Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-04-2020, 05:49 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,068
I guess I am wondering why Biden told Sanders about the vetting, not that he was doing the vetting. Was that a way to say don't waste your time Bernie?
  #152  
Old 04-04-2020, 08:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I guess I am wondering why Biden told Sanders about the vetting, not that he was doing the vetting. Was that a way to say don't waste your time Bernie?
Bernie is doing his damnest to make sure trump wins.
  #153  
Old 04-04-2020, 08:57 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,668

The Moderator Speaks


CarnalK, Bo

Give it a rest, both of you.

In addition, CarnalK this is the second thread I've had to tell you to give it a rest in the last few days. One more and I'm tossing you from P&E for a week.
  #154  
Old 04-04-2020, 10:36 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Bernie is doing his damnest to make sure trump wins.
He isn't though.
Whether you agree with him or not, it's pretty clear that Bernie is a man of conviction, who believes America needs to make certain changes, and has been consistently campaigning for those changes most of his adult life.

It shows how screwed up politics is in the US that people would consider that helping the political opposition.
  #155  
Old 04-05-2020, 12:14 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
He isn't though.
Whether you agree with him or not, it's pretty clear that Bernie is a man of conviction, who believes America needs to make certain changes, and has been consistently campaigning for those changes most of his adult life.

It shows how screwed up politics is in the US that people would consider that helping the political opposition.
Bernie spent millions on TV ads claiming falsely that Biden wants to cut Social Security.

How is that "a man of conviction"? And that is helping trump. It didnt help Bernie, that's for sure, and those ads were after Super Tuesday, when Bernie has pretty much lost.

And by continuing to stay in the election, he is thus encouraging his Bernie-Bros to keep attacking Biden. Which they are.
  #156  
Old 04-05-2020, 06:46 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,068
Sanders keeps saying we all need $2k a month until the virus problem is done. No way in hell that would ever pass Congress.
  #157  
Old 04-05-2020, 02:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Sanders keeps saying we all need $2k a month until the virus problem is done. No way in hell that would ever pass Congress.
Biden and Pelosi are working on a second round of payouts. I think we might get a second round.

I dont think Sanders idea is crazy, but if passed it would contain so many times more $ for trump, his cronies and the billionaires it might not be worth it.
  #158  
Old 04-05-2020, 03:14 PM
Yookeroo's Avatar
Yookeroo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Clemente, California
Posts: 5,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Sanders keeps saying we all need $2k a month until the virus problem is done. No way in hell that would ever pass Congress.
It's already passed. The federal government is paying $600/week unemployment through July. On top of the unemployment from the states.
  #159  
Old 04-05-2020, 03:18 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yookeroo View Post
It's already passed. The federal government is paying $600/week unemployment through July. On top of the unemployment from the states.
Yesbut- thats only if unemployed. It doesn't help those who who have extra expenses or reduced income.

Still, it's pretty nice.

Unlike Florida and Florida's despicable Governor who reduced UC, made it hard to qualify, and now it's nearly impossible to file in Florida. All to save businesses money on their UC claims & insurance. Pretty much if you are in Fla and out of work, you are fucked.
  #160  
Old 04-05-2020, 08:03 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
For some reason Biden told Sanders he's vetting VP picks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I guess I am wondering why Biden told Sanders about the vetting, not that he was doing the vetting. Was that a way to say don't waste your time Bernie?
Um, yeah. He's telling Bernie to get lost in the nicest way. "I'm leading. You can follow or get out of the way."
  #161  
Old 04-05-2020, 09:02 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,694
I think that ship sailed when Biden announced he would pick a woman for VP.
  #162  
Old 04-06-2020, 04:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I think that ship sailed when Biden announced he would pick a woman for VP.
Huh? Are you one of those assuming that a woman can't be well qualified, or best qualified, for a position like VP?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #163  
Old 04-06-2020, 10:59 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
But a cadre of slave-raping, white male land-owning geniuses imposed this undemocratic system on the country hundreds of years ago. How dare you criticize, complain or disagree? We must genuflect before these 'founding fathers,' for they are clearly our betters.
You are free to criticize the founding fathers. You are free to amend the constitution. In fact we amended the constitution to get rid of slavery. All you have to do is follow the rules. if you don't like that the rules were created by slaveowners, then just call a constitutional convention.

In any argument the burden of persuasion lies with the person advocating change. I don't have to convince you that your idea is bad. You have to convince me that your idea is good. And AFAICT your idea is driven largely by partisan interest.
  #164  
Old 04-06-2020, 11:04 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Huh? Are you one of those assuming that a woman can't be well qualified, or best qualified, for a position like VP?
How the hell did you reach THAT conclusion? Perhaps he was just assuming that Bernie was not a woman.
  #165  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:14 AM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Bernie spent millions on TV ads claiming falsely that Biden wants to cut Social Security.

How is that "a man of conviction"? And that is helping trump. It didnt help Bernie, that's for sure, and those ads were after Super Tuesday, when Bernie has pretty much lost.

And by continuing to stay in the election, he is thus encouraging his Bernie-Bros to keep attacking Biden. Which they are.
Your own links showed Biden did want to cut social security, just that he claims otherwise now.
  #166  
Old 04-08-2020, 08:39 AM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
In any argument the burden of persuasion lies with the person advocating change. I don't have to convince you that your idea is bad. You have to convince me that your idea is good. And AFAICT your idea is driven largely by partisan interest.
That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #167  
Old 04-08-2020, 11:11 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.
Yes but partisan arguments are not really compelling policy arguments.

The burden of proof lays with the person advocating change. In this case, they can't seem to reach the constitutional threshhold of persuasion necessary to get the change they want.
  #168  
Old 04-08-2020, 02:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
Your own links showed Biden did want to cut social security, just that he claims otherwise now.
No, he never wanted to, and Politifact agrees. Yes, at one time he called the GOPs bluff on balancing the budget, and said "Ok, we will cut everything across the board then"- knowing full well the GOP wouldn't go for it.

That's not "wanting" to cut Soc Sec.
  #169  
Old 04-08-2020, 02:32 PM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Yes but partisan arguments are not really compelling policy arguments.

The burden of proof lays with the person advocating change. In this case, they can't seem to reach the constitutional threshhold of persuasion necessary to get the change they want.
That may be, but again, it does't mean the arguments are wrong. Frankly, a lot of arguments that were very sound based on logic and the public good have been made on the SDMB about doing away with the Electoral College. It's disingenuous to pretend those arguments haven't been made.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #170  
Old 04-10-2020, 05:19 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
That may be, but again, it does't mean the arguments are wrong. Frankly, a lot of arguments that were very sound based on logic and the public good have been made on the SDMB about doing away with the Electoral College. It's disingenuous to pretend those arguments haven't been made.
Which arguments do you find to be the most persuasive. Because I have not found any of them particularly persuasive. People act like voting for president on a popular vote is somehow superior by default and that's not the case. The burden of persuasion is on you and the hurdle is very high
  #171  
Old 04-10-2020, 07:03 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Which arguments do you find to be the most persuasive. Because I have not found any of them particularly persuasive. People act like voting for president on a popular vote is somehow superior by default and that's not the case. The burden of persuasion is on you and the hurdle is very high
It's persuasive if you believe the concept "one person one vote" is generally the right idea for choosing a leader of government. That's the argument I've been making, over and over -- that everyone's vote should count exactly the same, no matter where they live. Apparently you don't share my support for this concept, since the EC is in direct conflict with "one person one vote".

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-10-2020 at 07:03 PM.
  #172  
Old 04-11-2020, 07:41 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,298
If the Dems had any guts, they should not just add DC as a state next year (assuming they win the Senate as well as the White House).

No, with the cooperation of the current DC government, they should break DC up into dozens of pieces, and add each piece as a state, with each piece getting a Representative, two Senators, and three EVs.

Since DC isn't a state already, there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it from being broken up into dozens of pieces, with each piece being admitted as a state. Just like what happened with the Dakota Territory on its way to statehood, only more so.

Once that's done, we could likely get GOP support for a Constitutional amendment to elect the President by national popular vote.
  #173  
Old 04-11-2020, 08:10 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
If the Dems had any guts, they should not just add DC as a state next year (assuming they win the Senate as well as the White House).

No, with the cooperation of the current DC government, they should break DC up into dozens of pieces, and add each piece as a state, with each piece getting a Representative, two Senators, and three EVs.

Since DC isn't a state already, there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it from being broken up into dozens of pieces, with each piece being admitted as a state. Just like what happened with the Dakota Territory on its way to statehood, only more so.

Once that's done, we could likely get GOP support for a Constitutional amendment to elect the President by national popular vote.
I doubt that would get a majority, and I doubt the public would see this as legitimate (I'm not even sure I would!). But DC and PR could almost certainly get a majority, if the Dems had the House, Senate and WH. Maybe Guam could to -- maybe even the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Marianas.

Breaking DC up is too cute. The others are all real defined places with their own histories, people, etc., and could easily gain legitimacy with a referendum that showed overwhelming local support. DC and PR should be the #1 first priority. The rest can maybe come soon after they hold referendums.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-11-2020 at 08:13 AM.
  #174  
Old 04-11-2020, 08:36 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
These Democratic pipe dreams of flooding the senate with faithful Dem microstates are always amusing. Never a concern for whether they want statehood or any idea how they might vote.
  #175  
Old 04-11-2020, 10:04 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
These Democratic pipe dreams of flooding the senate with faithful Dem microstates are always amusing. Never a concern for whether they want statehood or any idea how they might vote.
DC definitely wants statehood. PR probably does. Neither one conceivably qualifies as a "microstate". I don't know about the rest, but it's not a sure thing they'd say no in a referendum.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-11-2020 at 10:04 AM.
  #176  
Old 04-11-2020, 10:47 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
PR probably doesn't. I just looked at US Virgin Islands wiki page: their last referendum was in '93 where the results were for maintaining status quo but it wasn't considered valid because of less than 30% turnout. Same reason the last statehood referendum in PR wasn't really considered invalid.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-11-2020 at 10:49 AM.
  #177  
Old 04-11-2020, 10:52 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
PR probably doesn't.
The polling I've seen indicate it probably would. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_P...#Opinion_polls

Quote:
I just looked at US Virgin Islands wiki page: their last referendum was in '93 where the results were for maintaining status quo but it wasn't considered valid because of less than 30% turnout. Same reason the last statehood referendum in PR wasn't really considered invalid.
I'm not nearly so confident about the others, but with serious campaigning by pro statehood advocates, maybe it could go up. At the very least it's an open question.
  #178  
Old 04-11-2020, 11:08 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
It's not an open question. Trying to set up some pro-state movement in these territories, actually get one scheduled and win it would take over a decade.
  #179  
Old 04-11-2020, 12:02 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's not an open question. Trying to set up some pro-state movement in these territories, actually get one scheduled and win it would take over a decade.
Your certainty is awesomely convincing! Thank you.
  #180  
Old 04-11-2020, 12:35 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
If a project would take tremendous effort, has a completely unknown chance of success and you haven't even started working on it then that, I'm afraid, is the definition of a pipe dream. Stay as unconvinced as you like.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-11-2020 at 12:36 PM.
  #181  
Old 04-11-2020, 01:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
If a project would take tremendous effort, has a completely unknown chance of success and you haven't even started working on it then that, I'm afraid, is the definition of a pipe dream. Stay as unconvinced as you like.
I'm unconvinced of the first part. These aren't huge populations, and from the Samoans and Virgin Islanders I've spoken to, it might be welcomed by many of them right off the bat. In any case, my main argument has been that the 1st priority for a Democratic-led government should be to make PR and DC states, and I think those are very achievable, and quite quickly. The rest might take a bit longer, but could still be worth it.
  #182  
Old 04-11-2020, 01:20 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
It's like you always ignore relevant history if goes against the latest political scheme you're enamored with. What makes you think the Dems can quickly move PR or DC statehood through? Why didn't they do it already? Lemme guess, Dems have been too weak and disorganized to get it done but THIS time it's all different. Or maybe not. We're all just making random guesses here completely unattached to reality.
  #183  
Old 04-11-2020, 01:44 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's like you always ignore relevant history if goes against the latest political scheme you're enamored with. What makes you think the Dems can quickly move PR or DC statehood through? Why didn't they do it already? Lemme guess, Dems have been too weak and disorganized to get it done but THIS time it's all different. Or maybe not. We're all just making random guesses here completely unattached to reality.
I'm hardly the only one to advocate for PR and DC statehood as a high priority: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...5ef_story.html

And I don't think it would be that hard. I'm sure it would be challenged, but the initial steps are already done or can be done very quickly: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...ty-first-state

The Democrats haven't done this because they only had both houses plus the WH in '09 and '10, and they (perhaps foolishly) didn't make this a priority.

PR and DC statehood aren't left-field propositions, especially DC -- this is well within the party's establishment, AFAICT.
  #184  
Old 04-11-2020, 02:16 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
DC might happen. I doubt it but there might be some way to sneak it through.

PR is way less likely. They've had 5-6 referendums and jack has happened. The pro&anti groups there are quite entrenched from what I've read. I doubt you could bank on getting 2 Dem Senators from there either. Their main political parties don't map onto the Dems&Reps, they seem locked into the aforementioned entrenchment.

The others are pure pipe dream. No state movements to speak of.
  #185  
Old 04-11-2020, 02:32 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
DC might happen. I doubt it but there might be some way to sneak it through.

PR is way less likely. They've had 5-6 referendums and jack has happened. The pro&anti groups there are quite entrenched from what I've read. I doubt you could bank on getting 2 Dem Senators from there either. Their main political parties don't map onto the Dems&Reps, they seem locked into the aforementioned entrenchment.

The others are pure pipe dream. No state movements to speak of.
I'm less pessimistic than you, but I agree that this isn't a trivial problem to solve. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be a high priority (or the highest, IMO).
  #186  
Old 04-12-2020, 12:23 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's persuasive if you believe the concept "one person one vote" is generally the right idea for choosing a leader of government. That's the argument I've been making, over and over -- that everyone's vote should count exactly the same, no matter where they live. Apparently you don't share my support for this concept, since the EC is in direct conflict with "one person one vote".
I think we live in a federal republic. EVeryone's does in fact get one vote but their votes are cast in the context of a federal republic, The states matter.

I think my vote should count for 400 million of everyone else's votes. Many others feel the same way but in order to form a nation we had to convince people to adopt a system that we could all agree on. And in order to get every state to agree, they insisted on this electoral college thing. Now you want to change that bargain. Fine. There is an avenue to do so and you don't even have to get every state to agree. You only need 3/4ths of them to do so. But right now you can't even get states representing the majority of the population to sign onto that scheme.

You would impose what you think is fair on a population that doesn't seem to want it. And the high interest in the popular vote has only really gotten a lot of attention after the Bush-Gore election. It really seems like the push for the popular vote is largely energized by partisan interests. It's just not very convincing.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 04-12-2020 at 12:25 AM.
  #187  
Old 04-12-2020, 06:22 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I think we live in a federal republic. EVeryone's does in fact get one vote but their votes are cast in the context of a federal republic, The states matter.

I think my vote should count for 400 million of everyone else's votes. Many others feel the same way but in order to form a nation we had to convince people to adopt a system that we could all agree on. And in order to get every state to agree, they insisted on this electoral college thing. Now you want to change that bargain. Fine. There is an avenue to do so and you don't even have to get every state to agree. You only need 3/4ths of them to do so. But right now you can't even get states representing the majority of the population to sign onto that scheme.

You would impose what you think is fair on a population that doesn't seem to want it. And the high interest in the popular vote has only really gotten a lot of attention after the Bush-Gore election. It really seems like the push for the popular vote is largely energized by partisan interests. It's just not very convincing.
It's convincing if you hold to the one person one vote principal (with each vote counting exactly the same for president) as more important than the "federal republic" stuff above. I do, you don't.

And your "impose" stuff is just nonsense. Yes, I think the EC should be abolished. Thinking this isn't imposing anything on anyone.

I have a hard time believing that you can't conceive that some folks really might think that it's important for every single vote to count exactly the same, regardless of partisan concerns. Not everything is partisan.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #188  
Old 04-12-2020, 11:32 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I doubt that would get a majority
You did see my 'if' clause, right?

I mean, one of the things I take for granted in this world is: no, the Dems don't have any guts. Frustrates the hell out of me, but reality often does.
  #189  
Old 04-12-2020, 11:54 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
Well, it could possibly be that Dems actually in government and politics think your ideas are stupid rather than lacking the guts to do them. Just a possibility.
  #190  
Old 04-13-2020, 12:25 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's convincing if you hold to the one person one vote principal (with each vote counting exactly the same for president) as more important than the "federal republic" stuff above. I do, you don't.

And your "impose" stuff is just nonsense. Yes, I think the EC should be abolished. Thinking this isn't imposing anything on anyone.
Oh, OK so it's just a personal preference and not really anything that you have convincing arguments for. Certainly not convincing enough to get a majority of states, electoral votes, states representing the majority of the population or really any sort of majority at all to sign on to.

Quote:
I have a hard time believing that you can't conceive that some folks really might think that it's important for every single vote to count exactly the same, regardless of partisan concerns. Not everything is partisan.
I believe some people are genuinely concerned about the electoral college. I don't think the vast majority of people who are currently concerned would be concerned outside of partisan interests.
  #191  
Old 04-13-2020, 12:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Oh, OK so it's just a personal preference and not really anything that you have convincing arguments for.
Not if you don't care about 1 person = 1 vote, as you clearly don't! But I think lots of people do, and my argument is extremely simple and straightforward for such folks.

Quote:
Certainly not convincing enough to get a majority of states, electoral votes, states representing the majority of the population or really any sort of majority at all to sign on to.
At present, no... but so what? Are you saying that because I haven't convinced everyone, I should stop arguing? If not, then how is this relevant?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-13-2020 at 12:50 PM.
  #192  
Old 04-13-2020, 01:22 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,286
The AP is reporting that Bernie Sanders has now publicly endorsed Joe Biden for POTUS.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 04-13-2020 at 01:23 PM.
  #193  
Old 04-13-2020, 02:22 PM
Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
There is also the argument that this was the compromise necessary to form a country in the first place. And if you want to change it, there is an avenue for you to do so. Just get 2/3rds of each chamber of congress and 3/4ths of the states. There is nothing morally superior about a popular vote imposed on an unwilling constituency over an electoral system that was agreed to by each of the states as they entered the union.
Its a 250 year old problem that was solved with an imperfect compromise 250 years ago. But that 250 year old compromise is how we got a country - without it we would simply have had a bunch of small nation states. And the problems it addressed haven't gone anywhere in 250 years.
  #194  
Old 04-13-2020, 02:46 PM
Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's persuasive if you believe the concept "one person one vote" is generally the right idea for choosing a leader of government. That's the argument I've been making, over and over -- that everyone's vote should count exactly the same, no matter where they live. Apparently you don't share my support for this concept, since the EC is in direct conflict with "one person one vote".
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that isn't the system we have, and if that is the system we want, there are HUGE hurdles between here and there. We either turn over the Constitution of the United States via revolution and start over (and discover that some of the compromises made way back then are still going to apply in order to not end up with islands of "I'm not part of your country." - Plus revolutions are bloody uncertain disruptions that may not turn out the way you envision) or we need to change the Constitution via amendment - which is going to be hard because you are talking about removing power from smaller states - they aren't going to fall in line for that.

I like the idea of popular vote for President - I'm onboard and think it makes sense - but I'm not willing to take up arms to get it. The realist in me knows that's a pipe dream - at least in the short term and probably in the long term. I'd also just be on board with a truer population based electoral college and House of Representatives - even if that means we have to significantly change how the House runs (and we would - for Wyoming to get any representation in the House, and for Californians to get per capita equal representation California would need at least 10 more representatives, Texas gets seven more - they don't fit in the building, that's part of the problem.) That's probably more realistic, but probably involves changing the way Representatives operate - e.g. they stay in their home state and the House meets virtually (which has all sorts of other advantages - it becomes harder to lobby representatives when they are scattered all over the country and you have to spend time buying them steak dinners in Des Moines and Boise and Little Rock - but I'm not sure the Reps would go for it).
  #195  
Old 04-13-2020, 03:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
The AP is reporting that Bernie Sanders has now publicly endorsed Joe Biden for POTUS.
And what does that have to do with a popular vote for President or Puerto Rican statehood? Start your own thread please.
  #196  
Old 04-13-2020, 04:00 PM
Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's persuasive if you believe the concept "one person one vote" is generally the right idea for choosing a leader of government. That's the argument I've been making, over and over -- that everyone's vote should count exactly the same, no matter where they live. Apparently you don't share my support for this concept, since the EC is in direct conflict with "one person one vote".
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that isn't the system we have, and if that is the system we want, there are HUGE hurdles between here and there. We either turn over the Constitution of the United States via revolution and start over (and discover that some of the compromises made way back then are still going to apply in order to not end up with islands of "I'm not part of your country." - Plus revolutions are bloody uncertain disruptions that may not turn out the way you envision) or we need to change the Constitution via amendment - which is going to be hard because you are talking about removing power from smaller states - they aren't going to fall in line for that.

I like the idea of popular vote for President - I'm onboard and think it makes sense - but I'm not willing to take up arms to get it. The realist in me knows that's a pipe dream - at least in the short term and probably in the long term. I'd also just be on board with a truer population based electoral college and House of Representatives - even if that means we have to significantly change how the House runs (and we would - for Wyoming to get any representation in the House, and for Californians to get per capita equal representation California would need at least 10 more representatives, Texas gets seven more - they don't fit in the building, that's part of the problem.) That's probably more realistic, but probably involves changing the way Representatives operate - e.g. they stay in their home state and the House meets virtually (which has all sorts of other advantages - it becomes harder to lobby representatives when they are scattered all over the country and you have to spend time buying them steak dinners in Des Moines and Boise and Little Rock - but I'm not sure the Reps would go for it).
  #197  
Old 04-13-2020, 11:28 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Not if you don't care about 1 person = 1 vote, as you clearly don't! But I think lots of people do, and my argument is extremely simple and straightforward for such folks.
It is a simple argument. An unworkable, impossible simple partisan argument. By the time you can actually win the argument, you won't want it anymore.

Quote:
At present, no... but so what? Are you saying that because I haven't convinced everyone, I should stop arguing? If not, then how is this relevant?
I don't think you EVER get that majority. I don't think you can force a change like this on the states without the amendment process and I don't see how you EVER get 3/4ths of the states to agree. You might as well argue for the virtues of a perpetual motion machine.
  #198  
Old 04-14-2020, 05:46 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It is a simple argument. An unworkable, impossible simple partisan argument. By the time you can actually win the argument, you won't want it anymore.
Not surprisingly, I disagree.

Quote:
I don't think you EVER get that majority. I don't think you can force a change like this on the states without the amendment process and I don't see how you EVER get 3/4ths of the states to agree. You might as well argue for the virtues of a perpetual motion machine.
Whether this is true or not is irrelevant to my position. I don't think reparations have a significant likelihood of going forward in the next several years, and yet I still think it's very important to advocate that they be discussed.
  #199  
Old 04-14-2020, 09:38 AM
Folacin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post
I'd also just be on board with a truer population based electoral college and House of Representatives - even if that means we have to significantly change how the House runs (and we would - for Wyoming to get any representation in the House, and for Californians to get per capita equal representation California would need at least 10 more representatives, Texas gets seven more - they don't fit in the building, that's part of the problem.) That's probably more realistic, but probably involves changing the way Representatives operate - e.g. they stay in their home state and the House meets virtually (which has all sorts of other advantages - it becomes harder to lobby representatives when they are scattered all over the country and you have to spend time buying them steak dinners in Des Moines and Boise and Little Rock - but I'm not sure the Reps would go for it).
They fit in with 100 Senators and 9 SC Justices for the state of the union, so they could make it work. But I agree that they should institute rules to allow virtual votes.

And the law setting the size of the House should be changed to set the number to the total population from the last census, divided by the population of the least populous state, rounded up (or down, +/- one doesn't matter much).

Last edited by Folacin; 04-14-2020 at 09:38 AM.
  #200  
Old 04-14-2020, 03:42 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Not surprisingly, I disagree.
My basic premise is that there would not be significant argument over the electoral college today but for Bush v Gore and Trump v Clinton. Its largely driven by people who think that Bush and Trump are illegitimate presidents who would never have won the election if elections were actually fair. It is for the most part partisan bullshit.

I suspect you didn't have much objection to it before bush v gore. I have yet to meet anyone that did.

Quote:
Whether this is true or not is irrelevant to my position. I don't think reparations have a significant likelihood of going forward in the next several years, and yet I still think it's very important to advocate that they be discussed.
It's relevant because a democracy governs itself and any idea that cannot gain popular support and is not in defense of minority rights is at best not viable and at worst tyranny.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017