Jump to content

Brutus_buckeye

One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • Content Count

    3,965
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

70 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. But the owner is making a solid return on their investment as a parking lot. As much as I would like to see a 40 story tower there or a 30 story apartment building, does the developer see the reward to offset the risk?
  2. @ryanlammi The disconnect I think is that you are solely focused on the results that will be achieved by the Interstate Compact. I do not contest that this will create the same result as a national popular vote, however, it is set up in a way that also could cause unintended consequences. My point with the Popular Vote - As we agree, with a pure popular vote, we have 1=1 ratio. That is ideal. Now, the downside is that it would encourage people to spend time in the largest states and they would be rewarded with more outsized influence, but if that is the way the people wish, so be it. It is pure, it is simple, and the consequences are easy to understand. It is a race to 55 million. Everyone's vote stands on its own and your vote is either recognized as for a winner or loser. The IC tries to create that same result through the Electoral College. The difference is that instead of the race to approx. 55 million votes, it is still a race to 270 and you have the Electoral college in place. You are still working under the confines of the old system where the winner of each state takes that state. Under the current EC, the majority of citizens in the state who vote for a candidate have their preference stated by having their state's electors cast the vote for the candidate of the majority's preference. The electors are doing the true will of the people in their state. When you change to the IC, you are still electing electors, but what you now have is that those electors are not acting according to the will of the people who sent them a mandate to vote for the losing candidate. In a state like California, for example, I ask is it fair and reasonable to the citizens of California who may vote overwhelmingly for the losing candidate to have their electors disregard their will and cast the vote for someone whom their citizens may have given 30% of the vote? In this case, the preferences of the majority who live in the state are ignored and the electors that are there to represent them are forced to vote for someone who may run contrary to the values of the citizenry of that state. From a results standpoint, the same candidate wins the election as in the popular vote but in this case, the will of the people of that state is ignored and it is as if their vote did not count. You can take whatever you want out of context, I know you are good at that.
  3. 1) I have never said anything about getting rid of states and states boundaries. Other people have mentioned that we don't need states anymore, I have never made that non-sensical argument. So go ahead and keep putting words in my mouth. 2) People have never address my argument directly and pointed out the flaws. They have repeatedly said that the IC would create the 1=1 result they are looking for but that was never my argument to begin with, but go ahead with your straw man, please. 3) I am open to a discussion about where the flaws may be in my argument and educating me why this proposal is actually a good idea. While I personally think the EC is a good system and does not need changing, I am open to a discussion on elimination of the EC. This proposal does not do that. It is an end around that is bad policy.
  4. ^ It aims to create a result that would mimic a popular vote, but it does not exactly do the same thing because the EC still would exist and still works within the mechanisms of the EC process. While the result may be similar, that does not mean it is doing the same thing. There is a difference. Creating bad policy and unintended consequences to manufacture a desired result is not the best way to govern. People risk getting more hurt and disenfranchised in the process.
  5. ^ NOt really, you just happen to disagree with them. As mentioned, I have no problem debating the elimination of the EC, but the interstate compact is just horrible policy.
  6. And who thought the 2017 tax act was a bad deal for cities. Just sayin...
  7. Getting rid of the Electoral College is different than the interstate compact. The interstate compact is a work around to try and accomplish the result of getting rid of the Electoral College but its mechanics are far different and because of that actually marginalizes votes. Right now, Hawaii for example may not be a competitive state. It is also a small state. Candidates have very little incentive to spend time there. However, even with the Electoral College, the votes of Hawaii citizens still COUNTED. They counted in the fact that the opinion of the majority of the citizens of the state was recognized on record as supporting the losing candidate. That may not seem like much, but it is important. With the Interstate Compact, you essentially are telling the citizens of Hawaii 2 things now. 1) Your state is very small and there is even less incentive for me to spend time there looking for your vote and 2) I can get the majority of people in the big states to vote for me, so if I accomplish that, no matter how much you may hate me, I get your votes too, because the majority of people in Texas and Florida allow me to do that. Therefore, your vote may not have mattered much before, but it matters even less now because my path to winning is solely trying to run up margins in the bigger states.
  8. Except there are so many Dems that are completely unhinged with the whole Trump thing they cant hold themselves back and engage to their detriment. Fauxcahontas (Warren) is a perfect example of this. She keeps getting pulled into Trump's barbs and looking like a fool for taking them on directly. She would be much better off just ignoring them in most cases.
  9. we have the rights of life, liberty and property in this country. all the "rights" that people claim, stem from these core rights. Gay rights is an issue of liberty. The right to carry a gun is a liberty and property matter. No matter what these rights all stem from these core rights and principles.
  10. It is one thing to have districts that are not gerrymandered, but the state boundaries are what they are and our system revolves around a state vote not a pure popular vote. We do not have "Federal" elections in the sense that the federal government runs the election like you see in say Canada or Britain. This is where the dual sovereignty concept comes into play. The states put on elections and choose who the states wish to represent them on the federal level, either by district or statewide. To change to a pure popular vote, you really need to get rid of the state concept altogether which really would never realistically happen.
  11. ^ This is a well reasoned take and again seeks to address the issue on a local state level instead of abdicating citizen responsibilities and power to those in the larger states.
  12. Alecia Resse has to be coming up on term limits. Could she return to council? As far as Laketa Sassy Cole. - What about "all aboard the Cole Train" wasn't that her slogan at one time.
  13. ^ But the discussion is do you circumvent the EC at all costs and even have unintended consequences or is it best to follow the right path and have something grounded in good public policy.
  14. That is certainly your opinion. I personally think you may be missing a lot of points. Whenever you try an end around the system instead of doing something cleanly, you risk creating a lot of unintended consequences.
  15. Put yourself in the position that Trump won the popular vote. California voted 70% to Hillary in 2016. It had say 56 electoral votes. If you are a California voter, you may not like that Trump is president, but at least you made your vote known and your state delegation respected your wishes as well as the other 70% of the residents to go on record and give their vote to the candidate of your choice. The candidate that represents California interests, not the candidate that represents the interests of Florida and Georgia, Texas and North Carolina which are 3 time zones away> The same states that are importing a lot of your jobs. It is important to go on record as standing against this. What happens with the IC is you now voted for Hillary as did your state overwhelmingly and now you watch your electors vote against the interests of your state and vote In the interests of FLorida and Texas who do not represent you. Your vote now has ZERO value. Only the vote in FLorida and Texas count. Just because you did not end up on the winning side of the vote does not mean that being in the losing end should not count for something. The fact that CA's Electoral votes counted for the losing candidate is still very important and symbolic. If you get rid of the EC, the result may still be the same but your vote still counts for something because here you stand 1=1 vs working through the EC and trying to manufacture the result through a system that was never intended to that way. What the IC does is it is a poor solution to manipulate the system to create a result that appears to be too challenging to create through the proper channels. When you start creating shortcuts and end arounds, you create bad policy and the ability to create absurd results.
×
×
  • Create New...