Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


Refugees and immigrants do not have the right to go to whatever country they want, the countries really do have a say in who they let in, and it is not subject to international debate.

Weird stance from a Libertarian...

https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/

You will notice that LEGAL immigration is ok, but we still have the final say. You will also notice that criminals are not welcome.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Japan could be ok with that population, it might even do better for their environment. Even 80 million is a lot for that country. They would have to change their mentality about lifetime employment and how they handle it, but thats up to them to decide. They are not very welcoming of non-Japanese as it is.

It would not be okay unless it forces those old people to work and then that is just delaying the inevitable. No country is sustainable when over a third of its population is beyond the working age.

Japan either needs to massively increase its birthrate (it is currently around 1.4 and would need to go up to around 2.1 to reach a sustainable population of around a hundred million, which is the governments aim) or bring in more immigrants to plug the gaps in its labour supply.

Or get Women to work. I live in Japan and am still constantly surprised by the fact that many women automatically expect to become housewives when they get married. I'm not sure on the numbers but they could easily add a few million to the workforce by encouraging women to work.

Chikout wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Japan could be ok with that population, it might even do better for their environment. Even 80 million is a lot for that country. They would have to change their mentality about lifetime employment and how they handle it, but thats up to them to decide. They are not very welcoming of non-Japanese as it is.

It would not be okay unless it forces those old people to work and then that is just delaying the inevitable. No country is sustainable when over a third of its population is beyond the working age.

Japan either needs to massively increase its birthrate (it is currently around 1.4 and would need to go up to around 2.1 to reach a sustainable population of around a hundred million, which is the governments aim) or bring in more immigrants to plug the gaps in its labour supply.

Or get Women to work. I live in Japan and am still constantly surprised by the fact that many women automatically expect to become housewives when they get married. I'm not sure on the numbers but they could easily add a few million to the workforce by encouraging women to work.

They're concentrating more on getting women to get pregnant. That was something the JSDF was trying to push on it's service women when I was stationed there.

The Japanese military pressures it's female soldiers to get pregnant? Thats...fethed up.

So what you're saying is, Japan is Cadia.
Creed when?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The Japanese military pressures it's female soldiers to get pregnant? Thats...fethed up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/26/its-official-japans-population-is-drastically-shrinking/

It's a massive problem for the nation, so the government was/is taking whatever steps it can.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


Refugees and immigrants do not have the right to go to whatever country they want, the countries really do have a say in who they let in, and it is not subject to international debate.

Weird stance from a Libertarian...

https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/

You will notice that LEGAL immigration is ok, but we still have the final say. You will also notice that criminals are not welcome.

Libertarian Party wrote:
Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful
...
A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas.
...
Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals.

The Libertarian Party says that people should be able to immigrate, that national borders are an artificial construct, that people should be able to contract for their labor without regulations including immigration and work visas. It's really one of those very super simple Libertarian ideas that exists. And one I would think that someone working for the campaign would know.

Which makes me wonder if you worked for the Johnson campaign because you actually believed in Libertarian Party policies, because you are a #NeverTrumper, or because of the pot.

 Pouncey wrote:
Hey, uh, I know I'm a Canadian, but I'm living in the capital city of a country that currently has 35,000 Syrian Refugees in it, and I feel more fear from the fact that the country I share a border with is one where Presidential Nominee Ben Carson publicly admitted, to a crowd of thousands, to attempting to murder his teenage friend over a dispute in the radio station being played, and the fact that his stabbing lunge brought his knife into contact with his friend's belt buckle instead of his friend's stomach, thus breaking off the tip of the knife, is considered a redemption story sufficient to boost his popularity...

The weirdest thing is that Carson has told a whole bunch of variations of that story. The knife changes, the motive changes, the person he tried to stab changes from telling to telling. When you consider how bonkers the story was to begin with it's pretty likely Carson is either exaggerating wildly or just making the thing up entirely.

No-one seems to care though, Carson is such a nice, gentle man so who cares if he makes up weirdo stories about stabbing friends over radio stations, or thinks the pyramids were used to store grain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Because it keeps the more populated states from dictating policies to the less populated states.

This was part of the intent, sure. And assigning electors for every senator in congress as well as representative effectively does that, weighting some states by more than three times per voter compared to larger states.

However, the greater system fails rather badly on account of being a gakky system. See, instead of presidents campaigning in just a handful of large states... now you have a system where presidents campaign in a handful of swing states. Fully 2/3 of all presidential activity was limited to just 11 states in the country, because the vote in every other state was already decided. Winning Texas by 20 points or 10 points is meaningless. As such having a policy for expanding natural gas production in Texas drops stops being a nationally debated issue, while Pennsylvania coal is all important.

It should be pretty obvious really - if you want states to count in a federal election, you don't have their share of voting power determined in a winner takes all manner.

 d-usa wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


Refugees and immigrants do not have the right to go to whatever country they want, the countries really do have a say in who they let in, and it is not subject to international debate.

Weird stance from a Libertarian...

https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/

You will notice that LEGAL immigration is ok, but we still have the final say. You will also notice that criminals are not welcome.

Libertarian Party wrote:
Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful
...
A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas.
...
Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals.

The Libertarian Party says that people should be able to immigrate, that national borders are an artificial construct, that people should be able to contract for their labor without regulations including immigration and work visas. It's really one of those very super simple Libertarian ideas that exists. And one I would think that someone working for the campaign would know.

Which makes me wonder if you worked for the Johnson campaign because you actually believed in Libertarian Party policies, because you are a #NeverTrumper, or because of the pot.

As usual your assumptions are wrong, and no it doesn't mean without visas.

 Frazzled wrote:
Because without it 98% of the US wouldn't need to vote. They would be irrelevant.

Yeah, because 2% of the population would dominate with the 2% of the vote, while the other 98% of the population would be meaningless because they would only have 98% of the vote.

Not overly strong on numbers, are you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Trump fething settled a massive civil suit for $25 fething million jack-a-roos... and yet, the media talking heads/news paper/social media bubble are talking about what happened in that Hamilton event & Trump's "safe space" tweet.


I can't even...

That's pretty much how the campaign went as well. There was so much wrong with Trump at any one point, people got caught up focusing on which part to attack him on. This ended up meaning the attacks lost focus, and just sounded like noise.

I mean, right now there's Trump settling the university fraud case, there's Trump whinging on twitter about a respectful challenge to his VP, and there's the collection of bottom feeders he's putting in his cabinet, and there's Trump rolling back all his campaign promises he made to set up what is more or less just another Republican policy agenda.

It's pretty tough picking just one of those to focus on to attack Trump. I agree with you that out of all of them the Hamilton tweet is the least relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Unless of course the Republican Party transforms into the Worker's Party.

Well, a white worker's party. That was a possibility after the election, and could still be if Trump all of a sudden starting doing the things he said he'd deliver on the campaign trail. Trump isn't trying that, though, instead he's basically reverted back to pushing for a big tax cut for the rich, defunding social security, dropping a government guarantee of healthcare, and turning the much promised infrastructure scheme in to a big tax break for existing infrastructure programs.

So basically, it's still just the same old Republican party, but with a more orange person at the top this time around.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... if the election truly went to popular vote, why should these politicians focus on any of the non-blue areas?

As I've already explained to you a dozen fething times now, because there are still voters in those areas. If you split the city in to 51% in the most populous cities, and 49% in the rest, and decided that all you had to do was win the 51%... you'd be an absolute fething idiot.

I mean, let's say you play that strategy, and you put all your campaign time, and focus your policies on that 51%. I put my time in to an even split between the two areas. You win in those most populated areas 60 to 40. But having no presence and no policies at all for the rest of the country, I thrashed you there 80-20. The result of that is that I just kicked your ass, 59% to 41%.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Trump fething settled a massive civil suit for $25 fething million jack-a-roos... and yet, the media talking heads/news paper/social media bubble are talking about what happened in that Hamilton event & Trump's "safe space" tweet.


I can't even...

That's pretty much how the campaign went as well. There was so much wrong with Trump at any one point, people got caught up focusing on which part to attack him on. This ended up meaning the attacks lost focus, and just sounded like noise.

I mean, right now there's Trump settling the university fraud case, there's Trump whinging on twitter about a respectful challenge to his VP, and there's the collection of bottom feeders he's putting in his cabinet, and there's Trump rolling back all his campaign promises he made to set up what is more or less just another Republican policy agenda.

It's pretty tough picking just one of those to focus on to attack Trump. I agree with you that out of all of them the Hamilton tweet is the least relevant.

Interestingly enough, CNN has an article exactly about this, calling the Hamilton thing Trump's dead cat. Basically, to distract everybody from all these other things, Trump threw a dead cat (his Hamilton tweet) out in front of everybody to focus their attention on it instead. Clearly, it worked.

 whembly wrote:
I disagree...we MUST continue to think in terms of the states. A federal, non representative office (the Prez) MUST represent the collective states... not just a simple majority of the popular vote.

Of course, and this is why it was written;
"We the states of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence..."

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree...we MUST continue to think in terms of the states. A federal, non representative office (the Prez) MUST represent the collective states... not just a simple majority of the popular vote.

Of course, and this is why it was written;
"We the states of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence..."

... okay... and?

 Frazzled wrote:
Again to be correct we are a Republic. There is a difference.

No, you are not being correct. You are being 100%, completely wrong, on something that's been raised and corrected many times before.

The US is a republic for the simple reason that it has no hereditary head of state. This doesn't stop the US being many other things. The US is also a representative democracy.

All of this is utterly irrelevant to the debate on the electoral college, which is a discussion about which democratic process the US should use to pick one of its representative positions.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree...we MUST continue to think in terms of the states. A federal, non representative office (the Prez) MUST represent the collective states... not just a simple majority of the popular vote.

Of course, and this is why it was written;
"We the states of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence..."

... okay... and?

He's deliberately misquoting the Preamble because you're harping on this ridiculous thing about "states" this and "states" instead of "people" this and "people" that in an attempt to defend the gakky process of electing the head of our government.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree...we MUST continue to think in terms of the states. A federal, non representative office (the Prez) MUST represent the collective states... not just a simple majority of the popular vote.

Of course, and this is why it was written;
"We the states of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence..."

... okay... and?

He's deliberately misquoting the Preamble because you're harping on this ridiculous thing about "states" this and "states" instead of "people" this and "people" that in an attempt to defend the gakky process of electing the head of our government.

Well okay then...

Carry on guys.

 whembly wrote:
No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.

Yeah, and it's a really stupid argument no matter what way you slice it. The Electoral College doesn't protect the small states or the less populated areas of the country when a minimum of 11 states (the most most populous, as it were) is needed to win the election. You're arguing that the plurality of people shouldn't have the say in who represents in the Office of the President them solely based on where they live, which is fething stupid.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.

Yeah, and it's a really stupid argument no matter what way you slice it. The Electoral College doesn't protect the small states or the less populated areas of the country when a minimum of 11 states (the most most populous, as it were) is needed to win the election. You're arguing that the plurality of people shouldn't have the say in who represents in the Office of the President them solely based on where they live, which is fething stupid.

Not really.

What's fething stupid is people are so hung up on the popular vote, that is fething meaningless.

Campaign would be vastly different if we did away with the EC and went a popular vote system.

So, we don't *know* how this election would've turned out.

 Pouncey wrote:
The difference between a Democratic Republic and a straight-up Democracy is that the Democratic Republic...

You've got the definitions wrong as well. Republic just means there isn't a king. What you're thinking of is 'Representative Democracy', ie the process of electing people to represent you, rather than having people vote on every issue and every new bill. And yep, the US is both a republic and a representative democracy.

The Electoral College doesn't mean that the USA violates this rule either. It just means that the vote actually determining who becomes President is among the <500 individuals in the Electoral College, and the Popular Vote consisting of tens of millions of individuals is so irrelevant to the outcome there's no point figuring out what that number is, no point mentioning it ever, and no point even calling it a vote.

In most states the electors are formally bound to vote as per the popular vote in their state, and while in other states the electors can technically vote as they please, this has happened a whole of once in one state in the history of the country, and that was just for the VP slot. What is technically possible matters a lot less than what actually happens election after election.

This means the electoral college is a democratic system, albeit a weird and somewhat disfunctional one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.

Instead you want a system where Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia decide the election. Come on mate, you must know how screwy this is.

The Electoral College could pick Michelle Obama for President next month, because if we want to really get down to constitutional reality none of our votes means anything as far as picking the President is concerned. The folks picked to be electors are the only people that actually get to vote, and the constitution doesn't really make it clear that the states have any authority to tell them who they have to vote for.

That's the original purpose of the Electoral College. To have a couple hundred "smart" people pick the president rather than the general population on a county/state/federal level.

But talk about faithless electors and people seem to forget how the electoral college was actually designed to work. We haven't used it the way it was meant to be used for over 200 years, there is no point in hanging on to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.

Yeah, and it's a really stupid argument no matter what way you slice it. The Electoral College doesn't protect the small states or the less populated areas of the country when a minimum of 11 states (the most most populous, as it were) is needed to win the election. You're arguing that the plurality of people shouldn't have the say in who represents in the Office of the President them solely based on where they live, which is fething stupid.

Not really.

What's fething stupid is people are so hung up on the popular vote, that is fething meaningless.

Campaign would be vastly different if we did away with the EC and went a popular vote system.

So, we don't *know* how this election would've turned out.

That doesn't stop anybody from acting like they "know" that only a handful of cities will be the focus of any future campaign.

Which isn't really any different from what we have now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
The difference between a Democratic Republic and a straight-up Democracy is that the Democratic Republic...

You've got the definitions wrong as well. Republic just means there isn't a king. What you're thinking of is 'Representative Democracy', ie the process of electing people to represent you, rather than having people vote on every issue and every new bill. And yep, the US is both a republic and a representative democracy.

With many states being direct democracies as well, voting on individual laws and changes to the constitution every couple of years.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.

Instead you want a system where Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia decide the election. Come on mate, you must know how screwy this is.

Sure it's screwy... but that's the system we have.

I'm just pushing back at the folks complaining about the popular vote. These campaigns are operated to maximize electoral votes... not the popular vote.

If it were me, I'd be ecstatic if we went with Nebraska allocation.

 whembly wrote:
So... if the election truly went to popular vote, why should these politicians focus on any of the non-blue areas?

They do that now, only in a slightly different capacity.

Seriously, look at where presidential candidates go and how often. In last two months of this election, over half of both Trump's and Clinton's campaign stops were in four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. Also during that time, a full 87% of all campaign stops were in twelve battleground states. Also during that time, there were twenty-seven states that neither candidate (or their running mates) visited, almost all of them were rural states. Also, in the swing states that the candidates visited, they focused all of their time in urban centers.

This idea that the electoral college protects the small states or transfers power away from population centers is just wrong. It doesn't do that, period. Candidates spend their time trying to win over areas with the most votes while ignoring nearly half of the country.

Edit: Interestingly, if Trump maintains his edge in MI, he won fewer electors per voters in his states than the states the Clinton won?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/21/california-breaks-the-electoral-scale-it-still-has-more-votes-to-count-than-were-cast-in-34-states/
excerpt:

In fact, on average across states, places where Trump won had slightly fewer electors per voter than did Clinton states. On average, voters in states Clinton won were worth 5.28-millionths of an elector. (In other words, for every million voters, the state got 5.28 electors in the electoral college.) In states Trump won, the voters were worth 5.14-millionths — meaning they were slightly undervalued. (This is all assuming that Trump holds Michigan.)

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No. My argument is I don't want those populous areas perennially dictating for the entire nation.

Instead you want a system where Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia decide the election. Come on mate, you must know how screwy this is.

Sure it's screwy... but that's the system we have.

I'm just pushing back at the folks complaining about the popular vote. These campaigns are operated to maximize electoral votes... not the popular vote.

If it were me, I'd be ecstatic if we went with Nebraska allocation.

Argumably, that would be even worse, as it makes the presidential elections subject to gerrymandering. And gerrymandering is major issue within the house and state legislatures already.

whembly wrote:Not really.

Yes, really.

What's fething stupid is people are so hung up on the popular vote, that is fething meaningless.

You know what else is fething stupid? People rigorously defended a system they don't fully understand, which is what you do every time this topic is brought up.
Personally, I'm not hung up on the "popular vote" because I think that a straight plurality is still not the best way to do it. Though, if given the choice to pick between the electoral college of a popular vote, I'd chose the latter.

Campaign would be vastly different if we did away with the EC and went a popular vote system.

Yes, candidates would have to have a much broader reach to pull in more voters.

So, we don't *know* how this election would've turned out.

We know how it did turn out though: the fifth time the will of the people was ignored because of an archaic, undemocratic, anti-republic system that is long past its prime.

whembly wrote:Sure it's screwy... but that's the system we have.

That is quite possibly the dumbest reason for defending something and why I can't take you seriously.

I'm just pushing back at the folks complaining about the popular vote. These campaigns are operated to maximize electoral votes... not the popular vote.

Yes, which in your attempt to justify it you completely fail to understand how it doesn't do what you've been told it does.

If it were me, I'd be ecstatic if we went with Nebraska allocation.

You really shouldn't, because it will still lead to unfair representation because of gerrymandering. That alone makes it a pretty bad idea.

I think the real consternation involved with the state/people argument comes from imperfect compromise between slave and non-slave states. The constitution basically overpowered the slave-states in the electoral college and the congress as ameans of mitigating the population advantage of the north. This was done so we could actually form a country. The structure of the congress is, of course, also the same as that of the electoral college. This gives the slave states an advantage there as well. But even in this sytem an escape valve was created. The electors at the time directly after the constitution was written were not tied to the popular vote at all. The Hamiltonian evidence suggests the electors (though in numbers a balance to mitigate northern population) were designed as a final check on a populace run amok and to not allow someone as president who was not qualified. Further, the base reason for having the electors meet in their states rather than a single place was to insure they couldn't have too much pressure put on them. It would seem even at the time of the writing of the constitution there was concern the electors would be lobbied directly.

The imperfect compromise has made certain things possible that many folks feel is undemocratic, the loser of the popular vote can still win the presidency. Hmmm...I winder if such an eventuality violates the equal protection clause? If so the entire structure of the electoral college and the congress would be down the tubes as well....now that's a thinker.

The most relevant passage is: Article 2 section 1

:" Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:"

This clearly indicates the power of choosing electors lies with the states. Such a choosing must in a manner the state legislature defines. Does that mean the state can define how an elector must vote? If it went to court I think the US Supreme Court would say "yes" if for no other reason than not to upset the applecart. The flip side of this is that if the states have not specifically bound the electors (as some have) then they are free to vote however they wish.

Oh and as an aside, the courts have never taken on the issue of punishments for faithless electors. They have ruled on "pledges" by the elctors and found they are constitutional. But only the "pledge" is constitutional. The requirement to vote in a specific manner has never been litigated . Ray v. Blair.

ender502

 Frazzled wrote:
Just because the commies said they were republics doesn't mean they were republics. Frankly China is a fascist state at this point (structure wise, not obsession with oompa bands and living room spaces wise)
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/republic

The dictionary definition you provided shows that you were wrong. Come on man.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

whembly wrote:Sure it's screwy... but that's the system we have.

That is quite possibly the dumbest reason for defending something and why I can't take you seriously.

It's definetly the most conservative argument possible, however (by definition).

 Frazzled wrote:
A gas tax is regressive. Why do you hate poor people?

Any regressive element in a tax can be offset by progressive elements elsewhere. For instance, you could adjust income tax rates so that the most or all of the burden of the tax falls on the rich in its overall effect.

But probably more importantly, Trump and the Republicans are going to put in place a tax cut that benefits the rich almost entirely. I haven't heard you complain abotu this once... but now suddenly you're concerned about the mild regressive impact of a tax on gas. That doesn't seem very consistent.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

whembly wrote:Not really.

Yes, really.

Nah. Don't buy it Scooty...

What's fething stupid is people are so hung up on the popular vote, that is fething meaningless.

You know what else is fething stupid? People rigorously defended a system they don't fully understand, which is what you do every time this topic is brought up.

I'm fully aware what the EC system is... you are simply pissing in the wind here buddy.

Personally, I'm not hung up on the "popular vote" because I think that a straight plurality is still not the best way to do it. Though, if given the choice to pick between the electoral college of a popular vote, I'd chose the latter.

Cool.

Campaign would be vastly different if we did away with the EC and went a popular vote system.

Yes, candidates would have to have a much broader reach to pull in more voters.

Not really... much of the same problem with the current EC system. Candidates simply focus on the more populous regions.

So, we don't *know* how this election would've turned out.

We know how it did turn out though: the fifth time the will of the people was ignored because of an archaic, undemocratic, anti-republic system that is long past its prime.

I'm simply saying that you CANNOT expect people to vote in the same way under a EC system compared to a Popular vote (or the like) system. Do you think Democrats living in Texas or other red state are enthusiastic voters under the EC system? Likewise for Republicans living in New York or California?

That's why it's silly to look at the popular vote under the EC system and assume that the outcome would be the same under alternate voting systems.

whembly wrote:Sure it's screwy... but that's the system we have.

That is quite possibly the dumbest reason for defending something and why I can't take you seriously.

Overreact much?

You go ahead and wargame how easy it would be to change the sytem.

Go on...

I'm just pushing back at the folks complaining about the popular vote. These campaigns are operated to maximize electoral votes... not the popular vote.

Yesl, which in your attempt to justify it you completely fail to understand how it doesn't do what you've been told it does.

Which you fail to understand how this system works Scooty. You. Not me.

If it were me, I'd be ecstatic if we went with Nebraska allocation.

You really shouldn't, because it will still lead to unfair representation because of gerrymandering. That alone makes it a pretty bad idea.

Sucks to be on the losing side... eh?

Welcome to what conservatives felt in 2008.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

whembly wrote:Sure it's screwy... but that's the system we have.

That is quite possibly the dumbest reason for defending something and why I can't take you seriously.

It's definetly the most conservative argument possible, however (by definition).

Heh... good one Co'tor.

:tips hat: