(01-11-2019, 01:03 PM)Last42min Wrote: I addressed that on page 3.

Parties is a rabbit trail, because we are discussing whether or not people of different cultures and ideologies could be equally represented in your proposed system.

Quote: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. 

Who mentioned the federalist papers? Is this the only document I'm allowed to reference. It's in the writings of the founders in multiple places. Fear of mob rule. Fear of a majority controlling the wishes of a minority. Your proposal is a step towards majority rule. Everything was designed with the idea that states, and, therefore, the people within those states, would be able to govern themselves and have some control over their own culture. You don't seem to get this basic "conservative" concept.

Quote: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.

Any party that has a shot to win the White House, whether under the Electoral College or national popular vote, will necessarily include multiple interests and types of people in it.  In the Electoral college, each campaign focuses on swing states and zeroes in on every likely voter, framing an argument to each particular interest group they can identify within that state. 
But in a national popular vote, everyone's vote would count the same, and every state becomes the swing state that you see today.  Any person anywhere in the US would have one or the other candidate specifically framing arguments to specifically win their vote.  It wouldn't matter if they were in a "flyover state" or not.  Just if they want to vote or not.

I mentioned the federalist papers.  But any document or speech from any of the founding fathers could contribute to your argument if you want.  Don't just tell me they had a "Fear of a majority controlling the wishes of a minority," point me to the exact quote, show me the context.  Explain why you think it applies to the present situation.  Remember that a direct election for President was not just undesired but *not possible* due to the 3/5ths compromise. You're not likely to spend much time thinking about the outcomes of impossible events, so if you think they're talking about national popular vote, it's more likely they're talking about some other scenario that was more realistic at the time.  We already did this with Federalist 68.  Show me what else you're looking at.  And if you find something that says the Founders feared small factions being abused by larger ones, explain why you think the Electoral College effectually stops this today.  I don't think it does.  I think that's the Senate you're thinking of.

---