If GWB is re-elected, but...

Great Debates
61

Okay 2sense, I read your latest. Just one minor point in rebuttal to a bit of your nitpicking:

[ul][li]Of course the drafting of the Constitution was a highly contentious matter, and I don’t doubt every single period and tittle was argued over at length. So what? The Founding Fathers managed to hammer out a version that was reasonably acceptable to most of them. Mentioning dissenting opinions proves nothing.[/ul][/li]
Anyway, I have to ask if you think state lines should be abolished entirely, because that’s one of the possible results of direct popular vote (as well as abolishing the Senate, in which I found you amusingly frank).

A popular vote makes, for the purposes of electing a President, the individual states irrelevant. Fine. Now try convincing 34 state congresses to approve an amendment that for many of them will lead to a diminishing of their power over the Federal government. Start from the lowest population state, Wyoming, and work your way up. At what point do you find a state willing to agree to give up its electoral votes for a straight percentage?

By some simple calculations, I can find 33 states that have a higher percentage of the total number of electoral votes than they have percentage of the population. Are you actually expecting at least half of them to accept a diminishing of their Federal representation? The merits of districting, since you seem to feel no-one has mentioned any:
[ul][li]The smaller states can retain their slightly disproportional power, without which I doubt they’ll accept any change to the current system, while individual voters have their influence increased (you might find it impossible to get 50%+1 of your entire state to agree with you, but getting 50%+1 of your district to do so may be attainable).[/li][li]A single district with a malfunctioning voting system, poorly-designed ballot or deliberate voter fraud will have its effect minimized.[/li][li]Third-party candidates who represent viable alternatives to the Dems and Reps can win electoral votes in local grassroots campaigns, giving them legitimacy and encouraging the larger parties to accomodate voters who are clearly expressing disatisfaction.[/ul][/li]
Now, if you chuck all state borders and declare the monolithic republic of “America” (doing away with all that “United States” crap), then popular voting would be just hunky-dory, but in the meantime most of the several states have no incentive to do what you’re suggesting. I don’t know why you’d think I’d think the American voters are stupid, or why I’d want to tell them so. Rather, I don’t think you could convince enough of them to act against their own interests and diminish the power of their home states. I think if all Americans voters were smart, the ones in the large states would agree with you, while the ones in the small states would not. Since the small states outnumber the large ones, the status quo continues.

You could try proposing a change to how amendments are passed, replacing that with a popular vote instead of letting each state government have an equal say. Good luck.

62

Did I not state my point clearly enough? I rarely try to be subtle; I’m not very good at it. I’ll be more direct: Stop spreading ignorance. You don’t know what the intent behind the EC was. No one does. So stop pretending that you do. Of course it was acceptable to a majority of the state delegations but that says nothing about why it was found acceptable. It seems there were many different reasons. Blandly asserting that you know the One True Meaning ( which conveniently supports your preconceived notions, of course ) is spreading your misunderstanding of what actually happened. We are here to fight ignorance, not encourage it.

** What are you talking about? How could holding a direct popular vote result in abolishing the states or the Senate? Have you ever read the Constitution? Are you aware that no state can be dismembered or denied its equal representation in the Senate without its consent? As it happens I do think it would be beneficial to combine some of the less populous states but no, I don’t think we should do away with them altogether. I would be happy to discuss my beliefs in a thread on that topic. THIS thread is about the Electoral College. Quit with the red herrings already.

** Why is it necessary to continually remind you of what has already been written in the thread? My first post here began with: “To start, lets dispense with the outdated notion that constitutional amendment is necessary to move to a popular vote.” I am ignoring that part of the rest of your post which deals with the difficulty of constitutional amendments. That’s most of it.

Those are the points you have offered in favor of a national districting system. I have numbered them for easy response.

[1] Ignoring the part about about convincing people what is the advantage of giving “smaller” states extra electoral power? Under a popular vote their citizens would have the same vote as everyone else.

[2] Untrue. Voting irregularities may be contained within a district but they may be enough to turn that district and thus the election. The example is Florida 2000. The irregularities in that state would not have been enough to throw the election to Bush under a PV because Gore was leading by half a million votes nationwide. A few fraudulent votes in the right district can be magnified enough to turn an election. Under a PV, OTOH, a fraudulent vote can only affect itself. They can only turn the election if there are enough to turn the national vote. The more votes in a district the harder to affect the outcome so a statewide vote is more secure than one by congressional districts. A PV only has the one nationwide district, of course.

[3] While a district system isn’t one winner take all election it isn’t much better. It’s just several. There is still no benefit for coming in 2nd. A third party would have to win at least a plurality in a congressional district or a state to get an electoral vote. That would be somewhat easier than winning a plurality only in the whole state so that does represent an improvement over how most states currently allocate their electoral votes. But lets not forget about the gerrymandering problem. Is this minor advantage worth the extra pressure on our political systems?

And of course that is only comparing the districting system to the status quo. Under a PV a third party would no longer be prevented from combining all of their votes. A party that can win 3% or 6% isn’t much of a threat to the major parties under the EC unless that support is concentrated in the right places. OTOH, under a popular vote they would hold the balance of power in most presidential elections and might gain real concessions in exchange for their electoral support. It seems better for third party candidates, and their members ( including me ) to abolish the EC altogether.

63

Since this term was “unofficial”, and he stole the election, GWB has two more terms ahead of him. Yeah!

64

That, of course, would take a constutional amendment as well and would have about as much chance of passing as one to eliminate the EC.

65

Since this term was “unofficial”, and he stole the election, GWB is guilty of illegally occupying the White House, and must be arrested immediately for subsequent prosecution and sentencing. Yeah! :stuck_out_tongue:

66

Riiiight, the EC just came to Jefferson in a dream after he spent a wild night with Sally Hemmings, eating curry enchiladas and drinking bourbon juleps. I don’t have to pretend to know the deepest darkest secrets of the Founding Fathers or their motivations, I can only say that the purpose of the EC is pretty damn obvious: to make the selection of a President a thoughtful process managed by already-elected officials (which has been made irrelevant), and to give small states a slightly greater voice. Did you think I came to that conclusion by consulting a crystal ball or something?

And you were wrong. Your proposal for the top electoral-vote states to give their votes to the overall popular winner is preposterous and for all your misuse of the word “disenfranchise”, your scheme would piss off a great many people in the states whose majority didn’t support the overall winner. They would have a much better claim of disenfranchisement than anyone you’ve suggested.

Heck, if you could fire up the oribital mind-control lasers and brainwash about 2,000 select people in the U.S. (all members of various sate legislatures and senates, plus the U.S. congress), you could amend the constitution at will. Until you have that technology, though, proposing that lots of people conform to your notion of the greater good, even if many of them would disagree with your interpretation, is kinda silly. Besides, the whole idea that the top eleven states can control the election is largely pointless, since when have the top eleven states ever thrown universal support behind any candidate that didn’t have overwhelming support nationwide, anyway? Has there been an election in living memory in which the top 11 states went one way and the rest of the country (the allegedy “disenfranchised”, in your view) went the other?

You’re ignoring a lot in this thread. The voters in the smaller states already have (collectively) extra electoral power. What argument do you plan to use to convince them to give it up? And if you could convince them to sell out their own constituents, you’d be a step closer to abolishing state lines generally, as I suggested. After all, if being a citzen of a state means less and less in Federal matters, why have states at all?

At most, fraud and irregularities within a district, no matter how blatant, could turn one electoral vote (or possibly three, under the hybrid system I proposed). That is certainly far less likely to turn an election than tossing all of Florida’s 25 votes to one candidate.

However, in a close popular-vote election, a series of small nationwide frauds, each shifting only a thousand votes to one candidate, could also turn an election. Popular-vote elections are not immune to fraud, and in an extremely close election, the difference could be as little as a rounding error.

I think the current EC system could be modified, you think it should be abolished. I think my modification is a much easier sell than yours.

In short, I don’t see what advantages your proposal offers, and I can’t see any reason why enough state legislatures (various electoral-vote schemes notwithstanding) would have any part of it, unless they were trying the same emotional “make your vote count” crap that you’ve tried in this thread, and that the voters in small states were dumb enough to fall for it.

67

** Actually I don’t think you did anything at all. I think you just jumped to a conclusion. I’d say consulting a crystal ball would constitute an improvement to your reasoning. At least it would be an attempt to check your assumptions.

You didn’t show that I was wrong, you just asserted it. Again you ignore the inconvenient. If you had attempted to address my plan it would be obvious that I was right. No constitutional amendment is necessary. I also see that you failed to address my response to the last time you accused me of misusing “disenfranchise”. What are you doing in Great Debates? That isn’t debating; you are just asserting that you are right and I am wrong over and over. My six year old nephew can do that. In fact, why are you on the SDMB at all? We fight ignorance not wallow in it.

What claim would they have to being disenfranchised? They would have the same vote as every other American. In your world equality seems to be equated with disenfranchisement yet less than equality is not. And you have the hubris to accuse me of misusing the term?

Your hyperbole doesn’t disguise the fact that you have no leg to stand on. I have already pointed out that at one time enough Members of Congress supported abolishing the EC to have passed my plan. And my notion of the greater good is equality. Yes, I think most Americans believe in that ideal, even if you don’t.

Just because you miss the point doesn’t make it pointless. The point is that they could not that they ever did. Since they can it is possible to circumvent the EC permanently without any support from the “small” states. Obviously you know very little about my view. By design it seems to me.

I would start with the obvious: it’s the right thing to do. The only thing they have to lose is an unfair advantage over other Americans. Then I would point out that only those voters in the majority or plurality exercised the extra electoral power, the rest had none at all. Then I would point out that unless their state went along it would get no highway money for the next four years. I expect the last argument would carry the most weight with the elitists and deliberately ignorant.

As for what I am ignoring, if you feel I’ve missed something pertinent then by all means, bring it up. I haven’t commented on your silly arguments you have silently dropped after I refuted them. In fact, I’m waiting for you to realize they are all silly.

No, we wouldn’t. As I pointed out, no state can be taken apart against its will. No slippery slope fallacy is going to change that. It would take a constitutional amendment.

True but irregularities are more likely to turn a congressional district because it contains less votes than the entire state. The more votes the harder to turn the outcome. The hardest to turn would be a nationwide popular vote.

No election is tamperproof, that’s true. My point is that it is more difficult to turn a PV. Nationwide fraud is more likely to be detected than smallscale fraud in a few key districts.

Just because you, willfully or no, don’t understand my arguments doesn’t make them crap. You seem to have invested more energy in not understanding my posts than the reverse. Most Americans see equality and the franchise as an advantage. Plus they don’t want to fund thier transportation systems without federal dollars.

68

I love this part:

So essentially, it’s the right thing to do, and if you don’t agree, you’ll be punished. That’s lovely. Of course, a likely response to this is for the state government to say “Hey, if you want to withhold federal funds to punish us for exercising our state’s electoral rights (since your scheme doesn’t actually involve a constitutional amendment), our citizens simply won’t pay any federal taxes for the next four years.”

What’s your response to that? Send in federal troops? Woo-hoo! Civil War II!

69

** No. It is the right thing to do as I’ve shown here but no one is being forced to agree. You are free to disagree, however unreasonable that position may be. If a state doesn’t go along with the law they wouldn’t receive any highway money. You may see that as a punishment or as the price of going your own way. It is a choice, if not one a state would like to have to make.

Do you really think that’s a likely response? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised given the lack of reason you have displayed on this subject. Allow me to suggest that perhaps not everyone is as irrational as you over this topic. My state didn’t want to lower our drunk driving limit to .08 but we did in order to avoid losing our highway funds. I expect the same thing would happen here. If the leaders of a state tried to nullify federal authority then yes, they could expect to be put in their place. By force if necessary. But this issue hardly seems potent enough to lead to civil war.

70

2sense said for example…

"My state didn’t want to lower our drunk driving limit to .08 but we did (so) in order to avoid losing our highway funds. I expect the same thing would happen here. ** If the leaders of a state tried to nullify federal authority then yes, they could expect to be put in their place. By force if necessary**. But this issue hardly seems potent enough to lead to civil war.


I give up...I agree. You are unable to grasp the simple  concept of "states rights". Best of luck to you always, ** Mister 2sense** , you owe your world here in america  a million apologies in exchange.
71

I believe I do understand what people mean when they talk about “states’ rights”. I also know what happened back in the 1960s when some southern states attempted to defy the federal government over civil rights. They didn’t get very far. The rights of states are defined by the federal government. That was settled in the 1860s. I have no control over it either way and see no reason to apologize for pointing it out. That’s why we are here: to inform and thereby lessen our ignorance.

So, Milum, any luck on providing that cite that “the creators of the Constitution knew this as well; Territory, like people, needs representation”? Is there any hope you will take responsibility for your words by retracting your claim if and when you can’t support it?

72

Ah, but at the time, the Federal government had Supreme Court decisions, the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act to legalize its actions. What you’re describing is essentially blackmail to force compliance with a voting scheme that has no consitutional basis (in fact, you seem quote proud of the fact that a constitutional basis isn’t required). I can understand linking driver regulation to highway funding, since the issues are related, but what’s the connection between highway funding and Presidential elections, except that you’ve found a big club the Federal government can use against the states? Using that approach, any issue, consitutional or otherwise, could be forced on the states by the Federal government, which sounds like the 10th Amendment has just gone up in smoke.

Get your constitutional amendment abolishing or altering the EC, then enforcement becomes a Federal responsibility. Until then, you’ve got a formula for prompting civil disobedience, rioting, state discontent and (admittedly unlikely) civil war.

Besides, I’m very mildly surprised that you haven’t by now tumbled onto the fact that constantly calling your opponents “ignorant” doesn’t help win them over, nor does it prove your case.

73

No, I am proud to have discovered that no change in the Constitution is necessary. My plan is perfectly constitutional as the document reads right now.

I didn’t find it. If I had I would be bragging about it as much as I do about my practical plan. I first heard of the ploy during the Reagan Administration when the federal government was using it to encourage the states to raise their drinking age to 21. Despite your ignorance of it it’s a perfectly constitutional tactic even for matters unrelated to the highways. There’s nothing to stop a state from refusing to go along. I understand Louisiana held out against raising their drinking age for some time.

As I have said, my plan is perfectly constitutional. Once passed it would have the same force as all other federal laws. Federal laws are federal responsibility.

I see no reason it should cause the troubles you think it would. The EC is much less of a hot button issue than seperation of church and state and yet we didn’t see Alabama secede when the federal government forced the removal of a religious monument from state property. No civil disobedience or rioting either.

I wasn’t calling you ignorant in an attempt to win you over; I was doing so to highlight your repeated tactic of ignoring the facts in order to maintain otherwise untenable positions. Since you have abandoned those silly assertions I believe it has worked.

74

Sure, if the memebrs of the Electoral College were willing to risk endless legal challenges and the justifiable anger of the citizens of the states they represent. Or if they were struck with an incurable bout of stupidity. In any case, threatening a state with the withholding of funds if they don’t go along with your scheme represents a hugely blatant abuse of federal power. I’d be downright surprised if any state governor submitted to such pressure. He certainly should be recalled or impeached if he was willing to roll over that easily.

Wow, you contradict yourself so easily. It can be plausibly argued that since the feds largely financed the interstate system, as well as largely paying for its upkeep, and since the interstates are crucial to national defense and interstate commerce (i.e. they’re more important than their benefit to any one state), then they can demand that state law enforcement do their best to make the interstates within their jurisidictions safe, including cutting down on drunk driving, adhering to a national standard BAL and (conceivably) regulating drivers who may be inexperienced and drunk. All of this stems from the perfectly justifiable need of the federal government to keep the interstates safe and is not “unrelated to the highways.”

The Electoral College, though, is completely unrelated, until such time as you can show the college members have to drive to deliver their votes, or something.

And that removal was made legal by the first amendment. Your proposal has no legal weight whatsoever (something being legally possible does not make it enforceable). As I said, get the laws/amendments passed and then you can use federal power to enforce them, not before. I personally don’t think you have much of a chance. Districting, as a compromise measure, might have a chance.

Just like you, I ignore points raised which strike me as stupid, vague or far afield. And I haven’t “abandoned” any of my points (though some were cleary for the purpose of silly hyperbole, as in the Jefferson/Hemmings bit). I state them and you either ignore them or provide counter-arguments that have no weight. Then I state some other weakness in your plan, and you either ignore it or offer more pointless counters. In some sense, it’s almost fun.

My core argument remains completely unchanged. If there’s any change to the EC to be made, I favour districting because it will minimize the impact of a poorly-designed “butterfly” ballot. I see no reason the U.S. should change their Presidential election process into a nationwide popular-vote, because it strikes me as more logical that a President should have widespread support, including smaller rural states, rather than just that of the urbanized centers. I don’t recognize the moral superiority of a popular vote, and I think it solves nonexistant problems while creating a few new ones. I am not ignorant because I am ignoring your arguments; I ignore your arguments because your arguments do not contain sufficient logic, as well as a recently-revealed ugly blackmail-ish element in which it looks like you’d be happy to see federal abuses in order to get your way. Just for that, I hope you never get your way, because I dislike tyrannical acts rationalized in the name of virtue.

75

It seems you still don’t understand my plan. The governor of a state has nothing to do with it outside of a possible veto on a state law assigning electors based upon the nationwide vote. Nor would there be any basis for a lawsuit against an elector. They would just be following the state law.

I also see no reason to accept your belief that a denial of federal highway funds must be based upon a reason related to the highways themselves. ( And I think your attempt to shoehorn the reuired drinking age example into that belief is lame at best. ) As I have said, federal funds are controlled by the federal government. If there is some reason to support your supposition you have not provided any. It looks a case of wishful thinking on your part.

Once my plan becomes federal law then by definition it carries legal weight. It is easily enforceable. Any state that chooses not to assign their electors based upon the nationwide vote wouldn’t receive their highway money. It is as simple as not cutting that state a check. Do you have any reason beyond wishful thinking for your belief that my plan is unenforceable?

** Your bald assertion that my arguments have no weight has no weight. The claim is supported by nothing and thus is worth nothing. I notice you don’t have the balls to attempt to argue the points. If you tried you would look even more ridiculous than your refusal to accept reality does now.

This is a good example. I have pointed out that this isn’t true. You failed to address my argument yet claim it was pointless. If you had more intellectual honesty you would admit you couldn’t counter my argument.

Here is another fine example. I challenged you to back up your assertion that a candidate could win with support in major cities alone but you didn’t. You didn’t because you can’t. The numbers just don’t add up. Yet you claim my arguments are pointless? Grow a spine and maybe you could discard your mistaken preconception.

** You could recognize it if you wanted to. You don’t see it because you can’t look at it. Looking away doesn’t make it go away.

You are ignorant because you don’t have the courage to face the truth. Sad.

76

And citizens that have grown accustomed to having their statewide majority votes be translated into electoral votes would be incensed. The methods by which votes are counted and used is taken very seriously by a great many people and any scheme unsupported by a consitutional amendment would, I predict, invite protracted legal challenges.

I predict that attaching conditions to federal transfer payments that have nothing to do with the purpose of the payment provokes anger at the Federal government, especially since what the states are doing is perfectly legal.

There are examples of withheld federal funds for legal activities, as in Medicaid withholding funds from hospitals and clinics that perform abortions, or the DOD from colleges that refuse to allow on-campus recruiting. Even these are contentious and inspire legal challenges. What do you think happens when funds totally unrelated to the activity in question are withheld? The citizens will just roll over and take it?

Oh, wait, you think it’s for the greater good. Right. That’ll shut them up.

Well, there’s the flaw, isn’t it? Got any evidence anyone in the federal government would consider implementing such a plan?

I suppose once the benevolent Martians show up and give us the secret of immortality, the federal government will have to rethink Social Security, too. With unlikely premises, you can draw all kinds of conclusions.

My reasoning is that your plan is unimplementable. There’s no incentive for anyone in power to do so and saying it’s the right thing to do doesn’t constitute evidence.

Fine, you say my arguments have no weight. I say your arguments have no weight. This thread has more weightlesness than the Apollo Program.

Reality? Your whole position depends of federal legislation that is as likely to be passed as a national ban on chocolate.

Okay, replace “cities” with “densely populated urbanized states”. Congratulations. You scored a point. It’s your only one so far, though, so treasure it.

That’s just comical, since you have said absolutely nothing that would inspire the merest furrowing of the brow of Bert Lahr in full-blown Cowardly-Lion mode. Your plan doesn’t scare me in the least. Rather, it strikes me an unneccesary, legally unlikely, and altogether pointless.

This site lists a number of proposed EC reforms, many of which are for districting. Do you think the people who support those plans are spineless and lack the courage to face the truth?

For that matter, most of these reform plans were put forth after the dust of Bush v. Gore settled, and have largely languished ever since. Where’s the overwhelming public support you would need for this plan? Is the entire U.S. just full of spineless no-balls cowards? Maybe they need you to rescue them from themselves.

Go get 'em, Tiger.

77

** Legal challenges on what grounds?

I agree that some would be angry. You for instance. So what?

I expect opponents to oppose the proposal. Imagine that. But once it has been implemented they will have lost. They can keep up their opposition but I think at that point the cat will be out of the bag. Everyone will have an equal vote and it won’t be in the interest of the majority to give the minority back their undeserved extra electoral power.

And notice that it is for the greater good. Unless you think equality is a bad thing.

None whatsoever. **

Starting from the cited fact that a persistant majority of Americans want to abolish the EC I think that abolition of the EC is hardly a fantasy.

As I have already pointed out, almost enough Congresscritters supported a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC back in the '70s. My plan requires the support of substantially less. And I’m not relying simply on my opinion that the EC should go, I have produced arguments against it throughout this thread. Pick one and try to refute it if you can.

**

Don’t try to drag me down to the level of your behavior here. I didn’t just claim that your arguments had no weight, I supported it by stating that your claim was unsupported. Simply stating something doesn’t make it true. Basing conclusions upon a statement is not a rational argument. I have backed up my claims. You have not.

Replace “Show me the numbers.” with “Show me the numbers!” Exchanging one bald assertion for another does not constitute proof that you are right.

I’m not accusing you of cowardice and I certainly am not disparaging folks that haven’t heard my arguments. THEY haven’t done all the rhetorical dodging that you have. I don’t think you are afraid of my plan. I think you lack the moral courage to admit that you are wrong on this topic. I could be wrong. Perhaps your behavior is caused by something else.

78

Do a simple google on “withheld federal funds legal challenge” and you’ll find quite a few people with quite a few lawsuits pending.

Angry? You overstate your importance. I’m not angry at you (though even if I were, that wouldn’t help prove your position). I simply believe your position lacks sufficient reason. And angry citizens are still citizens, with rights before the courts. Their anger deserves more than a shrugging dismissal, and unless you plan to put pressure on the judiciary in some fashion, there is no possible way you can gaurantee that some judge won’t toss your plan altogether as unconsitutional intereference in how a state allocates its electoral votes.

There you go again with the “once it has been implemented”, and here I go again saying your plan has virtually no chance of becoming a reality. I could imagine a consitutional amendment for a popular vote long before some kind of pseudo-amendment gets created and enforced. Since you’re confident the majority won’t give power back to the majority, why not acknoeldge that the minority will be reluctant to give up that power in the first place?

You can’t prove your case with platitudes any more than you could with insults. In this particular case, I think equality of the states (or at least a slightly greater voice to the smaller states) matters somewhat more than equality of individuals. The national popular vote has not proved necessary for the effective election of a president thus far. What has changed to make it necessary now?

Well, the only legitimate route is a constitutional amendment, and how far have those gotten? By the same token, I’m sure you could find polls proving a persistant majority of Americans dislike flag-burning, but apparantly not enough to pressure legislatures to outlaw it, or create an amendment banning it.

I can imagine the EC being dropped, though, through a proper amendment process (though getting enough states to support it will always be tricky). I see no chance whatsoever for a fakey scheme involving electors in several key states.

By the way, are you going to withhold highway funds from just those eleven states? That doesn’t sound very fair, does it? And if one of though states decides it would rather forego the funds than be blackmailed, you’ll have to start pressuring #12 and #13 (at least) to take up the slack. If California balked, for example, you’d have to pressure #12 through #16 to make up for their missing 54 votes. How much force are you comfortable throwing around to get your way?

Your plan is a hypothetical construct that might do what it promises, but I think it’s more likely to:
[ul][li]Never be supported by enough legislators to be implemented; and[/li][li]Even if implemented, will prompt more rebellion than compliance from the states, who will see the casting of electoral votes as their inalienable right and no-one else’s.[/ul][/li]
And the attempt in the seventies clearly fizzled. Let them try again.

Surely any attempt to interfere with how a state casts its electoral votes (short of an amendment altering the system and passed by 34 of those states) will be resisted. The fact that you won’t recognize this is what is prompting some people in this thread (including me) to question if you care about states’ rights at all.

Excuse me, but I’ve not accused you of ignorance or cowardice (that last one strikes me as borderline unacceptable in a GD thread). If anything, my level of behaviour is noticeably above yours.

With a bit of pronoun switching, that’s pretty much exactly something I could say to you.

This passage from your earlier post proves that is incorrect:

Apparantly, I don’t have a spine or courage. In that same post, an earlier sentence stated:

And you claim I don’t have balls either. If these are not ad hominem attacks, they do a damn good impression. And I argue the points that are worth my time to argue and ignore others I find, well, pointless.

Please note that I have not accused you of cowardice, in any form. I will accuse you, however, of not thinking your own plan through, and being cheerfully indifferent to the very real possibility that it will hurt the U.S. far more than it helps.

Funny, you said so earlier, or at least that I was afraid to “face the truth” of your plan. If there is a difference, please enlighten me.

This isn’t an issue requiring moral courage (nice attempt at spin, though; adding the adjective “moral” after the fact). It should be a simple matter of balancing state and individual rights in a manner that makes sure the person elected President is one found acceptable to most Americans across a broad spectrum of American life. The fact that you insist on trying to make it a moral issue is irrelevant. I believe you do this because it allows you to feel you have the moral high ground while implying your opponents are weak or even, I daresay, evil. I also believe you feel that having the moral highground relieves some of the factual burden from your argument. You’re wrong about that. And I seriously doubt that I’m wrong about you.

79

Minor correction to above post: I’ve accused 2sense of ignorance on specific facts, but not implied he was generally ignorant.

80

Your short correction post applies to my words as well. I am not generalizing about you. It is your actions here I object to. Since my attempts to shame you into improving your behavior have failed I will give them up. Or at least I shall try.

A suggestion that I do your homework for you does not constitute support for your claim. If there are legal arguments against my plan then you should be able to produce some.

I do acknowledge it. That’s why it is so hard to get a constitutional amendment passed. Because a minority can block one and in this case the minority stands to lose its undeserved advantage. This was covered before I ever entered the thread.

** Which is it? Equality or slightly more for the “small states”? These are mutually exclusive. And why would you think equality of states is what matters? And what do you think of the fact that the states aren’t equal? Do you think Cali should have the same vote as Wyoming? That would be state equality.

Who ever said the current system isn’t effective? It has never failed to produce a president. It is the fairness of the method which is questioned.

** You have given no reason to think my plan isn’t legitimate. Laws against flagburning are unconstitutional. My plan is not.

There are no key states. Every state would face the same choice: comply or lose funds.

I do recognize that there will be opposition no matter how the problem is approached. Notice I used the term in my last post. I am willing to discuss the matter. But you can’t persuade everyone. Some will be upset with the change. Losers usually are but life goes on.

Do you have any evidence that my plan could do more harm than good?

** Why do you feel individual rights should be balanced by those of the states? Why do you think a PV wouldn’t “make sure the person elected President is one found acceptable to most Americans across a broad spectrum of American life”? I notice that you still refuse to produce numbers to back your claim that under a PV a candidate could concentrate on some cities or “densely populated urbanized states” and win while ignoring everyone else.

I believe I have addressed the substance of every challenge to my points, backed every assertion and cited when asked. If you had done the same I wouldn’t have reason to disparage your antics in this thread.