talkpolitics | Entries tagged with states

Interesting arguments down there in this long-lasting debate about the usefulness of the Electoral College:

It’s time to abolish the Electoral College

"Having a president who loses the popular vote undermines electoral legitimacy. Putting an election into the House of Representatives where each state delegation has one vote increases the odds of insider dealings and corrupt decisions. Allegations of balloting irregularities that require an Electoral Commission to decide the votes of contested states do not make the general public feel very confident about the integrity of the process. And faithless electors could render the popular vote moot in particular states."

"Yet there is a far more fundamental threat facing the Electoral College. At a time of high income inequality and substantial geographical disparities across states, there is a risk that the Electoral College will systematically overrepresent the views of relatively small numbers of people due to the structure of the Electoral College."

Good points on all accounts. The Electoral College historically no longer serves the purpose it once had, there is no doubt. It is ironic that the Federalist Society, that so proclaims the US should go back to the intent of the Founders (not even going to say how that group of rich, almost all white men, feels that means), defends the Electoral College the way it works and is allocated. The EC was composed of electors who were the elite of their states, much like the Senators were chosen, and they were supposed to act as a bulkhead against the 'passions of the people'. That intent has been turned on its head. Most places now don't let electors vote against the person they are pledged to. More importantly, thanks to the winner-take-all, and the way electoral districts are gamed, you have an election decided by some swing counties in a few states, 50,000 people can decide the electoral college out of hundreds of millions of votes. The US now has elections that are designed by places that don't represent much of the country, you have counties that are older and almost purely white deciding the national election.

( Read more... )

kiaa

There's stupid, and then there's "New California" stupid. That's just a whole new level.

'New California' movement seeks to divide the Golden State in half

Whoever the red state rocket scientists were who drew the map up obviously didn't take into account the last presidential election results. Because San Mateo, Santa Clara, Orange, Riverside, Imperial and San Diego counties ALL went for the HRC in a big way. And the 'New California' would be in a similar position as they are in now in 'Old California'; with 6 plus million voters who tend to vote blue and that will outnumber their farming community neighbors by several times.

Because this is about gerrymandering, the way I'm reading it. Oh, and taxes too. It's always about taxes. Basically, this New California BS is just rural parts of the state wanting to pay lower taxes and leach off blue states just like the rest of red state America? Yeah, got it.

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

Trump's insane management of American politics is simply a manifestation of where America's mindset has been for decades. Our way or the highway. Well, America, we're all on that highway now, and you're welcome to wander aimlessly on the backroads for the next few decades.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/trump-leaves-paris-climate-agreement-though-americans-supported-it.html

Yeah... this is just Trump's personal vendetta to wipe out everything the Obama administration did. Still, it's good to see some states and cities ignoring the moron and continuing the effort on their own. And good that all other countries are seeing that not all Americans are following his idiotic, selfish decisions:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/us/trump-climate-deal-cities-states-defying/index.html

( Read more... )

dreamville-bg.livejournal.com

"Last night’s demonstrations across the country have brought some serious activist conversations about Brexit-style separation of the western states." -- DailyKos

Over-raction, a little bit? Or a long-running sentiment on part of the West Coast? Have they felt so disenfranchised by the policies of the rest of the country that they'd want out? I mean, there's the sentiment that the West Coast has had money, business and agriculture siphoned away from them in order to fund the dysfunctional policies of the rest of the country, and moreover, places like Oregon, California and Washington state have a remarkable difference in terms of values from the other states. How true is that, from an insider's perspective (I hope our Californian friends could share some insights here).

It's hardly a surprise that after this election we've seen such support for succession growing. Some people have been advocating for this for years, and now they're joined by others who've never thought of supporting the idea. Is it emotion or a calculated push, now precipitated by Trump's victory? And how possible is it at all? I mean, wouldn't Trump just send the military to squash this pesky rebellion, if it ever existed anywhere beyond the heads of some people? The US wouldn't want to lose access to the Pacific, would it?

On a side note, if these states were to (hypothetically) leave, possibly joined by British Columbia, wouldn't that be yet another serious blow for the Democrats? I mean, those are a lot of liberal votes...

ddstory.livejournal.com

Well, seems like Bernie is now playing by the old well-known tune that DC deserves becoming a separate US state in its own right. With all the implications that a 51st state would have on federal law (and the extra star that'll have to be added to the star-spangled banner).

3 days before D.C. primary, Sanders calls for statehood

What a shock, what a surprise, eh? LOL. And here I thought Bernie was more subtle a player. But then again, he can't help but get really desperate at this point. So he'll do what? Exactly. Pander Hillary-style for votes.

That said, I wonder what the capital city of that proposed new state would be. Can you even have a state that consists of a single city? (A city-state? Hehe). Apart from the pandering side of the issue, it's still kind of curious what implications having a 51st state would have, be it DC or Puerto Rico, or any state potentially splitting in two (or more, like California).

My thoughts? Just merge the damn thing with Maryland, and be done with it. Flag problem solved. You're welcome, America!

ddstory.livejournal.com

[Error: unknown template video]

Two things stick out for me from this whole failed experiment. One, the consequences of Brownback's tax policy have essentially exposed the very same people who voted for it as being as much of "liberal" big-government leeches as they used to accuse everyone who opposed the experiment and who didn't agree with their libertarian tax-free utopia.

And two, it finally provided the real-life example that we've been hearing in discussions with libertarians all the time. You see, libertarian paradise is possible, only, big government won't allow it to be tried and tested anywhere, for fear that it might actually work. Well, there you have it. Kansas is your case-in-point that you so much hoped for.

( Things have slid downhill a little bit for Kansas now, haven't they? )

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

All politics is local, right?
So, I am a NY state resident, and my local politics are all sorts of crazy-pants.

I live in a state that is fabulously wealthy.....and absurdly fucking poor.
We here in NY have the absolute highest income inequality in the entire country. And the US, as you may know, is the worst in inequality in the developed world. It's gotten so absurd that the Pope is having to explain the immorality of rich people feasting while poor people go without.

Now, here in NY, the Gov is a democrat. Andrew Cuomo--sometimes called, Governor 1%.
Despite being a democrat, he has courted republican donors and republican policies. He has refused to put any of his weight into fighting for the democrats in the state assembly or senate, and his liberal "victories" are of the sort that do not bother wall-street and the banks. It's an open secret that Gov. 1% has national ambitions--a 2016 run is not out of the question for him. He's trying to build a record to run on--but all he has is a record to run FROM.
( Read more... )

geezer-also.livejournal.com

In the wake of all the celebrating over the victory of prop 8 foes, a "minor" consequence seems to have been overlooked (at least here). Since, to my understanding, the case was remanded back to the state (Judge Walker, in essence) because the pro 8 people had no standing before the court. I won't pretend I completely understand all the legal reasoning; but from what I do understand, they had no standing because only the state could bring the case, and the Governor (and AG) refused to defend the proposition.

( Read more... )

Mood: curious
Music: Buffalo Springfield

rick-day.livejournal.com

A ruling by a 3 judge panel in CO has tremendous potential impact on the politics of prohibition as well as the upheaval of the entire justice system.

The case centered on Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic medical-marijuana patient who was fired in 2010 from his job as a telephone operator for Dish Network after testing positive for the drug. Lawyers for Coats argued he was protected under a Colorado law that states it is illegal for workers to be terminated for participating in lawful activities off the clock.
But a trial court dismissed the claim in 2011, siding with Dish Network that medical marijuana use isn't a "lawful activity" covered by the termination law.
Now, even though the law has changed, the outcome for Coats has not. In its ruling, the Colorado Court of Appeals sought to define the word "lawful," ultimately concluding that for something to be lawful it "must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law."

Oh no they didn't...

Of course, I am not a lawyer, but my opinion is if this ruling were upheld, a state's rights to enact their own Code (of laws) would be nullified if they did not mirror the Federal Code. Because if something is not directly codified as 'illegal' then it is assumed to be legal (please don't make me look up the code for that statute, it does exist).

This means all State laws contrary to Federal law are not "Lawful" laws. So all this abortion stuff from the states; now nullified if this ruling is upheld by SCOTUS? It does not even mention local and county/parish laws.

Working the logic backwards, since the word "both" was used, does this piss not run upstream; that for any federal law contrary to any state law, removes the federal statute's "lawfulness"?

telemann.livejournal.com

A new study¹ seems to have found a smoking gun explaining why the eastern seaboard seems to be experiencing increased sea-levels more quickly: the decreased speed of the Gulf Stream, which pulls water out and away from estuaries and bays along the Atlantic's coast line in a northeasterly direction. Worldwide, sea level increased 8 inches over the course of the 20th century. Geological forces (land sinking as a result from the last ice age) are a factor in some cases, but that doesn't explain the rapidity of the increases in seal levels not affected by sinking land.

Personally, this will have a big impact on New York City, at the end of January, based on Superstorm Sandy, FEMA released a new flood zone map² of hardest hit areas including Staten Island, Brooklyn and Queens, which extended the flood zone, requiring upgrades for new construction and suggested modifications for existing buildings, and impacting flood insurance policy coverage. The lobby of the building I live in was flooded to chest high. We had no power for four days and it was nearly impossible to find any local stores open for over a week. And I was very fortunate and count my blessings: no loss of life or property.

Policy decisions are being made now that could impact the loss of life in the future. I'm skeptical of rebuilding houses and businesses so close to the water with two major storms in two years. In New Jersey, towns or beaches with large sand dunes were the ones with the least damage. But local residents with beachfront property (with FEMA flood insurance ironically) opposed increasing the size of dunes because IT BLOCKED THEIR VIEW OF THE OCEAN. New Jersey governor Chris Christie lost his temper when another nor'easter threatened the coast, and said dune expansion and construction would save lives, and helped the economy with local jobs.

"There should be no debate," said the governor. "They are being extremely selfish and shortsighted." The dunes should be protecting the shore, and that is more important than an individual's concern, he said, and the state would look into how to ensure the battle over dunes is won."They're putting people's lives and property at risk because they want to have a better view," he said.³

Flood gates have been mentioned constantly by European engineers, and after heavy flood damage from Hurricane Carol in the 1950s, Rhode Island constructed such a 3,000 foot sea gate barrier (25 feet high). The Fox Point Hurricane barrier subsequently has protected the area from any hurricane flooding or storm surge for over 50 years. The state has more than recovered the barriers' cost in what it saved in loss of property and lives.

The increasing sea levels are a national security issue for the United States and warrant an increased national urgency by the Federal government. Big large federal building projects are what the government does best. The Interstate system was a great example of this in the 1950s and 1960s. So why not have a Interstate Coastal Flood Gate system to protect our cities, especially since the states are doing such projects in piecemeal fashion (and in tight budgetary times, can't even afford the big price tags).

[1.] Gulf Stream's induced sea level rise and variability along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast by Tal Ezer1, Larry P. Atkinson1, William B. Corlett. Published online 6 February 2013.

[2.] New York Times graphic: Preliminary Flood Zones, published 28 January 2013.

[3.] Christie Critical of Dune opponents. by Wayne Parry, Associated Press, published 16 January 2013.

jerseycajun.livejournal.com

Well, not really new, so much as it is coming into its own, apparently.

Washington and Colorado both passed measures effectively legalizing recreational marijuana use.

What's most interesting, or perhaps amusing to me, someone who already thinks this should have happened and nationwide, and a long time ago, is how those who reside on the political left will couch the terms of this on the national stage.

I've experienced in the past, the phenomenon that even the mention of the phrase "States Rights" elicits cries of "you want to go back to the days of segregation?!?!?" before one can even get to the part where they describe what issue it is they're applying the term to. Kind of like a peculiar variant of Tourettes' syndrome. It's almost reflexive.

But essentially, that's the only phrase we have to describe the upcoming and all but inevitable battle between these two states and the Federal level. I want to gather thoughts on the left here how they view States Rights in this context, how it compares to when those on the right use it regarding things like social support structures. Why is it different, if it's different, in your eyes?

chron-job.livejournal.com

An interesting, if under reported result of last night's elections.

Puerto Rico just voted for statehood.

In a 2 part referendum, they voted for a change of status over the status quo (54% to 46%) and Statehood over 'Sovereign Free Association', or Independence (61%, over 33% and 5% respectively.)

Do you think this is likely to come to pass in the next few years? Critics say the referendum's split nature made it "confusing" to the point that it will be unconvincing to congress, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Currently people in Puerto Rico are considered citizens, but they can't vote for presidents, and they have no real voice in Congress. If they were made a state, being between Connecticut and Oklahoma in population, we'd expect them to have 5 seats in the House of Representatives, and 7 electoral votes. If they become a state, what does THAT do to your demographic calculations?

My own thought is that short term self interest will lead the Republicans in congress to hem, haw, delay, and oppose this, because of the obvious political implications. House Democrats ought to support it... both for short term political gain, and because it is in-line with both party, and, I feel, generally American, principles.

But mostly, this is just one more little pebble on the large scale that says "Republican Party, DIVERSIFY OR DIE!"

*** Edit *** 15:13
EST For those interested in the mechanics, and example of the plebiscite is on page 7 of this PDF. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42765.pdf

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-17-2012/exclusive---nate-silver-extended-interview-pt--2

I was watching this Jon Stewart interview with a statistician the other day - this is a guy who has explored the intricacies of polling and electorate research from a statistics perspective. In this segment of the interview he touches on a subject that caught my attention: election campaigns mining data to target increasingly shrinking, tiny portions of the electorate for the sake of winning swing states and thus, the election.

It was recently argued here that the electoral college system is (quote) "better" than a direct vote system - for reasons unexplained, unfortunately. Now, I'm aware that, being a non-American, I'm by definition doomed to never quite "understand" how the US electoral system is "more awesome", so I'm humbly prepared to be enlightened on the subject.

Still, I'll venture to give it a shot, and see if the way I understand this system is anywhere close to reality.

( A bunch of deluded ramblings )

mahnmut.livejournal.com

Since some time ago I was told by someone I used to know that I don't know jack shit about Amurrkka and therefore I "don't understand Amurkka", I decided to embark on a grand voyage and delve deep into the national psyche of this strange place called USAnia... so I ended up reading these:[Poll #1861882]

( Some details )

So, 3, 2, 1... GO! Tell me about your place!

stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution

The Tenth Amendment appears to be the hue and cry of states’ rights advocates all across the country that would like to strip the federal government of its power and grant that power to the individual states. Why we would want to retreat to the chaos before the birth of our nation or the Civil War escapes me. It would seem that breaking up this country would be contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers to unite it into a “More Perfect Union”.

I can only guess that this is a throwback to the beginning of our nation when ~~tribal areas~~ colonies would have some hesitation about uniting into one country and surrendering some of their power to a federal government.

One such obvious fragmentation is in our educational system. It appears our biggest competitor on the world stage in several areas is China. Considering we are the wealthiest country in the world, our STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education is horribly lacking compared to that of the rest of the world. This isn’t surprising considering that China has a nationally unified educational system while ours is fragmented 50 ways. The only influence the federal government can claim is through bribery using funding.

Another, more important, diffusion appears to be in the American approach to violence. Johan M.G. van der Dennen categorizes violence into spontaneous, pathological and organized violence. Professor van der Dennen goes into a heavy dissertation about the social implications of organized violence (war, civil disorder, organized crime, insurrection, gang violence, etc.) but for this post, I will be concentrating on spontaneous violence (murder, rape, assault, battery, etc.)

According to the Washington Post

Americans are slain at a much higher rate than citizens in other developed nations. The U.S. homicide rate of roughly five per 100,000 people is about three times that of Canada, about four times that of Australia, nearly five times Britain’s rate and about 12 times the rate in Japan. The U.S. rate is also roughly five times that of China.

I haven’t been able to verify this online, but I believe the United States is the only industrialized country that is ruled federally but laws against spontaneous violence are created and enforced at the ~~tribal area~~ provincial level. With some exceptions, such as military and federal employees, we don’t have criminal enforcement against spontaneous violence at the federal level. Even the Violence Against Women Act offers only civil restitution and not criminal enforcement. The ability for women to sue at the federal level was overturned by the courts.

The most basic freedom and human right is to feel protected from harm. I have no doubt that the neo-confederates are going to disagree with me, but I think this country could use a more uniform approach to laws and resources pertaining to violence as opposed to a system that just shuttles violent individuals to ~~tribal regions~~ locales that have more lenient laws pertaining to violence or have ineffective law enforcement. As far as I can conclude, the later reason is why people desperately cling to guns and religion in rural areas.

In light of the heinous mass violence that has been occurring over the last several years, it would seem reasonable, at the very least, to have a centralized policy at a federal level that may or may not include capital punishment for the most abhorrent violent crimes against the people of our country. It would seem to be the most effective rule of law for a civilized society.

paft.livejournal.com

Why wouldn't they? It worked in 2000.

Via Crooks and Liars

The last time, the target was black voters and the rationale for removing names was the voters were convicted felons. This time the target is Hispanic voters and the rationale offered that they are “illegal immigrants”:

( Read more )

telemann.livejournal.com

Poll tax receipt from the 1930s. Southern states used such taxes to prevent African Americans from voting

The Justice Department on Friday blocked a new South Carolina law that would require voters to present photo identification, saying the law would disproportionately suppress turnout among eligible minority voters. The move was the first time since 1994 that the department has exercised its powers under the Voting Rights Act to block a voter identification law. In a letter to the South Carolina government, Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney for civil rights, said that allowing the new requirement to go into effect would have “significant racial disparities.” He cited data supplied by the state as showing that there were “81,938 minority citizens who are already registered to vote and who lack” such identification, and that these voters are nearly 20 percent more likely be “disenfranchised” by the change than white voters.

Gov. Nikki Haley denounced the decision, accusing the Obama administration of “bullying” the state. “It is outrageous, and we plan to look at every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th Amendment rights,” she said in a statement. Under the Voting Rights Act, an election rule or practice that disproportionately affects minority voters is illegal — even if there is no sign of discriminatory intent. South Carolina is one of several states that, because of a history of discriminatory practices, must prove that a measure would not disproportionately discourage minority voting. Such states must receive “pre-clearance” from the Justice Department or a federal court before any proposed change to elections rules can take place.^[1.]

I think this is a great. While several arguments have been made that voter id cards can be provided free of charge, many states require birth certificates, which are not free. There is also a case pending in Wisconsin, where Ruthelle Frank, an 84 year old woman who was not born in a hospital, but at home, and consequently had no birth certificate, would be required to spend hundreds of dollars in court costs. Ms. Frank has voted with no previous issues for most of her life; and she's currently a plaintiff in a lawsuit brought before a Federal judge to overturn Wisconsin's new voter ID laws.

( -----✄------ )

[1.] Source: New York Times article "Justice Dept. Cites Race in Halting Law Over Voter ID."

gunslnger.livejournal.com

To partially answer the question of why some people want smaller government, here are two examples.

Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry

Short version: A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with the officer's entry.

First, this is contrary to the 4th Amendment on its face, and second, it's contrary to the concept of the rule of law. This allows police to violate the law whenever they want to whenever they feel it's necessary. This is the police state outcome you've been warned about.

But wait, you say, that's only in Indiana. You can always move somewhere else.

Supreme Court OKs More Warrantless Searches

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it significantly easier for police to force their way into a home without a warrant. On Monday, the court, by an 8-1 vote, upheld the warrantless search of an apartment after police smelled marijuana and feared that those inside were destroying incriminating evidence.

So much for that hope. Even the Supreme Court is ok with ignoring the Constitution in favor of the drug war, and giving the police carte blanche to search anywhere they want whenever they want in the name of protecting us from drugs.

And that's just big stuff. There are thousands of examples of little things, like washing machines and detergent. There is no reason for these except because they can assert control over it.

There is no fundamental basis to trust the government. Trust is earned. Currently, the trust in the U.S. government has been broken so many times (and these are just the latest examples) that there is no trust there at all for many people. And the size of the government should match the trust that you give it. Thus, the government needs to be a lot smaller until it earns our trust again.

kinvore.livejournal.com

Yes I know it's Rachel and therefore biased, so take it with a grain of salt. However if you have any facts that disprove what she's saying then I'd like to know. Seriously I do, because I don't want to believe that the GOP has sunk this low.

Otherwise she's managed to demonstrate both class warfare AND tyranny all in one douchebag, err governor.

underlankers.livejournal.com

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451268

One interesting bit of political chicanery is the phenomenon whereby the states that condemn loudest the mere idea of the welfare state as an atrocity against all law and order, and as a type of Communism (whereby instead of a totalitarian party-state idea they seem to mistake it for Dr. Doom's Latveria with elements of Mordor) themselves take more out of the government than they pay into it. My first question is why these people expect the Federals to keep doing this? My second is what good is it if the Federal government keeps subsidizing people who give great lip service to the ideas of Ayn Rand, but like Rand herself depend on the Federal dole to keep themselves functional?

My second point is here: http://moneyning.com/money-news/federal-budget-breakdown-2011/

Defense, Social Security, and Medicare respectively are the big three of Federal spending, as shown by actual data. If people are truly sincere about cutting the budget, wouldn't one of the first and most obvious moves be to retool the military for a post-Cold War geopolitical sphere where soft power is more advantageous than hard power? Given the huge degree of pork spending in the Defense System, and the extent to which it serves to keep Senators and Representatives in the Congress until they're 100, why not start eliminating all *this* pork? It hardly meets the needs of a 2010s military, and didn't really meet the needs of the 1980s one very well. Too, a lot of military investment is toward weapons that break if you look at them cross-eyed, meaning millions of dollars, frankly, go to something that does not half of what it's supposed to do. Is it also not sensible to eliminate useless things like this?

Too, both Social Security and Medicare were designed for the lower-population and higher mortality rate of the 1930s, when most people, to put it bluntly, did not live to be 80. These days the Baby Boomers are getting older, but are going to be supported on a system drawn up in the 1930s. Wouldn't the most sensible ideas about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid be to retool them to a 21st Century society that is much more populated and older, as opposed to the one of FDR's day?

In my view, so long as these big 3 are ignored any and all talk of "fiscal conservatism" is so much humbug designed to hoodwink the voters. To retool and cut from these services is not a magic bullet, and there's other cuts that will have to be made. But how is it remotely possible to believe a budget can be balanced when these three are considered sacred cows that must not be harmed lest Ahura Market have to face the challenge of Angra Gubment?

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

MONTHLY TOPIC:
Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:

"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)

"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)

"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with states

Is the Electoral College a threat to democracy?

Cal-exit? Again?

Defying the douche on important matters

Wow, this is going a bit too far

Pandering to DC seems a bit desperate

The failed experiment

Hey Gov. 1%, who do you represent?

Supreme Court ruling on prop 8

A question for the armchair constitutionalists.

Rising sea levels along Atlantic coast due to slowing of the Gulf Stream

The new States' Rights issue...

The Devil's in the Demographics.

Are policies a hostage to swing states?

What's your place like?

The State of Murder

They'll Do it Again in Florida

Justice Dept halts South Carolina voter suppression law

(no subject)

If you thought it was bad in Wisconsin...

A few sincere questions about the budget crisis:

Credits & Style Info

Links

June 2025

Summary