(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.

---