(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.

---