(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry - but when you start with the snark, expect to get some back.

Telling you to actually gd read the base material is a 'snark'. Got it.

Quote:The perspective you're focusing on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for states' sovereignty/representation, right? Where as the perspective I focus on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for individuals' representation.

Why not ask whether the EC sufficiently accounts for gopher's representations? Since your predicate is to simply ignore what the original basis is, why not include every single fing grouping in the in the universe? But please, keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings.

Quote:You say that the US is a grouping of sovereigns and not a collection of voters, but inherently, each of those sovereigns is meant to represent a collection of voters. So it is a very short leap to take those voters into consideration of whether the current system is fair.

It is actually a very long leap when you actually consider the facts, and not rely a priori on what *you* wish. That is, as opposed to the written basis....

Quote:It has nothing to do with ignoring states' sovereignty, so stop saying that (no matter how often you do, it isn't true). It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC.

Lets just paraphrase this. 'Forget the facts, forget the rules, and forget the historical basis. When you do all of that my point makes perfect sense. Because its fair'. Sounds like pretty much every progressive argument I have heard in the last 25 years.

And once again your jumping around and highlighting 'take the short (actually really long) leap, ignore the actual basis of the concept, then ignore the actual historical wording of the concept in the then contemporaneous record of the implementation, and then base it all on one person's view of what is fair' sounds (once again) like a smashing good example of the differences between textualism and a respect for process and the liberal wet dream of 'it is what we want it to be based on the result being fair'.

It may be fair from a perspective that isnt (and currently shouldnt) be considered. My advice is to actually change it, as opposed to the liberal view of process of tapping the ruby slippers together three times, and say out loud 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair' and insto presto it happens.

this is our PRESIDENT!

talking about someone HE HIRED!!!!!

so embarrasing for America


  rsz_screenshot_20200129-082631.jpg (Size: 55.83 KB / Downloads: 118)

(01-29-2020 07:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry - but when you start with the snark, expect to get some back.

Telling you to actually gd read the base material is a 'snark'. Got it.

Quote:The perspective you're focusing on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for states' sovereignty/representation, right? Where as the perspective I focus on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for individuals' representation.

Why not ask whether the EC sufficiently accounts for gopher's representations? Since your predicate is to simply ignore what the original basis is, why not include every single fing grouping in the in the universe? But please, keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings.

Quote:You say that the US is a grouping of sovereigns and not a collection of voters, but inherently, each of those sovereigns is meant to represent a collection of voters. So it is a very short leap to take those voters into consideration of whether the current system is fair.

It is actually a very long leap when you actually consider the facts, and not rely a priori on what *you* wish. That is, as opposed to the written basis....

Quote:It has nothing to do with ignoring states' sovereignty, so stop saying that (no matter how often you do, it isn't true). It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC.

Lets just paraphrase this. 'Forget the facts, forget the rules, and forget the historical basis. When you do all of that my point makes perfect sense. Because its fair'. Sounds like pretty much every progressive argument I have heard in the last 25 years.

And once again your jumping around and highlighting 'take the short (actually really long) leap, ignore the actual basis of the concept, then ignore the actual historical wording of the concept in the then contemporaneous record of the implementation, and then base it all on one person's view of what is fair' sounds (once again) like a smashing good example of the differences between textualism and a respect for process and the liberal wet dream of 'it is what we want it to be based on the result being fair'.

It may be fair from a perspective that isnt (and currently shouldnt) be considered. My advice is to actually change it, as opposed to the liberal view of process of tapping the ruby slippers together three times, and say out loud 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair' and insto presto it happens.

Short answer: we ain’t talking gophers, because gophers aren’t citizens of the United States that have the right to vote.

(01-29-2020 09:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 07:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry - but when you start with the snark, expect to get some back.

Telling you to actually gd read the base material is a 'snark'. Got it.

Quote:The perspective you're focusing on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for states' sovereignty/representation, right? Where as the perspective I focus on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for individuals' representation.

Why not ask whether the EC sufficiently accounts for gopher's representations? Since your predicate is to simply ignore what the original basis is, why not include every single fing grouping in the in the universe? But please, keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings.

Quote:You say that the US is a grouping of sovereigns and not a collection of voters, but inherently, each of those sovereigns is meant to represent a collection of voters. So it is a very short leap to take those voters into consideration of whether the current system is fair.

It is actually a very long leap when you actually consider the facts, and not rely a priori on what *you* wish. That is, as opposed to the written basis....

Quote:It has nothing to do with ignoring states' sovereignty, so stop saying that (no matter how often you do, it isn't true). It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC.

Lets just paraphrase this. 'Forget the facts, forget the rules, and forget the historical basis. When you do all of that my point makes perfect sense. Because its fair'. Sounds like pretty much every progressive argument I have heard in the last 25 years.

And once again your jumping around and highlighting 'take the short (actually really long) leap, ignore the actual basis of the concept, then ignore the actual historical wording of the concept in the then contemporaneous record of the implementation, and then base it all on one person's view of what is fair' sounds (once again) like a smashing good example of the differences between textualism and a respect for process and the liberal wet dream of 'it is what we want it to be based on the result being fair'.

It may be fair from a perspective that isnt (and currently shouldnt) be considered. My advice is to actually change it, as opposed to the liberal view of process of tapping the ruby slippers together three times, and say out loud 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair' and insto presto it happens.

Short answer: we ain’t talking gophers, because gophers aren’t citizens of the United States that have the right to vote.

Gophers cannot present ID.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

C'mon, Lad, you know this discussion is not about voting rights of people vs. voting rights of rodents. You are engaging in the same oversimplification I am often accused of...sometimes by you.

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC, IMHO.

FIFY

You state an opinion as fact. The creators of the electoral college thought otherwise. Yours truly thinks otherwise.

(01-29-2020 09:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 07:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry - but when you start with the snark, expect to get some back.

Telling you to actually gd read the base material is a 'snark'. Got it.

Quote:The perspective you're focusing on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for states' sovereignty/representation, right? Where as the perspective I focus on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for individuals' representation.

Why not ask whether the EC sufficiently accounts for gopher's representations? Since your predicate is to simply ignore what the original basis is, why not include every single fing grouping in the in the universe? But please, keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings.

Quote:You say that the US is a grouping of sovereigns and not a collection of voters, but inherently, each of those sovereigns is meant to represent a collection of voters. So it is a very short leap to take those voters into consideration of whether the current system is fair.

It is actually a very long leap when you actually consider the facts, and not rely a priori on what *you* wish. That is, as opposed to the written basis....

Quote:It has nothing to do with ignoring states' sovereignty, so stop saying that (no matter how often you do, it isn't true). It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC.

Lets just paraphrase this. 'Forget the facts, forget the rules, and forget the historical basis. When you do all of that my point makes perfect sense. Because its fair'. Sounds like pretty much every progressive argument I have heard in the last 25 years.

And once again your jumping around and highlighting 'take the short (actually really long) leap, ignore the actual basis of the concept, then ignore the actual historical wording of the concept in the then contemporaneous record of the implementation, and then base it all on one person's view of what is fair' sounds (once again) like a smashing good example of the differences between textualism and a respect for process and the liberal wet dream of 'it is what we want it to be based on the result being fair'.

It may be fair from a perspective that isnt (and currently shouldnt) be considered. My advice is to actually change it, as opposed to the liberal view of process of tapping the ruby slippers together three times, and say out loud 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair' and insto presto it happens.

Short answer: we ain’t talking gophers, because gophers aren’t citizens of the United States that have the right to vote.

Short retort: you are decidedly ignoring other aspects on a selective basis, so no real need for you *not* to include gophers.

(01-29-2020 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC, IMHO and notwithstanding anything in the historical record and in the basis of power in the formation of the Federal Government, because, JUST because I think so

FIFY

You state an opinion as fact. The creators of the electoral college thought otherwise. Yours truly thinks otherwise.

Further clarified it in light of the record.

What a wonderful Constitutional discussion we are having. I think the sovereignty of the states comes up again in discussions of the Civil War and the motivations of the soldiers. I never had a discussion like this in any of my history classes at Rice.

Don't forget though, this started with a discussion of whether or not the voters elected Donald Trump.

In 2016, voters went to the polls, and the result was the election of Donald Trump.

The Democrats are afraid the result in 2020 will be the same, unless they can sway the votes of those voters by smearing Trump and his supporters through this impeachment. It is important to make Trump a one term President, they think.

End of story.

(01-29-2020 09:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 07:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry - but when you start with the snark, expect to get some back.

Telling you to actually gd read the base material is a 'snark'. Got it.

Quote:The perspective you're focusing on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for states' sovereignty/representation, right? Where as the perspective I focus on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for individuals' representation.

Why not ask whether the EC sufficiently accounts for gopher's representations? Since your predicate is to simply ignore what the original basis is, why not include every single fing grouping in the in the universe? But please, keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings.

Quote:You say that the US is a grouping of sovereigns and not a collection of voters, but inherently, each of those sovereigns is meant to represent a collection of voters. So it is a very short leap to take those voters into consideration of whether the current system is fair.

It is actually a very long leap when you actually consider the facts, and not rely a priori on what *you* wish. That is, as opposed to the written basis....

Quote:It has nothing to do with ignoring states' sovereignty, so stop saying that (no matter how often you do, it isn't true). It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC.

Lets just paraphrase this. 'Forget the facts, forget the rules, and forget the historical basis. When you do all of that my point makes perfect sense. Because its fair'. Sounds like pretty much every progressive argument I have heard in the last 25 years.

And once again your jumping around and highlighting 'take the short (actually really long) leap, ignore the actual basis of the concept, then ignore the actual historical wording of the concept in the then contemporaneous record of the implementation, and then base it all on one person's view of what is fair' sounds (once again) like a smashing good example of the differences between textualism and a respect for process and the liberal wet dream of 'it is what we want it to be based on the result being fair'.

It may be fair from a perspective that isnt (and currently shouldnt) be considered. My advice is to actually change it, as opposed to the liberal view of process of tapping the ruby slippers together three times, and say out loud 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair' and insto presto it happens.

Short answer: we ain’t talking gophers, because gophers aren’t citizens of the United States that have the right to vote.

After a quick think -- your own answer provides an insight into the issue.

My right to vote exists for President not as a citizen of the United States, but as a citizen of a particular state.

Same for Senate and House.

My right to vote is exclusive to the State of Texas, and through the State of Texas. The same goes for every eligible voter, no matter the state. In a few instances, the right is afforded through a territorial government and through that same territorial government.

Your statement of 'aren't citizens of the United States' suffer the fundamental construct problem that your original idea has. That is, just a really false premise.

(01-29-2020 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 07:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry - but when you start with the snark, expect to get some back.

Telling you to actually gd read the base material is a 'snark'. Got it.

Quote:The perspective you're focusing on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for states' sovereignty/representation, right? Where as the perspective I focus on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for individuals' representation.

Why not ask whether the EC sufficiently accounts for gopher's representations? Since your predicate is to simply ignore what the original basis is, why not include every single fing grouping in the in the universe? But please, keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings.

Quote:You say that the US is a grouping of sovereigns and not a collection of voters, but inherently, each of those sovereigns is meant to represent a collection of voters. So it is a very short leap to take those voters into consideration of whether the current system is fair.

It is actually a very long leap when you actually consider the facts, and not rely a priori on what *you* wish. That is, as opposed to the written basis....

Quote:It has nothing to do with ignoring states' sovereignty, so stop saying that (no matter how often you do, it isn't true). It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC.

Lets just paraphrase this. 'Forget the facts, forget the rules, and forget the historical basis. When you do all of that my point makes perfect sense. Because its fair'. Sounds like pretty much every progressive argument I have heard in the last 25 years.

And once again your jumping around and highlighting 'take the short (actually really long) leap, ignore the actual basis of the concept, then ignore the actual historical wording of the concept in the then contemporaneous record of the implementation, and then base it all on one person's view of what is fair' sounds (once again) like a smashing good example of the differences between textualism and a respect for process and the liberal wet dream of 'it is what we want it to be based on the result being fair'.

It may be fair from a perspective that isnt (and currently shouldnt) be considered. My advice is to actually change it, as opposed to the liberal view of process of tapping the ruby slippers together three times, and say out loud 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair' and insto presto it happens.

Short answer: we ain’t talking gophers, because gophers aren’t citizens of the United States that have the right to vote.

After a quick think -- your own answer provides an insight into the issue.

My right to vote exists for President not as a citizen of the United States, but as a citizen of a particular state.

Same for Senate and House.

My right to vote is exclusive to the State of Texas, and through the State of Texas. The same goes for every eligible voter, no matter the state. In a few instances, the right is afforded through a territorial government and through that same territorial government.

Your statement of 'aren't citizens of the United States' suffer the fundamental construct problem that your original idea has. That is, just a really false premise.

noncitizen voting

This link would tend to support that the right to vote is through states and municipalities.

There is a listing of places within the US that allow noncitizen voting. They tend to be in Democratic strongholds.

I see nothing that would allow those nasty conservatives to prevent gophers from voting. Gophers live here too. Stand up for gopher's rights!!!

(01-24-2020 01:21 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Trump successfully droned one of the biggest dirtbags on the planet. And he allowed the Iranians to save face with a retaliatory attack that blew up sand, and some tents.

34 US service members diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries after Iranian missile strike

So more damage to US service members than initially reported. I am still curious to see how this plays out in the coming months. I think it is still too early to judge by those of us without access to the relevant intelligence leading up to the Soleimani strike.

The number of US Service members diagnosed with some level of traumatic brain injury from the Iran missile strikes has increased to 50, 31 of whom have returned to duty. Not really clear how serious the injuries are to the other 19.

(01-29-2020 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 07:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry - but when you start with the snark, expect to get some back.

Telling you to actually gd read the base material is a 'snark'. Got it.

Quote:The perspective you're focusing on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for states' sovereignty/representation, right? Where as the perspective I focus on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for individuals' representation.

Why not ask whether the EC sufficiently accounts for gopher's representations? Since your predicate is to simply ignore what the original basis is, why not include every single fing grouping in the in the universe? But please, keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings.

Quote:You say that the US is a grouping of sovereigns and not a collection of voters, but inherently, each of those sovereigns is meant to represent a collection of voters. So it is a very short leap to take those voters into consideration of whether the current system is fair.

It is actually a very long leap when you actually consider the facts, and not rely a priori on what *you* wish. That is, as opposed to the written basis....

Quote:It has nothing to do with ignoring states' sovereignty, so stop saying that (no matter how often you do, it isn't true). It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC.

Lets just paraphrase this. 'Forget the facts, forget the rules, and forget the historical basis. When you do all of that my point makes perfect sense. Because its fair'. Sounds like pretty much every progressive argument I have heard in the last 25 years.

And once again your jumping around and highlighting 'take the short (actually really long) leap, ignore the actual basis of the concept, then ignore the actual historical wording of the concept in the then contemporaneous record of the implementation, and then base it all on one person's view of what is fair' sounds (once again) like a smashing good example of the differences between textualism and a respect for process and the liberal wet dream of 'it is what we want it to be based on the result being fair'.

It may be fair from a perspective that isnt (and currently shouldnt) be considered. My advice is to actually change it, as opposed to the liberal view of process of tapping the ruby slippers together three times, and say out loud 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair' and insto presto it happens.

Short answer: we ain’t talking gophers, because gophers aren’t citizens of the United States that have the right to vote.

Gophers cannot present ID.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

C'mon, Lad, you know this discussion is not about voting rights of people vs. voting rights of rodents. You are engaging in the same oversimplification I am often accused of...sometimes by you.

Seriously? I didn't bring rodents into this...

(01-29-2020 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 07:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry - but when you start with the snark, expect to get some back.

Telling you to actually gd read the base material is a 'snark'. Got it.

Quote:The perspective you're focusing on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for states' sovereignty/representation, right? Where as the perspective I focus on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for individuals' representation.

Why not ask whether the EC sufficiently accounts for gopher's representations? Since your predicate is to simply ignore what the original basis is, why not include every single fing grouping in the in the universe? But please, keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings.

Quote:You say that the US is a grouping of sovereigns and not a collection of voters, but inherently, each of those sovereigns is meant to represent a collection of voters. So it is a very short leap to take those voters into consideration of whether the current system is fair.

It is actually a very long leap when you actually consider the facts, and not rely a priori on what *you* wish. That is, as opposed to the written basis....

Quote:It has nothing to do with ignoring states' sovereignty, so stop saying that (no matter how often you do, it isn't true). It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC.

Lets just paraphrase this. 'Forget the facts, forget the rules, and forget the historical basis. When you do all of that my point makes perfect sense. Because its fair'. Sounds like pretty much every progressive argument I have heard in the last 25 years.

And once again your jumping around and highlighting 'take the short (actually really long) leap, ignore the actual basis of the concept, then ignore the actual historical wording of the concept in the then contemporaneous record of the implementation, and then base it all on one person's view of what is fair' sounds (once again) like a smashing good example of the differences between textualism and a respect for process and the liberal wet dream of 'it is what we want it to be based on the result being fair'.

It may be fair from a perspective that isnt (and currently shouldnt) be considered. My advice is to actually change it, as opposed to the liberal view of process of tapping the ruby slippers together three times, and say out loud 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair' and insto presto it happens.

Short answer: we ain’t talking gophers, because gophers aren’t citizens of the United States that have the right to vote.

Gophers cannot present ID.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

C'mon, Lad, you know this discussion is not about voting rights of people vs. voting rights of rodents. You are engaging in the same oversimplification I am often accused of...sometimes by you.

Seriously? I didn't bring rodents into this...

Wonderful misdirection. Nobody has said, to the best of my knowledge, that you did.

(01-29-2020 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC, IMHO.

FIFY

You state an opinion as fact. The creators of the electoral college thought otherwise. Yours truly thinks otherwise.

Does your comment mean the only reason the founders developed the EC was to maintain states' sovereignty?

(01-29-2020 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC, IMHO.

FIFY

You state an opinion as fact. The creators of the electoral college thought otherwise. Yours truly thinks otherwise.

Does your comment mean the only reason the founders developed the EC was to maintain states' sovereignty?

It was developed solely as the states exercising their sovereign power. It still is the states exercising their sovereign power. Just like exercising the sovereign power to amend the Constitution.

Considering it was developed solely for that exercise of the state sovereign power, i doesnt make a lick of sense that they developed it for the exercise of individual voting power, *except* in the sense that the electors so chosen cast a ballot.

I dont think it would be too smart to specifically delegate to a state the power to 'choose electors' for any other reason.

(01-29-2020 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC, IMHO.

FIFY

You state an opinion as fact. The creators of the electoral college thought otherwise. Yours truly thinks otherwise.

Does your comment mean the only reason the founders developed the EC was to maintain states' sovereignty?

The logic went in reverse of that expressed in your question. State sovereignty was a given. It was also a given that the states, not the federal government, conduct elections. From these principles the electoral college followed.

The electoral college is not a new idea in history, and it's not unusual for republics to use an electoral college or similar system. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is not directly elected, and those seem to work well enough, even in countries allegedly more "progressive" than the U.S.

(01-29-2020 12:27 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC, IMHO.

FIFY

You state an opinion as fact. The creators of the electoral college thought otherwise. Yours truly thinks otherwise.

Does your comment mean the only reason the founders developed the EC was to maintain states' sovereignty?

The logic went in reverse of that expressed in your question. State sovereignty was a given. It was also a given that the states, not the federal government, conduct elections. From these principles the electoral college followed.

The electoral college is not a new idea in history, and it's not unusual for republics to use an electoral college or similar system. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is not directly elected, and those seem to work well enough, even in countries allegedly more "progressive" than the U.S.

I don't get how this response relates to the start of this thread.

You started this line of comments because you said that the founding fathers thought otherwise that other considerations, besides state sovereignty, should be considered when discussing the EC.

Two things - you're 100% correct that me stating an opinion is, in fact, my opinion (I didn't think that IMO was necessary).

Second, you avoided my question about whether the founding fathers considered anything else besides state sovereignty when adopting the EC. Because your bolded statement makes it seems like you don't think they did. And I specifically asked this because the founding fathers very clearly did think about more than state sovereignty when creating the EC, because some were very specific as to why they wanted electors selected the way they did - most notably, Hamilton (IIRC) argued for the EC as a way for the more intelligent people (the electors) to protect the country from a bad POTUS chosen by the less intelligent people (the population). Basically, to avoid the mob rule as you mentioned earlier.

I've never argued to ignore the issue of states' sovereignty, but rather, it's not the be all, end all, of the EC.

(01-29-2020 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:27 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC, IMHO.

FIFY

You state an opinion as fact. The creators of the electoral college thought otherwise. Yours truly thinks otherwise.

Does your comment mean the only reason the founders developed the EC was to maintain states' sovereignty?

The logic went in reverse of that expressed in your question. State sovereignty was a given. It was also a given that the states, not the federal government, conduct elections. From these principles the electoral college followed.

The electoral college is not a new idea in history, and it's not unusual for republics to use an electoral college or similar system. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is not directly elected, and those seem to work well enough, even in countries allegedly more "progressive" than the U.S.

I don't get how this response relates to the start of this thread.

You started this line of comments because you said that the founding fathers thought otherwise that other considerations, besides state sovereignty, should be considered when discussing the EC.

Two things - you're 100% correct that me stating an opinion is, in fact, my opinion (I didn't think that IMO was necessary).

Second, you avoided my question about whether the founding fathers considered anything else besides state sovereignty when adopting the EC. Because your bolded statement makes it seems like you don't think they did. And I specifically asked this because the founding fathers very clearly did think about more than state sovereignty when creating the EC, because some were very specific as to why they wanted electors selected the way they did - most notably, Hamilton (IIRC) argued for the EC as a way for the more intelligent people (the electors) to protect the country from a bad POTUS chosen by the less intelligent people (the population). Basically, to avoid the mob rule as you mentioned earlier.

I've never argued to ignore the issue of states' sovereignty, but rather, it's not the be all, end all, of the EC.

It was all related to state sovereignty. Hamilton argued for giving the states, and and not the mob, the ability to elect the president - but the point - and the relevant historical outcome - was state-run elections of the electors. If not direct election by the mob, the alternative was state-generated electors. All of this was in the context of state sovereignty as established fact. Hamilton et. al. saw mob rule as a threat - and to what? State sovereignty, among other things.

I'm not really sure what your point is. My point - however much you parse the details - is that the electoral college and state sovereignty are related and interdependent concepts. You seem to believe you score points if you can find some ancillary reason why an electoral college is a good idea, but state sovereignty is the fundamental and basic reason that trumps all others.

(01-29-2020 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:27 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC, IMHO.

FIFY

You state an opinion as fact. The creators of the electoral college thought otherwise. Yours truly thinks otherwise.

Does your comment mean the only reason the founders developed the EC was to maintain states' sovereignty?

The logic went in reverse of that expressed in your question. State sovereignty was a given. It was also a given that the states, not the federal government, conduct elections. From these principles the electoral college followed.

The electoral college is not a new idea in history, and it's not unusual for republics to use an electoral college or similar system. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is not directly elected, and those seem to work well enough, even in countries allegedly more "progressive" than the U.S.

I don't get how this response relates to the start of this thread.

You started this line of comments because you said that the founding fathers thought otherwise that other considerations, besides state sovereignty, should be considered when discussing the EC.

Two things - you're 100% correct that me stating an opinion is, in fact, my opinion (I didn't think that IMO was necessary).

Second, you avoided my question about whether the founding fathers considered anything else besides state sovereignty when adopting the EC. Because your bolded statement makes it seems like you don't think they did. And I specifically asked this because the founding fathers very clearly did think about more than state sovereignty when creating the EC, because some were very specific as to why they wanted electors selected the way they did - most notably, Hamilton (IIRC) argued for the EC as a way for the more intelligent people (the electors) to protect the country from a bad POTUS chosen by the less intelligent people (the population). Basically, to avoid the mob rule as you mentioned earlier.

I've never argued to ignore the issue of states' sovereignty, but rather, it's not the be all, end all, of the EC.

Actually it is, notwithstanding your continuous thrashing on it.

(01-29-2020 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 07:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry - but when you start with the snark, expect to get some back.

Telling you to actually gd read the base material is a 'snark'. Got it.

Quote:The perspective you're focusing on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for states' sovereignty/representation, right? Where as the perspective I focus on is whether or not the EC sufficiently accounts for individuals' representation.

Why not ask whether the EC sufficiently accounts for gopher's representations? Since your predicate is to simply ignore what the original basis is, why not include every single fing grouping in the in the universe? But please, keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings.

Quote:You say that the US is a grouping of sovereigns and not a collection of voters, but inherently, each of those sovereigns is meant to represent a collection of voters. So it is a very short leap to take those voters into consideration of whether the current system is fair.

It is actually a very long leap when you actually consider the facts, and not rely a priori on what *you* wish. That is, as opposed to the written basis....

Quote:It has nothing to do with ignoring states' sovereignty, so stop saying that (no matter how often you do, it isn't true). It's about recognizing that other considerations besides states' sovereignty should be considered when discussing the merits of the EC.

Lets just paraphrase this. 'Forget the facts, forget the rules, and forget the historical basis. When you do all of that my point makes perfect sense. Because its fair'. Sounds like pretty much every progressive argument I have heard in the last 25 years.

And once again your jumping around and highlighting 'take the short (actually really long) leap, ignore the actual basis of the concept, then ignore the actual historical wording of the concept in the then contemporaneous record of the implementation, and then base it all on one person's view of what is fair' sounds (once again) like a smashing good example of the differences between textualism and a respect for process and the liberal wet dream of 'it is what we want it to be based on the result being fair'.

It may be fair from a perspective that isnt (and currently shouldnt) be considered. My advice is to actually change it, as opposed to the liberal view of process of tapping the ruby slippers together three times, and say out loud 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair', 'because it is fair' and insto presto it happens.

Short answer: we ain’t talking gophers, because gophers aren’t citizens of the United States that have the right to vote.

After a quick think -- your own answer provides an insight into the issue.

My right to vote exists for President not as a citizen of the United States, but as a citizen of a particular state.

Same for Senate and House.

My right to vote is exclusive to the State of Texas, and through the State of Texas. The same goes for every eligible voter, no matter the state. In a few instances, the right is afforded through a territorial government and through that same territorial government.

Your statement of 'aren't citizens of the United States' suffer the fundamental construct problem that your original idea has. That is, just a really false premise.

To the bolded, yes, there is no question that the right to voter for POTUS exists through the state, BUT, that is intrinsically tied to being a US citizen.

Your right to vote for POTUS starts with your ability to claim citizenship in the United States. And that's proven by the fact that many states allow non-resident aliens and other foreigners to vote in state or local elections, but those same voters are barred in federal elections.

So if you don't pass that first hurdle of being a US citizen, you cannot vote for POTUS, even if you reside in the state.

But yes, once you pass that hurdle, then the states take over. We see with US citizens in territories like Puerto Rico (which isn't a state), don't have voting rights in federal elections.

So it's more interconnected than the bolded makes it sound, and why I believe any evaluation of the EC should be evaluating more than just the effective on state sovereignty.