Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed. We may see a drive-by comment of approval from the likes of TRLaura, but I'd love to see if any right-leaning folks here can present a cogent and reasoned defense of the legislature's actions.
Locally, in my strong blue leaning location Republican assemblyman Howard Marklein voted yes & got a lot of backlash from conservatives. Marklein stopped taking phone calls from locals.
Republican state rep Todd Novak voted no.
A lot of the local liberals actually voted for Marklein. I mentioned what's going on at work & nobody seemed to be aware or really care. I think everybody is so burned out from the long election that they're done with politics. It's the Christmas season after all.
I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me if this is redundant, but I'm real tired of the lack of insight into this argument by the Libs.
A little history: voting by blocks rather than individuals goes back at least to the Roman Republic, 2500 y/a. Society in Rome was organized along family lines- Tribes, or clans, as English speakers may be more familiar with. A Tribune was the representative of the Tribe.
It was recognized that a large tribe, or an alliance of a couple tribes could unfairly win elections by voting en masse if all individual votes were counted as equal. Showing great wisdom, they ran elections not by popular vote across the board, but by each tribe having a single vote. Each tribe would count popular votes among themselves, the Tribune then casting the Tribe's single vote accordingly....That's the basis for our Electoral College system.
In the Illinois gubernatorial election of 2008, the Dem winner won the popular vote in only 1 of 104 counties (Cook/Chicago), a populous county with with 60% of the voters who voted 95% Dem, so for the next four yrs, the whole state was run by a guy favored in only the far NE corner of the state- a metro area with little in common and not copncerned with the rural remainder of the state.
In WI, Milwaukee & Dane counties carry most of the population and are overwhelmingly Dems-- they exert that same unbalanced influence on elections here.
Is that fair?
edited to add, regarding the legislature's latest maneuver-- My question is what took it so long to address this problem? The executive branch's role is to carry out the legislative's actions, not to carry out it's own policies without the approval of the legislature.
Disclaimer-- I'm a libertarian, not a Conservative. Don't Tread On Me. The govt should be afraid of the people.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 12-08-2018 at 08:17 AM..
I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me if this is redundant, but I'm real tired of the lack of insight into this argument by the Libs.
A little history: voting by blocks rather than individuals goes back at least to the Roman Republic, 2500 y/a. Society in Rome was organized along family lines- Tribes, or clans, as English speakers may be more familiar with. A Tribune was the representative of the Tribe.
It was recognized that a large tribe, or an alliance of a couple tribes could unfairly win elections by voting en masse if all individual votes were counted as equal. Showing great wisdom, they ran elections not by popular vote across the board, but by each tribe having a single vote. Each tribe would count popular votes among themselves, the Tribune then casting the Tribe's single vote accordingly....That's the basis for our Electoral College system.
In the Illinois gubernatorial election of 2008, the Dem winner won the popular vote in only 1 of 104 counties (Cook/Chicago), a populous county with with 60% of the voters who voted 95% Dem, so for the next four yrs, the whole state was run by a guy favored in only the far NE corner of the state- a metro area with little in common and not copncerned with the rural remainder of the state.
In WI, Milwaukee & Dane counties carry most of the population and are overwhelmingly Dems-- they exert that same unbalanced influence on elections here.
Is that fair?
It is important to point this out. In response to IA's question "Is it fair?", the answer is both and yes and no.
It would be "no" because--under the "block" system--the value of each person's individual vote in Milwaukee/Dane is worth less than the value of each person's individual vote in less populated counties. Effectively, in terms of voting and representation, individuals are punished for living in urban cores and rewarded for living in rural areas.
But the answer to IA's question would also be "yes" because--under the "block" system, as you point out-- the majority high-population areas do not completely dominate the minority low-population areas.
This system may work well when the urban/rural divide is the main reason for having a "block" system. But in recent decades, in the U.S. at least, the urban/rural divide itself has not been a primary force; instead, other concerns (side effects of urban and rural life, but not urban and rural life per se) have taken up the primary role in the divide: progressivism vs conservatism, generally. In Wisconsin (and in the nation in general), what used to be a system that balanced landowner and farmer/planter concerns with industrialist concerns is now used for other divisions. The rise of relatively densely-populated, conservative, suburban areas (Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, etc.) as well as less densely-populated, progressive, rural areas (SW Wisconsin) only underscores this.
It may also be instructive to remember that "block" systems (here and in Rome) originally only really served the most elite strata of society--landowning men, not slaves or women or people of color.
The "block" system is outdated and no longer serves its original purpose. Now, it only serves to disenfranchise people for reasons unrelated to its original intent.
Quote:
edited to add, regarding the legislature's latest maneuver-- My question is what took it so long to address this problem? The executive branch's role is to carry out the legislative's actions, not to carry out it's own policies without the approval of the legislature.
In the strict sense that you phrase it, this is the case in many other political systems around the world where the executive emerges from the legislature (Prime Ministers from Parliament, for example), but not so much in our system. Yes, the federal/state/etc. executives in the U.S. are supposed to carry out the legislature's actions, but executives are not merely a handmaiden of the legislature. (At the national level, Trump has shown this with his attempts to undermine the ACA. Legislatively approved, but not carried out effectively by the executive.)
There are separate elections for the executive team, and our system allows for political and ideological differences between the executive and legislature. Also, the executive in the U.S. has traditionally been endowed with functions that may be held accountable by the legislature, but do not necessarily depend on the approval of the legislature.
In fact, the existence of a separate executive office argues in favor of the idea that legislatures may overstep their bounds. Otherwise, our culture wouldn't make so much of the "three branches of government" idea and the related concept of "checks and balances."
So yeah, you're right to an extent, but there's more to it. The executive office exists separately from the legislature for a reason. Otherwise, we would have a European-style parliament from which an executive emerges. We clearly do not have that kind of system.
Quote:
Disclaimer-- I'm a libertarian, not a Conservative. Don't Tread On Me. The govt should be afraid of the people.
Last edited by Empidonax; 12-08-2018 at 01:47 PM..
It is important to point this out. In response to IA's question "Is it fair?", the answer is both and yes and no.
It would be "no" because--under the "block" system--the value of each person's individual vote in Milwaukee/Dane is worth less than the value of each person's individual vote in less populated counties. Effectively, in terms of voting and representation, individuals are punished for living in urban cores and rewarded for living in rural areas.
But the answer to IA's question would also be "yes" because--under the "block" system, as you point out-- the majority high-population areas do not completely dominate the minority low-population areas.
This system may work well when the urban/rural divide is the main reason for having a "block" system. But in recent decades, in the U.S. at least, the urban/rural divide itself has not been a primary force; instead, other concerns (side effects of urban and rural life, but not urban and rural life per se) have taken up the primary role in the divide: progressivism vs conservatism, generally. In Wisconsin (and in the nation in general), what used to be a system that balanced landowner and farmer/planter concerns with industrialist concerns is now used for other divisions. The rise of relatively densely-populated, conservative, suburban areas (Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, etc.) as well as less densely-populated, progressive, rural areas (SW Wisconsin) only underscores this.
It may also be instructive to remember that "block" systems (here and in Rome) originally only really served the most elite strata of society--landowning men, not slaves or women or people of color.
The "block" system is outdated and no longer serves its original purpose. Now, it only serves to disenfranchise people for reasons unrelated to its original intent.
In the strict sense that you phrase it, this is the case in many other political systems around the world where the executive emerges from the legislature (Prime Ministers from Parliament, for example), but not so much in our system. Yes, the federal/state/etc. executives in the U.S. are supposed to carry out the legislature's actions, but executives are not merely a handmaiden of the legislature. (At the national level, Trump has shown this with his attempts to undermine the ACA. Legislatively approved, but not carried out effectively by the executive.)
There are separate elections for the executive team, and our system allows for political and ideological differences between the executive and legislature. Also, the executive in the U.S. has traditionally been endowed with functions that may be held accountable by the legislature, but do not necessarily depend on the approval of the legislature.
In fact, the existence of a separate executive office argues in favor of the idea that legislatures may overstep their bounds. Otherwise, our culture wouldn't make so much of the "three branches of government" idea and the related concept of "checks and balances."
So yeah, you're right to an extent, but there's more to it. The executive office exists separately from the legislature for a reason. Otherwise, we would have a European-style parliament from which an executive emerges. We clearly do not have that kind of system.
Very well-written! Looking at the district maps, I think Dems should at least control the State Senate. They are only 3 seats away from control, and there are a few gerrymandered Senate seats in the Milwaukee metro (Senate Districts 5 and 8, in particular), as well as the Madison metro.
It is important to point this out. In response to IA's question "Is it fair?", the answer is both and yes and no.
.
Then the system is working as intended-- checks & balances--majority rule with strong protections for the minority.
To change it would make it unfair to the minority.
Remember, the Dems are the majority now, but after the coming collapse, it will become entirely obvious even to the most obtuse that you can't keep spending other people's money indefinitely, and they will become the minority. Changing the rules now may win your battle but lose your war. Cf- voting rules in the US Senate.
ps/ Back in Rome, slaves were chattel, not to be considered as human. [Let's not make the lousy historians' mistake of judging that society by our standards.] The voting by tribe system was intended to protect the rights of citizens in the smaller tribes. There are many parallels from ancient Rome to the US-- formed by vagabonds & outcasts, Rome grew by annexing neighboring areas and liberally conferring the rights of citizenship to those "foreigners" encountered. It was only from Caesar on that areas were "conquered & exploited" and that led to Empire as opposed to Republic.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 12-09-2018 at 05:40 AM..
Then the system is working as intended-- checks & balances--majority rule with strong protections for the minority.
To change it would make it unfair to the minority.
Remember, the Dems are the majority now, but after the coming collapse, it will become entirely obvious even to the most obtuse that you can't keep spending other people's money indefinitely, and they will become the minority. Changing the rules now may win your battle but lose your war. Cf- voting rules in the US Senate.
No, it most definitely isn't. What the gerrymandered Republican legislature is doing to our beautiful state is a direct "FU" to voters, and swing voters will remember their corruption in years to come!
Then the system is working as intended-- checks & balances--majority rule with strong protections for the minority.
To change it would make it unfair to the minority.
Are you referring to the "block" system here? I don't think the phrase "checks and balances" is generally used for that system--it tends to refer to the separation of powers.
But even so, if your point is that the "block" system somehow provides a "check" of some sort, I don't really see it. The game is no longer strictly about rural agriculture versus urban industry. And as far as ideology goes, some of the biggest political allies of rural conservatives are suburban/urban conservatives, and there are also communities of rural progressives who ally with urban progressives, so the political divide is not as geographically clean as you say it is.
You mentioned the case of Illinois. Yes, there is a cultural divide, for sure, between metro Chicago and the rest of the state. But some of the most conservative voters live in suburban Chicago, and many of the red districts outside of the Chicago metro are barely red and have significant Dem minorities. The metro/inland divide, at a political scale, is not as clean as you think.
Quote:
Remember, the Dems are the majority now, but after the coming collapse, it will become entirely obvious even to the most obtuse that you can't keep spending other people's money indefinitely, and they will become the minority. Changing the rules now may win your battle but lose your war. Cf- voting rules in the US Senate.
Not sure what you really mean with this. Trump and Co. are digging the country into a lot of debt, and the bills will be due soon. Same with Wisconsin--FoxConn is costly, and we're on the hook for it. I know that there are "tax and spend" Dems, but there also seem to be "tax and spend" Republicans.
Your comment "Changing the rules now may win your battle but lose your war" certainly applies to the Wisconsin legislature right now. They feel entitled to rig the game, but it will only backfire. Even prominent Wisconsin Republicans such as Scott McCallum and Sheldon Lubar have said as much.
Quote:
ps/ Back in Rome, slaves were chattel, not to be considered as human. [Let's not make the lousy historians' mistake of judging that society by our standards.] The voting by tribe system was intended to protect the rights of citizens in the smaller tribes. There are many parallels from ancient Rome to the US-- formed by vagabonds & outcasts, Rome grew by annexing neighboring areas and liberally conferring the rights of citizenship to those "foreigners" encountered. It was only from Caesar on that areas were "conquered & exploited" and that led to Empire as opposed to Republic.
Yes, in Rome, slaves were chattel, and the Roman system of representation had many parallels to what we have in the U.S. But we no longer have slaves as chattel. Also, in the U.S., you no longer have to be a male landowner in order to vote. For these reasons, and many others, the Roman-style model is rather archaic. Let's not make the lousy mistake of retrofitting our very distinct society to outdated, past practices.
The "block" system may have worked well in the late 1700s and 1800s when voting rights were restricted and when the U.S. was geographically expanding, but we've moved beyond that. We probably need a new, updated Constitution, too. But in the meantime, we're a 21st Century society wearing 18th- and 19th-Century clothing.
Last edited by Empidonax; 12-09-2018 at 09:49 AM..
I also stumbled across an interesting NYTimes article highlighting the anti-urban bias of many Republicans.
“If you took Madison & Milwaukee out of the state election formula, we would have a clear majority” - Speaker Robin Vos. Correction: "If you took Madison & Milwaukee out of the state election formula, Wisconsin becomes Mississippi." I am really sick and tired of the WI GOP trashing these two cities. I'm afraid that the anti-urban bias among WI Republicans will never go away because Dane County continues to grow and produce more Democratic votes every election cycle. WOW had been the most Republican area of the state for decades (no longer true in the Trump era), yet you didn't see WI Dems looking for ways to disenfranchise the voters in those counties. WOW has only gotten slightly less Republican since Trump's 2016 election. If that erosion continues, "Kilwaukee" and "Mad Town" will get blamed even more.
I work and play in Minnesota, and outstate MN residents and Republicans loathe the Twin Cities just as much as WI Reps and rural dwellers do its two largest cities. Pretty soon, we might have to hear arguments from Republicans that states should have their own electoral colleges because rural voters "aren't heard."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
