(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.

I did ask for your premises.  I used the word "why?" both times.
I appreciate you conceding the point about the words "direct democracy".  And I appreciate that you concede to stating a conclusion without supporting details - for me that's the same thing as begging the question, but I think we both agree that this is not good behavior.  So I'll let you win regarding the definition of "begging the question" since you let me win regarding "direct democracy".

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.  Yes, one candidate would focus more on the largest media markets.  But the other candidate would take a different strategy.  He'd focus on the smaller markets.  This is not that different from the strategies we see today, with one candidate typically focusing on the big cities of a swing state and the other typically focusing on the suburbs and rural parts of that same state.  It's just taking place in every state.  The US is very spread-out, population wise.  Yes, the top ten media markets are big, but added all together, they are only about 30% of the voters.  Each candidate would need to win votes everywhere humanly possible.

Hamilton argued that the Electoral college would avert mob rule because a voter in one area would be selecting from a different set of candidates for elector than a voter in another area. He did not think that an ordinary voter would see the name of the Presidential candidate on his ballot. He thought that only the electoral college would ever see those names. So Hamilton thought it would be pointless for a Presidential candidate to behave like a demagogue and promote himself to the masses. Hamilton was wrong. The states quickly decided to give ballots to the people with the names of the Presidential candidate on them. Almost all of Hamilton's arguments for the EC fall apart on this one point. Every Presidential candidate since Jackson has behaved like a demagogue and created the type of mob rule that Hamilton feared. Luckily, the Senate and the Courts have stopped such men from becoming dictators, but the Electoral college has been less than useless in this regard.

---