Who in the flying f*ck is this asshole?

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

And instead pander to the population centres which lean Democrat?

At least rural issues get their due weight under the current system. There may be fewer people living in the rural areas, but one farmer in Idaho or miner in Wyoming is probably more important to the US overall than a tax attorney in Boston or a barrista in Seattle. Without that balancing, the only candidates which will get the votes will be those which have policies which benefit the cities, increasing migration to those cities at the cost of the rural areas.

NTM

And that's why that farmer is subsidised beyond reason?

America is not an agrarian country, it's not even much of an industrial country these days. New York, California, Seattle, these are very important drivers of America. Much more important then Idaho or North Dakota.

Memnoch makes a good point, while these backwaters are overrepresented Republicans have an incentive to carry on the nonsense culture wars. If the big States that currently lean Democratic got their fair representation then Republicans would have to drop all the bull**** about god and gays and become a normal Right Wing Liberal-Economic party.

That would be a big win for the US. No more Bush's, no more Palin's, no more Quayle's. Over time educated voters in Blue States could return to the Republicans and you'd have two proper parties, instead of the current Democratic Party and the Coalition of the Retarded.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

There may be fewer people living in the rural areas, but one farmer in Idaho or miner in Wyoming is probably more important to the US overall than a tax attorney in Boston or a barrista in Seattle.

So during the Senate confirmation hearings of a nominee to the US Supreme Court, that one "miner in Wyoming" is 67.9 times more important than a citizen of California (from all occupations, including mining)?

Manic Moran

Not at all. The Honourable Senator from the Great State of Wyoming is just as important as the Honourable Senator from the Great State of California. Fifty equal States.

If you want something more related to population, look at the House committees.

America is not an agrarian country, it's not even much of an industrial country these days. New York, California, Seattle, these are very important drivers of America. Much more important then Idaho or North Dakota.

In terms of GDP by region, I'm sure you are correct. (I don't know about GDP by population density, mind). But in terms of survival of the nation as a whole, the rural areas are critical. Sure it's theoretically possible to have a Trantor-style economy with the nation being 100% dedicated to services with all the physical resources (Food, minerals, manufactured goods etc) being imported. It may even be a bigger economy in terms of pure numbers.

But does it make any sort of rational sense in terms of an independent nation? It leaves the nation fr too vulnerable. The reality is that the people in the cities are dependent on those guys in the countryside as the foundation of their city life. And even if you did go for the 'feck it, we can import what we need' philosophy, if Wyoming doesn't get its disproportionate share of funds, how do those potatoes get from Idaho to Boston? Without disproportionate funds, how does cargo from the Port of Los Angeles get through Nevada to New York?

And I say this as an urbanite who really doesn't like even visiting the countryside.

Alexander Tyler gave a very succint description of the dangers of a pure democracy in the 18th Century. Clever lad, for a Scotsman.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you want something more related to population, look at the House committees.

The US House is more representative, unfortunately there are decisions made in the US Senate that are not subject to the US House, that have huge impacts on citizens living in the more populated states like California vs. the tiny population of Wyoming (e.g., Senate confirmation hearings, etc.). After you subtract one Californian, your remainder is 66.9 disenfranchized citizens by virtue of this disproportionate Senate representational process when compared to Wyoming.

Manic Moran

My heart bleeds.

Perhaps those particular jobs were given to the Senate exclusively because of a belief that it was somethiing that the States needed to worry about as a Federation, not the citizenry. Federal courts, federal military, etc.

NTM

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote: »

My heart bleeds.

Perhaps those particular jobs were given to the Senate exclusively because of a belief that it was somethiing that the States needed to worry about as a Federation, not the citizenry. Federal courts, federal military, etc.

NTM

Except you seem to be purposefully ignoring the fact that IT IS the citizenry that is worrying and deciding. Specifically the nut job extremist backwater bible thumpers who despite their minority are messing up things for everyone else because their vote carries more power.

Manic Moran

Except you seem to be purposefully ignoring the fact that IT IS the citizenry that is worrying and deciding

Only within the State. The citizenry don't vote for a President. They vote to instruct their State how to vote for President. The difference may appear academic until you realise that it's a function of the separation between the States and the Federation, and the States and their population. You may as well complain about Irish people not being able to vote for the President of the EU Council.

In raw numbers, California carries more weight than any other State: It has the highest number of Congresscritters, and the largest share of the Electoral College: Get California, and you're over 20% of the way to the Presidency just like that. The current system strikes a moderation between allowing the extra clout California has whilst maintaining the relevance of all fifty States.

NTM

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

In terms of GDP by region, I'm sure you are correct. (I don't know about GDP by population density, mind). But in terms of survival of the nation as a whole, the rural areas are critical. Sure it's theoretically possible to have a Trantor-style economy with the nation being 100% dedicated to services with all the physical resources (Food, minerals, manufactured goods etc) being imported. It may even be a bigger economy in terms of pure numbers.

But does it make any sort of rational sense in terms of an independent nation? It leaves the nation fr too vulnerable. The reality is that the people in the cities are dependent on those guys in the countryside as the foundation of their city life. And even if you did go for the 'feck it, we can import what we need' philosophy, if Wyoming doesn't get its disproportionate share of funds, how do those potatoes get from Idaho to Boston? Without disproportionate funds, how does cargo from the Port of Los Angeles get through Nevada to New York?

And I say this as an urbanite who really doesn't like even visiting the countryside.

Alexander Tyler gave a very succint description of the dangers of a pure democracy in the 18th Century. Clever lad, for a Scotsman.

NTM

Well I agree with the first part of that, it's important to have farming sector. I also agree that rural areas should receive more investment per capita then urban areas - if they didn't they would be woefully under resourced. But this happens in virtually every Western country no matter their electoral set up and no matter the urban/rural political power balance.

It will be interesting what happens in the UK. If they manage to successfully reform their unfair system perhaps it will provide more impetus for the US to to the same.

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Only within the State. The citizenry don't vote for a President. They vote to instruct their State how to vote for President. The difference may appear academic until you realise that it's a function of the separation between the States and the Federation, and the States and their population. You may as well complain about Irish people not being able to vote for the President of the EU Council.

In raw numbers, California carries more weight than any other State: It has the highest number of Congresscritters, and the largest share of the Electoral College: Get California, and you're over 20% of the way to the Presidency just like that. The current system strikes a moderation between allowing the extra clout California has whilst maintaining the relevance of all fifty States.

NTM

But it is academic, since the nut jobs result in people like Palin potentially becoming VP. And who knows what the next time around.

The EU is not a single country, not yet anyway.

If the states have a backward philosophy and agenda that are irrelevent then they SHOULD be irrelevant. By equalising the votes, the smaller states will be able to stop catering to extremists and be closer to reality.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

My heart bleeds.

HERE... have one of Senator Kerry's Purple Hearts. He could spare one, given that he was awarded three while in Vietnam. I would offer one of GW Bush's, but he never earned one while defending the State of Texas from the State of Oklahoma in the Air National Guard.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps those particular jobs were given to the Senate exclusively because of a belief that it was somethiing that the States needed to worry about as a Federation, not the citizenry. Federal courts, federal military, etc.

No JAG for you! Not a very convincing argument if you are one of the 67.9 Californians who only count for one Wyoming citizen. Senate confirmed US Surpreme Court member decisions not only impact on states, but also individual citizens.

Manic Moran

The rationale they use to make their decisions are obviously up to them. That doesn't detract that they are there as the two representatives from each State, not the representatives from the '14th Congressional District' or whatever.

NTM