• The KillerFrogs

The Harris/Biden Administration: Coming Together to Build Back Better

Zubaz

Member
I called this a few weeks ago. They will use smoke and mirror tactics to act like inflation is on the decline based on how its measured.

When they say inflation will "spike" or increase this year, and then "come back down next year", what they are saying is the price will skyrocket.... AND THEN the price will remain high. EX. A lemon goes from $0.49 to $0.99 today. And next year remains $0.99 !
If we suddenly had 0% inflation year over the year, that would be exceptionally bad.
 
I am sure people said the same thing when we moved to the popular vote of Senators in the early 20th century, and there are a number of other Republics that directly elect their Presidents.

I'm kinda ambivalent either way, 99% of the time the winner of the EC is the winner of the popular vote anyway, but there's nothing about being a "constitutional republic" that precludes us from electing the president via popular vote instead of the electoral college.
A popular vote tends to emphasize the needs of the cultural bubbles of large metropolitan areas at the expense of middle America.

If you truly want a polarization of American culture, then go ahead and do away with the Electoral College. The election will essentially be decided by hive-minded voters in the 30 largest metropolitan areas, which account for about 132 million people. And those lean heavily towards Democrats, which, of course, is why Democrats want to change the system. They've bamboozled people with bumper-sticker slogans like "Every Vote Should Count," but it has nothing to do with that. It's about shifting the balance of power in their favor by changing the system.

This is just another example of liberal hypocrisy in the name of power. They force-feed us with diversity, equity and inclusion from every angle. But they have no interest in diversity, equity and inclusion when it comes to elections. They want a system that will ensure that only like-minded people are represented. To hell with those people in flyover country -- they don't matter, their culture doesn't matter and they need to do what the smart people in the big cities say they should do.

America is a form of democracy, but it is not a true democracy. It's a representative republic. It was founded this way to prevent EXACTLY what many on the left are advocating -- mob rule by the concentrated masses, and representation for only those with the right "groupthink."
 

Bob Sugar

Active Member
A popular vote tends to emphasize the needs of the cultural bubbles of large metropolitan areas at the expense of middle America.

If you truly want a polarization of American culture, then go ahead and do away with the Electoral College. The election will essentially be decided by hive-minded voters in the 30 largest metropolitan areas, which account for about 132 million people. And those lean heavily towards Democrats, which, of course, is why Democrats want to change the system. They've bamboozled people with bumper-sticker slogans like "Every Vote Should Count," but it has nothing to do with that. It's about shifting the balance of power in their favor by changing the system.

This is just another example of liberal hypocrisy in the name of power. They force-feed us with diversity, equity and inclusion from every angle. But they have no interest in diversity, equity and inclusion when it comes to elections. They want a system that will ensure that only like-minded people are represented. To hell with those people in flyover country -- they don't matter, their culture doesn't matter and they need to do what the smart people in the big cities say they should do.

America is a form of democracy, but it is not a true democracy. It's a representative republic. It was founded this way to prevent EXACTLY what many on the left are advocating -- mob rule by the concentrated masses, and representation for only those with the right "groupthink."
may-the-odds-be-ever-in-your-favor-may-the-odds-hunger-games.gif


Brought to you by
ScGy.gif
 
A popular vote tends to emphasize the needs of the cultural bubbles of large metropolitan areas at the expense of middle America.

If you truly want a polarization of American culture, then go ahead and do away with the Electoral College. The election will essentially be decided by hive-minded voters in the 30 largest metropolitan areas, which account for about 132 million people. And those lean heavily towards Democrats, which, of course, is why Democrats want to change the system. They've bamboozled people with bumper-sticker slogans like "Every Vote Should Count," but it has nothing to do with that. It's about shifting the balance of power in their favor by changing the system.

This is just another example of liberal hypocrisy in the name of power. They force-feed us with diversity, equity and inclusion from every angle. But they have no interest in diversity, equity and inclusion when it comes to elections. They want a system that will ensure that only like-minded people are represented. To hell with those people in flyover country -- they don't matter, their culture doesn't matter and they need to do what the smart people in the big cities say they should do.

America is a form of democracy, but it is not a true democracy. It's a representative republic. It was founded this way to prevent EXACTLY what many on the left are advocating -- mob rule by the concentrated masses, and representation for only those with the right "groupthink."
Since the electoral college votes are proportional to population, isn't that influence of the largest metropolitan areas going to happen anyway? 80.7% of the population lives in urban areas now. Does the electoral college really mitigate that trend? It just concentrates the influence to the urban areas of the swing states, if anything. All it does is make it so that Atlanta, Philly, Las Vegas, Phoenix etc have more power/say than urban centers in non-swing states.

Our system with 2 Senators for each state, no matter how big the state, is the thing that really mitigates the power of the large population centers and give more power to fly over states, seems to me. Since it is proportional to population, the electoral college really doesn't. Or maybe I'm not thinking of it right.
 

Zubaz

Member
A popular vote tends to emphasize the needs of the cultural bubbles of large metropolitan areas at the expense of middle America.

If you truly want a polarization of American culture, then go ahead and do away with the Electoral College. The election will essentially be decided by hive-minded voters in the 30 largest metropolitan areas, which account for about 132 million people. And those lean heavily towards Democrats, which, of course, is why Democrats want to change the system. They've bamboozled people with bumper-sticker slogans like "Every Vote Should Count," but it has nothing to do with that. It's about shifting the balance of power in their favor by changing the system.
See, I just don't agree with this argument. Every election but three has seen the EC results coincide with the popular vote (again, why I am largely ambivalent on changing the system). The EC tips the scales ever so slightly so that less populated states get a slightly outsized say in the election, which I can see someone arguing is unfair, but I don't really see any indication that it would somehow "unfair" to have every American's vote count the same.
This is just another example of liberal hypocrisy in the name of power. They force-feed us with diversity, equity and inclusion from every angle. But they have no interest in diversity, equity and inclusion when it comes to elections. They want a system that will ensure that only like-minded people are represented. To hell with those people in flyover country -- they don't matter, their culture doesn't matter and they need to do what the smart people in the big cities say they should do.
If everyone's vote counts exactly the same, which by definition is what a popular vote does, I don't see how you can argue that the people in flyover country don't matter.
America is a form of democracy, but it is not a true democracy. It's a representative republic. It was founded this way to prevent EXACTLY what many on the left are advocating -- mob rule by the concentrated masses, and representation for only those with the right "groupthink."
Again, there is absolutely nothing mutually exclusive between having a popular vote for President and having a representative republic.
 
Couple of interesting maps- First is % of state living in largest urban area; second is % population living in urban/rural areas:

Could be argued that Phoenix, Las Vegas and Atlanta had outsized say in the last election given that they were dominant urban areas in swing states.

usa-state-pop-in-metro-area-1.png


9wgqciopu9a21.png
 

Bob Sugar

Active Member
Couple of interesting maps- First is % of state living in largest urban area; second is % population living in urban/rural areas:

Could be argued that Phoenix, Las Vegas and Atlanta had outsized say in the last election given that they were dominant urban areas in swing states.

usa-state-pop-in-metro-area-1.png


9wgqciopu9a21.png
That's dumb. NY and MA go Blue primarily because of Boston and NYC. NYC basically delivered 29 electoral votes. Las Vegas delivered 6. Phoenix delivered 11. LA and the Bay area delivered 55 electoral votes. What's your point?
 
That's dumb. NY and MA go Blue primarily because of Boston and NYC. NYC basically delivered 29 electoral votes. Las Vegas delivered 6. Phoenix delivered 11. LA and the Bay area delivered 55 electoral votes. What's your point?
My point is that the electoral college doesn't mitigate the urban/ rural divide, but in reality concentrates power into a few urban centers in swing states. That's why candidates focus so much on the cities in those states.
 

Zubaz

Member
Completely disagree, there are different views on economics out there if you look past what the public school system teaches
I think you would struggle to find an econ view that would consider such massive and sudden deflation beneficial. Most would just call that a crash.

(And considering both of my econ degrees are from private schools, I don't think we can blame this one on the public school system.)
 

Casey T

Full Member
I think you would struggle to find an econ view that would consider such massive and sudden deflation beneficial. Most would just call that a crash.

(And considering both of my econ degrees are from private schools, I don't think we can blame this one on the public school system.)

I didn’t mention deflation, just that inflation is not needed. Sounds like you are not a fan of Austrian economics. Not looking to argue, just sharing another perspective for those reading who might want to look at an alternative viewpoint
 
For me one of the better arguments in favor of the electoral college is its ability to produce clear outcomes the vast majority of the time. A truly close national election with recounts would be extremely controversial and expensive. As we've seen, that obviously happens with close electoral college results, but the magnifying glass only needs to be applied in a few states.
 

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
My point is that the electoral college doesn't mitigate the urban/ rural divide, but in reality concentrates power into a few urban centers in swing states. That's why candidates focus so much on the cities in those states.
It does in exactly the same way that Congress does. Each state has the same number of electors as spots in Congress (except that DC has electors but no voting congressional representation). So each stage gets an automatic two, then the rest are based on population.
 

Zubaz

Member
I didn’t mention deflation, just that inflation is not needed. Sounds like you are not a fan of Austrian economics. Not looking to argue, just sharing another perspective for those reading who might want to look at an alternative viewpoint
I think you are misunderstanding me. People here are complaining that inflation remains at 8.5% YOY. 30 days ago it was9.2%, so if inflation was suddenly 0% YOY, that would mean we saw massive *deflation* over the last month, which would basically mean disaster. That was all I was saying.

And just for the record, I have a hardback copy of Von Mises' Socialism takedown on my bookshelf right now. I don't agree with the Austrians on everything, but I do appreciate their contributions.
 

Latest posts

Top