IF the election results were reversed...

[s_stabeler]

If rural voters were disenfranchised, then yes, I would have an equal problem with it- however, as it stands, in some ways we are seeing the exact problem the system was designed to prevent- one part of the country (rural areas) being able to steamroller over another part (the cities)- when neither should be dominant.

[mjr]

If rural voters were disenfranchised, then yes, I would have an equal problem with it- however, as it stands, in some ways we are seeing the exact problem the system was designed to prevent- one part of the country (rural areas) being able to steamroller over another part (the cities)- when neither should be dominant.

Well, see, here's the thing: People really didn't seem to mind so much in 2008 and 2012.

I personally believe there are people who actually WANT rural areas disenfranchised. Because many of them believe that rural areas (since a lot of rural areas are Conservative/Republican areas) are backwards, dumb, behind the times, not "progressive" enough, or whatever.

I'm sure the converse is true, too.

I've even heard people say that as "urban" areas get bigger, that the rural will have less and less influence. That means that more and more "influence" will be happening in those areas (i.e. the 10 cities or so mentioned earlier), and the "rural" areas will have less and less "influence".

But the hard part is correcting things. How does it get fixed? As has been pointed out, somebody gets screwed either way. There may not be an entirely fair way to "fix" it.

[s_stabeler]

That's because in 2008 & 2012, Obama legitimately carried BOTH the urban and Suburban vote, and in 2008, he was only 8% below McCain in rural areas as well. In 2012, he won because he had a 40-point lead in the city, compared to a 24-point lead in rural areas for Romney. It wasn't a case of city votes counting for more than rural votes, it was plain a case of him being more popular in the cities than Romney was in rural areas. Trump, however, had a 28% lead in rural areas compared to Clinton's urban lead of 28%. Again, it should really have been a tied election.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Does that apply to rural areas, as well (i.e. is the "converse" true)? I'm asking because you seem like a reasonable person to have a discussion with, and I'd honestly like your opinion on it.

Absolutely. But there aren't great examples of that happening. There are examples of state governments getting in lawsuits with the Federal Government though so you're getting representation. But if I saw Democrats in most states, Democrats in the house, democrats in the senate, Democrats in the Presidency, and Democrats running the Supreme court and national polls are 50/50, I'd suggest that's pretty dangerous too.

I personally believe there are people who actually WANT rural areas disenfranchised. Because many of them believe that rural areas (since a lot of rural areas are Conservative/Republican areas) are backwards, dumb, behind the times, not "progressive" enough, or whatever.

That's true. Just like its true that right now the Republican party suddenly likes the idea of enforcing the Supremacy clause (this is the first time in forever that's been a thing.) Flat out the wings of both parties are meddlesome as fuck. The don't live and let live. They always have reasons. When people discus what the government should do, it should always be in the context of those groups WOULD do if given a chance. (And one of them has a chance now.) There are groups of leftists and groups of hard-line right that are actively doing now and exploiting what the framers never conceived of them being able to do. There was an idea that national identity and state interests should prevent it. But when you see right wing respondents that trust Russia more then Democrats... well there's the problem.

The thing is, the job of the constitution is not to assign "easy mode" for certain groups of people. If it's constructed properly, it is offsetting their advantages. So the point isn't rural have an advantage in the House - it's that if that's going to be the case why do Urban voters not have an equal advantage in the senate. That's the correction we're missing. You can flip that too btw. The House and Senate were always meant to butt heads and its become shocking over the last decade how little that actually happens. If it's not the small state/large state anymore than it needs to be repurposed Urban/Rural.

So that's really where I'm focused now. I'm mostly worried about autocracy because from Trump to Ted Cruz, I'm not seeing much concern for Federalism, conveniently the Federal Supremacy clause is a great thing, we can't trust our intelligence agencies, and we can't trust our media. That crap is straight out "Things Autocrats Say."

I'm just trying to do a post-mortem because I think realistically speaking if this stuff isn't corrected, we will see war in our lifetime. Not because I think that way, but because people who don't feel represented in a democracy tend to do that.

[Greenday]

If rural voters were disenfranchised, then yes, I would have an equal problem with it- however, as it stands, in some ways we are seeing the exact problem the system was designed to prevent- one part of the country (rural areas) being able to steamroller over another part (the cities)- when neither should be dominant.

I honestly don't believe that. Our current system punishes people for populating a small area. Philadelphia has 12% of the population of Pennsylvania. Yet they get only 5.6% of the say of the state? That's absurd. The minority of people should not be given the same power as larger amounts of people. No person should have more voting power than another just because they live in an area few people want to live. Cities should dominate the system purely because they have more people. Either chop cities up into smaller pieces so they get more votes or increase the size of districts of No Man's Land so they get less votes.

[mjr]

and national polls are 50/50, I'd suggest that's pretty dangerous too.

I wonder how much of that, though, is voter turnout. Because if you look at voter turnout in those states, I'd guess that there are a number of people who don't necessarily vote according to the polls, or who say they will and then don't, or something else.

It could be ideology, too. The "city dwellers" just don't turn up, and maybe the "rural folk" do. I don't know. It'd be interesting to see the numbers.

The thing is, the job of the constitution is not to assign "easy mode" for certain groups of people.

But a lot of lawmakers in Congress attempt to do this very thing, session after session.

If it's constructed properly, it is offsetting their advantages. So the point isn't rural have an advantage in the House - it's that if that's going to be the case why do Urban voters not have an equal advantage in the senate.

That's a valid question. I'd guess that the answer could be either ideological "makeup" of the state, considering each state has two senators, or that, again, because there are only two Senators (which, here in Texas covers a LOT of land, and a LOT of people), one particular group got outvoted.

It's interesting, that way back when, Senators used to be appointed by governors, IIRC, and if I'm not mistaken.

So that's really where I'm focused now. I'm mostly worried about autocracy because from Trump to Ted Cruz, I'm not seeing much concern for Federalism, conveniently the Federal Supremacy clause is a great thing, we can't trust our intelligence agencies, and we can't trust our media. That crap is straight out "Things Autocrats Say."

In 2008, I voted for a write-in candidate that had a party called the "Madisonian-Federalist" party. It seemed like a "Strict Constitutionalist" party under another name.

I'm just trying to do a post-mortem because I think realistically speaking if this stuff isn't corrected, we will see war in our lifetime. Not because I think that way, but because people who don't feel represented in a democracy tend to do that.

What's odd about that is that there are a lot of "rural" people, and a lot of Conservative/Republican people who, though they have the majority in both houses, and majorities in a lot of state houses and governorships, still don't feel "represented". I'm not talking about the hatemongering types, either.

I'm sure you've seen things from people about "liberal ideology" being shoved down their/their kid's throats (mostly in a "captive audience" situation like school), then that argument/concern essentially being "brushed off" as not a big deal. But it is a big deal -- to them.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

But a lot of lawmakers in Congress attempt to do this very thing, session after session.

Depends what you mean by this. If you're talking electorally, we're in agreement. If this is an economic point your making, I'm going to disagree in the sense the Government's job is to provide security and liberty. If you take capitalism for the imperfect system it is (prone to monopolization, bending towards the exhaustion of mutual trade), the government will always be involved in certain groups appearing to have it easier even if those steps are just corrective. But this is a political POV question, not a "is the government representing public opinion properly" question. The US fluctutes on this.

It could be ideology, too. The "city dwellers" just don't turn up, and maybe the "rural folk" do. I don't know. It'd be interesting to see the numbers.

But see this is why voter suppression is so vexing and why you're actually being flip by saying that.. A rural voter goes to rural polling place where density is low, lines are low, and drivers license/vehicle ownership are probably very high due to the economics of living in a rural area. Time investment to vote is extraordinarily low. By requiring State ID, removing urban polling locations making the urban voter's experience density high, lines long, distance traveled without vehicle high and administratively burdensome, you can't really equally measure turnout rates.

There's a study in economics called "homo economicus" which just means a perfectly economically rational person's behavior. The Urban and Rural voters answers to what to do what that type of voter would do are completely different. Rural would be more likely (higher probability to win/more representation per vote/less time investment) than Urban (low probability/more average time investment). One group gets substantially more for less investment.

What's odd about that is that there are a lot of "rural" people, and a lot of Conservative/Republican people who, though they have the majority in both houses, and majorities in a lot of state houses and governorships, still don't feel "represented". I'm not talking about the hatemongering types, either.

They're both right and wrong to feel that way. I'm a political wonk, so I look at Government, society, economics and politics as different. You don't need to be a hatemonger to be impacted by political strategy. Society does everything. There's always going to be a college professor that beats his students down with liberal stuff. I had a professor beat me down with libertarian ideology. That's society - maybe 5 in 100 do it. Political strategy is to cherry pick those 5 until your side believes it to be true most of the time - if that makes your channel more money, doubly good. Reality is most kids are not abducted and killed either but that hasn't stopped modern parents from barricading them in the house and having 24/7 news coverage when a pretty blonde girl goes missing.

BLM isn't dissimilar. They are statistically correct in their overall assertions, but they obfuscate the argument from local to national and by rallying behind symbols. Truth is the Atlanta PD can't do jack about New York police which can't do jack about Charlotte. But it's effective to make the scope national and cherry pick because that moves people politically. The positive is it exposes an issue - the negative is how much of a correction do you get and how distorted does it make people's views of police, black people, and white people. This was actually sort of part of the brilliant appeal of the film Selma which really focuses on MLK's political strategy up to even being aware of the type of Sheriff he's dealing with (a non-good 'ole boy, highly intelligent one would have been very bad.) But the thing is King is aware of what he's trying to do politically and what his specific goals are. He controlled his messaging. He controlled his visuals. He knew how to find and give allies what they needed (rather than viewing allies people "in it" just because it was right.)

My main concern with groups like BLM, tea partiers, the religious right, or even feminists today is - I think they seem to lack that political rationality. They're more akin to identities whose goals are transient and their rhetoric extremely careless. They seem largely driven by polemic personalities who get paid for inciting people.

That's a long way of saying - politically if they are Republican I'd say a majority have been fed this idea for so long and so consistently, that is part of their identity. There's plenty of political research that actually confirms that you'd expect those people to feel oppressed even when they control everything. Info that violates most people's identity doesn't get in. And that would have to be true because Republicans have owned the US House for the last 10 of 13 sessions. So they've owned Legislation in this country for 20 of 26 years. If they don't think they've had power, the question becomes "who was telling them that power means dictatorial power?"

I have rights too. I can have massive problems with creationsim being taught as anything other than sham science, belief common core being effective for computer science and that the US is pitching a fit like they did with the metric system, and that a woman can terminate a pregnancy at any time. Globalization is inevitable (and basic economic theory tells us so.) Do get everything I want? No.

[s_stabeler]

There's a couple more things that have changed. Increasingly, the meaning of the word compromise seems to be changing in popular use- at least politically- in that it's often used in the sense of "if you let me do this, I will let you do that" ( which explains a lot of the more annoying bits about the tea Party, incidentally- the way they saw it, defunding the ACA would be the compromise to pass a continuing resolution allowing the government to keep going. hence, to them, when there were calls for them to compromse, it was "give an inch and they'll take a yard" ( I'm not justifying them, just explaining their rationale) which ALSO explains why thye could claim with a straight face that it was Obama causing the shutdown. From their perspective, Obama was refusing to budge while they had offered the concession of defunding the ACA rather than outright repeal.))

[HYHYBT]

Backing up a bit: there seems to be some confusion about the difference between "disenfranchised" and "outvoted." That you don't get your way because more people want the other is not disenfranchisement.

[s_stabeler]

yes and no. Disenfranchisement is where you may as well not vote for all the difference it makes- where there is a structural reason you are outvoted, then it can cause disenfranchisement.

You could say, for example, that because of the way the Electoral College is structured, Democrats in republican-dominated states are functionally disenfranchised because their votes literally do not affect who is elected President.

I have actually thought of as way to reform the Electoral College while preserving the "don't allow cities to completely dominate rural areas" aspect. The Electoral College, IIRC, is made up of one vote for each Senator and one per Representative. As such, why not use a variant on the Maine/Nebraska model? ( basically, in the Maine/Nebraska model, each Congressional district effectively elects it's own elector, then the two statewide electors are winner-takes all like any other state. In my variation, the statewide electors would be awarded based on % of the vote in that state)- it'd allow rural areas to have a bigger say than they would otherwise, but not allow them the dominance we currently see.

[mjr]

yes and no. Disenfranchisement is where you may as well not vote for all the difference it makes- where there is a structural reason you are outvoted, then it can cause disenfranchisement.

You could say, for example, that because of the way the Electoral College is structured, Democrats in republican-dominated states are functionally disenfranchised because their votes literally do not affect who is elected President.

You could say the same thing, conversely, in states like California and New York.

I have actually thought of as way to reform the Electoral College while preserving the "don't allow cities to completely dominate rural areas" aspect. The Electoral College, IIRC, is made up of one vote for each Senator and one per Representative. As such, why not use a variant on the Maine/Nebraska model? ( basically, in the Maine/Nebraska model, each Congressional district effectively elects it's own elector, then the two statewide electors are winner-takes all like any other state. In my variation, the statewide electors would be awarded based on % of the vote in that state)- it'd allow rural areas to have a bigger say than they would otherwise, but not allow them the dominance we currently see.

So electoral votes would be doled out by Congressional District? And then by Senate District? Wouldn't that have some of the same results? I mean, if you look at a county-by-county map of the US, most counties (and, by extension likely most Congressional districts) are "Republican" districts.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

They're also inverse of the cities.

The thing that's hard to not discount is it's not that rural districts are all Republican, they're just at a much higher percentage.

It's a weird one and I don't have an answer for it. Popular gives you a Democratic president every election. County/region gives you a Republican every election. State winner-take-all like we have actually does mix it up (for now.)

I think maybe I'd go straight popular vote with the President but tweak the voting mechanism for the "ranked choice" system and allow at least the top two in each party into the race. Why? I think the "winnner-take-all" system tends to promote wingish candidates. So let the Wing and the moderate show up in the candidates and see who actually wins. And with the ballot diversity, I don't think you change the overall rural/urban voting patterns but you may be freeing up your less wingish types.

[mjr]

T

I think maybe I'd go straight popular vote with the President but tweak the voting mechanism for the "ranked choice" system and allow at least the top two in each party into the race. Why? I think the "winnner-take-all" system tends to promote wingish candidates. So let the Wing and the moderate show up in the candidates and see who actually wins. And with the ballot diversity, I don't think you change the overall rural/urban voting patterns but you may be freeing up your less wingish types.

There's something similar to this, that I think I've mentioned previously. It's called something like "Approval Voting".

I think it'd be easier to do during the primaries than a general election, but I think with the right modifications it could work at the General Election level, too. But the thing is, you would likely still end up with a plurality electing the president. The EC, as it stands, eliminates the plurality, for the most part.

[Gravekeeper]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...stricting.html

Looks like someone is a step ahead of us and has a pretty straight forward formula for judging whether a district is gerrymandered or not.

[Greenday]

I have actually thought of as way to reform the Electoral College while preserving the "don't allow cities to completely dominate rural areas" aspect. The Electoral College, IIRC, is made up of one vote for each Senator and one per Representative. As such, why not use a variant on the Maine/Nebraska model? ( basically, in the Maine/Nebraska model, each Congressional district effectively elects it's own elector, then the two statewide electors are winner-takes all like any other state. In my variation, the statewide electors would be awarded based on % of the vote in that state)- it'd allow rural areas to have a bigger say than they would otherwise, but not allow them the dominance we currently see.

That'd probably be just as bad in the end. Going back to Pennsylvania again, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia represent 14.5% of the state's population. Even IF we went with your method, their combined power equals 11.1% of the state's districts. So we are still unbalancing the power in favor of the rural districts.

All votes need to be equal. Period.