Needed! Name for New Md County

[The Very Man Himself]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

The creation of states has always been a politically tricky issue. The basic argument that citizens of D.C. lack political representation in the same way citizens of states do has been around for awhile. The current push is much more is line with similar arguments about ending the filibuster, packing the court, etc. D.C. would be two uber-safe Dem Senators, and that is the motivation to do it now.

If it is rammed through, something like this could come into play.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_divisionism

I have lived through probably 3 "moments" in my life where one party seemed to approaching unchecked control of the federal government, and each time the other party swiftly sprang back into life. Such is reality in a two party system, and I am not sure the Dems assumption that this current "moment" is strong enough to permanently push the GOP into the position of a center-left Euro style "right wing" party is real or not.

My honest guess is that it is.

I generally agree with your analysis, but differ on the DC statehood motivation. The filibuster and SCOTUS issues are of the moment,and I think it's just coincidental that they are currently overlapping with the DC statehood issue. DC's voting record ensures that any R supporting anything for DC would be committing political suicide.

On divisionism, I'll see you, and raise you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partit..._in_California

Here's a good piece from 538 on how we got to where we are, that ran this week. Factors that influenced both parties and voters to do 180's

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ican-politics/

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

I generally agree with your analysis, but differ on the DC statehood motivation. The filibuster and SCOTUS issues are of the moment,and I think it's just coincidental that they are currently overlapping with the DC statehood issue. DC's voting record ensures that any R supporting anything for DC would be committing political suicide.

On divisionism, I'll see you, and raise you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partit..._in_California

Here's a good piece from 538 on how we got to where we are, that ran this week. Factors that influenced both parties and voters to do 180's

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ican-politics/

Yup, that 40 year span is pretty much my lifetime. I remember most of this happening, and am pretty bummed about it. That said, I am clearly part of the group that has a negative view of "the other party." I have a negative view of my own party as well though....so at least I am consistent

I think SCOTUS, filibuster, ending EC/popular vote compact, and expanded statehood are all part of the same issue and the same "moment." That issue is federalism, and the "moment" is an opportunity to end the checks and balances that allow for a conservative party to control power. Those checks ensure that enough people support a measure for a long enough period of time before it becomes law. A good idea, IMO, but one that really frustrates people that demand big change immediately.

A reality of politics is that you can't ever undue big social programs once they are instituted. People come to rely on them, and they can't be taken away without massive disruptions to both people's lives, and the employment structure that is created around them. Think ACA as the best example in the last 20 years. The Act was underwater for years after it was passed. Now it is political suicide to be against it.

https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-...ble&aRange=all

Because of federalism though, you need a lot of support to push through progressive bills. This support is rarely there. Again 2008 was a generational moment where the Presidency, 60 Senators, and the House were controlled by the Dems and they could pass ACA. They were sent into the wilderness for it, but it got through and is here to stay now.

What this "moment" is all about, IMO, is using those negative emotions to convince voters that "checks and balances" = some combination of racism/Trumpism/Confederatism/fascism/boomerism and not worth keeping. Once they are gone, the Dems can pass social entitlement programs with a bare majority. No, they won't all be popular. The majority will eventually feel change is happening too fast and send Team Blue back into the wilderness.........but what can the GOP do at that point? Wait the necessary 4-6 years to gain full control themselves, then repeal it all? Nope, won't happen, politicians who promise to take to take government money, goods, and services out of the hands of voters will lose.

At this point, you get a 2 party system similar to the UK. A true Socialist left that urges change at a fast pace, and a Center-Left that sells itself as the better and more efficient manager of the existing socialist state. Our Center-Left party likely will be a bit churchier and perhaps hayseed since it is still the US, after all, but that will be mostly packaging.

So, looping this back around, Mr. Rational said the GOP could win MD Senate seats now if they changed their tune? That is what will happen. Maybe not in MD, but states that have "turned blue" in the last 10-20 years will be competitive again as the center-left runs against the socialists.

So, I do think DC will get statehood. I think it will be named after a prominent African-American, and it will be one in a series of changes that realigns both parties (and kills conservatism) over the next decade or so.

[The Very Man Himself]

I too am critical of my own party. Can't stand "the machine" among other things.

I grew up with ranked choice voting, and would like to see it used more widely in the US. Gives the little guys a fighting chance. NYC is introducing it in 2021.

When I first came to the US (1990) I used to tell my friends across the pond to their amazement, that state politics in the US was not all that different from Russia or China.
In many states one party controlled or dominated everything.

[G1..]

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

When I first came to the US (1990) I used to tell my friends across the pond to their amazement, that state politics in the US was not all that different from Russia or China.
In many states one party controlled or dominated everything.

LOL, I guess you didn't tell your "friends" that unlike those places it's still the people that make that call ,not the Government. The voters make the choice ,you left that out.

[Digger 68]

Coupled with the steady decline of local media.....

I was watching a 1976 Presidential Debate and had forgotten one of the panel members was from the Baltimore Sun. People forget the Sun was a well regarded news paper Nationally.
Local TV, and print news is incredibly weak compared to the 70's, and 80's. ON PURPOSE!

(The Sun was a well regarded paper nationally for decades....)

[The Very Man Himself]

Originally Posted by G1..

LOL, I guess you didn't tell your "friends" that unlike those places it's still the people that make that call ,not the Government. The voters make the choice ,you left that out.

My point went over your head, which is that RCV, also known as Proportional Representation, (which has many forms/options) as opposed to the US system of First Past the Post would make the US less like Russia & China, and more like the 80-90 countries that use RCV.
Even though Russia and China themselves use RCV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propor...representation

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

My point went over your head, which is that RCV, also known as Proportional Representation, (which has many forms/options) as opposed to the US system of First Past the Post would make the US less like Russia & China, and more like the 80-90 countries that use RCV.
Even though Russia and China themselves use RCV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propor...representation

I understand the arguments for RCV, but I can't support it because of the possibility that the person with the plurality of 1st place votes losing the election. RCV is like "negative voting" in that you can sink the chances of the person you least want to see in office. Sorta like voting twice, once for your preferred candidate, then against your least preferred.

A run off election is a cleaner solution to any issues people have with a candidate being elected with less than 50% of the vote.

[aquest1]

Back to the point of the thread, I'd propose Banneker County. Born in Baltimore as a free African American, Benjamin Banneker was a respected almanac author, astronomer and surveyor, and his work was critical in setting the original boundaries of DC. In fact, some hold that he may have rescued the original plans for DC after L'Enfant was dismissed. It's a shame his contributions aren't as well known and thereby recognized. Just another option, though DC statehood is a must.

[The Very Man Himself]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

I understand the arguments for RCV, but I can't support it because of the possibility that the person with the plurality of 1st place votes losing the election. RCV is like "negative voting" in that you can sink the chances of the person you least want to see in office. Sorta like voting twice, once for your preferred candidate, then against your least preferred.

A run off election is a cleaner solution to any issues people have with a candidate being elected with less than 50% of the vote.

The chance of that happening is very slim, mostly due to the establishment of quotas (minimum number of votes), which don't require anything near 50% to be elected. People with less than 20% of the vote are occasionally*elected. It's a fundamentally different system.

It would require at the congressional level, multi seat districts similar to the state level. A quota*is calculated after the total valid poll is known, by dividing the total valid poll by one more than the number of seats available, and adding 1 to the result.

Take a 3 seat district that has a total valid poll of 17,000.
17,000/(3+1) = 4250 and*+1. 4251 is 25% of the poll. Every candidate who reaches 4251 is elected. Occasionally*the last seat gets filled by someone who doesn't reach the quota, if it is determined that those behind have no chance of overtaking.

[The Very Man Himself]

Originally Posted by aquest1

Back to the point of the thread, I'd propose Banneker County. Born in Baltimore as a free African American, Benjamin Banneker was a respected almanac author, astronomer and surveyor, and his work was critical in setting the original boundaries of DC. In fact, some hold that he may have rescued the original plans for DC after L'Enfant was dismissed. It's a shame his contributions aren't as well known and thereby recognized. Just another option, though DC statehood is a must.

Excellent Rec. At least there's a high school named after him.