Conquer Club

betiko wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Someone other than me better fucking vote for Lincoln Chafee soon or I'm going to shut down the poll.

Is it a real person? Sounds like the name of a luxury car for people wearing afros to me.

your name sounds like you're an Elector of the Holy Roman Empire in the year 1810, so maybe you should shut your bitch ass up, A. Laurent de Motier

saxitoxin wrote:Someone other than me better fucking vote for Lincoln Chafee soon or I'm going to shut down the poll.

Who the f*ck is Lincoln Chafee?

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Someone other than me better fucking vote for Lincoln Chafee soon or I'm going to shut down the poll.

Who the f*ck is Lincoln Chafee?

Ex Governor of Rhode Island ... got a B.A. in Latin from Brown and then spent the next 7 years working as one of the top racehorse farriers in Rhode Island; the Chafees have been a prestigious family in Rhode Island since the 1600s and held the Senate seat since the 1960s - his dad even has a destroyer named after him! He's not redneck trash like Hillary. There won't be cars on cinder blocks on the West Lawn and Ho-Hos at state dinners if Chafee is elected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... oln_Chafee

where's the "too lazy to register" option?

saxitoxin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Someone other than me better fucking vote for Lincoln Chafee soon or I'm going to shut down the poll.

Who the f*ck is Lincoln Chafee?

Ex Governor of Rhode Island ... got a B.A. in Latin from Brown and then spent the next 7 years working as one of the top racehorse farriers in Rhode Island; the Chafees have been a prestigious family in Rhode Island since the 1600s and held the Senate seat since the 1960s - his dad even has a destroyer named after him! He's not redneck trash like Hillary. There won't be cars on cinder blocks on the West Lawn and Ho-Hos at state dinners if Chafee is elected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... oln_Chafee

Seems better than the usual crop. Okay, I'll change my vote.

OOOPS! There's no option to change one's vote.

Dukasaur wrote:OOOPS! There's no option to change one's vote.

you have to wait until May

HOLY GOOSEBUMPS! Yes, I think I am ready for that jelly!!!!!

--Andy

So Hillary finally announced her candidacy (unsurprisingly). The video is so cheesy it made me LOL


I find it a little disgusting that political dynasties like the Bushes and Clintons are both trying for yet another presidency...a plague on both their houses!

*Moved from the 2020 thread where I mistakenly posted it*

Ray Rider wrote:So Hillary finally announced her candidacy (unsurprisingly). The video is so cheesy it made me LOL

Andrew Wilkow said it best. This was the best advertisement for instant coffee he has ever seen.

Ray Rider wrote:So Hillary finally announced her candidacy (unsurprisingly). The video is so cheesy it made me LOL


I find it a little disgusting that political dynasties like the Bushes and Clintons are both trying for yet another presidency...a plague on both their houses!

*Moved from the 2020 thread where I mistakenly posted it*

At least they can only hold the office for 2 terms unlike this fucked up nation. We have a prime minister with a majority government that got 35% of the votes. Now that's fucked up.

I'm rootin' for Mrs Slick Willy.

Today's CNN tracker ...

Republicans support...
Jeb Bush - 17%
Scott Walker - 12%
Rand Paul - 11%
Marco Rubio - 11%
Mike Huckabee - 9%
All Others - 41%

Democrats support...
Hillary Clinton - 69%
Joe Biden - 11%
Bernie Sanders - 5%
Jim Webb - 3%
All Others - 12%

notyou2 wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:So Hillary finally announced her candidacy (unsurprisingly). The video is so cheesy it made me LOL


I find it a little disgusting that political dynasties like the Bushes and Clintons are both trying for yet another presidency...a plague on both their houses!

*Moved from the 2020 thread where I mistakenly posted it*

At least they can only hold the office for 2 terms unlike this fucked up nation. We have a prime minister with a majority government that got 35% of the votes. Now that's fucked up.

Meh, Conservatives complained when Chretien (the "Friendly Dictator") had a majority with 38% of the popular vote and now the Liberals are complaining when it's the Conservatives in power with a minority of the popular vote. What goes around comes around. Obviously improvements could be made, but it's tough to have a balanced electoral system when we have the second largest nation on earth with most of our population in a narrow strip along the south (and mostly east) of the country.

saxitoxin wrote:Today's CNN tracker ...

Republicans support...
Jeb Bush - 17%
Scott Walker - 12%
Rand Paul - 11%
Marco Rubio - 11%
Mike Huckabee - 9%
All Others - 41%

Democrats support...
Hillary Clinton - 69%
Joe Biden - 11%
Bernie Sanders - 5%
Jim Webb - 3%
All Others - 12%

That's crazy! Clinton has a massive lead! I also find it crazy that Bush is leading the Republican race...what are people thinking??

Ray Rider wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:So Hillary finally announced her candidacy (unsurprisingly). The video is so cheesy it made me LOL


I find it a little disgusting that political dynasties like the Bushes and Clintons are both trying for yet another presidency...a plague on both their houses!

*Moved from the 2020 thread where I mistakenly posted it*

At least they can only hold the office for 2 terms unlike this fucked up nation. We have a prime minister with a majority government that got 35% of the votes. Now that's fucked up.

Meh, Conservatives complained when Chretien (the "Friendly Dictator") had a majority with 38% of the popular vote and now the Liberals are complaining when it's the Conservatives in power with a minority of the popular vote. What goes around comes around. Obviously improvements could be made, but it's tough to have a balanced electoral system when we have the second largest nation on earth with most of our population in a narrow strip along the south (and mostly east) of the country.

saxitoxin wrote:Today's CNN tracker ...

Republicans support...
Jeb Bush - 17%
Scott Walker - 12%
Rand Paul - 11%
Marco Rubio - 11%
Mike Huckabee - 9%
All Others - 41%

Democrats support...
Hillary Clinton - 69%
Joe Biden - 11%
Bernie Sanders - 5%
Jim Webb - 3%
All Others - 12%

That's crazy! Clinton has a massive lead! I also find it crazy that Bush is leading the Republican race...what are people thinking??

"Ready for Round 3?"


"Yes."

Ray Rider wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:So Hillary finally announced her candidacy (unsurprisingly). The video is so cheesy it made me LOL


I find it a little disgusting that political dynasties like the Bushes and Clintons are both trying for yet another presidency...a plague on both their houses!

*Moved from the 2020 thread where I mistakenly posted it*

At least they can only hold the office for 2 terms unlike this fucked up nation. We have a prime minister with a majority government that got 35% of the votes. Now that's fucked up.

Meh, Conservatives complained when Chretien (the "Friendly Dictator") had a majority with 38% of the popular vote and now the Liberals are complaining when it's the Conservatives in power with a minority of the popular vote. What goes around comes around. Obviously improvements could be made, but it's tough to have a balanced electoral system when we have the second largest nation on earth with most of our population in a narrow strip along the south (and mostly east) of the country.

He's not a conservative complaining about the liberals or a liberal complaining about the conservatives - he's complaining about the system. I find it absurd that both Canada and the USA haven't adopted a rep-by-pop or similar system, but then again, the people making the decisions are the ones that would benefit the least from such a change.

denominator wrote:He's not a conservative complaining about the liberals or a liberal complaining about the conservatives - he's complaining about the system. I find it absurd that both Canada and the USA haven't adopted a rep-by-pop or similar system, but then again, the people making the decisions are the ones that would benefit the least from such a change.

Well I can't speak for Canada, but the US system on the Federal Level has fallen to the "status quo" system. The numbers completely collapse at the Federal level. We have 235 million voters and 435 members of the House of Representatives.

Now consider the UK, there is a rough voting age population of 49 million and 650 members in the House of Commons.

Think about that, equal distribution has one member of the HoR for every 540 thousand voters and one member of the HoC for every 75 thousand voters.

One of these things is not like the other ...

Or the EU with 375 million eligible voters and 751 members which places it at one rep per 500 voters.

On the other hand, the HoR is a true legislative body, while the EP has very little powers, legislatively speaking.

So there is absolutely nothing you can do to the US to make it better with the numbers we currently have. If you want to have the same representation in the US as there is in the UK you need over three thousand members in the House. Is that wacky? Well the Galactic Empire only had 1024 voting members and that was batshit crazy. Even then every representative has to represent over 200 thousand people.

(AS I ALWAYS SAY, YOU CAN"T COMPARE THE US TO OTHER NATIONS - BUT TO BODIES LIKE THE EU)

The alternative is to so constrain the Federal Government and leave the real decision making to the smaller state level bodies where there are better levels of representation. You might even redistrict the states for more proportional balances (this has actually been proposed). But the Federal Government is at this point too big to succeed.

tzor wrote:The alternative is to so constrain the Federal Government and leave the real decision making to the smaller state level bodies where there are better levels of representation. You might even redistrict the states for more proportional balances (this has actually been proposed). But the Federal Government is at this point too big to succeed.

The essential problem here is that because the Constitution requires each state to have at least one representative, the number of constituents per representative (and thus the total number of representatives, for a fixed population) is set by the population size of the smallest states. So one fix would just be to make some really small states, like population 50k. Then the number of representatives would have to jump by a factor of 10.

I don't think the Galactic Empire analogy is a particularly strong argument against having a parliamentary body that large.

Metsfanmax wrote:The essential problem here is that because the Constitution requires each state to have at least one representative, the number of constituents per representative (and thus the total number of representatives, for a fixed population) is set by the population size of the smallest states.

The one rep per state is only a small factor in the calculation as there are only 50 states. The number in the house is currently fixed and, taking the constitutional limitation into account the seats are adjusted by population.



I'm only seeing 7 states here with the minimum. Now there are problems with rounding but that is a different issue.

I think there is a practical limit to a congress, especially a congress with people who actually ... I don't know, represent their own people? An hour consists of 60 minutes so if everyone was given one minute to speak 480 members would speak in a given 8 hour session. Now not everyone wants to speak on a given issue but on the other hand one minute is somewhat small. Never the less, 1024 members is really pushing the limits on rational debate. More over if only 10% of the people had suggestions that's like 100 amendments to every bill.

This is because in the American model, the representative is supposed to represent his people and not be a mindless voting mechanism for the party BORG operation who lets the party leadership have all say in debates and bill amendments (apart from saying "hear hear" whenever their leader makes a point). One could even argue that the "fully deliberative body" of the US Senate at 100 members is too large to have meaningful debates as it is.

This is not to say you can't break this barrier, you need to be creative in how you do this. I run a lot of hypothetical nations in a nation simulation game where the population numbers get to insane levels. In one nation my solution was literally to break up congress, a congressperson would only be in "session" for three months of the year. (Another three months would be spent working committees, a third three months would be spent at home and the final three months would be either a vacation or election season.) This effectively multiplied the practical number of representatives by 4. That would clearly work in the Untied States, but it also means that your congressman would only be able to vote for only 1/4 of all the bills that went through congress (although would also work on a different 1/4 of the bills through committee). I don't think that idea would ever be accepted by the American people (although there are some states where the state legislature only meets once every other year.)

tzor wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:The essential problem here is that because the Constitution requires each state to have at least one representative, the number of constituents per representative (and thus the total number of representatives, for a fixed population) is set by the population size of the smallest states.

The one rep per state is only a small factor in the calculation as there are only 50 states. The number in the house is currently fixed and, taking the constitutional limitation into account the seats are adjusted by population.

435 representatives is pretty much exactly what it has to be, given our population and the number of people in the smallest state. Wyoming has a population of about 580,000 people at present. If we are going to satisfy the constitutional requirements of (i) equal apportionment and (ii) one representative per state, then every district has to have somewhere around 580,000 people (otherwise Wyoming's representative would not represent an equal number of people compared to everyone else). And indeed, when you take the total population of the 50 states and divide it by 435, you get something like 700,000 per seat. If we introduced a state out of Hoboken, New Jersey (pop. 50,000), then the only way to satisfy those two requirements would be to sharply reduce the population per constituent. Therefore that 435 number would legally have to change, since the other two are constitutional requirements.

I think there is a practical limit to a congress, especially a congress with people who actually ... I don't know, represent their own people? An hour consists of 60 minutes so if everyone was given one minute to speak 480 members would speak in a given 8 hour session. Now not everyone wants to speak on a given issue but on the other hand one minute is somewhat small. Never the less, 1024 members is really pushing the limits on rational debate. More over if only 10% of the people had suggestions that's like 100 amendments to every bill.

We don't need everyone to talk all the time, we just need them to press a yes/no button. I'd be ok with them being a "mindless voting mechanism" as long as we broke out of the two-party approach.

Please update the poll:

MudPuppy wrote:Please update the poll:

constitutionally ineligible (under 35)

The April poll results have been logged in the OP and the May poll is now open and active with a bunch of newly announced/filed candidates, including ...

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS! (D/S)


SENATOR MARCO RUBIO! (R)


GOVERNOR JEB BUSH! (R)


FIRED HP CEO CARLY FIORINA! (R)


STAND-UP COMIC ROSEANNE BARR! (P&F)



PASTOR TERRY JONES! (IND)

Early poll numbers indicate a strong 2-1 lead for Lincoln Chafee.

My updated way-to-early vote goes to Carly as the hottest candidate so far.

Bollocks.