Alexis de Tocqueville made exactly this point in his report on Democracy in America (in 1825). According to his calculations, by 1896 the population of the United States would exceed 96 million people, and this problem would have to be addressed.

In actual fact the population growth wasn't quite as predicted, but by 1900 it had exceeded the population of France and as a result his other argument that the Democratic system adopted by the United States could not work in a country the size of France looks far shakier today than it did in 1825.

I think that the fact that this flaw in the system was so obvious at the outset, and yet doesn't in and of itself appear to be a fatally flaw, probably suggests that these guys are on the wrong track.

You'll never convince the smaller states to get rid of the EC. But it can be somewhat fixed:

* Replace the first past the post with an alternative vote (see one of his other videos)
* Replace the winner take all in every state. The winner of each congressional district gets that district's vote, then the last two votes go to the winner of the state overall. This is perhaps one of the most important changes as it makes it as close to the popular vote as you can get without getting rid of the EC, which as I said, I don't think you'll get enough states to agree to.
* District lines should be drawn by open source software to help eliminate gerrymandering.
* Strict term limits (on both houses and the Supreme Court) and no life-time benefits for any of them that isn't given to every citizen, and every law that applies to citizens applies to them (so no more insider trading being legal for them).

Those few changes alone make it easier to be represented and increases the chance of 3rd parties getting some votes.

I would extend it further with one more important change. We have had 435 Representatives since 1911. It hasn't kept pace with the population growth. With modern technology there is no need for everyone to be in DC. Rather than adjusting those 435 people based on the population of the states, we should go back to the original system of having a Rep for X many people. Perhaps one Rep for every 50,000 or 100,000 people (no less than one for every 250,000). With everyone in their home districts and so many of them it makes it hard to buy them all. With so many Reps it probably means a pay cut, which they should have anyhow, especially getting rid of the life time privileges it comes with now... I would also kill the ability to add amendments to bills that aren't super tightly integrated to the bill, if you can't get your legislation passed without it being hidden as part of another bill, then it shouldn't be passed. Perhaps a lime-item veto of amendments and riders for all members of congress and the President. I say make pay based on the poverty rate and adjust for cost of living in each district... perhaps 2x the poverty rate, that would encourage them to fix poverty (and while we are at it rather than set some random number like $250,000 as a high tax bracket, tax brackets are broken by multiples of the poverty rate as well, so 10x the poverty rate puts you in the same bracket as $250k does today).

This response proves you didn't even read the page that you are using to "debunk" the video. It doesn't address this video. This page, which contains one paragraph and a broken link to a video, is the one addressing it:

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Again, you present yourself as the voice of chicken little, as your perpetrate another myth upon the overpopulation myth, which is the myth of peak oil. We are not in danger of running out of oil anytime soon; in fact, because of new technology and methods, such as the fracking boom, our domestic energy production is expected to rise significantly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html

Since 1976 our proven oil reserves are double from where they started, and new reserves are being found continuously:

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/25/petrobras-confirms-tupi-field-could-hold-8-billion-barrels

http://www.albawaba.com/iran-discovers-huge-oil-field-report-415465

There is also evidence that oil fields are refilling:

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

The fact is that there is an oil boom in the western hemisphere:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html

The coal oil sands in Canada alone are estimated to hold 175 billion barrels of oil. What I find interesting hpqp, as you do another hit and run, is that you have all the faith in the world that science will solve all of our problems, except when it comes to your favorite doomsday hypothesis.

As I have already proven, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is in the inequity of man and in the inefficient and wasteful distribution. We lose over 1/3 of the food we produce to waste. We have more than enough fuel to supply our agriculture, and the research shows that having smaller and more energy efficient farms will increase yields even further, and not significantly impact biodiversity.


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY


The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.
That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

>> ^shinyblurry:

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY



The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.

That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:

"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom

>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY

Sorry, I should have made it clear that this is addressing one aspect of the overpopulation myth..which is that population growth is outstripping food production. I fixed the title. So what is your argument against this?

>> ^kir_mokum:
this is dumb. a one dimensional "answer" to a multidimensional problem. it also doesn't seem to understand math.

What has honestly changed though in say 40 years ? is it statistical that people on the side of the road will rob you or harm you ?

I do not understand how there is an influx of this behavior, if so what is it based on ? the population growth ? crime rate going up ? the internet and television plastering horror stories over the waves ? I do not get how lately everyone has this mentality that "if they stop they will be killed "

I blame the media.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^Porksandwich:
@chilaxe
Not much I can argue there. You are there and I am not. But no major problems as the US is facing all across the nation is as simple as one problem or solution. So I find it hard to believe that California's only issue is immigration. And Im not denying that great influxes of people have lots of impact, but it's going to be a problem whether it's immigration or population growth.

Cognitive complexity is the master trait for success in complex societies, so when you substantially reduce the average cognitive ability of a state, you increase all socially undesirable metrics.
This includes poor academic scores, income inequality, poor medical outcomes, poor financial management, high crime, and poor child-rearing practices.
For example, basic things like parents taking their children to the dentist has plummeted here, even though it's free for lower-income people.


Of course, this constant insistence that complex issues be wholly caused by one simple factor hardly illustrates any cognitive complexity on your behalf. Nothing in this world, especially when it comes to social issues, is as simple as you're making this out to be.

>> ^Porksandwich:

@chilaxe
Not much I can argue there. You are there and I am not. But no major problems as the US is facing all across the nation is as simple as one problem or solution. So I find it hard to believe that California's only issue is immigration. And Im not denying that great influxes of people have lots of impact, but it's going to be a problem whether it's immigration or population growth.


Cognitive complexity is the master trait for success in complex societies, so when you substantially reduce the average cognitive ability of a state, you increase all socially undesirable metrics.

This includes poor academic scores, income inequality, poor medical outcomes, poor financial management, high crime, and poor child-rearing practices.

For example, basic things like parents taking their children to the dentist has plummeted here, even though it's free for lower-income people.

@chilaxe

Not much I can argue there. You are there and I am not. But no major problems as the US is facing all across the nation is as simple as one problem or solution. So I find it hard to believe that California's only issue is immigration. And Im not denying that great influxes of people have lots of impact, but it's going to be a problem whether it's immigration or population growth.

>> ^dannym3141:

You mean people didn't/don't visualise it like this?


Typically I visualize massive population growth as a huge amount of people fucking each other.

>> ^NetRunner:

@chilaxe are you opposed to all population growth, then?
Young people have no job skills, and will require many government services (21st century education, 21st century healthcare, 21st century infrastructure, etc.), so greater income redistribution becomes required (nice of you to concede that it's required, BTW).
Young people-turned-voters will vote for big government the continuation and expansion of the programs that helped turn them into productive members of society.
And if you're concerned about an overabundance of low-skilled people entering the workplace, then you should be advocating that we make quality education available at no cost to anyone who wants it, whether they're an immigrant or just a kid.


NetRunner said: "Young people-turned-voters will vote for big government the continuation and expansion of the programs that helped turn them into productive members of society."

Except that they never turn into productive members. For families from Latin America, the first generation born here shows a significant improvement over Latin American levels, then the 2nd generation shows a slight imnprovement, and then for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th generations, there's no improvement on average. You can't tax people doing Latin-American-level labor.


NetRunner said: "You should be advocating that we make quality education available at no cost to anyone who wants it."

Education is irrelevant. Private schools show no advantage when confounding factors are controlled: http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003580.html#reply20111007045639

You can't make someone who doesn't like to read like to read, no matter how many billions you spend trying.

@chilaxe are you opposed to all population growth, then?

Young people have no job skills, and will require many government services (21st century education, 21st century healthcare, 21st century infrastructure, etc.), so greater income redistribution becomes required (nice of you to concede that it's required, BTW).

Young people-turned-voters will vote for big government the continuation and expansion of the programs that helped turn them into productive members of society.

And if you're concerned about an overabundance of low-skilled people entering the workplace, then you should be advocating that we make quality education available at no cost to anyone who wants it, whether they're an immigrant or just a kid.

sustainable growth is an oxymoron... what you mean is low or zero growth, where the number of things "dying" are more equal to, or do equal, those things being "born". Logistic growth etc.

Logistic growth population models imply density dependent population regulation. Such a model assumes that when populations increase in size (1) the per capita birth rate decreases (as a result of competition for resources) and/or (2) the per capita death rate increases (as a result of competition for resources, predation, or the increased spread of disease). Thus, there is a population size at which the per capita birth rate equals the per capita death rate. At this population size, known as the carrying capacity, the population growth rate is equal to zero.

- http://www.eoearth.org/article/Logistic_growth

Good math resource here: https://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffeq/logistic/index.html

also look up Albert Bartlett's lectures, they might be sifted. He lays it out in no uncertain terms how growth is regulated on earth.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

[T]he politicalmathblog post comes across as fairly even handed. The point of the first 4 graphs is to explain how a state can grow a bunch of jobs but still have a high unemployment rate.

Read what he's saying about the charts. Each chart is meant to say "Rick Perry's job creation in Texas is awesome!" Chart 1 is raw jobs, unadjusted for population growth, even according to him. Rather than saying "hmm, I wonder if that actually means the jobs situation has improved when you look at population," instead he says:

In a "normal" employment data set, we can easily look at it and say "Yep, that's where the recession happened. Sucks to be us." But not with Texas. With Texas, we say "Damn. Looks like they've recovered already."

Liar!

Chart 3 is a similarly unadjusted factor, though at least he puts it as % of raw jobs grown, so it's not as distorted.

Chart 4 finally reveals what's going on -- Texas's population is growing way faster than it's creating jobs. Aha! That's why the unemployment rate has just been going up!

Moreover, it means the jobs market in Texas is really getting worse, because while there have been jobs created, the number of people looking for a job per job opening has actually increased. Does he summarize it that way? Nope, not remotely.

Instead he summarizes that finding by saying:

People are flocking to Texas in massive numbers. This is speculative, but it *seems* that people are moving to Texas looking for jobs rather than moving to Texas for a job they already have lined up. This would explain why Texas is adding jobs faster than any other state but still has a relatively high unemployment rate.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
His supposition that Texas is the victim of it's own success is the only controversial statement in that section, and he clearly labels it as his own opinion.

It's not the only controversial statement, but it's the most blatant falsehood of the whole article. Yes, he makes it clear that it's his theory, but he's presenting his theory while summarizing the data that invalidates his theory!

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Meanwhile your think progress article seems completely irrelevant. Since it doesn't normalize for population size, their graph is naturally going to have longer bars for larger states, so calling someone the "worst" is basically just saying, "its bar goes in the wrong direction and it's a big state."

The politicalmathblog didn't either, and you're not rejecting it out of hand. Everyone who cites some statistic in pursuit of calling Texas's job record a "miracle" has to ignore the size of Texas's population, and it's population growth rate.

If you account for those factors, it looks like a below-average jobs record, and we can't have that.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

But do the directions of these bars even mean anything? Look at the "best" state on the list. It's Michigan. Is Michigan's economy doing well lately?

The bar isn't meant to show goodness or badness, but the rate & direction of change. Michigan was in bad shape, but it's improving quickly.
Here's the unemployment rates of Texas vs. Michigan.

Texas was at 4.5% before, rose to about 8% and then never really got better. Michigan started at 7%, rose to 14%, and then rapidly went down to 10%. Both are unfortunately taking turns for the worse as the economy weakens again.

What's that mean? Hard to say in isolation, but someone could easily make a bunch of charts to support the idea of a "Michigan miracle", and spin a story about how it was Obama's rescue of the auto industry that's responsible, and that Texas has stagnated at its peak because it refuses to engage in fiscal stimulus.

You know, sorta like politicalmathblog did for Texas...

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
This makes me believe that this measurement has little to do with the actual economic health of a state.
Maybe some smarty pants economist can come explain why I should care about that chart, but for now I don't, and I don't think you should either.

If you want a smartypants economist saying the same thing I am, I'll point you to the link included in the thinkprogress article with Paul Krugman giving his analysis of the Texas job situation.