StrangeSox

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) And because more Americans live there, they should always have the biggest say, right? I'll take note of this for any arguments that you make in favor of minority rights. Also, let's take a look at a map: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...tical_landscape Just Google rural vs metro concerns and you have a whole list. I answered your question already about getting a more diverse representation from the whole nation. It has been ignored. Your pronoun is unclear here. If "they" is referring to the actual majority of individual Americans who happen to live in a city, then yes, they should have the biggest say. If "they" is referring to cities or states with the biggest cities, then no, and getting rid of the EC would ensure that every vote has equal say regardless of what particular piece of land you live on.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) It is a farce to say that their voice is not heard in those areas already. That was what I was specifically was addressing. I can easily turn that question around like so. That's not really analogous to what I said. Why should individual Ohio voters (in both rural and urban areas) have the power of being in what's most likely to be the deciding state while rural voters in Illinois will essentially have no voice? edit: It's also not a "select group" but a "majority of the citizens of the country" who, generally speaking, choose where they want to live. I can decide if I want to live in Chicago or Strawn and which issues I care about regardless of where I live. What I can't do is choose that my state is close enough that my vote will have any meaningful impact on the race.

Where oh where is balta when he is so desperately needed??

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) Except that there isn't an even distribution of people of actual citizens across the country, so geography is going to be playing a part. How will geography be playing a part? Your vote will be exactly as impactful regardless of where you live, unlike now. Rural Illinoisians essentially have no say in how the states' EC votes will go*. *EC voters aren't bound to their states' votes anyway, which is a whole separate problem with the EC.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:25 PM) And the President is to represent everyone, not just highly populated areas. Everyone would be represented with exactly an equal vote. How would someone living in Chicago get more voting power than someone living in Strawn? If it is an issue, how does this not already happen e.g. Chicago dominates Illinois' votes, NYC dominates NY's votes.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) Do I really need to tell you that Illinois, New York, etc have already pretty much made up their mind? There is a reason that a big part of the state of Illinois would like to split off from Chicago. It is because their concerns are not addressed. In Illinois, it is all about Chicago. Chicago/Cook county picks everything regardless of the concerns of those in the other parts of the state. That in itself is a small subset of exactly what would happen in the National election. There are all kinds of examples of this exact thing happening within individual states. See New York City and the rest of New York as well as East Washington State vs West Washington State as more examples. Right, so why should so much of the election hinge on people who happen to live in states where other people haven't strongly decided for one candidate?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:26 PM) One vote means areas of higher population concentration get more representation. Ohio gets traded in for NYC. Only if we're concerned about chunks of land or "settings" getting representation and not actual citizens. How much would Romney really campaign in NYC, anyway?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:19 PM) Well yeah, Congress is intended to be a representative body - of both individuals, and states, in a federation. I'm inclined to think it's a flawed model. Perhaps it made better sense in 1790. http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/05/0080035 There's some Madison quotes, too, about the Senate being an explicitly aristocratic restraint on the democracy of the masses.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) I don't at all understand the idea of choosing land over people when it comes to voting. One person, one vote - when you are talking about the Presidency, which is a national office. Anything else you do is disenfranchising people. I have the same problem with the outsized influence of rural states in the Senate, but there's at least a good case to be made for disproportionate representation there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) A true "one vote" system would just lead to an over-representation of the people living in urban settings. Instead of caring mostly about people in one specific setting, it would be traded for another. It wouldn't really fix anything, it would just change the "chosen" people. It would change it in a manner such that every single vote has exactly equal impact instead of the situation we have now. "Urban settings" would be over-represented only in the sense that that's where most people actually live. Plus, I don't even know how true the charge that they'd focus on big cities even holds. Would they really spend significant time campaigning in LA, NY or Chicago? Don't they focus on the urban areas in swing states (which change election-by-election and don't necessarily represent any particular setting) already?

Why should Obama and Romney care more about Ohio and Pennsylvania citizens than Illinois, New York and California citizens? How does that not represent focusing on a few particular areas to the exclusion of all others? As you say vandy, the President runs one branch and controls nominations to another. Why should the residents of Ohio have such a disproportionate impact on the election in 2012? Just because, as a whole, they are about split?

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) Actually, it would be a complete shift in the issues. It would turn into "should we build more roads or have more subways?". You'd effectively remove any voice for a large amount of issues that should be represented. I'm surprised that any liberal would be in favor of removing the ability for a minority population to have their concerns addressed... These issues would still be represented in Congress, which is where they actually matter. What will Obama or Romney do specifically for Ohio that they wouldn't do if it was a truly national election?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) People in swing states aren't actual citizens? They are, but there are a lot less of them. It's more a response to caring "only" about the coasts and not the vast, mostly-empty spaces in between. Well, in an election for a national office, shouldn't we care about citizens and not where they happen to live? Plus the EC doesn't actually tie our votes to anything. It's an antiquated 18th century aristocratic relic.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) Tax cuts are not a form of spending. They are a form of you keeping your own money. They also do not involve a loss in spending money for someone to determine how to spend your money better for you. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

You can't really predict earthquakes, which is why this whole case is so bizarre. I'll excerpt the analogy from that post:

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:21 PM) Not at all. In this scenario there is no need to contest lower populated areas. The payoff isn't worth it. Just like today campaigning in California isn't worth it. So wouldn't it be better for them to concentrate on actual US citizens instead of arbitrary boundaries? Why shouldn't they campaign for the tens of millions of Californians, Illinoisans and New Yorkers?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:22 PM) Yep, there'd be no reason to campaign in any place but major cities. "Who gives a s*** about farming? I'll boost mass transit funding. New trains for all!" Now there's no reason to campaign in California or Chicago or New York. Instead the only thing that matters is OH or PA or FL.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) Say hello to the coasts choosing the presidency every election. Nobody in "fly-over" country would have their concerns listened to. Instead nobody listens to the most populous areas of the country.

A good percentage of the stimulus was in fact tax cuts! But their multiplier is pretty low and are far from the most effective forms of spending and do not "pay for themselves"

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 11:24 AM) Europe hasn't cut the revenue they've enacted higher taxes and less gov't spending. Romney's plan is stimulus, it's just republican stimulus. Tax cuts and military spending. Spending on military doesn't count against deficit IYAR. It would work though. If Obama is elected, Republicans will demand austerity. If Romney is elected, they will allow huge tax cuts and increased spending. Vote republican! They won't hold the economy hostage if you do! I think we were talking about the hypothetical fantasy world where Romney and Republicans would actually make a balanced budget or at least significantly reduce the deficit. But you're right that the European countries have slashed services and raised taxes while bailing out the bankers.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 11:18 AM) By cutting the revenue you're kicking the economy into gear and increasing your revenues over time. Obama's plan is basically nothing at this point. Wait it out. We've been waiting 4 years and not much has improved. Europe has shown pretty clearly that austerity will only make things worse, as well as our own experience with the Bush tax cuts. Obama has also offered up various jobs plans that have been rejected by Republicans in Congress.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 10:40 AM) It wouldn't, but that's not the standard the world court could hold him to. And I think there's a reason for the difference in standards - an international court would be dealing with rogue "terrorists" (for lack of a better word), people with the means to influence followers to act violently. In the US you're going after citizens talking to other citizens. The Rwandan cases weren't rogue terrorists but people at the state-run media calling for violence against fellow citizens. Ahmadinejad would be a littler different because he's 'inciting' violence against another country, I guess, but it's still an interesting statement for Romney to have made.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:27 AM) I played Mario Galaxy today. I got a mushroom, flew to another planet, and fought a Piranha Plant. I will let you all know when I get to Bowser. I should have full power and possibly fireballs by then Did you make it yet?? I can't focus on anything else without knowing

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 10:34 AM) I couldn't believe they were leaving Tillman all alone in the end zone with CJ. And he held strong, it was an unbelievable performance. that timing on the punch to knock the ball out of Megatron's hands was perfect.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) Well, our free speech laws aren't "markedly different" than that. Free speech rights are not infinite. You can be arrested for inciting violence, but the hurlde is pretty tough to get over (intentional, imminent and high likelihood of action) I don't see how Ahmadinejad's statements would come close to passing Brandenburg. Our speech laws and the values underlying them really are much more radical, for lack of a better word, than most of the rest of the Western world. edit: this paper covers this http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000263