Now this comment is worth further discussion.
Somehow the relatively homogenous "progressive" city dwellers think they know better than those non-college educated rural folks who run the businesses that provide us food, energy and so many other things we rely on. You should have seen Chuck Todd and David Brooks turn red on Sunday when the Progressive Farmer Opinion Writer called out all the folks like themselves who spent the election coverage "belittling" the non-college rural vote. I think they finally figured out that a lot of these "uneducated rural" voters are highly educated, engaged and running large complex farms and businesses. It made me smile.
I have never understood why the "herd" in cities should have more power than the folks in other States. Personally I think every city dweller should have to spend sometime in the country doing real work, it may improve our country. If not, maybe they can just watch /read The Ultimate Gift
CNN Results
MP MN Results
Progressive Farmer Rural America Roars
RF Donkeys Rare in Rural America
"Election wise I always trust the inherent wisdom of the voters. It's up to them to get it right, and I trust their judgment, even when I disagree with it. This time, they chose Hillary. If only the founders had the same trust in America and it's people as I do." --HiramI personally am a huge fan of the Senate and Electoral college. I think these 2 systems are single handedly responsible for keeping us a group of "United" States. Could you even imagine the structural strain this country would experience if the coasts could ignore the will of the people in the "fly over states"?
Somehow the relatively homogenous "progressive" city dwellers think they know better than those non-college educated rural folks who run the businesses that provide us food, energy and so many other things we rely on. You should have seen Chuck Todd and David Brooks turn red on Sunday when the Progressive Farmer Opinion Writer called out all the folks like themselves who spent the election coverage "belittling" the non-college rural vote. I think they finally figured out that a lot of these "uneducated rural" voters are highly educated, engaged and running large complex farms and businesses. It made me smile.
I have never understood why the "herd" in cities should have more power than the folks in other States. Personally I think every city dweller should have to spend sometime in the country doing real work, it may improve our country. If not, maybe they can just watch /read The Ultimate Gift
MP MN Results
Progressive Farmer Rural America Roars
RF Donkeys Rare in Rural America
39 comments:
I think the lack of information goes both ways, frankly. There are rural people who can't possibly understand why an urban voter may want to invest in transit, for instance.
Also, the notion of who does the "real work" is dangerously divisive. Rural and urban America need each other, and fomenting these divisions doesn't do anything to solve the problem.
I am not trying to stoke division or anger, I am trying to point out that even though there are fewer people in rural America, it is absolutely critical for our country's stability that they and their views are acknowledged and not over ruled by the urban majority.
As for city transit, I am certain they are just fine if the Cities build their own transit systems if it is important to them. It is when State and National funds are used that they get more sensitive.
As for "real work", I have done dozens of jobs in rural and suburban America. I believe that farming, inventing, teaching and manufacturing are special and help people to be more grounded than say accounting, marketing, project mgmt., etc. The power of high value add is important to learn and remember.
"it is absolutely critical for our country's stability that they and their views are acknowledged and not over ruled by the urban majority."
Everyone's views are equally important.
"As for city transit, I am certain they are just fine if the Cities build their own transit systems if it is important to them."
The behavior of the non-urban GOP legislators in our state belies that point.
I agree that that everyone's view is equally important, that is why the Senate and Electoral systems are EXCELLENT to ensure balance !!!
There was no reason for the State to be involved in that particular Metro issue. As we later found out. Maybe Dayton was playing politics... Seems it back fired.
1 million more people voted dem for president and the GOP has total control and this is what you call balance. You really have lost your mind and I don't know why I bother with your blog anymore. I could take a few more minutes to explain how you are wrong in this view but it is currently not worth my effort.
Laurie,
Now you would typically be the one to promote that the diverse voices of our population are heard. Well apparently the urban vs rural voices are about as diverse as one gets.
Would you really want the city folk who live in a small area of the USA to run rampant over the lower population density areas that make up most of the country?
How do you think that would work out for us? And please remember that those country boys love their guns and freedom. :-) I think the founding Fathers were geniuses.
I like to use Iraq as an example of what happens when the majority tries to force a strong willed minority into submission.
I think you check in because I help keep your blood pressure up... :-)
By the way, CNN still says ~600,000...
Why do you believe the rural voters deserves ALL the power and the views of 62,000,000 citizens who voted for Clinton and support more dem party type policies should be ignored and have no one with power representing them in DC? You make absolutely no sense. I believe my views deserve a voice with some power behind it in DC. If we had a dem president and GOP congress then we would have balance, which is what you claim to support.
and about the margin of victory - they are still counting votes from liberal strongholds.
In 2009 and 2010 the Democrats had full control. Should that have happened? Ironically their over reach with ACA and the consequences may have led to the 2016 results.
The rules of the game were apparently set ~250 years ago and they make sense to me. We are not a national democracy, we are are Union of different and very diverse States. And it is critical that parties not only serve the popular vote (ie coasts), but the people in the majority of States.
Democrats from my perspective have spent so much time pandering to the poor, minorities, LGBT, etc that they forgot to serve everyone else. And they paid for it.
Hopefully for their sake they remember how to serve the normal working people and small businesses, however based on the call for them to move further left it seems the lesson has been lost on them. Remember that pendulum I am always talking about?
On the upside, the idiot GOP folk will over reach and send the pendulum back to the Left...
Finally, as stated before the election. I would have preferred grid lock, unfortunately the Democrats really screwed up...
Sanders Thoughts 1
Sanders Thoughts 2
One of my recent comments from Paul's MP rant.
"Neither the Clinton defeat nor the polls forecasting her election win are a mystery. When you label Trump supporters haters, racists, misogynists, xenophobic, homophobic, and then ask them who they support, they may not tell you. While this labeling may seem like a good way to win an election, it clearly is not, and this behavior is in itself hateful. How do you expect to get a different outcome next time? You might need some of those deplorables from the basket." Steve
"The good news is that the Liberals do not seem to be learning from their mistakes.
They seem very interested in moving further Left and continuing to insult most of the voters who live in rural America. And they seem to be forgetting that ~30% of Hispanics and other races, and half of the women, voted for Trump. This bodes well for future elections.
And thanks to the electoral college and the Senate rules, those voters still have a lot of clout." G2A
In 2008 Obama won by 7% and 10 million votes they also won the house and the senate by large margins. That is called a mandate. Whereas Trump lost the popular vote and GOP had fewer votes for senators and also lost ground this year. The majority of the country opposes the GOP agenda. We are talking about peoples lives, this is not some football game with stupid rules. Twenty million people will soon lose their health insurance.
I think these 2 systems are single handedly responsible for keeping us a group of "United" States.
But at what price? The electoral college was responsible for the election of George Bush, the worst president of my lifetime so far. And it's responsible for the election of Donald Trump, a hoodlum totally unfit for any office at all.
--Hiram
Laurie,
The Democrats failed to get out the vote in critical States. The Ellison's of the world only seem to care about specific groups of citizens in certain districts. Apparently many more people were indifferent to the Democratic message and messenger.
And don't confuse insurance and healthcare, they may lose Medicaid but they will continue to get care.
What about the tens of millions of hard working Americans who are being priced out of having insurance because of all the ACA mandates? Are you indifferent to their plight?
Hiram,
Time will tell. In my view the Democrat far Left agenda will lead to the fall of the USA over time. (ie boil the frog, kill the goose that lays the golden egg, etc) So these refreshing swings towards capitalism give me hope. Now let's hope they don't over reach and do stupid things.
By the way, keep hope... If they fail, the Democrats will gain more voters.
"What about the tens of millions of hard working Americans who are being priced out of having insurance because of all the ACA mandates? Are you indifferent to their plight?"
There just aren't "tens of millions" that this is occurring to. The exchanges cover between 4% and 5% of the population, and about 80% of those folks are covered by the subsidies which protects them from the impacts of the premium increases. Now, that still leaves close to 1% of the population being impacted, which is significant but not crippling. We can easily find solutions to blunt that impact -- if we want to -- instead of trashing things for the 20 million that have gained coverage.
Now the parts of ACA that you are talking about are the welfare parts... (ie Medicaid expansion and subsidies)
Who exactly do you think is paying for these people's coverage and subsidies?
By the way the answer is all of us tax payers... And all of us people buying Health Insurance with their own and their company's money...
There are far more of us who experiencing pain from ACA, than there are people benefiting. Now I will agree that our pain is less severe, but to deny it is pain is denying reality.
And remember that whenever Liberals arbitrarily move money from businesses and the successful to the unsuccessful, it is likely they are increasing the cost of doing business in the USA, rewarding poor choices and damaging our employment opportunities.
How do we incent folks to start pulling instead of riding?
Somehow the relatively homogenous "progressive" city dwellers think they know better than those non-college educated rural folks who run the businesses that provide us food, energy and so many other things we rely on.
Do people think they know better than other people? If my vote is different from yours, does that mean I think my vote is better than yours? Or could the reverse be true? Do I think that my vote is worse than yours? Or perhaps, to avoid the appearance of my thinking I am better than those who disagree with me, should I not vote at all?
--Hiram
"Who exactly do you think is paying for these people's coverage and subsidies?"
Who was paying for it before? The ACA actually *increases* the number of people paying at least something for their own healthcare, not reduces it.
"There are far more of us who experiencing pain from ACA, than there are people benefiting."
Back this up empirically, please. Premium increases in the employer market post-ACA have consistently run lower than prior to its passage. So this talking point is a bunch of hooey like pretty much everything else you've said for years about the ACA.
Hiram, Excellent deep thinking.
Sean,
I guess I disagree, if the vast majority of the 20 million are because the expansion of Medicaid. They likely were paying cash for some care when they had it, and now they pay nothing. Correct?
You will need to read these carefully. They indicate what I think is happening. Premium increases are being controlled by increases in deductibles and co-pays. Either way it means everyone is paying more. Plus the additional taxes.
CNN Money Healthcare Costs
PBS Healthcare Increases
"They likely were paying cash for some care when they had it, and now they pay nothing. Correct?"
Medicaid has modest copays.
Your links are not in conflict with anything I have said. Pointing out a one-month increase in health care prices does not reflect the longer running trend in health care inflation since the ACA was passed.
I think you ignored my comment... These deduction increases, copay increases and having less freedom to stay with their Doctor are all costs that need to be accounted for.
Not sure how the comparisons account for this?
Health care inflation is historically low. Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average health care inflation from 1987-2010 was 5%. From 2011-2015, health care inflation ran at an average of 2.9%.
Now, is it true that some of that burden is being shifted from employers to consumers? Yes. But that's just the continuation of a trend that long outdated that ACA. As health care inflation has outpaced inflation in the rest of the economy, employers have shifted more of those costs to their employees. (Also please remember that your beloved Paul Ryan plan touts the virtues of high deductible health plans -- so if you're concerned about deductibles and copays, the Republican solution is likely going to be significantly worse than the ACA.)
Since ACA was setup to transfer costs from low income poorly employed people to people with stable good employment and the wealthy.
I am thinking the GOP plan will be better for the majority of my friends and co-workers.
And my single male farm friends used to love the low cost high deductible male oriented plans that will likely be allowed again.
S MN Article
Townhall ACA Discussion
I like this quote. It is succinct and accurate.
"It is a complete nightmare, with double-digit premium spikes about to hit the nation (on average) next year. That’s a Tomahawk missile strike to most home budgets, especially those in America’s middle class. An ironic twist since Obamacare was supposed to help this economic demographic, which now finds itself being more squeezed by this law. Even CNN Money noted that Obamacare is turning into another government program that helps predominantly lower income Americans. Simply put, the law isn’t affordable. "
CNN Bill to End Electoral College
Next she will want to change how many Senators each State gets... :-)
Why do these folks keep thinking States don't matter?
Maybe we should get rid of Local and State elected governments... Then these officials could be appointed by the all powerful nationally elected Feds. That way the folks on the coasts and the urban areas could Lord over everyone else... I am sure that would create a stable country... Not...:-)
I think these 2 systems are single handedly responsible for keeping us a group of "United" States
It didn't work during the Civil War. Essentially, the electoral college turns the choice of president over to a few high vote, evenly divided states. Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, mainly. Your vote in Minnesota counts for nothing. Neither do individual votes in our largest states, California, New York and Texas. This is why we here in Minnesota see virtually no visible presidential campaigning.
Our country has become incredibly rationalized over the last couple of decades. It seems to me that a election system which allows candidates to focus on just a few states, only exacerbates that tendency.
--Hiram
If you have to go back to the civil war and a HUGE social norm change like abolishing slavery, we are doing pretty good. And by the way the Union survived that terrible test.
I personally am happy to stick with checks and balances to any State or group of States controlling our country just because more people live in that region of land. It forces collaboration and helps to ensure that certain regions don't feel crushed by "those guys".
We all succeed or fail together...
"It is a complete nightmare, with double-digit premium spikes about to hit the nation (on average) next year."
Again, this is not true. Premiums in the employer market are up on average about 5%. The double-digit premium spikes only hit those on the exchanges, and those who get subsidies were largely immunized from that impact. So the only group of people getting the double-digit spikes are those who are on the exchanges but don't get the subsidies (approaching 1% of the country's population). Again, not a good trend, but not one that is insurmountable with some common-sense reforms. (It should also be pointed out that premiums are exactly where they were projected to be when the law was passed.)
. It forces collaboration and helps to ensure that certain regions don't feel crushed by "those guys".
Actually, it discourages collaboration as we have seen in recent years. The English, unchecked and unbalanced system was able to get rid of slavery within the system. Our system required a civil war.
--Hiram
Sean,
I seem to remember a certain President promising reductions and keeping one's Doctor...
Please remember that I see good and bad things in ACA.
Hiram,
The Democrats stopped addressing the concerns of Rural America. They are now highly motivated to correct that error. I think the system is working great.
Hey John-
I wonder if you would consider a new post on "Does the Electoral College need to be fixed?". I think the EC is fascinating, but maybe it won't stir much commentary from the folks here?
Joel
"I seem to remember a certain President promising reductions and keeping one's Doctor..."
I'm certainly not going to argue that the President did a good job of selling the bill. But we should make policy decisions based on facts and not on nitpicking stump speeches.
The Democrats stopped addressing the concerns of Rural America.
We really don't actually. In economic terms, rural America has been on the decline for the last century or so, and nothing anything anyone does, can stop that. We do support rural schools, nursing homes, various forms of infrastructure stuff. Out state, Republicans campaign on things like the state office building, and the supposed arrogance of urban liberals, but they offer little of the way of substance apart from the easing of environmental regulations.
--Hiram
Joel, Good idea though I think we are getting a sense of where people stand on the idea.
Sean, Agreed. Just pointing out both sides.
Hiram, Rural America may have fewer voters now due to automation and big equipment. That does not make it any less important to our country. Ignore them at your own peril. They are very high "value add" citizens who support many of our aspects of the American economy. (ie wealth creators) Besides they are able to influence elections as we have seen... :-)
It's funny how times have changed.
"While it’s almost forgotten now, the George W. Bush campaign was planning to challenge the results of the 2000 vote if he lost the electoral vote, but won the popular vote. His campaign hoped to spark a national movement to pressure members of the Electoral College in states where the popular vote went for Al Gore to ignore that and instead vote in line with the national popular vote — thus making Bush president.
In the end, the reverse happened. Bush won the Electoral College vote while losing the popular vote.
But in the weeks before the November 7, 2000, election, it seemed more likely that Gore would get a majority of electoral votes, while Bush, lifted by a wide margin in his home state of Texas, would have the most votes by actual people. This possibility was widely discussed, including in the Boston Globe and Christian Science Monitor and in an Associated Press polling analysis.
Gore was even preemptively criticized for winning under these circumstances. It “would be an outrage” said Rep. Ray LaHood, R.-Ill."
The Bush Campaign Plotted to Reject Election Results in 2000
Well here are my thoughts on changes (improvements?) that could be made to the EC:
- Could we have national electors that would vote for the person who wins that national popular vote? These would be in addition to the existing 538 electors. How many would there be? One possible argument against is that it would effectively give a portion of the population more power than "one person, one vote".
- Each State still gets the two "Senator" votes, meaning that two votes go to the winner of the statewide popular vote
- Each congressional district still gets a single vote based on the popular vote within the district, with the following caveats:
a) Gerrymandering is outlawed (how?)
b) District boundaries are not affected by State boundaries, meaning that all congressional districts would have to have, as closely as possible, the same population without respect to State borders. My questions regarding this are: Is there a good reason for congressional districts to be contained within States? What reason is there for it to continue? States already get electoral votes.
Joel
That does not make it any less important to our country.
It's important, sure, but a lot fewer people live there. And those who do are faced with economic forces nobody can do anything about. Certainly the Republicans offer no solutions, which is why they spent so much time demagoguing the office building.
--Hiram
Post a Comment