The original way required the two houses of the state legislature to agree, but they often had standoffs.  Seats went unfilled, everyone lost.
Imagine if we never changed how US senators are elected, and the Florida house and Florida Senate couldn't agree who our next Senator would be.  
Suppose this happened regularly.
What would you propose to fix it?

Elect members of the state legislature that would work together for the needs of the State.  After all, that's the job.

Do you think that the popular vote "fixed" the situation?  How exactly has that worked out for the State of Florida?

Senators elected today have only one job in mind... that is to win the next election.  They don't represent the State as the job originally was intended.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The original way required the two houses of the state legislature to agree, but they often had standoffs.  Seats went unfilled, everyone lost.
Imagine if we never changed how US senators are elected, and the Florida house and Florida Senate couldn't agree who our next Senator would be.  
Suppose this happened regularly.
What would you propose to fix it?

Elect members of the state legislature that would work together for the needs of the State.  After all, that's the job.

Do you think that the popular vote "fixed" the situation?  How exactly has that worked out for the State of Florida?

Senators elected today have only one job in mind... that is to win the next election.  They don't represent the State as the job originally was intended.

You don't think they had already tried that?
Most deadlocks didn't last long but they did occur pretty often.
Delaware had one go on for four years.

31 state legislatures petitioned congress to amend the Constitution and take their involvement in the selection of senators away.
state legislators by and large had become sick and tired of being involved in other people's fights. Voters weren't asking them how they could improve their state. Voters were asking them which US senate candidate they supported

---

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

Just one more way he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Cries about it in his sig but does it just the same.

That's a good point actually.  

Pirky would give negative reputation  to me for replying to his posts with an opposing opinion.  That's wrong.  Don't post your opinion unless you're okay with people clicking the reply button and saying they think you're wrong.  Instead, reply back to them saying they are wrong.  Or leave it alone.

You got negative reputation from me yestersay because you tried to change the subject from politics and politicians to me.  That's wrong too, totally different but also wrong. But then again here I am talking about you.  And honestly I wouldn't be complaining if you changed the subject to me just to tell everyone how great you think I am and how right you think I am.

So I get why it comes across as hypocritical to you but I'm not intending to apply rules to you that I wouldn't apply to myself. 

What's reputation for anyhow?
I think its to avoid derailing threads with personal conflict. If someone's joke seems out of place in a serious thread, or they start attacking other posters, that's what it's for. Give negative reputation instead of derailing the thread further. Positive feedback is for good writing or original insights. But there's no harm in simply replying with positive feedback too.

When you say "state sovereignty means a lot to me," while arguing for a direct election, it's hard to take you seriously. I can hear your rebuttal already: "A person can be both for state sovereignty and a national popular vote." No. State's rights and central government, while not being diametrically opposed, operate on a sliding scale at the very least. You are literally arguing, in this thread, that states should cede power to the nation. Why would you make that argument if state sovereignty means a lot to you?  

If there were such a power discrepancy that the voices of NY and Cali (again, not literal) were being ignored to the degree they were oppressed, I could see one making a distinction that "state sovereignty means a lot to me, but it's been 30 years since Democrats have been able to elect a President... maybe we should at least look at changing the system." That would at least be reasonable. But you want to change it after one bad election cycle. As it stands, there is no justifiable reason to change the system unless you want to slant the balance of power towards progressives. Based on all of your posts on this board, I could believe that would desire that, but you won't acknowledge that. You either don't understand the framework of this nation, which means you parrot other people's ideas without considering the consequences, or you do understand it and you are trying to be persuasive by placating the person you are debating. It's disingenuous, and one of the reasons I say you don't argue in good faith.

So, yes. This is about you.

---

That's a good point actually.  

Pirky would give negative reputation  to me for replying to his posts with an opposing opinion.  That's wrong.  Don't post your opinion unless you're okay with people clicking the reply button and saying they think you're wrong.  Instead, reply back to them saying they are wrong.  Or leave it alone.

You got negative reputation from me yestersay because you tried to change the subject from politics and politicians to me.  That's wrong too, totally different but also wrong. But then again here I am talking about you.  And honestly I wouldn't be complaining if you changed the subject to me just to tell everyone how great you think I am and how right you think I am.

So I get why it comes across as hypocritical to you but I'm not intending to apply rules to you that I wouldn't apply to myself. 

What's reputation for anyhow?
I think its to avoid derailing threads with personal conflict. If someone's joke seems out of place in a serious thread, or they start attacking other posters, that's what it's for. Give negative reputation instead of derailing the thread further. Positive feedback is for good writing or original insights. But there's no harm in simply replying with positive feedback too.

When you say "state sovereignty means a lot to me," while arguing for a direct election, it's hard to take you seriously. I can hear your rebuttal already: "A person can be both for state sovereignty and a national popular vote." No. State's rights and central government, while not being diametrically opposed, operate on a sliding scale at the very least. You are literally arguing, in this thread, that states should cede power to the nation. Why would you make that argument if state sovereignty means a lot to you?  

If there were such a power discrepancy that the voices of NY and Cali (again, not literal) were being ignored to the degree they were oppressed, I could see one making a distinction that "state sovereignty means a lot to me, but it's been 30 years since Democrats have been able to elect a President... maybe we should at least look at changing the system." That would at least be reasonable. But you want to change it after one bad election cycle. As it stands, there is no justifiable reason to change the system unless you want to slant the balance of power towards progressives. Based on all of your posts on this board, I could believe that would desire that, but you won't acknowledge that. You either don't understand the framework of this nation, which means you parrot other people's ideas without considering the consequences, or you do understand it and you are trying to be persuasive by placating the person you are debating. It's disingenuous, and one of the reasons I say you don't argue in good faith.

So, yes. This is about you.

I've opposed the electoral college and plurality winner elections ever since I turned 18 years old.  Which party wins never changed my opinion that our system is nuts.  
You assume I've just started feeling this way, then form your opinion of me from there.
No state has any meaningful authority about who will be President since any of us have been alive.  The closest any state came was Florida in 2000, but that had a lot of moving parts.  Our state didn't behave as a single "sovereign" in that instance.

I will grant you the point that if the electoral college gave states a sort of sovereignty, that it'd be dupliticious of me to claim to care about that while also wanting to get rid of the EC.  But I don't see it that way.

---

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

Joined the discussion late, but this is purely hypothetical because nothing will change, but I think it would be a much better system to proportionally assign the electoral votes in each state instead of the all or nothing.  This way everyone's voice is heard and state's don't lose their individual power.  Like I said this is hypothetical, a real discussion with actual ramifications that could actually change and IMHO change the course of our politics is redistricting.  If districts were drawn without partisan advantage in mind you would get a lot more centrist lawmakers and therefore more willingness to compromise and actually address issues.   One last point, the tyranny of the majority concept is not about elections but about laws and the purpose of the judicial branch.  The judicial branch guards against the tyranny of the majority, such that a law can't be passed unfairly targeting the minority.  The judicial branch specifically protects the tyranny of the majority by ensuring the rights of the minority are upheld.

I have no problem with States implementing that system if they choose. It would give advantage to democrats if every state did that, so I don't see it happening for obvious political reasons. I would think it was unwise if it became a federal law or constitutional amendment (though I would not object it were really done through the proper means).

Gerrymandering is an interesting dilemma. It's difficult to figure out how to redraw districts (which needs to be done). Sure, there are some ideas, but nothing that I feel is a great solution. Here's a great article on 538 if you want to read more about it, but they will make the case that there isn't really a great solution. The best case for me would be to have a non-partisan group draw up the most competitive districts. This has it's own flaws, but would accomplish (I believe) some of what you suggest. Keeping committees non-partisan is an issue altogether.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hat...is-harder/

As to your last point, you might be splitting hairs a bit. Technically, I don't disagree with the notion that tyranny of the majority being about laws, but in a republic, those you elect make the laws. To put it simply, tyranny of the majority was a phrase coined by Tocqueville, which came years after the US Constitution had already been established. The concept, however, was heatedly discussed during the drafting of the Constitution, and Madison was the one that was instrumental in developing the electoral college. He, like others, had concerns about a direct democracy, and wanted a system that would prevent majority rule and unfit demagogues. The electoral college was the solution. I feel we could go back to the drawing board, but I don't like the idea of a direct election.

---

I will grant you the point that if the electoral college gave states a sort of sovereignty, that it'd be dupliticious of me to claim to care about that while also wanting to get rid of the EC.  But I don't see it that way.

I don't care if you see it that way or not. You're not making an argument.

---

Joined the discussion late, but this is purely hypothetical because nothing will change, but I think it would be a much better system to proportionally assign the electoral votes in each state instead of the all or nothing.  This way everyone's voice is heard and state's don't lose their individual power.  Like I said this is hypothetical, a real discussion with actual ramifications that could actually change and IMHO change the course of our politics is redistricting.  If districts were drawn without partisan advantage in mind you would get a lot more centrist lawmakers and therefore more willingness to compromise and actually address issues.   One last point, the tyranny of the majority concept is not about elections but about laws and the purpose of the judicial branch.  The judicial branch guards against the tyranny of the majority, such that a law can't be passed unfairly targeting the minority.  The judicial branch specifically protects the tyranny of the majority by ensuring the rights of the minority are upheld.

I have no problem with States implementing that system if they choose. It would give advantage to democrats if every state did that, so I don't see it happening for obvious political reasons. I would think it was unwise if it became a federal law or constitutional amendment (though I would not object it were really done through the proper means).

Gerrymandering is an interesting dilemma. It's difficult to figure out how to redraw districts (which needs to be done). Sure, there are some ideas, but nothing that I feel is a great solution. Here's a great article on 538 if you want to read more about it, but they will make the case that there isn't really a great solution. The best case for me would be to have a non-partisan group draw up the most competitive districts. This has it's own flaws, but would accomplish (I believe) some of what you suggest. Keeping committees non-partisan is an issue altogether.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hat...is-harder/

As to your last point, you might be splitting hairs a bit. Technically, I don't disagree with the notion that tyranny of the majority being about laws, but in a republic, those you elect make the laws. To put it simply, tyranny of the majority was a phrase coined by Tocqueville, which came years after the US Constitution had already been established. The concept, however, was heatedly discussed during the drafting of the Constitution, and Madison was the one that was instrumental in developing the electoral college. He, like others, had concerns about a direct democracy, and wanted a system that would prevent majority rule and unfit demagogues. The electoral college was the solution. I feel we could go back to the drawing board, but I don't like the idea of a direct election.

The EC also prevented individual citizens from voting directly in federal elections. The States were voting, not the people. The same as the Senate was supposed to represent those States, not the people who are rep'd directly by the House. Federalism was the intent through a Constitutional Republic to create a nation of Law not Men. This is only controversial when a State wants to use its 10th Amendment right to tell the Feds to [BLEEP] off, when the Democrats lose an election, or when Mikey wants to argue.

---

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

I will grant you the point that if the electoral college gave states a sort of sovereignty, that it'd be dupliticious of me to claim to care about that while also wanting to get rid of the EC.  But I don't see it that way.

I don't care if you see it that way or not. You're not making an argument.

Interesting.  Flsportsgod says I'm making too many.

---

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

Joined the discussion late, but this is purely hypothetical because nothing will change, but I think it would be a much better system to proportionally assign the electoral votes in each state instead of the all or nothing.  This way everyone's voice is heard and state's don't lose their individual power.  Like I said this is hypothetical, a real discussion with actual ramifications that could actually change and IMHO change the course of our politics is redistricting.  If districts were drawn without partisan advantage in mind you would get a lot more centrist lawmakers and therefore more willingness to compromise and actually address issues.   One last point, the tyranny of the majority concept is not about elections but about laws and the purpose of the judicial branch.  The judicial branch guards against the tyranny of the majority, such that a law can't be passed unfairly targeting the minority.  The judicial branch specifically protects the tyranny of the majority by ensuring the rights of the minority are upheld.

I have no problem with States implementing that system if they choose. It would give advantage to democrats if every state did that, so I don't see it happening for obvious political reasons. I would think it was unwise if it became a federal law or constitutional amendment (though I would not object it were really done through the proper means).

Gerrymandering is an interesting dilemma. It's difficult to figure out how to redraw districts (which needs to be done). Sure, there are some ideas, but nothing that I feel is a great solution. Here's a great article on 538 if you want to read more about it, but they will make the case that there isn't really a great solution. The best case for me would be to have a non-partisan group draw up the most competitive districts. This has it's own flaws, but would accomplish (I believe) some of what you suggest. Keeping committees non-partisan is an issue altogether.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hat...is-harder/

I have no problem with States proportionally splitting their electoral votes either. I'm just saying don't count on it. There's no incentive for any state to do that on their own.

I enjoyed that 538 article when it came out.  Arizona went with the competitiveness standard you like.
Florida's Constitution was amended, adding compactness and existing political boundaries as standards. I like both approaches. 

But if we could go back into dream world for a minute, a simpler solution would be to require states to draw multi member districts wherever possible.  It would allow minor parties to get representation.  If all of North Florida from Pensacola to Jacksonville down to Gainesville and palm coast was one district that elected five people to Washington, it's easy to imagine the result where there are two or three Republicans, one or two Democrats, and a libertarian in that group.

---

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

I don't care if you see it that way or not. You're not making an argument.

Interesting.  Flsportsgod says I'm making too many.

Lower f, no "O" 

---

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