(01-28-2020 11:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because that is the way the system was designed and is intended to work.

Yes ... yes it is. Which is my exact point. Which is why it is incorrect to say the voters elected Trump, which is what OO initially wrote.

I'm not sure of the state laws in each state preventing faithless electors. But if every state changed their laws to allow faithless electors, under the Constitutional it is hypothetically possible for Trump to win 538 (100% !!!) of the electoral votes in 2020 with 65% of the popular vote and receive 0% of the electors with 100% of the electors voting for Faith Spotted Eagle. Or me. Or you. Or OO.

That is the system in the constitution and the system is decidedly and intentionally NOT that the voters elected Trump in 2016. Which is the only point I made. Yet the conservatives keep misconstruing my point to suggest that I was making some value judgment about the EC. And then the progressives jumped in with arguments. Maybe we should make a different thread for this...

(01-28-2020 11:11 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  California also has more Representatives than Nebraska to even out the imbalance from the Senate.

"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, but imbalanced from a population perspective. It doesn't betray my mindset - it means I can fairly look at the organization of this portion of the legislative branch and discuss it, in the current context. Since we were talking about individual representation, it made sense to describe it as imbalanced.

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.

Quote:And do you consider every single first past the post election to be mob rule? So all Senate and House elections are also mob rule?

Worth pointing out that originally senators were not directly elected. The direct representation was fragmented across many Congressional districts, so it was not possible for a "mob" to be a coherent mass of any more than a few hundred thousand people localized to one region.
[/quote]

Ok - but that says nothing about any other election, or current elections.

So do you consider every single first past the post election in 2020 to be mob rule? So all Senate and House elections in 2020 are also mob rule?

(01-28-2020 11:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because that is the way the system was designed and is intended to work.

Yes ... yes it is. Which is my exact point. Which is why it is incorrect to say the voters elected Trump, which is what OO initially wrote.
I'm not sure of the state laws in each state preventing faithless electors. But if every state changed their laws to allow faithless electors, under the Constitutional it is hypothetically possible for Trump to win 538 (100% !!!) of the electoral votes in 2020 with 65% of the popular vote and receive 0% of the electors with 100% of the electors voting for Faith Spotted Eagle. Or me. Or you. Or OO.
That is the system in the constitution and the system is decidedly and intentionally NOT that the voters elected Trump in 2016. Which is the only point I made. Yet the conservatives keep misconstruing my point to suggest that I was making some value judgment about the EC. And then the progressives jumped in with arguments. Maybe we should make a different thread for this...

Voter elect electors, and electors elect the president. That was intentional from the start. So if you don't like it, change the system. You've had 233 years.

Here is the progressive viewpoint of fair voting in an analogy.

Let the United States be a corporation.

USCO has 50 shareholders, all of themselves another company.

The shareholder agreement says 'each shareholder gets one set piece of the pie, plus added pieces based upon the number of pieces of the pie'

Prog thinks it is only 'unfair' that CalCo, who has 40 shareholders and gets 55 profit points, is treated differently than MontCo, who has 1 shareholder and has 3 profit points.

Prog also somehow thinks profits should be distributed to every indirect shareholder on pro rata basis. He somehow thinks the indirect ownership should be regarded as full ownership with dilution.

(01-28-2020 11:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:58 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think awarding one elector to the top vote getter in each Congressional District plus two based on statewide results could be a compromise. You still would have candidates screaming about not getting more votes because they won District 1 by 80,000 votes and lost in District two by 7,000.

I think this is a great idea OOwl. Nebraska and Maine actually allocate their electoral votes this way already. In 2008, Nebraska's 2nd district sent a single electoral vote to Obama.

Allocating electoral votes by congressional district would be insane and encourage gerrymandering even more.

My proposal if we want to avoid a true popular vote (which would require a constitutional amendment) would be to have electors allocated by proportion of popular vote each candidate receives in a state with the 2 bonus electors (representing the senators) going to the candidate who received a plurality. Not sure if it would help or hurt either party, but it would at least force presidential candidates to campaign in every state and speak to issues that matter to the voters in every state. The current system encourages the candidates to only go to 10 or fewer states.

I think "insane" is way too strong of a word, but it true that any system will have its pluses and minuses, and increased gerrymandering is one of the minuses of this plan. Of course, we are talking about currently gerrymandered districts.

I just want to remind you that gerrymandering is something done by both parties. When Democrats get control, they gerrymander in their favor. When Republicans gain control, they gerrymander in their favor. This is not 'good" party vs. "bad" party. The solution, of course, is to win the statehouse elections. Elections have consequences, I have heard.

(01-28-2020 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because that is the way the system was designed and is intended to work.

Yes ... yes it is. Which is my exact point. Which is why it is incorrect to say the voters elected Trump, which is what OO initially wrote.
I'm not sure of the state laws in each state preventing faithless electors. But if every state changed their laws to allow faithless electors, under the Constitutional it is hypothetically possible for Trump to win 538 (100% !!!) of the electoral votes in 2020 with 65% of the popular vote and receive 0% of the electors with 100% of the electors voting for Faith Spotted Eagle. Or me. Or you. Or OO.
That is the system in the constitution and the system is decidedly and intentionally NOT that the voters elected Trump in 2016. Which is the only point I made. Yet the conservatives keep misconstruing my point to suggest that I was making some value judgment about the EC. And then the progressives jumped in with arguments. Maybe we should make a different thread for this...

So if you don't like it, chance the system. You've had 233 years.

What the heck dude. That post makes no value judgments about the EC system and says nothing about changing the system. I don't say whether I like it or don't like it. All I say is that the voters don't elect the president, the electors elect the president. Do you agree or disagree? Does OO agree or disagree? That's all I wrote.

Also, I'm almost 41. Explain to me how I've had 233 years to change anything.

(01-28-2020 11:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because that is the way the system was designed and is intended to work.

Yes ... yes it is. Which is my exact point. Which is why it is incorrect to say the voters elected Trump, which is what OO initially wrote.

I'm not sure of the state laws in each state preventing faithless electors. But if every state changed their laws to allow faithless electors, under the Constitutional it is hypothetically possible for Trump to win 538 (100% !!!) of the electoral votes in 2020 with 65% of the popular vote and receive 0% of the electors with 100% of the electors voting for Faith Spotted Eagle. Or me. Or you. Or OO.

That is the system in the constitution and the system is decidedly and intentionally NOT that the voters elected Trump in 2016. Which is the only point I made. Yet the conservatives keep misconstruing my point to suggest that I was making some value judgment about the EC. And then the progressives jumped in with arguments. Maybe we should make a different thread for this...

To be clear, I'm not really trying to make a compelling argument for or against the EC.

I understand both sides of the coin, and get a bit frustrated when one side doesn't understand why some people disagree with the EC deciding presidential elections. It often seems as if people ascribe someone's personal opinion to their evaluation of a situation or discussion of it.

(01-28-2020 11:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Because that is the way the system was designed and is intended to work.

Yes ... yes it is. Which is my exact point. Which is why it is incorrect to say the voters elected Trump, which is what OO initially wrote.

I'm not sure of the state laws in each state preventing faithless electors. But if every state changed their laws to allow faithless electors, under the Constitutional it is hypothetically possible for Trump to win 538 (100% !!!) of the electoral votes in 2020 with 65% of the popular vote and receive 0% of the electors with 100% of the electors voting for Faith Spotted Eagle. Or me. Or you. Or OO.

That is the system in the constitution and the system is decidedly and intentionally NOT that the voters elected Trump in 2016. Which is the only point I made. Yet the conservatives keep misconstruing my point to suggest that I was making some value judgment about the EC. And then the progressives jumped in with arguments. Maybe we should make a different thread for this...

I am withdrawing my name from consideration. I am too old, even though three of the Democratic candidates would disagree.

So, if every voter stayed home, who would have won?

(01-28-2020 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Voter elect electors, and electors elect the president. That was intentional from the start.

So you agree with what I initially wrote!

(01-28-2020 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So if you don't like it, change the system. You've had 233 years.

I did not start this part of the discussion and it was completely separate from my initial point. SO leave me alone

(01-28-2020 11:08 AM)mrbig Wrote:  My proposal if we want to avoid a true popular vote (which would require a constitutional amendment) would be to have electors allocated by proportion of popular vote each candidate receives in a state with the 2 bonus electors (representing the senators) going to the candidate who received a plurality. Not sure if it would help or hurt either party, but it would at least force presidential candidates to campaign in every state and speak to issues that matter to the voters in every state. The current system encourages the candidates to only go to 10 or fewer states.

I like this idea. Under it, GWB would probably have won in 2000, and Trump in 2016, because they carried a larger number of states, and that differential would outweigh the popular vote differential.

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

(01-28-2020 11:11 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  California also has more Representatives than Nebraska to even out the imbalance from the Senate.

"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, but imbalanced from a population perspective. It doesn't betray my mindset - it means I can fairly look at the organization of this portion of the legislative branch and discuss it, in the current context. Since we were talking about individual representation, it made sense to describe it as imbalanced.

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.

Quote:And do you consider every single first past the post election to be mob rule? So all Senate and House elections are also mob rule?

Worth pointing out that originally senators were not directly elected. The direct representation was fragmented across many Congressional districts, so it was not possible for a "mob" to be a coherent mass of any more than a few hundred thousand people localized to one region.

Ok - but that says nothing about any other election, or current elections.

So do you consider every single first past the post election in 2020 to be mob rule? So all Senate and House elections in 2020 are also mob rule?
[/quote]

Senate elections tend toward mob rule, yes, especially in larger states. I do not favor direct elections of Senators. The change in how Senators are elected has fundamentally altered their priorities, in a bad way. They are no longer concerned about the best interests of their states and long-term consequences of their vote, but must focus on pandering to the masses in order to get re-elected.

I already clearly explained my reasoning on House elections. From the high-level, Federal perspective - and that's where Representatives exercise their power - they do not practice mob rule because they mob that backs a given Representative is relatively small.

(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.

(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!).

(01-28-2020 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I suggest you read some Federalist papers.

Sarcasm for the win.


edit - I know that wasn't directed at me. I still find the sarcasm and belittling of others to be off-putting. Sorry, I'm a nice guy who is finishing last.

(01-28-2020 11:51 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I suggest you read some Federalist papers.

Sarcasm for the win.


edit - I know that wasn't directed at me. I still find the sarcasm and belittling of others to be off-putting. Sorry, I'm a nice guy who is finishing last.

Well.... he stated something that was just plain wrong. At least there is a citation to the source of why he was wrong.

(01-28-2020 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:51 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I suggest you read some Federalist papers.

Sarcasm for the win.


edit - I know that wasn't directed at me. I still find the sarcasm and belittling of others to be off-putting. Sorry, I'm a nice guy who is finishing last.

Well.... he stated something that was just plain wrong. At least there is a citation to the source of why he was wrong.

I'm not clear on what was "plain wrong" as you put it.

I mentioned that the Senate was created to protect state's rights as well as balance the more direct representation provided by the House.

Those are both "plain wrong" as you put it?

(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.

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.

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.

(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.

(01-28-2020 01:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I read that, and didnt properly paraphrase.

It is still a stupid idea because the US is still a grouping of sovereigns; not a collection of individual voters. I made that point then, and again here. Its only when you ignore the source of the power of the United States does your paean to 'fair' make sense. Please go ahead and do that.

I was too lazy to quote everything you say verbatim so you jump down the fing nitpick trail (once again).

Quote:Maybe try and keep up with the conversation?

Go jump in a lake son.

(01-28-2020 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

(01-28-2020 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Riddle me this -- where does the sovereign power of the United States flow from?


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


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.

I read that, and didnt properly paraphrase.

It is still a stupid idea because the US is still a grouping of sovereigns; not a collection of individual voters. I made that point then, and again here. Its only when you ignore the source of the power of the United States does your paean to 'fair' make sense. Please go ahead and do that.

I was too lazy to quote everything you say verbatim so you jump down the fing nitpick trail (once again).

Quote:Maybe try and keep up with the conversation?

Go jump in a lake son.

Sorry - but when you start with the snark, expect to get some back.

And it's not a nitpick trail, it's a completely different trail. That's the real issue.

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.

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 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.