Red Mosquito

verb_to_trust wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:In conclusion, you're all, as usual, wrong.

Yeah? Well you like fat chicks

they are the best type of chicks.

Green Habit wrote:Which minorities in particular are protected by the Electoral College, and why should they be?

This is why I don't mess with GH. I haven't read the chapter and I had no idea there'd be a quiz today. I'm thankful someone knows their shit, though.

Proponents of the Electoral College claim that it prevents a candidate from winning the presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas, and pushes candidates to make a wider geographic appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote. They believe that adoption of the popular vote would disproportionately shift the focus to large cities at the expense of rural areas.

It certainly pushes candidates to make a wider geographic appeal, but not necessarily along the urban/rural divide. Sometimes, I guess.

PHATJ wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

PHATJ wrote:That’s a hypothetical situation that isn’t in any way a possibility or reality. So who gives a shit?

Alright, let's go with something that actually happened, then. Why should Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas all be separate states, when their combined population is less than that of Connecticut? (And CT, of course, is a tiny state by area.)

So your point is because they have a less dense population they don’t deserve statehood?

My point is that the boundaries of these states were arbitrarily created--and furthermore, they were done so with the very intention of partisan manipulation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ns/598243/

bune wrote:Jesus Christ, Thanksgiving was two weeks ago why is Uncle Politics in this thread?

We have an Electoral College thread already, I'll totally move those posts into that thread if people would like that.

Are we gonna bring gerrymandering into this?

At what point do you guys just give up? The system is hopelessly fucked and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:Josh, have you ever lived in a truly rural area? I'm genuinely curious.

I’ve lived in a town of approximately 500 people that is 120 miles from the nearest major city. Does that count?

Yes, it does!

In my experiences most US citizens have a lot of the same priorities and most of those priorities are mainly addressed by local and state politics. At a national level, those rural areas are never going to get the same level of attention as urban areas because there's no money in it. The electoral process doesn't change that.

In my experience local/state government is powerless to address the priorities of its constituents because of federal overreach.

It's hard to overstate how much richer the discussion on this board would be if people supported summative statements with examples by default. I mean, South Dakota would certainly love the chance to coax companies into the state by permitting them to dump poison more freely into the drinking water, but I'm also sure there are less corrosive examples that you could provide.

I've lived in, and participated in the politics of:

MA
NY
WA
OR
MT

MT has the best, most representative state legislature of the bunch (though WA and OR could be quite different from when I lived there ~12 years ago). Montanans are informed, open-minded, engaged, and interested in the nitty-gritty details of the legislation that gets passed. It's wholly unique from the other states I've lived, where big headlines and family coffers tend to sway things to a large degree, but where some grassroots campaigning can still make a big difference.

My experience in South Dakota and Nebraska, as compared to Chicago and Seattle, is that rural areas are far more prone to becoming single-minded echo chambers than more populace places are. The relative lack of diversity of backgrounds, expertise, value sets, and experience has rendered much of those two states completely immune to reevaluation and self-reflection. South Dakota in particular is 800,000 people...of whom 700,000 grew up the same way, share the same life experiences, have the same hobbies (there are only so many options available), hear the same political messaging, make the same jokes, and love to talk unironically about how coastal liberals live in a bubble. The reason it's so easy to sell them on the idea that LA is somehow less American than they are is that LA looks like a million different things all at once, but the America they live in looks like just the one. The one, same thing, and it goes for as far as the eye can see.

I think there's some legitimacy to the rural/urban Electoral College argument. But like Burt said, any system is going to lead to certain people being prioritized over others. Our current system mathematically overrepresents small states and rural populations and candidates prioritize swing states at the expense of cities with large populations. In a popular vote system, candidates would probably prioritize densely populated areas that are currently completely overlooked like NYC, LA, Houston, Chicago, etc. at the expense of the swing states.

I've never head the "minorities matter more with the EC" argument and that blurb didn't do anything to convince me.

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:Josh, have you ever lived in a truly rural area? I'm genuinely curious.

I’ve lived in a town of approximately 500 people that is 120 miles from the nearest major city. Does that count?

Yes, it does!

In my experiences most US citizens have a lot of the same priorities and most of those priorities are mainly addressed by local and state politics. At a national level, those rural areas are never going to get the same level of attention as urban areas because there's no money in it. The electoral process doesn't change that.

In my experience local/state government is powerless to address the priorities of its constituents because of federal overreach.

It's hard to overstate how much richer the discussion on this board would be if people supported summative statements with examples by default. I mean, South Dakota would certainly love the chance to coax companies into the state by permitting them to dump poison more freely into the drinking water, but I'm also sure there are less corrosive examples that you could provide.

I've lived in, and participated in the politics of:

MA
NY
WA
OR
MT

MT has the best, most representative state legislature of the bunch (though WA and OR could be quite different from when I lived there ~12 years ago). Montanans are informed, open-minded, engaged, and interested in the nitty-gritty details of the legislation that gets passed. It's wholly unique from the other states I've lived, where big headlines and family coffers tend to sway things to a large degree, but where some grassroots campaigning can still make a big difference.

My experience in South Dakota and Nebraska, as compared to Chicago and Seattle, is that rural areas are far more prone to becoming single-minded echo chambers than more populace places are. The relative lack of diversity of backgrounds, expertise, value sets, and experience has rendered much of those two states completely immune to reevaluation and self-reflection. South Dakota in particular is 800,000 people...of whom 700,000 grew up the same way, share the same life experiences, have the same hobbies (there are only so many options available), hear the same political messaging, make the same jokes, and love to talk unironically about how coastal liberals live in a bubble. The reason it's so easy to sell them on the idea that LA is somehow less American than they are is that LA looks like a million different things all at once, but the America they live in looks like just the one. The one, same thing, and it goes for as far as the eye can see.

McParadigm wrote: My experience in South Dakota and Nebraska, as compared to Chicago and Seattle, is that rural areas are far more prone to becoming single-minded echo chambers than more populace places are. The relative lack of diversity of backgrounds, expertise, value sets, and experience has rendered much of those two states completely immune to reevaluation and self-reflection. South Dakota in particular is 800,000 people...of whom 700,000 grew up the same way, share the same life experiences, have the same hobbies (there are only so many options available), hear the same political messaging, make the same jokes, and love to talk unironically about how coastal liberals live in a bubble. The reason it's so easy to sell them on the idea that LA is somehow less American than they are is that LA looks like a million different things all at once, but the America they live in looks like just the one. The one, same thing, and it goes for as far as the eye can see.

Whenever you write about South Dakota and Nebraska it makes me glad to be in Florida. Until I walk outside in a few minutes and immediately start sweating. Yay December humidity. It still has to be better than that, though.

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:Josh, have you ever lived in a truly rural area? I'm genuinely curious.

I’ve lived in a town of approximately 500 people that is 120 miles from the nearest major city. Does that count?

Yes, it does!

In my experiences most US citizens have a lot of the same priorities and most of those priorities are mainly addressed by local and state politics. At a national level, those rural areas are never going to get the same level of attention as urban areas because there's no money in it. The electoral process doesn't change that.

In my experience local/state government is powerless to address the priorities of its constituents because of federal overreach.

It's hard to overstate how much richer the discussion on this board would be if people supported summative statements with examples by default. I mean, South Dakota would certainly love the chance to coax companies into the state by permitting them to dump poison more freely into the drinking water, but I'm also sure there are less corrosive examples that you could provide.

I've lived in, and participated in the politics of:

MA
NY
WA
OR
MT

MT has the best, most representative state legislature of the bunch (though WA and OR could be quite different from when I lived there ~12 years ago). Montanans are informed, open-minded, engaged, and interested in the nitty-gritty details of the legislation that gets passed. It's wholly unique from the other states I've lived, where big headlines and family coffers tend to sway things to a large degree, but where some grassroots campaigning can still make a big difference.

My experience in South Dakota and Nebraska, as compared to Chicago and Seattle, is that rural areas are far more prone to becoming single-minded echo chambers than more populace places are. The relative lack of diversity of backgrounds, expertise, value sets, and experience has rendered much of those two states completely immune to reevaluation and self-reflection. South Dakota in particular is 800,000 people...of whom 700,000 grew up the same way, share the same life experiences, have the same hobbies (there are only so many options available), hear the same political messaging, make the same jokes, and love to talk unironically about how coastal liberals live in a bubble. The reason it's so easy to sell them on the idea that LA is somehow less American than they are is that LA looks like a million different things all at once, but the America they live in looks like just the one. The one, same thing, and it goes for as far as the eye can see.

as someone who grew up in an area much like that, this is pretty true. and the friends I talk to who still live there confirm that not much has changed in the intervening ~24 years.

In my experience living in rural areas and urban areas from Bumfuck, Mississippi to Los Angeles, California and beyond, I don't see much difference in terms of who is more likely victim of echo chambers.

BurtReynolds wrote:In my experience living in rural areas and urban areas from Bumfuck, Mississippi to Los Angeles, California and beyond, I don't see much difference in terms of who is more likely victim of echo chambers.

BurtReynolds wrote:In my experience living in rural areas and urban areas from Bumfuck, Mississippi to Los Angeles, California and beyond, I don't see much difference in terms of who is more likely victim of echo chambers.

Then you're not paying attention.

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:In my experience living in rural areas and urban areas from Bumfuck, Mississippi to Los Angeles, California and beyond, I don't see much difference in terms of who is more likely victim of echo chambers.

Then you're not paying attention.

No I am, I just don't hate South Dakota that much.

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:In my experience living in rural areas and urban areas from Bumfuck, Mississippi to Los Angeles, California and beyond, I don't see much difference in terms of who is more likely victim of echo chambers.

Then you're not paying attention.

No I am, I just don't hate South Dakota that much.

Who hates South Dakota?

But please, Durden, tell me about your diverse circle of friends in the Broadway theater set and its wide range of political beliefs. i'm sure it puts those yokels in Bismarck to shame.