http://www.chicagonow.com/opinion-youth-america/2012/02/direct-popular-vote-v-the-electoral-college/

I've already mentioned a few of the things the article talks about, but the main thing IMO is that we're not just a nation of people, we're a nation of states. The president needs to win not just the people, but the states as well and the EC represents that.

If we decided elections by direct popular vote, rural areas would be completely fucked and the east and west coasts' interests would dominate every election.

I may lean left, but that is NOT how I want to win elections. The nation is already moving leftwards anyway without a direct popular vote so there is just no reason to manipulate the vote like that.

If the population of this nation was spread evenly throughout the country, a direct popular vote might work better, but that's just not the situation is it.

It's another one of those things, like flat tax, where it SOUNDS like a great idea, but when you put it to the test, it just doesn't really work out. Simple ideas don't solve complex situations, and we need to step past that way of thinking if we're going to progress.

It's the same reason rational people laugh when the gun nuts talk about how we need guns to defend against tyranny. Sure tyranny is a very real possibility when you have a monarch, but our government was designed with that in mind. Our gov't is specifically designed to make it hard for tyranny to thrive. You have to have a lot of people on board in order for gov't to make a significant change. Sure it may be slow and inefficient sometimes, but that's a small price to pay for liberty.

Like I said initially though, I do think the EC needs to be tweaked a bit and go to split vote, but the problem of gerrymandering needs to be solved first, before that will work.

Because this video implies he is gay and rural America is very homophobic.

Yeah it's funny and all. Sort of.

I just watched the original. The kid is actually delighted at getting a giant "monster truck" poster. You know, the kind of oversized car crusher with huge wheels that they show off at county fair tractor pulls.

I have kids this age. And looking at this kid - buzz cut, track pants, burly dad with a Steelers jersey - I can't help but cringe when I think what his Monday morning will be like at his likely rural U.S. public middle school. If I had to make an educated guess, he's going to get bullied. For weeks.

So down vote for me. De-viral this one. And it's not that funny anyway.

*promote

Here's the thing though. I am in favor of the split vote. It allows people in stronghold states who are in the other party to still have SOME voice and not be completely overruled by winner-take-all. There is a reason we're a republic and not a direct democracy. Direct democracy is not a good idea, there has to be at least somewhat of a buffer against mob rule and high population centers dominating every election.

The problem is, of course, gerrymandering. If the winners are allowed to redistrict as they see fit, then the whole thing is corrupt. District lines HAVE to be drawn by a strictly independent, non partisan group and/or adhere to strict guidelines so that it's fair.

The other problem is that while I favor the split vote, the GOP doesn't care what a fair system is, they just want to swing more votes their way. If winner take all gives them more votes, they'll go with that. If split vote does, they'll go with that. They don't care.

The same shit happened in Nebraska last election when Obama won a single electoral vote. The GOP there went batshit and pushed to return to a winner take all system. It was only when someone pointed out to them that in a decade or two, because the urban area's population will eventually outstrip the rural areas, NE would eventually become complete blue state that they dropped the idea.

Split vote is more fair in my opinion, but the district lines HAVE to be drawn independently for it to work.

I asked someone with more knowledge in this area than I have, and the clothing looked like what you would expect from Spain around the time of the first world war. The toys look like they would date, at the earliest, from the 1920s or 1930s... the era of Buck Rogers style rocket ships.

The animation school where this film was made is in Valencia, in Spain, and maybe the students imagined a rural village from their grandparents' or great grandparents' era?

@Yogi Way to miss the point. I wasn't comparing cars and guns, I was comparing laws regulating cars and guns. That's all I'm going to say to you. You've already told me in another discussion that you're going to refuse any evidence that doesn't agree with your narrow minded beliefs, so having a discussion with you is pointless.

@RedSky

1) I'm not implying that the US is more violent. I already pointed out that the US has lower violent crime rates than the US and UK despite the higher murder rate.


2) I'd say people in rural areas are most likely own guns for hunting and also self defense as there are no police patrols out in the country.

I also wouldn't blame the availability of guns to criminals on gun enthusiasts. Criminals generally don't legally buy their guns. One way to cut down on illegall gun sales is to charge the sellers as accomplices to the crimes committed with the weapons they sell illegally.


3) Maybe punishment was not the right word I should have chosen. My point is that to cut down on driving fatalities, the laws enacted didn't put any inconveniences on responsible drivers.

Your back of the envelope calculation isn't quite so clear cut. Sam Harris discusses this in his article.

It is also worth noting that relatively gun-free countries are not as peaceful as many think. Here are some recent crime data comparing the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Sweden. Although the U.S. has a higher rate of homicide, the problem of assaults in these other countries is much worse...

So, while the U.S. has many more murders, the U.K., Australia, and Sweden have much higher levels of assault. One might think that having a few more murders per 100,000 persons each year is still much worse than having many hundreds more assaults. Perhaps it is. (One could also argue, as several readers have, that differences in proportion are all we should care about.) But there should be no doubt that the term “assault” often conceals some extraordinary instances of physical and psychological suffering.

It's possible that the reason the US has lower assault, robbery and rape is that armed citizens are able to defend themselves from such crimes.

I'm seeing a lot of people saying the US should look to the UK and Australia on how to handle gun control. Both UK and Australia already had low murder and violent crime rates at the time of their "bans." After Australia's National Firearms Act and forced gun buyback, homicide fell by 9%, but assault went up 40% and rape went up 20%. In the years before the NFA, homicides had been on a steady decline, and a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found the NFA's impact on homicide was "relatively small."

After the UK's "gun ban" in 1997, gun crime actually increased [1] [2]. Gun crimes in 1997-1998 were 2,648. The Office for National Statistics shows that 5,507 firearm offenses were reported 2011-2012.


4) Yes cars do provide a benefit to society. Their regulation and restrictions are reasonable, and I already said I'm not opposed to any reasonable gun laws. But cars are the leading cause of accidental death each year. There are lots of things that can be done to make cars and drivers safer. Cars could be limited to 70 MPH. The national speed limit on highways is 70 MPH, why do you need a car capable of going faster? Cars can be fitted with a GPS and a "black box" that records your driving activities. Each year when you renew your inspection, the black box data is downloaded and analyzed. If it's discovered you've broken any traffic laws, you will be fined, and if it's determined you aren't a safe driver, your license is revoked. Prohibit personal sales of vehicles between individuals, because you can't know if the person your selling to is a safe driver or if their license is valid (see below about the "gun show exemption"). Sounds crazy, but those aren't nearly as bad as some of the things being proposed for new gun laws.

I doubt any of those would be acceptable to the majority of drivers, but it would make driving safer and save lives.

As for your suggestions "not yet tried."

- We already have rigorous background checks for purchasing firearms. They're done by the FBI's NICS, I don't know how it can be more rigorous.
- There is no "gun show exemption" or "loophole," that is more media buzzword BS. Private sale and transfer of anything (not just firearms) can not regulated by congress. It's another constitutional issue dealing with the regulation of commerce. It is still illegal for a person to sell a firearm to someone that they have reason to believe may not be legally able to own one. This is another issue that I'm not opposed to fixing though. It could be as simple as requiring the transaction to be witnessed by a licensed gun dealer and perform a background check.
- Assault weapons are already restricted. Real assault weapons that is, not what the media and lawmakers keep calling assault weapons. Once again I ask, why such fuss over the weapon type least used in crime? These "assault weapons" are expensive to acquire, and most criminals go for cheap, small caliber, concealable pistols and revolvers. [source] For more on what an assault weapon is and their use in crime, just head on over to this Wikipedia page.
- Restricting ammunition would be something that would effect responsible gun owners and likely have little effect on crime. Responsible gun owners are the ones that buy more ammo, go to gun ranges and practice.


5) You mean the steadily high murder rate that has been steadily declining for over two decades, by 50% since 1992? [source]

@jimnms

I'll address by paragraphs:

(1)

The reason I suggested that you are implying that the US is more violent by nature is because statistically it is far more murderous than a country of its socio-economic development should be. Have a look at Nationmaster tables of GDP/capita and compare than to murders/capita in terms of where the US sits.

If we take the view that you are suggesting that we should simply reduce violence globally then that is a laudable goal but it would suggest that the US is abysmally failing at this currently. I happen to believe this reason is gun availability. I see no reason to believe this abysmal failure comes from gross police incompetence or any other plausible factor, rather the gun ownership and availability that sticks out like a sore thumb when you compared to other countries such as those in the G8.

(2)

I think that we would be both agree that there are more gun enthusiasts in rural areas. Many of those would also own collections of guns for recreation rather than merely what self protection would require. The article below cites a study from 2007 by Harvard that says 20% own 65% of the nation's guns.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/tragedy-stresses-multiple-gun-ownership-trend-in-us/1781285/

There is no reason to suspect that these people are any more violent than your non gun-owning folk. The issue is not so much ownership levels, but the availability that feeds a would-be criminal's capacity to carry out a crime.

While actual ownership levels might be lower, guns can no doubt be purchased for cheaper and within a closer proximity in densely populated cities. This availability feeds the likelihood of them being employed as a tool to facilitate a crime.

This is also incidentally a key misunderstanding of the whole gun debate. No one is (or should be at least) implying that recreational gun owners are the problem. It is the necessity for guns to be freely available to gun enthusiasts among others for them to enjoy this hobby that causes the problems.

(3)

Building on my above point above, gun control shouldn't be seen as a punishment. There is no vidictiveness to it, merely a matter of weighing up the results of two courses of action. On the one hand there is diminished enjoyment of legal and responsible gun owners. On the other hand there is the high murder rate I discussed earlier, which really can't be explained away any other way than gun availability.

Let's do a back of the envelope calculation. Australia and the US are culturally relatively similar Anglo-Saxon societies. Let's assume for the sake of argument that my suggestion is true. Referencing wiki here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The homicide rate in Australia is 1.0/10K/year and 4.8/10K/year. Let's say that gun availability explains 2/3rds of the difference. So we're talking about a 2.5/10K/year increase. Taking this against the US's 310M population this represents 7,500 more deaths.

Now to me, the issue is clear cut. The lives lost outweight gun enthusiast enjoyment.

And it's not just to me. There is a very clear reason that the vast majority of developed countries have made gun ownership incredibly difficult. I can guarantee, at some point they have done this back of the envelope calculation for their own country.

(4)

You raise the comparison to cars. See my workings above. With cars, they obviously provide a fundamentally invaluable benefit to society. The choice every society has made is to instead heavily regulate them. The reason there is no outcry to impose heavy restrictions on them is because there already are.

- Being required to pass license tests.
- Strict driving rules to follow.
- Speeding cameras everywhere.
- Random police checks for alcohol.

Can you think of any further regulations plausibly worth trying with cars that could reduce the accident death rate? I struggle to think of anything else effective that hasn't already been implemented.

With guns there are dozens of options not yet tried.

- Rigorous background checks.
- No gun show exemption.
- Assault weapon restrictions.
- Restrictions of ammo such as cost tariffs.

The list goes on. Imagine if we lacked the regulations we do on cars and there was a NCA (National Car Association) that was equating requiring to pass a driving test to tyranny.

(5)

I don't think there's much irrationality here. The US is clearly more murderous than other G8/OECD countries. To me, Occam's Razor explains why.

As for the comment on focussing on tragedies than the large issue, see my previous comment. You're missing the point that it's not just the gun sprees that are the problem, it's the steadily high murder rate. Mass shooting are just blips in this.

(6)

I will have a read through this.

@RedSky

I didn't say the US is more violent by nature, and I don't think it is (the US has lower violence than the UK and Australia which have essentially banned gun ownership). With 70 million people in this country owning guns (NRA 2010) and 45% of households having a gun in them (Gallup 2011), if we were so violent, you'd hear about neighbors shooting it out all the time over trivial shit.

I read an article the other day, which I can't find right now, that showed the difference between gun ownership in large cities and urban areas vs. rural areas and small towns. The rate of gun ownership in rural areas and small towns was over 2x as in cities, but violence and murders are higher in larger cities. Does this mean more guns equals less violence? Whether it does or doesn't, I think it shows that more people crammed into a smaller space equals more violence.

Why should we punish millions of responsible gun owners because of the actions of a few (and some who weren't legally able to own guns). Around 35,000 people are killed in car accidents every year. Most car owners and drivers are responsible and safe, but there isn't a public outcry to impose crazy restrictions on them (although we could reduce the number of deaths caused by cars if we did). The reason is because a lot of people have an irrational fear of guns even though you're more likely to be killed or injured by a car than guns.

I blame a this on the media. Some people are also irrationally afraid of flying, even though it's one of the safest ways to travel. If on the same day for some freaky reason 500 people died in unrelated, isolated car accidents across the country and a plane carrying 200 passengers crashes killing everyone on board, which do you think will get the most news coverage?

I just read an article by Sam Harris last night titled FAQ on Violence, which is a followup answering some questions and criticism of a previous article titled The Riddle of the Gun. Just go read the article. He answers a lot of questions about violence, gun violence, using guns for self defense, etc. I don't agree with some of what he says, but it does echo some of what I've been saying in discussions on this subject.

Updated the list

@Sepacore - In the case of Nazi Germany, The Taliban, 1970's Chile and the confederate south, the gun owners were the tyrants. I think gun owners are more likely to support a repressive government smashing it's citizens than stopping it. Even if you don't take recent history into account, guns don't do much against tanks, drones, helicopters, SEAL teams and stealth bombers.

@aimpoint - You make a good point about growing up with guns. To those who grow up in more rural/isolated areas, guns are a useful part of life - hunting, sport, defending your property from nasty critters, etc. Those who grow up in urban/denser settings see guns as things that facilitate crime - drivebys, robbery, murder, domestic abuse, etc.

How might gun ownership help a society? Well, it depends on the society doesn't it? Take Switzerland, for instance, which doesn't really have a standing army but inducts citizens into the militia and requires them to keep their firearms at home so they can mobilize quickly in the event of a crisis. I'd say there's a pretty strong benefit to their society (i.e. defense of the nation) in that case.

But I think @dystopianfuturetoday was probably asking about the benefits to a society in the U.S., where gun ownership is optional but also so prevalent So I'll focus on that area.

1) As has already been mentioned, from an economic standpoint, society benefits from the sale of guns and their related items through both taxes and levies and through the provision of jobs for those who produce guns, sell guns, or manage gun ranges. I have absolutely no idea exactly how big or small this benefit is in the U.S. but it certainly exists.

2) Armed citizens can (and do) stop "dangerous situations" from happening long before first responders have a chance to arrive and in some cases before they even have a chance to be notified. "Dangerous situations" here refers not only to crime but attacks by wild animals in rural areas.

3) Deterrence. Certain types of crime become much more risky to the professional criminal if you have to assume everyone is armed at all times.

Given these potential benefits to society, the question really then becomes do these benefits outweigh the costs to society? And also, what of the benefits to the individual? Certainly these must be weighed as well. CNN contributor David Frum wrote an interesting piece last year exploring these issues. You can find it here.

>> ^vaire2ube:

i love how Idaho and Wyoming really like Mitt Romney almost as much as Utah... aren't there skinheads in idaho...dont mormons not like black people...and wyoming, shrug, must have a lot of white people living in rural areas.
these are the reasons they vote, not for the country, but for their own ignorance to live on... too bad, so sad, guess you can die alone now. EIA


I have the feeling ignorance is probably not something you should criticize others for.

i love how Idaho and Wyoming really like Mitt Romney almost as much as Utah... aren't there skinheads in idaho...dont mormons not like black people...and wyoming, shrug, must have a lot of white people living in rural areas.

these are the reasons they vote, not for the country, but for their own ignorance to live on... too bad, so sad, guess you can die alone now. EIA

this is the sour grapes portion of the election folks. we're going to hear more crackpot theories like this and other "theories" on how Obama stole the election

people like BillO (not BillO himself because he's just playing a role like Colbert) are going to continue to grump and whine as the nation moves more and more blue.

Unless the parties fundamentally change, the nation is going to keep going to the left more and more because they want equality for gays, they want equality for women (Republicans lost this election as soon as this became an issue again..WTF reps?) People are sick of beating war drums and they want health care reform.

Red stronghold states will eventually be whittled away until even Texas and the Bible belt go blue. the population of the cities (which tend to lean left) will outstrip the right leaning rural areas.

2016 will be the election to watch. Will Republicans not learn anything and continue driving hard right or will they actually figure out how to take the party back from the nutbags and kick the tea party and the christian fundamentalists to the curb

no GOP ruckus about all mail-in ballot states? arent those the easiest to defraud and require no ID anyway... or can we ignore it since rural elderly voters go for (R) on their mail-in...

In reply to this comment by shagen454:
Whaddya mean? You think a bunch of rural terrorists with weapons from WWII took out two humongous buildings that each fell the exact same way? Not likely. But, I digress I don't really want to talk about nine eleven.


ehem nine eleven

Come on man, you're better than that.



So say the Government, namely Bush did do 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq or Afganistan. Why make the terrorists be Saudis? They're one of our greatest allies in the reason. Fuck make them Iraqis, it just doesn't make any damn sense.