Octopus here's your own thread to shit all over

[DemonTree]

@k9bfriender

You say compromise like it’s a bad thing.

It’s the same sort of compromise that you are decrying between the states of the US, but writ larger and more dysfunctional. It’s necessary, but it’s not good for the union.

@k9bfriender

Ever hear of Brexit?

@k9bfriender

Yes, and those issues mainly stem from the unequal representation of countries.

And the EU doesn’t even tax its citizens, unlike the US.

Britain is not threatening to leave. Britain has left. And don’t you think I have a slightly better idea what issues led to Brexit than you do? I can assure you that the money we pay to the EU was a major one, while literally no one cared that Latvia is overrepresented in the EU parliament.

@k9bfriender

Comparing the EU to the US is not very helpful, IMHO.

It’s helpful in that the US originated as a union of at least nominally independent states, so we can understand why its government has the structure it does. It also reminds us that the US cannot always usefully be compared to smaller, less diverse countries.

@k9bfriender

I did not say “other large and powerful countries’ governments”, I said that we are the largest and most powerful. There is a very large difference between what I said, and how you chose to change it.

@k9bfriender

Then what? I do not know how your mistaken paraphrase of an earlier statement of mine relates to this.

I took it as you saying that countries comparable to the US are all vastly worse, and then saying the US is doing pretty badly. If that isn’t what you meant, then perhaps you could rephrase?

@k9bfriender

We don’t need a new constitution to fix this one problem, just an amendment. But, both face almost the same uphill battle.

I don’t know that adding in some “junk” as you call it is an inherently bad thing. That “junk” is what is needed to keep our country functional. If it is actually just “junk” then it will not be included. You almost seem to think that it will just be turned over to a team of infinite monkeys, and you don’t know if you will end up with Shakespeare or The Eye of Aragon, and that either way it works out, you will be stuck with it as your book club book of the forever.

Not at all. I was thinking of eg the Brazilian constitution, which has over 64,000 words compared to the US’s 7,762, and where they recently required a constitutional amendment in order to reform social security. Writing a constitution is a great opportunity for people and groups to try and enforce their will on the future, getting their desired policies set in stone - or at least some very difficult-to-modify ink.

You’re not dealing with monkeys, but Republicans. What would that like added to the constitution in exchange for evening up political representation?

@k9bfriender

We all get nostalgic for old things. I still miss my first car. But, I don’t know that you are correct here. About half the country wants to update it to get with the times, and the other half wants to ignore it and install authoritarian rule.

Eh, you live there so you know better. But I do get the impression many Americans have a certain reverence for the constitution, and eg believe in free speech because it’s in the constitution, not because they are persuaded it’s a good idea.

@k9bfriender

The votes that are up to the General Assembly seem to be just as, if not more fair than those by the Security Council.

That’s really not saying much, though…

[k9bfriender]

@DemonTree

It’s the same sort of compromise that you are decrying between the states of the US, but writ larger and more dysfunctional. It’s necessary, but it’s not good for the union.

The compromise that I am “decrying” is one in which the power is not proportionally allocated. That’s not really a compromise, it’s a capitulation.

@DemonTree

Britain is not threatening to leave. Britain has left. And don’t you think I have a slightly better idea what issues led to Brexit than you do? I can assure you that the money we pay to the EU was a major one, while literally no one cared that Latvia is overrepresented in the EU parliament.

And if Latvia were not overrepresented, if Britain had representation equal to its population, do you think that maybe you would have been able to negotiate to pay less than you do?

@DemonTree

It’s helpful in that the US originated as a union of at least nominally independent states

Yes, but that’s a historical inaccuracy. They were never independent states(with the slight and very temporary exception of Texas, and the more relevant exception of Hawaii). They were colonies of Britain, then they were part of the United States. They never existed on their own as independent sovereign nations.

@DemonTree

It also reminds us that the US cannot always usefully be compared to smaller, less diverse countries.

American exceptionalism! Fuck Yeah!

@DemonTree

I took it as you saying that countries comparable to the US are all vastly worse, and then saying the US is doing pretty badly. If that isn’t what you meant, then perhaps you could rephrase?

I think I phrased it pretty well.

But, to reiterate, as you seem to be motivated to misunderstand:

The only countries that are larger are China and India, neither of them are really great role models. The only other country that really rivals us in terms of power is Russia/Soviet Union, which also is not that great a role model.

So, when other countries set up their own constitutions, they looked to the US as a role model in how to write it. Hell, the US actually wrote some of them.

@DemonTree

Not at all. I was thinking of eg the Brazilian constitution, which has over 64,000 words compared to the US’s 7,762, and where they recently required a constitutional amendment in order to reform social security. Writing a constitution is a great opportunity for people and groups to try and enforce their will on the future, getting their desired policies set in stone - or at least some very difficult-to-modify ink.

There are some things that we could certainly use in our constitution that are currently set by law or even simply by tradition that could use a bit of difficult to modify ink.

@DemonTree

You’re not dealing with monkeys, but Republicans. What would that like added to the constitution in exchange for evening up political representation?

Evening up the political representation should fix a number of problems. The fact that we are dealing with Republicans, who will refuse to give up their disproportionate power is the problem. You even admit here that they would not negotiate in good faith, but leaving them with “difficult to modify ink” that enshrines their power is acceptable?

@DemonTree

But I do get the impression many Americans have a certain reverence for the constitution

Similarly to the bible, the more someone worships it, the less they actually know about it.

@DemonTree

believe in free speech because it’s in the constitution, not because they are persuaded it’s a good idea.

Yeah, I do know better. I thought I’d seen you involved in threads about free speech. Anyway, the belief is that free speech is a natural right, and that the 1st Amendment recognizes that natural right. Same with the second, where the right to bare arms is something that is recognized, not granted, by the constitution.

@DemonTree

That’s really not saying much, though…

Well, no, because the UN was never set up as a governing body, but rather as a place where people could meet to negotiate. Where both allies and enemies could come together to work out their differences and to work towards their shared goals.

[DemonTree]

I’m working on a reply to the rest, but I’m curious about something. If the boot was on the other foot and more equal representation would increase the chances of future Trumps winning, and the passage of the sort of policies he espoused, would you still support it?

[kaylasdad99]

[quote=“DemonTree, post:944, topic:815550, full:true”]

@k9bfriender

You almost seem to think that it will just be turned over to a team of infinite monkeys, and you don’t know if you will end up with Shakespeare or The Eye of Aragon, and that either way it works out, you will be stuck with it as your book club book of the forever.

@kaylasdad99

The Eye of Argon.

You’re not dealing with monkeys, but Republicans.

The Eye of Argon, then.

[crowmanyclouds]

@octopus

Well, that’s quite a strawman. Or straw person.

Questions can be strawmen?

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@DemonTree

@k9bfriender

We all get nostalgic for old things. I still miss my first car. But, I don’t know that you are correct here. About half the country wants to update it to get with the times, and the other half wants to ignore it and install authoritarian rule.

Eh, you live there so you know better. But I do get the impression many Americans have a certain reverence for the constitution, and eg believe in free speech because it’s in the constitution, not because they are persuaded it’s a good idea.

You don’t have to take his word for it. You can look at a graph of how people in the US felt about abolishing the electoral college from the year 2000 until now. It’s been asked every year since then.

In 2011, a majority of Republicans (53%) favored abolishing the electoral college.with 71% of Democrats and 68% of Independents. Democratic support favoring the abolition of the electoral college was at its lowest point, which is probably why despite Barack Obama having a super majority in 2009, it wasn’t on his list of most important things to do to save the democracy as some people seem to imply here.

Since 2011, the Democrats and Republicans have been moving in opposite directions on the issue in pretty dramatic fashion, with the biggest difference in 2016 when Republican support was at 17%, Democratic support was at 81% and Independent support at 46%.

Anyone suggesting that Democrats only want fairness all the time would have to explain why Democratic support has shifted so dramatically over time.

At present, 61% of the population favor abolishing the electoral college, comprised of 23% of Republicans, 89% of Democrats and 68% of Independents.

I don’t know which half of those people want authoritarian rule. That wasn’t clear in his comment.

Presidential candidates have only won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote four times in U.S. history, and two of these occurrences have been in the last five presidential elections. In both 2000 and 2016, the Republican candidates won the Electoral College while the Democratic candidates won the popular vote. This is likely the main reason behind Democrats’ strong support – and Republicans’ strong opposition – to changing the current system to use the popular vote to elect the U.S. president. That is, Americans’ opinions are increasingly driven by what would benefit their party.

bold added

61% of Americans Support Abolishing Electoral College

[Babale]

@DemonTree

Would you give up the UNSC veto if you could?

Are the other security council nations doing the same?

The world would be an unimaginably better place if the UN had teeth and no nation had veto power.

[Babale]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

For argument’s sake, let’s take your numbers that 1/3 of the population are in CA and NY. And let’s say that people don’t vote in lockstep as you say, so only 1/4 of the population are in those states. The argument is not that winning those states is all that’s needed to win the election. It’s that losing those votes would lose the election. So candidates would spend a lot of their time in those states because it would be the most time efficient way of getting the most votes and ensuring the campaign is not an instant loss… Right now, they only spend time there to fundraise.

Why shouldn’t candidates spend the majority of their time where the majority of their constituents live?

[Babale]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

Anyone suggesting that Democrats only want fairness all the time would have to explain why Democratic support has shifted so dramatically over time.

It seems like your numbers show overwhelming support (>2/3rds) for abolishing the electoral college at the lowest point, with Trump serving to instruct the majority of Democrat holdouts as to why this is so crucial. What dramatic shift do you refer to?

[Sunny_Daze]

Options…

[DeadTreasSecretaries]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

Democratic support favoring the abolition of the electoral college was at its lowest point, which is probably why despite Barack Obama having a super majority in 2009, it wasn’t on his list of most important things to do to save the democracy as some people seem to imply here.

Abolishing the electoral college would have required a constitutional amendment, which Obama didn’t have numbers for. The possible alternative - the NPVIC is just a state issue that he has no control over.

Obama actually could have done something that had obvious political benefit to Democrats and admitted Washington DC as a state (which I think he definitely should have done). IMO in spite of what a lot of people seem to think about the Dems nefarious intent, they don’t even really have the most basic self-preservation instincts.

@Babale

Why shouldn’t candidates spend the majority of their time where the majority of their constituents live?

This is the thing that really gets me about EC defenders. People say that the 40M people in California would drown out small states. OK? Right now those 40M people are completely irrelevant in presidential politics, to the point where half the state burned down right in the middle of a campaign and both candidates continued their schedules of handing out pizzas in rust belt states and whatnot.

I actually think a system that didn’t have any winner take all constituencies (or rather that the entire country was a single constituency) but offered some attempt to make rural areas have more influence than their population might be justifiable, but the electoral college as it is right now is obviously dysfunctional.

[MrDibble]

The thing people miss is that a large percentage of that 40m are … Republicans. As xkcd indicated, there are more of them in California than in Texas. But they are, as you say, rendered completely irrelevant.

[JohnT]

When presented with a series of charts, the Hive Mind reared its ugly head.

Pretty funny argument on the spineless one’s behalf though. Showed a series of data points indicating this country’s declines started under Reagan, he started ranting that students of the future will be suffused with groupthink, ignoring what he was seeing for what he was told to think.

Lol. So close. So, so close. Appreciated the demonstration of RightThink tho, Octo.

[The_Librarian]

@DeadTreasSecretaries

but offered some attempt to make rural areas have more influence than their population might be justifiable

Why?
What about living in Montana makes someone’s vote magically more relevant?

[DeadTreasSecretaries]

Just to offset the fact that a random person in Montana inherently has less influence over society than a random person in LA. Just to be clear I think just going by straight population is generally a fair system, and definitely WAY more fair than what we have now.

[octopus]

Correlation is not causation. C’mon. You can do better.

[JohnT]

Lol. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.

This is why we can never take you seriously. Even when you try to be serious, in the linked-to thread for example you gave a cogent explanation of your beliefs, once data was given to dispute the theory which you espoused, you immediately ignored it and resorted to the tired, hoary ‘group think’ and ‘hive mind’ rhetoric which is your natural defense against… facts.

Your attitude is pathetic, Octopus. I used to believe this stuff, voted Libertarian in '92, worked on the Gingrich and Dole campaigns of 1994-98… but even I couldn’t ignore that things were getting worse the more the Republicans held control of the discourse, which Clinton acceded to them back in 1994. Because the data was telling me this, Octopus, not because of some damned ‘hive mind’.

Grow up. Please.

[octopus]

‘We’? Spoken like a true hiveling!

Where do you get libertarian from advocating UBI? You do realize that we no longer have the industrial and infrastructure advantage to disguise the leftist inefficiencies in our markets. You can’t keep capital from moving to more efficient markets now that those markets are industrialized.

At least be honest. There is political power to be had through patronage and pandering. Why do you think we as a society expect more from kindergarten kids than we do from so-called adults? 5 year olds can’t vote so there’s no reason to pander to them. They aren’t a special interest group.

[The_Librarian]

Why does someone in a rural area have “inherently” less influence than someone in a more populated area?
And why should that be corrected in any way?

[Ruken]

@JohnT

Even when you try to be serious, in the linked-to thread for example you gave a cogent explanation of your beliefs, once data was given to dispute the theory which you espoused, you immediately ignored it and resorted to the tired, hoary ‘group think’ and ‘hive mind’ rhetoric which is your natural defense against… facts.

The sad thing is that there’s plenty of real criticism and interesting discussion to be had over those data. The first one that pops out is EPI’s famous “stagnation” plot showing a supposed decoupling of productivity and earnings. But you’ve apparently used up the effort allotment for that thread.