Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Thing is, in the next few years, liberals are going to have to focus on themselves. They will be too busy defending social programs and civil rights to worry about what is happening to rural voters. Though I guess by defending the ACA, Social Security, and Medicare, liberals will still be indirectly helping many rural voters.
Disgusted, but not surprisedAs I elucidated in my last post, [1]
the problem is not any one portion of the system, but the aggregate result of all of those systems together to sharply swing power into the hands of rural voters to an almost comical degree. And the possible counterbalances wind up stillborn on the floor of Congress because the Republicans are well aware almost any change will reduce their power somewhere.
edited 25th Dec '16 7:35:04 PM by ViperMagnum357
Right now we're facing very literal - and dire - tyranny of the minority. And we can't avoid dealing with that just because of the risk that the reverse could theoretically happen half a century down the line.note
Several people have said that there should still be checks in place to ensure that smaller states and rural voters have a say. Nobody's saying we should screw them over. But the system as it currently stands is completely unacceptable and outdated, and may already have done irreparable harm to our nation and to the world.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Another good reason why the electoral college should be abolished is one that's been pointed out multiple times: it reduces voter turnout because individual votes only count as much as the aggregate, at which point the states HAVE to pledge all their votes for the candidate that won.
This heavily discourages blue voters in red states (like the big cities in Texas for one) or red voters in blue states from casting votes because they don't feel their votes are individually meaningful.
With a direct popular vote that isn't the case anymore. Suddenly literally every single vote has the same power which would at least in theory increase political participation nationwide and would mean a lot more people are active participants in democracy. I find this a good outcome.
I never said we shouldn't alter the system. I'm fully in favor of things like switching from EC to popular vote and overhauling our districting process for the House. I just object to altering how the Senate works. The Senate, from where I'm standing, is fine. It's the House and Presidency where the GOP has disproportionate power.
I'm going to temporarily shut off my more charitable and humane side to comment on the whole clusterfuck:
As things stand, our system gives a disproportionate amount of power to the votes of people who, for the most part, are poorly educated, brain damaged due to heavy metals in their water, brainwashed by fundamentalists, bigots, xenophobes, resentful of intellectuals, want things to be better but are too fucking lazy to actually make any changes in their lifestyle or behavior to make them better, and/or vote for a President based on whether they can grab a beer with them as opposed to any actual leadership qualifications.
Whew, glad I got that out of my system.
edited 25th Dec '16 7:43:57 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisededited 25th Dec '16 7:48:40 PM by Balmung
Honestly, I'm perfectly at ease with the prospect of the marginalization of drooling, rural reactionaries. These brainless troglodytes don't believe in evolution or climate change, think that coal, "clean" or otherwise, is a viable energy source, that LGBTQ people are subhuman, that Muslims need to be barcoded, and that Putin's Russia is a great place. Yes, they deserve a place in a democratic society, but a.) They're in the minority; and b.) Acquiescing to their whims will cause irreparable damage to humanity. By hook or by crook, they must be dragged kicking and screaming into the present and into the future because our society depends on it.
Whatever sympathy I had for them ended when Trump was elected.
edited 25th Dec '16 7:48:10 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
I'd rather have a POTUS who would either discourage me from drinking too often or pay my tab for me while they go and do actually important shit.
Funny thing is, Trump isn't a guy who would have a beer with them because he's a teetotaller.
edited 25th Dec '16 7:49:41 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedAnd the fact that you can't grab a beer with Trump. He doesn't drink alcohol. Ever. And Pence seems to be the type who randomly smacks into the very stupidest of Puritan values so he's be really weird to have a drink with.
'd
Trumps seems like he would either agree with anything you say or scream you down, and switches between the two at random.
...like that guy from Jupiter Ascending.
Hillary, on the other hand, has a genuinely interesting history and she seems like a really interesting person.
edited 25th Dec '16 7:52:51 PM by Zendervai
I kind of wish we could see him drunk. It might offer some more insight into his thought processes.
I know I get a lot more chatty when drunk. A lot more political too.
edited 25th Dec '16 7:56:05 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI've heard that Trump is actually really charming one-on-one. The kind of guy you'd have a great time drinking with, and then convince you to pick up the bill before you realize what you've agreed to.
Although apparently he doesn't drink at all. Which I admit I find somewhat admirable, even if it does reveal another way in which his image differs from reality- he's not a guy you could grab a beer with because he doesn't drink beer.
edited 25th Dec '16 7:59:49 PM by Gilphon

edit: Misguided as they might be it is still theoretically possible that we could wind up in a situation where liberals do stop giving a crap about rural people. If that happens they'd need some way of maintaining a voice.
edited 25th Dec '16 7:27:11 PM by Kostya