SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-line-up-the-sights-on-your-toe-and-squeeeeeeze dept.
Here in the U.S., the presidential election season, like Christmas, seems to start earlier and earlier each time.
In keeping with this, the Democratic National Committee is making waves by announcing that it will exclude Fox News, which has the largest viewership of the major cable news networks by a considerable margin, from debate coverage of DNC presidential candidates.
Thomas Lifson outlines a number of reasons this may not be a good move.
One is that from a historical and strategy perspective:
Presidential debates inevitably favor the challengers. Trump can push them in that direction by agreeing to debates only if Fox News is included. That forces them to either accept FNC or have no debates at all. If they accept, that makes FNC the debate worth watching. The rest are discredited as Democrat "safe spaces,"
And it appears he has pounced and done exactly that from his twitter account:
Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!
Really all either party has to do is A) not be crazy and/or B) keep their idiot mouths shut to win.
Neither of these seems to be in the cards dealt to either side, so it should be a heck of a ride.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @05:48PM (22 children)
Wah, wah! The electoral college keeps us from employing tyranny of the majority! It's not fair!
No shit, Sherlock. That's why we have it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @05:59PM (2 children)
"Your opinion is not the majority opinion but you can't comprehend anyone else disagreeing, so your actions are all predicated on a falsehood."
TMB is epically dumb, news at 11 (except on Fox, the unNetwork for unfair and unbalanced news)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:49AM (1 child)
You and math are not friends, are you? 50% is not a majority. It is at best a plurality.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @04:01PM
Aww poor buzzy, yet again can't see the point and lashes out mistakenly.
(Score: 3, Informative) by number11 on Monday March 11 2019, @06:35PM (12 children)
Nah. We have it due to 18th century political horse-trading, to get the pissant states that nobody lived in on board with the Constitution. Being as there weren't any plans at the time to let people actually vote for the President (your state legislature would take care of that, you dumb peasant) it doesn't have anything to do with "tyranny of the majority".
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @07:06PM (2 children)
Pissant state occupant here: fuck off and grow your own damn food.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Monday March 11 2019, @11:31PM (1 child)
I live in a pretty pissant state, too. We grow food (and more importantly, alcohol). Don't feel that sense of entitlement that you do, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @02:20AM
No sense of entitlement? Is that what your rant against flyover country not voting correctly was about?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Oakenshield on Monday March 11 2019, @07:11PM (4 children)
Did you even read what you wrote? Why do you think those "pissant" states that nobody lived in wanted these particular horse-trades? To prevent the "tyranny of the majority". Representatives are fielded based upon population. Why would they cede self determination to a populous state just to be a part of this new Constitution? I'm guessing logic was not in your curricula.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @09:20PM
Come now, please don't try to induce critical thinking into rote learning dude/dudette, heads will explode...
(Score: 3, Informative) by number11 on Monday March 11 2019, @11:26PM (2 children)
You seem to think that "self-determination" is for governmental units, rather than for humans. I dunno, maybe that made sense in an era where citizens were not permitted to vote for the President anyhow. Are you suggesting we go back to having state legislatures elect electors, who then get to vote on who'll be President? Are you that afraid of what the will of the people is?
Electoral votes are not based on population. California has one electoral vote per 719K inhabitants. Wyoming has one electoral vote per 193K inhabitants. So a Wyoming citizen's vote counts the same as 3.7 California citizen's votes in a Presidential election. Sounds more like "tyranny of the minority" to me. Granted, those two states are the most extreme cases.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:42AM
Electoral votes are based on the closest approximation to the population of each state, given the conditions that each state always gets at least one rep, and the total number of reps is set at 435, AND each state gets two votes because of Senate representation (the latter distribution in the upper house is what really skews things).
Had we continued following the scheme the founders expected we'd have a much, much larger lower house legislature with better approximations to population.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 13 2019, @04:08AM
California has an unfairly large share in proportion to the number of US citizens living in California. Basically, the state is cheating by welcoming illegals. That gives them a couple dozen undeserved electoral votes and members of the house.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @08:14PM
Congratulations on the most tone-deaf SN comment of the day. With an attitude like that, it's no wonder those "peasants" in "pissant states" think the Democratic Party is full of condescending big-city fucks who look down on them. Have fun earning Trump another four years in office because you couldn't grow up and look at the world outside your narcissistic tech bubble.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:36AM (2 children)
Uh, the reason why they wouldn't do a direct vote for president was absolutely to avoid tyranny of the majority (otherwise known as "mob rule" or direct democracy, which the Founders abhorred for very good historical reasons).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @01:54AM (1 child)
It is incredible at how many idiots with no knowledge of history who think they have some insightful knowledge on how democracy should work based solely on the other idiots in their echo chamber. You know things are really bad when people who should know better - like Hillary Clinton - start advocating for abolishing the Electoral College just because it worked as designed and against her personal interests. I fear for this country. We are bringing up a whole generation of complete utter retards.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @08:05AM
So true. And you only need to look in the mirror every morning to reinforce this insight.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:22AM (5 children)
Yes, the tyranny of the minority is so much better. Perhaps you should have a dictator and take the tyranny of the minority to the max.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:31AM (4 children)
Sorry but it doesn't work that way. No matter who is President, which is the only thing the electoral college deals with, whoever has the most people has the most votes in congress. Tyranny of the minority isn't an actual possibility, only a minimal check on majority power is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:57AM (3 children)
For some weird reason you guys have also limited your number of representatives to 435 for close to a hundred years, which also works to give the minority more power, including electoral votes.
Imagine if Article the 1st had passed (and it still could, Article the 2nd did).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:39PM (2 children)
Yes, that's by design. Tyranny of the majority was a major concern for our founders and tyranny of the minority isn't a realistic worry.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @04:05PM
The worst years in recent history were presided over by minority votes. Try joining us here in reality someday.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:41PM
How is tyranny of the minority not a realistic concern? Tyranny is tyranny even if it is the type that you like.