

No it's unfair for a party to receive a plurality of votes i.e not 50% and win a majority.

You also said both those things. You said it was gerrymandering to give major metropolitan areas their fair share of representation.

It’s funny how you deny your own words.

RCV can fix that. Why is proportional the only way?

RCV doesn't fix it. Party A gets 38% of the vote, and ergo 38% of the seats, RCV doesn't do that. Also it's ironic considering PR is literally even more one man one vote.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I can my marry my boyfriend and not be fired from my job for who I love thanks to the Supreme Court and that's just the start.

And when that gets all overturned by the literal stroke of a pen because the Dems have done fuck all about SCOTUS being the second legislative branch so far?

[San Lumen]

You also said both those things. You said it was gerrymandering to give major metropolitan areas their fair share of representation.

It’s funny how you deny your own words.

RCV can fix that. Why is proportional the only way?

RCV doesn't fix it. Party A gets 38% of the vote, and ergo 38% of the seats, RCV doesn't do that. Also it's ironic considering PR is literally even more one man one vote.

No one is elected with less than 50 percent of votes though.

Do you believe it is gerrymandering when major metro areas such as Toronto or Los Angeles get more seats than a small town due to the simple concept of population density?

[San Lumen]

I can my marry my boyfriend and not be fired from my job for who I love thanks to the Supreme Court and that's just the start.

And when that gets all overturned by the literal stroke of a pen because the Dems have done fuck all about SCOTUS being the second legislative branch so far?

You’d have to somehow prove or write the law that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to LGBT people

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

And when that gets all overturned by the literal stroke of a pen because the Dems have done fuck all about SCOTUS being the second legislative branch so far?

You’d have to somehow prove or write the law that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to LGBT people

I mean look at the current composition of SCOTUS and look at what the southern states are bringing. What the 14th says on paper doesn't matter whatsoever, this has been reality the 14A was born.

[Dresderstan]

RCV doesn't fix it. Party A gets 38% of the vote, and ergo 38% of the seats, RCV doesn't do that. Also it's ironic considering PR is literally even more one man one vote.

No one is elected with less than 50 percent of votes though.

Do you believe it is gerrymandering when major metro areas such as Toronto or Los Angeles get more seats than a small town due to the simple concept of population density?

And getting rid of the one with the least amount of votes is suddenly better? No that's a lack of representation to people who didn't vote one way or the other.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You’d have to somehow prove or write the law that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to LGBT people

I mean look at the current composition of SCOTUS and look at what the southern states are bringing. What the 14th says on paper doesn't matter whatsoever, this has been reality the 14A was born.

oh and https://i.imgflip.com/5cy3af.jpg

[San Lumen]

No one is elected with less than 50 percent of votes though.

Do you believe it is gerrymandering when major metro areas such as Toronto or Los Angeles get more seats than a small town due to the simple concept of population density?

And getting rid of the one with the least amount of votes is suddenly better? No that's a lack of representation to people who didn't vote one way or the other.

What’s wrong with it? Do you understand the concept of ranked choice voting?

How is it a lack of representation?

[San Lumen]

You’d have to somehow prove or write the law that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to LGBT people

I mean look at the current composition of SCOTUS and look at what the southern states are bringing. What the 14th says on paper doesn't matter whatsoever, this has been reality the 14A was born.

How are you going to make the argument the 14th amendment excludes lgbt people?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I mean look at the current composition of SCOTUS and look at what the southern states are bringing. What the 14th says on paper doesn't matter whatsoever, this has been reality the 14A was born.

How are you going to make the argument the 14th amendment excludes lgbt people?

Easy: 7 out of 9 justices says so. Law is thus made.

[Dresderstan]

And getting rid of the one with the least amount of votes is suddenly better? No that's a lack of representation to people who didn't vote one way or the other.

What’s wrong with it? Do you understand the concept of ranked choice voting?

How is it a lack of representation?

Because it means if no one gets a majority it knocks out the person with the lowest votes and goes to the second round or third or fourth until someone gets over 50%, while everyone else who got votes and didn't get 50% gets nothing, no representation no voice at all, that's not fair and unrepresentative.

[San Lumen]

How are you going to make the argument the 14th amendment excludes lgbt people?

Easy: 7 out of 9 justices says so. Law is thus made.

No. There has to be legal argument. They aren’t going to write it doesn’t apply because we said so.

[Dresderstan]

Easy: 7 out of 9 justices says so. Law is thus made.

No. There has to be legal argument. They aren’t going to write it doesn’t apply because we said so.

They easily can.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Easy: 7 out of 9 justices says so. Law is thus made.

No. There has to be legal argument. They aren’t going to write it doesn’t apply because we said so.

Lmao why do you think this scenario is impossible when any legal argument can be easily conjured into existence with a big enough majority?

[San Lumen]

What’s wrong with it? Do you understand the concept of ranked choice voting?

How is it a lack of representation?

Because it means if no one gets a majority it knocks out the person with the lowest votes and goes to the second round or third or fourth until someone gets over 50%, while everyone else who got votes and didn't get 50% gets nothing, no representation no voice at all, that's not fair and unrepresentative.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of it. How do they not get representation? People are ranking their choices.

Are they somehow not the representative of some because they didn’t win outright in the first round?

I completely fail to understand your logic here.

[Dresderstan]

Because it means if no one gets a majority it knocks out the person with the lowest votes and goes to the second round or third or fourth until someone gets over 50%, while everyone else who got votes and didn't get 50% gets nothing, no representation no voice at all, that's not fair and unrepresentative.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of it. How do they not get representation? People are ranking their choices.

Are they somehow not the representative of some because they didn’t win outright in the first round?

I completely fail to understand your logic here.

I understand it, I don't like it.

They get no voice, no elected official, ergo no representation.

[San Lumen]

No. There has to be legal argument. They aren’t going to write it doesn’t apply because we said so.

Lmao why do you think this scenario is impossible when any legal argument can be easily conjured into existence with a big enough majority?

Because that’s not what judges do. They don’t make rulings such as the 14th amendment only applies to some because we said so with no legal reasoning behind it.

How do you craft an argument that the amendment only applies to some?

[Dresderstan]

Lmao why do you think this scenario is impossible when any legal argument can be easily conjured into existence with a big enough majority?

Because that’s not what judges do. They don’t make rulings such as the 14th amendment only applies to some because we said so with no legal reasoning behind it.

How do you craft an argument that the amendment only applies to some?

Yes they can, to try to say otherwise is naive at best.

[San Lumen]

You clearly don’t understand the concept of it. How do they not get representation? People are ranking their choices.

Are they somehow not the representative of some because they didn’t win outright in the first round?

I completely fail to understand your logic here.

I understand it, I don't like it.

They get no voice, no elected official, ergo no representation.

By that logic no one who votes for a losing candidate or party has representation. Sounds like you just want an absolute monarch who says I decree therefore it is so.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Lmao why do you think this scenario is impossible when any legal argument can be easily conjured into existence with a big enough majority?

Because that’s not what judges do. They don’t make rulings such as the 14th amendment only applies to some because we said so with no legal reasoning behind it.

How do you craft an argument that the amendment only applies to some?

America spent most of the 1900's pretending that the 14th didn't apply to a lot of people. America can do it again at the stroke of a pen.

[Dresderstan]

I understand it, I don't like it.

They get no voice, no elected official, ergo no representation.

By that logic no one who votes for a losing candidate or party has representation.

[Neutraligon]

I understand it, I don't like it.

They get no voice, no elected official, ergo no representation.

By that logic no one who votes for a losing candidate or party has representation. Sounds like you just want an absolute monarch who says I decree therefore it is so.

San the latter part of the comment is incredibly silly considering they have said they want proportional voting.

[San Lumen]

Because that’s not what judges do. They don’t make rulings such as the 14th amendment only applies to some because we said so with no legal reasoning behind it.

How do you craft an argument that the amendment only applies to some?

America spent most of the 1900's pretending that the 14th didn't apply to a lot of people. America can do it again at the stroke of a pen.

How? A law gets passed that outlaws same sex marriage and adoption in total violation of that Supreme Court decision? If it was that easy why didn’t Republicans pass such a law in 2017?