(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.

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.