TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#49976: Feb 18th 2013 at 6:48:37 PM

Basically. They have a surplus because they have too little to do what the need to do, so they tried to save up for it.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#49978: Feb 18th 2013 at 7:20:53 PM

Also 2, 000th Thread!

...

...

...

...I'll let you figure out what's wrong with this.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#49979: Feb 18th 2013 at 7:26:34 PM

[up]

2,000th page?

Look I don't the name of it, all I know is that we made it to 2,000

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#49980: Feb 18th 2013 at 7:32:10 PM

Too bad we're going to get blown up about halfway through the next one.

edited 18th Feb '13 7:32:55 PM by Kostya

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#49981: Feb 18th 2013 at 7:33:02 PM

2, 000th page?

Yes.

Look I don't the name of it, all I know is that we made it to 2, 000

...

...

...

...You don't the name of it?

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#49982: Feb 18th 2013 at 7:34:10 PM

Less than 20 posts to post #50000 too.

Is anyone taking Graham seriously?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Wildcard Since: Jun, 2012
#49983: Feb 18th 2013 at 7:39:51 PM

Arkansas Senate passes bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks

Well I hope it doesn't get passed into law but at least they amended it in the case of rape, incest, and harm to the mother. When is this going to be signed or not signed into law?

Hey can somebody tell me why we still need the Electoral College? I know a direct Democracy has it's own problems and it would be fairly easy to cheat the presidential elections but I'd like to think we could overcome that.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#49984: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:01:21 PM

Direct Democracy to decide the Presidency means that the coasts and a handful of interior cities decide the election. Everyone else would be irreverent.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#49985: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:04:18 PM

That's a myth. Look, the vast majority of the time, the popular vote and the electoral college match up. While it's true that the collective will of the people in those regions would be more reflective of how the presidency is going to go than any other area as divided by square foot, by definition each individual's vote has the same weight.

Ultimately, a system other than popular vote is "how do we ensure that there's a possibility that the plurality of voters don't win."

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#49986: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:04:32 PM

No, it wouldn't. It would take half the population of the country to get elected. If anything it would mean there was more courting of flyover country because even just a handful of votes could count there instead of just ignoring them because they don't have many electoral votes.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#49987: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:05:49 PM

...You know, I never got that complaint. No region will decide any election if the president were elected directly. It would only work that way if everyone in each region purposefully voted for the same person, which is pretty much exactly what the Electoral College does.

edited 18th Feb '13 8:06:05 PM by deathpigeon

Wildcard Since: Jun, 2012
#49988: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:07:50 PM

A direct democracy would mean an individuals vote could actually turn the tide. Since we are in a lot of ways already governed by popular vote I don't see abolishing the electoral college as a bad precedent. I think their current existence is kind of an outdated relic.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#49989: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:09:27 PM

I take issue with both the electoral college and the house of representatives.

The senate, however, seems like an acceptable institution (aside from all the filibustering).

edited 18th Feb '13 8:09:40 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#49990: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:10:46 PM

...I actually take issue with the Senate, not the House. The Senate gives people who live in small states much more power than people who live in big states.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#49991: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:12:48 PM

Is there any chance that we could create the political will to vote the president in through direct democracy any time in the near future? Cuz most systems tend to stay the way they are if it works without too many hitches, and I don't know that anyone could convince the majority of the public that the Electoral college is significantly broken.

[up]The Senate is part of the compromise required to keep the House from creating a situation where states like California and Texas control the entire show. Let's not fiddle with either in a way that gets rid of the bicameral situation.

edited 18th Feb '13 8:14:42 PM by AceofSpades

Wildcard Since: Jun, 2012
#49992: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:17:06 PM

The normal votes don't matter a whole lot given that it isn't us who directly decides who the president is. If we could project that more so than now than I believe we could give people the will to abolish it.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#49993: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:20:46 PM

[up][up] Except, in the House, no state has any power. Each district has equal power. If something is good for on district in the state, and, thus, would help the representative for that district get elected, but wouldn't help any of the other districts in the state, guess what the representative would do? Vote against his/her state and with his/her district.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#49994: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:26:49 PM

Yes, the districts have equal power. And most of them are very, very dense ones in three or four states comprised of very similar urban demographics.

edited 18th Feb '13 8:27:14 PM by Pykrete

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#49995: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:28:28 PM

I think we've established before that Republicans tend to vote in lockstep, regardless of district. Party lines tend to be followed on the federal level.

Also, if you don't think populous states like California and Texas wouldn't ride roughshod over their less populous neighbors, you clearly aren't paying attention to politics as it is RIGHT NOW. Or paying attention the importance of Texas starting to become much more blue in demographics. Part of the function of the Senate is to balance out the power of population by making it equal in that house of Congress for every state. It adds to the rigamorale, yes, but the sake of balance is a very important reason to keep it.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#49996: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:31:03 PM

The house is Gerry Mandered beyond all reason. And while I don't buy the "Myeeeeeh, our tiny states are underrepresented!" logic, I'm happy to make small compromises.

We need to just do away with how house members are elected in such a way that you don't get to win the minority of votes for the house but keep a majority in the house. The senate giving vastly more influence to small states per capita than to large states is enough of a balancing act on its own.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#49997: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:31:36 PM

[up][up] Regardless of district and regardless of state.

And where in current politics is there any unity among the representatives of any state, ignoring the ones with only one representative? Representatives vote more with their party than with their state. We would represent the will of the people much more by having each person have an equal say, and, in the senate, that's not true as people from small states have a much bigger say.

[up] And that could be fixed by making the districts drawn by some group other than the state legislatures.

edited 18th Feb '13 8:32:43 PM by deathpigeon

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#49998: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:37:25 PM

I don't think you realize what kind of effect occurs when there's a lot of people living in one area versus those living in a sparsely populated area. The power and money will accumulate to the populated places, leaving the little dot on the map places incredibly poor and underrepresented. The Senate, as part of its function, is to keep small states from being forgotten or ignored. Because that damned well fucking would happen.

Seriously, you want everyone to be fairly represented but your solutions nearly always seemed geared to leave a large part of the population out in the dust.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#49999: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:42:54 PM

Yeah, I still don't buy the "small states won't get represented" argument. No state will be represented. Only districts. No representative will vote in-line with his/her state. No representative does vote in-line with his/her state. You said that, if I were paying attention to politics right now I would be able to see the problem with fair and equal representation, but I'm not seeing it. The Senate is just as messed up as the House, but at least the House gives everyone equal representation.

Also, my preferred system would be decentralized direct democracy, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#50000: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:53:31 PM

You're actually thinking we're going to get ride of states any time soon? Aside from that not happening any time soon, it wouldn't actually solve the problem I'm describing.

And yes, the rural areas tend to get forgotten because they don't have huge concentrations of people who can more easily gather and work together. (Not saying it's easy in cities and such, but it's easier.) Business interests also tend to accumulate in cities. As it is right now Texas gets a lot more attention because it has people and it has people because it was far better situation for a variety of industries to set up.

Places like the Dakotas and Alaska? Would be forgotten because they are so sparsely populated. It would be so goddamned easy to ignore and act AGAINST their interests because they would have so little personal representation. Which is why we have a balance against that in the form of a bicameral congress.


Total posts: 417,856
Top