If we're going to do confederation, then it should be done in equally sized grounds. There's no need for, y'know, each fellow in Saipanland (population: 54k), to have 711x more of a choice than California (population: 38,333k) on some pick. Confederation, with the system it is at for now, is not the way to do things in my opinion.

I'm not sure you understand the american system of government.

Yes, there is a senate that has equal representation where each state sends two senators, but you also have a house of representatives, which does have proportional represention, ie california sends 53 representatives, while wyoming only sends 3.

You need an equal house on one hand to protect small states from being steamrolled in every decision by larger states for no reason other than that less people live in them, but on the other hand you need a proportional house so that people aren't penalized too much for living in large states. The united states has both, each with it's own unique powers, to ensure that democracy does not do a severe injustice to people who choose to live in smaller states.

Yes, there is a senate that has equal representation where each state sends two senators, but you also have a house of representatives, which does have proportional represention, ie california sends 53 representatives, while wyoming only sends 3.

You need an equal house on one hand to protect small states from being steamrolled in every decision by larger states for no reason other than that less people live in them, but on the other hand you need a proportional house so that people aren't penalized too much for living in large states. The united states has both, each with it's own unique powers, to ensure that democracy does not do a severe injustice to people who choose to live in smaller states.

Well, that's dumb. Rid the Senate, it doesn't matter if small states are steamrolled, since that's how democracy votes - the minority is "steamrolled". It's not a perk, but that's democracy, anything else is not. You can put in measures to make the majority have to be categoric, so that there's as little as a minority, but the thing is, folk in the minority in California will be steamrolled, much less so than in Saipanland.

Or just reorganise the states every few years like France does to make sure that the populations are roughly the same, that'd be a better answer, though I still don't like the idea of confederacy on issues that need to have an united stand.

Edited 4/13/2016 04:06:08

Heck no, the harder it is for the government to impose new laws on a wide scale the better. Remove as much badness as possible and then make it hard to add more.

We're assuming the government is good, we don't want to scar it from working, even though pragmatically, it'd probably be better than as is (but pragmatically, we won't be ruling the country).

You don't scar the government, just wait and you'll have folk wanting freedom killing anti-poor social programs for the "greater good".

I don't get what you're saying.

Governments with the ability to get stronger will get stronger. If you don't break it, it will get even more powerful banking off of free market success.

I am not adding any sort of reorganization of the states into our platform. Nondemocratic structures like the senate, the electoral college, and the filibuster serve to disrupt democracy, which is the groundwork of american freedom. If democracy existed, Government would be uncompetitive, and minorities would be left to the wolves that are the majority.

Edited 4/13/2016 04:25:01

Governments with the ability to get stronger will get stronger. If you don't break it, it will get even more powerful banking off of free market success.

Governments will always have the knack to get stronger.

I am not adding any sort of reorganization of the states into our platform. Nondemocratic structures like the senate, the electoral college, and the filibuster serve to disrupt democracy, which is the groundwork of american freedom. If democracy existed, Government would be uncompetitive, and minorities would be left to the wolves that are the majority.

Ok, first of all, why not reorganise the states? It would greatly help out with the problem. Second, yeah, poor demography and substitutes for it is the founding of American freedom? No, it's just a substitute for poor demography, a problem more or less answered today. If democracy existed, that means that everyone gets a say and it agrees with the biggest amount of folk (majority). What you're supporting is a system where some folk are more equal than others and get some kind of limited say (that is part of the grounds why there are no third groups in America), and the majority is left to the wolves that are the minority.

It just makes no sense. I like the system of autocratic dictatorships, I think they're unfairly put off without proper debate, but you ought not be somewhere in the middle between dictatorship between democracy - you bring out the worst of two worlds, not the best, two opposing systems, I don't know how to word it better in English.

Ok, first of all, why not reorganise the states? It would greatly help out with the problem. Second, yeah, poor demography and substitutes for it is the founding of American freedom? No, it's just a substitute for poor demography, a problem more or less answered today. If democracy existed, that means that everyone gets a say and it agrees with the biggest amount of folk (majority). What you're supporting is a system where some folk are more equal than others and get some kind of limited say (that is part of the grounds why there are no third groups in America), and the majority is left to the wolves that are the minority.

It just makes no sense. I like the system of autocratic dictatorships, I think they're unfairly put off without proper debate, but you ought not be somewhere in the middle between dictatorship between democracy - you bring out the worst of two worlds, not the best, two opposing systems, I don't know how to word it better in English.

I'm not sure what "Problem" You're referring to. I don't see any problem with the american system of government, therefore arbitrarily reorganizing the states seems like a waste of time and resources.

There is nothing to be said about "Poor demography". People have the freedom to live where they choose, and that is a freedom that must be maintained.

If democracy existed, everyone does not get a say. People who form a majority get a say, and nobody else. If you are part of a majority, your opinion will always be heard, and if you are a part of a minority, your opinion will never be heard. Relying on majorities is a poor way to govern, and it's frankly just ethically unjustifiable.

A dictatorship is Pretty much the same, just swap the words "Majority" and "Minority". However, it is essentially worse than a democracy since it is impossible to advance politically, even if you do gather majority support from the populace.

American republicanism essentially gives any person a chance to be in power if they can come up with a coherent strategy to do so, rather than only giving government positions to people who can appeal to majorities. For example, by appealing to just the right people, it is possible to become president with only something like 20% of the vote nationwide. See this for reference:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/qy9JN

On the flipside, if you have majority support from the general population, it's fairly easy to use this to your advantage to get into government. This means that you can end up with minority and majority governments, and that is more fair and moral than either a majority or a minority having all the say.

Edited 4/13/2016 05:13:58

I'm not sure what "Problem" You're referring to. I don't see any problem with the american system of government, therefore arbitrarily reorganizing the states seems like a waste of time and resources.

The problem is, that minorities are disproportionately represented, which is undemocratic. And unintentional gerrymandering are bound to happen since there's less groups for each state. For example, in the 2014 Representative House elections, Libertarians won 1.2% vote, while Greens won 0.3%. In a fully democratic system, this would mean that Libertarians would have 5 seats and the Greens 1. Both got 0.

It's just not democratic.

There is nothing to be said about "Poor demography". People have the freedom to live where they choose, and that is a freedom that must be maintained.

I'm not saying to take away any freedoms. They're still folk, and their vote will count equally wherever they go - as opposed to what you want, unequal voting powers. If anyone, you want to curb freedom of movement.

If democracy existed, everyone does not get a say. People who form a majority get a say, and nobody else. If you are part of a majority, your opinion will always be heard, and if you are a part of a minority, your opinion will never be heard. Relying on majorities is a poor way to govern, and it's frankly just ethically unjustifiable.

A dictatorship is Pretty much the same, just swap the words "Majority" and "Minority". However, it is essentially worse than a democracy since it is impossible to advance politically, even if you do gather majority support from the populace.

Democracy insures that the least amount of folk will have their opinions not heeded, and politic gridlocks that require more than a 50% agreement supporting making compromises, having both opinions heeded.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by that, with dictatorship. Dictatorships can very much advance politically, better than democracies can. There's no need for elections or that hassle, and there's no need for debates and that, too - what you say is what goes.

American republicanism essentially gives any person a chance to be in power if they can come up with a coherent strategy to do so, rather than only giving government positions to people who can appeal to majorities. For example, by appealing to just the right people, it is possible to become president with only something like 20% of the vote nationwide. See this for reference:

So instead of someone folk like, just any monkey? That's just taking the worst of both worlds - of dictatorship (disagreeing with more folk than agreeing) - and of democracy (having unqualified monkeys running the country based on photogeny and money). I can not see grounds for supporting American gerrymandering.

On the flipside, if you have majority support from the general population, it's fairly easy to use this to your advantage to get into government. This means that you can end up with minority and majority governments, and that is more fair and moral than either a majority or a minority having all the say.

It's unfair to the folk. Folk will have different opinions on things, and some things, they'll get their way, others not. If the majority does bad things, then less folk will support the majority, and there will be a new majority, which will always agree with more than half of folk.

And what ends up happening is some folk have thousands times more voting power than others. And geographically, what happens in most elections with like systems is that mainstream parties always have the majority in all the subgovernments, but meantime minorities such as UKIP are under-represented.

The principle of democracy is to fire fellows who are doing bad policies, while the principle of dictatorship is to get experienced fellows. This has neither, just taking the worst of both.

The problem is, that minorities are disproportionately represented, which is undemocratic. And unintentional gerrymandering are bound to happen since there's less groups for each state. For example, in the 2014 Representative House elections, Libertarians won 1.2% vote, while Greens won 0.3%. In a fully democratic system, this would mean that Libertarians would have 5 seats and the Greens 1. Both got 0.

It's just not democratic.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do Libertarians and greens (Both very much minorities) have too much power as you were previously arguing, or are you now magically taking my side and agreeing that america needs to be less democratic?

Democracy insures that the least amount of folk will have their opinions not heeded, and politic gridlocks that require more than a 50% agreement supporting making compromises, having both opinions heeded.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by that, with dictatorship. Dictatorships can very much advance politically, better than democracies can. There's no need for elections or that hassle, and there's no need for debates and that, too - what you say is what goes.

In democracy, there is no compromise since the majority can simply push through whatever they want. It actually really discourages compromise.

In democracy less people will be dissatisfied, which is why it is more moral than dictatorship. However, a republic like the one in the united states ensures that both majorities and minorities can be in power with an edge too the majority, but with frequent elections (in fact, every two years national elections are held) to allow no one group to hold power for too long. What this means is that while one of the groups will always be dissatisfied, they have a chance to become satisfied at the next election, and every voice is heard.

It's unfair to the folk. Folk will have different opinions on things, and some things, they'll get their way, others not. If the majority does bad things, then less folk will support the majority, and there will be a new majority, which will always agree with more than half of folk.

It doesn't matter how many people support the majority, since their power is self contained.

Edited 4/13/2016 23:54:14

Whatever, this isn't even my main point - my main point is, that unified stances should be taken on things that need unified stances. What good is it if one state bans abortion, if you can just get an abortion in another? Same with drugs, and probably most stances that we'd talk about here.

And also, you don't seem to be disagreeing with recutting the states, so just do that, there'll be less of a problem.

Edited 4/14/2016 00:20:44

Keep in mind the senate exists from a time in which people didn't call themselves Americans, but Pennsylvanians, New-Yorkers... and Small states needed equal representation.

Federations are much more effective for diverse countries like the United states; It's impossible to impose a "Unified Stance" if there is no unified stance among 350 million people, Which unsurprisingly, there rarely is.

You're actually looking at it backwards. If one state bans abortion and someone disagrees with this, they're welcome to go to another state and get one. This is not a bad thing, it's actually really convenient for stuff like gambling and alcohol.

And to reiterate: No, I am not willing to add in any sort of reorganization of states.

Edited 4/14/2016 00:36:02

Keep in mind the senate exists from a time in which people didn't call themselves Americans, but Pennsylvanians, New-Yorkers... and Small states needed equal representation.

Yeah, then it makes more sense, but that's not really today (as far as I know).

Federations are much more effective for diverse countries like the United states; It's impossible to impose a "Unified Stance" if there is no unified stance among 350 million people, Which unsurprisingly, there rarely is.

It's impossible to do an unified stance on such a controversial top amongst 1,000; some folk are going to disagree. But a united answer has to be made, otherwise everything's automatically legal once 1 state out of 50 chooses to legalise it, including abortion.

It's impossible to do an unified stance on such a controversial top amongst 1,000; some folk are going to disagree. But a united answer has to be made, otherwise everything's automatically legal once 1 state out of 50 chooses to legalise it, including abortion.

Not sure what you're getting at here really. But, that's actually my point; Things shouldn't be legalized in 50 different jurisdictions just because the federal government legalizes it.

But, that's actually my point; Things shouldn't be legalized in 50 different jurisdictions just because the federal government legalizes it.

My point is, illegalising something doesn't matter as long as one state does legalise it.

So what? People just move to that state, and the state that doesn't want it doesn't have it.

Yes, it does matter. Simply because someone can do something by going to another state doesn't mean that they will.

Furthermore, the idea isn't to stop abortions from happening. Obviously even if it is illegal everywhere people will get illegal abortions if they want them. Rather, the purpose of enacting a ban is to make a statement that your state does not approve of this practice, and therefore to encourage other states to enact similar bans, and to encourage people to not get any abortions, legal or not.

If the law is "It is not okay to get an abortion", this tells people that abortion is not okay, compared to "Well abortion is legal somewhere else, so you may as well get abortions", which sends the message that the government doesn't care much about the issue, which is obviously not the case.

Edited 4/14/2016 01:50:22