Airline Pilot Central Forums - Potentially no California crew bases

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Alaska (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/alaska/)

- - Potentially no California crew bases (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/alaska/138600-potentially-no-california-crew-bases.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyprdu (Post 3498925)

You're just repeating yourself now. No matter how you spin it, you're giving those "40" states more voice than their numbers. Everything after that is rationalization.

Shy is repeating it over & over because he is correct.

Everything you’ve said is irrational…

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyprdu (Post 3498925)

You're just repeating yourself now. No matter how you spin it, you're giving those "40" states more voice than their numbers. Everything after that is rationalization.

Why are you hung up on population inside a state? This isn’t the United Populous of America, it’s the United States of America. The country consists of 50 states and is a Constitutional Republic. Why does it matter where people live, each state gets 2 senators for the Senate. That seems very fair and a constitutional amendment requires 75% so 37 states have to sign off on it. This is an excellent set up. This way, the states have power. Not any one state that some might flock to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyprdu (Post 3498691)

"fair" = minority rule.

Also excargodog picked the 2016 county map. There's no fact that he won't cherry pick.

Oh look, someone else that doesn’t understand how the country works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 3498804)

The reason the electoral system isn't "fair" is because all of the states signed on to that CONSTITUTIONAL provision when they joined the union. Presumably many would not have joined if that would have subjugated them to the tyranny of being ruled by the populist whims of people in distant, more populous states. Hmmm, that actually sounds a lot like the American Revolution.

There's a reason it's the way it is.

Don't like it? That's what constitutional conventions are for. Is that too hard? Then try to implement a non-constitutional electoral system and impose that on other states, and see what happens.

The electoral college is based on members of the total of House of Representatives and Senators for each state. Some say they want to change the two Senators per state in the constitution. They may not be aware the Constitution indicates changing the Senators to be based on population requires approval of every one of the low population states. It, in essence, is a “poison” pill. Cannot change it. Never get approved.

Further, what about a Constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College? A Constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of both the House and the Senate. Then 3/4 of all the states. That includes low population states. Never get approved.

The other option being suggested in state legislatures is their electors would go to the majority of popular vote. These states are highly Democratic states. When the popular vote is Democratic, those states’ electors would have gone Democratic anyway. In effect, no change. When the popular vote swings Republican, their highly Democratic state electors cast would be required to be the Republican slate. Those states would scream blood murder. But they made their bed, and they must lie in it.

The United States is not a direct democracy, and I don’t want it to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by at6d (Post 3499171)

The United States is not a direct democracy, and I don’t want it to be.

When ask what kind of government they came up with, Benjamin Franklin said, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.”

If one does not understand the difference between a direct democracy and a republic, they need to read up on it. They are different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wingedbeast (Post 3498944)

But the data shows you are wrong.

Um, no…just your California-bashing sources, not “the data.” Or are people fleeing the red states in proportionately higher numbers than CA doing so because of the horrible socialist regimes in place … in Nebraska, WV and LA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wingedbeast (Post 3498949)

Maybe we would be better off with the US broke apart. I know the world as whole would be.

I’m in favor…keep my federal tax dollars at home…Texas was once a country, they’re probably good with it too.

Everyone could move where they’re happy, let’s see how that would work out. A new CSA=rescind voting for women, disfavor non-Christianity, and mandate other “traditional” values. Paradise for many very vocal red-staters whose only problem will be losing all that federal $$ they now receive in excess of their taxes paid. Small issue, maybe they will entice businesses to stay/move there. Win/win. What’s not to love?