(01-29-2020 01:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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.

(01-29-2020 01:10 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Quote:It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

(01-29-2020 01:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

(01-29-2020 07:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Telling you to actually gd read the base material is a 'snark'. Got it.


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.


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....


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.

Have fun with that 'scholarship' lad.

Kind of fing hard to get past the first hurdle: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors"

Knock yourself out making **** up.

(01-29-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:10 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Hamilton argued for giving the electors, not the states, the ability to elect the president.

Quote:It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

My point initial point is simple - there is more to the EC than just state sovereignty.

No matter how foundational you feel state sovereignty was (and I agree it was foundational), there is sufficient evidence that other considerations were very important in develop the EC today. So when we discuss pros/cons or modifications to the EC, it isn't irrelevant to discuss them in relation to concepts outside of state sovereignty - yet I have been basically told that this type of conversation isn't allowed.

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

All republics that aren't conquered first end in tyranny and/or revolt against the central government, and that will be the end of the U.S. too. I'd rather that be later than sooner. Well-intentioned dismantling of the checks against centralization of power hasten that process. That's where I'm coming from. The longer the states can prolong their losing battle against federal overreach, the longer the U.S. will exist. I find it frustrating that "progressives" see the barriers to centralization as quaint inconveniences that inhibit their ability to reshape society into their ideal.

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

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

All republics that aren't conquered first end in tyranny and/or revolt against the central government, and that will be the end of the U.S. too. I'd rather that be later than sooner. Well-intentioned dismantling of the checks against centralization of power hasten that process. That's where I'm coming from. The longer the states can prolong their losing battle against federal overreach, the longer the U.S. will exist. I find it frustrating that "progressives" see the barriers to centralization as quaint inconveniences that inhibit their ability to reshape society into their ideal.

I understand that perspective and think that it's pretty compelling, especially in a country this large and diverse.

Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

That doesn't mean we need to change directly to a proportional voting system, but we should at least be able to recognize that this is an issue inherent to the EC. Yet for some reason, me just bringing up this line of discussion cause you and Tanq to get rather worked up.

(01-29-2020 01:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

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

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

All republics that aren't conquered first end in tyranny and/or revolt against the central government, and that will be the end of the U.S. too. I'd rather that be later than sooner. Well-intentioned dismantling of the checks against centralization of power hasten that process. That's where I'm coming from. The longer the states can prolong their losing battle against federal overreach, the longer the U.S. will exist. I find it frustrating that "progressives" see the barriers to centralization as quaint inconveniences that inhibit their ability to reshape society into their ideal.

I understand that perspective and think that it's pretty compelling, especially in a country this large and diverse.

Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

That doesn't mean we need to change directly to a proportional voting system, but we should at least be able to recognize that this is an issue inherent to the EC. Yet for some reason, me just bringing up this line of discussion cause you and Tanq to get rather worked up.

The openly-stated political goal of people actively campaigning for change is abolishment of the electoral college, not modification. When that's the ultimate goal, steps in that direction are concerning.

(01-29-2020 02:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

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

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frizz - even more fundamental is my argument that the original intent of any legislation should not be the be all, end all, of how it is evaluated. It should be considered, no doubt.

But not only do times and places change, sometimes rendering the original intention moot, but there are sometimes unforeseen consequences and results that begin to outweight the benefits of the legislation and the original intent.

So that's why, when I argued that we should consider the EC's impacts on the voice of US citizens, I find it frustrating when you and the other conservatives loudly shout "NO" and say that states' sovereignty is what matters.

All republics that aren't conquered first end in tyranny and/or revolt against the central government, and that will be the end of the U.S. too. I'd rather that be later than sooner. Well-intentioned dismantling of the checks against centralization of power hasten that process. That's where I'm coming from. The longer the states can prolong their losing battle against federal overreach, the longer the U.S. will exist. I find it frustrating that "progressives" see the barriers to centralization as quaint inconveniences that inhibit their ability to reshape society into their ideal.

I understand that perspective and think that it's pretty compelling, especially in a country this large and diverse.

Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

That doesn't mean we need to change directly to a proportional voting system, but we should at least be able to recognize that this is an issue inherent to the EC. Yet for some reason, me just bringing up this line of discussion cause you and Tanq to get rather worked up.

The openly-stated political goal of people actively campaigning for change is abolishment of the electoral college, not modification. When that's the ultimate goal, steps in that direction are concerning.

I must have missed the post where we were talking about these people.

This all started with posts that referenced the pros and cons of the EC, not what the political goal of people campaigning to abolish the EC is. I mean, I don't even want to get rid of the EC. I just found the incessant need by some to avoid admitting that there are cons to the current EC.

(01-29-2020 02:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

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

(01-29-2020 01:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  All republics that aren't conquered first end in tyranny and/or revolt against the central government, and that will be the end of the U.S. too. I'd rather that be later than sooner. Well-intentioned dismantling of the checks against centralization of power hasten that process. That's where I'm coming from. The longer the states can prolong their losing battle against federal overreach, the longer the U.S. will exist. I find it frustrating that "progressives" see the barriers to centralization as quaint inconveniences that inhibit their ability to reshape society into their ideal.

I understand that perspective and think that it's pretty compelling, especially in a country this large and diverse.

Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

That doesn't mean we need to change directly to a proportional voting system, but we should at least be able to recognize that this is an issue inherent to the EC. Yet for some reason, me just bringing up this line of discussion cause you and Tanq to get rather worked up.

The openly-stated political goal of people actively campaigning for change is abolishment of the electoral college, not modification. When that's the ultimate goal, steps in that direction are concerning.

I must have missed the post where we were talking about these people.

This all started with posts that referenced the pros and cons of the EC, not what the political goal of people campaigning to abolish the EC is. I mean, I don't even want to get rid of the EC. I just found the incessant need by some to avoid admitting that there are cons to the current EC.

There are pros and cons to oxygen being present in the atmosphere. I don't give the cons equal weight.

(01-29-2020 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand that perspective and think that it's pretty compelling, especially in a country this large and diverse.

Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

That doesn't mean we need to change directly to a proportional voting system, but we should at least be able to recognize that this is an issue inherent to the EC. Yet for some reason, me just bringing up this line of discussion cause you and Tanq to get rather worked up.

The openly-stated political goal of people actively campaigning for change is abolishment of the electoral college, not modification. When that's the ultimate goal, steps in that direction are concerning.

I must have missed the post where we were talking about these people.

This all started with posts that referenced the pros and cons of the EC, not what the political goal of people campaigning to abolish the EC is. I mean, I don't even want to get rid of the EC. I just found the incessant need by some to avoid admitting that there are cons to the current EC.

There are pros and cons to oxygen being present in the atmosphere. I don't give the cons equal weight.

A discussion starts about oxygen and whether or not we should store cylinders of it in a hospital for use.

Person A says that we often need to use it for patients, so we should have it on hand. Person B says, you're right, but it is also flammable so we may want to consider storing it off site. Person A then says it doesn't matter if oxygen is flammable because it will eventually be used to serve patients, and that is the most important issue to consider.

(01-27-2020 06:27 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 06:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  7 Maybe then they will leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters.

7 - they did this in 2016 and the voters gave Clinton 2.9 million more votes. most likely the 2024 election will still be in the hands of the electors from the electoral college who are elected by the voters, rather than the voters directly electing the president.

I gotta call you out on this one...


The electoral college isn't the will of the voters is only true if those are the rules under which votes are cast.

I don't see how you are calling me out.

(01-27-2020 06:27 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 06:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  7 Maybe then they will leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters.

7 - they did this in 2016 and the voters gave Clinton 2.9 million more votes. most likely the 2024 election will still be in the hands of the electors from the electoral college who are elected by the voters, rather than the voters directly electing the president.

I gotta call you out on this one...


The electoral college isn't the will of the voters is only true if those are the rules under which votes are cast.

I don't see how you are calling me out.

(01-29-2020 02:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The openly-stated political goal of people actively campaigning for change is abolishment of the electoral college, not modification. When that's the ultimate goal, steps in that direction are concerning.

I must have missed the post where we were talking about these people.

This all started with posts that referenced the pros and cons of the EC, not what the political goal of people campaigning to abolish the EC is. I mean, I don't even want to get rid of the EC. I just found the incessant need by some to avoid admitting that there are cons to the current EC.

There are pros and cons to oxygen being present in the atmosphere. I don't give the cons equal weight.

A discussion starts about oxygen and whether or not we should store cylinders of it in a hospital for use.

Person A says that we often need to use it for patients, so we should have it on hand. Person B says, you're right, but it is also flammable so we may want to consider storing it off site. Person A then says it doesn't matter if oxygen is flammable because it will eventually be used to serve patients, and that is the most important issue to consider.

Not following. Without oxygen, the disadvantages of it in the atmosphere would be moot, was my analogy.

Also, oxygen isn't flammable

(01-29-2020 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 06:27 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 06:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  7 Maybe then they will leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters.

7 - they did this in 2016 and the voters gave Clinton 2.9 million more votes. most likely the 2024 election will still be in the hands of the electors from the electoral college who are elected by the voters, rather than the voters directly electing the president.

I gotta call you out on this one...


The electoral college isn't the will of the voters is only true if those are the rules under which votes are cast.

I don't see how you are calling me out.

See the bold

Because the results of the 'popular vote' that you are referencing assume rules that were not in place at the time... that literally nobody voted based on understanding the rules in place and people merely voted for their preferred candidate.

I was in California at the time and I remember people literally scouring the streets telling people that despite the fact that Trump had already unexpectedly won key states and was going to win, that 'there was a chance' (lawsuits, challenges etc).

Had Hillary actually won those states but by a close margin, it's entirely possible that 3mm Hillary voters in California stay home that night because it's sewn up.

You're implying that under set of rules a) these were the results....
and they would be the same under set of rules b).

I'm saying they could have been very measurably different.

(01-29-2020 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Personally, I think the EC is a pretty good system for electing POTUS, but not one without its faults. One of those faults is that it weights votes differently based on what state you reside in, and I can see a situation where that swings to far and becomes inherently unfair for those living in an overly populous state, as their presidential votes become watered down.

(01-29-2020 03:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 06:27 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 06:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  7 - they did this in 2016 and the voters gave Clinton 2.9 million more votes. most likely the 2024 election will still be in the hands of the electors from the electoral college who are elected by the voters, rather than the voters directly electing the president.

I gotta call you out on this one...


The electoral college isn't the will of the voters is only true if those are the rules under which votes are cast.

I don't see how you are calling me out.

See the bold

Because the results of the 'popular vote' that you are referencing assume rules that were not in place at the time... that literally nobody voted based on understanding the rules in place and people merely voted for their preferred candidate.

I was in California at the time and I remember people literally scouring the streets telling people that despite the fact that Trump had already unexpectedly won key states and was going to win, that 'there was a chance' (lawsuits, challenges etc).

Had Hillary actually won those states but by a close margin, it's entirely possible that 3mm Hillary voters in California stay home that night because it's sewn up.

You're implying that under set of rules a) these were the results....
and they would be the same under set of rules b).

I'm saying they could have been very measurably different.

I was just stating facts, nothing else. You decided to interpret my statement of fact to mean that I was expressing an opinion about something and chose to respond to my unstated opinion. That is your perogative, but I didn't really want to get into an electoral college discussion. I was just explaining why I disagreed with each sentence in that post by OO. In that case, I disagreed because the president is elected by the electors in the electoral college, not directly elected by the voters. You seem to agree with me so I'm not sure how you are "calling me out". But whatever, I really don't feel engaged or care much about this discussion right now and reading through the posts is a bit tedious.

(01-29-2020 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Wow, I'm really confused by this response. Not the words, but the tone. Maybe 'calling someone out' is more aggressive than I intended for it to be and you're hearing something I'm not saying.

(01-29-2020 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm only making the same sort of clear technical distinction that you seem to think you are. My whole point here has been to try and take emotion out of the equation among 'friends'.

(01-29-2020 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That certainly seems to imply to me that you think that at least on some level, 'the hands of the voters' elected Hillary by 2.9 million votes.

(01-29-2020 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If I've misrepresented your comments, I will apologize as that was not my intention. I simply latched on to this comment because many people make it (so perhaps I DID misinterpret you) and they're wrong.