This way lies MADness. (That is, the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine.)
It's not that I want to see my Republican neighbors under-represented. It's that I'm not willing to offer fair representation to Republicans in blue states at the same time as Democrats in red states are still under-represented.
Well, the effect is the same.
In all seriousness, do you think that addressing this via US Constitutional amendment--which, if I correctly understood your original post, is your preferred solution--is realistic?
There's a saying about bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Passing Prop 77 would be like the Dems throwing their knife away on the way to the gun-fight.
I see what you're saying...but arguably showing up unarmed to a gunfight is the smartest thing you can do. A knife won't prevent you from getting shot (nor will a gun, for that matter). But if I show up unarmed, it indicates my willingness to try and address things in a way that doesn't actually involve people getting shot. (Doesn't mean I shouldn't wear armor, of course.)
In any case, I think that your analogy is missing something. It's a bit more like a mutual hostage standoff: I have my (short-range) weapon of choice pointed at your friend, and you are doing the same with my friend. We can't hurt each other directly, but we can hurt each others' friends.
The only way that you get out of this sort of situation (without risk of injury or death) is that someone has to make the decision to trust the other, at least a little bit. If I show up to the hostage trade unarmed, it shows my good faith, and makes it possible for you to trust that I won't try to cheat.
I'm not saying that there's never a place for violence (allegorical or otherwise), but there are some prices that I won't pay to win...especially in a situation in which the fact that we're talking about "winning" means that the situation has been perverted. (If this country weren't so relentlessly bipartisan (that is, as opposed to multipartisan) then perhaps we might occasionally get some real discussions of issues. As it is, much as I despise what the Republican leadership has been doing, what the Democrats have mostly been doing for the last five years is (a) claiming that they'd do better if only they could, and (b) desperately trying to game things so that they'll get back in power....as opposed to offering a real, consistent alternative.)
*sigh* I'd like to reiterate at this point that I think that you and I probably agree more than we disagree, and I do appreciate your original analysis. I'm also frustrated at the situation; hell, I volunteered for ElectionProtection in 2004 and I know there's a lot of nasty crap going on relating to elections. But I don't feel as though I can ethically deny my neighbors their voice, even if their family elsewhere is denying their neighbors--my family--theirs.
Re: not much to say
It's not that I want to see my Republican neighbors under-represented. It's that I'm not willing to offer fair representation to Republicans in blue states at the same time as Democrats in red states are still under-represented.
Well, the effect is the same.
In all seriousness, do you think that addressing this via US Constitutional amendment--which, if I correctly understood your original post, is your preferred solution--is realistic?
There's a saying about bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Passing Prop 77 would be like the Dems throwing their knife away on the way to the gun-fight.
I see what you're saying...but arguably showing up unarmed to a gunfight is the smartest thing you can do. A knife won't prevent you from getting shot (nor will a gun, for that matter). But if I show up unarmed, it indicates my willingness to try and address things in a way that doesn't actually involve people getting shot. (Doesn't mean I shouldn't wear armor, of course.)
In any case, I think that your analogy is missing something. It's a bit more like a mutual hostage standoff: I have my (short-range) weapon of choice pointed at your friend, and you are doing the same with my friend. We can't hurt each other directly, but we can hurt each others' friends.
The only way that you get out of this sort of situation (without risk of injury or death) is that someone has to make the decision to trust the other, at least a little bit. If I show up to the hostage trade unarmed, it shows my good faith, and makes it possible for you to trust that I won't try to cheat.
I'm not saying that there's never a place for violence (allegorical or otherwise), but there are some prices that I won't pay to win...especially in a situation in which the fact that we're talking about "winning" means that the situation has been perverted. (If this country weren't so relentlessly bipartisan (that is, as opposed to multipartisan) then perhaps we might occasionally get some real discussions of issues. As it is, much as I despise what the Republican leadership has been doing, what the Democrats have mostly been doing for the last five years is (a) claiming that they'd do better if only they could, and (b) desperately trying to game things so that they'll get back in power....as opposed to offering a real, consistent alternative.)
*sigh* I'd like to reiterate at this point that I think that you and I probably agree more than we disagree, and I do appreciate your original analysis. I'm also frustrated at the situation; hell, I volunteered for ElectionProtection in 2004 and I know there's a lot of nasty crap going on relating to elections. But I don't feel as though I can ethically deny my neighbors their voice, even if their family elsewhere is denying their neighbors--my family--theirs.