If you spent half as much time being critical of your own posts as you did trying to win an argument, you might contribute something productive to these conversations. If I'm being as generous as possible, you seem incapable of seeing how poorly you construct your arguments. From a logical fallacy perspective, you literally just "begged the question." Even though you had a question mark at the end of the sentence, it's a premise you are using to support your conclusion (while putting the onus on me to answer something to which I've already objected). I even rephrased it for you so you could see it more clearly.

You are assuming the following to be true: that one person, one vote is the most fair form of electing a President (again, the objection to this has already been raised by multiple posters). While it may seem like a given, it isn't. You are recommending we change an entire system because a truth seems self-evident to you, yet you continually gloss over the "tyranny of the majority" argument made not only by the posters on this forum, but the framers of the constitution, too. It's your opinion (supported by zero evidence, btw) that a popular vote would be superior, and you don't care that it favors a particular political bent because you think the rest of the country will adapt, even though it's mathematically unlikely. Instead of making a logical argument to support your opinion, you do exactly what I called you out for doing in my first post: You argue in bad faith. You disguise the main argument by talking about anything else that's related (e.g. population size and voter education). Stick to the argument.

---

If you spent half as much time being critical of your own posts as you did trying to win an argument, you might contribute something productive to these conversations. If I'm being as generous as possible, you seem incapable of seeing how poorly you construct your arguments. From a logical fallacy perspective, you literally just "begged the question." Even though you had a question mark at the end of the sentence, it's a premise you are using to support your conclusion (while putting the onus on me to answer something to which I've already objected). I even rephrased it for you so you could see it more clearly.

You are assuming the following to be true: that one person, one vote is the most fair form of electing a President (again, the objection to this has already been raised by multiple posters). While it may seem like a given, it isn't. You are recommending we change an entire system because a truth seems self-evident to you, yet you continually gloss over the "tyranny of the majority" argument made not only by the posters on this forum, but the framers of the constitution, too. It's your opinion (supported by zero evidence, btw) that a popular vote would be superior, and you don't care that it favors a particular political bent because you think the rest of the country will adapt, even though it's  mathematically unlikely. Instead of making a logical argument to support your opinion, you do exactly what I called you out for doing in my first post: You argue in bad faith. You disguise the main argument by talking about anything else that's related (e.g. population size and voter education). Stick to the argument.

If one person one vote is not the most equitable arrangement possible, then some other possible arrangement must be more equitable.  What arrangement is that and why is it more equitable?

Where in the Federalist papers does the phrase "tyranny of the majority" appear?  If not the phrase, where does the idea appear? What do they claim to have done to guard against it?

I've already cited France, Brazil, and Mexico as examples.  These countries each see political parties die and reorganize regularly.  That's what I want.  The experience of these countries is the  evidence that it would occur.

I brought up the voter education and population size because I thought you were making a point about them. Obviously, you're making some sort of point I don't understand. Something about majorities being bad. Was Bush getting re-elected in 2004 bad?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I addressed that on page 3.

Parties is a rabbit trail, because we are discussing whether or not people of different cultures and ideologies could be equally represented in your proposed system.

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. 

Who mentioned the federalist papers? Is this the only document I'm allowed to reference. It's in the writings of the founders in multiple places. Fear of mob rule. Fear of a majority controlling the wishes of a minority. Your proposal is a step towards majority rule. Everything was designed with the idea that states, and, therefore, the people within those states, would be able to govern themselves and have some control over their own culture. You don't seem to get this basic "conservative" concept.

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.

---

I addressed that on page 3.

Parties is a rabbit trail, because we are discussing whether or not people of different cultures and ideologies could be equally represented in your proposed system.

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. 

Who mentioned the federalist papers? Is this the only document I'm allowed to reference. It's in the writings of the founders in multiple places. Fear of mob rule. Fear of a majority controlling the wishes of a minority. Your proposal is a step towards majority rule. Everything was designed with the idea that states, and, therefore, the people within those states, would be able to govern themselves and have some control over their own culture. You don't seem to get this basic "conservative" concept.

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.

Any party that has a shot to win the White House, whether under the Electoral College or national popular vote, will necessarily include multiple interests and types of people in it.  In the Electoral college, each campaign focuses on swing states and zeroes in on every likely voter, framing an argument to each particular interest group they can identify within that state. 
But in a national popular vote, everyone's vote would count the same, and every state becomes the swing state that you see today.  Any person anywhere in the US would have one or the other candidate specifically framing arguments to specifically win their vote.  It wouldn't matter if they were in a "flyover state" or not.  Just if they want to vote or not.

I mentioned the federalist papers.  But any document or speech from any of the founding fathers could contribute to your argument if you want.  Don't just tell me they had a "Fear of a majority controlling the wishes of a minority," point me to the exact quote, show me the context.  Explain why you think it applies to the present situation.  Remember that a direct election for President was not just undesired but *not possible* due to the 3/5ths compromise. You're not likely to spend much time thinking about the outcomes of impossible events, so if you think they're talking about national popular vote, it's more likely they're talking about some other scenario that was more realistic at the time.  We already did this with Federalist 68.  Show me what else you're looking at.  And if you find something that says the Founders feared small factions being abused by larger ones, explain why you think the Electoral College effectually stops this today.  I don't think it does.  I think that's the Senate you're thinking of.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Google tyranny of the majority. I'm not doing your legwork. It's a concept you should know in and out if you want to change it. Enlightenment philosophers certainly knew about it.

---

That's because there are more people in California than there are in at least 7 of those 8 states combined. You're kind of proving the need for an Electoral College here.

*Edit: I don't know what happened to the quote. It was Mike saying that Trump got more votes in CA than he did in basically the whole middle of the country combined.

---

Google tyranny of the majority. I'm not doing your legwork. It's a concept you should know in and out if you want to change it. Enlightenment philosophers certainly knew about it.

I did.  And I've read the Wikipedia article.  And a few of its references.
The phrase was first uttered by JS Mill in Europe in 1870. 
The founders did not use that phrase.  Their concern was demagogues. From my point of view, since 1832, every election has basically been one demagogue versus another. Some of these men may have been benevolent in and of themselves but, the nature of man being what it is, you can bet that many of them would have become dictators if they had the opportunity. The Senate and the courts restrain them.

---

That's because there are more people in California than there are in at least 7 of those 8 states combined. You're kind of proving the need for an Electoral College here.

*Edit: I don't know what happened to the quote. It was Mike saying that Trump got more votes in CA than he did in basically the whole middle of the country combined.

None of the states I listed are swing states.  All of them are completely ignored by the candidates in the current process.  So how does this show anything good about the EC?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Is that where you are going to try to win the debate? That the phrase wasn't used by the founders? If I'm not mistaken, the phrase was popularized by Tocqueville, but that's irrelevant. The phrase represents the idea, dude. Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison all spoke of the potential problem. So did Burke, Locke and Mill. That's because people who are well read in philosophy and history knew of the problem in Greek government that was not as prevalent in the Roman republic. Yes, demagoguery was a concern, but also rule by the majority. Stop playing dumb.

---

Is that where you are going to try to win the debate? That the phrase wasn't used by the founders? If I'm not mistaken, the phrase was popularized by Tocqueville, but that's irrelevant. The phrase represents the idea, dude. Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison all spoke of the potential problem. So did Burke, Locke and Mill. That's because people who are well read in philosophy and history knew of the problem in Greek government that was not as prevalent in the Roman republic. Yes, demagoguery was a concern, but also rule by the majority. Stop playing dumb.

It's a minor point.
The major point is that nothing about the electoral college as it exists today protects a minority from a majority.  Nothing about a national popular vote would, either, true. But the two systems are equal in this regard.  If we're going to consider the pros and cons of switching, we should look that things that are different, right?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Is that where you are going to try to win the debate? That the phrase wasn't used by the founders? If I'm not mistaken, the phrase was popularized by Tocqueville, but that's irrelevant. The phrase represents the idea, dude. Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison all spoke of the potential problem. So did Burke, Locke and Mill. That's because people who are well read in philosophy and history knew of the problem in Greek government that was not as prevalent in the Roman republic. Yes, demagoguery was a concern, but also rule by the majority. Stop playing dumb.

It's a minor point.
The major point is that nothing about the electoral college as it exists today protects a minority from a majority.  Nothing about a national popular vote would, either, true. But the two systems are equal in this regard.  If we're going to consider the pros and cons of switching, we should look that things that are different, right?

So basically, your idea is to switch for the sake of switching?

---

The reason we are even discussing this is that the majority didn't win the election. Don't you think that puts an end to your argument the ec doesn't protect the minority from the majority?

---

I think the winner of a football game should be decided on yards and not points. Of course, depending on which one the Jaguars have more of at the end of their games.

---

I think the winner of a football game should be decided on yards and not points. Of course, depending on which one the Jaguars have more of at the end of their games.

If Bortles is running the show, there's a chance that both stats are stuck on a goose egg.

---

I think the winner of a football game should be decided on yards and not points. Of course, depending on which one the Jaguars have more of at the end of their games.

If Bortles is running the show, there's a chance that both stats are stuck on a goose egg.

Lol, you misspelled K-e-s-s-l-e-r.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's a minor point.
The major point is that nothing about the electoral college as it exists today protects a minority from a majority.  Nothing about a national popular vote would, either, true. But the two systems are equal in this regard.  If we're going to consider the pros and cons of switching, we should look that things that are different, right?

So basically, your idea is to switch for the sake of switching?

No the reason I want to switch is because I think it will allow new parties to easily come in and take over from old parties, and put independent candidates on closer to equal footing with the major-party candidates.
The amendment tells US Congress to make one set of rules for the whole country regarding who qualifies to be on the ballot for president. Today there are 50 sets of rules.
Also suppose there were three candidates. If you're in Florida and you're pretty sure that candidate number three is going to come in third place in Florida, a vote for candidate number three is completely wasted vote. Even if that candidate stands to win other states. with a national popular vote it doesn't matter what state you're in go ahead and vote for candidate number three and see what happens. the amendment would allow Congress to create a runoff election or ranked-choice voting, that would help a lot.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So basically, your idea is to switch for the sake of switching?

No the reason I want to switch is because I think it will allow new parties to easily come in and take over from old parties, and put independent candidates on closer to equal footing with the major-party candidates.
The amendment tells US Congress to make one set of rules for the whole country regarding who qualifies to be on the ballot for president. Today there are 50 sets of rules.
Also suppose there were three candidates. If you're in Florida and you're pretty sure that candidate number three is going to come in third place in Florida, a vote for candidate number three is completely wasted vote. Even if that candidate stands to win other states. with a national popular vote it doesn't matter what state you're in go ahead and vote for candidate number three and see what happens. the amendment would allow Congress to create a runoff election or ranked-choice voting, that would help a lot.

Those are pretty lousy reasons for ceding control of the country to New York, Illinois,and California.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No the reason I want to switch is because I think it will allow new parties to easily come in and take over from old parties, and put independent candidates on closer to equal footing with the major-party candidates.
The amendment tells US Congress to make one set of rules for the whole country regarding who qualifies to be on the ballot for president. Today there are 50 sets of rules.
Also suppose there were three candidates. If you're in Florida and you're pretty sure that candidate number three is going to come in third place in Florida, a vote for candidate number three is completely wasted vote. Even if that candidate stands to win other states. with a national popular vote it doesn't matter what state you're in go ahead and vote for candidate number three and see what happens. the amendment would allow Congress to create a runoff election or ranked-choice voting, that would help a lot.

Those are pretty lousy reasons for ceding control of the country to New York, Illinois,and California.

Yeah they would be lousy reasons for that.
but a national popular vote would in no way cede control to any set of States in particular.
Take the three you mentioned.
Add up their total populations and divide the result by the population of the whole country.
think about the fact that you would need a majority to win the presidency, how close is the fraction you just computed to 51%?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If Bortles is running the show, there's a chance that both stats are stuck on a goose egg.

Lol, you misspelled K-e-s-s-l-e-r.

Similar result, maybe both in the negatives by a few yards.

---

Those are pretty lousy reasons for ceding control of the country to New York, Illinois,and California.

Yeah they would be lousy reasons for that.
but a national popular vote would in no way cede control to any set of States in particular.
Take the three you mentioned.
Add up their total populations and divide the result by the population of the whole country.
think about the fact that you would need a majority to win the presidency, how close is the fraction you just computed to 51%?

Those populations of those three states represent 45% of the total vote in 2016. That you really, honestly believe a national popular vote would benefit small states and individuals shows just how disingenuous your so called "conservative" beliefs really are.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yeah they would be lousy reasons for that.
but a national popular vote would in no way cede control to any set of States in particular.
Take the three you mentioned.
Add up their total populations and divide the result by the population of the whole country.
think about the fact that you would need a majority to win the presidency, how close is the fraction you just computed to 51%?

Those populations of those three states represent 45% of the total vote in 2016. That you really, honestly believe a national popular vote would benefit small states and individuals shows just how disingenuous your so called "conservative" beliefs really are.

So on one hand you looked at total population, including children and non-citizens, in three states, and on the other hand you looked at people who actually turned out to vote in the country as a whole.
Are you sure that wasn't an apples and oranges comparison? Would you like to try again?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.