Jump to content
270soft Forum

California and Wyoming Imbalance


Which of these reforms do you agree with? (Read my first comment below before answering)  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. The US Senate

    • The US Senate should remain as it is with 2 Senators per state. It doesn't matter that 12% of the population lives in California or that it is 68x larger than Wyoming.
    • The US Senate should slightly expand the number. Say something like 3 senators for the top 10 largest states, and one senator for the top 10 smallest states.
    • The US Senate should be abolished in favor of a single US House of Representatives taking on the duties of both houses.
    • The US Senate should be reformed on the US House electoral model, but it should be kept since the Senate and US House have different duties.
    • Other
  2. 2. The US House

    • The 435-member cap on the US House, passed in 1911, should remain.
    • We should remove the cap and make membership totals based on the size of the smallest state. This would be updated every census year. Thus, California has 68 US Reps and Wyoming 1.
    • The Founding Fathers know best! We should remove the cap and base it on the original law, even if it means we have thousands of US Reps!
    • The US House should be abolished in favor of the US Senate taking on the duties of both houses.
      0
    • The US House should be reduced in size because we need fewer politicians and some states have too much representation.
      0
    • Other
  3. 3. Electoral College

    • The EC should remain as it is, even if the least popular candidate keeps winning.
    • The EC should be abolished for the popular vote.
    • The EC should remain only if we increase the number of US House seats to equalize everyone's representation. Thus, California gets 70 EVs and Wyoming gets 3.
    • The EC should remain as it is, but the states should be strongly and consistently encouraged to break up their votes, similar to Maine and Nebraska.
    • The EC should remain, but it should be based only on the Senate. Basically, each state gets the same # of votes.
    • Other
      0


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Sounds like TPW is making an argument to shift the burden of proof. If something's already in place, there were reasons for putting it in place, so I'm (TPW) not going to start by arguing for that system. Rather, the onus is on you to show what your alternative is and how it's been demonstrated to produce better outcomes (or something like that).

This is something like 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

But everything's "broke" nowadays. We live in a word of teetering political and governmental institutions, crumbling social and cultural edifices, and utterly failed economic frameworks, but everyone wants either timid tinkering, playing "whack-a-mole" with the symptoms of deep-rooted problems and issues, but never tackling said roots, or just "looking back" nostalgically to "halcian days of yore" that were never REALLY like the revisionists and romanticists portray them. Global civilization is practically on life-support, limping from crisis to crisis, in the current day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Patine

These broken political systems are part and parcel of unprecedented peace and prosperity, for the Anglosphere and for Europe.

Why do you say that 'global civilization is practically on life-support, limping from crisis to crisis'? My view of the past 70 years is a vast elimination of absolute poverty, expansion of the global 'middle class', and significant increases in life expectancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

@Patine

These broken political systems are part and parcel of unprecedented peace and prosperity, for the Anglosphere and for Europe.

Why do you say that 'globe civilization is practically on life-support, limping from crisis to crisis'? My view of the past 70 years is a vast elimination of absolute poverty, expansion of the global 'middle class', and significant increases in life expectancy.

The "Middle-Class" is rising in Latin America, Nigeria, South Africa, India, Pakistan, South East Asia, Eastern Europe, Turkey, Israel, and even China and Russia - but it never did truly recover in the Anglosphere from being butchered and culled by Reagan, Thatcher, and Mulroney - as well as that New Zealand PM whose name escapes me that Mulroney first cribbed the idea of the GST from. So, funny you should mention the "Middle-Class."

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 12:53 PM, admin_270 said:

Do you know what is required legally to get these kinds of electoral reforms made in the U.S.?

Expanding the Senate would require a Constitutional Amendment. 

Expanding the House would just need a repeal of the 1929 House Appropriations Act. 

Obviously it'll be easier to expand the House; and then we get into the philosophical question of, "How local should national politics be, in terms of House representation?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Why do you say that 'global civilization is practically on life-support, limping from crisis to crisis'? My view of the past 70 years is a vast elimination of absolute poverty, expansion of the global 'middle class', and significant increases in life expectancy

In the last 20 years, let alone the last 70 years, "The Anglosphere" as you put it, has suffered a major crash, and is headed for another one, America alone has unleashed endless war upon the world with it's "War on Terror" and has troops in almost every country in the world, the entire world is hurtling towards irreversible Climate Change because of capitalism,  poverty and hunger, are still problems faced by millions of Americans, and billions around the world (all poverty is bad Anthony, just because it's not 'absolute poverty', doesn't mean they aren't suffering), there's a lot of things wrong with the world right now, but a better world is not only possible, but necessary. Also middle-class doesn't exist, and is just used to obfuscate the actual class conflict in society. 

3 hours ago, admin_270 said:

unprecedented peace and prosperity,

War is Peace. Recessions are Prosperity. Wage Slavery is Freedom.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Sounds like TPW is making an argument to shift the burden of proof. If something's already in place, there were reasons for putting it in place, so I'm (TPW) not going to start by arguing for that system. Rather, the onus is on you to show what your alternative is and how it's been demonstrated to produce better outcomes (or something like that).

This is something like 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Thanks. English is my native language but im not good at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@WVProgressive

1a. The Anglosphere has had a major crash.

Of course countries have economic ups and downs, but material prosperity in the Anglosphere is at historically very high levels.

Look at articles like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

U.S. real median household income was at an all time high as of 2017

1b. The Anglosphere is headed for another major crash.

Of course countries will have crashes and booms in the future.

2. America has unleashed endless war upon the world.

Sure, I'm critical of the war on terror too. But significant military conduct is limited to a handful of countries. For most of the world, the past 50 years has been an era of great peace.

3. Hurtling toward irreversible climate change.

Sure, lots of people are concerned about ramifications of possible climate change in the future. But this is in the future, not the past 70 years.

4. Poverty and hunger are still problems faced by millions of Americans.

America has always had a significant % of people facing material hardship. But the biggest problem in the lower-class in America isn't hunger, it's obesity!

5. Middle class doesn't exist.

Incomes don't magically disappear at $30K in the U.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

5. Middle class doesn't exist.

Incomes don't magically disappear at $30K in the U.S.

You missed my point entirely, I was saying that the "middle class" are members of the Working Class, and the distinction between the two is a false one.

5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

3. Hurtling toward irreversible climate change.

Sure, lots of people are concerned about ramifications of possible climate change in the future. But this is in the future, not the past 70 years.

What do you think caused us to start hurtling towards Climate Catastrophe? Did it just drop out of the sky one day?! 

7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

4. Poverty and hunger are still problems faced by millions of Americans.

America has always had a significant % of people facing material hardship. But the biggest problem in the lower-class in America isn't hunger, it's obesity!

I don't see how this disproves my point that just because they may not be living in "absolute poverty" that doesn't mean they aren't struggling in a 100% preventable situation, that situation being poverty.

20 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

2. America has unleashed endless war upon the world.

Sure, I'm critical of the war on terror too. But significant military conduct is limited to a handful of countries. For most of the world, the past 50 years has been an era of great peace.

So endless war is fine as long as it doesn't affect you? Got it, thanks.

20 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

1b. The Anglosphere is headed for another major crash.

Of course countries will have crashes and booms in the future.

Don't you think that, that kind of system might have a few problems, where we just move from crash to crash, hoping the boom years will be good years?

24 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Of course countries have economic ups and downs, but material prosperity in the Anglosphere is at historically very high levels.

What do you mean by "materially prosperous"? Are you arguing that because someone owns a car that means they have no right to strive for a better world?

27 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Look at articles like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

U.S. real median household income was at an all time high as of 2017

 Wow your right this totally means that the wage system, and capitalism, isn't exploitative, because those wages happen to be high :rolleyes:.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@WVProgressive

I have no problem with including the middle class in the working class. Middle class is in distinction to the lower and upper classes, which are determined largely by income.

Of course people should work to ameliorate the conditions of the poorest among us. But that is compatible with noting the poverty the U.S. faces now is mild by historical standards.

No, endless war isn't ok. Rather, my point is to put U.S. military action re the war on terror in context. The conflicts are limited, and most of the world has had peace.

Again, you can criticize boom-bust cycles, but if you don't notice that the overall trend is toward higher levels of material prosperity, you're not putting it in context!

"Are you arguing that because someone owns a car that means they have no right to strive for a better world?"

Isn't that in the car purchase agreement somewhere? Regardless, this point seems like a complete non sequitur. Nowhere did I say anything like this.

"Wow your right this totally means that the wage system, and capitalism, isn't exploitative, because those wages happen to be high"

There are valid critiques of wages, jobs, and so on, in modern America. Noting median family income has gone up is not incompatible with thinking things could be made better from here on out. However, again, the context is that *things have gotten better* materially in the U.S.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

"Are you arguing that because someone owns a car that means they have no right to strive for a better world?"

Isn't that in the car purchase agreement somewhere? Regardless, this point seems like a complete non sequitur. Nowhere did I say anything like this.

You said "Of course countries have economic ups and downs, but material prosperity in the Anglosphere is at historically very high levels." implying that economic crashes are fine as long as people are "materially prosperous" which you still haven't defined by the way. 

42 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

There are valid critiques of wages, jobs, and so on, in modern America. Noting median family income has gone up is not incompatible with thinking things could be made better from here on out. However, again, the context is that *things have gotten better* materially in the U.S.

42 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Again, you can criticize boom-bust cycles, but if you don't notice that the overall trend is toward higher levels of material prosperity, you're not putting it in context!

42 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Of course people should work to ameliorate the conditions of the poorest among us. But that is compatible with noting the poverty the U.S. faces now is mild by historical standards.

Alright, so can we agree that just because the Gilded Age was bad, that doesn't mean modern day ultra-capitalist America is good?

42 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I have no problem with including the middle class in the working class. Middle class is in distinction to the lower and upper classes, which are determined largely by income.

That depends on how you're defining class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

No, endless war isn't ok. Rather, my point is to put U.S. military action re the war on terror in context. The conflicts are limited, and most of the world has had peace.

After 18 years, do you, or anyone else here, still believe the term "War on Terror," is a valid and legitimate term, and not just a fabrication to excuse the Bush Administration from passing into law more overt and direct violations of the U.S. Constitution than any other single U.S. Presidential AdminIstration AND to become the biggest pack of international war criminals of the 21st Century so far, and to get away with it and look good and virtuous doing it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@WVProgressive

I'm not trying to say that crashes are fine. I'm saying the fact countries have boom-bust cycles doesn't mean the Anglosphere hasn't had unprecedented prosperity for the last 70 years. Even at low points in these cycles, people generally have been tremendously materially well off - historically and compared to most other countries.

I don't know what you mean by 'ultra-capitalist'. I view the U.S. as a moderately socialist country.

Yes, of course - the definition of middle class differs, especially in academic debates. However, I think in the everyday American context putting middle class in between lower and upper, and defining it largely in terms of income or net worth, is a fairly intuitive way to do it. Having said that, I don't really want to argue over the word - which is why I put it between inverted commas to start with. By an increasing global 'middle class', I mean the increase in people having enough money to buy many of the things middle income earners for some time have been able to buy in places like the U.S. This expansion has been massive and dramatic in many places (and Patine gave various examples) over the last 50 years.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine

"After 18 years, do you, or anyone else here, still believe the term "War on Terror," is a valid and legitimate term"

No, I think it's a silly term. However, it has entered into the language and refers to something specific. I'm using it here simply because I was responding to WVProgressive's discussion of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

I don't know what you mean by 'ultra-capitalist'. I view the U.S. as a moderately socialist country.

Did I read that right? Are you thinking of Social-Democracy, because that is in no way Socialism (not to mention America isn't even a Social-Democracy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, within a Western context, the U.S. is a moderately socialist country. Significant tax rates, market and product regulations, public health coverage (Medicare, Medicaid, VA), food assistance, housing subsidies, vast numbers of public educational institutions, tens of millions of people employed by the government (at various levels), a large industrial-military complex, and all sorts of government programs that modify or undermine private enterprise.

Good night, WV.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I don't know what you mean by 'ultra-capitalist'. I view the U.S. as a moderately socialist country.

The U.S. is, by no means, a "moderately socialist country". It's one of the most capitalistic countries in the world...

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, within a Western context, the U.S. is a moderately socialist country. Significant tax rates, market and product regulations, public health coverage (Medicare, Medicaid, VA), food assistance, housing subsidies, vast numbers of public educational institutions, tens of millions of people employed by the government (at various levels), a large industrial-military complex, and all sorts of government programs that modify or undermine private enterprise.

Good night, WV.

1.)That's not what Socialism is (in fact Medicare like programs were introduced by right-wingers so there wouldn't be a socialist revolt). 2.) Are you saying capitalism can only exist without a government (or at least a government that only uses violence to defend private property)?  

Just now, jnewt said:

The U.S. is, by no means, a "moderately socialist country". It's one of the most capitalistic countries in the world...

I think he's under the assumption that Socialism just means whatever the government does...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rarename91 said:

there is nothing wrong with the system just you want the system changed to benefit the dems.

Personally, that's not MY motive. I just feel the whole system is broken. Also, I feel BOTH major parties have been failures, are both corrupt, both lie and break their promises constantly, both serve and kowtow to the plutocratic oligarchy, both support endless foreign military adventurism and meddling in other nations' politics for no justifiable reason, both have supported human rights abuses and blatantly Unconstitutional acts at home. I am NOT a Democrat (not to mention declaring myself a member of a U.S. political party as my "partisan allegiance" would nonsensical and not serve me. I believe both major parties should no longer be kept artificially propped up by a broken, compromised, and corrupted electoral system, but be allowed to, and have the real possibility (and plausibility) of suffering the fate of political parties with such legacies of constant failure, corruption, and betraying their constituents in a more politically healthy, pluralistic, free-and-fair political system without a rigged electoral system (like most First World nations) - that is, to die, morph, schism, or otherwise falter, as entire parties, and new parties (and not just the extreme fringe and one-issue parties that are currently derisively labelled collectively "Third Parties," but real, comprehensive, parties with new or long-suppressed or ignored ideas) to be able to rise without the deck being stacked against them in a way built into the very electoral system itself in the most corrupt and rigged way - like in Russia, but if there were two United Russias.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the 1st definition of socialism from Merriam-Webster.

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

The U.S. is a much more socialist country now than it was, say, 120 years ago.

Yes, programs like Medicare are socialist concessions to avoid full-out socialism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Here's the 1st definition of socialism from Merriam-Webster.

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

The U.S. is a much more socialist country now than it was, say, 120 years ago.

Yes, programs like Medicare are socialist concessions to avoid full-out socialism.

And one Bismarck pulled in Germany long before the U.S. did so - and he did so to undercut the rising the power and influence of the SPD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@WVProgressive

"Are you saying capitalism can only exist without a government (or at least a government that only uses violence to defend private property)?"

Practically and in a pure sense, yes. Socialism erodes the autonomy of private enterprise and decision making, introducing governmental influence. It's a spectrum, with various levels and aspects. The question is how much socialism vs. capitalism do you have?

Definition of capitalism from Merriam-Webster.

"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

The U.S. government (at all levels) impinges on capitalism in all sorts of ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Here's the 1st definition of socialism from Merriam-Webster.

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

The U.S. is a much more socialist country now than it was, say, 120 years ago.

Yes, programs like Medicare are socialist concessions to avoid full-out socialism.

So you're going to throw out and ignore, any and all theory, and just go with a singular definition? Also you seem to think that theirs no such thing as Anarchist forms of Socialism, which isn't true... 

4 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Are you saying capitalism can only exist without a government (or at least a government that only uses violence to defend private property)?"

Practically and in a pure sense, yes. Socialism erodes the autonomy of private enterprise and decision making, introducing governmental influence. It's a spectrum, with various levels and aspects. The question is how much socialism vs. capitalism do you have?

Definition of capitalism from Merriam-Webster.

"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

The U.S. government (at all levels) impinges on capitalism in all sorts of ways.

None of the things you listed before are Socialist though.

14 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Significant tax rates

Taxes aren't Socialist.

14 hours ago, admin_270 said:

market and product regulations,

Regulations aren't Socialist

14 hours ago, admin_270 said:

food assistance

Keeps the means of production in Capitalist hands, certainly not Socialism.

14 hours ago, admin_270 said:

housing subsidies

This still keeps housing as a commodity, which many Socialist disagree with.

14 hours ago, admin_270 said:

vast numbers of public educational institutions

Yeah, filled with pro-American, and anti-Socialist, propaganda. Either way not necessarily socialist, and while Socialist government did eliminate illiteracy in Russia, and China, I don't think that public education, is necessarily socialist, especially when it coexists with private education, as it does in America.

14 hours ago, admin_270 said:

tens of millions of people employed by the government (at various levels)

Not Socialism. Nazi Germany had a large amount of people in government, if were including the military, were they Socialists?

14 hours ago, admin_270 said:

a large industrial-military complex

Ah yes, the Military-Industrial complex, that thing, that Socialists love, and totally don't hate because it fuels and profits from American Imperialism...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...