Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:20 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
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.
So, you are more pessimistic than I am as to the mental capabilities of your fellow countrymen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Are you just taking for granted that they'll eliminate the Senate filibuster?
Who's they? The filibuster is just procedural, it's not that hard to eliminate.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 03-22-2019 at 04:20 PM.
  #202  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:20 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
So, here are some golden oldie arguments (and a couple new variations on old themes) that weíve seen here.
Against trying to eliminate the EC:
1) you canít make it happen
2) youíre being partisan

Against elimination the EC on principle ó like, we should keep it, donít get rid of it:
3) tradition (this covers a LOT of ground)
4) small states as governmental entities need more representation in choosing a president because X
4a) voters in small states need more representation in choosing a president because X
5) voters in group Y (that happens to be concentrated in small states) need more representation in choosing a president because X. (Example: rural voters)
6) presidential candidates would only visit big cities. (This was Trumpís argument against the EC in 2012.)
7) presidential candidates/ elected presidents would only care about people in large population centers (cities, the coasts, etc.)
8) the EC acts as a check against populism/whatever, since it asks a small group of Americans, chosen by their fellow citizens, to choose a president based on their careful consideration and best judgement.

So, pro-EC folks ó whatíd I miss? And which of my (broad) arguments are you going to use to tell your fellow countrymen, countrywomen, and just plain fellow Americans that keeping the EC is a better idea than eliminating it?
  #203  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:26 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So, you are more pessimistic than I am as to the mental capabilities of your fellow countrymen. ...
Not at all. I'm extremely confident in their mental capabilities. As I said:

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.
  #204  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:29 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
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.
Bold ideas donít get traction until people hear about them. However dumb corporate mediaís coverage of these pro-democracy ideas may be, itís good to get them out there. (And once theyíre out there, the arguments against them have to be something more substantial than ďthatíll never happen.Ē)

Agree that national popular vote is a harder lift than giving the citizens of DC (and PR, if they want it) full representation. Not that much harder, though, and pretty much everybody whoís not fig-leafing partisan motives will get it if they understand it. Itís an easy issue to sell to voters. (Not, of course, those votersí Republican elected officials, but thatís where the advocacy could help.)
  #205  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:32 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,253
It's probably just easier to carve up DC into the surrounding states to give them full representation.
  #206  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:34 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
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.
I'm a guy, I only recognize 8 colors. So, is your claim that burgundy is not net emigration? If not, then I have no idea what your reason for critiquing my aesthetic perception.
Quote:
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.
No, that was cherry picking. You are not understanding the data. California is not getting smaller, it is just that it is already so big that it can have more residents leave it than other states, and yet, still be growing. Those states that you listed, those are actually shrinking in absolute number of residents.

You see these tiny states, and you see a big proportional number, but what you don't think about is that the absolute number is actually pretty small, it's just the smallness of the state that makes the proportional number look bigger.

It's one of those things where you really need to actually look at the data, not just the color coded map.
Quote:
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?
As an absolute rule, as I did not propose? Sure.

As a general trend, I think that we have proved that to be the case.
  #207  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:37 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not at all. I'm extremely confident in their mental capabilities. As I said:
But you are saying that your fellow countrymen will be deceived into thinking something that is not true, how can you have any respect for someone that you think would be so gullible as to believe such an obvious lie?
  #208  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:37 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's probably just easier to carve up DC into the surrounding states to give them full representation.
Letís not derail. If you want to start a thread on that (if there isnít one already), I think you should do that? Just my two cents. (Iíll adnit that I think derailing the conversation is a way to avoid defending the EC, but to be clear Iím not saying that CarnalK is doing that.)
  #209  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:41 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
But you are saying that your fellow countrymen will be deceived into thinking something that is not true, how can you have any respect for someone that you think would be so gullible as to believe such an obvious lie?
Maybe Ditka doesnít have as low an opinion of the gullibility of Fox News viewers, or Breibart/Federalist/Townhall/QAnon on Reddit/whatever readers, as we do. Maybe ... WE are the ones who donít see whatís going on! Ever think about THAT?
  #210  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:49 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's probably just easier to carve up DC into the surrounding states to give them full representation.
Of course that'd be easier. Republicans would happily agree to retrocession to Maryland, but it's not about giving them full representation. It's a naked, partisan power-grab. They want to get two new Dem senators out of it.
  #211  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
But you are saying that your fellow countrymen will be deceived into thinking something that is not true...
But it is true. The only reason the Dems give any shits at all about the EC is because they perceive some partisan advantage in repealing it. If the roles had been reversed in 2000 and 2016, and the EC had helped them rather than hurt them, they'd hardly utter a peep about it. I know this, and many of my countrymen know this. Enough, thankfully, to stop you.
  #212  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:55 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
Letís not derail. If you want to start a thread on that (if there isnít one already), I think you should do that? Just my two cents. (Iíll adnit that I think derailing the conversation is a way to avoid defending the EC, but to be clear Iím not saying that CarnalK is doing that.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Of course that'd be easier. Republicans would happily agree to retrocession to Maryland, but it's not about giving them full representation. It's a naked, partisan power-grab. They want to get two new Dem senators out of it.
Just quoting my point above about how DC statehood is not what weíre talking about here. Iíll refrain from actually addressing your asinine argument against DC statehood, except by calling it ďasinine.Ē
  #213  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:56 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But it is true. The only reason the Dems give any shits at all about the EC is because they perceive some partisan advantage in repealing it. If the roles had been reversed in 2000 and 2016, and the EC had helped them rather than hurt them, they'd hardly utter a peep about it. I know this, and many of my countrymen know this. Enough, thankfully, to stop you.
Nothing to argue with but “nuh uh, YOU’RE the ** EDIT: shameless, unprincipled *** partisan,” eh?

Last edited by snoe; 03-22-2019 at 04:58 PM.
  #214  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
Nothing to argue with but “nuh uh, YOU’RE the partisan,” eh?
I'll tell you what - if you'll acknowledge that this bit is the reality:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But it is true. The only reason the Dems give any shits at all about the EC is because they perceive some partisan advantage in repealing it. If the roles had been reversed in 2000 and 2016, and the EC had helped them rather than hurt them, they'd hardly utter a peep about it. ...
Then I'll cease pointing out the partisan motives behind the proposal in this thread. Deal?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 03-22-2019 at 05:02 PM.
  #215  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:10 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'll tell you what - if you'll acknowledge that this bit is the reality:



Then I'll cease pointing out the partisan motives behind the proposal in this thread. Deal?
Would you acknowledge the reality that if the roles had been reversed, you'd be in here arguing for the EC to be repealed?
  #216  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:11 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'll tell you what - if you'll acknowledge that this bit is the reality:



Then I'll cease pointing out the partisan motives behind the proposal in this thread. Deal?
Nope! I am a small-d democrat who believes that we should elect our chief executive using the same system every equal-sized-starred state in the union does. Because I believe that the choices of voters, not plots of land — or, going back to the Founders, populations of plots of land including slaves and women who can’t vote, but are “represented” — are how we should elect the single office (yes, there’s the Veep) that represents us all. As Americans.

Because I’m an American, first and foremost. Not a Californian, not a Democrat — an American. I’d like to have my vote for president counted equally, no matter where I live. I’d like my attempts to persuade my friends and neighbors to vote for X to have a shot at making a difference. I’d like my dumbass Republican friends and neighbors’ votes to count.

Don’t believe me? Ask yourself why. Maybe it’s becaise you don’t believe what you’re saying, yourself — just looking for a way to defend the undemocratic status quo.

Edit: if you don’t identify with your fellow Americans, then just frickin say so. You wouldn’t be alone.

Last edited by snoe; 03-22-2019 at 05:14 PM.
  #217  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:17 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Would you acknowledge the reality that if the roles had been reversed, you'd be in here arguing for the EC to be repealed?
Iíd say donít buy into that game. Of course itís a hypocritical argument. But if you reduce it to partisanship, you make it a ďboth sidesĒ thing. And itís not.

HirricaneDitka probably wonít answer you directly, but even if he did, it wouldnít make the EC less awful than it already is.
  #218  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
.... Donít believe me? ...
I have no difficulty believing you. But I wasn't talking about American-first small-d you. The thing I wanted you to acknowledge was the partisan motives of the big-D Dems in pushing the issue.
  #219  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:45 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'll tell you what - if you'll acknowledge that this bit is the reality:



Then I'll cease pointing out the partisan motives behind the proposal in this thread. Deal?
Iíll put my response another way: I disagree with my fellow Americans about a lot of stuff. But I never seek to disenfranchise the ones I disagree with. Everysmall-d democratic reform I support ó proportional representation coupled with a parliamentary executive, for instance ó could be used against me and the people I love. But Iíll fight the people who want to misuse democratic power on the field of ideas and, um, voting. I donít want to win by cheating.
  #220  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:50 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I have no difficulty believing you. But I wasn't talking about American-first small-d you. The thing I wanted you to acknowledge was the partisan motives of the big-D Dems in pushing the issue.
Why should I assume that people who are taking the right position are doing so for bad reasons? And does it matter, if itís the right position?

Iím sure the Ditka can think of an example or two where Trump has taken the right position for bad reasons. (If not, Iím disappointed.) Does that discredit those right positions?

(Iím comfortable at least suspecting that people who take the wrong position are doing so for bad reasons. Thatís why I keep pointing out that pro-EC arguments are bad.)
  #221  
Old 03-22-2019, 05:55 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I have no difficulty believing you. But I wasn't talking about American-first small-d you. The thing I wanted you to acknowledge was the partisan motives of the big-D Dems in pushing the issue.
I also donít see why youíre not engaging with the arguments I made. Oh wait, I do see.
  #222  
Old 03-22-2019, 07:41 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,266
For all of you who think changing form the Electoral College to a popular election is recent partisanship, I'd like to point out that this has been talked about since I was a child (and I presume longer).

I think the furthest it ever got was around 1970 when there had been no recent failures of the EC. A resolution passed the House but not the Senate. It's no big surprise that the proportional House rather than the Senate passed it.

Last edited by OldGuy; 03-22-2019 at 07:42 PM.
  #223  
Old 03-23-2019, 12:11 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You note that this is a debate board, and a debating forum, and we are here to debate.
Yes, it is a debate forum. Which means it's up to the person making the claim to back it up.

It's NOT up to others to rebut it, and it's not being "stubborn" to refuse to do other people's work.
  #224  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:14 AM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 5,144
i was always told the ec was setup so if the unwashed uneducated masses was suckered by a huckstering thug the ones (founding father types) that knew better could counteract it and keep things on the right path


Well since we apparently failed theres no point to it anymore
  #225  
Old 03-23-2019, 06:47 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,239
I think the solution for Democrats EC woes is to win elections. They weren't talking about the EC in 2008 and 2012.

Actually having electors is sheer insanity and needs to be addressed now before there's real trouble, but I basically agree with Bone. There's no problem in saying that the election is among the states, not necessarily individuals.
  #226  
Old 03-23-2019, 07:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Yes, it is a debate forum. Which means it's up to the person making the claim to back it up.



It's NOT up to others to rebut it, and it's not being "stubborn" to refuse to do other people's work.
So far you haven't participated in this debate. You don't have to. Many of us have made arguments for or against the EC. You haven't yet. Why not try and actually make an argument? It can be fun!
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #227  
Old 03-23-2019, 07:19 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I'm a guy, I only recognize 8 colors. So, is your claim that burgundy is not net emigration? If not, then I have no idea what your reason for critiquing my aesthetic perception.

No, that was cherry picking. You are not understanding the data. California is not getting smaller, it is just that it is already so big that it can have more residents leave it than other states, and yet, still be growing. Those states that you listed, those are actually shrinking in absolute number of residents.
.
You are trying to change the subject, that's not me misunderstanding the data. I never said California was shrinking. We were talking about "attracting residents" not absolute population growth.
  #228  
Old 03-23-2019, 07:46 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,659
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.
At the time the compact was made it was with the understanding that only white male land owners had the sound judgment to decide who should rule the country and that it was necessary to gurantee the rights of slave owners. We have come a long way since then. Things change. Usually for the better.
  #229  
Old 03-23-2019, 12:07 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,551
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.
Having every person's vote count the same as every other person's vote is a "naked, partisan power-grab."

That's quite the self-own.

Now I'm willing to admit that there is some partisan motivation here on the part of me and my fellow left-of-center types.

So what's your problem with that: that you're afraid your side can no longer convince a plurality of Americans to vote Republican?
  #230  
Old 03-23-2019, 12:12 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,551
Continuing on, I'm willing to entertain arguments that the rule of the majority should be less than absolute. (Actually, that makes a great deal of sense, and our Constitution and laws indeed have many protections that keep the power of the majority from being absolute.)

But ISTM to be pretty straightforward that the power of the majority should be greater than the power of the minority. I'm having a hard time seeing a counterargument. And it's hard to see why this shouldn't apply to selecting a President.
  #231  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:22 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But it is true. The only reason the Dems give any shits at all about the EC is because they perceive some partisan advantage in repealing it. If the roles had been reversed in 2000 and 2016, and the EC had helped them rather than hurt them, they'd hardly utter a peep about it. I know this, and many of my countrymen know this. Enough, thankfully, to stop you.
You have a very active imagination. All of what you just said is unfounded accusations that is not related to reality. It is your projection that you would hold onto power at any costs, so you imagine that your opponent would as well.

Tell you what, I will "acknowledge" that it is a power grab*, so long as you acknowledge that the defense of the EC is to keep republicans in power in spite of the wishes of the voters.

*A power grab to return the power of self governance to the people governed.

Or, you could stop making things up about what you *think* motivates your political opponents, and actually debate the merits of the proposals, rather than demand that we mollify your overactive imagination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Yes, it is a debate forum. Which means it's up to the person making the claim to back it up.
Right, and in a debate, you have argument and you have counter argument. We have laid out the argument for changing the EC, and your argument is a combination of "nu-uh" and "good luck with that."

If you just want to say that you have no argument to offer and that your side rests, then you can say that. But continuing to point out that you are refusing to offer a counterargument makes me wonder why the hell you even bother opening a thread in a debate forum.

I'm starting to think that you are completely missing the entire point of being here.
Quote:
It's NOT up to others to rebut it, and it's not being "stubborn" to refuse to do other people's work.
Heh, the one that was asking me to do his work for him was HD when he asked me to come up with a persuasive argument against my position. Why not get on him about that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You are trying to change the subject, that's not me misunderstanding the data. I never said California was shrinking. We were talking about "attracting residents" not absolute population growth.
I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm point out that your rebuttal of my point that the reason that populous places are populace is because they have things that draw people to them, and the reason that sparsely populated places are sparsely populated is because they do not. Any other claims that you are trying to put on me here are simply things that you have made up in an attempt to argue some point that I did not make and is not relevant to the thread.
  #232  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:23 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Continuing on, I'm willing to entertain arguments that the rule of the majority should be less than absolute. (Actually, that makes a great deal of sense, and our Constitution and laws indeed have many protections that keep the power of the majority from being absolute.)

But ISTM to be pretty straightforward that the power of the majority should be greater than the power of the minority. I'm having a hard time seeing a counterargument. And it's hard to see why this shouldn't apply to selecting a President.
Protecting the rights of the minority =/= minority rule.

Right now, the philosophy of the GOP is minority rule coupled with eliminating protections of the rights of the majority. (Yes, this is a generalization.) Thatís certainly not democratic, and itís not classical American republicanism either; itís quasi-oligarchy.
  #233  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:30 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
On the Left Right & Center podcast, NR’s Rich Lowry cane up with a coherent pro-EC argument I hadn’t heard in the last 18.5 years. It cements in our two-party system. A minor party can never win the presidency. (Unless it becomes a top-two party.)
(He did not address how 3rd party voting can have a spoiler effect, for what I hope is an obvious reason: he likes that just fine, since it elected Bush in 2000.)

Y’all need to try harder. These pro-EC arguments are fig leaves, but the ones we’ve seen in this thread are teeny tiny. I just threw you a much larger one, try using it!

Last edited by snoe; 03-23-2019 at 01:31 PM.
  #234  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:35 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But it is true. The only reason the Dems give any shits at all about the EC is because they perceive some partisan advantage in repealing it. If the roles had been reversed in 2000 and 2016, and the EC had helped them rather than hurt them, they'd hardly utter a peep about it. I know this, and many of my countrymen know this. Enough, thankfully, to stop you.
In the psychological profession I think they call this ďprojection.Ē Hey, youíre not alone ó your partyís leader does it all the time! And it works just fine at convincing the true believers that the emperor has clothes on. The rest of us find it ridiculous, though.
  #235  
Old 03-23-2019, 02:09 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Should it happen? No. It's a horrible idea that would lead to the country being run by the coasts and urban areas.
As it is, it currently leads to the country being run by the racist fucks, despite being a minority.
  #236  
Old 03-23-2019, 02:25 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
On the Left Right & Center podcast, NRís Rich Lowry cane up with a coherent pro-EC argument I hadnít heard in the last 18.5 years. It cements in our two-party system. A minor party can never win the presidency. (Unless it becomes a top-two party.)
(He did not address how 3rd party voting can have a spoiler effect, for what I hope is an obvious reason: he likes that just fine, since it elected Bush in 2000.)

Yíall need to try harder. These pro-EC arguments are fig leaves, but the ones weíve seen in this thread are teeny tiny. I just threw you a much larger one, try using it!
I know that's not your argument, so I'm not asking you to defend it, but I still want to disagree with it.

If you think taht the two party system is a good thing, then sure, the EC makes it a bit more cementing of that. Really, having first past the post for electing a single position for the entire country is what makes a third party unviable, but the EC makes it more so.

I'm not tied to two party, I'd actually like to see a plurality of parties, but with or without the EC, we will probably still only have the two.

As far as spoiling, well, that's a problem too. Typically, what it is going to mean is that the party most aligned with the third party will lose, even if they have much more support.
  #237  
Old 03-23-2019, 02:36 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Should it happen? No. It's a horrible idea that would lead to the country being run by the coasts ...
1) I think I know why you donít want people in coasts and urban areas to ďrun the countryĒ ó or, more accurately, have an equal franchise in electing the president ó but please show your work. Why would equal franchise be bad? Whatís so wrong with coastal/urban voters?
2) You do realize, I hope, that millions of rural voters in California alone would be reenfranchised by having their votes count equally towards a national total.

Point 2 really gets to the hollowness of a subset of pro-EC arguments. Proponents donít care about rural voters, or non-coastal voters, whyever that would matter (Texas and Florida have extensive coastlines). They care about electing Republicans. Two presidential elections in the last 20 years have been won while losing the popular vote. Thatís 2/5.

And let me forestall the inevitable ďsore loserĒ claims: I am for more small-d democratic reforms at all levels of government. For example, I opposed the filibuster during the Bush years, even though it might have allowed SS privatization, which I also opposed. I think that voter participation is a good thing, even if some of those voters are dummies ó and having an actual say in presidential elections would drive that up.

I donít see a principled argument for disenfranchising your fellow Americans, except that you want to keep power ó or have a bias of whatever kind against those of them that donít live in solidly GOP states. Again, just admit it if thatís the case! You wouldnít be alone.
  #238  
Old 03-23-2019, 02:42 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I know that's not your argument, so I'm not asking you to defend it, but I still want to disagree with it.

If you think taht the two party system is a good thing, then sure, the EC makes it a bit more cementing of that. Really, having first past the post for electing a single position for the entire country is what makes a third party unviable, but the EC makes it more so.

I'm not tied to two party, I'd actually like to see a plurality of parties, but with or without the EC, we will probably still only have the two.

As far as spoiling, well, that's a problem too. Typically, what it is going to mean is that the party most aligned with the third party will lose, even if they have much more support.
It’s a terrible argument, but it’s marginally better than what people have proposed in this thread! For one thing, it’s factually accurate.

And yes, FPTP pretty much guarantees a two-party system. (When you combine it with a Westminster parliamentary system like the UK and Canada, you get some of the worst of both worlds, multiparty minority rule — but that’s off-topic, since we are not debating pariamentarizing the US, and if we were, we sure wouldn’t emulate Britain.)

BTW, K9, you have made great points here, and I haven’t responded because I’ve basically agreed with all of them. And there are too many bad points to respond to. Which is not surprising, since this is an issue where one side is trying to pretend it’s not showing its ass.

Last edited by snoe; 03-23-2019 at 02:44 PM.
  #239  
Old 03-23-2019, 04:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm point out that your rebuttal of my point that the reason that populous places are populace is because they have things that draw people to them, and the reason that sparsely populated places are sparsely populated is because they do not. Any other claims that you are trying to put on me here are simply things that you have made up in an attempt to argue some point that I did not make and is not relevant to the thread.
Yeah ok. The line I challnged was "The low population states all have one economic feature in common. They do not attract residents."

Now, you tell me you didn't really mean "low population states" because apparently the lowest 8 was "cherry picking". You then seem to suggest you didn't really mean "attract residents", you meant population growth?(I guess?) Finally, you say it's not like you meant it as an absolute rule or nothing, so I guess you didn't really mean "all have one economic feature in common". So, you win. I can only successfully argue when someone is using the correct words for what they mean to say.
  #240  
Old 03-23-2019, 04:12 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
And yes, FPTP pretty much guarantees a two-party system. (When you combine it with a Westminster parliamentary system like the UK and Canada, you get some of the worst of both worlds, multiparty minority rule ó but thatís off-topic, since we are not debating pariamentarizing the US, and if we were, we sure wouldnít emulate Britain.)
I dunno, I'm re-thinking my small-r republicanism. While having a crown certainly doesn't prevent populism at least maybe I'd be able to get away from Individual 1's smirking mug from time to time.
  #241  
Old 03-23-2019, 04:17 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
I dunno, I'm re-thinking my small-r republicanism. While having a crown certainly doesn't prevent populism at least maybe I'd be able to get away from Individual 1's smirking mug from time to time.
Small-r republicanism in the American context doesnít just mean not having a king ó that would be, maybe, literal republicanism? (I know youíre probably just making a joke, but pro-EC advocates will grasp at any straw to derail the debate, as weíve seen, so .)
  #242  
Old 03-23-2019, 04:26 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah ok. The line I challnged was "The low population states all have one economic feature in common. They do not attract residents."

Now, you tell me you didn't really mean "low population states" because apparently the lowest 8 was "cherry picking". You then seem to suggest you didn't really mean "attract residents", you meant population growth?(I guess?) Finally, you say it's not like you meant it as an absolute rule or nothing, so I guess you didn't really mean "all have one economic feature in common". So, you win. I can only successfully argue when someone is using the correct words for what they mean to say.
Just curious, CarnalK ó why are you so intent on focusing on this tangent? Surely weíre not deciding whether to keep the EC (or not) because of changing demographic and economic statistics about certain states? Because you canít come up with a voter category that deserves over-representation on those grounds that isnít being under-represented by our current system. Or can you?

(Pro-EC arguments tend to have these complications ó ďoverrepresent rural voters, but only in some states,Ē and so on. A sign of their weakness.)
  #243  
Old 03-23-2019, 04:52 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah ok. The line I challnged was "The low population states all have one economic feature in common. They do not attract residents."
Okay, they do not attract residents as much as the places where people actually do want to live. Even those states that are growing, it is not the rural areas that are growing, it is the urban areas.

There is also the fact that some of the states are not actually growing in terms of people living there, but in terms of people declaring their residence there. I know many people who live around here that also have homes in Florida or Arizona. Some have homes in states with even fewer services and taxes. They are retirees, so they don't need schools or industries or any of the things that attracts a growing population, they just need empty land that doesn't cost them much, which is one of the few things that these red states have going for them.
Quote:
Now, you tell me you didn't really mean "low population states" because apparently the lowest 8 was "cherry picking". You then seem to suggest you didn't really mean "attract residents", you meant population growth?(I guess?)
Are you saying that California isn't attracting residents? Good news for the housing crisis in their cities. People are certainly moving to California.
Quote:

Finally, you say it's not like you meant it as an absolute rule or nothing, so I guess you didn't really mean "all have one economic feature in common".
Yeah, places where people don't want to live are places where people don't want to live. That is very often for economic reasons.
Quote:
So, you win. I can only successfully argue when someone is using the correct words for what they mean to say.
I meant it as a pretty simple rule of thumb, not as an absolute. And if you had not been so hostile in your first reply, then I may not have been quite as defensive and been more willing to engage in give and take and compromise on points.

But, you chose to lead with hostility, and here we are, with you choosing to continue to be hostile. We could have a discussion, but you have chosen instead to have a fight. I have no interest in that, so you have yourself a very nice day.
  #244  
Old 03-23-2019, 04:58 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
So, no one on the pro-EC side has chosen any arguments to defend from the pro-EC-argument list I posted here. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...6#post21552236

I also gave you one more that, for a change, doesn’t rely on misinformation!

Why do you pro-EC people want to derail the conversation into “red states rule, blue states drool” tangents? Or impugn bad faith to EC reformers, with zero evidence?

I said it in my first post in this thread, and I still believe it confidently: pro-EC folks don’t put forward good arguments because they don’t have them. If they had them, they’d use them. But they don’t, so they use weak arguments or try to derail.

As our president would say: SAD. So I’ll keep encouraging people to support eliminating the EC, even though it’s a hard lift, because any person who thinks about it honestly EDIT: AND THOROUGHLY either gets why it’s terrible or has ulterior motives for supporting it. I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary here.

Last edited by snoe; 03-23-2019 at 05:01 PM.
  #245  
Old 03-23-2019, 05:01 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
Just curious, CarnalK — why are you so intent on focusing on this tangent? Surely we’re not deciding whether to keep the EC (or not) because of changing demographic and economic statistics about certain states? Because you can’t come up with a voter category that deserves over-representation on those grounds that isn’t being under-represented by our current system. Or can you?

(Pro-EC arguments tend to have these complications — “overrepresent rural voters, but only in some states,” and so on. A sign of their weakness.)

I never said anything about rural voters. I'm kind of barely arguing for the EC. I'm just saying I can see value in regional representation that's not strictly based on population. I mainly think it's just not worth the effort to change.

I'm curious, do you think the method of changing the constitution is completely wrong too? I mean it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it. So is that next on the list when the EC comes down? Or is it expanding the House to 6500 members so that it's more accurately proportional to the real population? And what about the elephant in the room, the Senate? Pretty much a million times more undemocratic than the Electoral College.

No, I don't expect you to ignore one problem because there's other problems. But the entire US system is based on some measure of state sovereignty. "Principled" advocation for popular vote either ignores or mocks that obvious point. In a past thread, I pointed out that France is the only western country that has a straight up national election for its chief executive. No one even attempted to answer my question then: how has France benefitted from the system you advocate?

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-23-2019 at 05:04 PM.
  #246  
Old 03-23-2019, 05:13 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I never said anything about rural voters. I'm kind of barely arguing for the EC. I'm just saying I can see value in regional representation that's not strictly based on population.
Regional representation is built into our system. Why should our only nationally elected representatives be chosen this way?
Quote:
I mainly think it's just not worth the effort to change.
Thatís not an argument against the change, just against trying to make change. I could call it apathy if I were feeling unkind.
Quote:

I'm curious, do you think the method of changing the constitution is completely wrong too? I mean it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it. So is that next on the list when the EC comes down? Or is it expanding the House to 6500 members so that it more accurately proportionalto the real population? And what about the elephant in the room, the Senate? Pretty much a million times more undemocratic than the Electoral College.
Youíre changing the subject. Start a new thread if you want my critiques of our system. I have many, but they are irrelevant here.

Quote:
No, I don't expect you to ignore one problem because there's other problems. But the entire US system is based on some measure of state sovereignty. "Principled" advocation for popular vote either ignores or mocks that obvious point. In a past thread, I pointed out that France is the only western country that has a straight up national election for its chief executive. No one even attempted to answer my question then: how has France benefitted from the system you advocate?
No other country uses anything like our system, either. If you want to unify the legislative and executive branches, Iím all ears. Thatís a far bigger disruption than electing our president the same way every state elects its governor.
  #247  
Old 03-23-2019, 05:15 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I never said anything about rural voters. I'm kind of barely arguing for the EC. I'm just saying I can see value in regional representation that's not strictly based on population. I mainly think it's just not worth the effort to change.

I'm curious, do you think the method of changing the constitution is completely wrong too? I mean it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it. So is that next on the list when the EC comes down? Or is it expanding the House to 6500 members so that it's more accurately proportional to the real population? And what about the elephant in the room, the Senate? Pretty much a million times more undemocratic than the Electoral College.

No, I don't expect you to ignore one problem because there's other problems. But the entire US system is based on some measure of state sovereignty. "Principled" advocation for popular vote either ignores or mocks that obvious point. In a past thread, I pointed out that France is the only western country that has a straight up national election for its chief executive. No one even attempted to answer my question then: how has France benefitted from the system you advocate?
And again, I will point out that nothing youíve said here is a defense of the EC on anything but ďitís what we haveĒ grounds.
  #248  
Old 03-23-2019, 05:33 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post

Now, you tell me you didn't really mean "low population states" because apparently the lowest 8 was "cherry picking".
And the other thing is that this is factually incorrect.

Lowest 8:

Wyoming: Net emigration
Vermont:Net emigration
Alaska:Net emigration
North Dakota:Net emigration
South Dakota:Slight immigration
Rhode Island:Net emigration
Montana: Moderate immigration
Maine:Moderate immigration

So the lowest 4 have net emigration, and 5 of the lowest 8 have net emigration. I think that that backs my point pretty well, and to point at the most populated of the least populated 8 states is pretty much the definition of cherry picking.
  #249  
Old 03-23-2019, 05:49 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
Regional representation is built into our system. Why should our only nationally elected representatives be chosen this way?
For many people, you just answered your own question.

Quote:
No other country uses anything like our system, either. If you want to unify the legislative and executive branches, I’m all ears. That’s a far bigger disruption than electing our president the same way every state elects its governor.
And once again, someone dodges the question. What has France got or the state governments got that you want, with an elected president? Is it purely principle and would have no real effect on people's lives? Or are French citizens happier with their government because of a direct Presidential election? What?

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-23-2019 at 05:53 PM.
  #250  
Old 03-23-2019, 07:30 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,231
Of course the EC doesn't work as it was originally intended. Hamilton envisioned a group of learned men exercising independent choices for president.

But the EC retains a feature in that gives a very minor bump to a presidential candidate who shows wide geographic range of support instead of those who concentrate their support. Ignoring 1824 because so few states had popular votes anyways, and ignoring 1876 because of the corrupt nature of it, we have only three cases in history where the popular vote winner won the EC: 1888, 2000, and 2016.

So, at the outset, we are talking about something that only makes a difference in a handful of very close elections. Nobody that wins by 10 points in the popular vote loses in the EC. Neither Obama nor Bill Clinton had to worry about the tyranny of Wyoming and its railroading of California. So, is it really worth worrying about something which happens so frequently when there are benefits?

So let's take a look at 1888:

https://www.270towin.com/1888_Election/

Harrison loses the popular votes but wins the EC. However, look at the map of his support. He wins the northeast, the midwest, the prairie states, and the west. Cleveland's support is almost solely in the south, including winning 82% of the vote in South Carolina. When you have such a close election anyways, isn't it more beneficial to have a president who has a breadth of support instead of large and deep support in a single region?

You see this same sort of thing in 2000 and 2016, but these are too recent to have a meaningful discussion about the breadth of support instead of depth without the thread getting hijacked about how only stupid people live in red states.
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 12:43 PM.

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