Rivalarrival

joined 1 year ago
[–] Rivalarrival 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They might have a good collision rating, but their decision to use electric door handles, (and hiding the manual ones) has killed a bunch of people.

[–] Rivalarrival 2 points 6 days ago

The urban states greatly outnumber the rural states in the house, and California has fewer than the optimal persons per congressional district, meaning they are slightly overrepresented. The fact that 52 > 1 tells me that Montanans are not dictating policy to California.

I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact is that even if Montana were able to build a coalition of the 26 smallest states, they would not be able to enact law without support from several of the larger states. Especially if California opposed the measure.

[–] Rivalarrival 20 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

My mom's deep freezer has been in her garage for 30+ years, reaching ambient temperatures as low as -30C.

Send it.

[–] Rivalarrival 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Replying here again to take the discussion a different direction... What if instead of each representative casting a single vote, they instead acted as a proxy, and cast one vote for each member of the district they represent? The Wyoming representative at large would cast 584,057 votes on every issue in the house. The Delaware representative would cast 989,948 votes. Vermont, 643,077 votes in the house.

[–] Rivalarrival 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Right, like "democracy".

What is the form of government of the fictional nation of Panem?

I would not describe Panem as a democracy, as the satellite districts have no effective voice in their own governance. Panem is missing anything resembling a Senate. There is no means for the satellite districts to limit or reject the imposition of the capitol district.

Where the direction is chosen by what theajority of people want.

You are confusing "Populism" for "Democracy". The two are not the same. Populism is the idea that political power flows from the majority. Democracy is the idea that political power flows from the people. The difference is subtle, but significant to the issue at hand.

Where the people are not in agreement on a particular direction, populism says that if 50%+1 want to go left, everyone goes left. Democracy is the idea that we collectively take both paths.

Currently we have a system where a minority of the people tell the rest what to do...

That is absolutely false. California is free to establish law for Californians, regardless of what Montana has to say about it. California doesn't have to listen to Montana.

[–] Rivalarrival 5 points 6 days ago

Why did you feel you needed a mobile crematorium?

[–] Rivalarrival 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

Would you consider that more "republican"?

Not at all. A government where the senate is eliminated, and California is free to impose itself against the will of Wyoming and Montana would be "populist" at best, and there are much more fitting terms. Not Democratic; Not a Republic. Eliminate the Senate, and you have Panem.

Populism is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Democracy is what keeps the sheep off the ballot.

[–] Rivalarrival 2 points 6 days ago (6 children)

The vast majority of human history disagrees...

The vast majority of human history involved dictatorial regimes imposing their will on the unwilling. Democracy is a fairly recent development.

You certainly can establish a government without the consent of the governed, but you cannot reasonably describe such a government as "democratic".

[–] Rivalarrival 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (9 children)

Trying to fix our original system of government and update it for modern day iis like trying to turn a race horse into a Formula 1 racecar...

Democracy is government by consent of the governed. That means if you want to govern Wyoming and Montana, you have to get a majority of Wyoming and Montana residents to agree to your plan. And if every decision is going to be made by California, regardless of their local opposition, why the hell would they agree to be unilaterally ruled from afar? Why wouldn't they maintain their own sovereignty and independence from you, and govern themselves?

California certainly has no problem establishing laws for itself that the rest of the country broadly reject.

[–] Rivalarrival 2 points 6 days ago (12 children)

No you don't, because the House still favors small rural states after we froze the number.

That is only partially accurate. Mathematically, the ideal congressional district will have 761,169 people.

States smaller than x=761,169 are overrepresented. Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska are the only states that meet this criteria. Wyoming has 584,057 people for its at-large district. Wyoming residents have about 1.3 times the house representation as a person in California.

You also need to consider that Single-district states between 761,170 and 1,522,338 (2x) are underrepresented. They have more than enough people for a single district, but not quite enough people to warrant a second district. These are North Dakota, South Dakota, and Delaware. South Dakota has 919,318 people. A South Dakota resident has 0.83 the representation in the house that a California resident has.

Similarly, 2-district states smaller than 1,522,338 are are overrepresented. These are Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, and Rhode Island.

2-district states larger than 1,522,338 are underrepresented. These are Idaho and West Virginia.

The way the math works out, the larger the state, the less the deviation between actual and optimal representation. Interestingly, California is slightly overrepresented relative to the ideal district size.

[–] Rivalarrival 21 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (5 children)

It's not genocide if they aren't people.

--Trump, Probably

view more: ‹ prev next ›