Cycling UK Forum

Another instance of faux-democracy: the US Senate, if you please! Which, it seems, is just about to throw out Drumpf's otherwise sure-fire impeachment. Something that, sadly, comes as no surprise! How is that a "representative democracy", when each state returns just two senators? So Wyoming (population 578,000; Republican) has the same number of Senators as Calilfornia (pop. 39,500,000; Democrat). If anyone thinks they can explain that away as "democracy", I wish them luck!

661-Pete wrote:Another instance of faux-democracy: the US Senate, if you please! Which, it seems, is just about to throw out Drumpf's otherwise sure-fire impeachment. Something that, sadly, comes as no surprise! How is that a "representative democracy", when each state returns just two senators? So Wyoming (population 578,000; Republican) has the same number of Senators as Calilfornia (pop. 39,500,000; Democrat). If anyone thinks they can explain that away as "democracy", I wish them luck!

Semantics and historical precedents can explain away enormous skipfuls of mad human arrangements, including the self-contradictions and hypocrisies. Just asl that Wittgenstein. Many humans are confused by labels proclaiming the opposite of what they're clagged on.

Cugel

The fall of US Democracy?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51417722

661-Pete wrote: How is that a "representative democracy", when each state returns just two senators? So Wyoming (population 578,000; Republican) has the same number of Senators as Calilfornia (pop. 39,500,000; Democrat). If anyone thinks they can explain that away as "democracy", I wish them luck!

I'll try. Oddly this system is somewhat akin to the old cooperative movement where you got one vote irrespective of however many shares you held. If the bigger states held more sway you'd reach a situation similar to here where the Welsh and especially the Scots complain they are run by the English, however increasingly untrue this is.

By your sense of offended outrage big majority shareholders should always be able to be in control. You are an unreconstructed capitalist!

Ben@Forest wrote:By your sense of offended outrage big majority shareholders should always be able to be in control. You are an unreconstructed capitalist!

What utter tripe!! I cannot fully follow your absurd line of reasoning, but do you for a moment imagine that I'm drawing a parallel between any sort of democratic process, and a single individual shareholder holding a gigantic portfolio of shares and hence being able to sway a corporate vote their way?

Or do you imagine that I'm suggesting a block vote of senators, similar to that for the presidential 'electoral college' - i.e. if a state votes for a party albeit by a tiny majority, the entire set of representatives from that state, vote for said party? Absolutely and categorically nothing of the sort! If you want an example of how a better approximation to representative democracy is carried out, look at the (now sadly defunct) Euro elections as they were up till now held in this country...

661-Pete wrote:Another instance of faux-democracy: the US Senate, if you please! Which, it seems, is just about to throw out Drumpf's otherwise sure-fire impeachment. Something that, sadly, comes as no surprise! How is that a "representative democracy", when each state returns just two senators? So Wyoming (population 578,000; Republican) has the same number of Senators as Calilfornia (pop. 39,500,000; Democrat). If anyone thinks they can explain that away as "democracy", I wish them luck!

It’s the United States of America, each state being equal to another.
Are you confusing it with the United Kingdom where the larger populated country is automatically mighty?

661-Pete wrote:
What utter tripe!! I cannot fully follow your absurd line of reasoning, but do you for a moment imagine that I'm drawing a parallel between any sort of democratic process, and a single individual shareholder holding a gigantic portfolio of shares and hence being able to sway a corporate vote their way?

Or do you imagine that I'm suggesting a block vote of senators, similar to that for the presidential 'electoral college' - i.e. if a state votes for a party albeit by a tiny majority, the entire set of representatives from that state, vote for said party? Absolutely and categorically nothing of the sort! If you want an example of how a better approximation to representative democracy is carried out, look at the (now sadly defunct) Euro elections as they were up till now held in this country...

Err.. it was taking up a challenge with some reasoning (it is genuinely the rationale for two senators per state) and a little bit of gentle irony - sorry l won't try again.

Morning, I don't think anyone should hold the US of A up as a model of "Democracy"! A joke with 50 varieties.
The simple fact that the Popular Vote is not the determining factor rules that out, sad because it is a simple thing on the ballot paper, "Who do you want as President? But no, they employ a very weird method of finding the answer to that simple question.
In this country we may flag things up as being a choice between party leaders, the reality is of course quite different. So fact is very few people had an opportunity to vote for either Boris or Jezza, the rest of us merely voted in our own constituency member.
The results of a number of US Presidential election may well have had a different outcome if it had been on a Popular Vote basis? MM

Ben@Forest wrote:Err.. it was taking up a challenge with some reasoning (it is genuinely the rationale for two senators per state) and a little bit of gentle irony - sorry l won't try again.

The forum has no 'irony' emoticon, so one needs to be careful what one writes! But I still stand by my statement that your post makes no sense to me - ironic or not.

I have had worse reactions to things I'm written - intending them to be ironic.

To those who complain about England 'dominating' Wales, Scotland and NI - I absolutely agree (speaking as an English person who bemoans the behaviour of many of my compatriots). But at least we have some sort of proportionate* representation in these four countries. Even if it is all FPTP - which heavily distorts things...

*Note: I carefully didn't write "proportional".

661-Pete wrote:Another instance of faux-democracy: the US Senate, if you please! Which, it seems, is just about to throw out Drumpf's otherwise sure-fire impeachment. Something that, sadly, comes as no surprise! How is that a "representative democracy", when each state returns just two senators? So Wyoming (population 578,000; Republican) has the same number of Senators as Calilfornia (pop. 39,500,000; Democrat). If anyone thinks they can explain that away as "democracy", I wish them luck!

The Senate is meant maintain the balance of power between large and small states (or those with high & low populations). The number of Representatives in the House is based upon overall population of each state, while in the Senate, each state is represented equally. Originally, the Senators were selected by the states' legislatures, but that changed by constitutional amendment in the early 20th century.

If it were not for the Senate, states with low populations, such as Idaho would be disadvantaged in the legislature, compared to states with very large populations such as California.

Both the House and the Senate have to pass legislation, so having different approaches to representation is supposed to make it more fair.

I think that generally this approach is reasonable, and this is not the part of US politics that requires reform.

weirdness of the day?

cummings quote - we need pj masks on the job

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-51460501/cummings-we-need-pj-masks-on-the-job

who feck are pj masks?

mercalia wrote:weirdness of the day?

cummings quote - we need pj masks on the job


who feck are pj masks?

Apparently a reference to a children's TV show,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/dominic-cummings-answers-hs2-questions-with-pj-masks-quotes

mercalia wrote:weirdness of the day?

cummings quote - we need pj masks on the job

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-51460501/cummings-we-need-pj-masks-on-the-job

who feck are pj masks?

They are a children's TV series - our 5 year old grandson likes them.

Three children become superheroes at night. During the school day a problem arises, and during the night the culprit is found by the PJ Masks and the problem gets solved by sharing ideas...

IMDB link

mercalia wrote:weirdness of the day?

cummings quote - we need pj masks on the job

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-51460501/cummings-we-need-pj-masks-on-the-job

who feck are pj masks?

I dunno - but soon everyone will be wearing one...

No wish to revive the brexit thread but this came across my twitter feed today:

Colin Browning (@ColinBrowning14) tweeted at 10:46 am on Thu, Feb 13, 2020:
Absolutely disgusting service at Schiphol airport. 55 minutes we have been stood in the immigration queue. This isn’t the Brexit I voted for. https://t.co/QcSne9d4qW
(https://twitter.com/ColinBrowning14/sta ... 25344?s=03)

Get the official Twitter app at https://twitter.com/download?s=13

Colin is getting exactly what he voted for but which he dismissed as project fear.

However, the people spoke.