(11-12-2016 11:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  And like I said, that has nothing to do with if the arguments I make are valid and good.

True dat....or that they are valid or good.

If it was designed to deny the will of the voters, then it should be ruled illegal.

(11-12-2016 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If it was designed to deny the will of the voters, then it should be ruled illegal.

So if it wasn't, then it shouldn't?

(11-12-2016 11:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Fo,

The avenue isn't there, in truth. Because the mechanism gives incentive to certain states to block the change, even if it would be better for the country overall.

The constitution has been changed more than 20 times.... the"proves" the avenue is there.

owl,

Well it was, clearly!


Bull,

No, it proves the mechanism is there, even though it's impossible to get the mechanism to work, even it would be better for the country overall.

(11-12-2016 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If it was designed to deny the will of the voters, then it should be ruled illegal.

Illegal based on what? ITS THE HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND. Something in it literally *cant* be illegal. That's why when we needed to end slavery we could not do it by law, we amended the document.

Fun fact: you have no constitutional right to vote for president

(11-12-2016 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If it was designed to deny the will of the voters, then it should be ruled illegal.

Well..Im sorry..but...That is just not the case.
Both gangs have had this pesky constitution standing in their way. That is why it is awesome.

(11-12-2016 11:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  owl,

Well it was, clearly!


Bull,

No, it proves the mechanism is there, even though it's impossible to get the mechanism to work, even it would be better for the country overall.

But..again that is not the case. It has been amended 27 times. What you want is it to be amended in a partisan way. That is just not going to happen and that is the way it should be.

(11-12-2016 10:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ham #62,

I really hate to do this to you, because your post was long and well thought out.

But it was a red herring. Plain as day.


You're trying to frame my argument as if I'm arguing against rounding EC votes up/down instead of giving a more precision relation to state population.

That's not my argument, at all.


"495>40"

That's not the argument, either.


The argument is: "40/that population > 495/that population". Which is unfair, if you believe every American should have the same vote.

I'm not trying to reframe your argument. It's only a red herring in your mind because you once again misunderstand my response.... mostly I think because I just don't accept your premise.

Fair is not a definition, it is an opinion.

I addressed your 40/495 issue by saying that 495 is MORE reflective of a popular vote. That's true, regardless of what else you believe, I didn't say it made it fair.... because we haven't agreed on what 'fair' means.

I'll give YOU a hypothetical. Let's say you have 3 states rather than 50 for simplicity. one with 1mm people and the other two with 500,000 each.

Three scenarios.
the larger states split 60/40 for one guy, and the smaller states split 60/40 for the other.

By the popular vote, the sides are tied, but under our system, the guy who won 2 states would have 2 more electoral votes.

In my mind, that IS fair because the second candidate appealed to more people in more states. At just three, the impact of the states is very high.

I think it a good idea for us to want a president who not only appeals to 'a lot' of the people across the country, but ALSO is supported by a number of states.

That is the same idea behind the house having representation based on population and the Senate being based on just being States.

You are free to believe this somehow isn't fair, and of course there are hypotheticals where ANY scenario falls down... but I don't think you can demonstrate it factually beyond contestation. There are all sorts of hypotheticals under which ANY system can sound unfair.

Lose the game. Change the rules.

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

(11-12-2016 02:36 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Lose the game. Change the rules.

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

These young Liberals are not used to losing with getting a participation trophy.

Democrats now control only 13 state legislatures (26%). If they lose 1 more they fall below the % needed to stop constitutional amendments.

Per @marcportermagee's Tweet: https://twitter.com/marcportermagee/stat...79648?s=09

He has a map breaking it down

(11-12-2016 08:41 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Democrats now control only 13 state legislatures (26%). If they lose 1 more they fall below the % needed to stop constitutional amendments.

Per @marcportermagee's Tweet: https://twitter.com/marcportermagee/stat...79648?s=09

He has a map breaking it down

I hope then, that they don't lose one more... It should not be easy to amend the constitution.

(11-12-2016 08:58 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 08:41 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Democrats now control only 13 state legislatures (26%). If they lose 1 more they fall below the % needed to stop constitutional amendments.

Per @marcportermagee's Tweet: https://twitter.com/marcportermagee/stat...79648?s=09

He has a map breaking it down

I hope then, that they don't lose one more... It should not be easy to amend the constitution.

CT's General Assembly is dangerously close to falling into GOP hands. The State Senate is currently tied 18D-18R and the State House is +4 Dems (I believe). Our Governor is highly unpopular, although we stupidly re-elected him in 2014. He's allegedly not running for a 3rd term in 2018, so if he doesn't run the Dems may retake the majority in both Houses.