Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 1436 1437 [1438] 1439 1440 ... 2057

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 906084 times)

WealthyRadish

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21555 on: June 12, 2018, 07:59:14 pm »

As has been said a billion times, the issue isn't that the two parties are too popular (obviously) or even too rich and powerful, it's that our election rules make it extremely difficult for more than two parties to compete in a stable system. The congressional elections with high-population FPTP single-member districts in particular are so extremely weighted against third parties that they may as well not exist, and as most state governments mirror the congressional system, they hardly have a chance there either. The whole American political system is generally undemocratic and unresponsive whether third parties are desired or not, but mysteriously this issue never comes up in the national media aside from the odd reporting on gerrymandering.

The argument that the parties are internally varied and more like a coalition falls flat in my opinion, since even if this were true in the past, the development of 20th century telecommunications and mass media has so extensively homogenized american culture and politics that regional differences are weaker than ever, and where they do manifest in politics will largely only do so within the two-party framework (i.e. little actual deviation from the mainstream, just varying in intensity and in particular around strong single-issues).
Logged

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21556 on: June 12, 2018, 09:31:48 pm »

The problem is that in the current hyperpartisan environment, neither party wants to give even a nanometer to the other, so, I don't see any solution out of it because any solution is going to involve relaxing both parties grip on the system.

You know that three Californias thing you may have heard of? Well, it's now on the ballot for November. Ballotpedia page

While it makes for an interesting thought experiment and a discussion on the merits of it is fine, I'm not okay with having a single person decide how to split up California, it should be the people of California that decide how to split it up.

The guy behind the ballot measure is also rumored to have Russian connections, so, nope.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 09:41:41 pm by smjjames »
Logged

Ispil

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21557 on: June 12, 2018, 09:33:29 pm »

I'd have to review my standards of law, but I'm pretty sure that only the federal government can make decisions regarding what land is occupied by what state, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish?
Logged
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."- Voltaire

I transcribe things, too.

redwallzyl

  • Bay Watcher
  • [Social_Democrat_Intensifies]
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21558 on: June 12, 2018, 09:36:14 pm »

I'd have to review my standards of law, but I'm pretty sure that only the federal government can make decisions regarding what land is occupied by what state, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish?
I think so but I know that Texas has some special thing where it can just dissolve itself into like five states.
Logged
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate to suffering"

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • they/them
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21559 on: June 12, 2018, 09:44:09 pm »

I'd have to review my standards of law, but I'm pretty sure that only the federal government can make decisions regarding what land is occupied by what state, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish?
I have literally no idea how it actually happened, but the main precedent I can think of would be West Virginia splitting from Virginia?  Except that took place around, and largely due to, the Civil War...
IIRC some of the original colonies theoretically extended "all the way west", which (spoilers) changed at some point.  Something something federally managed territories, which were gradually granted statehood.

My guess would be that states are free to release land into a new territory, which the federal government could then consider offering statehood to.
Logged

MrRoboto75

  • Bay Watcher
  • :thonk:
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21560 on: June 12, 2018, 09:47:15 pm »

Maryland already looks like its taking land from like five other states.
Logged
I consume
I purchase
I consume again

Ispil

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21561 on: June 12, 2018, 09:51:24 pm »

Constitutional quote:

Quote
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So, Congress have to approve.
Logged
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."- Voltaire

I transcribe things, too.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21562 on: June 12, 2018, 09:54:17 pm »

Well, Texas is a bit special because they were a sovereign nation for a brief time.

I'd have to review my standards of law, but I'm pretty sure that only the federal government can make decisions regarding what land is occupied by what state, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish?

You're correct on that as the California legislature would still have to okay it and THEN it has to be okay'd by Congress (not sure if both chambers or just Senate). So, it's not an automatic thing. Also, that'd be a good point as far as what the new state(s) would look like. Sure, the proposal would be a guideline of sorts, but Congress gets the final say.

I'd have to review my standards of law, but I'm pretty sure that only the federal government can make decisions regarding what land is occupied by what state, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish?
I have literally no idea how it actually happened, but the main precedent I can think of would be West Virginia splitting from Virginia?  Except that took place around, and largely due to, the Civil War...
IIRC some of the original colonies theoretically extended "all the way west", which (spoilers) changed at some point.  Something something federally managed territories, which were gradually granted statehood.

My guess would be that states are free to release land into a new territory, which the federal government could then consider offering statehood to.

Threres several cases of larger territories being split up or states being split off from territories. Not a perfect precedent, but it's there.

Anyways, I saw in the comments on TheHill article that there are rumors about the guy behind that ballot measure having Russian connections of some sort or other, which if accurate, is a big NOPE.

Constitutional quote:

Quote
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So, Congress have to approve.

So, both chambers of Congress? That'd be a massive lift and I hope that Californians at least get to decide HOW it's split up.
Logged

Egan_BW

  • Bay Watcher
  • Beyond Finality
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21563 on: June 12, 2018, 10:14:11 pm »

However, as things stand as far as third parties making any headway in this political system, they'd have to do what Trump did, wear the jersey (or skin if you want to get macabre) of either major party and run as that while not really being that. Trump showed that method was wildly successful, so, I'd expect other candidates in the future to follow that route.

I've been seeing stuff go around that the DNC is trying to take steps to prevent this from happening again.  More stringent requirements on affiliation to qualify for running in D primaries.
Obviously this means that the Republican primary should get filled up with progressives and we flip the parties again. :P
Logged
We provide many things, none of which you want.
You want many things, none of which we have.
We have many things, none of which we provide.
You have many things, none of which you have.
We are many things, and all of them are yours.❤️

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21564 on: June 12, 2018, 10:20:09 pm »

However, as things stand as far as third parties making any headway in this political system, they'd have to do what Trump did, wear the jersey (or skin if you want to get macabre) of either major party and run as that while not really being that. Trump showed that method was wildly successful, so, I'd expect other candidates in the future to follow that route.

I've been seeing stuff go around that the DNC is trying to take steps to prevent this from happening again.  More stringent requirements on affiliation to qualify for running in D primaries.
Obviously this means that the Republican primary should get filled up with progressives and we flip the parties again. :P

That would be juiceily ironic.
Logged

EnigmaticHat

  • Bay Watcher
  • I vibrate, I die, I vibrate again
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21565 on: June 13, 2018, 12:58:26 am »

Texas negotiated the "split into 5 states" clause as a condition of joining the Union.  So there's a chance that could be legal.

It would probably destroy the Republican party however.  Right now Texas has 2 red senators and a million house of reps people.  If they split it, it would have 2-4* blue senators, 4-6 red senators, and a million blue house of reps people.  Because if Houston and the surrounding area becomes its own state, there's no way to gerrymander that where it isn't a democratic stronghold.  And it would be by far the most populous of the proposed states.  For all intents and purposes invoking that clause would turn Texas purple, which would be a political disaster for Republicans (akin to California going purple for democrats).

*IIRC each of the prospective states is based on one of the 5 largest cities in Texas, and Austin is at the center with a tiny state.  From what I've heard of Austin its shifting either purple or blue due to people moving in from California (and having been left of Texas in general for a while).
Logged
"T-take this non-euclidean geometry, h-humanity-baka. I m-made it, but not because I l-li-l-like you or anything! I just felt s-sorry for you, b-baka."
You misspelled seance.  Are possessing Draignean?  Are you actually a ghost in the shell? You have to tell us if you are, that's the rule

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21566 on: June 13, 2018, 05:16:55 am »

Texas is a large state, so it doubtless could be split.

Alaska has the claim of being the largest state, though, usurping Texas's prior boast and relegating them to second place. I suppose Texans could always petition to split Alaska into two halves - making Texas now the third largest state.
Logged

Trekkin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21567 on: June 13, 2018, 07:43:08 am »

Texas technically has the ability to section off up to four more states out of its own area, but it's difficult to see why it would do that; a bluer Texas could theoretically put the southwest edge of the state and some of its urban areas into one or at most two Texlets, but then they'd presumably want to carve the upper portion of the state into two hyperconservative Texlets to avoid adding net liberal Senators, an they would be left with a relatively small, questionably red state. I don't think they're* psychologically capable of deciding to do that.

EDIT: *"They're" meaning the state legislature, to be clear.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 07:57:13 am by Trekkin »
Logged

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • I have a nice hat
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21568 on: June 13, 2018, 08:28:09 am »

Personally I think the only proper way to cut California is into Jefferson, The Valley, Socal, and Gran Francisco.
Logged
Love, scriver~

SaberToothTiger

  • Bay Watcher
  • Wannabe Shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #21569 on: June 13, 2018, 09:44:01 am »

Personally I think the only proper way to cut California is into Jefferson, The Valley, Socal, and Gran Francisco.
And the kingdom of Sacramento.
Logged
I gaze into its milky depths, searching the wheat and sugar for the meanings I can never find.
It's like tea leaf divination, but with cartoon leprechauns.
There are only two sure things in life: death and taxes and lists and poor arithmetic and overlong jokes and poor memory and probably a few more things.
Pages: 1 ... 1436 1437 [1438] 1439 1440 ... 2057