Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[SoyLeche]

If we were still "United States" I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. The federal government (and especially the executive branch) has gotten too much power though, and now we are really "The United States".

When was the last time you thought of yourself as a citizen of Nebraska* before thinking of yourself as a citizen of the US? I'm not sure I ever have.

In the founder's day they all thought like that.

*insert your state

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your calling it a strawman doesn't make it one. That IS a valid objection. The fact that the population of the USA is very heavily weighted toward the east and west coasts means that a one-to-one democracy means that pretty much everybody in 'the middle' will be utterly left out of government.

the thing is, the west and east coasts can accommodate large populations. The land in the middle can't...fewer people need more land to provide the stuff the west and east coast needs to supply their people.

But the way you have it set up, the folks in highly populated areas (which are only highly populated because the folks in the middle use the land to supply them) will absolutely dictate governmental terms.

When it comes down to it, that's why America cut governmental ties with England: too many people too far away who didn't understand the needs of the colonists made laws, rules and taxes that MADE NO SENSE in light of the lives the colonist had to lead.

.....and you think that repeating that history is a good thing?

Your calling it a strawman doesn't make it one. That IS a valid objection. The fact that the population of the USA is very heavily weighted toward the east and west coasts means that a one-to-one democracy means that pretty much everybody in 'the middle' will be utterly left out of government.

the thing is, the west and east coasts can accommodate large populations. The land in the middle can't...fewer people need more land to provide the stuff the west and east coast needs to supply their people.

But the way you have it set up, the folks in highly populated areas (which are only highly populated because the folks in the middle use the land to supply them) will absolutely dictate governmental terms.

When it comes down to it, that's why America cut governmental ties with England: too many people too far away who didn't understand the needs of the colonists made laws, rules and taxes that MADE NO SENSE in light of the lives the colonist had to lead.

.....and you think that repeating that history is a good thing?

Sorry, it is a strawman. You pulled a story out of the air that you cannot defend.

You may not realize this but you were wrong on some aspects too. When it comes to "how you drive" you have to realize that your rights to swing your arms end at where the bodies of other people begin. That means you are free to do as you please if it does not affect others. One of the reasons that there are anit-pollution laws and increasing limitations on the use of fossils fuels is because your actions affect others.

You need real solid examples, not made up fantasies. Yes, there are some ignorant city folk. But at the same time there are some very ignorant country folk. You cannot base policy on the exceptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's nothing in the US Constitution that says the states have to apportion their electoral votes popularly, FWIW. Those are state laws.

If you are fine with a person in Wyoming essentially having 3 votes for President for each vote a person in California has, there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise.

Let's just consolidate the low-poulation states and move on.

Or get enough states to pass the compact that effectively ends the electoral college.

 

[dianaiad]

There's nothing in the US Constitution that says the states have to apportion their electoral votes popularly, FWIW. Those are state laws.

If you are fine with a person in Wyoming essentially having 3 votes for President for each vote a person in California has, there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise.

Let's just consolidate the low-poulation states and move on.

I'm fine with that. I'm in California. I USUALLY (not always) vote Republican, knowing full well that my own vote is utterly bowled over by the democrats.

My vote counts considerably more in local elections...up to 2,000 people's worth, actually, because people just don't seem to 'get' that state and federal elections are a bit like figuring that you have a chance to win the lottery.

On the other hand, if I vote for the Mayor of my town, or a member of the town council, and get leverage there, my influence can very well 'move up.'

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm fine with that. I'm in California. I USUALLY (not always) vote Republican, knowing full well that my own vote is utterly bowled over by the democrats.

My vote counts considerably more in local elections...up to 2,000 people's worth, actually, because people just don't seem to 'get' that state and federal elections are a bit like figuring that you have a chance to win the lottery.

On the other hand, if I vote for the Mayor of my town, or a member of the town council, and get leverage there, my influence can very well 'move up.'

In effect in such a blue state you never vote for President. I know, I almost always vote Republican too, but in my state my vote for President has never really counted. The state is simply too blue. And of course one always has more influence over local politics than national.

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm fine with that. I'm in California. I USUALLY (not always) vote Republican, knowing full well that my own vote is utterly bowled over by the democrats.

My vote counts considerably more in local elections...up to 2,000 people's worth, actually, because people just don't seem to 'get' that state and federal elections are a bit like figuring that you have a chance to win the lottery.

On the other hand, if I vote for the Mayor of my town, or a member of the town council, and get leverage there, my influence can very well 'move up.'

Do you worry about "Tyrany of the Majority" when voting for your Mayor? I assume you don't use an electoral college for that.

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry, it is a strawman. You pulled a story out of the air that you cannot defend.

What story would that be?

You may not realize this but you were wrong on some aspects too. When it comes to "how you drive" you have to realize that your rights to swing your arms end at where the bodies of other people begin.

That was actually my point. The folks 'in the middle' aren't doing the 'arm swinging' here. That would be the coastal folks who want to make everybody do it 'their' way.

that means you are free to do as you please if it does not affect others. One of the reasons that there are anit-pollution laws and increasing limitations on the use of fossils fuels is because your actions affect others.

I haven't seen a Democrat on the coast yet who actually believes that one.

You need real solid examples, not made up fantasies.

What 'fantasy' is that?

Yes, there are some ignorant city folk. But at the same time there are some very ignorant country folk. You cannot base policy on the exceptions.

(snort)

I'm not. I'm basing my opinion on history. But you go ahead and tell me what fantasy I came up with. I dare you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What story would that be?



That was actually my point. The folks 'in the middle' aren't doing the 'arm swinging' here. That would be the coastal folks who want to make everybody do it 'their' way.



I haven't seen a Democrat on the coast yet who actually believes that one.



What 'fantasy' is that?



(snort)

I'm not. I'm basing my opinion on history. But you go ahead and tell me what fantasy I came up with. I dare you.

There was no excuse for breaking up that post excessively.

But let's get to your clear errors. You forgot that pollution does not stay where it is made. That gives the whole country a right to decide how people drive. You might not like it, but until polluters can keep their product local they need to follow the majority on certain regulations.

Just find one real example of someone on the coasts interfering improperly with someone on the interior. No strawman arguments, no wild hand waving.

 

[England my lionheart]

So,at least I think,I have learned a lot about America's politics,so although your wished for president by popular vote is A the electoral college is just as likely to choose B,as an example Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the college vote,the rest is history so is this a true democratic vote or is the college safeguard for the likes of Clinton for example,he did get the popular vote though,I'm still learning of course.

 

[SoyLeche]

So,at least I think,I have learned a lot about America's politics,so although your wished for president by popular vote is A the electoral college is just as likely to choose B,as an example Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the college vote,the rest is history so is this a true democratic vote or is the college safeguard for the likes of Clinton for example,he did get the popular vote though,I'm still learning of course.

The college exists for a couple of reasons.

1. The small (mostly Northern) states were afraid of being overly controlled by the large (mostly Southern) states. Note - this is control by the States, not really the citizens of the states. States were more like small countries then - sort of like the European Union.
2. The logistics of counting votes over the entire country were limiting. The Electoral College made the process easier.

The first reason has some limited validity still. The second isn't an issue anymore.

 

[dianaiad]

Do you worry about "Tyrany of the Majority" when voting for your Mayor? I assume you don't use an electoral college for that.

Nope. I don't worry about that. After all, my vote wouldn't count for all those folks if those who COULD vote actually did. That they don't vote is, in fact, a vote in and of itself. It's saying 'you vote for me, and your vote will count for mine."

I always vote. Always. Even in races where I am perfectly aware that my vote simply doesn't count (as in any federal election from where I am).

I do that because it buys me griping rights. Nobody who doesn't vote HAS a right to complain, in my opinion. I can say 'not my problem, I voted for the other guy" or "oops, I voted for the wrong person..." but I CAN say 'I voted."

I have no respect, in political arguments, for those who don't at least vote.

 

[dianaiad]

The college exists for a couple of reasons.

1. The small (mostly Northern) states were afraid of being overly controlled by the large (mostly Southern) states. Note - this is control by the States, not really the citizens of the states. States were more like small countries then - sort of like the European Union.
2. The logistics of counting votes over the entire country were limiting. The Electoral College made the process easier.

The first reason has some limited validity still. The second isn't an issue anymore.

I would say that the first reason has more than limited validity.

I mean, really....how fair would it be to have Texas have the determining factor in policy for most of the states in the northeast? (except New York, of course...)

 

[SoyLeche]

Nope. I don't worry about that. After all, my vote wouldn't count for all those folks if those who COULD vote actually did. That they don't vote is, in fact, a vote in and of itself. It's saying 'you vote for me, and your vote will count for mine."

I always vote. Always. Even in races where I am perfectly aware that my vote simply doesn't count (as in any federal election from where I am).

I do that because it buys me griping rights. Nobody who doesn't vote HAS a right to complain, in my opinion. I can say 'not my problem, I voted for the other guy" or "oops, I voted for the wrong person..." but I CAN say 'I voted."

I have no respect, in political arguments, for those who don't at least vote.

So - what's the big difference between the concern for the presidential vote? Is it just that your town doesn't have an "East Side/West Side" and is more homogenous?

 

[dianaiad]

So - what's the big difference between the concern for the presidential vote? Is it just that your town doesn't have an "East Side/West Side" and is more homogenous?

I don't understand the question.

 

[SoyLeche]

I would say that the first reason has more than limited validity.

I mean, really....how fair would it be to have Texas have the determining factor in policy for most of the states in the northeast? (except New York, of course...)

In my dream world, Texas would have more power over Texas and the states in the north east would have more power over the states in the north east.

The federal government, which would mostly exist for international relations, would be completely representative of the population.

For President as we currently have it - I'd like each vote in Texas to be equally valuable as the votes in the north east. People in Wyoming aren't 3 times more important, so they shouldn't get 3 times the votes.

 

[SoyLeche]

I don't understand the question.

You are concerned that a popular Presidential vote would lead to "Tyrany of the Majority" but aren't concerned about the same thing with your mayor. Why?

 

[England my lionheart]

The college exists for a couple of reasons.

1. The small (mostly Northern) states were afraid of being overly controlled by the large (mostly Southern) states. Note - this is control by the States, not really the citizens of the states. States were more like small countries then - sort of like the European Union.
2. The logistics of counting votes over the entire country were limiting. The Electoral College made the process easier.

The first reason has some limited validity still. The second isn't an issue anymore.

But the college chooses the POTUS and it seems regardless of the popular vote.

 

[SoyLeche]

But the college chooses the POTUS?

Yes. The states elect* "electors" that then get together and vote for the President. It made sense when information about the vote in Georgia was difficult to get to Washington DC, but that's not really a problem anymore.

*per the US Constitution, the states decide how to determine who the electors are. I think all of the states have in their own constitutions that the electors will be decided by popular vote (a couple will split the electors proportionally based on the vote).

 

[dianaiad]

There was no excuse for breaking up that post excessively.

Then don't make so many separate points which require response.

But let's get to your clear errors. You forgot that pollution does not stay where it is made. That gives the whole country a right to decide how people drive. You might not like it, but until polluters can keep their product local they need to follow the majority on certain regulations.

Just find one real example of someone on the coasts interfering improperly with someone on the interior. No strawman arguments, no wild hand waving.

the price of gas.
The pipeline
USDA rules

there is, you realize, a reason most of middle America is called 'flyover country"


Oh....here's a beauty, though it's more local than most...

A California farmer was fined and had his tractor impounded because he plowed a field and accidentally killed a kangaroo mouse.

The rules were made in urban LA, Sacramento and San Francisco, and had NO relationship to the way people had to deal with farmland in central California.

Here's another one, also more local than most.

a desert community has a BUNCH of desert tortoises, that it takes care of very well through local rules; tunnels for migration, rules regarding off road vacationers, etc.,

They got shut down and had to eliminate most of the methods that they used to protect the tortoise because urban (Sacramento, San Francisco and LA) declared that the town had to do things THEIR way....and their way cut the desert tortoise population down by 30%.

Because they didn't pay attention to the needs of the people who don't live in the big cities.

If you want to see a real attempt to nail rural america by the coastal regions, take a good look at the "Green New Deal," which would make life 'in the middle' darned near impossible.

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes. The states elect* "electors" that then get together and vote for the President. It made sense when information about the vote in Georgia was difficult to get to Washington DC, but that's not really a problem anymore.

*per the US Constitution, the states decide how to determine who the electors are. I think all of the states have in their own constitutions that the electors will be decided by popular vote (a couple will split the electors proportionally based on the vote).

Thanks for that,interesting,sounds like an update is needed like our house of Lord's.