Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-21-2019, 05:40 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
What exactly do you think the president's role would be in this?
I’m assuming it’s related to the fact that Democratic candidates are talking about it. My impression is that it’s a “those crazy Democrats” talking point on Fox News?

ETA: but yes, the president’s role would be as an advocate. I don’t see how it’s more than that.

Last edited by snoe; 03-21-2019 at 05:42 PM.
  #152  
Old 03-21-2019, 05:50 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
And by the way, Omar Little: look at the title you gave this thread. I don’t see how you didn’t expect people to argue about SHOULD the EC be abolished. C’mon now. Some of that three page derail is on you.

Last edited by snoe; 03-21-2019 at 05:51 PM.
  #153  
Old 03-21-2019, 06:22 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamatoTwinkie View Post

You have a disagreement with the federal system and think its antiquated? Fine. Make a case for abolishing all the state governments, tearing up the Constitution, renaming the country, and starting over, with 51% popular votes on everything. At least it'd be logically consistent.
Do you believe our nation was destroyed by the 17th Amendment?
  #154  
Old 03-21-2019, 06:26 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
1) This is hundreds of years ago -- the people who "agreed" to this "contract" are all dead
2) Hey, we have 50 states now, we can renegotiate that contract
Consider that, at the time the Constitution was ratified, there were maybe 6 million people involved (if you count 3/5ths of the NAs and blacksacross the land). We are now more than fifty times that number (19 individual states are larger than the US at inception). That is a lot of people to be represented by one person. Perhaps the concept of the imperious presidency itself is one that deserves another look.
  #155  
Old 03-21-2019, 06:30 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Do you believe our nation was destroyed by the 17th Amendment?
It was changed. I would argue that the nation is the same after an amendment, but I can see the argument that any change to the constitution "destroys" the country and forms it anew.

The argument is even more persuasive if you are against the proposed change.
  #156  
Old 03-21-2019, 06:31 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You do need to make counter arguments to say why we should not make this change.

That the status quo is the status quo is not justification of the status quo. You have to actually show how the status quo is superior to changes to it. ...
No, I don't. Let's conduct a little thought exercise and imagine for a moment that no one here advanced any logical reason why the Electoral College should remain as it is. What happens then? Does it go away? Will we have a popular vote election for president in 2020 or 2024? 2028? No, we won't, because inertia is a powerful thing.

Now, I think some of the arguments that have been made here for why we have the Electoral College are perfectly reasonable and more than enough to dissuade me of any desire to see it changed. You might think that I was already inclined to such a conclusion anyways, and you might even be right, but so what? I'm representative of the many millions of citizens you've got to persuade if you want to see it changed. "It's not fair to California" isn't doing it for me.
  #157  
Old 03-21-2019, 06:36 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Do you believe our nation was destroyed by the 17th Amendment?
That’s too easy a question to weasel out of, IMHO. (Though it’s a very good question — I just doubt you’ll get an honest answer that relates to the OP in any way. But hey — I’m willing to listen if you all will prove me wrong!)
But yeah, you can yadda yadda the important role of the Senate even if the Senators are popularly elected. And distracting from the question of “should we abolish the EC” to “is federalism good/is the Senate good” is a rhetorical strategy EC defenders love to use. Because, as I have said again and again, their actual arguments are weak or repulsive. (But hey, prove me wrong and bring something new!)
  #158  
Old 03-21-2019, 06:45 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You do need to make counter arguments to say why we should not make this change.
No, that's not how it works. The person making the argument has to make his case, it's not up to anyone else to rebut it.
  #159  
Old 03-21-2019, 06:56 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, I don't. Let's conduct a little thought exercise and imagine for a moment that no one here advanced any logical reason why the Electoral College should remain as it is. What happens then? Does it go away? Will we have a popular vote election for president in 2020 or 2024? 2028? No, we won't, because inertia is a powerful thing.
No, if no one presents a logical argument against the change, then the change will be made.

"Hey, let's change this, any reason why we shouldn't?" <<Crickets>> "Okay, we'll go ahead and change it."

Do you see how silence on your part isn't really the same as an argument for your position?
Quote:
Now, I think some of the arguments that have been made here for why we have the Electoral College are perfectly reasonable and more than enough to dissuade me of any desire to see it changed. You might think that I was already inclined to such a conclusion anyways, and you might even be right, but so what? I'm representative of the many millions of citizens you've got to persuade if you want to see it changed. "It's not fair to California" isn't doing it for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No, that's not how it works. The person making the argument has to make his case, it's not up to anyone else to rebut it.
The case has been made, and many find it persuasive. If the only counter argument that you have is "Well, that's the way it is", then we will easily win this argument.

If "It's not fair to California" is all you have gotten out of the arguments in this thread, then you have not paid any attention to pretty much anything that anyone has said. You are not representative of the millions of citizens, you only represent yourself. If you choose not to listen to the arguments, then there is no way to make you. If you choose not to rebut the arguments, as you feel that the status quo will protect itself, then you will simply not be part of the conversation on how we move forward. If you have nothing productive to contribute, then no one will care what you have to say.
  #160  
Old 03-21-2019, 07:05 PM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,103
The easiest solution to the Electoral College problem is increasing the size of the House of Representatives. This can be done with a Congressional act, signed by the president; no need to modify the Constitution or have an disputably legal interstate compact. The Constitutional limit on the size of the House is "the Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative".

This is what reformers should campaign on. It shouldn't be partisan--rural, urban, and suburban areas will all get more representation.

The primary reason that we stopped expanding the size of the House with the population were practical. It got crowded in the chamber. But with modern technology, it's not really that important for every representative to be in the chamber at the same time. We have closed circuit television and secure electronic voting. Physical presence is rarely required, which is why the chamber is mostly empty more often than not.

Personally, I'd love it if we went to the Constitutional limit, but I'm probably the only one. (Imagine over ten thousand in the House!) Instead, I'd recommend that the least populous state get one more representative than it has senators, so every state has more representatives than senators. That'd give us about 1600 in the House, which seems reasonable.

That 1600 would give Wyoming 3 representatives and California 195. An appropriate 1:65 ratio. And about 1:40 ratio for Electors. Not proportional, but not outrageously off. The Founding Fathers' compromise is more reasonable once we return to allowing the House grow with the population.
  #161  
Old 03-21-2019, 07:29 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,149
Some of the comments in this thread are very ... interesting. I'll content myself with comments on some of the less interesting posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crucible View Post
... And, without a constitutional amendment, each state could decide to award its electoral votes according to the vote in each congressional district, districts drawn by a computer algorithm to divide the states population without regard to urban vs rural/ democrat areas vs republican.
It's in a state's interest to cast its EVs winner-take-all. Maine would be a swing state with 4 EVs if it were winner-take-all. Instead it offers just 2 EVs and can be ignored by campaigns.

If Mississippi split its EVs as Maine/Nebraska do, black Democrats would gain some power. But why should the white Republicans controlling the state do that? Similarly the Ds firmly control California; what is their incentive to give EVs to the Rs?

And those trying to solve the gerrymandering problem by divisions "without regard to urban vs rural" (we've even heard districting proposals based on SocSec numbers!) — Do you realize that totally random allocation in a 51-49 state would give ALL the seats to the majority party?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
It's ironic that this issue makes liberals adopt typically conservative views and vice versa.

It's akin to a classroom of a hundred students; 60 of which are privileged and 40 of which are disadvantaged. The conservatives (disadvantaged = sparsely populated rural states) argue that their votes ought to be given greater weight as a counterbalance, while the liberals (privileged = high-population or coastal states) argue that every vote should carry equal weight, because that would be the purest form of democracy. Essentially, electoral affirmative action.

Under the conservative plan, the classroom vote would come out to 50-50 or maybe even slightly tilted in favor of the conservatives. Under the liberal plan, the classroom vote would always be 60-40 in favor of the privileged students.
Some think the human appendix is a useless vestige of our distant past. Others find it useful make-work for surgeons.

Some think the EC is a useless vestige. But apparently it's to help rural folk (in Rhode Island and Delaware?) rid themselves of oppression by urbanites. Got it?
  #162  
Old 03-21-2019, 07:34 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, if no one presents a logical argument against the change, then the change will be made. ...
So we're getting national popular vote? When? In time for 2020? Or are you going to have to wait until 2024 to bask in the glory of your victory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... The case has been made, and many find it persuasive. If the only counter argument that you have is "Well, that's the way it is", then we will easily win this argument. ...
What's taking you so long then? Why hasn't it been done already? Why did we still have the EC in 2016 after what happened in 2000?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 03-21-2019 at 07:36 PM.
  #163  
Old 03-21-2019, 07:43 PM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,423
I dunno.

Seems to me that a system to elect a president which can be shown, if taken to the extreme, where 23% of the popular vote can determine the winner is a flawed system.

But maybe that's just me.
  #164  
Old 03-21-2019, 08:46 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If "It's not fair to California" is all you have gotten out of the arguments in this thread, then you have not paid any attention to pretty much anything that anyone has said.
They have nothing else to offer. I like the retreat to “no, you prove YOUR case as to why we should change!” Always the sign of someone occupying the moral high ground. (Cue someone’s cheap version of the Cheaterton’s Fence move.)

I told you guys to bring your A game. I am disappointed, though a couple of the variations you’ve spun on the same old melodies have made me chuckle a bit.

Just admit it: you don’t like Democrats being elected, they’re broadly popular, and so you support policies that diminish their political power. It’s fine! You don’t have to support democracy. (We’re a republic, remember?) Just admit it, though.
  #165  
Old 03-21-2019, 08:48 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
I dunno.

Seems to me that a system to elect a president which can be shown, if taken to the extreme, where 23% of the popular vote can determine the winner is a flawed system.

But maybe that's just me.
You obviously don’t dislike Democrats enough.
  #166  
Old 03-21-2019, 08:49 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So we're getting national popular vote? When? In time for 2020? Or are you going to have to wait until 2024 to bask in the glory of your victory?


What's taking you so long then? Why hasn't it been done already? Why did we still have the EC in 2016 after what happened in 2000?
This is beautiful. Change the subject a bit more, why doncha
  #167  
Old 03-21-2019, 09:10 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,258
Personally, I think there's value in a continent wide country to have system that makes less populated states not feel quite so overwhelmed by the more populous ones. State borders have meaning to people and I don't think it's fair to cry about "democracy is about people not dirt".

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
4 times in the nations history, but twice in the last couple decades. That something was not a problem before doesn't mean that it's not a problem now.
Doesn't mean it is a problem now either. Did you notice that the other two times were even closer together? 1876 &1888. Then it was 112 years before it happened again.
  #168  
Old 03-21-2019, 11:21 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
This is beautiful. Change the subject a bit more, why doncha
This IS the subject. See post #147:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Well after a 3 page derailment, the original question, was: do you think that the current rhetoric about eliminating the EC is just that, or is there a real possibility of eliminating it if there was a Democratic administration in the WH?
In spite of k9bfriender's bravado, I submit that an amendment to abolish the Electoral College is no more likely to pass in the next 20 years than it was in the last 20.

Too many of you tell yourselves that you have a reality-based worldview while you're really living off in fantasyland. You'll sit around here and pat each other on the back, assuring yourselves that you've made very persuasive arguments and thus victory is assured. I'm here to bring you back to reality: they're not persuasive arguments to enough of the people you need to persuade to see your preferred policy enacted. Nowhere close.
  #169  
Old 03-21-2019, 11:29 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Personally, I think there's value in a continent wide country to have system that makes less populated states not feel quite so overwhelmed by the more populous ones.
Perhaps a system that does that should be proposed, then. The electoral college makes small states less valuable. Donald Trump won Wyoming by 118,000 votes and Pennsylvania by 36,000 votes, yet he netted 3 votes from Wyoming and 20 votes from Pennsylvania. How was Wyoming not overwhelmed by that?

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 03-21-2019 at 11:31 PM.
  #170  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:55 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, if no one presents a logical argument against the change, then the change will be made.
You really don't get it. Those making the argument have to convince millions and millions of others to agree with them.

Good luck with that.
  #171  
Old 03-22-2019, 07:42 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Personally, I think there's value in a continent wide country to have system that makes less populated states not feel quite so overwhelmed by the more populous ones.
The electoral college does not accomplish this. It may have one day, but it doesn't any more. Less populated states are almost completely ignored with the current system. States like Wyoming and North Dakota are little more than an afterthought in the electoral college system because the system is set up to guarantee that the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Looking at reality isn't dumb and this is what reality looks like.
  #172  
Old 03-22-2019, 07:55 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The electoral college does not accomplish this. It may have one day, but it doesn't any more. Less populated states are almost completely ignored with the current system. States like Wyoming and North Dakota are little more than an afterthought in the electoral college system because the system is set up to guarantee that the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Looking at reality isn't dumb and this is what reality looks like.
No kidding. Just look at any map of presidential campaign visits. They are almost exclusively to states like North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Link. Ad spending follows basically the same model. It's mainly because these states aren't worth the effort, due to them being non-competitive.
  #173  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:06 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,714
I don't understand this "little states would be overwhelmed" when it pertains to a national office. Little states are overly represented in the Senate, the nation's highest legislative body.

Let's try another thought experiment. Suppose the country commissioned 100 of the nation's most respected constitutional and legal scholars to re-write the country's electoral laws from scratch. Do we think they'd come up with anything like the abomination we have today?
  #174  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:14 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So we're getting national popular vote? When? In time for 2020? Or are you going to have to wait until 2024 to bask in the glory of your victory?


What's taking you so long then? Why hasn't it been done already? Why did we still have the EC in 2016 after what happened in 2000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
You really don't get it. Those making the argument have to convince millions and millions of others to agree with them.

Good luck with that.
You note that this is a debate board, and a debating forum, and we are here to debate.

I am not saying that I have won over all the voters. I am just saying that you are failing at participating in an actual debate, just repeating over and over the same things about how you were not willing to read an entire post, and that the snippets that you were willing to read didn't convince you.

That's not a debate, that's just trying to derail the debate by bragging about being stubborn.

If you don't have a counter argument, just admit that you will be depending on inertia to keep the status quo, and that you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion.

Your failed attempts to mock me because you have not brought an argument are more than just a bit counterproductive, both to the discussion and to any shred of credibility your arguments may carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Personally, I think there's value in a continent wide country to have system that makes less populated states not feel quite so overwhelmed by the more populous ones. State borders have meaning to people and I don't think it's fair to cry about "democracy is about people not dirt".
You find value in a continent wide system to give disproportionate power to people who live in less economically developed areas?

I don't think it is fair to cry that either, which is why no one is crying at all. They are providing rational explanations to which the only counter has been "nu-uh", or, "but that would mean that the republicans (the real americans) would lose power".

If you want to see a whiner, see one that is worried that his vote will be worth the same as his fellow countryman, and how terrified that they are treated equally.
Quote:

Doesn't mean it is a problem now either. Did you notice that the other two times were even closer together? 1876 &1888. Then it was 112 years before it happened again.
No, it's not a problem if you favor results that overturn the will of the actual voters. The way that the demographics are moving about, it is something that will become more and more likely as time progresses, and will also tend to always favor the people who live in smaller, less economically active communities than those who actually produces the wealth and prosperity that brings up the standard of living for everyone and provides assistance to these poorer areas of our country.

Something has got to give. Not only is it not "fair" in that you have a smaller and smaller portion of the country dictating terms to the majority, but it is also damaging, as the voters in these poor communities do not have the ability to understand things like macro economics and global trade, so they elect people who favor things that will hurt them, through reducing services for tax cuts for the wealthy, reducing regulations that help to prevent health problems from pollution, to tarifs that increase the cost of goods for American consumers.

Not saying that they shouldn't get represented, but it is a myth that rural people are the "real americans", and it is only this myth that is used as a fig leaf to protect their disproportionate power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This IS the subject. See post #147:



In spite of k9bfriender's bravado, I submit that an amendment to abolish the Electoral College is no more likely to pass in the next 20 years than it was in the last 20.
In spite of your stubbornness and refusal to acknowledge that other arguments have been made for many different proposals, I disagree that we will entirely maintain the status quo. What changes are made, I don't know, but there will be efforts taken to change it, and if, on the national level, the only counterargument is the one that you have brought, then it will be easy.

I have actually heard counter arguments to abolishing or altering the EC that may be persuasive, and those will be something to address, but status quo and "good luck with that" are not them, those are not arguments, those are concessions that you have nothing better to contribute to the discussion.
Quote:

Too many of you tell yourselves that you have a reality-based worldview while you're really living off in fantasyland. You'll sit around here and pat each other on the back, assuring yourselves that you've made very persuasive arguments and thus victory is assured. I'm here to bring you back to reality: they're not persuasive arguments to enough of the people you need to persuade to see your preferred policy enacted. Nowhere close.
There we go with the failed attempts at mind reading again. I am not saying that all I need to do is make an argument and assure victory. I am just saying that you have utterly failed to bring a counter argument in a forum meant for debating. Is altering the EC a given? No. Have you contributed any counter argument to this discussion? Also, no.
  #175  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:24 AM
typoink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
There are a lot of great reasons we have the EC, one of which is avoiding tyranny of the majority. Ten wolves and nine sheep voting on what to have for dinner is a bad situation
Cool. You just starved ten wolves to save nine sheep. People love to yank out this "tyranny of the majority" card, but it's a really, really stupid argument. All it means is "I'd prefer tyranny of the minority."

The last two Republican presidents have taken office despite losing the popular vote. That should be exceptionally embarrassing to you, and every Republican making an "it's a feature, not a bug" argument is simply making a post hoc justification to not have to face the fact that they are supporting a corrupt system.

"Wave of populism" my fat fanny -- he lost the popular vote by millions.
  #176  
Old 03-22-2019, 10:48 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
Ten wolves and nine sheep voting on what to have for dinner is a bad situation.
Nine wolves and ten sheep voting on what to have for dinner where each wolf gets 1.2 votes for historical reasons rooted in the preservation of slavery is also a bad situation.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 03-22-2019 at 10:51 AM.
  #177  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:06 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You find value in a continent wide system to give disproportionate power to people who live in less economically developed areas?
[...]

No, it's not a problem if you favor results that overturn the will of the actual voters. The way that the demographics are moving about, it is something that will become more and more likely as time progresses, and will also tend to always favor the people who live in smaller, less economically active communities than those who actually produces the wealth and prosperity that brings up the standard of living for everyone and provides assistance to these poorer areas of our countryo
Look at you, getting all "trickle down" economics. I was talking about population, not sure why you brought up economics - the low population states don't all have the same economies
  #178  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:07 AM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by typoink View Post
Cool. You just starved ten wolves to save nine sheep. People love to yank out this "tyranny of the majority" card, but it's a really, really stupid argument. All it means is "I'd prefer tyranny of the minority."
The wolf/sheep thing speaks to the psychological truth behind this issue: Republicans see themselves as the losers, or victims (“sheep”), in a political conflict. (This sense of ressentiment is everywhere if you look for it.)
It provokes them to take desperate, anti-democratic measures to maintain power. Those measures aren’t justifiable via principled argument that has any chance of popular support — they are anti democratic! — but if you can find a fig-leaf rationale or two, you can keep trying to stave off the coming storm. (I am not arguing that the GOP is actually destined to lose, just that at a gut level the GOP’s voters feel that way. Cue some happy warrior “I’ve never get more confident” denialism.)

So you get disingenuous BS like we’ve seen here. Or attempts to say that the debate is worthless because change’ll never happen. Yeah, if we who want change shut up, it won’t. That’s why we’re not.
  #179  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:12 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,228
In general I think arguments wrt the electoral college that take into consideration the current status of competitiveness in a given state really miss the mark. Whether a certain state is currently competitive is temporal - what is competitive now may not be in the future, etc. And when thinking of an overall system I think those things that are temporal in nature should be given much less weight.

I think I could get behind the idea that each state allocates its electors based on a proportionate system that pertains to it's own people's individual votes. More than that and we'c start to lose the idea of our dual sovereign system and the fact that it is an election of states, not of the people.
  #180  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:12 AM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Look at you, getting all "trickle down" economics. I was talking about population, not sure why you brought up economics - the low population states don't all have the same economies
Population is people. Why do some people matter more? (Because >50% of those geographically defined groups vote Republican. That’s the reason.)

A national popular vote reenfranchises every community’s kooks and nonconformists. The out of the box thinkers. I don’t see why Dopers would oppose this, since many of us hold some weird ass ideas.
  #181  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:17 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
That’s too easy a question to weasel out of, IMHO. (Though it’s a very good question — I just doubt you’ll get an honest answer that relates to the OP in any way. But hey — I’m willing to listen if you all will prove me wrong!)
Yeah, it could have been phrased better.

But what is clear is that the 17th Amendment was a massive improvement to the integrity of the Senate.
  #182  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:37 AM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I think I could get behind the idea that each state allocates its electors based on a proportionate system that pertains to it's own people's individual votes. More than that and we'c start to lose the idea of our dual sovereign system and the fact that it is an election of states, not of the people.
But why does it need to be an election of the states? It's not like the people of New York City and the people of Utica are getting together to decide who New York State wants to be president. And what's the point of half-measures like a proportional vote? If we want a system where the electoral college vote matches the popular vote, why not just get rid of the EC?
  #183  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:30 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I think I could get behind the idea that each state allocates its electors based on a proportionate system that pertains to it's own people's individual votes. More than that and we'c start to lose the idea of our dual sovereign system and the fact that it is an election of states, not of the people.
Begging the question.
  #184  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:35 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Begging the question.
Which question?
  #185  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... I am not saying that I have won over all the voters. ...
I'm glad you can admit this. That's the first step to having a productive conversation if you actually want to see the EC changed: you need to recognize where we are today, and that's without enough support to enact your preferred policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... I am just saying that you are failing at participating in an actual debate, just repeating over and over the same things about how you were not willing to read an entire post...
Where do you imagine I was "just repeating over and over the same things about how you were not willing to read an entire post"? I've read every post in this thread. I haven't found the arguments for abolishing the EC convincing, but that's quite a different thing from what you are (inaccurately) claiming I've done here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... If you don't have a counter argument, just admit that you will be depending on inertia to keep the status quo, and that you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion. ...
I've already acknowledged that I think inertia alone is more then enough to defeat your preferred policy. That's the question Omar Little asked: "is there a real possibility of eliminating it if there was a Democratic administration in the WH?" The answer is no, there is not. That's not derailing the debate, and that's not "nothing else to contribute to the discussion". That's a direct and unambiguous answer to the question asked.


Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... I don't think it is fair to cry that either, which is why no one is crying at all. They are providing rational explanations to which the only counter has been "nu-uh", or, "but that would mean that the republicans (the real americans) would lose power".

...

Not saying that they shouldn't get represented, but it is a myth that rural people are the "real americans", and it is only this myth that is used as a fig leaf to protect their disproportionate power.
The only instances of the phrase "real Americans" I can recall in this thread came from yourself and Airbeck. "myth" certainly seems like a good description of this argument to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... I have actually heard counter arguments to abolishing or altering the EC that may be persuasive, and those will be something to address, but status quo and "good luck with that" are not them, those are not arguments, those are concessions that you have nothing better to contribute to the discussion. ...
If you want to have an academic debate on the subject, why not share these "may be persuasive" counter-arguments? snoe, at least, would probably be interested in hearing them. I'd even be mildly interested in hearing which ones you found somewhat persuasive.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 03-22-2019 at 01:02 PM.
  #186  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:11 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Look at you, getting all "trickle down" economics. I was talking about population, not sure why you brought up economics - the low population states don't all have the same economies
And people move to where there are economic opportunities, and leave the places where there are not. I didn't think that it needed to be explained that people go to where jobs are, and they tend not to stay where jobs are not.

The low population states all have one economic feature in common. They do not attract residents.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
In general I think arguments wrt the electoral college that take into consideration the current status of competitiveness in a given state really miss the mark. Whether a certain state is currently competitive is temporal - what is competitive now may not be in the future, etc. And when thinking of an overall system I think those things that are temporal in nature should be given much less weight.
What state is a battleground may change, but that most states are ignored for the states that are battlegrounds will not. Besides, Ohio has been a bellwether since its founding. No republican has won without winning Ohio. How long is "temporal" in your opinion?

Technically, everything is temporal. Soon, the sun will burn out, and none of this will matter in the slightest.
Quote:
I think I could get behind the idea that each state allocates its electors based on a proportionate system that pertains to it's own people's individual votes. More than that and we'c start to lose the idea of our dual sovereign system and the fact that it is an election of states, not of the people.
I can get behind that as well, as a patch, but it needs to be an interstate compact, so that states don't bow out to change the results of the election.
  #187  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:21 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm glad you can admit this. That's the first step to having a productive conversation if you actually want to see the EC changed: you need to recognize where we are today, and that's without enough support to enact your preferred policy.
Never said otherwise.
Quote:

Where do you imagine I was "just repeating over and over the same things about how you were not willing to read an entire post"? I've read every post in this thread. I haven't found the arguments for abolishing the EC convincing, but that's quite a different thing from what you are (inaccurately) claiming I've done here.
From the way that you quote a snippet of a post out of context, and then reply to that snippet as though it were the entirety of the post, and also how you claim that things are not said that are siad, just not said i something that you have chosen to quote.
Quote:

I've already acknowledged that I think inertia alone is more then enough to defeat your preferred policy. That's the question Omar Little asked: "is there a real possibility of eliminating it if there was a Democratic administration in the WH?" The answer is no, there is not. That's not derailing the debate, and that's not "nothing else to contribute to the discussion". That's a direct and unambiguous answer to the question asked.
Good, then that is your argument. You are not arguing for the benefits of keeping the system, you are just arguing that you think it will stay.

You do realizw that the OP also asked, " Should the US electoral college really attempted to be abolished?", which is what I am debating here. If you don't want to debate that question, then don't.

Quote:
The only instances of the phrase "real Americans" I can recall in this thread came from yourself and Airbeck. "myth" certainly seems like a good description of this argument to me.
You are correct that I you did not say "real Americans", but you are incorrect if you think that that is in any way a rebuttal to my observation that posters have indicated that it is in fact in order for ruralites to maintain power even if they are in the minority.

I justified it by saying that they were "real americans", but if that is not your justification for why rural americans get a dispropriate power in the federal govt, then what is it?

don't believe me, here's some quotes
Quote:
If you want to have an academic debate on the subject, why not share these "may be persuasive" counter-arguments? snoe, at least, would probably be interested in hearing them. I'd even be mildly interested in hearing which ones you found somewhat persuasive.
Why would I share counter arguments? That's supposed to be your job. We've supplied the argument, now you want us to do your work too?
  #188  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And people move to where there are economic opportunities, and leave the places where there are not. I didn't think that it needed to be explained that people go to where jobs are, and they tend not to stay where jobs are not.

The low population states all have one economic feature in common. They do not attract residents.
You're kinda talking out of your ass, aren't you?
Mapping Interstate Migrtion
In 2016, Delaware and Montana showed net immigration. DC, Vermont and South Dakota held about even. Alaska, North Dakota and Wyoming showed net emigration. Most of the big gainers were mid size states neighboring California.
  #189  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... I justified it by saying that they were "real americans", but if that is not your justification for why rural americans get a dispropriate power in the federal govt, then what is it? ...
It's about honoring our word, as a country. This is the deal we made. That deal did not have an expiration date. It did not have an automatic revocation if population ratios got too far out of whack. It will not just vanish into the abyss simply because a bunch of liberals got their noses out of joint after losing a couple of elections. Why? Because that's what we agreed to as a country. That's what California agreed to upon joining the Union. If you want to change that, a mechanism is provided, but the hurdles are high, and they're going to require that you persuade at least some people who are now resistant to the idea. There's no more "logic" to it than Iowa and New Hampshire going first in primary season, or the 5 permanent members of the UNSC getting veto power. They're all idiosyncrasies which grew out of our history, but they're there nonetheless, and as I said earlier, inertia is a powerful thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Why would I share counter arguments? That's supposed to be your job. We've supplied the argument, now you want us to do your work too?
Like I said, I thought it would be interesting to see which arguments you found persuasive. It's not about "doing my work". My work is done: the Electoral College isn't going anywhere.
  #190  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:48 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Which question?
Are you reading the thread? Are you unfamiliar the the term 'begging the question'?

I'm having trouble believing that your question is a genuine request for information.
  #191  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,258
OK, don't answer then.
  #192  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:18 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
OK, don't answer then.
I won't since, "Which question?" is a nonsensical response to my pointing out that Bone was begging the question.
  #193  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:01 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You're kinda talking out of your ass, aren't you?
Nope. I see that you are not able to have a civil discourse without resulting to insults, so this is my last reply to you in this thread.
Quote:

Mapping Interstate Migrtion
In 2016, Delaware and Montana showed net immigration. DC, Vermont and South Dakota held about even. Alaska, North Dakota and Wyoming showed net emigration. Most of the big gainers were mid size states neighboring California.
Nice cherry picking to ignore that big swath of red that extends from Canada to Mexico, and includes such states as Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Luisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, as well as Indiana Kentucky and Virginia, both western and original flavor.

OTOH, we have California, which according to your cite, has net emigration, but the population still increased. Same with New york, though admittedly NY did plateau and shrink very slightly in the last year, though the city grew in population.

Next time, before trying to call someone out and ending up looking foolish, you may want to do some research, rather than just posting the first pretty colored map you see that you think backs your point.

This is why policy is not based on what some color coded map that some guy posted to the internet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's about honoring our word, as a country. This is the deal we made. That deal did not have an expiration date. It did not have an automatic revocation if population ratios got too far out of whack. It will not just vanish into the abyss simply because a bunch of liberals got their noses out of joint after losing a couple of elections. Why?
Because our nation wasn't founded on a bunch of straw?
Quote:
Because that's what we agreed to as a country. That's what California agreed to upon joining the Union. If you want to change that, a mechanism is provided, but the hurdles are high, and they're going to require that you persuade at least some people who are now resistant to the idea.
Yep, that's the plan. Fortunately, I do not need to persuade everyone, as there will be people who are resistant to the plan simply to be stubborn, even though they have no actual argument for their position other than "that's the way it is". I don't know for sure, but I do doubt that there are that many people in the country who will act in such a fashion.

You may be more pessimistic about your fellow countrymen, but I do hope that you are not right about that.
Quote:

There's no more "logic" to it than Iowa and New Hampshire going first in primary season, or the 5 permanent members of the UNSC getting veto power. They're all idiosyncrasies which grew out of our history, but they're there nonetheless, and as I said earlier, inertia is a powerful thing.
And Iowa and New Hampshire going first in primary season is an uncontroversial thing that no one has questioned, right?
Quote:

Like I said, I thought it would be interesting to see which arguments you found persuasive. It's not about "doing my work". My work is done: the Electoral College isn't going anywhere.
No, making arguments against my point is the job of someone who disagrees with my point. It is not my job to hunt down arguments for your position. I mean, at least CarnalK bothered to find a color coded map that he thought backed his position.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 03-22-2019 at 03:03 PM.
  #194  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Yep, that's the plan. Fortunately, I do not need to persuade everyone, as there will be people who are resistant to the plan simply to be stubborn, even though they have no actual argument for their position other than "that's the way it is". I don't know for sure, but I do doubt that there are that many people in the country who will act in such a fashion.

You may be more pessimistic about your fellow countrymen, but I do hope that you are not right about that. ...
There are enough of my fellow countrymen that see it for the naked, partisan power-grab that it is to put a stop to it.
  #195  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:38 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There are enough of my fellow countrymen that see it for the naked, partisan power-grab that it is to put a stop to it.
Ah yes. Attacking the EC with principled arguments is a partisan power grab. Defending it with ... nothing, basically, is — not partisan? Less partisan? Better, because you get to win?

Just admit your position’s partisan, with no backing principle that you could sell to Americans who looked at the facts and thought about it for a minute, and that you’re just claiming no-backsies, we’re winning now, we won’t let you change things. Show your ass. (I mean, it’s already showing, but you know what I mean.) I won’t think less of you — I’ll admire your courage.
  #196  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:46 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There are enough of my fellow countrymen that see it for the naked, partisan power-grab that it is to put a stop to it.
And if Elizabeth Warren beats Trump with an EC win but loses the popular vote, I'm sure your response will be "This is proof the system works."
  #197  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:04 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
And if Elizabeth Warren beats Trump with an EC win but loses the popular vote, I'm sure your response will be "This is proof the system works."
It’ll be some chest-thumping about his fellow countrymen and their guns, is my WAG. (It’s not going to happen soon, but yes, we all know what’s really going on here. Some just won’t admit it.)
  #198  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,564
I definitely think the EC should be abolished. At the same time, the Democratic party should be pushing hard for very achievable goals like statehood for DC and PR, which might not need anything more than majorities in Congress.
  #199  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:08 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I definitely think the EC should be abolished. At the same time, the Democratic party should be pushing hard for very achievable goals like statehood for DC and PR, which might not need anything more than majorities in Congress.
Are you just taking for granted that they'll eliminate the Senate filibuster?
  #200  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:11 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Nope. I see that you are not able to have a civil discourse without resulting to insults, so this is my last reply to you in this thread.


Nice cherry picking to ignore that big swath of red that extends from Canada to Mexico, and includes such states as Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Luisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, as well as Indiana Kentucky and Virginia, both western and original flavor.
Not cherry picking at all, buddy. I listed the states with 3 electoral votes. ie, the lowest population states, ie exactly what you were talking about. And it's not a swath of red either. It's a swath of burgundy, the same color California is. In fact, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Missouri, Virginia and frigging Alabama all show slightly lower outflow than California on that map. All of them better than New York. Little states Nevada and Idaho had some of the best inflow rates.

So, I think we can both agree that "The low population states all have one economic feature in common. They do not attract residents." was just wrong, and move on?

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-22-2019 at 04:15 PM.
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 09:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017