The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[TomC]

My voice is dwarfed with respect to the voices of those living in major urban centers with respect to legislation that will govern my entire state.

How normal.

You take your privilege so for granted that it doesn't occur to you that it is privilege.

T'was ever thus

Tomorrow

 

[Emily Lake]

I do not find that to be true.

So we have arrived at, “some people in the city… while others don’t” and “some people in the country don’t… while others do”

I do not think they “tend” to, at all.
I think rural people are told they do, but I don’t find that they actually do.

Just like the term “Flyover Country” is a phrase I have only ever heard from the right, and from the rurals. “They call us flyover country,” But they actually don’t.

My 13 years living just outside of Seattle begs to differ with your experience. Similarly my 7 years living in Tampa. And my 20+ years living in moderately rural Nebraska, moderately rural Arizona, rural Florida, and rural New Mexico.

Of course I'm generalizing. Duh. But my observations and my impressions differ from what you seem to have experienced. Your impressions and opinions are your own.

Hoooboy. Yah, no.
Can I introduce you to the testicles on the pickuptruck?

What do you think the truck balls are supposed to be implying? And why do you think truck balls (which I see in cities also) is indicative of a lack of humility regarding one's knowledge and expertise?

Personally, I think the "my truck is powerful" brodozer thing is geographically agnostic.

And they can be so deeply disdainful of the city people who are “dirty, drugged out and crooked,” while simultaneouly being “snotty, greedy rich elites”

I laugh when people tell me how rural folks are all that is good and urban folks are just condescending elites.

Don't extrapolate my generalization to be universal.

I just do not agree AT ALL that rural people are entitled to 3 votes just for being rural. They are not special, they are not perfect, they are not better than the “snobby urbanites.” They are just people like everyone else and the calls to claim they aren’t, are, in my experience, bullshit.

You seem to be extrapolating a position to me that I don't hold. You seem to be under the impression that I have implied that that one is better than the other. Please don't mistake the things I've called out that bother me personally as being an overall judgement in either direction.

Thing is that I don't think a popular vote is a good thing at all with FPTP. I think it would be worse than what we have right now. I don't view it as "perfect being the enemy of the good". I view it as being shortsighted and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Why? You have not explained why you think that giving Wyoming almost 4X the per capita voting power of California is a good thing.

And no, I don't know enough about the EU to have an opinion. The USA I do know.
Tom

Yes, I DID. The electoral college system balances the rights of small population states against the power of large population states.

It does not balance them. It privileges them.

And it doesn’t need to as you can clearly see from NY, CA and TX having in their state legislatures a decent mix of the needs of rural and urban.

We’ve already PROVED that we don’t need it.

WA state certainly doesn't balance the needs of the rural and the urban. Nor does OR. And realistically nor does CA - CA privileges the wealthy areas, which happen to be more urban. TX does a decent job of keeping some degree of balance on their own... but they have a LOT of rural area that also has a lot of wealth.

 

[Emily Lake]

My voice is dwarfed with respect to the voices of those living in major urban centers with respect to legislation that will govern my entire state.

How normal.

You take your privilege so for granted that it doesn't occur to you that it is privilege.

T'was ever thus

Tomorrow

<Deleted by Moderator>

The voices of the rural people in states that have large dense urban centers are frequently completely fucking ignored by their state legislatures. And I mean completely.

WA routinely passes laws that affect the entire fucking state, but which only represent the interests of people who live in Seattle. Illinois is OWNED by what Chicago wants. And between them, LA, SF, and San Diego unquestionably DOMINATE the politics of California, and the people who live outside of those metro sprawls are pretty well treated like they don't matter.

 

[Toni]

Thing is that I don't think a popular vote is a good thing at all with FPTP. I think it would be worse than what we have right now. I don't view it as "perfect being the enemy of the good". I view it as being shortsighted and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Why? You have not explained why you think that giving Wyoming almost 4X the per capita voting power of California is a good thing.

And no, I don't know enough about the EU to have an opinion. The USA I do know.
Tom

Wyoming ( 3 electoral votes) does not have 4X the voting power of California (55 electoral votes).

Even under the electoral college system, states with large populations hold much more sway in presidential elections—and in the House.

 

[Elixir]

LA, SF, and San Diego unquestionably DOMINATE the politics of California, and the people who live outside of those metro sprawls are pretty well treated like they don't matter.

Good to know Kevin McCarthy doesn’t matter (along with the dozen or so other CA Republitards in Congress).
Or is it just their constituents that don’t matter? Like Terri Sewell‘s in Alabama?

Bemoaning the fact that everyone doesn’t always get what they want, seems pointless in a democracy. That’s just how it works.

 

[Rhea]

The electoral college is far from perfect. But at present it is the only mechanism that provides at least some means by which the varying needs and priorities of different geographies and different population densities can have some degree of balance imposed upon them. There are better methods out there - but NOT when paired with FPTP voting.

The electoral college does absolutely nothing to ensure that the rural people of Pennsylvania, New York, Texas and California get these services.

NOTHING.

And yet we still get them.

Go figure.

 

[Rhea]

That’s just bullshit. My voice counts more in my town and in my county because it’s a low populated county/small city.

My voice is dwarfed with respect to the voices of those living in major urban centers with respect to legislation that will govern my entire state.

California, New York, Florida and Texas are not being bullied by Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alaska. Neither are you.or I.

I don’t think it is bullshit at all. We are absolutely bullied by those 3EV states. They are why we CAN’T get rural hospitals, because they elect Republicans who don’t support that.

 

[Rhea]

Wyoming ( 3 electoral votes) does not have 4X the voting power of California (55 electoral votes).

Wyoming RESIDENTS have 4x the voting power of California RESIDENTS.

The people are disenfranchised, not the states. Since states are not voters.

 

[TomC]

Wyoming ( 3 electoral votes) does not have 4X the voting power of California (55 electoral votes).

Go look at the numbers of voters in those two states.
That's what I'm talking about. I said it in the post you quoted.
"Wyoming almost 4X the per capita voting power of California".
Per capita.

Wyoming voters have a huge advantage over Californian voters. According to Rhea, Florida has taken over the bottom spot. I don't doubt that at all.

They're both big diverse states. But small less diverse states still have multiple times the EC voting power.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Of course I'm generalizing. Duh. But my observations and my impressions differ from what you seem to have experienced. Your impressions and opinions are your own.

It’s true. They are. And that is why I am arguing against this trope that rural people are just salt nof the earth humble hardworkers (unlike those urban folks) who never say a bad word about anybody (unlike those urban folks) and who are entitled to be heard individually just as loudly - more so - than the 6 million people they don’t want to be anything like.

I’m objecting to this trope because it relies on something that is not true to claim privileged voting status.

 

[TomC]

Wyoming ( 3 electoral votes) does not have 4X the voting power of California (55 electoral votes).

Even under the electoral college system, states with large populations hold much more sway in presidential elections—and in the House.

Wanna consider something besides roads or whatever?

Small states like Wyoming and the Dakotas and such tend towards conservative religious opinions concerning stuff like reproductive freedom.
The EC advantage those conservatives had in 2016 had a lot to do with overturning RoevWade.

It's not just about water rights or transportation infrastructure. The current EC gave us a SCOTUS that overturned RoevWade.
Tom

 

[Toni]

That’s just bullshit. My voice counts more in my town and in my county because it’s a low populated county/small city.

My voice is dwarfed with respect to the voices of those living in major urban centers with respect to legislation that will govern my entire state.

California, New York, Florida and Texas are not being bullied by Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alaska. Neither are you.or I.

I don’t think it is bullshit at all. We are absolutely bullied by those 3EV states. They are why we CAN’T get rural hospitals, because they elect Republicans who don’t support that.

Rural hospitals are still a local/state issue, not a federal one. My observation of large non-profit health care systems in my blue state is that large health care systems do not favor small rural hospitals—and that is shameful.

How exactly is Montana bullying California or Texas or Florida ( the last two of which went GOP—so don’t blame Montana or Wyoming for that!

 

[ZiprHead]

I would, however, support a revision of the Electoral Process. There's no need for it to involve actual people. I think the following would be an improvement:

• Each congressional district supplies one electoral vote based on the popular vote within that district
• Each state supplies two electoral votes to the candidate that received the highest number of district votes within that state
• In the event that the district votes are evenly split, the two state level electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote for the state as a whole

Is this supposed to be in this thread?

 

[Rhea]

How exactly is Montana bullying California or Texas or Florida

Niel Gorsuch

Every Federalist judge appointed by Trump.

The 2017 tax cut

The Iraq war

 

[Emily Lake]

I would, however, support a revision of the Electoral Process. There's no need for it to involve actual people. I think the following would be an improvement:

• Each congressional district supplies one electoral vote based on the popular vote within that district
• Each state supplies two electoral votes to the candidate that received the highest number of district votes within that state
• In the event that the district votes are evenly split, the two state level electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote for the state as a whole

Is this supposed to be in this thread?

Lol, no. It was supposed to be in the Popular Vote thread!

Can it be moved?

 

[Toni]

Really? Because if I remember correctly,

How exactly is Montana bullying California or Texas or Florida

Niel Gorsuch

Every Federalist judge appointed by Trump.

The 2017 tax cut

The Iraq war

You’re going after the wrong players here. It isn’t small states : it’s GOP dominated states.

 

[TomC]

Really? Because if I remember correctly,

How exactly is Montana bullying California or Texas or Florida

Niel Gorsuch

Every Federalist judge appointed by Trump.

The 2017 tax cut

The Iraq war

You’re going after the wrong players here. It isn’t small states : it’s GOP dominated states.

Like Wyoming?
South Dakota?
Montana?

You mean the little, GOP dominated, states with the outsized EC voting power. Not the big states like California, New York, or Illinois, right?
Tom

 

[Toni]

Really? Because if I remember correctly,

How exactly is Montana bullying California or Texas or Florida

Niel Gorsuch

Every Federalist judge appointed by Trump.

The 2017 tax cut

The Iraq war

You’re going after the wrong players here. It isn’t small states : it’s GOP dominated states.

Like Wyoming?
South Dakota?
Montana?

You mean the little, GOP dominated, states with the outsized EC voting power. Not the big states like California, New York, or Illinois, right?
Tom

If either TX or FL had gone blue, nobody would have given a damn about what Wyoming, Montana, either Dakota or Oregon wanted.

It’s just easier to pick on the smaller states. I find that cowardly.

 

[ZiprHead]

Really? Because if I remember correctly,

How exactly is Montana bullying California or Texas or Florida

Niel Gorsuch

Every Federalist judge appointed by Trump.

The 2017 tax cut

The Iraq war

You’re going after the wrong players here. It isn’t small states : it’s GOP dominated states.

Many of which are small states giving the GQP more power than they deserve.

 

[TomC]

If either TX or FL had gone blue, nobody would have given a damn about what Wyoming, Montana, either Dakota or Oregon wanted.

It’s just easier to pick on the smaller states. I find that cowardly.

But they didn't.

Similarly, if all those little states with the outsized EC voting power had been part of the Nationalpopularvote coalition, abortion wouldn't be illegal either.

So what? You Minnesotans protected your water rights and women across the country lost their reproduction rights. I guess we can't have everything.
Tom