Well, lower vs upper case.
Currently Conservatism (upper case) is about regression back to a prior time. The Progressive (upper case P) is about conserving what progress has been made on civil rights, environmental issues, healthcare, equality etc. Actual progress (lower case p) is kind of mostly sidelined for damage control over the current administration trying to tear everything down & revert to some mythical nostalgic naive innocence.
Yeah, *classic conservatism* is keeping things the same, but what we see now from "Conservatives" is active regression.
The people who hold that classic conservatism mindset is basically centrist Americans at this point.
[Ummm, yep (nsfw)..](https://i.imgur.com/hZXqF12.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More like gradual change so people can adapt instead of flipping the table and abruptly change something without risk assessment.
Conservatism is like not abandoning the whole class to concentrate on the most gifted few in class.
Yeah, the gifted kids will be bored and anxious waiting others to catch up, but most will benefit that way.
Conservative isn't for being stuck in old ways, it's progress with caution.
Progressive states are like the advanced class who experiment, take risks, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing. Conservative states follow the progress of the successful.
That's how I see it anyway.
When is the last time you saw a conservative government progress with caution? I've literally never seen that, but I'm guessing you just think paying taxes is"theft".
No, I don't really think taxes are theft. I just think whatever the government does they do poorly and wastefully. It's role should be small mostly dealing with threats from outside and keeping us from eachothers throats. (Defense and law)
I think my money could be used better and more efficient. If government wasn't the middle man.
The threat of death from lack of healthcare or resources is far more prevalent than from terrorism or murder. A government concerned with maximising well-being should prioritise the former.
Government healthcare should cover the truly needy like disabled, elderly and such. Then GTFO and let the market do the rest.
You know what Lasik is? Pretty much a miracle for eye care and that is the result of Market instead of government. It's cheap, It's quality.
It came to be because gov GTFO. where there was a need.
We would have decent healthcare if the government didn't build a framework for corruption around it intentional or not.
Thus get the government out as much as possible, get better healthcare via competitive markets and reduce that number.
The approach currently taken isn't working not because we just need more money put in it, it's because it's the wrong approach.
That is the theory but it hasn't been that since forever. I think the perfect example for how much it isn't like that is the founding of the federal reserve. Even though not having a central bank was causing myriads of problems throughout the country and Europe having solved literally all of the aforementioned problems with central banks, conservatives still fought tooth and nail against the federal reserve. I look at programs like Obamacare and it shows that conservatives haven't embraced change, slow or otherwise, in over 100 years.
"New people" are usually people fleeing 'blue' areas like California and NYC because of high taxes and other Democrat policies that make the area a disaster that needs to be abandoned. Kind of like a virus that spreads.
Actually property taxes have very, very little effect on individual actors in their decisions for moving. It has some affect on business decisions, but that is honestly more of a supply and demand issue. Property is the most visible finite resource, and when even slightly mismanaged or capitalized on to breaking, has by far the most effect on people's lives. This has little to do with taxes, and more the fact that you can only shove so many people into such a small amount of space.
Democratic policies work too well, for the framework they exist in at least, as everyone wants to be in Blue States, but there is simply not efficient use of space within any American space (thanks auto industries of the 20's and 30's.) So if everyone wants to live some where, no one is wanting efficient use of property, demand goes up, supply does not, and capitalism's one true rule starts to apply.
Then, when the issue of supply and demand gets bad enough that companies can no longer bear the burden they have created, they move to empty areas, like the entire middle of the country. Not because of taxes, or republican policy, but because you guys have never capitalized the space that you have available, thus allowing an open supply.
These states then change, and become more blue over time (Hello Texas), because as it turns out once you stop living in isolation you generally lose conservative values. It's hard to be scared of illegals or blacks when they're your neighbors, Jimbob.
Always thought about this. When Kansas lowered their taxes, believing that all these companies would move from high tax states to lower tax Kansas. If it really worked, the state would have become purple or blue.
But it would never work because they never realized that smart people who work in tech want to give their kids the best education possible. That doesn't happen in schools which are so cash strapped they have to cut tons of programs.
My grad school advisor last year (he sadly retired.) was from Kenya and was amazed to learn that schools were the chief determining factor when Americans chose whether they would by a house
Was the surprise that people cared that much or that schools in the same city could be so different?
I live in a small subdivision at the corner of two roads. Main entrance is on one road, a "fire road" goes to the other. If the fire road was our main entrance we would be sending our kids to a much better school. Realtor in our neighborhood says it would increase our home value by about 10%.
I live smack dab in the middle of that red and ive never seen any sort of opposition to people moving here. Not a single bit. You’re welcome to come live here whenever you’d like! It’s quite nice. We drive slow, Town is dead on Sunday’s and everyone knows everyone and most importantly, you can still get avocado toast when you want it.
Coming from someone at a seminary for the whitest denomination in the country, which is also in communion with every other mainline Protestant denomination in the country, Midwest folks are not as welcoming as they initially think (but we still love them.)
Yeah I grew up in red and their hospitality always had a bite. So many compliments were underhanded, sometimes not even intentionally. Especially when it came to race or sex.
You're black, it'll be easy to get a scholarship!
That's amazing for a girl!
Mind you I'm a white man, I have numerous memories of offhanded racist comments I've heard by even friends and family.
"Oh, there's nothing halfway
About the Iowa way to treat you,
When we treat you
Which we may not do at all.
There's an Iowa kind of special
Chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.
We've never been without.
That we recall."
No, it's because the same idiots who supported progressive programs in places like San Francisco end up getting fed up with the shit they voted for and decide to move somewhere nice without changing their politics so they end up bringing all of the shit they're trying to escape with them.
That opinion ignores the fact that Californians are moving to Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming and Utah in droves in addition to a number of other states.
As someone who has been to and spent time in 49 of the fifty states, I've got to say California is the last state that I'd ever consider moving back to. It's a cesspool with nothing to offer but high taxes, crime and corrupt politicians.
I've only spent time in about 30 and California would be my #1 pick. Every state has crime and corruption, the tax:benefit ratio is well within reason to me, and it's a damn lovely place with endless entertainment regardless of what you do for leisure.
Okay but that opinion ignores the fact that California has a net population gain from immigration, both internal and external.
It also ignores the fact that voters didn’t really make San Francisco the way it is. SF is how it is because it was founded during the Gold Rush and the nearest major city to it for much of its history was St. Louis.
SF is and always will be the Capital of the Wild West.
It's hard not to be more popular when you're giving away free shit that other people paid for.
>Again, aiding the middle and lower class does more to a state than appeasing only the rich so they can buy themselves a 9th private jet.
Socialism doesn't aid the middle and lower class, it feeds off of them. It helps just enough people to demonstrate that it has value to it's supporters. The rich don't pay taxes and you can thank both parties for that. The rich exist with impunity, look at the current pharmaceutical company fallout for the opioid epidemic. No one is going to jail for conspiracy and the fines that these companies are getting hit with is being paid for with the tax payer money Hillary Clinton handed them in 2011 after going to congress and asking for $10 Billion dollars to pay the pharmaceutical companies to do research into fighting the epidemic that proof has now come out that they are responsible for in the first place.
It's not that I'm against progressive ideas, I think they're beautiful. The problem comes in through practical application. They're a tool for corruption that their supporters turn a blind eye to because they choose to look at what they think are positives.
Ever notice how conservative areas REALLY advocate voter ID laws while defunding ways for POC to get ID? Because when POC vote conservatives lose their power.
It literally it's the government's job to make sure everyone has the opportunity to vote. Restricting access to elections is the opposite of that.
Capitalist societies rely on the free market to provide access to all sorts of legal goods.
If you close the DMVs where they can go to to get an ID, if you defund public transport so that they can’t travel to get the license that counts as an ID, if they refuse to accurately print names that have nonstandard characters (dashes, apostrophes etc.) then you’re preventing certain people from getting “acceptable IDs” which has been a stated goal of Republican campaign planners in several past campaigns. Voter ID laws are deliberately used to prevent people of color from voting, spend less time asking if you’re the asshole and get your teenage ass an education about people who don’t look like you and their concerns and issues.
I mean, [this guy only needed a national news story to get one](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2019/09/13/95-year-old-driver-gets-license-without-birth-certificate-but-other-texans-still-in-the-dark/). That's not so hard for those people in this type of situation, right?
> You want to keep it because you know it is the only way Republicans can win.
Incorrect, I’ve already stated the reason for keeping it and find it laughable your only response to that is “cause you’re Republican”.
Sorry the election didn’t go as you wanted and therefore want to change the framework of the electoral process due to it.
A broken system where different people's vote are more important than others. A banana republic full of corruption and blatant cheating. Why would anyone want to change that.
You’re only arguing it’s broken cause your gut didn’t win.
> A banana republic full of corruption and blatant cheating.
What are you referring to here or is this just mindless satire you throw out cause it sounds good?
> It is a broken system because an obviously corrupt individual is president.
Corrupt how?
> If they implemented a minimum IQ of 90 their would be no Republican party.
And if they did the same on Reddit you would lose a privileges to post. So, consider it fair trade off.
the original intent of the electoral college stipulated that the number of electors each state had was based on the number of senators along with the number of congressmen in the house of representatives. Then they stated that each representative had to represent the same number of constituents (30,000 to be exact).
In reality the founding fathers would see how some congressmen represent little under a million to others representing under 50,000 and be shocked at how broken the system is.
Don't pretend that you love the electoral college when you don't even care if the rules they set for them (i.e. the original intent) are being followed in the first place.
> In reality the founding fathers would see how some congressmen represent little under a million to others representing under 50,000 and be shocked at how broken the system is.
What reality is this you’re referring to in which you are trying to argue you know what the founding fathers would have thought of the subject and it just so happens to be the opinion you’re pushing here?
Wow, quite a coincidence huh??
> Don’t pretend that you love the electoral college when you don’t even care if the rules they set for them (i.e. the original intent) are being followed in the first place.
Love the electoral college? What does that even mean? It serves a purpose and that purpose shouldn’t be abolished cause I’m upset my guy didn’t win. There will be other elections and I suggest picking better candidates that can win it instead of arguing the system needs to be changed.
> What reality is this you’re referring to in which you are trying to argue you know what the founding fathers would have thought of the subject and it just so happens to be the opinion you’re pushing here?
You don't even know how the electoral college is supposed to work and yet you talk about how you know what it is.
>[Electoral votes are allocated among the states based on the Census. Every state is allocated a number of votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—***two votes for its senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its members in the U. S. House of Representatives***.](https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/allocation.html)
[The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons.](https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/)
>Gradually, however, the method for calculating apportionment caused smaller rural states to lose representation to larger urbanized states. A battle erupted between rural and urban factions, causing the House (for the only time in its history) to fail to reapportion itself following the 1920 Census. Signed into law on June 18, 1929, the Permanent Apportionment Act capped House Membership at the level established after the 1910 Census and created a procedure for automatically reapportioning House seats after every decennial census.
The electoral college was rigged long ago and your "only upset my guy didn't win" is just a way to hide the fact the system was rigged because it's convenient to you.
> You don’t even know how the electoral college is supposed to work and yet you talk about how you know what it is.
I do know what it is.
> The electoral college was rigged long ago and your “only upset my guy didn’t win” is just a way to hide the fact the system was rigged because it’s convenient to you.
Again, instead of wanting to change the system cause you’re guy lost try picking better candidates.
You’re arguing the electoral college should be changed cause a shitty candidate beat out an even shittier candidate I happen to vote for. The electoral college in no way dictates the quality of candidate you select.
Do you have a specific limit to the amount of words you can read at a time?
I literally explained how the system is rigged with cited sources about how it's not "what the founding fathers intended" (a point you dropped immediately after it was called out) and all you can say is "YoUr GuY LoSt GeT oVeR iT"
As the old aphorism goes "If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table."
Or I guess for you "[keep fucking that chicken](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7XbukdoGmM)"
> Do you have a specific limit to the amount of words you can read at a time?
Yes. Problem??
> I literally explained how the system is rigged with cited sources about how it’s not “what the founding fathers intended” (a point you dropped immediately after it was called out) and all you can say is “YoUr GuY LoSt GeT oVeR iT”
Your opinion supported by other opinions upset the election didn’t go your way.
> As the old aphorism goes “If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.”
But there is no facts other than the election didn’t turn out how you wanted it to and your upset about that. Again, pick better candidates instead of arguing the system is rigged.
You’re upset that a shitty candidate beat out your shittier candidate and can’t simply admit that and instead want to blame “the system”.
> Your opinion supported by other opinions upset the election didn’t go your way.
You're literally calling links directly to definitions from .gov websites opinions. I'm done here. good luck with your delusions.
We're paying all the taxes and the Republicans have the gall to say that the net recipients are subsidizing the net donors. And GOPers (including those in high tax states) eat it up because they are the single, stupidest group of window lickers on the planet.
I did what you intended, though I forgot to add in the 2 congressman each state gets to figure out the true political power of each person by state.
% of political power = % of taxes in this model. So good news, if you want to avoid taxes move to a territory, but you lose your vote.
This argument is a terrible defense of the electoral college and it doesn’t even bring up the worst part. If your state goes red and you vote blue, your vote is basically nullified and vice versa. The winner take all part of the electoral college basically cancels out votes and by definition makes other some votes worth more than others. The only reason we’re clinging to this antiquated system is because Republicans know they will get blown out in popular vote with ranked choice.
The only argument I've seen against just a straight majority vote for the election is that NY and CA would control the presidency.
1. NY and CA do not have a majority of the population of the united states.
2. There are a fuckton of Republicans in both states whose votes don't matter because of the electoral college.
3. Why should a handful of swing states control the election as they currently do?
4. The senate still exists to prevent large states from overrunning small states. This also effectively controls the judicial branch as the Senate appoints judges.
They can't argue with this counterpoint and run to the next article to spew their bullshit that they know is bullshit but the sheep with zero ability to think go "Yeah, CA and NY have 170 million democrats so we can't let them decide what happens!"
The other ironic thing is that many swing states we obsess over during presidential elections have as many voters altogether than many blue states have republican enrolled voters. For instance, a quick google search shows that there are 2.6 million registered Republicans in NY. In comparison, roughly the same number of people voted statewide in Wisconsin in 2018.
Because of this, you would think national Republicans would be interested in moving away from the electoral college since there is such a large untapped number of GOP voters living in blue states who have little political power under the current system but would account for a pretty significant number of votes they could pursue if we had a system based on a national popular vote.
Obviously though, I'm sure they dont mind writing off many of these voters since they manage to retain so many political advantages through our current system which centers voting more on equal representation by state instead of by voter.
The problem is that's a two way street. There's be a lot of blue voters in red States that would suddenly gain a vote, and given that there's actually a lot of those too, the Republicans are scared of the outcome. For example, Alabama recently elected a democratic senator by a very narrow margin. If all those blue voters had a voice in the presidential election, it'd likely e en out.
There's also a lot of disenfranchised Democratic voters in California and New York who just don't bother voting because "Why bother, it's going to go blue anyways."
That's the entire problem with this entire system. Republicans and Democrats are disenfranchised from voting in solid states on both sides.
They could have 10 people vote in the entire state of New York and as long as 6 vote Democrat, it means the same for a Presidential Election.
That's Texas, New York, California and dozens of other states that are ignored because Purple states only matter. That's bullshit.
even solid states aren't really solid. NY is mostly red rural areas with big blue islands at NYC , Albany and Buffalo. NJ is solid blue along the path of the NJ Turnpike and purple fading to red the further you leave that core. It would be so much fairer for all citizens if all states had winner take all for the 2 votes representing senators and rest decided by who wins each congressional district. Would force candidates to pay attention everywhere
The most ironic thing is these states, swing states, southern states, are leeches. They take WAY more of the tax dollars than they put in, basically existing off of the coastal's ability to support them. If I was president, I'd offer them this :Either get rid of this, or taxes will become representative towards state. Meaning if you take more, you pay more. Taxes in Bama would skyrocket.
Penn is mostly rural, not really coastal. And without all the benefits swing states get for being swing states, they'd be broke as shit too. The opiod epidemic adds so much to Ohio's cost per year its nuts.
That's...not the point of this. The point is shitass backwards fuck states take much more than they give, then try to rule us politically when they have less population. Lets cut them the fuck off. To take a playbook from you republicans, I'm tired of this welfare society where the rich give to the poor. Fuck your poor ass red voting states, nobody cares about your plight. We got ours, you can all suffer.
It's worth noting that there's a huge math problem with doing the Popular Vote. It basically means there's only ever going to be two parties. If a third party is ever attempted -- it will only steal votes from its nearest aligned party resulting in the furthest aligned party to win the elections and further dooming the third party which would still only get a fraction of the first two parties votes.
But don't let math stop people from liking something that increases the odds of their party winning.
The electoral college doesn't actually do that, FPTP does. But winner takes all is an inevitable outcome of any system like the electoral college, so it's a bit of a distinction without a difference.
Pretty sure it varies by state. But nationally doing a Maine / Nebraska "electoral college by popular vote" is kind of just an unnecessary and ungainly halfway house to getting rid of the electoral college completely.
Yeah, states technically have the ability to award them however they want. But nobody is going to choose to deliberately dilute their political power out of a misguided sense of fairness, so if any state is winner take all, most states will follow suit, because it means candidates will pay more attention to that state and it's concerns.
Approximately ~72% of registered voters did not vote for Trump in 2016 (they either voted for a different candidate, or they did not vote at all). Only around ~28% of registered voters voted for Trump (about ~46% of the nearly ~60% voter turnout), which is only about ~19% of the country's population - less than 1 in 5 Americans voted for Trump, and he lost the popular vote. But nah, our electoral process is the terrificest, believe me, everybody says so, except the \#FakeNews, and if you don't like it then you should go back to your "shi+hole country." [\#Murica](https://i.redd.it/l17wv2lv60uz.jpg)
The two sides are about 100 million people each and you’ve got to choose one or the other.
And then there’s a third 100 million that just gets completely ignored away.
Perfect description of the Electoral College.
The 3 little pictures show exactly why electoral colleges are not democratic.
Why should a minority have a bigger voice? Why not give a bigger voice to every single minorities, not only those that are geographically isolated... Like disabled people, the Indian community and everything or group of people you could think of.
Yes, let's let people who think Black people are dangerous and guns are more important than human lives decide what actually decent human beings live like.
The answer to this shit is to start using density maps, with dots for population clusters. Blank space is just grey.
Empty space doesn't vote (except in the senate).
Last time this was posted, I shared it to Facebook. Every one of my conservative friends defended the tweet and didn't understand what the picture below was for. When we pointed out it said both colors represented equal population, they would repeatedly say, "but red is more."
I took early childhood education and recognized the picture below it. If anybody isn't familiar with children's natural development they are illustrating a small exercise to show if a child is developing spatial reasoning. Little kids can't comprehend that the same amount of liquid in a taller glass isn't more or bigger. Even if they watch you pour the liquid.
This got a chuckle out of me.
Removing the electoral college would probably cause the rest of the voting age citizens to actually vote instead of not voting because it wont matter. Trump lost the popular vote. Electoral college always makes the end decision. Not the people. So without the electoral college we have a real demecrocy right? Orr am i wrong on how i think that would work
half the population decides in case of popular vote. If that happens to be as many people as live in Florida, Michigan and Wisoconsin combined, than that is not *unfair* but only a way to show that thats a densly populated area.
Popular vote means that up until the end *no* vote is lost compared to a winner-takes-all electoral system that heavily invalidates votes long before the final count.
The land mass does not vote. And as long as rural interests are represented in the senat and house I would really like to hear the argument behind the fear that a president selected through popular vote would negatively impact the sparsely populated areas ability to have their interest in the republic represented.
Presidents are not single-issue lawmakers. They do not get selected to advocate rural interests against urban interests. Nor is the urban vs rural divide the only demographics characteristic that produces a conflict of interest that needs mediating. Age, gender and ethnic background could be just as well used as grounds to strengthen a groups vote in the presidential election.
There are several short YT videos about it. This is one from Ted-Ed: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9H3gvnN468](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9H3gvnN468)
They way I say it to those people who believe this is “Why don’t we give another minority all the power? Would you be ok if only blacks decided all elections?”
Yes, but no. This is ignoring the effects of history.
As much as I think majority should win... USA at the end of the day is a federation.. like a much smaller version of the United Nations.. designed to work that the will of the "weaker" (less wealthy, less populous) states are not overridden by the will of the more powerful ones... each state wants to retain some sort of autonomy and own governance (as opposed to say a collection of suburbs) ... I dont think people would be very happy if China and India alone would get to decide who runs the UN and what the rules where for the rest of the world.
It would be hard to remove the electoral college AND keep state autonomy intact (if that is what the people want) although some tweaking of the system would help a lot...
The solution (to unite the nation/usa) may be to really weaken the state powers, and move more powers to the federal government so there is more uniformity between laws. That way each state and it's people operates under similar principles, laws/ culture etc..... then doing away with the electoral college would cause a lot less hurt, resentment .. but maybe that process will take too long.. . just a thought.. 🤔
> USA at the end of the day is a federation..
Like United Federation of Planets! Would it break the prime directive to explain how this could possibly be a good idea today?
I'm curious how the electoral college numbers would add up in this expressive map. While the number of voters may be the same in these 2 areas, would the electoral votes generated from these states also be equal?
My message wasn't to *you*, OP - it was a response to the author of the stupid map, Liz Wheeler (though I'm certain she'll never see it.) Although if you wish to forward it to her, please do so and tell her it's from me.
Thank you!
Except imagine if some players on red team scored 3.6 points for every goal and some players on blue team scored .78 points for every goal, with a ton of players on each team having different contributions to score.
Now at the end of the game one team scored 65 goals but only got 227 points, where the other team scored 62 goals but earned 304 points.
I guess you're old fashioned, but some people, like people who like equal representation, would prefer that every player scores the same amount of points per goal.
There's a difference between having an appreciation for the good parts of history, aka old fashioned, and wanting to bring back the shit parts of history or preserve the shit remnants of those times, aka backwards. You're backwards, not old fashioned. Wanna restore a 50's Chevrolet? Great! Wanna restore 1950s era bigotry? Go fuck yourself.
> founding fathers
The Founding Fathers also limited the right to vote to white land-owning men. And also didn't think you should vote for your senator either. So maybe that isn't the best standard.
They also intended for us to be able to change amend our government to suit the times.
Well there you have it, this subreddit is not about political humor but simply about pushing their political agenda. I do enjoy some of the humor from this subreddit but this is blatant partisanship.
Partisanship in this case would be you thinking your party's victory via electoral college is legitimate. You have to be pretty goddamn stupid to say "the removal of my party's handicap would be left wing partisan hackery."
Actually, I have no affiliation with the Republican party. I did not vote for either candidate in the last cycle. I am simply pointing out the bias from this subreddit that claims to be political humor. Your unwarranted assumption here that I am a Republican because I am calling out the bias of this subreddit is a fallacy.
So the minority holds the majority hostage. Fuck empty land.
Ever notice how the red areas REALLY oppose new people moving in? Cause they know when that happens they lose their power
The idea of conservatism is keeping things the same. New people are antithetical to things staying the same.
It’s not even just staying the same, otherwise they would just do nothing. It’s almost going back.
As culture develops what was once seen as standing still becomes going back from the point of view of someone who moved with the culture.
Well the whole republican platform is to halt or reverse all social progress at any cost.
Yes. Conservatism is for regression. Liberalism is for progression.
Vote like you drive: (D) to go forward, (R) to go backward.
Back to 1950 and two drinking fountains.
Well, lower vs upper case. Currently Conservatism (upper case) is about regression back to a prior time. The Progressive (upper case P) is about conserving what progress has been made on civil rights, environmental issues, healthcare, equality etc. Actual progress (lower case p) is kind of mostly sidelined for damage control over the current administration trying to tear everything down & revert to some mythical nostalgic naive innocence.
Yeah, *classic conservatism* is keeping things the same, but what we see now from "Conservatives" is active regression. The people who hold that classic conservatism mindset is basically centrist Americans at this point.
Some people have defined this new branch of Conservatism as Trumpism.
The only thing conservatives conserve is existing power structures.
[удалено]
[Ummm, yep (nsfw)..](https://i.imgur.com/hZXqF12.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More like gradual change so people can adapt instead of flipping the table and abruptly change something without risk assessment. Conservatism is like not abandoning the whole class to concentrate on the most gifted few in class. Yeah, the gifted kids will be bored and anxious waiting others to catch up, but most will benefit that way. Conservative isn't for being stuck in old ways, it's progress with caution. Progressive states are like the advanced class who experiment, take risks, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing. Conservative states follow the progress of the successful. That's how I see it anyway.
When is the last time you saw a conservative government progress with caution? I've literally never seen that, but I'm guessing you just think paying taxes is"theft".
No, I don't really think taxes are theft. I just think whatever the government does they do poorly and wastefully. It's role should be small mostly dealing with threats from outside and keeping us from eachothers throats. (Defense and law) I think my money could be used better and more efficient. If government wasn't the middle man.
The threat of death from lack of healthcare or resources is far more prevalent than from terrorism or murder. A government concerned with maximising well-being should prioritise the former.
Government healthcare should cover the truly needy like disabled, elderly and such. Then GTFO and let the market do the rest. You know what Lasik is? Pretty much a miracle for eye care and that is the result of Market instead of government. It's cheap, It's quality. It came to be because gov GTFO. where there was a need. We would have decent healthcare if the government didn't build a framework for corruption around it intentional or not.
You know what 45000 is? It's the number of people who die every year from lack of health insurance.
Thus get the government out as much as possible, get better healthcare via competitive markets and reduce that number. The approach currently taken isn't working not because we just need more money put in it, it's because it's the wrong approach.
That is the theory but it hasn't been that since forever. I think the perfect example for how much it isn't like that is the founding of the federal reserve. Even though not having a central bank was causing myriads of problems throughout the country and Europe having solved literally all of the aforementioned problems with central banks, conservatives still fought tooth and nail against the federal reserve. I look at programs like Obamacare and it shows that conservatives haven't embraced change, slow or otherwise, in over 100 years.
"New people" are usually people fleeing 'blue' areas like California and NYC because of high taxes and other Democrat policies that make the area a disaster that needs to be abandoned. Kind of like a virus that spreads.
Actually property taxes have very, very little effect on individual actors in their decisions for moving. It has some affect on business decisions, but that is honestly more of a supply and demand issue. Property is the most visible finite resource, and when even slightly mismanaged or capitalized on to breaking, has by far the most effect on people's lives. This has little to do with taxes, and more the fact that you can only shove so many people into such a small amount of space. Democratic policies work too well, for the framework they exist in at least, as everyone wants to be in Blue States, but there is simply not efficient use of space within any American space (thanks auto industries of the 20's and 30's.) So if everyone wants to live some where, no one is wanting efficient use of property, demand goes up, supply does not, and capitalism's one true rule starts to apply. Then, when the issue of supply and demand gets bad enough that companies can no longer bear the burden they have created, they move to empty areas, like the entire middle of the country. Not because of taxes, or republican policy, but because you guys have never capitalized the space that you have available, thus allowing an open supply. These states then change, and become more blue over time (Hello Texas), because as it turns out once you stop living in isolation you generally lose conservative values. It's hard to be scared of illegals or blacks when they're your neighbors, Jimbob.
Thats a bold statement that must have tons of evidence to support it.
Always thought about this. When Kansas lowered their taxes, believing that all these companies would move from high tax states to lower tax Kansas. If it really worked, the state would have become purple or blue. But it would never work because they never realized that smart people who work in tech want to give their kids the best education possible. That doesn't happen in schools which are so cash strapped they have to cut tons of programs.
My grad school advisor last year (he sadly retired.) was from Kenya and was amazed to learn that schools were the chief determining factor when Americans chose whether they would by a house
Was the surprise that people cared that much or that schools in the same city could be so different? I live in a small subdivision at the corner of two roads. Main entrance is on one road, a "fire road" goes to the other. If the fire road was our main entrance we would be sending our kids to a much better school. Realtor in our neighborhood says it would increase our home value by about 10%.
The former. He was from Nairobi so he could very much understand the latter.
I live smack dab in the middle of that red and ive never seen any sort of opposition to people moving here. Not a single bit. You’re welcome to come live here whenever you’d like! It’s quite nice. We drive slow, Town is dead on Sunday’s and everyone knows everyone and most importantly, you can still get avocado toast when you want it.
I have. The complain about "coasties" buying property and driving up prices. Both of ours are just anecdotes though.
Coming from someone at a seminary for the whitest denomination in the country, which is also in communion with every other mainline Protestant denomination in the country, Midwest folks are not as welcoming as they initially think (but we still love them.)
Yeah I grew up in red and their hospitality always had a bite. So many compliments were underhanded, sometimes not even intentionally. Especially when it came to race or sex. You're black, it'll be easy to get a scholarship! That's amazing for a girl! Mind you I'm a white man, I have numerous memories of offhanded racist comments I've heard by even friends and family.
"Oh, there's nothing halfway About the Iowa way to treat you, When we treat you Which we may not do at all. There's an Iowa kind of special Chip-on-the-shoulder attitude. We've never been without. That we recall."
No, it's because the same idiots who supported progressive programs in places like San Francisco end up getting fed up with the shit they voted for and decide to move somewhere nice without changing their politics so they end up bringing all of the shit they're trying to escape with them.
Most of those flyover states are not that nice. A lot of Californians are descended from people who fled the Dust Bowl.
That opinion ignores the fact that Californians are moving to Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming and Utah in droves in addition to a number of other states. As someone who has been to and spent time in 49 of the fifty states, I've got to say California is the last state that I'd ever consider moving back to. It's a cesspool with nothing to offer but high taxes, crime and corrupt politicians.
I've only spent time in about 30 and California would be my #1 pick. Every state has crime and corruption, the tax:benefit ratio is well within reason to me, and it's a damn lovely place with endless entertainment regardless of what you do for leisure.
Okay but that opinion ignores the fact that California has a net population gain from immigration, both internal and external. It also ignores the fact that voters didn’t really make San Francisco the way it is. SF is how it is because it was founded during the Gold Rush and the nearest major city to it for much of its history was St. Louis. SF is and always will be the Capital of the Wild West.
[удалено]
Because it's a sanctuary state or they just don't know better.
[удалено]
It's hard not to be more popular when you're giving away free shit that other people paid for. >Again, aiding the middle and lower class does more to a state than appeasing only the rich so they can buy themselves a 9th private jet. Socialism doesn't aid the middle and lower class, it feeds off of them. It helps just enough people to demonstrate that it has value to it's supporters. The rich don't pay taxes and you can thank both parties for that. The rich exist with impunity, look at the current pharmaceutical company fallout for the opioid epidemic. No one is going to jail for conspiracy and the fines that these companies are getting hit with is being paid for with the tax payer money Hillary Clinton handed them in 2011 after going to congress and asking for $10 Billion dollars to pay the pharmaceutical companies to do research into fighting the epidemic that proof has now come out that they are responsible for in the first place. It's not that I'm against progressive ideas, I think they're beautiful. The problem comes in through practical application. They're a tool for corruption that their supporters turn a blind eye to because they choose to look at what they think are positives.
I lived in the South. This is a lie.
[удалено]
Voter ID laws only serve to disenfranchis the poor. What do illegals have to do with voting?
[удалено]
Lol ok I see you are a full on racist. Have a good night
[удалено]
Illegals don't vote, that's just racist bull that the orange one spouts to explain why he loses popular vote.
Ever notice how conservative areas REALLY advocate voter ID laws while defunding ways for POC to get ID? Because when POC vote conservatives lose their power.
[удалено]
TIL that citizens who ARE a "drain" dont deserve Constitutional rights
[удалено]
TIL you are the ultimate decider who which citizens deserve Constitutional protection
[удалено]
It literally it's the government's job to make sure everyone has the opportunity to vote. Restricting access to elections is the opposite of that. Capitalist societies rely on the free market to provide access to all sorts of legal goods.
If you close the DMVs where they can go to to get an ID, if you defund public transport so that they can’t travel to get the license that counts as an ID, if they refuse to accurately print names that have nonstandard characters (dashes, apostrophes etc.) then you’re preventing certain people from getting “acceptable IDs” which has been a stated goal of Republican campaign planners in several past campaigns. Voter ID laws are deliberately used to prevent people of color from voting, spend less time asking if you’re the asshole and get your teenage ass an education about people who don’t look like you and their concerns and issues.
[удалено]
Work as a social worker for one....fucking...day.
I mean, [this guy only needed a national news story to get one](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2019/09/13/95-year-old-driver-gets-license-without-birth-certificate-but-other-texans-still-in-the-dark/). That's not so hard for those people in this type of situation, right?
Citation? You can't do it because this statement is based on your feelz.
"Fuck Empty Land" should be a bumper sticker.
The conservative minority holds the entire world hostage
It is one way to incentivize occupation
Is that not the original intent of the electoral college? To provide minorities a voice in government of our country?
It is allowing the minority to pick terrible presidents. Bush and Trump are the result of the electoral college.
So, you want to do away with the electoral college cause your guy didn’t get elected.
You want to keep it because you know it is the only way Republicans can win. Empty land should not get a vote.
> You want to keep it because you know it is the only way Republicans can win. Incorrect, I’ve already stated the reason for keeping it and find it laughable your only response to that is “cause you’re Republican”. Sorry the election didn’t go as you wanted and therefore want to change the framework of the electoral process due to it.
A broken system where different people's vote are more important than others. A banana republic full of corruption and blatant cheating. Why would anyone want to change that.
You’re only arguing it’s broken cause your gut didn’t win. > A banana republic full of corruption and blatant cheating. What are you referring to here or is this just mindless satire you throw out cause it sounds good?
It is a broken system because an obviously corrupt individual is president. If they implemented a minimum IQ of 90 their would be no Republican party.
> It is a broken system because an obviously corrupt individual is president. Corrupt how? > If they implemented a minimum IQ of 90 their would be no Republican party. And if they did the same on Reddit you would lose a privileges to post. So, consider it fair trade off.
the original intent of the electoral college stipulated that the number of electors each state had was based on the number of senators along with the number of congressmen in the house of representatives. Then they stated that each representative had to represent the same number of constituents (30,000 to be exact). In reality the founding fathers would see how some congressmen represent little under a million to others representing under 50,000 and be shocked at how broken the system is. Don't pretend that you love the electoral college when you don't even care if the rules they set for them (i.e. the original intent) are being followed in the first place.
> In reality the founding fathers would see how some congressmen represent little under a million to others representing under 50,000 and be shocked at how broken the system is. What reality is this you’re referring to in which you are trying to argue you know what the founding fathers would have thought of the subject and it just so happens to be the opinion you’re pushing here? Wow, quite a coincidence huh?? > Don’t pretend that you love the electoral college when you don’t even care if the rules they set for them (i.e. the original intent) are being followed in the first place. Love the electoral college? What does that even mean? It serves a purpose and that purpose shouldn’t be abolished cause I’m upset my guy didn’t win. There will be other elections and I suggest picking better candidates that can win it instead of arguing the system needs to be changed.
> What reality is this you’re referring to in which you are trying to argue you know what the founding fathers would have thought of the subject and it just so happens to be the opinion you’re pushing here? You don't even know how the electoral college is supposed to work and yet you talk about how you know what it is. >[Electoral votes are allocated among the states based on the Census. Every state is allocated a number of votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—***two votes for its senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its members in the U. S. House of Representatives***.](https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/allocation.html) [The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons.](https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/) >Gradually, however, the method for calculating apportionment caused smaller rural states to lose representation to larger urbanized states. A battle erupted between rural and urban factions, causing the House (for the only time in its history) to fail to reapportion itself following the 1920 Census. Signed into law on June 18, 1929, the Permanent Apportionment Act capped House Membership at the level established after the 1910 Census and created a procedure for automatically reapportioning House seats after every decennial census. The electoral college was rigged long ago and your "only upset my guy didn't win" is just a way to hide the fact the system was rigged because it's convenient to you.
> You don’t even know how the electoral college is supposed to work and yet you talk about how you know what it is. I do know what it is. > The electoral college was rigged long ago and your “only upset my guy didn’t win” is just a way to hide the fact the system was rigged because it’s convenient to you. Again, instead of wanting to change the system cause you’re guy lost try picking better candidates. You’re arguing the electoral college should be changed cause a shitty candidate beat out an even shittier candidate I happen to vote for. The electoral college in no way dictates the quality of candidate you select.
Do you have a specific limit to the amount of words you can read at a time? I literally explained how the system is rigged with cited sources about how it's not "what the founding fathers intended" (a point you dropped immediately after it was called out) and all you can say is "YoUr GuY LoSt GeT oVeR iT" As the old aphorism goes "If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table." Or I guess for you "[keep fucking that chicken](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7XbukdoGmM)"
> Do you have a specific limit to the amount of words you can read at a time? Yes. Problem?? > I literally explained how the system is rigged with cited sources about how it’s not “what the founding fathers intended” (a point you dropped immediately after it was called out) and all you can say is “YoUr GuY LoSt GeT oVeR iT” Your opinion supported by other opinions upset the election didn’t go your way. > As the old aphorism goes “If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.” But there is no facts other than the election didn’t turn out how you wanted it to and your upset about that. Again, pick better candidates instead of arguing the system is rigged. You’re upset that a shitty candidate beat out your shittier candidate and can’t simply admit that and instead want to blame “the system”.
> Your opinion supported by other opinions upset the election didn’t go your way. You're literally calling links directly to definitions from .gov websites opinions. I'm done here. good luck with your delusions.
Good luck continuing to scapegoat “the system” anytime something doesn’t go your way.
Can this electoral, apply to taxes as well? Let the less represented West & NE people pay less taxes since their individual vote doesn't count.
Exactly. Taxation with equal representation.
So the rich end up controlling the government? Oh nothing changes.
The NE is extremely well represented compared to Cali. New York and New England combined have fewer people and make up seven states.
14 senators. :/
*distressed villager sounds*
Fun Fact: Montana has more senators than representatives.
We're paying all the taxes and the Republicans have the gall to say that the net recipients are subsidizing the net donors. And GOPers (including those in high tax states) eat it up because they are the single, stupidest group of window lickers on the planet.
Here ya go. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16OKK-UvW4AbcwsS5iVf1iyp0lOWewLDLpJZ0uEhQrwY/edit?usp=drivesdk
Isnt this supposed to be calculated towards electing president? More like every person got one weight age, just like popular vote.
I did what you intended, though I forgot to add in the 2 congressman each state gets to figure out the true political power of each person by state. % of political power = % of taxes in this model. So good news, if you want to avoid taxes move to a territory, but you lose your vote.
This argument is a terrible defense of the electoral college and it doesn’t even bring up the worst part. If your state goes red and you vote blue, your vote is basically nullified and vice versa. The winner take all part of the electoral college basically cancels out votes and by definition makes other some votes worth more than others. The only reason we’re clinging to this antiquated system is because Republicans know they will get blown out in popular vote with ranked choice.
The only argument I've seen against just a straight majority vote for the election is that NY and CA would control the presidency. 1. NY and CA do not have a majority of the population of the united states. 2. There are a fuckton of Republicans in both states whose votes don't matter because of the electoral college. 3. Why should a handful of swing states control the election as they currently do? 4. The senate still exists to prevent large states from overrunning small states. This also effectively controls the judicial branch as the Senate appoints judges. They can't argue with this counterpoint and run to the next article to spew their bullshit that they know is bullshit but the sheep with zero ability to think go "Yeah, CA and NY have 170 million democrats so we can't let them decide what happens!"
The other ironic thing is that many swing states we obsess over during presidential elections have as many voters altogether than many blue states have republican enrolled voters. For instance, a quick google search shows that there are 2.6 million registered Republicans in NY. In comparison, roughly the same number of people voted statewide in Wisconsin in 2018. Because of this, you would think national Republicans would be interested in moving away from the electoral college since there is such a large untapped number of GOP voters living in blue states who have little political power under the current system but would account for a pretty significant number of votes they could pursue if we had a system based on a national popular vote. Obviously though, I'm sure they dont mind writing off many of these voters since they manage to retain so many political advantages through our current system which centers voting more on equal representation by state instead of by voter.
The problem is that's a two way street. There's be a lot of blue voters in red States that would suddenly gain a vote, and given that there's actually a lot of those too, the Republicans are scared of the outcome. For example, Alabama recently elected a democratic senator by a very narrow margin. If all those blue voters had a voice in the presidential election, it'd likely e en out.
There's also a lot of disenfranchised Democratic voters in California and New York who just don't bother voting because "Why bother, it's going to go blue anyways." That's the entire problem with this entire system. Republicans and Democrats are disenfranchised from voting in solid states on both sides. They could have 10 people vote in the entire state of New York and as long as 6 vote Democrat, it means the same for a Presidential Election. That's Texas, New York, California and dozens of other states that are ignored because Purple states only matter. That's bullshit.
even solid states aren't really solid. NY is mostly red rural areas with big blue islands at NYC , Albany and Buffalo. NJ is solid blue along the path of the NJ Turnpike and purple fading to red the further you leave that core. It would be so much fairer for all citizens if all states had winner take all for the 2 votes representing senators and rest decided by who wins each congressional district. Would force candidates to pay attention everywhere
The most ironic thing is these states, swing states, southern states, are leeches. They take WAY more of the tax dollars than they put in, basically existing off of the coastal's ability to support them. If I was president, I'd offer them this :Either get rid of this, or taxes will become representative towards state. Meaning if you take more, you pay more. Taxes in Bama would skyrocket.
Ohio is pretty self sufficient. Pennsylvania is basically a coastal state. Uhhh.... Florida is.... Good?
Penn is mostly rural, not really coastal. And without all the benefits swing states get for being swing states, they'd be broke as shit too. The opiod epidemic adds so much to Ohio's cost per year its nuts.
Not my fault druggies are everywhere.
That's...not the point of this. The point is shitass backwards fuck states take much more than they give, then try to rule us politically when they have less population. Lets cut them the fuck off. To take a playbook from you republicans, I'm tired of this welfare society where the rich give to the poor. Fuck your poor ass red voting states, nobody cares about your plight. We got ours, you can all suffer.
Also really don’t understand how #1 justifies anything. Someone being in a state you don’t like doesn’t justify your vote being of more weight.
That was like 4 arguments. One other one that I had read or maybe I heard it on a podcast was about how difficult changing the constitution would be.
Ohio/Florida/Pennsylvania: Swing state squad where you at??
It's worth noting that there's a huge math problem with doing the Popular Vote. It basically means there's only ever going to be two parties. If a third party is ever attempted -- it will only steal votes from its nearest aligned party resulting in the furthest aligned party to win the elections and further dooming the third party which would still only get a fraction of the first two parties votes. But don't let math stop people from liking something that increases the odds of their party winning.
How is that any different than what happens now? Also most people advocating for the popular vote also tend to support ranked choice as well.
The electoral college doesn't actually do that, FPTP does. But winner takes all is an inevitable outcome of any system like the electoral college, so it's a bit of a distinction without a difference.
Pretty sure it varies by state. But nationally doing a Maine / Nebraska "electoral college by popular vote" is kind of just an unnecessary and ungainly halfway house to getting rid of the electoral college completely.
Yeah, states technically have the ability to award them however they want. But nobody is going to choose to deliberately dilute their political power out of a misguided sense of fairness, so if any state is winner take all, most states will follow suit, because it means candidates will pay more attention to that state and it's concerns.
Correctly stated, this post would be “imagine if orange and red picked the President together and orange WASNT completely ignored.”
Approximately ~72% of registered voters did not vote for Trump in 2016 (they either voted for a different candidate, or they did not vote at all). Only around ~28% of registered voters voted for Trump (about ~46% of the nearly ~60% voter turnout), which is only about ~19% of the country's population - less than 1 in 5 Americans voted for Trump, and he lost the popular vote. But nah, our electoral process is the terrificest, believe me, everybody says so, except the \#FakeNews, and if you don't like it then you should go back to your "shi+hole country." [\#Murica](https://i.redd.it/l17wv2lv60uz.jpg)
If I wasn’t desperately poor, I’d guild this comment
I'll accept thoughts & prayers. ;)
Obviously your vote should count more the farther your house is away from your neighbors. That's just logic.
More Republicans in California than people in Iowa but the President says fuck them because the state voted Blue
The two sides are about 100 million people each and you’ve got to choose one or the other. And then there’s a third 100 million that just gets completely ignored away. Perfect description of the Electoral College.
1 person, 1 vote
Now do people instead of dirt!
The 3 little pictures show exactly why electoral colleges are not democratic. Why should a minority have a bigger voice? Why not give a bigger voice to every single minorities, not only those that are geographically isolated... Like disabled people, the Indian community and everything or group of people you could think of.
r/selfawarewolves
First we roll North and South Dakota into one state. US Senate representation in these states is a joke.
Yes, let's let people who think Black people are dangerous and guns are more important than human lives decide what actually decent human beings live like.
The answer to this shit is to start using density maps, with dots for population clusters. Blank space is just grey. Empty space doesn't vote (except in the senate).
Last time this was posted, I shared it to Facebook. Every one of my conservative friends defended the tweet and didn't understand what the picture below was for. When we pointed out it said both colors represented equal population, they would repeatedly say, "but red is more."
I’m surprised at the amount of people doing that myself, to be honest. Just completely missing the point
Yeah let’s listen to the idiots that gave us Trump and who put themselves above the needs of their very own neighbors.
Land doesn't vote. (Or shouldn't, rather, as it doesn't live)
I've got stuff growing in my yard smarter than a third of the voters.
How about we truly choose who’s president by ignoring the electoral college completely. And go by popular vote
I took early childhood education and recognized the picture below it. If anybody isn't familiar with children's natural development they are illustrating a small exercise to show if a child is developing spatial reasoning. Little kids can't comprehend that the same amount of liquid in a taller glass isn't more or bigger. Even if they watch you pour the liquid. This got a chuckle out of me.
Removing the electoral college would probably cause the rest of the voting age citizens to actually vote instead of not voting because it wont matter. Trump lost the popular vote. Electoral college always makes the end decision. Not the people. So without the electoral college we have a real demecrocy right? Orr am i wrong on how i think that would work
I bet Trump is proud of winning Lane County, Kansas and its 1,560 people.
As opposed to Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin deciding the election?
half the population decides in case of popular vote. If that happens to be as many people as live in Florida, Michigan and Wisoconsin combined, than that is not *unfair* but only a way to show that thats a densly populated area. Popular vote means that up until the end *no* vote is lost compared to a winner-takes-all electoral system that heavily invalidates votes long before the final count. The land mass does not vote. And as long as rural interests are represented in the senat and house I would really like to hear the argument behind the fear that a president selected through popular vote would negatively impact the sparsely populated areas ability to have their interest in the republic represented. Presidents are not single-issue lawmakers. They do not get selected to advocate rural interests against urban interests. Nor is the urban vs rural divide the only demographics characteristic that produces a conflict of interest that needs mediating. Age, gender and ethnic background could be just as well used as grounds to strengthen a groups vote in the presidential election.
You mean, imagine if each person’s vote counted equally regardless of where in the country they lived; Fuck no, that would be logical.
More Republicans in California than people in Iowa but the President says fuck them because the state voted Blue
[удалено]
Please read the rules before participating further.
Can someone explain the electoral college to me and how it works?
There are several short YT videos about it. This is one from Ted-Ed: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9H3gvnN468](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9H3gvnN468)
So who did the grey areas vote for?
1 acre, 1 vote!
Except the President represents every individual not each area. It should be a simple majority.
r/facepalm
*imagine if orange and red picked the President together and orange WASNT completely ignored.
Maybe if Orange was sane.
I’d say that about red, buddy.
Grey counties, fuck your vote.
The Senate having 2 members from each state already fixes the problem shown here. Electoral college has nothing to do with it.
Did she just defeat her own argument in a tweet?
Yes, they are. Just like Democrats are my dog in the fight of environmental protection and pro-abortion!
There are some very big, left leaning cities in Red, such as Chicago, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, Denver and a bunch of others.
They way I say it to those people who believe this is “Why don’t we give another minority all the power? Would you be ok if only blacks decided all elections?”
Yes, but no. This is ignoring the effects of history. As much as I think majority should win... USA at the end of the day is a federation.. like a much smaller version of the United Nations.. designed to work that the will of the "weaker" (less wealthy, less populous) states are not overridden by the will of the more powerful ones... each state wants to retain some sort of autonomy and own governance (as opposed to say a collection of suburbs) ... I dont think people would be very happy if China and India alone would get to decide who runs the UN and what the rules where for the rest of the world. It would be hard to remove the electoral college AND keep state autonomy intact (if that is what the people want) although some tweaking of the system would help a lot... The solution (to unite the nation/usa) may be to really weaken the state powers, and move more powers to the federal government so there is more uniformity between laws. That way each state and it's people operates under similar principles, laws/ culture etc..... then doing away with the electoral college would cause a lot less hurt, resentment .. but maybe that process will take too long.. . just a thought.. 🤔
> USA at the end of the day is a federation.. Like United Federation of Planets! Would it break the prime directive to explain how this could possibly be a good idea today?
I'm curious how the electoral college numbers would add up in this expressive map. While the number of voters may be the same in these 2 areas, would the electoral votes generated from these states also be equal?
How do they have enough brain power to breathe while they sleep
DIRT don't vote, dickwad! The idea of "majority of the people" is supposed to be thrown out in favor of voting based on acreage? Fuck that!
Look closer at the meme and realize your arguing with your own side, bud
My message wasn't to *you*, OP - it was a response to the author of the stupid map, Liz Wheeler (though I'm certain she'll never see it.) Although if you wish to forward it to her, please do so and tell her it's from me. Thank you!
Fair enough, cheers
What about those of us in the gray areas?
It’s a wash. I live on a blue island in a red ocean in the grey area.
The whole complaint is that they don't have equal population, one has dramatically leas.
[удалено]
Except imagine if some players on red team scored 3.6 points for every goal and some players on blue team scored .78 points for every goal, with a ton of players on each team having different contributions to score. Now at the end of the game one team scored 65 goals but only got 227 points, where the other team scored 62 goals but earned 304 points. I guess you're old fashioned, but some people, like people who like equal representation, would prefer that every player scores the same amount of points per goal.
I’m a stickler for democracy myself, friend
*You're
There's a difference between having an appreciation for the good parts of history, aka old fashioned, and wanting to bring back the shit parts of history or preserve the shit remnants of those times, aka backwards. You're backwards, not old fashioned. Wanna restore a 50's Chevrolet? Great! Wanna restore 1950s era bigotry? Go fuck yourself.
The problem is that entire states are known to have a bias.
Then maybe states shouldn't be voting. Just let the people vote as individuals.
The individuals in those states have predictable opinions. We know that people in certain states are more likely to vote for one side.
Yes, and?
Just make it so popular vote decided why did the founding fathers put electoral college in place again
> founding fathers The Founding Fathers also limited the right to vote to white land-owning men. And also didn't think you should vote for your senator either. So maybe that isn't the best standard. They also intended for us to be able to change amend our government to suit the times.
Because the smaller, less powerful states wouldn't have joined the union
So just do what we used to do when we wanted land (minus the genocide just the taking)
Slave states wanted their property to give them more power in government.
And slavery is no longer a thing so no need for it
Well there you have it, this subreddit is not about political humor but simply about pushing their political agenda. I do enjoy some of the humor from this subreddit but this is blatant partisanship.
R/woosh
Partisanship in this case would be you thinking your party's victory via electoral college is legitimate. You have to be pretty goddamn stupid to say "the removal of my party's handicap would be left wing partisan hackery."
Actually, I have no affiliation with the Republican party. I did not vote for either candidate in the last cycle. I am simply pointing out the bias from this subreddit that claims to be political humor. Your unwarranted assumption here that I am a Republican because I am calling out the bias of this subreddit is a fallacy.
You're arguing in favor of the Republican party. Whether you voted for them or not, they're your dog in this fight.