How about those midterm elections?

Voting in America goes something like this:

The government says we can vote on dessert for the year. Everybody is excited. Most people want chocolate cake. Voting time rolls around and the options are vanilla ice cream and french vanilla ice cream.

“Uh, that’s not much of a choice. Most of us don’t even like ice cream.”

“Chocolate cake isn’t really possible within the system that we have. It’s just not on the ballot.”

“Then add it to the ballot, because we want chocolate cake.”

“Look, if you keep talking about this chocolate cake nonsense, we’ll just choose dessert for you.”

The people vote for vanilla ice cream they never wanted because they imagine french vanilla is probably worse. Predictably, dessert tastes shitty.

Next year, french vanilla gets into office. It’s about equally shitty. The country is bitterly divided over the vanilla/french vanilla issue, a choice nobody actually wanted in the first place. There’s a small news story about the government accepting money from the vanilla industry. A few people care. Some laugh it off as an insane conspiracy theory.

The year after that, the government adds vanilla ice cream with chocolate sprinkles to the list of options. Everyone votes for that and hope is renewed. When they finally get their dessert, they notice that the “chocolate sprinkles” are actually vanilla beans.

Occasionally somebody points out that the ballot is rigged and they should throw out their government and start a new one, with chocolate cake for everyone. People laugh at this guy. “Chocolate cake would be great in some kind of utopian fantasy, but vanilla ice cream is more realistic.”

^ That's pretty accurate.

Also, when voters don't actually show up to the polls, extremists win.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/11/05/midterm-turnout-decreased-in-all-but-12-states

Al said:

when voters don't actually show up to the polls, extremists win.

Click to expand...

bingo bango bongo.

this election doesn't mean anything - like most midterm elections - because the only people who voted were the people that were pissed off about the previous election. that's why most midterms are temporary pendulum swings, since voters are only ever presented with this bullshit Coke vs Pepsi false-choice horse-race. Democrats stayed home because they're generally happy with the President and Republicans turned out because they've been foaming at the mouth for the last 6 years.

none of the candidates in either party talked about the issues affecting the country or their constituency. they talked about how much they either hated or disagreed with Obama. they'll feign a conciliatory tone and then they'll go right back to doing what they do best; nothing.

Hermskii said:

I can't wait to see what is going to happen! Good day!

Click to expand...

the fact that you would consider this a "good day" is testament to your short-sighted pettiness and small-minded ignorance.
please don't ever leave Houston. you're right where you belong.

I heard Oregon voted on legalising MJ

yes it was a good year for marijuana.

2 more states are legal.

What's there to spin? Nearly every single midterm goes against the president. This is the same for this president and the last one and the last one and the last one and the last one, all the way back to FDR. There are very few exceptions to this. Why? Because people are unhappy with the government and so they want a change, and so they divide the power as a rebuff. This doesn't happen with every candidate (ie: some congressmen serve very long terms), but it does tend to happen as an overall trend.

Found this a pretty interesting read: http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...XrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html?s_campaign=8315

BTW, I live in Oregon and we are pretty pumped about getting legalized pot next year. It'll be a very welcome tax boost.

gopostal said:

BTW, I live in Oregon and we are pretty pumped about getting legalized pot next year. It'll be a very welcome tax boost.

Click to expand...

yes, let the green roll in

Naysayers can keep on making excuses about how a sizable portion of the electorate failed to show up at the polls, for the elections were NOT just about Congress. Three solid blue state governorships turned over from long-time Democrats holdings to newly elected GOP execs. Two other blue states kept their GOP governors in place, bringing GOP-owned statehouses to a 3 to 2 factor over Dem-owned statehouses. And then there is the issue of about two-thirds of all state legislatures are now GOP-owned.

The GOP has more female governors-elect than the Democrats, two of whom are minorities. Also, the youngest member to be elected to Congress is a conservative Republican woman. Not only did voters reject a couple of white female Democrats, the opted for female Republicans, one being the first black representative from one of the last bastions of whiteyville, you know, Utah.

You wanna discuss voter turnout, or lack thereof? Take a look at volatile Ferguson, MO. The vast majority of black voter in that city failed to show up, even though a substantial portion of their complaints are a lack of representation. Records show a clear decline in black voter participation in Ferguson over the last three decades, coinciding with the growth of black households. While turnout was highest in the 2008 and 2012 national elections, black voters turned out at its lowest rate in the 2013 municipal elections.

It is of noteworthy mention that off-cycle municipal elections are a progressive product, borne to keep national politics out of the picture. Seems this policy is a surefire way to fail in getting Democrat supporters to the polls.

It wasn't a bad turnout.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111

State legislatures are designed that way. Ferguson shouldn't be a surprise either. Since most of them do not trust the system, why would they vote for it?

My state:

http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/va_cong_dist-1.jpg

EDIT: Removed image tags, takes up screen.

I'm in the 10th District. Except my area, which is predominantly liberal upper-middle class, got lodged in with the country farms/mountains of the west.

It's definitely not a secret.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/

N1ghtmare said:

It wasn't a bad turnout.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111

State legislatures are designed that way. Ferguson shouldn't be a surprise either. Since most of them do not trust the system, why would they vote for it?

Click to expand...

I would so trust an unbiased magazine such as the RS to be objective and accurate with its "reporting" of election nuances.

But, alas, what was I thinking? Of course, the Republicans rigged the election. The largest ownership of offices by the GOP in its history all comes down to a rigged election. I'll have to find it, but there was an article on Real Clear Politics this week that proved gerrymandering and alleged voter suppression could not have done the damage to the Democrats we saw earlier this month and in 2010.

Do not despair, Democrats do it too, what with counting prisoners as residents even if the prisoners are not citizens of the district in which they are counted.

Just to note, I thought it was just too cute how the RS article's author actually complained that Delaware gets the same number of US senators as Virginia, even though the latter has nearly ten times the free population.

You clearly read his statement wrong. Lets read it together:

Through redistricting, Republicans have succeeded in making the House more like the Senate – which the founders established as an anti-majoritarian institution to safeguard the interests of small states.

Click to expand...

The Author claims that the House is supposed to be a safeguard against the majority.

At the time of the constitutional convention in 1787, the most populous state, Virginia, counted nearly 10 times the free population of Delaware. Yet both would have the same number of senators.

Click to expand...

The author presents an example of the most and least populous state at the time immediately after the constitution was written. He mentions senators to reiterate how the system works.

In the more than two centuries since, America has expanded, and its population became concentrated, in ways the founders could have scarcely imagined – rendering the original 10:1 standard quaint. Today, the population of California outpaces Wyoming's by a ratio of 65:1. This extreme example underscores a nationwide trend: Half of the U.S. population now resides in just nine states. Which is to say that the other 50 percent of Americans control 82 votes in the U.S. Senate.

Click to expand...

The author presents the disparity today.

I understand the author's sentiment...The amount of people a single representative today represents is huge; to be comparable to 1787's standards, we would need a House of representatives filled with over 1000 representatives. This would probably be a lot closer to representing local areas. I don't see why conservatives would be against this one.

I also hadn't heard about your counting prisoners claim. I googled it and got these:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/re...-group-says/nD60eFXEm4wZcrlhHpRvUN/story.html

http://prospect.org/article/making-prisoners-count

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123663462

The last one is from NPR. From what I can tell the practice hurts liberal areas, so I don't know what you are getting at.

I hope the Republicans decide to use their time to actually write bills. Or thy could try and repeal healthcare 800 more times.

Regarding the prisoner counting, I merely noted that it's a tactic used in gerrymandering districts in more Democratic states, such as New York, although some Republicans use it as well. But yes, it does harm minority communities. Then again, Democrats aren't any more likely to refrain from using such tactics just because they claim to be the party of the little guys. From where I sit, Dems are no different than the GOP when it comes to such illusionary tactics.

By the way, I found the article I mentioned earlier. I think the claims made are fairly solid.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...graphics_didnt_sink_the_democrats_124701.html

Federalist Number 58 discusses apportionment of the House members versus the Senate. Madison states that the number of representatives in a given state become too many would actually dilute the individual district's power and influence. He also asserted that a growing Congress would remove much of the checks and balances provided to protect the interests of the smaller states.

The other argument Madison makes against an increase in House representation is to keep the percentage of votes required to pass legislation at a reasonable limit. If the House gets too populated, the required cutoff must increase and thus, work to inhibit passage of legislation, thus rendering the House as a useless entity.

N1ghtmare said:

I hope the Republicans decide to use their time to actually write bills.

Click to expand...

they won't

the GOP are largely traitors to the nation they purport to represent.

You mean the way Harry Reid treated the majority of bills that passed the House but never hit the Senate floor for debate?

Crotale said:

Federalist Number 58 discusses apportionment of the House members versus the Senate. Madison states that the number of representatives in a given state become too many would actually dilute the individual district's power and influence. He also asserted that a growing Congress would remove much of the checks and balances provided to protect the interests of the smaller states.

The other argument Madison makes against an increase in House representation is to keep the percentage of votes required to pass legislation at a reasonable limit. If the House gets too populated, the required cutoff must increase and thus, work to inhibit passage of legislation, thus rendering the House as a useless entity.

Click to expand...

His main arguments stem around how the dilution and overabundance will make them not care. As we can see right now, however, representatives have so many constituents they do not care about any local concerns.

He also claims that a vocal minority who speaks well will convince the masses; yet this is a problem we have today anyway.

Honestly they do not do any work anyway (as useless as the House is); perhaps making them more accountable to their local electorate instead of the party will get things done.

Regardless, the system will always get gamed over time. Senators used to be elected by the state legislature as Brizz mentioned. This was changed during the progressive era to combat the rampant corruption of the late 1800's. ~100 years later and the system has broken down again. The elected represent their donors and party stance wholeheartedly.

Perhaps a new change is required. Maybe some of the basic operation needs be shuffled every few decades to keep everything in check. Maybe every 50 years how the senate is elected needs to be shuffled. Maybe we need term limits. Not that any of this would happen, because getting a amendment through our government today is almost unimaginable.