American Politics XIV: The Dawning of the Age of the Pumpkin

[Tarsonis]

Well, wannabe DOSes are entertaining at least.

In an "Awww I remember my first time on the internet" sort of way.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

-snip-

Sure.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Well, wannabe DOSes are entertaining at least.

In an "Awww I remember my first time on the internet" sort of way.

True. I'm sure it's that christian extremist from earlier playing games too.

[Tarsonis]

In an "Awww I remember my first time on the internet" sort of way.

True. I'm sure it's that christian extremist from earlier playing games too.

Some people really just don't have anything better to do.

[The Two Jerseys]

The founding fathers based the government on what they knew plus it had to do with slavery.

So the answer is you don't know. Well I tell you San, and no it wasn't about Slavery. It was about balance of power. See there was this guy Randolph, from Virgina who wanted a bicameral legislation based on population in both houses. There were some interesting mechanics in this plan from Virgina, or Virginia plan, but the apportionment was what mattered.

Now the less populous states were like "hol' up, that means big states will have all the power and we little states won't have any. That does not sparkle." So this guy Patterson from New Jersey proposed a single house with equal representation. The big states like the Carolinas and Virginia were like "naw we getting bigger with all this land we got so we went proportional representation. the small states lile Delaware and Massachussets were like "That means you'll control the country and we won't have means to be heard so no."


When the big states ignored them the small states threatened to blow the whole thing up and leave the convention.

The three C’s refers to Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. What is your solution for them?

I'm sorry the answer you're looking for is Connecticut Compromise. This guy Sherman said let's compromise: Proportional representation in the House, and equal representation in the Senate.

So, what's the take away from that San?

Fun fact: we've gone from 38% of the states being able to control the House in 1789 to 18% of the states being able to control the House today.

If anything, the Senate has only gotten more important over the years...

[Dimetrodon Empire]

True. I'm sure it's that christian extremist from earlier playing games too.

Some people really just don't have anything better to do.

None of us do. We're on a website dedicated to some author's book wasting time.

[Tarsonis]

Some people really just don't have anything better to do.

None of us do. We're on a website dedicated to some author's book wasting time.

Ah but i do have better stuff to do.... I'm just avoiding that stuff

[Spirit of Hope]

So the answer is you don't know. Well I tell you San, and no it wasn't about Slavery. It was about balance of power. See there was this guy Randolph, from Virgina who wanted a bicameral legislation based on population in both houses. There were some interesting mechanics in this plan from Virgina, or Virginia plan, but the apportionment was what mattered.

Now the less populous states were like "hol' up, that means big states will have all the power and we little states won't have any. That does not sparkle." So this guy Patterson from New Jersey proposed a single house with equal representation. The big states like the Carolinas and Virginia were like "naw we getting bigger with all this land we got so we went proportional representation. the small states lile Delaware and Massachussets were like "That means you'll control the country and we won't have means to be heard so no."


When the big states ignored them the small states threatened to blow the whole thing up and leave the convention.




I'm sorry the answer you're looking for is Connecticut Compromise. This guy Sherman said let's compromise: Proportional representation in the House, and equal representation in the Senate.

So, what's the take away from that San?

Fun fact: we've gone from 38% of the states being able to control the House in 1789 to 18% of the states being able to control the House today.

If anything, the Senate has only gotten more important over the years...

The idea of States being what people identified with, and hence the basis of the Senate, died in the Civil War. The growth of easy transport between the states kept driving nails in the coffin.

The political reality of the US in the 1790s was dramatically different from it is now, as is our understanding about how politics work. The framers were well educated for their time and place, but they wouldn't pass muster as experts now. That they built a system basically guaranteed to create contentious political parties while at the same time decrying the idea of political parties is a great example of this.

The US system keeps going because it works ok, because changing it is hard, and because basically no one agrees on what a new system should look like.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

None of us do. We're on a website dedicated to some author's book wasting time.

Ah but i do have better stuff to do.... I'm just avoiding that stuff

Same here. Instead of being here, I should continue to be writing some knowledge base articles and continuing to learn php.

Don't know why I'm back here on this site.

[Tarsonis]

Ah but i do have better stuff to do.... I'm just avoiding that stuff

Same here. Instead of being here, I should continue to be writing some knowledge base articles and continuing to learn php.

Don't know why I'm back here on this site.

it's hotel Nationstates. You can check out any time you'd like but you can't ever leave.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Same here. Instead of being here, I should continue to be writing some knowledge base articles and continuing to learn php.

Don't know why I'm back here on this site.

it's hotel Nationstates. You can check out any time you'd like but you can't ever leave.

Well, maybe if I anger the NS janitorial moderation team, that can change.

[Tarsonis]

Fun fact: we've gone from 38% of the states being able to control the House in 1789 to 18% of the states being able to control the House today.

If anything, the Senate has only gotten more important over the years...

The idea of States being what people identified with, and hence the basis of the Senate, died in the Civil War. The growth of easy transport between the states kept driving nails in the coffin.

The political reality of the US in the 1790s was dramatically different from it is now, as is our understanding about how politics work. The framers were well educated for their time and place, but they wouldn't pass muster as experts now. That they built a system basically guaranteed to create contentious political parties while at the same time decrying the idea of political parties is a great example of this.

The US system keeps going because it works ok, because changing it is hard, and because basically no one agrees on what a new system should look like.

I'd say you're overstating it. Yes there was the whole "United States are" / "United States is" change over, and people may not think of themselves as state first country second. But people still very much do identify with their state over other states. Especially if you're from Maryland.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

The US system keeps going because it works ok, because changing it is hard, and because basically no one agrees on what a new system should look like.

It's failing miserably. We're even more divided than during January sixth.

[Spirit of Hope]

The idea of States being what people identified with, and hence the basis of the Senate, died in the Civil War. The growth of easy transport between the states kept driving nails in the coffin.

The political reality of the US in the 1790s was dramatically different from it is now, as is our understanding about how politics work. The framers were well educated for their time and place, but they wouldn't pass muster as experts now. That they built a system basically guaranteed to create contentious political parties while at the same time decrying the idea of political parties is a great example of this.

The US system keeps going because it works ok, because changing it is hard, and because basically no one agrees on what a new system should look like.

I'd say you're overstating it. Yes there was the whole "United States are" / "United States is" change over, and people may not think of themselves as state first country second. But people still very much do identify with their state over other states. Especially if you're from Maryland.

To some extent, but people are much more likely to move between states today than they were during the pre revolution and revolution time frame. The big change in this was the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion, which hit its peak in the 1850s and 1860s.

[Cannot think of a name]

Apparently right wing media is triggered because Biden was caught saying “fuck” on a hot mic. I guess it’s only based when the orange sack of shit says “fuck” in a rant/“speech” but it’s offensive and obscene when Biden says it in a side conversation on a hot mic.

At least he didn't declare Russia illegal and announce that the bombs were on their way.

[Cannot think of a name]

Well, wannabe DOSes are entertaining at least.

Are they, though?

[Tarsonis]

I'd say you're overstating it. Yes there was the whole "United States are" / "United States is" change over, and people may not think of themselves as state first country second. But people still very much do identify with their state over other states. Especially if you're from Maryland.

To some extent, but people are much more likely to move between states today than they were during the pre revolution and revolution time frame. The big change in this was the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion, which hit its peak in the 1850s and 1860s.

More likely yes. I mean, I myself have lived in 9 states, far more than the average person today let alone back then. But that doesn't mean it's banal. Moving states, can be like moving to another country in some cases, where only the language and rhe currency is the same. And we Bay Staters acknowledge we're all Americans, we're just better Americans than those cheese packers and dope farmers up north.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Well, wannabe DOSes are entertaining at least.

Are they, though?

Yes they are. That is not inherently a complement.

[Shrillland]

Legal Marijuana Now Party Congressional Candidate Paula Overby(Hastings-Apple Valley, MN) dead of heart attack

[San Lumen]

Where does Article V say that?

It doesn't, it just says that states can't be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without their consent.

So either the Constitution has to be amended to remove that stipulation, or an amendment to change the composition of the Senate has to be a unanimous vote.

So we pass an amendment that removes that stipulation. We instead say a state is entitled to no less than two senators.

[San Lumen]

The founding fathers based the government on what they knew plus it had to do with slavery.

So the answer is you don't know. Well I tell you San, and no it wasn't about Slavery. It was about balance of power. See there was this guy Randolph, from Virgina who wanted a bicameral legislation based on population in both houses. There were some interesting mechanics in this plan from Virgina, or Virginia plan, but the apportionment was what mattered.

Now the less populous states were like "hol' up, that means big states will have all the power and we little states won't have any. That does not sparkle." So this guy Patterson from New Jersey proposed a single house with equal representation. The big states like the Carolinas and Virginia were like "naw we getting bigger with all this land we got so we went proportional representation. the small states lile Delaware and Massachussets were like "That means you'll control the country and we won't have means to be heard so no."


When the big states ignored them the small states threatened to blow the whole thing up and leave the convention.

The three C’s refers to Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. What is your solution for them?

I'm sorry the answer you're looking for is Connecticut Compromise. This guy Sherman said let's compromise: Proportional representation in the House, and equal representation in the Senate.

So, what's the take away from that San?

And the delegates compromised and gave us the method by which the House and Senate are elected although it should be pointed out the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures.

Im still waiting for you to tell me how you'd change the composition of the Ohio and Missouri legislature since by your logic city voices aren't being heard in those states.

[Tarsonis]

So the answer is you don't know. Well I tell you San, and no it wasn't about Slavery. It was about balance of power. See there was this guy Randolph, from Virgina who wanted a bicameral legislation based on population in both houses. There were some interesting mechanics in this plan from Virgina, or Virginia plan, but the apportionment was what mattered.

Now the less populous states were like "hol' up, that means big states will have all the power and we little states won't have any. That does not sparkle." So this guy Patterson from New Jersey proposed a single house with equal representation. The big states like the Carolinas and Virginia were like "naw we getting bigger with all this land we got so we went proportional representation. the small states lile Delaware and Massachussets were like "That means you'll control the country and we won't have means to be heard so no."


When the big states ignored them the small states threatened to blow the whole thing up and leave the convention.




I'm sorry the answer you're looking for is Connecticut Compromise. This guy Sherman said let's compromise: Proportional representation in the House, and equal representation in the Senate.

So, what's the take away from that San?

And the delegates compromised and gave us the method by which the House and Senate are elected although it should be pointed out the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures.

That's not what I asked you. What's the take away? What's the lesson to be learned behind a bicameral legislature that has a proportionate chamber and an equal representation chamber? What does that say about the American style of Governance with regards to representation?

Im still waiting for you to tell me how you'd change the composition of the Ohio and Missouri legislature since by your logic city voices aren't being heard in those states.

I'm still trying to get you to understand basic addition

[The Two Jerseys]

It doesn't, it just says that states can't be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without their consent.

So either the Constitution has to be amended to remove that stipulation, or an amendment to change the composition of the Senate has to be a unanimous vote.

So we pass an amendment that removes that stipulation. We instead say a state is entitled to no less than two senators.

Which will never happen, because half the states aren't going to shoot themselves in the head.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Are they, though?

Yes they are. That is not inherently a complement.

After 18 years here, no they aren't.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Yes they are. That is not inherently a complement.

After 18 years here, no they aren't.

Engaging in dim witted actions like spamming profanity alongside red text is. It accomplishes absolutely nothing and gets cleaned up instantly, but they try try again like it’s going to accomplish anything. It’s entertaining because it’s laughably stupid.