491–500 of 583 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you could read you'd see (A) I didn't refer to her as a friend and (B) I didn't mention her political affiliation. In fact your assumption is wrong.
sure, just using friend colloquially. but on b, i think pretty clearly she is articulating an argument for disproportionate representation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this argument is the Permanent Apportionment Act. The House is more representative of the people than the Senate, but capping the size means that as it stands lower population states still receive an outsized amount of power per capita in the House vs. more populous states. As electoral votes are based on Congressional representatives across the two chambers, this also means they have outsized impact…
The Huntington-Hill method used since the 40s has supposedly reduced any discrepancies.
Huntington-Hill is better than nothing but it is still significantly worse than getting rid of the PAA and letting the House grow based on population size. Pressing my hand down on a bullet wound will slow the bleeding more than if I didn't, but not getting shot to begin with would sure be preferable.
https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/...
This argues for just an increase to 700, and shows a ~5% swing in likelihood of Democrat control, and I would argue that just increasing it to 700 is still not where we want to be - a ratio similar to the UK would put us at closer to 3k representatives, and I believe this is still within reason (and is roughly the size of the equivalent chamber in China). Ideally we get rid of gerrymandering at the same time and redistricting is done apolitically by independent groups.
At 3k seats, every state is above their 1 rep minimum, representatives have 1/7th the number of constituents, population to representation at each state is much closer to 1:1, etc. Obviously not everything will end up on clean divisible lines so there's going to be some differences, but Wyoming would be more like .96:1 instead of .75:1 like they are currently.
Ideally the size should also be set to be revisited based on population on a periodic basis
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sure, just using friend colloquially. but on b, i think pretty clearly she is articulating an argument for disproportionate representation?
It wasn't a very political conversation but yes it could be used that way. I'll say this though. Isn't that what Native Americans need? They are in fact a tiny percent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the number of house members per state is capped, which results in more-populous states having less influence per-capita than less-populous states. So, in a way, more-populous states are disadvantaged in both the house and senate.
Do you have a link to that being a widespread problem after the huntington-hill method was used? For example, Delaware?
590,000 / 342,800,000 roughly 0.00172 0.00172 × 435 roughly 0.75
Wyoming would not even qualify for a full seat in the House if it wasn't for minimums at this size house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those 8 people still needed to agree to change their vote and the responsibility is ultimately on them. And this is yet another political trope: Democrats are always blamed for everything by everyone including their own voters. Republicans have majorities in the entire federal government, but the shutdown is the Democrats’ fault because they wanted a bill with healthcare preserved. The majority party isn’t blamed for…
Was it actually a cut or was it not renewing something that was expiring? A bill to fund the government seems like the wrong place to be debating new spending.
Like most long-term financial bills, everyone just assumed the cliff won’t hit and new legislation will pass.
This is the actual crux, no? “We expected the funny numbers to pass again” as opposed to “we should have addressed this before Biden left office”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say that like everybody that is in one party agrees on everything. That is absolutely false. It is also an inaccurate portrayal of Alaska state politics. While historically the State Legislature has been majority republican it has been more even since 2015ish. Which is coincidentally when weed was made legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_House_of_Representative... How we vote in federal elections has more…
Of course you don't have to agree on everything, but the whole point of joining a party is to coordinate action to maximize power. Whether you agree with the party policies doesn't matter if you vote for them anyway to gain political currency with your party that you can hopefully spend later on your own priorities. That said, I guess the Alaska legislature is a lot more balanced than I assumed. If the single subject…
It makes things like the Patriot Act and Inflation Reduction Act impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its more about abolishing the premise of the Senate where every state gets 2 senators regardless of their population. (Though the filibuster issue is also a valid debate lately) The founders had decent intentions for this design, but I'm fairly sure the vast majority of them would have changed their mind if they knew just how concentrated the population of the US would end up and how the system would act to give the…
Do you believe there's a distinction between giving the minority too much power versus protecting them from having too little? It seems like the same thing said two different ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than a decade later, the GOP has still yet to present an alternative healthcare plan to the ACA. Actual leftists have continued to push and argue for a true single payer system. The ACA Is far from perfect but it was a significant step up from what we had before, and the party that spends all of their time trashing it has never made any sort of serious attempt at creating any sort of alternative.
A principled "small government" alternative would be ... nothing. Their view is that the federal government should have no role in providing health insurance.
Ultimately the health and life of the citizens is one of the most foundational concerns of any nation. You literally can't just ignore it. You have to face it, whether you want to or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you understand your just opining to other user’s opining… why do you think your opinions can outweigh other’s? Do you have a fleshed out logically sound argument?
>why do you think your opinions can outweigh other’s? I don't see where this is implied. I took the implication of "your opinion did not sway my own" >Do you have a fleshed out logically sound argument? The "logic" is "larger states in a democracy should have more power because they represent more people". Which naively makes sense. I'm sure game theory would show some consequence of this formation though as a bunch…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is mostly about shifting profits from mom and pop, low regulation hemp industry to wealthy corporations that own dispensaries that have gargantuan regulatory costs that gatekeep out most the competition. That’s a big assertion that needs evidence. I’m strongly in favor of legalization but not deregulation. It was a pretty big loophole that allowed what’s essentially weed to sidestep the regulation their competit…
>(easy legal CBD/hemp, as long as there aren’t other things in there) Your ignorance shows in spades. The arbitrary ban on THC and its analogues prevent chronic pain patients like me (a criminally underserved market) from becoming addicted to the big pharma system. The "other things in there" argument is the same as razorblades in candy, sanctimony to portray dissent as degeneracy.
You clearly haven’t read either the original law or this one.