Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
House Dems move to eliminate Electoral College, limit presidential pardon power

#41

[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.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#42

(01-09-2019, 12:20 PM)Kane Wrote:
(01-09-2019, 11:35 AM)Last42min Wrote: It's clear the electoral college is not working as intended. 

Why?
only 5 times ever has the electoral college voted for a POTUS that did not also win the "popular" vote.

It isn't working as intended now all of a sudden because it benefited a Donald Trump presidency (and of course, W before)

The electoral college protects the people of North Dakota from being controlled by the people of Los Angeles lol

Working as intended is relative to the intent, right? I prefer an EC to direct elections, but what we have now is not what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish. They wanted a system in which locally elected representatives, who knew who they were voting for (character, intelligence, education, etc.), would vote for a representative that would best serve the US. Reason was to triumph over anything else. Consistently appointing men who were in good standing and held accountable to the people would help the nation end up with the best governor. The EC does not work like that. I don't even know who my electoral college representative was last election. He may as well be a nameless, faceless figure. 

To paraphrase James Madison, if there were a village of 6000 Socrates, the democracy would still end up in mob rule. The point is that it is human nature for people to move towards sentiment and throw reason to the wayside.
Reply

#43
(This post was last modified: 01-09-2019, 06:10 PM by mikesez.)

(01-09-2019, 05:28 PM)Last42min Wrote: [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. 

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.
[/quote]

I know what a bad faith argument is. I don't think telling me to punch myself in the face is a bad faith argument, I just think it means you're being a jerk, just like people who argue in bad faith are jerks. Hiding one's motives is not necessarily arguing in bad faith. If I sincerely think that you will benefit from an idea, and I tell you why I think it helps you, but I support that idea for other personal reasons, that's not bad faith. Bad faith more like saying you disagree because of X, motivating your opponent to go out and fix X, but really you don't care about X and you're just wasting your opponent's time. I'm not doing that and neither are you.
I think you're shadow boxing.  I'm not a Democrat.  I sincerely want parties to die and re-form regularly.
A conservative is not the same thing as a Republican.  A conservative would jump at the chance to jump from the Republican bandwagon when (not if) they choose someone who is not conservative enough.
The Republicans (or whatever right-leaning party inherits their voters) aren't winning the popular vote because they aren't trying to win it.  If they had to go out and persuade voters in Western Massachusetts or California's Central Valley to vote every single time, they would.   But they don't, so they don't. Turnout is higher in swing states, and third-party votes are lower. 
And I don't know why you think Republicans can't benefit from ballot harvesting.  I personally and legally encouraged one of my co-workers to re-arrange her errands and work schedule so that she and her sister could get to the polls two months ago.  They were both having trouble fitting it into their schedules and they both said that they intended to vote Republican, even though they didn't know that I was also a Republican.  Republicans have trouble getting around to voting just like everyone else.  And these two had a lot of problems finding the time because they were moving into a new apartment and sharing a car.  Still Republicans.

(01-09-2019, 05:39 PM)Last42min Wrote:
(01-09-2019, 12:20 PM)Kane Wrote: Why?
only 5 times ever has the electoral college voted for a POTUS that did not also win the "popular" vote.

It isn't working as intended now all of a sudden because it benefited a Donald Trump presidency (and of course, W before)

The electoral college protects the people of North Dakota from being controlled by the people of Los Angeles lol

Working as intended is relative to the intent, right? I prefer an EC to direct elections, but what we have now is not what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish. They wanted a system in which locally elected representatives, who knew who they were voting for (character, intelligence, education, etc.), would vote for a representative that would best serve the US. Reason was to triumph over anything else. Consistently appointing men who were in good standing and held accountable to the people would help the nation end up with the best governor. The EC does not work like that. I don't even know who my electoral college representative was last election. He may as well be a nameless, faceless figure. 

To paraphrase James Madison, if there were a village of 6000 Socrates, the democracy would still end up in mob rule. The point is that it is human nature for people to move towards sentiment and throw reason to the wayside.

Exactly right.
Anyone who thinks we need to keep the EC because it's what the founders would have wanted hasn't read the founders.
You think we need to keep the EC for your own reasons, but I applaud you for recognizing that those are just your reasons, and they have to do with helping the Republican party today, and have nothing to do with the founding of the country. I think this second set of reasons is not persuasive, and that the change will not actually hurt Republicans or conservatives at all, but at least you're not appealing to men who died over 200 years ago and actually disagreed with you to justify your thinking.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#44

Yeah... I'm not shadow boxing. I've seen you state on here that you are Republican before. You're not. You are not conservative, either. I also recognize that there is a difference between conservative and Republican, but it doesn't matter for my point. A direct election would eliminate their voice, which is my primary concern. I wouldn't want it the other way around, either.

Let me be clear that I don't care who's voice is being stifled; I'd be against it. I am a psychological liberal with a conservative political bent. This is not because I think there's anything "right" about the way this nation was founded, but, rather, because I believe there aren't very many better alternatives currently. Almost everything you hear being proposed is to promote dominance for one party or the other, and gives little thought to the individual citizens. There has to be a balance. Any system that would alienate a group of people is a bad system. The idea behind the EC was a good one. Even it's flawed state is better than a direct election.
Reply

#45
(This post was last modified: 01-09-2019, 09:30 PM by mikesez.)

(01-09-2019, 07:55 PM)Last42min Wrote: Yeah... I'm not shadow boxing. I've seen you state on here that you are Republican before. You're not. You are not conservative, either. I also recognize that there is a difference between conservative and Republican, but it doesn't matter for my point. A direct election would eliminate their voice, which is my primary concern. I wouldn't want it the other way around, either.

Let me be clear that I don't care who's voice is being stifled; I'd be against it. I am a psychological liberal with a conservative political bent. This is not because I think there's anything "right" about the way this nation was founded, but, rather, because I believe there aren't very many better alternatives currently. Almost everything you hear being proposed is to promote dominance for one party or the other, and gives little thought to the individual citizens. There has to be a balance. Any system that would alienate a group of people is a bad system. The idea behind the EC was a good one. Even it's flawed state is better than a direct election.

a direct election would be similar enough to what happens already that no one whose voice is loud today would be silent tomorrow.
Turnout would be higher overall because party affiliations would change often and every vote would have an impact no matter what state the voter is in. 
So there would be more voices.
If you don't like that because you think it means the two dominant voices today would be "stifled," I think that's dumb. people who happen to agree with the party line of either of the current parties shouldn't be privileged over those who are just as smart but have some disagreements with both. And you shouldn't have to put on a big show of being loyal to the party as it exists before you're allowed a chance at office. it should be easier to just start your own party when the two major parties get stuffy and wooden.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#46

(01-09-2019, 07:55 PM)Last42min Wrote: Yeah... I'm not shadow boxing. I've seen you state on here that you are Republican before. You're not. You are not conservative, either. I also recognize that there is a difference between conservative and Republican, but it doesn't matter for my point. A direct election would eliminate their voice, which is my primary concern. I wouldn't want it the other way around, either.

Let me be clear that I don't care who's voice is being stifled; I'd be against it. I am a psychological liberal with a conservative political bent. This is not because I think there's anything "right" about the way this nation was founded, but, rather, because I believe there aren't very many better alternatives currently. Almost everything you hear being proposed is to promote dominance for one party or the other, and gives little thought to the individual citizens. There has to be a balance. Any system that would alienate a group of people is a bad system. The idea behind the EC was a good one. Even it's flawed state is better than a direct election.

I promise you I'm a registered Republican.  I joined the party so I could steer it to keep up the pro-life and pro-family and pro-school choice cause but hopefully take a small step back from some of its economic dogma and silence some of its unreformed racists.  In Florida you have to join the party to vote in its primaries.  

Are you a Republican? Why did you join the party?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#47

(01-09-2019, 11:35 AM)Last42min Wrote: It's clear the electoral college is not working as intended. That said, moving to a direct democracy is a terrible idea. Unfortunately, we don't have the type of leaders and thinkers is requires to make changes that would improve our government. Also, ballot harvesting is a ridiculous concept and you should punch yourself in the face for suggesting otherwise.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/31...oned-trump


yep its not working 2 ev votes displaced because the nimrods wanted to take the ball home after the results were not favorable
“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.”
“If you find a way to motivate an idiot you have a motivated idiot”
Reply

#48

(01-09-2019, 10:02 PM)13Coronas Wrote:
(01-09-2019, 11:35 AM)Last42min Wrote: It's clear the electoral college is not working as intended. That said, moving to a direct democracy is a terrible idea. Unfortunately, we don't have the type of leaders and thinkers is requires to make changes that would improve our government. Also, ballot harvesting is a ridiculous concept and you should punch yourself in the face for suggesting otherwise.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/31...oned-trump


yep its not working 2 ev votes displaced because the nimrods wanted to take the ball home after the results were not favorable

If it worked the way Hamilton said that it would work in Federalist 68, no one would be sure of the results until the Senate opened the envelopes. All of the electors would be faithless.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#49

I don't care if you think it's dumb. You are not a critical thinker.

Of the last 7 elections, democrats have won the popular vote 5 times (Bush barely edged out Kerry and Bush Sr. beat Dukakis pretty handily, but that's going back to the Reagan era). So is it a trend or is it luck? Well, I'll give you a hint: if it wasn't a trend, Dems wouldn't be trying to change the electoral college. Urbanization among millennials, coupled with the tendency to adopt culture of an area (if not the parents, then the children), is going to lead to a growing gap between the popular and electoral vote, ultimately marginalizing the voice of conservatives. Sure, something could happen that would fundamentally change the Republican party, but it's far more likely the entire political system shifts left. I agree that the Senate is likely to remain red as a result of this same process, but how long until THAT needs to change, too? Politicians (and the elite) keep slowly trying to federalize the entirety of the US government. 

I am not a Republican. I'm Independent. Also, I don't care if you're a registered Republican. You are not conservative in almost any of your positions, psychologically or ideologically. If your pro-life conviction is so strong that you feel like you need to align yourself with the Republican party, then good on you for believing in something. However, you are not conservative by any other measure.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#50

(01-09-2019, 11:09 PM)Last42min Wrote: I don't care if you think it's dumb. You are not a critical thinker.

Of the last 7 elections, democrats have won the popular vote 5 times (Bush barely edged out Kerry and Bush Sr. beat Dukakis pretty handily, but that's going back to the Reagan era). So is it a trend or is it luck? Well, I'll give you a hint: if it wasn't a trend, Dems wouldn't be trying to change the electoral college. Urbanization among millennials, coupled with the tendency to adopt culture of an area (if not the parents, then the children), is going to lead to a growing gap between the popular and electoral vote, ultimately marginalizing the voice of conservatives. Sure, something could happen that would fundamentally change the Republican party, but it's far more likely the entire political system shifts left. I agree that the Senate is likely to remain red as a result of this same process, but how long until THAT needs to change, too? Politicians (and the elite) keep slowly trying to federalize the entirety of the US government. 

I am not a Republican. I'm Independent. Also, I don't care if you're a registered Republican. You are not conservative in almost any of your positions, psychologically or ideologically. If your pro-life conviction is so strong that you feel like you need to align yourself with the Republican party, then good on you for believing in something. However, you are not conservative by any other measure.

the dems want to remove that which they cant get past at the cost of the citizens freedoms
“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.”
“If you find a way to motivate an idiot you have a motivated idiot”
Reply

#51

(01-09-2019, 11:09 PM)Last42min Wrote: Of the last 7 elections, democrats have won the popular vote 5 times (Bush barely edged out Kerry and Bush Sr. beat Dukakis pretty handily, but that's going back to the Reagan era). So is it a trend or is it luck?

Based upon those results, I'd say it's pretty simple for Democrats: don't nominate an idiot and you'll win.
Reply

#52

(01-10-2019, 01:25 AM)TJBender Wrote:
(01-09-2019, 11:09 PM)Last42min Wrote: Of the last 7 elections, democrats have won the popular vote 5 times (Bush barely edged out Kerry and Bush Sr. beat Dukakis pretty handily, but that's going back to the Reagan era). So is it a trend or is it luck?

Based upon those results, I'd say it's pretty simple for Democrats: don't nominate an idiot and you'll win.

Were good standing pat on the deal then 

THEY'RE ALL IDIOTS
“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.”
“If you find a way to motivate an idiot you have a motivated idiot”
Reply

#53
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2019, 10:24 AM by mikesez.)

(01-09-2019, 11:09 PM)Last42min Wrote: I don't care if you think it's dumb. You are not a critical thinker.

Of the last 7 elections, democrats have won the popular vote 5 times (Bush barely edged out Kerry and Bush Sr. beat Dukakis pretty handily, but that's going back to the Reagan era). So is it a trend or is it luck? Well, I'll give you a hint: if it wasn't a trend, Dems wouldn't be trying to change the electoral college. Urbanization among millennials, coupled with the tendency to adopt culture of an area (if not the parents, then the children), is going to lead to a growing gap between the popular and electoral vote, ultimately marginalizing the voice of conservatives. Sure, something could happen that would fundamentally change the Republican party, but it's far more likely the entire political system shifts left. I agree that the Senate is likely to remain red as a result of this same process, but how long until THAT needs to change, too? Politicians (and the elite) keep slowly trying to federalize the entirety of the US government. 

I am not a Republican. I'm Independent. Also, I don't care if you're a registered Republican. You are not conservative in almost any of your positions, psychologically or ideologically. If your pro-life conviction is so strong that you feel like you need to align yourself with the Republican party, then good on you for believing in something. However, you are not conservative by any other measure.

The popular vote totals up to now are meaningless.
Neither side is trying to win the popular vote.  I grant you that some Democrats who want to go to a national popular vote are doing this because they think it will help the Democratic party, in its current configuration, in the short-term. but those are the people who are not thinking critically. You're not thinking critically either.  

Trump made no effort to turn out votes in California. None. Yet he got more votes in California, in a losing effort, than he got in Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Arizona combined. And Hillary made no effort in any of those states. It would be a totally different game with totally different strategies.

Both parties change pretty rapidly. And the state configurations change too. Illinois and Texas used to be swing States. Florida used to be solidly blue. Then it was solidly red, now it's a swing state. The 2016 primary process revealed that both parties had pretty deep internal divisions. they remain together because they had to: each of the 50 states only has one spot on their ballot for them. but if either party had actually split it would upset the whole apple cart of "urban equals Democrat" that you're complaining about.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#54

Is a popular vote meaningful or not? You seemed to think they were a page ago. Enough so that you support switching to a direct election.

Look. I get what you are suggesting: That neither party is trying to win the popular vote, and that if they tried, the numbers would shift. You have no evidence to support that claim.... only that it is possible (even though it goes against the recent voting patterns). This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to probability. I guess anything is possible. It's possible we'll be conquered by Brazil and Mexico and we'll get the national popular vote you want with lots and lots of parties. It's also possible that you punched yourself in the face before you posted that argument, so you weren't thinking clearly. Really, I guess we can go anywhere with this type of reasoning.
Reply

#55

(01-10-2019, 04:04 PM)Last42min Wrote: Is a popular vote meaningful or not? You seemed to think they were a page ago. Enough so that you support switching to a direct election.

Look. I get what you are suggesting: That neither party is trying to win the popular vote, and that if they tried, the numbers would shift. You have no evidence to support that claim.... only that it is possible (even though it goes against the recent voting patterns). This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to probability. I guess anything is possible. It's possible we'll be conquered by Brazil and Mexico and we'll get the national popular vote you want with lots and lots of parties. It's also possible that you punched yourself in the face before you posted that argument, so you weren't thinking clearly. Really, I guess we can go anywhere with this type of reasoning.

The Chiefs were the best team in 2019.  They are likely to be the best team next year.  If we changed the rules of football for 2019 such that a touch back still gives you the ball at the 25 but also gives you 1 point, do you think that makes the Chiefs more likely, or less likely, to be the best team next year?  Punters would try to avoid touchbacks even more, obviously.  Kickers might stop going for touchbacks on kickoffs.   Attempts to bring the ball out of the end zone would decrease.  But how would it affect the Chiefs? Obviously we don't know.  You could figure out if the chiefs gave up more touchbacks last year than other teams did, but that wouldn't mean much because their strategy would change in 2019 with the new rule.

Because you are detached, you'd calmly realize that you don't know if any particular team benefits, and you'd think about the rule change in terms of if it makes the game more entertaining overall instead.

I'm not arguing from probability.  I'm arguing that we don't know, and can't know if either current party benefits.  I'm arguing that the real winners would be independent candidates.
You're the one arguing from probability.
You're the one saying that past results predict future performance even after a rules change.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#56

I have barely tried to support my arguments with data out of principle, and I've still done a better job than you. Your example above is ridiculous. We are all dumber for having read that.

My claim is that the rules change is being requested BECAUSE it creates an advantage for a group, and the data suggests that gap is only going to widen as long as urbanization trends continue. You're just saying there's a chance it might not be an advantage because. You have provided no proof that it is an equitable change or that it promotes a more free society. Your only claim is that it might represent a larger group of people, which was one of the two main reasons the founding fathers wanted an EC over a DE. You continue to obfuscate the point and move goal posts as it's convenient to you. Your greatest mental attribute is clearly persistence, because the ones that should be on display in this thread are conspicuously absent.
Reply

#57
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2019, 09:57 PM by mikesez.)

(01-10-2019, 05:52 PM)Last42min Wrote: I have barely tried to support my arguments with data out of principle, and I've still done a better job than you. Your example above is ridiculous. We are all dumber for having read that.

My claim is that the rules change is being requested BECAUSE it creates an advantage for a group, and the data suggests that gap is only going to widen as long as urbanization trends continue. You're just saying there's a chance it might not be an advantage because. You have provided no proof that it  is an equitable change or that it promotes a more free society. Your only claim is that it might represent a larger group of people, which was one of the two main reasons the founding fathers wanted an EC over a DE. You continue to obfuscate the point and move goal posts as it's convenient to you. Your greatest mental attribute is clearly persistence, because the ones that should be on display in this thread are conspicuously absent.

It goes without saying that this would be an equitable change. Come on now. In voting, what is more equitable than one person one vote?

As for if it creates a more free society, I think the presidency in general tends towards despotism already. I don't think this makes it better or worse. As I've already said, Congress and judges check the president, as do his term limits.

As for who is proposing the rule change - you know that only NFL teams can propose NFL rules changes right? So if the Chiefs went out and proposed this rule change, would you assume automatically that they're only doing so because they think they will win more games that way? or would you realize as I explained that no one knows what the outcome of the rules change is with regard to a particular team and would you instead assume that the Chiefs must think that the change was overall good for the game, good for entertainment value? So why does the fact that Democrats are proposing this matter? Are they not capable of thinking about what's good for the country as a whole?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say there were two main reasons that the founders wanted an electoral college. We already covered one reason, which was to make it possible for a reasonable and calm man to win the office while only being known to a few elite people. That's the reason they gave, and we agree that it never worked like that. The second reason was that the representatives of slaveholding states could not accept a direct election because a direct nationwide election would give them no bonus points for owning people who could not vote. With the constraints they were dealing with, they could not have had a national popular vote at that time. 

This thing about more population size being bad, well I don't think that was one of their thoughts. if I recall correctly Federalist number 10 says that a big population that is very spread out would it promote the health of the new Republic.

As for the idea that you should have a certain amount of education or property before you get the right to vote, Hamilton had this to say: "Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States."
Even though most of the 13 states have not adopted Universal white male suffrage at that time, Hamilton clearly had in view that they would.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#58

Now you are begging the question. Let me rephrase so you can see it: Direct elections are fairer than the EC, because what could be more equitable than one person one vote. Do you see how this is unacceptable?

It should be apparent why your rules change example is flawed, but I'm not going to follow you down that rabbit hole. That whole analogy is ridiculous. Stick to the topic.

The two reasons are overlapping, but distinguishable. To avoid majority rule (which you have yet to address), and to create electorates who were accountable to the people that would shut down demagogues. The former is working as intended, the latter isn't.

I have no idea what you're talking about in your last two paragraphs. Was that a thing? Was anyone discussing that? Did you just want to quote something you found on the internet? Stick to the topic.
Reply

#59

It's funny that Mikey doesn't recognize that NFL teams are more akin to the States than the People, placing him squarely on the opposite of what he thinks he's supporting. He talks so many circles that every road eventually goes the same direction.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#60
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2019, 10:29 AM by mikesez.)

(01-11-2019, 08:32 AM)Last42min Wrote: Now you are begging the question. Let me rephrase so you can see it: Direct elections are fairer than the EC, because what could be more equitable than one person one vote. Do you see how this is unacceptable?

It should be apparent why your rules change example is flawed, but I'm not going to follow you down that rabbit hole. That whole analogy is ridiculous. Stick to the topic.

The two reasons are overlapping, but distinguishable. To avoid majority rule (which you have yet to address), and to create electorates who were accountable to the people that would shut down demagogues. The former is working as intended, the latter isn't.

I have no idea what you're talking about in your last two paragraphs. Was that a thing? Was anyone discussing that? Did you just want to quote something you found on the internet? Stick to the topic.

I didn't beg the question, I asked it.  If you know of a principle that is more equitable than "one person one vote," I invited you to tell me what it is.

"Avoid majority rule" ... That's what you want? Why?
Bush 43 won a majority in 2004.  That was bad?  Majorities are bad?  Which Federalist paper says that?
I "have yet to address" this point because I don't understand it.

"create electorates who were accountable to the people that would shut down demagogues..." This is just the Federalist 68 argument rephrased right? The one where it never worked that way?  Do you think the electoral college somehow frustrates or prevents demagogues today? I don't.

(01-11-2019, 08:38 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: It's funny that Mikey doesn't recognize that NFL teams are more akin to the States than the People, placing him squarely on the opposite of what he thinks he's supporting. He talks so many circles that every road eventually goes the same direction.

The NFL teams could be understood as states in a union, or as members of Congress.  They meet and they each have one vote, then they go out and compete with each other.  And then they meet and vote again. They are not like ordinary people, and my metaphor doesn't presume that they are.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!