It’d be tough to exploit 9/11 when you’ve disowned New York City though, huh?
You’re right. Citizens should, and where those citizens happen to live should be irrelevant.
Very cool maps, Zoe, and thanks for the links!
Daniel
So a majority of the country is irrelevant
exploitation is a liberal trait
In terms of area, yes. In terms of population, no. Those folks in the midwest actually get a little more weight to their votes because they’re overrepresented in the electoral college.
I’m wondering what exactly you’re complaining about. Any voting system that allows every citizen equal votes is going to result in elections that are weighted towards the cities, because that’s where most people live.
I for one, call for the immediate removal of both the red and blue color codes. Not for the reasons I usually hear, but because they’re contrary and make absolutely no sense. If anyone can clue me in to who originally came up with the original Red=Republican / Blue=Democrat concept, I think I’ll send them a letter.
When I think of the color red and put it in political terms, it’s the Democrat Party that comes to mind:
- Unless it’s different in other parts of the country, Democrat political signage, bumper stickers, et al are red (not blue)
- Red symbolizes left wing governance (i.e. PRC/former USSR flags)
When I think of the color blue and put it in political terms, it’s the Republican Party that comes to mind:
- Unless it’s different in other parts of the country, Republican political signage, bumper stickers, et al are blue (not red)
- Blue symbolizes wealth and power (i.e. the term blue-blooded)It’s almost like the originator of the red and blue color key got them backwards. If Bill Sneider is the one to blame, I’ll enjoy wring my rant. It’s either that or they associated red with Republican because they share an ‘R’. I still can’t get used to either color being used. Someone should either switch em, or change em. I 'm convinced green for Dems and brown for the GOP would be much better choices.
A majority of what, the dirt? Yeah, dirt doesn’t get a vote.
A majority of the political features (county lines, etc.)? Yeah, county lines don’t get a vote.
A majority of the citizens? Fuck no they’re not irrelevant: the citizens are the only thing that matters.
So it comes down to this: what do you think comprises the country? Citizens, or dirt?
Daniel
Up until 2000, red states favored the challenger, and blue states favored the incumbent. A lot of time was spent talking about red states favoring Republicans and blue states favoring Democrats. The association stuck.
Dirt as in the city? No, that would be filth. How much food do think there would be on your plate if Kansas were paved and polluted like DC with the same concentration of people?
The high populations of the coastal areas are represented in the higher number of electoral votes but then since the majority still voted for the President - WTH are you arguing about again
So what the hell are you arguing? Are you saying that the soil of Kansas deserves a vote?
I’m arguing that your statement about “a small handful of coastal cities” etc. is completely irrelevant, since cities, counties, and soil particles don’t get to decide anything, so whether they SHOULD get to decide anything is incoherent.
Daniel
You may be the first person ever to compare George Steinbrenner favorably to someone else. 
Well then I guess that we should only hold elections in about 15 of the 50 states and fuck the rest of the people - good thing the FF were far more intelligent than some of the posters here.
What the fuck are you talking about? Did you forget to take your medication today?
B&I, when come back, bring reading comprehension.
Let me ask you something, Blown. If Kerry had been elected, would Kansas have become as “paved and polluted” as you say DC is?
No?
Then what makes a city person’s vote any different from a midwestern farmer’s vote? I don’t see why you are even complaining, since Bush won anyway.
I think the county needs the city way more then the city needs the country. The city can find cheaper markets to buy agricultural resources but the country can’t find a more captive and subsidizing audience then the city. As for the suburbs, they are just city groupies.
Seconded. I have no idea at this point what he’s arguing for, or against.
Daniel
Goddamn right on, great point.
I too have never understood the logic of favorably comparing “one man = one acre” with “one man = one vote” – the constitution already gives a break to people out in the hinterlands, in the form of the Senate and the EC.
Unless someone can explain the rationale to me, I ‘color’ it pure reactionary politics.
(Admittedly, though, it’s a give and take between red and blue – blue sends money, red sends foodstuffs and (mostly enlisted) personnel. A major difference – individual ‘reds’ can decide to quit farming and enlisting, but individual ‘blues’ can’t just decide to quit paying taxes).
It is not that complicated try to keep up.
If the big Western states are “irrelevant” because they are not as densely populated, then why even bother.