The 2020 General Election Thread II

[Ingomike]

Do you campaign to win counties or Electoral votes? Here, I'll provide a source you can appreciate...

That people harm their integrity, to deny the anomalies, to get their preferred candidate in office is the astounding part...

 

[smittygj]

Not if the 100000 people in the one county are all Democrats.

That's why the red counties in Oregon are trying to join Idaho, because all the votes in two counties in the northwest portion of the state are running the other 90% of the state!

 

[BugI02]

Time to make marxist or communist sympathies a disqualifier for government service of any kind, including elective office

 

[drillsgt]

Because giving parity to a 1000 person county makes sense in comparison to a 100,000 one? The current system is superior.

I don't see why the fact some people choose to cram themselves into one county vs a more rural county should carry any more weight? It's just decided by proportions, if you have a smaller county that is 80% red then R's win it, the other county that is 80% blue wins that county, that would provide a more representative picture of whether it's a red state or blue state and would negate the power that urban centers have over the entire state. You could still have electors they would just cast their votes based on what the majority of the counties want within the state vs single population centers i.e. the 'popular vote'. I can see why that system would scare the crap out of democrats though, much like the popular vote scares Republicans.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't see why the fact some people choose to cram themselves into one county vs a more rural county should carry any more weight? It's just decided by proportions, if you have a smaller county that is 80% red then R's win it, the other county that is 80% blue wins that county, that would provide a more representative picture of whether it's a red state or blue state and would negate the power that urban centers have over the entire state. You could still have electors they would just cast their votes based on what the majority of the counties want within the state vs single population centers i.e. the 'popular vote'. I can see why that system would scare the crap out of democrats though, much like the popular vote scares Republicans.

In my opinion. That would be disasterous. Industry and business are placed around population centers. If we watered down the representation in those populated areas, political parties would seek to drive people out counties to create election parity. As such, you would see industry in the United States move at a crawl, and outsourced to other nations, who eventually would surpass us.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Time to make marxist or communist sympathies a disqualifier for government service of any kind, including elective office

Sure, right after that Constitutional Convention to allow such.

 

[drillsgt]

In my opinion. That would be disasterous. Industry and business are placed around population centers. If we watered down the representation in those populated areas, political parties would seek to drive people out counties to create election parity. As such, you would see industry in the United States move at a crawl, and outsourced to other nations, who eventually would surpass us.

None of what you just said makes any sense.

 

[Ingomike]

In my opinion. That would be disasterous. Industry and business are placed around population centers. If we watered down the representation in those populated areas, political parties would seek to drive people out counties to create election parity. As such, you would see industry in the United States move at a crawl, and outsourced to other nations, who eventually would surpass us.

So we let the uni-party sell our collective soul to the highest bidder...

 

[jamil]

None of what you just said makes any sense.

Okay. I'll take a crack at it. If it were counties that determined which candidates states' electors vote for, to gain parity, Democrats would lobby for policies that encouraged people to move out into the rural areas and abandon the cities. I think Kut is saying that if that happened, there would not be workers to work in those companies. So then industries would just outsource. I kinda don't think that would happen. I mean it probably would to some extent. I think that companies might move out into rural areas more, much like it was in the cold war era, when companies were encouraged to spread out.

I don't think it would be a good idea to have counties decide it. The only reason to do it is so that rural people could always win. I don't think that's any better than urban people always winning, other than I am a rural person. Probably the idea of federation is the best way to solve the problem you're describing. Were it not for the civil war, we'd probably still have more federalism than we have now. The problem now is that rural areas don't have parity with the urban areas. Your idea would only flip the problem, not solve it. And then unintended consequences might ensue. Federalism was originally intended to deal with that parity problem. The only reason why it didn't work is that powerful people wanted more control, and didn't want parity.

 

[jamil]

I mean, how dare people in Podunk Wyoming not do things the way California does?

 

[BugI02]

Sure, right after that Constitutional Convention to allow such.

I'm not aware of marxism or communism claiming status as a religion, nor do I believe they can swear to support the constitution, given their beliefs. No CC necessary

 

[BugI02]

Okay. I'll take a crack at it. If it were counties that determined which candidates states' electors vote for, to gain parity, Democrats would lobby for policies that encouraged people to move out into the rural areas and abandon the cities. I think Kut is saying that if that happened, there would not be workers to work in those companies. So then industries would just outsource. I kinda don't think that would happen. I mean it probably would to some extent. I think that companies might move out into rural areas more, much like it was in the cold war era, when companies were encouraged to spread out.

I don't think it would be a good idea to have counties decide it. The only reason to do it is so that rural people could always win. I don't think that's any better than urban people always winning, other than I am a rural person. Probably the idea of federation is the best way to solve the problem you're describing. Were it not for the civil war, we'd probably still have more federalism than we have now. The problem now is that rural areas don't have parity with the urban areas. Your idea would only flip the problem, not solve it. And then unintended consequences might ensue. Federalism was originally intended to deal with that parity problem. The only reason why it didn't work is that powerful people wanted more control, and didn't want parity.

Perhaps make the house districts all the same size and the urban reps just represent more people (yes, I realize there is a constitutional issue there). IMO rural should have parity with urban or else we all end up like Illinois

 

[jamil]

I'm not aware of marxism or communism claiming status as a religion, nor do I believe they can swear to support the constitution, given their beliefs. No CC necessary

Freedom of thought is covered under free speech. You'd have to carve that out specifically, that marxism/communism is not protected speech.

 

[BugI02]

Freedom of thought is covered under free speech. You'd have to carve that out specifically, that marxism/communism is not protected speech.

The original thought was to make them ineligible for gov't service or elected office. I think the oath of fealty to the constitution would be their Achilles heel

Barring that, I'm willing to go full Roman. Compulsory military service and no possibility of elected office unless you served honorably

 

[jamil]

The original thought was to make them ineligible for gov't service or elected office. I think the oath of fealty to the constitution would be their Achilles heel

Barring that, I'm willing to go full Roman. Compulsory military service and no possibility of elected office unless you served honorably

Free speech is the best answer to bad speech.

 

[BugI02]

Seems to work for the Israelis

 

[Ingomike]

Great post Jamil. The problems truly are caused by the expansion of the federal government to a level the founders never imagined. They could have never imagined that the installation of sewer pipe in NY or a pig farm in Iowa would have been controlled by a single federal agency of unelected bureaucrats...

 

[jamil]

Great post Jamil. The problems truly are caused by the expansion of the federal government to a level the founders never imagined. They could have never imagined that the installation of sewer pipe in NY or a pig farm in Iowa would have been controlled by a single federal agency of unelected bureaucrats...

And not just at the federal level. The most intrusive government should be your local government, where you have a more proportional voice to either hope to change it, or move somewhere more to your liking. But when people in Portland can create bat **** crazy laws that the rural ranchers have to live by, that's just not what I think is parity. The bat **** crazy laws should only be imposed on the bat **** crazy people who want that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Maybe we just need less bat**** crazy?

 

[Hawkeye]

That's why the red counties in Oregon are trying to join Idaho, because all the votes in two counties in the northwest portion of the state are running the other 90% of the state!

That's true of many States. Illinois and Cook/Collar Counties. NYS Upstate vs NYC. Pennsylvania vs Philly and P-burgh. Indiana Marion and Lake Counties vs the other 97.