(01-11-2019, 11:44 AM)Last42min Wrote: 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?

---