[quote pid='1186391' dateline='1547056455']

(01-09-2019, 01:25 PM)Last42min Wrote: If I was being tedious, I could make the case for direct democracy being a synonym for direct elections, since it was used often by the founding fathers with regards to this subject. However, by strict interpretation of the word, I will concede it was the wrong choice. The point still stands.

That said, I think you need to go back to logic school, dude. I intentionally stated a conclusion without supporting premises, which is completely different than begging the question. If you want to know the premises that support it, ask... not that it would matter. I haven't decided if you are naive or manipulative, but I don't think you argue in good faith, so I'd rather not waste my time laying out details.

You are the one arguing the superiority of a national popular election to that of an electoral college. So how about addressing the issue: A direct election would fundamentally change the face of American politics and virtually alienate the "flyover" states in choosing a President. Flawed as it may be, the whole point of the electoral college was to avoid mob rule. Read Madison. Read Jefferson. Read Hamilton.

It would take me an hour to lay out how the ways in which I would "fix" things, so I'm probably not going to do it. Basically, I'd like to put population restrictions on town/city/state size, and invert the government structure to limit federal power (how it was supposed to be). Then I'd let each local body choose a representative to elect the representative for the next highest office... all the way to the Presidency.

In summary, punch yourself in the face for supporting ballot harvesting.

You reiterate your desire for violence against me and then accuse me of arguing in bad faith?

I agree that a direct election would change the face of American politics.  It would make it much easier to create a new party.  I don't agree that it would "alienate the flyover states".  most of these states are already alienated.  For every Iowa or West Virginia that swings and attracts attention, there are two small not-swing states that get no attention at all.  With a national popular vote, different strategies would emerge. 
[/quote]

So, back to logic school... a bad faith argument is one in which disguises their argument to appear to be about one thing, while avoiding the actual problem at hand. It has nothing to do with me suggesting you punch yourself in the face, which would at least accomplish something. The OBVIOUS flaw in the national popular election is that it would create a HUGE swing in favor for the democrats, which is essentially mob rule.

You speak like there would be more parties, but you haven't cited any data suggesting this would be the case. Even if we take that premise for granted, would it create parties that reflect the culture in various parts of the US and provide ample opportunity for those cultures to have a seat at the White House? A conservative wouldn't care if there were 50,000 new parties formed if it meant that a Republican couldn't get elected again as President. In the same vein, you mention that the flyover states are already ignored, so we can discount that concern. Yet, the flyovers helped get Trump elected. This would never happen again in a direct election. I do not believe either of these are good faith arguments. It seems much more likely that you start with the premise that (x) would be good for democrats, then you twist your reasoning to influence other posters or win a debate. Whether or not it's done out of naivete or purpose, it makes no difference. The end result is the same.

Ballot harvesting and direct elections are not more democratic. They are just better for the democrats. Until they aren't. Then you will want the other.

---