(01-28-2020 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:11 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  "Imbalance" is your word, and it's interesting because it betrays your mindset. The framers of the system saw it exactly the opposite - they considered the representation in the Senate as balanced.

The Senate is inherently balanced and imbalanced at the same time. It is balanced from a states rights' perspective,

Riddle me this -- where does the sovereign power of the United States flow from?

Quote:Since we were talking about individual representation, it made sense to describe it as imbalanced.

The Senate has zero to do with individual representation. Oh well....

Quote:I fully admit I could be wrong, but I would be SHOCKED if the founders felt that the Senate itself was perfectly balanced. My understanding is that some of the goals of the Senate being organized as it is, was to protect states' right and provide a way to balance the House's proportional nature.

It was felt as that. The Founders all felt that the Senate was the means for the states as individual sovereigns to have a voice in the government. I suggest you read some Federalist papers.

And it retains its composition in the present day for pretty much that same reason. As I noted previously, only when you want to take a giant piss on the concept of Federalism and the issue of state sovereignty does one argue against the Senate or the EV methodology.

When have I ever argued against the Senate methodology?

Seriously Tanq, when have I?

How about actually responding to my arguments, as opposed to what you want me to be arguing? You can't actually do that, because then you wouldn't be able to act high and mighty and feel far superior to the progressive that you think I am.

I mean, I haven't even argued against the electoral college - I've simply pointed out its flaws. Oddly enough, you think that means I am against it (when, guess what, I'm not!).

lad, to be blunt both Frizz and I were noting the originalistic source of the Senate. You kept noting the 'imbalance', then tried to dance your way out of it by denoting 'since we were talking about the individual voter's perspective.'

No, we were not. From the outset both Frizz and I have stated the original underpinings of the Senate --- which leads directly to the numbers and indirectly to the EV issue. Not once have Frizz or I discussed the 'mod' idea that the Senate is a source of individual representation --- you have.

Woh, I've never stated that the Senate is a source of individual representation. Not once.

This whole conversation was started when discussing the EC and its lack of direct representation (hence why the Senate's similar lack was relevant). The original underpinings of the Senate was not how this conversation started.

Quote:Perhaps you should change your stance to 'since [I, lad, and not we,] were talking about the individual voter's perspective' your comment would be more on point. But you kind of took a giant jump into that when you stated that the 'how and why the system evolved as such' means..... ZILCH.

See above - this whole conversation started with discussing the EC and how presidential elections do not directly represent the will of the people, but rather, the will of the electoral college.

And I didn't say the origins mean ZILCH, I said they mean ZILCH in relation to whether the system is currently fair. Big difference.

Maybe try and keep up with the conversation?

Quote:As for your stance on EV, considering that your description of and your explanation with 'basic math' seemingly all contain very unqualified comments on it not being fair. Only at the end, in the last two posts have you made it known that you in fact back the EV system. From your spirited defense of the 'fairness' issue, pardon my misinterpretation.

Also, considering your ascribed worth to the construct we put forward as meaning 'ZILCH with respect to the fairness' (or somefink in that vein), that again would be a clue to you not being a particular fan of it. Again, my apologies.

I appreciate the apology, and do understand why you felt you could jump to that conclusion.

The spirited defense more came down to the fact that very common and valid critiques of the EC were dismissed as being factually incorrect.

edit: to try and expand a bit on the Zilch business. If we only evaluated fairness in today's world through the eyes of the founders and their intentions, we would be arguing that inherently unfair things, that the 3/5 compromise was fair in today's world. We should understand what the founding principles were for our governing documents, but recognize that they may no longer be fair or just in today's world.