Author
Topic: OT-Politics Thread: please TRY to keep it civil, you damned dirty apes
(Read 3103414 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #38626 on:** October 30, 2024, 02:47:34 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on October 30, 2024, 02:09:26 PM

Had an interesting conversation this morning about machiavellian moves in politics and their ramifications. The biggest one talked about in history classes is the 3/5 compromise, which is abhorrent to the modern mind, but represented a compromise without which, the "United States" may well not have continued at all. I'm not a big alternate history kind of a guy, but I can imagine many big differences in the world if the Constitution had not been ratified. Of course, we'll never know. My honest, not especially educated guess, is that some or all of the states that momentarily won their freedom would have gone back to being puppets of the colonial powers, but not exclusively England. But who knows? Certainly not me.

This is an interesting counter-factual.

I want to point out that nobody was actually arguing that black slaves were 3/5 of a person. This compromise had to do with taxation. Back then there was no Federal Income Tax and the Federal Government's ability to impose taxes was severely limited. Most had to be per-capita.

Also, neither side was pure in this. The "free" states in the North (which weren't entirely free yet) wanted slaves treated as a whole person for purposes of taxation but they wanted them treated as NOT people for purposes of representation.

The slave states in the South wanted slaves treated as people for purposes of representation but NOT people for purposes of taxation.

Both arguments are obviously self-serving and also patently absurd. Slaves either are people or they aren't and arguing that they are for one purpose and NOT for another is silly either way.

The founders understood that the individual colonies were far too weak to stand up to the European powers of the day and they also wanted to avoid European-style small states warring periodically with each other so they made the compromises they needed to make to create a unified country that was big enough to "sit at the table" with the European Powers. The early US wouldn't realistically have been a match for any of the major European powers but they were strong enough to make it difficult for any European Power to take them on and that made it functionally impossible because any European Power that sent a large enough force over to N. America to win would have left themselves dangerously exposed at home.

Slavery was a major issue at the time not just here but all across Europe. The various European Powers abolished it incrementally but all of them hesitated due to their own economic issues.

It would have been an interesting situation. The Southern states were closest to England culturally and economically but the slavery issue would have been problematic because the Southern States couldn't afford to give it up and the English would have been mortified by the idea of being allied with slave holders.

utee94 · « **Reply #38627 on:** October 30, 2024, 02:51:52 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on October 30, 2024, 02:45:59 PM

I'm going to add: I've always assumed I--and the Democrats--were getting screwed in the EC. The truth is not nearly as one-sided as I have thought. Yes, Republicans are overrepresented in the EC, but not as much as I've always assumed. For every Wyoming there is a Vermont; every North and South Dakota? Rhode Island and Delaware. Those are the overrpresented. For the underrepresented California and New York? Texas and Florida.

And the reason I've never bought into eliminating the EC is that our union doesn't make sense if New York and California make all the decisions for Wyoming and Kansas. That necessarily means that the rural party--whatever it is--will be overrepresented. And that's probably the best way this political union stays together.

Anyway, that deep dive may not have been worth my time...but it also may have been.

No I appreciated it, it was interesting.

I think people need to stop thinking of it in terms of identity politics, in terms of red and blue. The real point is this, that you stated:

"And the reason I've never bought into eliminating the EC is that our union doesn't make sense if New York and California make all the decisions for Wyoming and Kansas. That necessarily means that the rural party--whatever it is--will be overrepresented. And that's probably the best way this political union stays together."

It's not about red and blue, although that happens to be the way it breaks down. It's about the rural or lower-populated areas, still having a voice. The fact that the rural communities tend to vote differently, and oftentimes opposite, the big cities, is giving us direct insight into how they view themselves and their needs. This data, this information, should be cherished and analyzed, as a means to trying to understand one another better. The one-sided echo chambers steeped in their own rhetoric, are the real hazard to democracy.

Honestbuckeye · « **Reply #38628 on:** October 30, 2024, 02:53:49 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on October 30, 2024, 02:45:59 PM

I'm going to add: I've always assumed I--and the Democrats--were getting screwed in the EC. The truth is not nearly as one-sided as I have thought. Yes, Republicans are overrepresented in the EC, but not as much as I've always assumed. For every Wyoming there is a Vermont; every North and South Dakota? Rhode Island and Delaware. Those are the overrpresented. For the underrepresented California and New York? Texas and Florida.

And the reason I've never bought into eliminating the EC is that our union doesn't make sense if New York and California make all the decisions for Wyoming and Kansas. That necessarily means that the rural party--whatever it is--will be overrepresented. And that's probably the best way this political union stays together.

Anyway, that deep dive may not have been worth my time...but it also may have been.

I'm also conscious that I'm stubbornly trying to get some bites on that long-ass post, while you guys are talking about posting standards (and I am grateful to Utee for taking the stand he is taking--it's one of the things that pushed me away from here for a while).

It was worth it. I not only enjoyed it- but it was thought provoking. That’s good for me.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #38629 on:** October 30, 2024, 02:59:04 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on October 30, 2024, 02:09:26 PM

On the other end, California, with ~39M people gets split into five states: put Hawaii with San Diego for Holiday California; Orange County with rural southern California, for Red California, the LA area would be two states, industrial LA (South), and Hollywood LA (north), and Green California (Norcal/Coast).

California is weird.

Orange County has nothing in common with rural Southern California except a propensity to vote similarly. A big portion of rural Southern California is part of the 909 area code, and in OC referring to someone as being "909" is an insult. Trust me, we don't want them and they don't want us.

You'd be better off putting Orange County with San Diego County. Keep Hawaii. After all, OC can be part of "Holiday California" because we have Disneyland

San Diego County tended to be red in Presidential elections up until about 2008, and is heavily influenced by the military culture.

It's true that LA County people basically think Orange County is San Diego, and SD County people think Orange County is LA, but I think ALL of them would agree that Orange County is nothing like Riverside or Imperial Counties. IMHO Orange County culturally fits better with SD County.

Add Imperial County to Arizona. Add the populated portion of Riverside County (along the I-15 corridor) to the new OC/SD/HI state, or to Industrial LA, and push the rest to Arizona. Add the populated portion of San Bernardino County to Industrial LA and push the rest to Arizona.

Then as you get north of the San Bernardino Mountains and into the Central Valley and high desert, it gets tricky. Most of the high desert areas and the Sierras would probably be fine to add to Nevada.

The Central Valley is probably culturally CA and would fit in a big state encompassing everything from the Central Coast (think anything north of Ventura County) but are farmers who hate the state government and SoCal cities over water rights. That said, including them, along with the Central Coast (lots of farms, wine country), the Bay Area, Sacramento, and then Coastal California north of there including Napa/Sonoma, and some of the farm areas north of Sacramento, could make sense. At least the farmers of the area would all be combined, and would have their interests less diluted than they are today including all of the LA/OC megalopolis and the SD metropolis in their politics.

As you get farther into rural northern California and into southern Oregon, split all that off and shove them in with Nevada as well. They hate Sacramento AND Salem, and hate being dominated by both. These are the "state of Jefferson" people, who may not be happy about being shoved into Nevada, but would be MUCH happier than remaining part of CA/OR.

That's how I'd do it.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #38630 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:06:07 PM »

I feel like Brad’s point and some of this discussion get us to a central point.

States and their composition are kind of random. The EC treats them as one unit, and that’s always going to create some friction because of that natural diversity.

Gigem · « **Reply #38631 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:16:00 PM »

Quote

Texas, with 30M people is next on the chopping block: 4 states? 7.5M each? Houston Area, Dallas/Fort Worth, West Texas, and Remainder Texas (I'm not Texan, someone help me with that).

Them thar's fightin' words fella. I may not like Austin too much, but I'd be damned if I would be onboard with splitting up Texas. Texas is Texas, and there ain't nothing like it.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #38632 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:22:42 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on October 30, 2024, 02:09:26 PM

As a Democrat and a Californian, I am, of course, aghast at the inequities of the electoral college (although personally I don't argue for its abolition). An interesting exercise is to think about what would happen if we combined states to make about 3 million people the minimum number, and, say, 13 million the max (these are arbitrary, but just looking at population sizes, those are two pretty easy splitting points, see here.)

My argument against abolishing the EC has always been that I simply don't trust the vote counts in deep blue states. Two examples:

Illinois has been known for generations for the Chicago dead vote. I remember Johnny Carson joking that Illinois was the "Land of Lincoln, home of Springfield where he practiced Law and Chicago where he still votes."

California allows illegals to vote in local elections. I simply do not trust them AT ALL to prevent those voters from voting in Presidential elections because they simply have no motivation to do so.

The existence of the EC means that I simply don't care about the two above issues. As a practical matter I know that the Democrat is going to win any Presidential Election in both California and Illinois so Abraham Lincoln voting Straight-Ticket Democrat in Chicago and illegals voting in California only improves the Democratic margins in those states, it doesn't actually flip them. Thus, it is irrelevant to the end result.

For all I know there may be similar pro-Republican cheating going on in Mississippi and Arkansas but that is also irrelevant because the Republican is going to win Mississippi and Arkansas anyway so any cheating only impacts margins within those states and has no impact on the end result.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #38633 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:35:36 PM »

The EC as it presently operates is utter nonsense

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #38634 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:36:41 PM »

I'm really curious about your theory that NOT NYC would be a blue-leaning swing state so I'm going to double-check it:

2020 POTUS election in NY:

5,244,886 Biden
3,251,997 Trump

2020 POTUS election in NYC:

2,321,759 Biden
691,682 Trump

2020 POTUS election in NOT NYC (simply NY State less NYC):

2,923,127 Biden
2,560,315 Trump

2016 POTUS election in NY:

4,556,124 Clinton
2,819,534 Trump

2016 POTUS election in NYC:

2,159,575 Clinton
494,549 Trump

2016 POTUS election in NOT NYC:

2,396,549 Clinton
2,324,985 Trump

2012 POTUS election in NY:

4,485,741 Obama
2,490,431 Romney

2012 POTUS election in NYC:

1,995,241 Obama
436,889 Romney

2012 POTUS election in NOT NYC:

2,490,500 Obama
2,053,542 Romney

So "NOT NYC" would have voted D in the last three elections but it is relatively close, by about 360k in 2020, by 440k in 2012 and by about 70k in 2016.

Gigem · « **Reply #38635 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:42:14 PM »

Really, isn't the electoral college doing what it was ultimately designed to do?

I see it as another check/balance type deal.

And, looking at the country with fresh perspective, haven't we done pretty damn well for the last 200+ years? I mean, yeah, slavery is ~~kind of a~~ definitely a blackeye, but ultimately the United States stamped it out as a people. It took us four score and 7 years, but it literally existed hundred years before our country did in fact abolish it, even if some of us had to be dragged kicking and screaming, and it did cost the lives of 600,000 Americans, far more than all the wars before or since combined. But the fact is, that much of history is just absolutely brutal. Hell, a lot of the world even today is just brutal. The mere fact that humanity as a whole has only lived in a world without outright slavery for only about 100 years in our entire history says a lot.

utee94 · « **Reply #38636 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:48:15 PM »

There is still outright, open slavery in some parts of the world, sadly.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #38637 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:51:34 PM »

That was actually my bottom line point: as much as I feel disadvantaged by the EC, even with what I would propose to fix it, the results are effectively the same, or at least within a margin of error.

And yes--while Democrats and Republicans didn't exist in 1789, rural and urban voters absolutely did, and the founders were already well aware that those (among others) were distinct voting blocks with separate interests.

Also, undocumented immigrants cannot vote in California:
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/military-overseas-voters/who-can-vote
To register to vote in California, you must be:

A United States citizen,
A resident of California (which includes a person who was a resident of this state when they were last living within the territorial limits of the U.S. or D.C. or a citizen born outside of the U.S. or D.C., but whose parent or legal guardian was a resident of this state when the parent or legal guardian was last living within the territorial limits of the U.S. or D.C. and he or she has not previously registered to vote in any other state),
18 years of age or older on Election Day,
Not currently serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony (for more information on the rights of people who have been incarcerated, please see the Secretary of State's Voting Rights Restored: Persons with a Prior Felony Conviction), and
Not currently found to be mentally incompetent by a court of law.

Of course, it may become a little more complicated than that:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2024-10-30/voters-to-decide-whether-to-allow-noncitizens-to-vote-in-california-citys-elections

I'm curious to know how cities that have done this make it work. I presume it would involve separate ballots. Currently every jurisdiction with a primary system that forces you to choose your political party is already capable of printing separate ballots for separate categories of voter. That's not a big hurdle.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #38638 on:** October 30, 2024, 03:57:55 PM »

Quote from: Gigem on October 30, 2024, 03:42:14 PM

Really, isn't the electoral college doing what it was ultimately designed to do?

I see it as another check/balance type …

I guess I am less sure what it is checking and balancing nowadays. and how much that particular thing has value.

Like, it was designed for a time when almost none of us would ever leave our state unless we lived on a border. And when states were principle units of a country. And an era where some of us probably couldn’t vote at all. I think that’s broken up to a degree with different communications, movement patterns and such.

It’s all just different ways to get a majority/large plurality. I tend to prefer just votes (one person, one vote). Others prefer the clunky uneven blocks that are states.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #38639 on:** October 30, 2024, 04:00:33 PM »

Also, yes, rural California feels more like rural Oregon...that is true across the country. Rural is more like rural, and urban is more like urban. That's as true in Texas as it is in California. My little thought exercise was an effort to leave as many states as possible untouched, just getting rid of the outlying under and overrepresented states. Another way to do it would be to simply cut up the country into equal populations: 50 states with 9 Congressional districts each, and about 7 million people per state. Then jerrymander that thing every 10 years to change the state borders to keep things the same. That would be exciting.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: OT-Politics Thread: please TRY to keep it civil, you damned dirty apes

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

utee94

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

Honestbuckeye

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

betarhoalphadelta

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

bayareabadger

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

Gigem

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

MaximumSam

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

Gigem

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

utee94

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

SFBadger96

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

bayareabadger

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

SFBadger96

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out