Where do you see our political system in 15 years?

[mrsleeve]

k-12 for a basic education ok, college ummm Nahhhh I dont think so.

paying for your education is part of the incentive to actually take something from it, and try and get though it as quick a possible. You know how most kids treat high school Vs semi taking college seriously.

Next what about those that make their way in life with out a college degree, Why should I have to help you pay for your degree. Sounds like a great idea to me ..........................

[z31maniac]

k-12 for a basic education ok, college ummm Nahhhh I dont think so.

paying for your education is part of the incentive to actually take something from it, and try and get though it as quick a possible. You know how most kids treat high school Vs semi taking college seriously.

Next what about those that make their way in life with out a college degree, Why should I have to help you pay for your degree. Sounds like a great idea to me ..........................

Fine, then pay for a technical education like welding, HVAC, etc.

Or we can just continue our fall down the education ladder. We aren't even in the top 15 in the world anymore and we are the richest nation on earth.

[BraveUlysses]

ahhh I see we should tax everyone to help pay for your education gotcha......

This is the lowest grade criticism of any federal expenditures. Ask everyone in this country and they'll all tell you at least one thing they don't think they should have their tax dollars should go towards.

[nrubenstein]

Saner. Nearly a generation more demographic shift will have further marginalized the hardcore right wing elements. The GOP will either figure out an exit from its current allegiance to marginal and declining constituencies, or it will thoroughly stuck in the wilderness.

Rural states will still have far too much power, but that's an inevitable consequence of our political system.

[mrsleeve]

.

Rural states will still have far too much power, but that's an inevitable consequence of our political system.

This seems like a very puzzling statement

[BraveUlysses]

It's only puzzling for you

[mrsleeve]

Umm so its ok for the urban areas to wield control over non urban areas.....


We dont live in a democracy, and seem that for the last 50 years or so that the urban areas have been doing a lot of dictating to rural areas what is good for them. At both state and federal levels.

Its only puzzling when you dont ascribe to the general progressive mind set that govt knows what best for all...

seems someone is forgetting about how the branches of our govt are supposed to be set up...

[BraveUlysses]

80% of the population live in urban areas.

It has nothing to do with wielding control over rural areas--if anything, our voting system gives unequal weight to rural populations, which nrubenstein pointed out.

[mrsleeve]

Negative

The peoples house (house of representatives) is based on population, the Senate is 2 per state. You MIGHT have an valid argument if the senate was elected the way the founders intended and were chosen before the Wilson Admin. When the respective legislatures of each state selected the 2 senators NOT the general population, this small change in the election process basically neuters the "voice" of the state in govt at the federal level. The more urban areas already have a much larger advantage in the house due to population density alone. Hell my state just crossed a threshold that we now get to have 2 congressmen in the house, now that we have 1m residents in the state, I think there are counties in this country that have more representation in DC than my whole fucking state does and its the 4th LARGEST by land mass...... My county alone is lager than MD and RI combined by land mass, tell me again why my state has more power in govt than a densely populated one????

Oh yes it shure seems that the rural areas of this country get too much say in our leader ship at the federal level.

In 08 you had some rural areas that voted for our current inept leadership, but if you were to go by land mass, there is far more red than blue.


Even less rural areas voted for our current debacle in 2012, yet who still elected the tool. Humm could it be the urban areas yet again, Nahhh couldn't be them with all the disadvantages they have with out enough weight in the voting both. Yet here we are with even more rural area taking up real estate on this map




Just one example among many

[nrubenstein]

Negative

The peoples house (house of representatives) is based on population, the Senate is 2 per state. You MIGHT have an valid argument if the senate was elected the way the founders intended and were chosen before the Wilson Admin. When the respective legislatures of each state selected the 2 senators NOT the general population, this small change in the election process basically neuters the "voice" of the state in govt at the federal level. The more urban areas already have a much larger advantage in the house due to population density alone. Hell my state just crossed a threshold that we now get to have congressmen in the house, now that we have 1m residents in the state, I think there are counties in this country that have more representation in DC than my whole fucking state does and its the 4th LARGEST by land mass...... tell me again why my state has more power in govt than a densely populated one????

Oh yes it shure seems that the rural areas of this country get too much say in our leader ship at the federal level.

In 08 you had some rural areas that voted for our current inept leadership, but if you were to go by land mass, there is far more red than blue.


Even less rural areas voted for our current debacle in 2012, yet who still elected the tool. Humm could it be the urban areas yet again, Nahhh couldn't be them with all the disadvantages they have with out enough weight in the voting both. Yet here we are with even more rural area taking up real estate on this map




Just one example among many

You seem to be determined to prove my point.

[BraveUlysses]

You seem to be determined to prove my point.

Line em up, knock em down. Thanks for proving our point sleeve!

PS: "tell me again why my state has more power in govt than a densely populated one????" is a strawman. I didn't say that, try again.

[mrsleeve]

Ummm Logic failure.... Progressive high-fives are a little premature. Land mass dose not determine the power POPULATION DOES. Oh you mean the senate, we have just gone over that. The state has 2 of them no matter the population and were intended to be "elected" 1 from each house of their respective states legislatures to be their representation at the federal level, not the peoples. So you think that the populace states should have more senators than the rural ones, there by giving them even more power to dictate to rural states what they should be doing ????? Kinda Woodrow Wilson-y and creepy


Again if your assertions were even remotely true based upon those 2 election result maps we should have a R supper majority in the house and the senate both and the R's should be able to run rough shod over the whims of the executive branch with veto override votes in both houses. WE DONT Have that in the least do we???? The more populace your state the more reps you have in the house, the more populace your urban areas the more reps you have in the house. IE rural states and areas have little say in matters when the bulk of the representation comes from the URBAN areas of the state or country. Look at fucking NY state, the rest of the residents of the state want nothing to do with the policy or taxes that is shoved down their gullets by the little tiny land area that is NYC.

Here is a fun map.... CA congressional districts Notice how we have 22 of those districts are located with in the greater LA basin, and how much land mass district 4 takes up in the NE corner of the state. Who controls the state legslature in CA and has the lions share of federal representation for the population of CA. Oh yeah thats right THE GOD DAMMED CITY FOLK



We all know that CA is a bastion for the lefitist ideals and the craziest of the crazy do as I say not as I do Dems come from there, notice how much land mass the R's have vs the D's yet the D's elected to federal office still greatly outnumber the R's when you use land area as a measure of scale



Again my county is larger than the state of DE (sorry misstated that above as MD) in land mass. Yet the state DE has a similar population to my state over all. if land mass had anything to do with power in Govt why is a place with a similar land mass to my county gets to 2 senators and a seat in the house all to it self. An area that has close to 500 people per square mile in density as an average gets the same say as a place that has about 7 people square mile and is 28 times larger in land mass. Oh yeah thats right its got the same amount of fucking people in it

NYC and LI....... Those areas are where all the electoral power comes from for the state of NY, Just like Cook county IL runs the rest of the state and decides many of the representatives to federal office, Lower 1/2 of lower MI decides everything that the rest of the state must live by and most federal representation as the bulk of the 10m residents live lansing south. The quad city region and Des Monies decide IA fate, Vegas and carson city run NV ect .......

Again rural states/areas having too much power is a bit of a perplexing statement

[nrubenstein]

The senate grossly over-represents rural areas. Whatever the intent was is irrelevant. Rural states have far more power than they should. Period. The notion that one Senator should represent fewer than 300,000 people, while another represents over 9 million is ludicrous.

Yes, within your state, your voting power is relatively equally apportioned (assuming that gerrymandering hasn't created a completely safe seat for someone). But that is rather beside the point.

Frankly, if it were not for the fact that Republicans tend to have significantly higher voter turnout, I suspect the GOP would be doing a heck of a lot worse than it currently is.

[mrsleeve]

AGAIN THE SENATE IS THE STATE'S REPRESENTATION IN DC NOT THE PEOPLES.

This is why the house of representatives is CALLED THE HOUSE FUCKING REPRESENTATIVES Also the "peoples house"

Also why they are elected to a 2 year term, the people are fickle and change their minds on a whim.

Why is this shit so hard to grasp????? Did either of you pass Civics when you were in school. god dam


Semantics man wants to know, what state has senators "representing" fewer than 300k people each?

[emerson.]

Rural states will still have far too much power, but that's an inevitable consequence of our political system.