d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Democrat Division Megathread
Prev1114115116117118205Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 54,196
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Nov 22 2019 09:37am
Quote (sir_lance_bb @ 22 Nov 2019 13:26)
I'm sure you are aware of the push for a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Which basically just means state electors will choose to cast their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote but only actually occurs once a majority of states have entered the compact. Which effectively nulls out the electoral college and is still ironically operating within the electoral college framework and it ends up having the election decided by the popular vote.

To be completely honest, this is the only way real change is going to happen since getting an amendment made to the constitution to get rid of or change the electoral college is massively improbable. But states uniting together is more realistic if they share a common objective.


For this compact to work, they need relatively red states like Ohio, Florida or North Carolina to join. I dont see that happening as this would decrease these states' prominent role in American politics.


And as I said before, the bigger issue for liberal legislation is the Senate anyway, which favors small/rural states by design and whose makeup is specified by the constitution. The constitution leaves a lot of room for states on how to allocate their electors in the electoral college. On the contrary, the fact that each state is represented in the Senate by two senators is in the constitution. Even if red-leaning swing states like Ohio would be willing to change the makeup of the Senate, they couldnt do it without 75% majorities in both chambers of Congress. And with the way the Senate is made up right now, Democrats could win presidential races by 66 to 35 percent blowouts and still wouldnt even come close to the required 75% majority among senators.
Member
Posts: 93,005
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,214.94
Nov 22 2019 09:46am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 22 2019 09:37am)
For this compact to work, they need relatively red states like Ohio, Florida or North Carolina to join. I dont see that happening as this would decrease these states' prominent role in American politics.


And as I said before, the bigger issue for liberal legislation is the Senate anyway, which favors small/rural states by design and whose makeup is specified by the constitution. The constitution leaves a lot of room for states on how to allocate their electors in the electoral college. On the contrary, the fact that each state is represented in the Senate by two senators is in the constitution. Even if red-leaning swing states like Ohio would be willing to change the makeup of the Senate, they couldnt do it without 75% majorities in both chambers of Congress. And with the way the Senate is made up right now, Democrats could win presidential races by 66 to 35 percent blowouts and still wouldnt even come close to the required 75% majority among senators.


the senate favors small states, the house favors large states. is this not balance?
Member
Posts: 54,196
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Nov 22 2019 09:51am
Quote (thesnipa @ 22 Nov 2019 16:46)
the senate favors small states, the house favors large states. is this not balance?


No. Balance according to leftist is when the big population centers dictate everything and the rest of the country has no real say in anything. They dont want to have to worry about pesky "flyover country" anymore.
Member
Posts: 93,005
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,214.94
Nov 22 2019 09:54am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 22 2019 09:51am)
No. Balance according to leftist is when the big population centers dictate everything and the rest of the country has no real say in anything. They dont want to have to worry about pesky "flyover country" anymore.


what i find ironic is they think the house represents balance, aka # of votes based on population. and the electoral college system gives you a # of electoral votes based on population, but is also unfair.

it's really just sour grapes tbh. the EC is a fine system moving forward imo. its only "failed" like twice in electing a potus who narrowly lost the popular vote.
Member
Posts: 54,196
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Nov 22 2019 10:04am
Quote (thesnipa @ 22 Nov 2019 16:54)
what i find ironic is they think the house represents balance, aka # of votes based on population. and the electoral college system gives you a # of electoral votes based on population, but is also unfair.

it's really just sour grapes tbh. the EC is a fine system moving forward imo. its only "failed" like twice in electing a potus who narrowly lost the popular vote.


The tldr really is that the Democrats dont want to have to go out of the metro areas, they dont want to have to convince anyone in "flyover country" to win elections. I mean... Republicans will also have to win back at least the suburbs if they want to retake the House anytime soon. To really get their vision and preferences implemented, the GOP will also have to extend its appeal out of its current base, just like the Democrats.
Member
Posts: 93,005
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,214.94
Nov 22 2019 10:07am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 22 2019 10:04am)
The tldr really is that the Democrats dont want to have to go out of the metro areas, they dont want to have to convince anyone in "flyover country" to win elections. I mean... Republicans will also have to win back at least the suburbs if they want to retake the House anytime soon. To really get their vision and preferences implemented, the GOP will also have to extend its appeal out of its current base, just like the Democrats.


its even worse than that imo. they want to do a tour of NYC, LA, and DC. that's it.

its not like Madison, Chicago, Atlanta, Santa Fe, etc are bad cities to campaign in. its the travel to all of them that gets tough. they want to do a bland satellite interview once a week and soak up the votes.

the electoral college already favors the population density map which favors the democrats. we just happen to have a LOT of open space which is a coalition they've abandoned.
Member
Posts: 54,196
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Nov 22 2019 10:16am
Quote (thesnipa @ 22 Nov 2019 17:07)
its even worse than that imo. they want to do a tour of NYC, LA, and DC. that's it.

its not like Madison, Chicago, Atlanta, Santa Fe, etc are bad cities to campaign in. its the travel to all of them that gets tough. they want to do a bland satellite interview once a week and soak up the votes.

the electoral college already favors the population density map which favors the democrats. we just happen to have a LOT of open space which is a coalition they've abandoned.


The Democratic coalition consists of blacks (heavily clustered in big cities), hispanics (heavily clustered in big cities) and college-educated whites who happen to be the profiteers of globalization (heavily clustered in big metro areas, although not necessarily in the inner city).
I dont think that they intentionally gave up on rural America, it's just that the pillars of their coalition saw their numbers grow mostly in the big metros, thanks to internatonal and domestic (jobs, colleges) migration.
Member
Posts: 93,005
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,214.94
Nov 22 2019 10:38am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 22 2019 10:16am)
The Democratic coalition consists of blacks (heavily clustered in big cities), hispanics (heavily clustered in big cities) and college-educated whites who happen to be the profiteers of globalization (heavily clustered in big metro areas, although not necessarily in the inner city).
I dont think that they intentionally gave up on rural America, it's just that the pillars of their coalition saw their numbers grow mostly in the big metros, thanks to internatonal and domestic (jobs, colleges) migration.


the democratic party's success was built on unions. Detroit, Chicago, etc. When the unions failed because the industries moved abroad they scrambled to find a new core audience. and it just so happened it was when minorities were finally getting involved in politics. people see the democratic party as for minorities historically, this is a lie. they were the party of the white unions, the white unions died, so they scrambled to create a voting block, as compared to doing it for social justice.
Member
Posts: 37,613
Joined: May 3 2007
Gold: 119,903.34
Nov 22 2019 03:44pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 22 2019 11:07am)
its even worse than that imo. they want to do a tour of NYC, LA, and DC. that's it.

its not like Madison, Chicago, Atlanta, Santa Fe, etc are bad cities to campaign in. its the travel to all of them that gets tough. they want to do a bland satellite interview once a week and soak up the votes.

the electoral college already favors the population density map which favors the democrats. we just happen to have a LOT of open space which is a coalition they've abandoned.


The main issue is more the gerrymandering and partisan voting district lines that are drawn up. Which currently favors GOP in battleground states but is prevalent on both sides.

That is mostly more of an issue with career politicians being able to game up systems to keep getting re elected since they can pander to a certain base easier.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 22 2019 10:37am)
For this compact to work, they need relatively red states like Ohio, Florida or North Carolina to join. I dont see that happening as this would decrease these states' prominent role in American politics.


And as I said before, the bigger issue for liberal legislation is the Senate anyway, which favors small/rural states by design and whose makeup is specified by the constitution. The constitution leaves a lot of room for states on how to allocate their electors in the electoral college. On the contrary, the fact that each state is represented in the Senate by two senators is in the constitution. Even if red-leaning swing states like Ohio would be willing to change the makeup of the Senate, they couldnt do it without 75% majorities in both chambers of Congress. And with the way the Senate is made up right now, Democrats could win presidential races by 66 to 35 percent blowouts and still wouldnt even come close to the required 75% majority among senators.


It would have hurdles for sure but it's way more reasonable to work towards than constitutional amendments because of what it requires to actually get to that point. Whereas the compact just requires the larger blue states to agree to it and maybe pull in some battleground states within it.


This post was edited by sir_lance_bb on Nov 22 2019 03:46pm
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
Nov 22 2019 04:01pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 22 2019 11:38am)
the democratic party's success was built on unions. Detroit, Chicago, etc. When the unions failed because the industries moved abroad they scrambled to find a new core audience. and it just so happened it was when minorities were finally getting involved in politics. people see the democratic party as for minorities historically, this is a lie. they were the party of the white unions, the white unions died, so they scrambled to create a voting block, as compared to doing it for social justice.


Southern strategy in reverse.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1114115116117118205Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll