Support NeoGAF

[Tim-E]

Maybe she can contribute as guest on dhp

Beaten l

I would shit myself if this happened.

 

[The Librarian]

I would shit myself if this happened.

No girls allowed.

 

[Magni]

If this electoral allocation shit picks up, then the National Democratic Party needs to start a nationwide movement to once and for all always award the election to the one who gets the most votes, period, eliminating the college once and for all. It's a wasteful relic of days past.

Granted, it will make elections less exciting at the micro level, but it'll turn the presidential election into a Nation wide race, and that'll make candidates hopefully far more pliable to the will of the people.

You're talking about the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact. It currently has 132 EVs, it'll kick in once they hit 270.

Basically the states that have ratified it agree to give their EVs to the winner of the national popular vote once there are enough states in the compact for it to decide the election (effectively rendering the EC worthless).

 

[Sirpopopop]

Let me know when we are amassing in force to protest Virginia.

This would be a good time for Occupy to let its voice be heard.

 

[Qazaq]

HYPOCRISY ALERT!

I'm as liberal as the next person on NeoGAF, but this "states vote for the winner of the popular vote regardless of who won the state" is just as awful.

The electoral college is flawed. It's not great.

But you can't condemn this blatant rigging via the gerrymandered districts and yet be FOR a certain amount of states throwing out the results of the state and going with the national popular vote because it's an area that favors the Dems.

It's liberals being butt hurt about Al Gore combining it with an area that will favor them. It's not about it being any better of an idea or CERTAINLY any more "fair".

 

[Amir0x]

HYPOCRISY ALERT!

I'm as liberal as the next person on NeoGAF, but this "states vote for the winner of the popular vote regardless of who won the state" is just as awful.

The electoral college is flawed. It's not great.

But you can't condemn this blatant rigging via the gerrymandered districts and yet be FOR a certain amount of states throwing out the results of the state and going with the national popular vote because it's an area that favors the Dems.

It's liberals being butt hurt about Al Gore combining it with an area that will favor them. It's not about it being any better of an idea or CERTAINLY any more "fair".

What? I'm for eliminating the electoral college across the board and going with pure national vote totals everywhere period.

That's not hypocrisy - that's giving both Republicans and Democrats equal opportunity to make their case to the American people and let the chips roll where they may

 

[Tamanon]

HYPOCRISY ALERT!

I'm as liberal as the next person on NeoGAF, but this "states vote for the winner of the popular vote regardless of who won the state" is just as awful.

The electoral college is flawed. It's not great.

But you can't condemn this blatant rigging via the gerrymandered districts and yet be FOR a certain amount of states throwing out the results of the state and going with the national popular vote because it's an area that favors the Dems.

It's liberals being butt hurt about Al Gore combining it with an area that will favor them. It's not about it being any better of an idea or CERTAINLY any more "fair".

I don't understand what you're comparing it to? What states are throwing out the results of the state?

 

[GhaleonEB]

HYPOCRISY ALERT!

I'm as liberal as the next person on NeoGAF, but this "states vote for the winner of the popular vote regardless of who won the state" is just as awful.

The electoral college is flawed. It's not great.

But you can't condemn this blatant rigging via the gerrymandered districts and yet be FOR a certain amount of states throwing out the results of the state and going with the national popular vote because it's an area that favors the Dems.

It's liberals being butt hurt about Al Gore combining it with an area that will favor them. It's not about it being any better of an idea or CERTAINLY any more "fair".

To the bold: the national popular vote movement is aimed at electing the person who gets the most votes. That's actually perfectly consistent with the outrage at what Virginia is doing, because the popular vote winner in the state will lose - big time - in the EV count. Frankly your post is one big false equivalence. The only butthurt is about disenfranchisement.

 

[Qazaq]

Well there's two things there.


1) We can debate the actual merits of the electoral college. I, personally, don't mind it. It's kind of good in the fact that nobody likes it. It's kind of like how a compromise feels. But it's a system that seems to make the playing field as leveled as possible.


2)

What? I'm for eliminating the electoral college across the board and going with pure national vote totals everywhere period.

I understand but in terms of maybe the overarching point, it's still basically doing something that changes the system to blatantly favor Democrats.

Changing the system to a nationwide vote-in-the-electoral-college-by-district would systematically favor the Republicans, just as the nationwide popular vote systematically favors the Dems.

 

[Gotchaye]

If this electoral allocation shit picks up, then the National Democratic Party needs to start a nationwide movement to once and for all always award the election to the one who gets the most votes, period, eliminating the college once and for all. It's a wasteful relic of days past.

Granted, it will make elections less exciting at the micro level, but it'll turn the presidential election into a Nation wide race, and that'll make candidates hopefully far more pliable to the will of the people.

I'm for this as a long-term goal, but this seems like a terrible response to Republican attempts to game the system. First, Democrats are unlikely to successfully eliminate the EC by 2016. Second, it gives the Republicans a Democratic counterproposal to argue against. The Democrats' claim should not be "The Republicans' proposed changes to presidential elections are bad, but our proposed changes are good." It should be "They're coming to take away your vote!"

Well there's two things there.
I understand but in terms of maybe the overarching point, it's still basically doing something that changes the system to blatantly favor Democrats.

Changing the system to a nationwide vote-in-the-electoral-college-by-district would systematically favor the Republicans, just as the nationwide popular vote systematically favors the Dems.

I'm with you. Screw those Democrats who think that they should be winning elections just because they get more votes. Totally unfair.

 

[The Librarian]

Well there's two things there.


1) We can debate the actual merits of the electoral college. I, personally, don't mind it. It's kind of good in the fact that nobody likes it. It's kind of like how a compromise feels. But it's a system that seems to make the playing field as leveled as possible.

Level the playing field of what against what?

 

[Qazaq]

I don't really know TOO much about this "pact" certain (mainly blue, yes?) states have made that would go into effect if enough states signed on.

I think if a certain amount of states want to ignore the results of the state to vote for the popular vote winner, that's ABSOLUTELY on the same level as what the VA republicans are doing.

But this:

To the bold: the national popular vote movement is aimed at electing the person who gets the most votes.

Well yes. Duh.



And it's a way that systematically favors Democrats.

 

[pigeon]

But you can't condemn this blatant rigging via the gerrymandered districts and yet be FOR a certain amount of states throwing out the results of the state and going with the national popular vote because it's an area that favors the Dems.

Favors the Democrats compared to what? When people make arguments about the severity of gerrymandering, they do it by comparing the results to the popular vote! In what sense, then, can a system that only uses the popular vote favor either side? Arguably, the issue is that dividing the vote into districts of any sort, whether Congressional districts or state-sized districts via the electoral college, undercounts voters who live in denser areas, which are consistently more liberal -- and so even the electoral college system we have today favors the Republicans. But even that would be a relatively unnecessary argument, because the reality is that the national popular vote has almost always matched the winner of the electoral college -- so there's no sense in which it can really favor either side.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Well there's two things there.


1) We can debate the actual merits of the electoral college. I, personally, don't mind it. It's kind of good in the fact that nobody likes it. It's kind of like how a compromise feels. But it's a system that seems to make the playing field as leveled as possible.

2)

I understand but in terms of maybe the overarching point, it's still basically doing something that changes the system to blatantly favor Democrats.

Changing the system to a nationwide vote-in-the-electoral-college-by-district would systematically favor the Republicans, just as the nationwide popular vote systematically favors the Dems.

You are saying, if the nation votes for one person, that's unfair to the other, losing candidate. Therefore, we need a system to level the playing field so the person getting fewer votes has a better chance to win. Great logic.

And it's a way that systematically favors Democrats.

Curious why you feel the public favoring one political party is a problem in need of a solution via election law.

 

[Qazaq]

Level the playing field of what against what?

Systems that intrinsically favor the Democrats versus systems that intrinsically favor the Republicans.

Nobody really likes the electoral college. And yet it's the system that has given both parties what feels like a genuinely viable shot at the Presidency in the way that they probably should have, in a manner that -- while certainly a bit archaic --- still has some logic to it that feels democratic.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

There were more American soldiers in Vietnam when Kennedy died than there were in Afghanistan at 2006, it was hardly a minor action.
And while it's true that it could've been avoided, you need to consider how it could have been avoided - specifically it would have required a president to admit defeat ("the first American president to lost a war!") and then sit and watch our ex-allies getting slaughtered.
Now don't get me wrong, I think that's exactly what he should've done, but I understand completely why it was almost impossible to do politically.


LOL.
So stealing this, that's going to be my new Bachmann shtick.

He ended up with more than 500,000 troops there from 16,000. That's more than just succumbing to political pressure. That's massive escalation. He pushed for it and he got it.

 

[Gotchaye]

Systems that intrinsically favor the Democrats versus systems that intrinsically favor the Republicans.

Nobody really likes the electoral college. And yet it's the system that has given both parties what feels like a genuinely viable shot at the Presidency in the way that they probably should have, in a manner that -- while certainly a bit archaic --- still has some logic to it that feels democratic.

You realize that the parties change their positions over time based on what's necessary to continue being politically viable, right?

 

[The Technomancer]

Systems that intrinsically favor the Democrats versus systems that intrinsically favor the Republicans.

Nobody really likes the electoral college. And yet it's the system that has given both parties what feels like a genuinely viable shot at the Presidency in the way that they probably should have, in a manner that -- while certainly a bit archaic --- still has some logic to it that feels democratic.

...not if it disagrees with the popular vote. If a popular vote favors the Dems at the moment its because that's what the people want, and visa versa if it favors the Republicans in the future. The only real advantage of the electoral college is that it helps account for voter turnout disparities, but I think the negative impact of gerrymandering outweighs that

 

[The Librarian]

I don't understand how a national popular vote would favor Democrats, but if Democrats get more votes in a straight popular vote because more people like them...that's how a democracy works.

 

[Qazaq]

You are saying, if the nation votes for one person, that's unfair to the other, losing candidate. Therefore, we need a system to level the playing field so the person getting fewer votes has a better chance to win. Great logic.

You know all those Republican senators that are supporting this new scheme and we're all wondering how on earth they can justify it? How do you suppose they would respond to us characterizing their motives like we are?

I basically see the response from you guys towards the national popular vote movement as the same thing.

The Republicans can cow-tow about how their system brings more of the state into the conversation, that it more accurately represents the diverse interests of the state, blah blah blah, but at the heart of it is that it makes it more likely for the Republican candidate to get more electoral votes.



I don't see this national popular vote movement being dissimilar.

Look, I was unhappy about Gore losing as anyone else. But the fact is, there were plenty of close states in 2000 that Gore had a fair fight of winning, and thus would have won. It's not about "omg Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency, that's unfair" -- Gore could have won Florida outright, won LITERALLY like a thousand or two votes in New Mexico, West Virginia, New Hampshire, any of these states would have put him over the top. They were all close, I believe.

But at the core of the National Popular Vote Movement, unless someone can show me differently, is as a response to Gore losing the election. Not because it's "more fair". It's only "more fair" in the eyes of Democrats in the same way doing it by gerrymandered district is "more fair" to those Republicans.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I don't understand how a national popular vote would favor Democrats, but if Democrats get more votes in a straight popular vote because more people like them...that's how a democracy works.

Right, but if the popular vote favors Democrats then it should be balanced by an alternate system that favors Republicans. Or something.

You know all those Republican senators that are supporting this new scheme and we're all wondering how on earth they can justify it? How do you suppose they would respond to us characterizing their motives like we are?

I basically see the response from you guys towards the national popular vote movement as the same thing.

I support the national popular vote because it would ensure the person who gets the most votes would be the winner. If that person is a Republican, or a Democrat. It's not a partisan issue, it is my belief that we should live in a representative democracy. (Incidentally, this is why I support getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate - whether Dems or the GOP controls the body.)

You are making one false equivalence after another. It's honestly bizarre.

 

[Mike M]

This is perhaps the worst reasoned argument I've ever seen for keeping the electoral college.

 

[KingK]

You know all those Republican senators that are supporting this new scheme and we're all wondering how on earth they can justify it? How do you suppose they would respond to us characterizing their motives like we are?

I basically see the response from you guys towards the national popular vote movement as the same thing.

The Republicans can cow-tow about how their system brings more of the state into the conversation, that it more accurately represents the diverse interests of the state, blah blah blah, but at the heart of it is that it makes it more likely for the Republican candidate to get more electoral votes.



I don't see this national popular vote movement being dissimilar.

Look, I was unhappy about Gore losing as anyone else. But the fact is, there were plenty of close states in 2000 that Gore had a fair fight of winning, and thus would have won. It's not about "omg Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency, that's unfair" -- Gore could have won Florida outright, won LITERALLY like a thousand or two votes in New Mexico, West Virginia, New Hampshire, any of these states would have put him over the top. They were all close, I believe.

But at the core of the National Popular Vote Movement, unless someone can show me differently, is as a response to Gore losing the election. Not because it's "more fair". It's only "more fair" in the eyes of Democrats in the same way doing it by gerrymandered district is "more fair" to those Republicans.

...A straight up popular vote is more fair because the winner is the one who the most people vote for. If a majority of voters vote for a candidate for President, that candidate should win. I don't see how that is partisan in any way.

 

[dabig2]

I've seen a lot of false equivalencies in my day, especially during my years here at Neogaf, but this one...I find really amusing more than others.

 

[Qazaq]

Right, but if the popular vote favors Democrats then it should be balanced by an alternate system that favors Republicans. Or something.

Let me remind you:

You're trying to justify changing the current system.

So are Republicans.

I absolutely agree that it's outrageous that Republicans won't moderate their own party and thus are seeking to change the system.

But the national popular vote systematically favors the Democrats. It does. So if you're going to talk about changing the current system to one that systematically favors the Democrats... well, then, yes, tell me what at the heart of that is different than what is at the heart of what the Republicans are doing?

I *don't agree* with what the Republicans are doing. But it seems undemocratic because it changes the system in the face of what we've been doing to give them an advantage, not because one electoral vote per district one is undemocratic in of itself. Obviously Maine and Nebraska have been doing it for a long time.

 

[pigeon]

You know all those Republican senators that are supporting this new scheme and we're all wondering how on earth they can justify it? How do you suppose they would respond to us characterizing their motives like we are?

I basically see the response from you guys towards the national popular vote movement as the same thing.

Right, but you're wrong? Because the national popular vote is fundamentally about changing election results to more accurately reflect the will of the people, as communicated through voting aggregate, and the Virginia gerrymander is fundamentally about changing them to less accurately reflect that voting aggregate.

But at the core of the National Popular Vote Movement, unless someone can show me differently, is as a response to Gore losing the election. Not because it's "more fair". It's only "more fair" in the eyes of Democrats in the same way doing it by gerrymandered district is "more fair" to those Republicans.

Your position is literally baffling me here.

What do you think should be the characteristics of a fair election?

To me, the primary characteristic is that it accurately reflects the will of the people. But the way we measure that will is through the national popular vote! So by that standard it seems clear to me that any steps towards a national popular vote will make our elections "fairer."

I mean, fairness is not a meaningless word here. Hopefully it should be clear that there are elections setups that are better and worse. (For example, "the important elected positions automatically go to Adolf Hitler" is hopefully a pretty clear example of a bad election design. And I took it from life!) I'm curious to hear from you what you think an ideal election system should actually look like.

edit:

Let me remind you:

You're trying to justify changing the current system.

Is this the issue here? Are you just arguing from the position that the current system should be assumed to be ideal? Because I don't think it is! I think there are serious problems with it that could be rectified, and I don't think that's an inherently undemocratic position.

 

[Amir0x]

I am really confused about what he's arguing here

Republicans have won the popular vote tons of times in history, so by definition it doesn't intrinsically favor one party or the other (it merely demands one party serve the will of the people better to get more votes next time!)? We should intentionally make an election system where the electorate has less control on the outcome to keep a minority party relevant... and that's "fair" and if we don't think so we're hypocrites who support the same thing Republicans do with this gerrymandering/electoral allocation cheating?

I...

...honestly, genuine loss of words here.

 

[Gotchaye]

Well, yes, the big driver of pro- NPV sentiment is the glaring example of the electoral college's failure to come to the reasonable outcome in 2000. Yes, it was "close". But unnecessarily so. "If we had a sane system of one-person-one-vote, Al Gore would have been elected President" is just a much more reasonable and obviously less partisan position than "If we had a sane system of one-gerrymandered-district-one-vote, Mitt Romney would have been elected President".

 

[GhaleonEB]

Let me remind you:

You're trying to justify changing the current system.

So are Republicans.

Let me remind you:

I support a system that reflects the way the electorate voted.

The Republicans are rigging the system to deliberately thwart the electorate.

These are not the same things. You keep arguing as if they are. All you can come up with is, they both involve change. Well yes...

 

[Qazaq]

...A straight up popular vote is more fair because the winner is the one who the most people vote for. If a majority of voters vote for a candidate for President, that candidate should win. I don't see how that is partisan in any way.

Because you have to consider the system you're proposing in context to what we've been doing ALREADY, not just literally on the merits of the idea itself.

as communicated through voting aggregate, and the Virginia gerrymander is fundamentally about changing them to less accurately reflect that voting aggregate.

Says who?

Should we get rid of the 2 senators per state rule?

 

[tranciful]

HYPOCRISY ALERT!

I'm as liberal as the next person on NeoGAF, but this "states vote for the winner of the popular vote regardless of who won the state" is just as awful.

The electoral college is flawed. It's not great.

But you can't condemn this blatant rigging via the gerrymandered districts and yet be FOR a certain amount of states throwing out the results of the state and going with the national popular vote because it's an area that favors the Dems.

It's liberals being butt hurt about Al Gore combining it with an area that will favor them. It's not about it being any better of an idea or CERTAINLY any more "fair".

I don't like the idea of states going with the national popular vote, either. Unless they all did it, but that wouldn't happen.

 

[Qazaq]

You've said this repeatedly without ever backing it up.

How does a popular vote systemically favor Dems?

Because we all know the Democrats have won the popular vote 4 out of the last 5 times and, due to demographics, the more people vote the more likely Democrats do well.



Now, if more people vote and more people want Democrats, of course that's good. But changing the system with an eye towards that knowledge is different.

 

[tranciful]

You've said this repeatedly without ever backing it up.

How does a popular vote systemically favor Dems?

The campaign game would change. To be more efficient, candidates would prioritize cities (to get the most votes per campaign visit). Cities are typically blue.

I'd be for it, but I'm biased -- I think cities should be prioritized. I think giving so much power to rural areas is holding us back, and not necessarily for ideological reasons -- I just think it would benefit society to move toward more city living.

 

[pigeon]

Says who?

...the voting aggregate? Which sent 51% of their vote to Obama in Virginia and thus might reasonably expect at least 51% of their electoral votes to go to Obama? Which sent 53% of their vote to Obama nationally and thus might reasonably expect Obama to be the winner of the election?

Again, is there any acceptable reason from your perspective to ever change the election system in America? Because your position seems to be opposing all change here just on the principle that change is bad.

Should we get rid of the 2 senators per state rule?

Why not? Here I might be a little biased, since I'm a Californian, but why should we keep it? It's definitely lessening the value of my vote compared to anybody living in literally any other state, and I don't particularly appreciate that.

 

[The Librarian]

Should we get rid of the 2 senators per state rule?

Why, that's a great idea! In fact, let's get rid of the whole Senate, make it so the House can't be gerrymandered, triple the size of the House and index it to population, and move from FPTP to a preference-voting system.

 

[Black Mamba]

The system we have now values an Ohio voter more than me here in Cali. That is stupid and unfair.

States should give electoral votes based on proportion of votes everyone gets. If not that the. Popular vote.

The current system is dumb and it has nothing to do with dem vs repub

 

[The Librarian]

The campaign game would change. To be more efficient, candidates would prioritize cities (to get the most votes per campaign visit). Cities are typically blue.

I'd be for it, but I'm biased -- I think cities should be prioritized. I think giving so much power to rural areas is holding us back.

Those aren't really good points for why a national populate vote would favor Democrats. It's pure numbers that there aren't enough people living in cities to make a difference in the national popular vote, and as you said, cities are typically blue. Why would a Democrat or Republican campaign there?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I have a feeling this could really backfire on republicans in Virginia and other states. The next democrat candidate for president will almost certainly do better with white voters than Obama, who still managed to almost win a lot of these districts.

 

[pigeon]

Because we all know the Democrats have won the popular vote 4 out of the last 5 times and, due to demographics, the more people vote the more likely Democrats do well.

Now, if more people vote and more people want Democrats, of course that's good. But changing the system with an eye towards that knowledge is different.

This is simply nonsense. If the Democrats consistently win the popular vote they should win the election. This is literally the fundamental concept of democracy against which all electoral systems are measured for effectiveness. If there's a system that makes that not happen*, it is an impediment to democracy, not an instrument of it. If such a system existed in a small Latin American country, there would already be thoughtful articles in The Atlantic about how it's a junta and a banana republic.


* And, again, there isn't, because the winner of the popular vote almost always wins the electoral college as well.

 

[jamesinclair]

TIL not only that women were barred from certain positions in the military, but of the existence of the Selective Service System.



Well fuck, I was out of the country when I was 18 and never heard about this. I did do my JAPD (French military day of service) though, so I'll guess I'll sign up so the US doesn't get jealous.

I didnt sign up until I was 22 and needed it for the IRS because I also had never heard of it

 

[Qazaq]

...the voting aggregate? Which sent 51% of their vote to Obama in Virginia and thus might reasonably expect at least 51% of their electoral votes to go to Obama? Which sent 53% of their vote to Obama nationally and thus might reasonably expect Obama to be the winner of the election?

Again, is there any acceptable reason from your perspective to ever change the election system in America? Because your position seems to be opposing all change here just on the principle that change is bad.



Why not? Here I might be a little biased, since I'm a Californian, but why should we keep it? It's definitely lessening the value of my vote compared to anybody living in literally any other state, and I don't particularly appreciate that.

Why, that's a great idea! In fact, let's get rid of the whole Senate, make it so the House can't be gerrymandered, triple the size of the House and index it to population, and move from FPTP to a preference-voting system.

And can I just say, that's perfectly fine of you to feel that way -- it's logically consistent.

This argument is about how people want power allocated in this country through the systems of democracy we have, and what we define as democratic.

Of course a Californian favors abolition of the Senate, in favor of the popular vote for Presidency etc. etc.


It's the flipside of the Republicans wanting to elect the President through gerrymandered districts.

 

[Gotchaye]

I will grant that an NPV favors Democrats more than one might think from looking at past elections, just because voter turnout would not be constant. Individual red and blue states would have lots of reason to incentivize voting, but Democrats currently have lower turnout rates. It'd be awfully hard for Republicans to compete in an NPV election where California, through mandatory voting or similar, achieves 90+% turnout.

There's maybe a legitimate debate to be had about to what extent we want uninformed and unengaged people voting. But obviously right now lots of uninformed people vote anyway. We call them Republicans.

 

[dabig2]

Because you have to consider the system you're proposing in context to what we've been doing ALREADY, not just literally on the merits of the idea itself.

This is a horrible argument. Not everything needs to remain status quo. I and millions of others wouldn't be able to vote if we went by "well, why change what we've been doing? That would be UNFAAAAAAAAAIR!"

 

[B-Dubs]

Those aren't really good points for why a national populate vote would favor Democrats. It's pure numbers that there aren't enough people living in cities to make a difference in the national popular vote, and as you said, cities are typically blue. Why would a Democrat or Republican campaign there?

Actually I looked it up and if you won a majority in every major city and suburb you'd win easily. Something like 70% of the nation lives in cities/suburbs. I'm not arguing against a popular vote though. But if we're going to do it then Florida needs to get it's shit together. We can't have them taking 3 weeks to count all their votes when everyone else is done after a day or two.

 

[pigeon]

Qazaq -- registering people to vote is, on average, a benefit for Democrats, because unregistered and unlikely voters would lean heavily Democratic if they voted.

Do you oppose voter registration drives as an unfair attempt to sway our electoral system?

 

[Qazaq]

But it doesn't systemically favor Democrats. It systemically favors the more popular party. The Democrats are more popular, but that's not something inherent to the party, it's because the GOP has spent decades chasing the angry white male vote and that's finally catching up to them. That could easily change when the GOP finally wises up and gets their shit together.

You keep missing the point because you keep debating about the merits of the idea instead of debating about the merits of the idea COMPARED WITH WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING.


The Republican Party needs to moderate itself. But they need to moderate themselves with the current system *too*.

 

[Talon]

The campaign game would change. To be more efficient, candidates would prioritize cities (to get the most votes per campaign visit). Cities are typically blue.

I'd be for it, but I'm biased -- I think cities should be prioritized. I think giving so much power to rural areas is holding us back, and not necessarily for ideological reasons -- I just think it would benefit society to move toward more city living.

What's up, Alexander Hamilton?

 

[pigeon]

This argument is about how people want power allocated in this country through the systems of democracy we have, and what we define as democratic.

So why won't you answer my straightforward questions about WHAT YOU THINK DEMOCRACY IS, so that this conversation can be even marginally productive?

 

[Joel Was Right]

Impressions of the Senate hearing with Hillary?

 

[Black Mamba]

How do you compare making all votes worth the same with gerrymandering vote districts? They are polar opposites.