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.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
I suggest you look into "crosscheck"
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
States get an EC vote per X 100,000 head of population plus two EC votes for their senators. Since the Senate seats are independent of population, this means that low population states get more EC votes per head of population. These states are generally rural, and tend to be conservative as is pretty common in rural areas worldwide.
I'm going to miss Joe Biden, but hopefully he'll have some fun before he leaves office at the end of the week.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
reds8n wrote: .... an army of loyal people to help the Leader.
That always works out well.
Well, if they all wear black or brown jackets or shirts or something, at least they could be easily identified.
Some sort of Protection Squadron? I think the Germans had a similar thing not that long ago, the Allgemeine Schutzstaffel. But that's a bit of a mouthful. So probably best to just stick to Bikers for Trump.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.
You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.
I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.
It was the same cause and the NFL players are perfectly capable of advocating for it and discussing it intelligently and in depth. Lawful protests are better than unlawful rioting.
So, we should rely on Celebrities to advocate for the poor?
We are talking about protests, not rioting. Blocking a highway is not a riot.
Vaktathi wrote: CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers
Peter Theil is "thinking" of a run...
First open gay Gov, who's also a republican. (wasn't he the guy who bankroll'ed Hulk's defamation case against Gawker?)
I'm not sure the religious right would let that happen.
In CA?... I have family there... but, I haven't felt the "pulse" of that state in quite some time.
I don't think him being gay would be an issue... it's the fact that he's a Republican.
Or maybe, just maybe, Californians like to vote Democrat because we feel they better represent our needs? Aside from the college crowd there isn't a lot of bad blood towards Republicans, relatively speaking. Hell, a huge portion of the positions we vote for are non-partisan; candidates can declare a party preference if they want but it isn't required or on the ballot. At any rate, neither being gay or republican would be anything more than a tie-breaker.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
People in less populated states get more EC votes per voter than the more populous states. More rural states (which often have lower population) are more likely to be conservative (for whatever reason) and so conservative politics is more likely to gain an advantage from disproportionate weighting of votes in the EC system.
Spoiler:
CA: 55 EC votes, population 38.3M:..... ~1 EC vote per 697,000 people. TX: 38 EC, pop 26.5M:...........................~1 EC vote per 697,000 people. NY and FL: 29 EC, pop ~19.5M: .......... ~1 EC vote per 670,000 people IL and PA: 20 EC, pop ~12.75M:........... ~1 EC vote per 637,500 people OH: 18 EC, pop ~11.5M: .......................~1 EC vote per 638,000 people GA & MI: 16 EC, pop ~9.9M: ................ ~1 EC vote per 618,750 people NC: 15 EC, pop ~9.85M:.........................~1 EC vote per 656,666 people NJ: 14 EC, pop ~8.9M:........................... ~1 EC vote per 635,700 people VA: 13 EC, pop ~8.3M:............................~1 EC vote per 638,500 people WA: 12 EC, pop ~7M:..............................~1 EC vote per 583,300 people MA: 11 EC, pop ~6.7M:...........................~1 EC vote per 600,000 people AZ & IN: 11 EC, pop ~6.6M:....................~1 EC vote per 600,000 people TN: 11 EC, pop ~6.5M:............................~1 EC vote per 590,000 people MO & MD: 10 EC, pop ~6M:....................~1 EC vote per 600,000 people WI: 10 EC, pop ~5.7M:.............................~1 EC vote per 570,000 people MN: 10 EC, pop ~5.4M:............................~1 EC vote per 540,000 people CO: 9 EC, pop ~5.3M:..............................~1 EC vote per 590,000 people AL & SC: 9 EC, pop ~4.8M:......................~1 EC vote per 530,000 people LA & KYL 8 EC, pop ~4.5M:.....................~1 EC vote per 560,000 people OR & OK: 7 EC, pop ~3.9M:.....................~1 EC vote per 560,000 people CT: 7 EC, pop ~3.6M:.................................~1 EC vote per 514,000 people IA, MS, AR, UT: 6 EC, pop ~3M:................~1 EC vote per 500,000 people NV & KS: 6 EC, pop ~2.84M:.....................~1 EC vote per 470,000 people NM: 5 EC, pop ~2M:...................................~1 EC vote per 400,000 people NE & WV: 5 EC, pop ~1.86M:.....................~1 EC vote per 372,000 people ID: 4 EC, pop ~1.6M:...................................~1 EC vote per 400,000 people HI: 4 EC, pop ~1.4M:...................................~1 EC vote per 350,000 people ME & NH: 4 EC, pop ~1.32M:.....................~1 EC vote per 330,000 people RI: 4 EC, pop ~1.05M:.................................~1 EC vote per 263,000 people MT: 3 EC, pop ~1M:.....................................~1 EC vote per 330,000 people DE: 3 EC, pop ~0.9M:.................................~1 EC vote per 300,000 people SD: 3 EC, pop ~0.84M:...............................~1 EC vote per 280,000 people AK & ND: 3 EC, pop ~0.73M:.....................~1 EC vote per 240,000 people DC: 3 EC, pop ~0.65M:...............................~1 EC vote per 220,000 people VT: 3 EC, pop ~0.63M:................................~1 EC vote per 210,000 people WY: 3 EC, pop ~0.58M:...............................~1 EC vote per 190,000 people
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/16 20:55:26
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
People in less populated states get more EC votes per voter than the more populous states.
Spoiler:
CA: 55 EC votes, population 38.3M: ~1 EC vote per 697,000 people.
TX: 38 EC, pop 26.5M: ~1 EC vote per 697,000 people.
NY and FL: 29 EC, pop ~19.5M: ~1 EC vote per 670,000 people
IL and PA: 20 EC, pop ~12.75M: ~1 EC vote per 637,500 people
OH: 18 EC, pop ~11.5M: ~1 EC vote per 638,000 people
GA & MI: 16 EC, pop ~9.9M: ~1 EC vote per 618,750 people
NC: 15 EC, pop ~9.85M: ~1 EC vote per 656,666 people
NJ: 14 EC, pop ~8.9M: ~1 EC vote per 635,700 people
VA: 13 EC, pop ~8.3M: ~1 EC vote per 638,500 people
WA: 12 EC, pop ~7M: ~1 EC vote per 583,300 people
MA: 11 EC, pop ~6.7M: ~1 EC vote per 600,000 people
AZ & IN: 11 EC, pop ~6.6M: ~1 EC vote per 600,000 people
TN: 11 EC, pop ~6.5M: ~1 EC vote per 590,000 people
MO & MD: 10 EC, pop ~6M: ~1 EC vote per 600,000 people
WI: 10 EC, pop ~5.7M: ~1 EC vote per 570,000 people
MN: 10 EC, pop ~5.4M: ~1 EC vote per 540,000 people
CO: 9 EC, pop ~5.3M: ~1 EC vote per 590,000 people
AL & SC: 9 EC, pop ~4.8M: ~1 EC vote per 530,000 people
LA & KYL 8 EC, pop ~4.5M: ~1 EC vote per 560,000 people
OR & OK: 7 EC, pop ~3.9M: ~1 EC vote per 560,000 people
CT: 7 EC, pop ~3.6M: ~1 EC vote per 514,000 people
IA, MS, AR, UT: 6 EC, pop ~3M: ~1 EC vote per 500,000 people
NV & KS: 6 EC, pop ~2.84M: ~1 EC vote per 470,000 people
NM: 5 EC, pop ~2M: ~1 EC vote per 400,000 people
NE & WV: 5 EC, pop ~1.86M: ~1 EC vote per 372,000 people
ID: 4 EC, pop ~1.6M: ~1 EC vote per 400,000 people
HI: 4 EC, pop ~1.4M: ~1 EC vote per 350,000 people
ME & NH: 4 EC, pop ~1.32M: ~1 EC vote per 330,000 people
RI: 4 EC, pop ~1.05M: ~1 EC vote per 263,000 people
MT: 3 EC, pop ~1M: ~1 EC vote per 330,000 people
DE: 3 EC, pop ~0.9M: ~1 EC vote per 300,000 people
SD: 3 EC, pop ~0.84M: ~1 EC vote per 280,000 people
AK & ND: 3 EC, pop ~0.73M: ~1 EC vote per 240,000 people
DC: 3 EC, pop ~0.65M: ~1 EC vote per 220,000 people
VT: 3 EC, pop ~0.63M: ~1 EC vote per 210,000 people
WY: 3 EC, pop ~0.58M: ~1 EC vote per 190,000 people
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
Congress no. If anything I'd argue the Senate has a Democratic bias in elections. Voter demographics in the past played out in that way. Likewise I think the House has a Republican bias, because a big state like Cali might have a horde of reps, but the people of LA can't vote in Colusa county. The Republicans have a much better spread for House runs than the Dems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/16 20:57:54
Only if you don't understand why it was done. I'd go into detail but I'd just be repeating everything that was said about the Electoral College in the previous thread, so instead I'll let you google it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/16 21:10:59
whembly wrote: A Civil War where the right wingers would win...
You base that on what, exactly?
We have all the god damn guns. My street literally has more firearms than Canada. Plus no leftwinger has served in the US military since Forrest Gump.
Seriously though, who do you think voted for Trump?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: It's also a bunch of false bravado and bs. Most right wingers I know are the most out of shape buffoons you'll ever meet, or think their 308 rifle will save them versus a drone. This is a very stupid tangent to go down anyway as our country is so fat, lazy, and stupid we put Trump in power in the first place, we're not gonna die to remove him because of those reasons.
Have you polled the politics of the drone drivers recently?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/16 21:47:00
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.
You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.
I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.
It was the same cause and the NFL players are perfectly capable of advocating for it and discussing it intelligently and in depth. Lawful protests are better than unlawful rioting.
So, we should rely on Celebrities to advocate for the poor?
We are talking about protests, not rioting. Blocking a highway is not a riot.
Blocking a road without a permit is illegal and dangerous and road blocking will lead to justifiable arrests and isn't a prerequisite for an effective protest. Celebrities can advocate for whatever they want, same as poor people. Protests don't have to be violent to be effective. MLK preached was adamant that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference practice nonviolent protests and they were very effective.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
States get an EC vote per X 100,000 head of population plus two EC votes for their senators. Since the Senate seats are independent of population, this means that low population states get more EC votes per head of population. These states are generally rural, and tend to be conservative as is pretty common in rural areas worldwide.
Yes that's exactly what I said. Congress = the House + the Senate which is the same amount of EC votes a state gets. The electorates that elects Senators and Congressional Representatives is the same one that votes for EC delegates. Any inherent bias in the EC is inherent in Congress, its' the same number of delegates elected by the same group of people. We've had 200+ years of Congress and 50+ presidential elections, is there quantifiable evidence of conservative candidates consistently gaining an advantage in elections due to a systematic imbalance that favors rural voters? If such an imbalance exists and it needs to be removed for the betterment of the country then we'll need to change a lot more than just the EC.
*fixed quote tunnel
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/16 22:40:19
Actually, it's per house rep, not per population. And because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases. The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 650, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/16 22:05:49
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
Spoiler:
Well if you will insist on having such a ridiculously large country
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
Spoiler:
The crazy geographical layout of congressional districts is a state problem. State legislatures gerrymander districts and it causes a lot of variance with district populations. State constitutional amendments to reform districting to be more standardized by population rather than designed to produce guaranteed (or at least highly probable) political outcomes it would help mitigate some issues. Of course that would require people living in states to organize support around the districting issue and pressure legislators to enact meaningful change so its unlikely to happen.
Voter suppression isnt just thugs outside of polling places.
Since nobody is giving you any attention with your conspiracy theory BS, I will give it a go.
First: the rolling stone? Really? The same rag that published that fake university rape story and then doubled down on it when it came to light it was false before trying to backtrack and save face? Real reputable source there...
Second: my state, Indiana, had organizations registering Illinois voters in our state, thus giving people opportunity to vote in two states. So the basis for the crosschecking law at least has a precedent.
Third: I don't remember a spot on my ballot to list my race, so I really question this absurdity.
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
Spoiler:
Well if you will insist on having such a ridiculously large country
Downsizing is a lot more difficult for us than it was for the UK because virtually all of our empire is on the same continent.
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.
You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.
I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.
It was the same cause and the NFL players are perfectly capable of advocating for it and discussing it intelligently and in depth. Lawful protests are better than unlawful rioting.
So, we should rely on Celebrities to advocate for the poor?
We are talking about protests, not rioting. Blocking a highway is not a riot.
Blocking a road without a permit is illegal and dangerous and road blocking will lead to justifiable arrests and isn't a prerequisite for an effective protest. Celebrities can advocate for whatever they want, same as poor people. Protests don't have to be violent to be effective. MLK preached was adamant that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference practice nonviolent protests and they were very effective.
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
Spoiler:
Well if you will insist on having such a ridiculously large country
Downsizing is a lot more difficult for us than it was for the UK because virtually all of our empire is on the same continent.
I thought California had been looking into a bit of independence?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
