It just happened to be they were important in this election due to them being toss-ups - hypothetically in another election they may all be safe seats while different one in different areas of the country are vied for closely. Either way the Senate is there to ensure states are represented fairly - small states shouldn't get disproportionate power in nationwide elections. People, not places, vote.
2018 US Elections
- Thread starter Red Dreams
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It just happened to be they were important in this election due to them being toss-ups - hypothetically in another election they may all be safe seats while different one in different areas of the country are vied for closely. Either way the Senate is there to ensure states are represented fairly - small states shouldn't get disproportionate power in nationwide elections. People, not places, vote.
InfiniteBoredom
Full Member
Here is a very revealing stat:Well, the fact that it's actually a minority that is doing the suppressing makes your point in effect even stronger. That there shouldn't really be suppressing. Electoral reform should be considered.
Since the election of 1914, about half of the eligible US voting population have sat out EVERY. SINGLE. ELECTION.
Maybe, just maybe, a system in which people get no representation if they end up losing by a vote or two ends up disenfranchising the electorate.
Red Dreams
Full Member
In the span of 16 years, it happened twice.
Clearly it does not work.
As for those all important Mid West states, Washington DC and Puerto Rico has a thing or two to say about representation.
DC and Puerto Rico need to be admitted as States into the Union first. Puerto Ricans are not sure they even want to be part of the union yet.
The reason the minority suppress/dilute votes is because of their ability to do so through highly gerrymandered districts.
That needs to be corrected by increasing Supreme Court seats when the Dems control Congress and the Presidency.
Then the House will be truly representative of the majority of the population.
We have two senators from each state. I have no problems with that.
Proportional representation has its merits but it is not perfect either.
Javi
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,270
Proportional representation has its merits but it is not perfect either.
It's said to be slower in reform but that in itself isn't always a negative. Still I'd say it's true but totally worth it considering the gains, e.g. when more people turn out - as @InfiniteBoredom is suggesting.
Red Dreams
Full Member
It's said to be slower in reform but that in itself isn't always a negative. Still I'd say it's true but totally worth it considering the gains, e.g. when more people turn out - as @InfiniteBoredom is suggesting.
Many people don't vote.
Even more people don't understand the issues.
And even more vote against their own interests.
This is the reality.
What he meant is their method.
They understand that politics is a fight for supremacy, that what we have now is tyranny of the majority and we aren't living in utopia where everybody hold hands and settle their differences in pursuit of the common good. They stop at nothing to achieve and stay in power to serve their agenda, while liberals and the left are too busy squabbling against each other and arguing for decency and restraint in fecking politics.
Partisanship is wrong. For 200+ years, parties in US found a way to work together (bar in civil war). The obstruction from Republicans under Turtle Face during Obama years, and the retribution from Democrats now is reaching civil war levels. Almost everything important is being decided by voting strictly on party lines, when not long ago (even during Bush years) a lot of important decisions were having bipartisan support. Take for example, Justice Roberts, he got 78 votes in favor, including half of Democrat votes. Both Kagan and Sotomayer got significantly less votes despite that Democrats hold the senate. When Republicans hold the senate, they didn't even put to a vote the final nominee of Obama. On Gorsuch, it had become even worse with Republicans using nuclear option and in the end confirming him with only 54 votes, and it looks to be even tighter with Kavanaugh.Sure, but many people hate his tactics not just his agenda. He has a worldview, that religion and unregulated business are always the right answer, and he'll do his best to implement that and stop social liberalism and regulations or safety nets.
It is working on a destructive agenda but it will be harmful in the end. What is Trump wins the re-election and Democrats win the senate. Out of spite, they can decide to not confirm his cabinet members making the entire country dysfunctional. It probably wouldn't happen, but if Michelle Obama wins the presidency and McConell is still ML, he for sure will try something like that.
Javi
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,270
Many people don't vote.
Even more people don't understand the issues.
And even more vote against their own interests.
This is the reality.
Agreed. But this state of affairs isn't immune to change.
Red Dreams
Full Member
Agreed. But this state of affairs isn't immune to change.
just look at what passes as News these days. There is little information. Lots of lies though.
Proper journalism is almost dead.
We discussed this elsewhere. I have no respect for news outlets in this country.
InfiniteBoredom
Full Member
For 200+ years, parties in US found a way to work together (bar in civil war)
This is flat out wrong.
Every single period in which the US experienced a seismic change in legislative agenda came about with an overwhelming majority from one party, except Reagan, but even then you can argue his was simply a continuation of the increase in corporate power and social agenda that started under Nixon/Ford/Carter.
InfiniteBoredom
Full Member
The state of the news nowadays deepens the division in society, but it is not responsible for the widespread apathy towards the democratic process.just look at what passes as News these days. There is little information. Lots of lies though.
Proper journalism is almost dead.
We discussed this elsewhere. I have no respect for news outlets in this country.
I've already put the stat up above. For over 100 years participation rates in US elections have largely remained the same, so unless you think journalism dies in the early 20th century, it doesn't make sense.
Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
Partisanship is wrong. For 200+ years, parties in US found a way to work together (bar in civil war). The obstruction from Republicans under Turtle Face during Obama years, and the retribution from Democrats now is reaching civil war levels. Almost everything important is being decided by voting strictly on party lines, when not long ago (even during Bush years) a lot of important decisions were having bipartisan support. Take for example, Justice Roberts, he got 78 votes in favor, including half of Democrat votes. Both Kagan and Sotomayer got significantly less votes despite that Democrats hold the senate. When Republicans hold the senate, they didn't even put to a vote the final nominee of Obama. On Gorsuch, it had become even worse with Republicans using nuclear option and in the end confirming him with only 54 votes, and it looks to be even tighter with Kavanaugh.
It is working on a destructive agenda but it will be harmful in the end. What is Trump wins the re-election and Democrats win the senate. Out of spite, they can decide to not confirm his cabinet members making the entire country dysfunctional. It probably wouldn't happen, but if Michelle Obama wins the presidency and McConell is still ML, he for sure will try something like that.
If this was case then it would be the only time McConell will work for the interest of saving american democracy.
Btw, wouldn't these polls be biased in favor of Republicans (being from Fox and all that)?
Yeah those Bredeson numbers look off.
Red Dreams
Full Member
Yeah those Bredeson numbers look off.
That is the poll I question.
Red Dreams
Full Member
The state of the news nowadays deepens the division in society, but it is not responsible for the widespread apathy towards the democratic process.
I've already put the stat up above. For over 100 years participation rates in US elections have largely remained the same, so unless you think journalism dies in the early 20th century, it doesn't make sense.
The main problem is corporations and their influence. Huge misinformation/disinformation and down right lies.
And most people just look at a 30 second add and what information do you get from that.
People are too busy just making ends meet.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2013
- Messages
- 11,691
- Supports
- Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
Partisanship is wrong. For 200+ years, parties in US found a way to work together (bar in civil war). The obstruction from Republicans under Turtle Face during Obama years, and the retribution from Democrats now is reaching civil war levels. Almost everything important is being decided by voting strictly on party lines, when not long ago (even during Bush years) a lot of important decisions were having bipartisan support. Take for example, Justice Roberts, he got 78 votes in favor, including half of Democrat votes. Both Kagan and Sotomayer got significantly less votes despite that Democrats hold the senate. When Republicans hold the senate, they didn't even put to a vote the final nominee of Obama. On Gorsuch, it had become even worse with Republicans using nuclear option and in the end confirming him with only 54 votes, and it looks to be even tighter with Kavanaugh.
It is working on a destructive agenda but it will be harmful in the end. What is Trump wins the re-election and Democrats win the senate. Out of spite, they can decide to not confirm his cabinet members making the entire country dysfunctional. It probably wouldn't happen, but if Michelle Obama wins the presidency and McConell is still ML, he for sure will try something like that.
I wouldn't phrase it like. There were always eras of vicious and even violent partisanship. The slavery debate was decades long and caused a lot of fierce debate - although it wasn't partisan in the modern sense but abolitionists vs. anti-abolitionists in both parties.
Andrew Jackson was probably just as divisive in his day as Trump is today.
I think its just more that after the McCarthyism of the 1950s both parties settled into a relatively moderate corporate agenda so there were a few decades of easier compromise. That's until the Goldwater revolution started to pay off with a powerful social conservative partisan streak that started in the 1990s and continues today
Second Civil War by Ronald Brownstein is a great book that documents the history of partisanship in the US. Written a decade ago it also eerily foreshadows some of what has happened since then
Red Dreams
Full Member
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-beto-orourke-texas_us_5bb4e4cce4b0876eda9a620c
Good article.
Beto O’Rourke And The Persistence Of Hope
Good article.
Beto O’Rourke And The Persistence Of Hope
Red Dreams
Full Member
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...orida-senate-race_us_5bb52c35e4b01470d04e0b2e
Dirty Scott may have had it.
Dirty Scott may have had it.
InfiniteBoredom
Full Member
The super rich of their days like Rockefeller, Canergie or Ford didn't limit turn out. Unions were relatively strong in their influence despite the obvious corruptions until the 1970s, yet as many people were reluctant to vote then.The main problem is corporations and their influence. Huge misinformation/disinformation and down right lies.
And most people just look at a 30 second add and what information do you get from that.
People are too busy just making ends meet.
The problem is obviously multi-faceted, but it can't be explained away by corporate power or gutter press. The stranglehold the two parties have on US democracy have been corrosive, and helped by FPTP electoral system that crystallize that malign influence.
Red Dreams
Full Member
The super rich of their days like Rockefeller, Canergie or Ford didn't limit turn out. Unions were relatively strong in their influence despite the obvious corruptions until the 1970s, yet as many people were reluctant to vote then.
The problem is obviously multi-faceted, but it can't be explained away by corporate power or gutter press. The stranglehold the two parties have on US democracy have been corrosive, and helped by FPTP electoral system that crystallize that malign influence.
The Super Rich own both parties now.
Only way out is to vote for those who do not accept money from corporations.
Red Dreams
Full Member
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/texas-latino-voters_us_5bb3bc76e4b01470d04c4cdd
Inside The Fight To Flip Texas From Red To Blue
Latinas are leading the charge.
Inside The Fight To Flip Texas From Red To Blue
Latinas are leading the charge.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 23,204
@Revan
Political philosophy isn't something I've read much about but I'll try and roughly summarise what I like about McTurtle and partisanship. And obviously I'm simplifying a lot.
There are 2 ways to look at him and his politics.
1. Politics is a battle of ideas. Mitch and the GOP believe sincerely that the results of market forces in terms of income, healthcare, housing, etc are the most desirable outcomes. Human creativity can only be unleashed in an economically free society - regulations destroy the core of that. They reward the best and brightest, or they reward the people the ones most suited to wealth and power - either way they create a justified, sound hierarchy.
They believe in conservative social values. They believe that the past thousand years of human civilisation have shown that it is best to stick to what we know, (and/or) that the status quo is good, (and/or) that lower orders demanding change leads to violence, chaos, and disturbing what nature or god ordained, and that what hierarchies we see along gender or race or wealth lines are there because of aptitude/skill/fitness. The more aristocratic American revolution succeeded where the more radical French revolution failed, precisely because they recognised that striving for equality is a fool's errand - thus the US constitution is a sacred document especially when it meshes with their other beliefs.
They believe that ordinary people left alone would tend to devolve into violence, that you need strong states to organise them, and you need these states to safeguard and expand their own dominion, otherwise other states would take over.
In this case, it makes no sense to have a high tax rate on rich (better, more capable) people; it makes sense to spend on military and not on healthcare (you need to defend national interests, the market will efficiently allocate treatment to those who need them). Abortion is a way for women to escape the consequences of their actions, an artificial invention to liberate them at the expense of the stable patriarchal family which western civilisation has been built on. And it violates the teachings of the Bible, another pillar of western civilisation. How can this revolutionary murder be supported?
So why should he compromise, when it would weaken society by helping less capable people, encourage violent revolts that overturn the natural, correct, order of things?
2. Politics is a battle of interests. Mitch is nobody, he is just a representative of the groups that fund and organise for him and elect him. His job in the senate is to do what he can to further them. These interests want less environmental regulations because they want to grow. The owners of these companies will be dead before global warming hits, so it is important that greenhouse regulations not interfere with their work. They dislike having to deal with workers, so they want to restrict union power. They believe deeply in the Bible and therefore no abortion. They need to manufacture and sell weapons, hence he should lobby for more military money and more wars.
Why should he compromise?
And then you look at Chuck Schumer. Based on his actions, I have no idea what his guiding philosophy is, or which interests he is beholden to.
He takes money from Wall Street and from teachers' unions. What will be his stand on govt funding for private schools that discourage union formation?
Hillary got millions from the oil industry, and millions from the Sierra Club. What was her stand on fracking?
Obama said he believes all wealth is socially generated, never by a single person. He also said that capitalism is the motor of prosperity. What is his stand on regulations?
So how can the Democrats fight the Republicans, when they themselves have no clear constituency (they try to be the party of Wall St, Silicon Valley, minorities, unions, and the environment) or clear motivating ideas? Of course they will always compromise, while Republicans will have a clearer picture of what they want.
Political philosophy isn't something I've read much about but I'll try and roughly summarise what I like about McTurtle and partisanship. And obviously I'm simplifying a lot.
There are 2 ways to look at him and his politics.
1. Politics is a battle of ideas. Mitch and the GOP believe sincerely that the results of market forces in terms of income, healthcare, housing, etc are the most desirable outcomes. Human creativity can only be unleashed in an economically free society - regulations destroy the core of that. They reward the best and brightest, or they reward the people the ones most suited to wealth and power - either way they create a justified, sound hierarchy.
They believe in conservative social values. They believe that the past thousand years of human civilisation have shown that it is best to stick to what we know, (and/or) that the status quo is good, (and/or) that lower orders demanding change leads to violence, chaos, and disturbing what nature or god ordained, and that what hierarchies we see along gender or race or wealth lines are there because of aptitude/skill/fitness. The more aristocratic American revolution succeeded where the more radical French revolution failed, precisely because they recognised that striving for equality is a fool's errand - thus the US constitution is a sacred document especially when it meshes with their other beliefs.
They believe that ordinary people left alone would tend to devolve into violence, that you need strong states to organise them, and you need these states to safeguard and expand their own dominion, otherwise other states would take over.
In this case, it makes no sense to have a high tax rate on rich (better, more capable) people; it makes sense to spend on military and not on healthcare (you need to defend national interests, the market will efficiently allocate treatment to those who need them). Abortion is a way for women to escape the consequences of their actions, an artificial invention to liberate them at the expense of the stable patriarchal family which western civilisation has been built on. And it violates the teachings of the Bible, another pillar of western civilisation. How can this revolutionary murder be supported?
So why should he compromise, when it would weaken society by helping less capable people, encourage violent revolts that overturn the natural, correct, order of things?
2. Politics is a battle of interests. Mitch is nobody, he is just a representative of the groups that fund and organise for him and elect him. His job in the senate is to do what he can to further them. These interests want less environmental regulations because they want to grow. The owners of these companies will be dead before global warming hits, so it is important that greenhouse regulations not interfere with their work. They dislike having to deal with workers, so they want to restrict union power. They believe deeply in the Bible and therefore no abortion. They need to manufacture and sell weapons, hence he should lobby for more military money and more wars.
Why should he compromise?
And then you look at Chuck Schumer. Based on his actions, I have no idea what his guiding philosophy is, or which interests he is beholden to.
He takes money from Wall Street and from teachers' unions. What will be his stand on govt funding for private schools that discourage union formation?
Hillary got millions from the oil industry, and millions from the Sierra Club. What was her stand on fracking?
Obama said he believes all wealth is socially generated, never by a single person. He also said that capitalism is the motor of prosperity. What is his stand on regulations?
So how can the Democrats fight the Republicans, when they themselves have no clear constituency (they try to be the party of Wall St, Silicon Valley, minorities, unions, and the environment) or clear motivating ideas? Of course they will always compromise, while Republicans will have a clearer picture of what they want.
calodo2003
Flaming Full Member
Terrible day for me today. My pop passed away early this AM, his last wish was to see the Democrats take back the House (& potentially the Senate) next month.
I never heard anyone so consistently rail against every single Republican until I got promoted & headed into the 'Current Events' forum & started to read @Eboue's posts. @Eboue & my father had to have been kindred spirits in a previous life. I will miss my father, but I will be able to see his Republican rants every time I come across an Eboue post!
I never heard anyone so consistently rail against every single Republican until I got promoted & headed into the 'Current Events' forum & started to read @Eboue's posts. @Eboue & my father had to have been kindred spirits in a previous life. I will miss my father, but I will be able to see his Republican rants every time I come across an Eboue post!
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Terrible day for me today. My pop passed away early this AM, his last wish was to see the Democrats take back the House (& potentially the Senate) next month.
I never heard anyone so consistently rail against every single Republican until I got promoted & headed into the 'Current Events' forum & started to read @Eboue's posts. @Eboue & my father had to have been kindred spirits in a previous life. I will miss my father, but I will be able to see his Republican rants every time I come across an Eboue post!
Sorry to hear that, he sounds like a good guy.
Sorry for your loss my friend. Hope he gets his wishTerrible day for me today. My pop passed away early this AM, his last wish was to see the Democrats take back the House (& potentially the Senate) next month.
I never heard anyone so consistently rail against every single Republican until I got promoted & headed into the 'Current Events' forum & started to read @Eboue's posts. @Eboue & my father had to have been kindred spirits in a previous life. I will miss my father, but I will be able to see his Republican rants every time I come across an Eboue post!
Terrible day for me today. My pop passed away early this AM, his last wish was to see the Democrats take back the House (& potentially the Senate) next month.
I never heard anyone so consistently rail against every single Republican until I got promoted & headed into the 'Current Events' forum & started to read @Eboue's posts. @Eboue & my father had to have been kindred spirits in a previous life. I will miss my father, but I will be able to see his Republican rants every time I come across an Eboue post!
Very sorry for your loss. Hopefully the Dems can take care of business next month.
calodo2003
Flaming Full Member
Sorry to hear that, he sounds like a good guy.
The two of you talking face to face would have been like each of y’all talking into a mirror with an echo. I am glad that I was raised politically by him & his father.
InfiniteBoredom
Full Member
So what you are saying is that you want @Eboue to adopt you?The two of you talking face to face would have been like each of y’all talking into a mirror with an echo. I am glad that I was raised politically by him & his father.
My condolences for your father. He sounds like a swell guy.
Fergies Gum
Full Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2011
- Messages
- 13,816
Big gaffe by Jealous.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
not really. no one cares about stuff like this
We have two senators from each state. I have no problems with that.
You're ok with 40 million people from California having the exact same power in the senate as 500k people from Wyoming?
If I lived in California or New York I'd be pissed to be worth 1/40 of a wyomingite in the senate.
You're ok with 40 million people from California having the exact same power in the senate as 500k people from Wyoming?
If I lived in California or New York I'd be pissed to be worth 1/40 of a wyomingite in the senate.
Yes....the Senate is completely unrepresentative. There are more people in Los Angeles county alone than in 6 or 7 states.
Yes....the Senate is completely unrepresentative. There are more people in Los Angeles county alone than in 6 or 7 states.
It's insane how the people from the more populated states put up with it.
It's insane how the people from the more populated states put up with it.
People generally don't think about it.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
It's insane how the people from the more populated states put up with it.
no one in politics does anything about it. democrats dont campaign on anything like equal representation. they dont campaign on dc or puerto rico statehood either.
no one in politics does anything about it. democrats dont campaign on anything like equal representation. they dont campaign on dc or puerto rico statehood either.
I remember watching the show where John Oliver talked about DC's statehood and thinking how absurd the whole thing was.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
I remember watching the show where John Oliver talked about DC's statehood and thinking how absurd the whole thing was.
it is. and the colbert or oliver advocating for it is basically the high water mark for any effort towards it. democrats dont care.
adexkola
Doesn't understand sportswashing.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 48,845
- Supports
- orderly disembarking on planes
Yes....the Senate is completely unrepresentative. There are more people in Los Angeles county alone than in 6 or 7 states.
To be fair, I don't see how you get rid of the Senate without dispensing with the facts that the United States is made up of 50 equal entities that yield certain powers to the Union but are otherwise sovereign bodies.
it is. and the colbert or oliver advocating for it is basically the high water mark for any effort towards it. democrats dont care.
I suppose it's what you get from having a two party system, there's no real pressure to change thing as parties can't be outflanked from the left or right.
For example in Portugal if the socialist party doesn't behave lefty enough, left-wingers just vote for the communists forcing them to wise up. Same on the right, when they diverge from what they promised right-wingers give more power to the christian-conservatives. In the end, just 2 parties have chances of winning elections, but they know they can't just do what they want of they will be punished in the next election.
I imagined being a democrat in the US, feeling that there's not really much I can do to make them change. Voting for another party seems a waste of a vote.
Share: