American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

And some of these districts would elect my dog if nominated as a Republican. The minority does not have the right to prevent the state legislature from functioning and keep the majority from enacting what they were elected to do by the majority of the populous. If they do have this right what’s the point of having a Republic?

You don't have the right to dictate who can represent these districts in the state legislature. If you support democracy then you have to accept that people will sometimes elect someone you don't like.

---

I dunno about you, but if the Republicans want to gerrymander and create democratic backsliding, well, fair is fair. Who votes for a “No Malarkey executive order”, officially banning all Republican officeholders who have denied the result of the 2020 election? Or maybe just shift Congress towards a more proportional system, which definitely won’t result in the Republicans having all of 10 senators vs like 10 from California.

So you don't care about the erosion of democratic rights, you just want your team to be the one that does it.

Course I care about democracy. But if one side wants to make the game unbalanced, well, someone’s gotta balance it out. I was serious about the proportional congress thing, not about the executive order (duh). If the Republicans gerrymander, then the Democrats must gerrymander as well.

[San Lumen]

And some of these districts would elect my dog if nominated as a Republican. The minority does not have the right to prevent the state legislature from functioning and keep the majority from enacting what they were elected to do by the majority of the populous. If they do have this right what’s the point of having a Republic?

You don't have the right to dictate who can represent these districts in the state legislature. If you support democracy then you have to accept that people will sometimes elect someone you don't like.

---

I dunno about you, but if the Republicans want to gerrymander and create democratic backsliding, well, fair is fair. Who votes for a “No Malarkey executive order”, officially banning all Republican officeholders who have denied the result of the 2020 election? Or maybe just shift Congress towards a more proportional system, which definitely won’t result in the Republicans having all of 10 senators vs like 10 from California.

So you don't care about the erosion of democratic rights, you just want your team to be the one that does it.

I do accept that but the minority does not get to hold the majority of population hostage and prevent the government from functioning. I once again ask if the minority gets to completely stall the agenda of the majority party why even bother having a Republic?

[EuroStralia]

America seems to have about 50.

---

Clearly that's unacceptable. Instead of forcing them out of office, their constituents should decide.

I dunno about you, but if the Republicans want to gerrymander and create democratic backsliding, well, fair is fair. Who votes for a “No Malarkey executive order”, officially banning all Republican officeholders who have denied the result of the 2020 election? Or maybe just shift Congress towards a more proportional system, which definitely won’t result in the Republicans having all of 10 senators vs like 10 from California.

I thought you were against authoritarianism?

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

I dunno about you, but if the Republicans want to gerrymander and create democratic backsliding, well, fair is fair. Who votes for a “No Malarkey executive order”, officially banning all Republican officeholders who have denied the result of the 2020 election? Or maybe just shift Congress towards a more proportional system, which definitely won’t result in the Republicans having all of 10 senators vs like 10 from California.

I thought you were against authoritarianism?

I am. But I’m simply making a point (obviously exaggerating partly). The Republicans began democratic backsliding, and hey, fair is fair. Proportionally appointing senators and house seats would be a good start.

[Haganham]

"if our opponents are going to do this Thing then we need to as well" -party that invented Thing.

[Neutraligon]

You don't have the right to dictate who can represent these districts in the state legislature. If you support democracy then you have to accept that people will sometimes elect someone you don't like.

---

So you don't care about the erosion of democratic rights, you just want your team to be the one that does it.

I do accept that but the minority does not get to hold the majority of population hostage and prevent the government from functioning. I once again ask if the minority gets to completely stall the agenda of the majority party why even bother having a Republic?

I already answered that question. If they have sufficient numbers to do so, YES. This is the result of democracy, they have the numbers to force the issue. They also get to deal with the consequences of it, namely that it makes it much more difficult to negotiate with the majority on things they do want to get passed. Both because while there is no quorum nothing, including the things they want passed, gets passed and also because the majority is far less likely to want to negotiate with someone who has used what is essentially the nuclear option.

[EuroStralia]

I thought you were against authoritarianism?

I am. But I’m simply making a point (obviously exaggerating partly). The Republicans began democratic backsliding, and hey, fair is fair. Proportionally appointing senators and house seats would be a good start.

"Two wrongs don't make a right"

[Khurkhogur]

"if our opponents are going to do this Thing then we need to as well" -party that invented Thing.

This is literally the principle under which politics have always operated. "Our opponents are winning by doing x, let's do x as well"
Why would you not want to win??

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

"if our opponents are going to do this Thing then we need to as well" -party that invented Thing.

Gerry was a Democratic-Republican… not a Democrat per se.

[Port Caverton]

I thought you were against authoritarianism?

I am. But I’m simply making a point (obviously exaggerating partly). The Republicans began democratic backsliding, and hey, fair is fair. Proportionally appointing senators and house seats would be a good start.

The senate should stay as it is. The house can be proportional.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

I am. But I’m simply making a point (obviously exaggerating partly). The Republicans began democratic backsliding, and hey, fair is fair. Proportionally appointing senators and house seats would be a good start.

The senate should stay as it is. The house can be proportional.

No. It should be proportional for fairness and democracy.

I am. But I’m simply making a point (obviously exaggerating partly). The Republicans began democratic backsliding, and hey, fair is fair. Proportionally appointing senators and house seats would be a good start.

"Two wrongs don't make a right"

They don’t. But the first wrong isn’t righting itself. But it is balanced.

[Ifreann]

You don't have the right to dictate who can represent these districts in the state legislature. If you support democracy then you have to accept that people will sometimes elect someone you don't like.

---

So you don't care about the erosion of democratic rights, you just want your team to be the one that does it.

Course I care about democracy. But if one side wants to make the game unbalanced, well, someone’s gotta balance it out. I was serious about the proportional congress thing, not about the executive order (duh).

There's a lot of democratic reforms that the Democrats should be pushing for. But "they did it first!" doesn't justify taking away people's rights.

[EuroStralia]

The senate should stay as it is. The house can be proportional.

"Two wrongs don't make a right"

They don’t. But the first wrong isn’t righting itself. But it is balanced.

And how does that make it any better?

[Port Caverton]

The senate should stay as it is. The house can be proportional.

No. It should be proportional for fairness and democracy.

"Two wrongs don't make a right"

They don’t. But the first wrong isn’t righting itself. But it is balanced.

If you want fairness then you would agreed to keeping the current senate system so that small states aren't left behind

[Neutraligon]

I am. But I’m simply making a point (obviously exaggerating partly). The Republicans began democratic backsliding, and hey, fair is fair. Proportionally appointing senators and house seats would be a good start.

The senate should stay as it is. The house can be proportional.

Honestly I want both to be proportional, where the House represents the county and so is proportional to the country as per votes while the senate gets more individuals per state (say 5) and is proportional per state. The members of the national senate should not represent individual districts but rather the state as a whole. Individual districts can be represented within the state government.

[Bienenhalde]

DeSantis is somehow easily the worst governor in the US, which is saying something.

There are worse governors in the US, past or oresant, than DeSantis.

Maybe in the past, but I would not be so sure about the present.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Course I care about democracy. But if one side wants to make the game unbalanced, well, someone’s gotta balance it out. I was serious about the proportional congress thing, not about the executive order (duh).

There's a lot of democratic reforms that the Democrats should be pushing for. But "they did it first!" doesn't justify taking away people's rights.

It doesn’t. But fair is fair. If the Republicans gerrymander and disenfranchise, then it looks like the it’s time to reintroduce literacy tests. My point is, even if it’s not right, it is the only way for it to be fair.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

No. It should be proportional for fairness and democracy.

They don’t. But the first wrong isn’t righting itself. But it is balanced.

If you want fairness then you would agreed to keeping the current senate system so that small states aren't left behind

No, it’s not fair, it’s handing a million people the same voice as 40 million. Not fair.

They don’t. But the first wrong isn’t righting itself. But it is balanced.

And how does that make it any better?

It does not. It simply makes it fair. If we wanted it to be better, well the Republicans would have to stop as well.

[EuroStralia]

If you want fairness then you would agreed to keeping the current senate system so that small states aren't left behind

No, it’s not fair, it’s handing a million people the same voice as 40 million. Not fair.

And how does that make it any better?

It does not. It simply makes it fair. If we wanted it to be better, well the Republicans would have to stop as well.

Fairness isn't all that matters.

[Port Caverton]

If you want fairness then you would agreed to keeping the current senate system so that small states aren't left behind

No, it’s not fair, it’s handing a million people the same voice as 40 million. Not fair.

And how does that make it any better?

It does not. It simply makes it fair. If we wanted it to be better, well the Republicans would have to stop as well.

You can have the house be proportional to fix that issue while keeping the senate as it currently is to prevent California, Texas, New York and Florida from taking all of the country's decisions

[Neutraligon]

If you want fairness then you would agreed to keeping the current senate system so that small states aren't left behind

No, it’s not fair, it’s handing a million people the same voice as 40 million. Not fair.

And how does that make it any better?

It does not. It simply makes it fair. If we wanted it to be better, well the Republicans would have to stop as well.

The point of the senate is to ensure that the large states do not run roughshod over the smaller states. Congress is set up to prevent both tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority(or at least that is what they are trying to do).

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

No, it’s not fair, it’s handing a million people the same voice as 40 million. Not fair.



It does not. It simply makes it fair. If we wanted it to be better, well the Republicans would have to stop as well.

Fairness isn't all that matters.

It shouldn’t be. But it is.

It is simply that what is “right” or “wrong”, does not matter in politics. Only what works.

[EuroStralia]

Fairness isn't all that matters.

It shouldn’t be. But it is.

It is simply that what is “right” or “wrong”, does not matter in politics. Only what works.

And, how is this "Who votes for a “No Malarkey executive order”, officially banning all Republican officeholders who have denied the result of the 2020 election? Or maybe just shift Congress towards a more proportional system, which definitely won’t result in the Republicans having all of 10 senators vs like 10 from California." fair?

[Neutraligon]

No, it’s not fair, it’s handing a million people the same voice as 40 million. Not fair.



It does not. It simply makes it fair. If we wanted it to be better, well the Republicans would have to stop as well.

You can have the house be proportional to fix that issue while keeping the senate as it currently is to prevent California, Texas, New York and Florida from taking all of the country's decisions

How do you feel about my suggestion. Congress is entirely proportional of some sort. The house considers votes from all over the country and so is proportional to the country. The senate gets more senators and considers only the votes within the state they are supposed to represent. The House should represent the country as a whole while the senate represents the individual states as a whole.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

It shouldn’t be. But it is.

It is simply that what is “right” or “wrong”, does not matter in politics. Only what works.

And, how is this "Who votes for a “No Malarkey executive order”, officially banning all Republican officeholders who have denied the result of the 2020 election? Or maybe just shift Congress towards a more proportional system, which definitely won’t result in the Republicans having all of 10 senators vs like 10 from California." fair?

I was kidding about the first part, the second part is just democracy.