Politics - Jason X

[Guard Dog]

@Gromnir

 

One other number to watch out four in terms of voter registration and voting numbers is nine states do not recognize the LP as a registration option for various reasons. Like Ohio for example, but that is about to change. In Ohio in 2016 Johnson/Weld were actually on the ballot as independents. Quite a few LP candidates for various offices in various states are actually on the ballot as independent. It won't make a big jump in the numbers but they are a bit higher than they seem when you take that into account. But dues paying party membership is definitely up. It grew 25% between 2012 & 2015 since Johnson/Gray got over 1.2M votes in the 2012 Presidential race. It grew by 30% from 2014 to 2016. Existing member renewal rates are up 25%. Donations in 2016 were up 566% over 2012. And as you know Johnson/Weld got around 3.5M votes. 

 

Presidential campaigns are expensive. A LOT of resources went into ballot access. And that left local and congressional candidates short of help from the national party.  And I know you and I agree the cause would be better served by getting a few LP candidates into Congress and State Houses. But Presidential races grow the brand and that has to happen too. Like I said last year. This isn't a movement, it's a political party and that means it needs a face.

 

The growth is slow. Painfully slow. The reason is from the 80's to 2000 this party had no sense of itself. It became a single issue party: legalize drugs. And it had more than a drop of anarchism in the platform beyond that. Earlier smjames referred to libertarians as a little crazy. That reputation was earned. The big L vs. small L struggle is still a thing but since 2004 the small L's are winning and things are becoming better organized. We still have guys like John MacAfee around and making trouble but there are fewer now than ever.

 

It is a damned shame Johnson/Weld did not get the magic number of 5%. Automatic ballot access, and election assistance in 2020 we the real prize. That was the biggest goal of voting for them. No one expected them to actually get elected. That is why I tried so hard to convince people in safe states to give them their vote. There was no chance Clinton was going to lose California. If 100k voters there voted for Johnson/Weld and just 20k in every other safe red or safe blue state did they would have. The 2016 race was always about 2020.

 

In 2020 the two candidates with the inside track for a Presidential nomination are Austin Peterson (who is running for Senate as a Republican in 2018) and Justin Amash who was defeated in the 2016 Primary. Both are capable and likeable but will struggle with name recognition and getting media attention. Jesse Ventura, Bill Weld, and John MacAfee are all exploring running but it would be a mistake to nominate any of them. We need a serious candidate, not another Bob Barr. 

[redneckdevil]

Would fixing the electoral college system even change the results of the last election? It just sounds like a way to make people in more populated states even more marginalized when it comes to the Federal election. Of course, us in California can take solace in the fact that we have better wine, food, and weather than everyone else. Oh, and Yosemite.

No it wouldn't have, and it shouldn't.

How exactly does it marginalized more populated states? They still get a huge amount of electoral votes in, meaning tic for tac they STILL have more influence. Going with popular vote means their influence gets to dictate everyone else, whereas with electoral vote, tic for tac with another lower state they have more influence, but smaller states still can pull together and overcome a single states influence with it.

You will agree in America there are many different people and culture in each state that is different from others right?

Also think about this, they do away with winner take all, I'm sorry but that just means California will have less influence as it does now, because the mass amount of non Democrats will actually have a voice. Same for other states that are mainly one party, people of opposing parties will have a reason to actually vote because even if their party doesn't win all, the votes still get towards who they wanted.

 

Everyone gets a say or the most people get to say instead. Which is better?

[Guard Dog]

I'd love to see the winner-take-all system go away. If it were up to me I'd still keep the electors based on congressional districts. Each elector is bound to the results of their district not the entire state. No more of the faithless elector crap. It's past time the electors stopped being actual people. 

[Hurlshort]

In California, there are over 500,000 people per electoral college vote. in Wyoming, there are over 140,000 people per electoral college vote. That is a pretty massive difference in voting power. Voters are marginalized in the more populated states, even with the big chunk of electoral college votes they get. 

 

That being said, I totally agree the winner take all system is dumb. But if you really want to give everyone a say, get rid of the electoral college all together and of with a popular vote system. Of course, that will dramatically increase the voting power of certain states, because certain states have way more people. 

[smjjames]

@Guard Dog: I haven't heard of Austin Petersen before, but I've definetly heard of Justin Amash before, but I forget from where.

 

As for people voting for the Libertarians, might be easier if the candidate didn't turn people off with general 'head in the sand'ness and being ignorant about stuff he should know. Plus I was voting not-Trump.

[injurai]

The Californian people aren't really that marginalized, seeing how strongly their state government represents them. It's so odd that they would try to increase the federal governments power that only represents them less. Honestly though, California wouldn't be half as liberal as it is if it wasn't for their industries and access to the coast.

 

The biggest problem with the electoral college system is how districts are gerrymandered.

[smjjames]

Gerrymandering doesn't affect the electoral college vote as it goes by the number of congressional districts (which is a function of total population) and the votes in the whole state.

 

Gerrymandered or not, the number of congressional districts still has to reflect the total population.

[redneckdevil]

In California, there are over 500,000 people per electoral college vote. in Wyoming, there are over 140,000 people per electoral college vote. That is a pretty massive difference in voting power. Voters are marginalized in the more populated states, even with the big chunk of electoral college votes they get.

 

That being said, I totally agree the winner take all system is dumb. But if you really want to give everyone a say, get rid of the electoral college all together and of with a popular vote system. Of course, that will dramatically increase the voting power of certain states, because certain states have way more people.

Yes it marginalizes in a certain degree so that other states still have a chance to have a say.

It's about equality for all States.

Think of it as a power CAP. U still have more say (more total of electoral votes that state can cast), but it prevents a monopoly.

 

I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right?

[Wrath of Dagon]

California: https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/08/30/l-a-city-council-votes-to-rename-columbus-day/

[injurai]

Congressional districting is exactly the problem, which is different than county polling.

[smjjames]

Probably not the best example to use redneckdevil, given the whole deal with politics, but you make a point regarding majority and minority.

 

 

California: https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/08/30/l-a-city-council-votes-to-rename-columbus-day/

 

Cute, and yes, California....

[Guard Dog]

@Guard Dog: I haven't heard of Austin Petersen before, but I've definetly heard of Justin Amash before, but I forget from where.

 

As for people voting for the Libertarians, might be easier if the candidate didn't turn people off with general 'head in the sand'ness and being ignorant about stuff he should know. Plus I was voting not-Trump.

 

No arguments there. But it didn't matter who they ran I would have voted and asked others to do the same. Like I said it was about 5% rather than winning the election.

[Guard Dog]

In California, there are over 500,000 people per electoral college vote. in Wyoming, there are over 140,000 people per electoral college vote. That is a pretty massive difference in voting power. Voters are marginalized in the more populated states, even with the big chunk of electoral college votes they get. 

 

That being said, I totally agree the winner take all system is dumb. But if you really want to give everyone a say, get rid of the electoral college all together and of with a popular vote system. Of course, that will dramatically increase the voting power of certain states, because certain states have way more people. 

 

As someone living in a state that would be marginalized I would never agree to a straight popular vote. The executive branch would forever more become mayor of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Boston etc. Unless of course the President goes back to being just the President and limited to the enumerated powers in Article 2. But I doubt we'll ever get the genie back in the bottle. More is the pity.

[Gromnir]

I'd love to see the winner-take-all system go away. If it were up to me I'd still keep the electors based on congressional districts. Each elector is bound to the results of their district not the entire state. No more of the faithless elector crap. It's past time the electors stopped being actual people. 

 

as a libertarian, gd should be, at the very least, conflicted.  is the individual STATES which decide how to apportion votes.  maine and nebraska, for instance, is not winner-take-all.  in the aforementioned states, 2 electoral votes go to overall state winner, and rest of votes go to the winning candidate based on victory in popular vote in each district. can't bring 'bout universal change w/o abridging state rights.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 31, 2017 by Gromnir

[smjjames]

There is a thing going around (I forget the name, but it was mentioned a lot during the election) which uses an arcane loophole (which is likely how Maine and Nebraska did what they did) that allows the states to come up with and agree on an amendment to how they portion out the electoral votes, it's an agreement to poportion out the electoral votes by the popular vote or something like that.

 

A whole bunch of states have already signed on to it, but they're mostly Democrat leaning states and the threshold hasn't been reached yet. There may be one or two Republican leaning states that have signed on or close to doing so.

Edited August 31, 2017 by smjjames

[Hurlshort]

 

I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right?

 

 

Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right.

 

You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me. 

 

 

Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history.

[smjjames]

 

 

I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right?

 

 

Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right.

 

You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me. 

 

 

Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history.

 

 

@bolded We did? Yeesh. It did get challenged right up to the Supreme Court though.

 

Though yeah, we have a reputation of being a testing ground for ideas, "As California goes, so goes the Nation". I agree with the problem mainly being weak Republican leadership and stuff, after all, it used to be heavily Republican for decades.

[Agiel]

 

 

I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right?

 

 

Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right.

 

You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me. 

 

 

Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history.

 

 

There also seems to be a mistaken perception that the state's universities are universally dens of far left iniquity. For what it's worth most people in the other Calstates and UCs (LA, SB, SD, etc.) think people who go to UC Berkeley and moreso Santa Cruz are lefty loons too.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Agiel

[Hurlshort]

Seriously, we have some of the best Ag schools in the country and I'm guessing they've got a pretty strong Young Republican demographic.

[Guard Dog]

 

I'd love to see the winner-take-all system go away. If it were up to me I'd still keep the electors based on congressional districts. Each elector is bound to the results of their district not the entire state. No more of the faithless elector crap. It's past time the electors stopped being actual people. 

 

as a libertarian, gd should be, at the very least, conflicted.  is the individual STATES which decide how to apportion votes.  maine and nebraska, for instance, is not winner-take-all.  in the aforementioned states, 2 electoral votes go to overall state winner, and rest of votes go to the winning candidate based on victory in popular vote in each district. can't bring 'bout universal change w/o abridging state rights.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

  I said if it were up to me. It ain't! 

 

I'm Libertarian because I'm closer to that than any other political party. I'm not 100% libertarian. Probably 85% at best. Anyone who is 100% anything really ought to be doing some thinking on their own.

[redneckdevil]

 

I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right?

 

Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right.

 

You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me.

 

 

Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history.

True, sadly I have no way with words. How bout I say this about the marginalization. I'll say it doesn't because it's not a system to grant power to the majority, it's a system that grants power to everyone. To do so, there is a limit of resources and because of that there is a cap to prevent total power. So states with much bigger populations may seem like they are being marginalized, when in reality they have basically surpassed the high score long ago and get no higher.

It's not a system to reward high scores (even though higher population does grant u more power than others), it's a system designed to keep everyone playing instead of one or a few people to keep deciding what game we gonna play.

Make more sense?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right?

Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right.

 

You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me.

 

 

Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history.

True, sadly I have no way with words. How bout I say this about the marginalization. I'll say it doesn't because it's not a system to grant power to the majority, it's a system that grants power to everyone. To do so, there is a limit of resources and because of that there is a cap to prevent total power. So states with much bigger populations may seem like they are being marginalized, when in reality they have basically surpassed the high score long ago and get no higher.

It's not a system to reward high scores (even though higher population does grant u more power than others), it's a system designed to keep everyone playing instead of one or a few people to keep deciding what game we gonna play.

Make more sense?

 

 

Agree. Except for one thing. California can have more electoral votes if they want them. All they have to so is stop running off the middle class. They are losing votes, not gaining them. If I was Hurlshot I'd have packed up the family and headed east long ago. 

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

Agree. Except for one thing. California can have more electoral votes if they want them. All they have to so is stop running off the middle class. They are losing votes, not gaining them. If I was Hurlshot I'd have packed up the family and headed east long ago. 

 

 

Hey, you try and convince the Garlic Queen to leave Gilroy! My wife will have none of it.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

I'll put it in democratic wording. Should white people since they are the highest population have more say/power than a minority? There numbers don't even come close to the amount of white people there are, but their voice should still get heard and have power right?

Should they have less say? It's obviously a very tricky situation. Right now there is a decent argument for everyone being unhappy, which probably means something is being done right.

 

You said California isn't marginalized and then justified why it should be marginalized. That's all I'm saying, let's be realistic about what the electoral college does to populated states. I don't think it is that big of a deal, I could always move to Wyoming if it really bothered me.

 

 

Also I'd argue with California being some liberal wonderland. The reality is it can be quite conservative. CA booted Gray Davis out of office and put in a Republican and it voted to pass Prop 8. I'd argue the problem lies in a weak Republican leadership structure. This the state that produced Reagan, afterall, and he is probably the most popular Republican in recent history.

True, sadly I have no way with words. How bout I say this about the marginalization. I'll say it doesn't because it's not a system to grant power to the majority, it's a system that grants power to everyone. To do so, there is a limit of resources and because of that there is a cap to prevent total power. So states with much bigger populations may seem like they are being marginalized, when in reality they have basically surpassed the high score long ago and get no higher.

It's not a system to reward high scores (even though higher population does grant u more power than others), it's a system designed to keep everyone playing instead of one or a few people to keep deciding what game we gonna play.

Make more sense?

 

 

Agree. Except for one thing. California can have more electoral votes if they want them. All they have to so is stop running off the middle class. They are losing votes, not gaining them. If I was Hurlshot I'd have packed up the family and headed east long ago. 

 

population in ca has increased steadily (+5.36% since 2010), and while it is not top ten for rate of increase, it still beats, amongst many others, tennessee (+4.81% since 2010... 'ccording to us census bureau). 

 

*shrug*

 

the perception o' ca rare matches the reality and the political identity o' the state is one such misapprehension.  get out of a few o' the major urban areas and you is gonna see much conservative.  largest industry in CA is still agriculture, and the farmers and rural californians are much tending to be conservative voters.  the community where Gromnir lives, near sacramento, had overwhelming numbers o' trump signage visible during the 2016 elections. gated community with a significant number o' former military folks.  etc.  sure, the overall population skews towards liberal, but is no shortage o' extreme conservative communities for those looking for likeminded folks. 

 

'corse, things have changed considerable since late 80s when we first arrived in ca.  today we do have educated friends (more than a couple) who honest believe all crazy/wrong people is conservative.  sure, not all conservatives is bad people, says our liberal friends, but all the nutters are voting republican. really? back in the late 80s, the bay area, humboldt county, a few outlier hippie communes and a handful o' coastal/urban neighborhoods in so cal were genuine liberal bastions, but the state as a whole were hardly a liberal wonderland.  even when we had democrat majorities, it were hardly an overwhelming majority. in recent years, conservative has become a dirty word in many locations 'round the state. 

 

even so, the reason for leaving ca is not politics per se.  you wanna live in a community o' like-minded conservatives in ca and you not need look hard to do so.  move less than 50 miles inland from the coast and places such as davis become almost islands in a conservative sea. sure, folks leaving ca will bemoan the politics, but the real reason for most people leaving the loopy state is the cost o' living... and ca cost o' living were disproportionate high compared to the rest o' the country even when the conservatives were in charge in the 80s and 90s. better job prospects and lower cost o' living has resulted in a kinda mini-exodus from ca, but overall growth rather is still top 20... and better than tn.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps the sierra nevadas is superior in all ways to the smoky mountains (tongue-in-cheek), and the tallest mountain in the contiguous 48 is in ca's sierra nevadas, not the rockies.  

 

 

 

ansel adams came to ca to take a few photos o' the sierras.  stuck around for the 75 years.

[Ben No.3]

In California, there are over 500,000 people per electoral college vote. in Wyoming, there are over 140,000 people per electoral college vote. That is a pretty massive difference in voting power. Voters are marginalized in the more populated states, even with the big chunk of electoral college votes they get.

 

That being said, I totally agree the winner take all system is dumb. But if you really want to give everyone a say, get rid of the electoral college all together and of with a popular vote system. Of course, that will dramatically increase the voting power of certain states, because certain states have way more people.

I'm by no means an expert on American society, but I don't think it's wise to marginalise practically the entire rural population, not only since that will make them quite prone to radicalisation, but also considering that these are, at least as far as my admittedly limited understand goes, the guys who win your wars. It just seems a bit ungrateful to have them shoot and die for the US and not even give them a significant say in politics.