Ready The Clown Car: The First Batch of Democrats Are Ready To Announce Their 2020 Bids

Lots of heat here but no light.

Can you show me how it is a travesty? How is it a "false, absurd or distorted representation of something"? Calling it a relic of slavery is interesting. I suppose one could make the same claim of the entire Constitution including the Bill of Rights too. If your argument is that it was written by imperfect men in an imperfect time, (as are all our laws) you'll get no argument from me.

Also, if you could expound on how it does the exact opposite of giving smaller states a voice that would be appreciated.

As per your contention it doesn't produce clear winners, that only seems to be a recent phenomena brought on by recent events and the reaction of a certain sub set of the population. But given that the leadership of the govt and the losers of the Electoral College have accepted every result of the EC, I would state there is a pretty good argument otherwise.

 

Of course you would defend him.

 

I am not aware of the history between you two but that response just seemed over the top. Carry on.

 

Report him. That's what he does

 

I wonder if a journalist had negative opinions about Hitler during his era, would that journalist lose their integrity?

My point is: Is the bias against Donald preconceived or warranted based on his actions?

 

I think there is a gap in good faith arguments where one side is more sincere and hence will show more frustration and the other side enjoys baiting.

 

You're entitled to your opinion and I encourage you to continue to voice your opinion. However I can't let you slide on facts. Simply because your team didn't win does not mean it "failed miserably twice". You either do not understand the EC or you're just being disingenuous. You pick.

You do not understand the psychology of partisanship. It doesn't matter what the team (I use the word team since you see the other side as adversaries instead of your fellow countryman) is called. One side will be about equality of opportunity. The other side will be about equality of outcome. They both have their pro's and con's, so please refrain from getting offended at something you dont understand. Equality of Opportunity will use every trick and loophole and toe the line to ensure they win. They will stack courts. They will gerrymander. They will manipulate. What they will not do is cry foul and demand the rules be reset just because they lost one race. They will step on and crush any group to ensure they win by the technical rules.

People like yourself, those who are only interested in equality of outcome, do indeed seem to be more compassionate. Make no mistake about it, they are just as insidious in their results. They wont think twice about stepping on and crushing anyone who they deem a deplorable.

Outside of the fantasy world called [pure] Socialism, this system works well and needed to keep a country prosperous. While most here seem to want to ostracize the other side, I am fairly happy with the current state of affairs. Yes, we need improvements and they will come. Our country is far from the brink of a failed state. We are not committing genocide. We are not hanging dissidents in the town square. We are not 'number one' in every category nor should we try this impossible task.

I dont know what to tell you if you can't understand the importance of having bipartisan support when it comes to changing the foundation of our country. If the EC bothers you that much, I can reassure you that you would be voting from the rooftop if Trump, the Republican controlled House and Senate had their way with partisan Amendments.

 

You should apologize to everyone here for being so deceitful. It's such a shame that you spread your waste all over the BBS. I'm merely calling you out for it. If you have any decency you would apologize for the way you post.

 

In this case about this particular poster, I agree with Mojoman. @Sweet Lou 4 2 likes to play the victim while trolling. As he is getting into his elder state of mind, it doesn't suit him very well.

 

FIFY

 

This section of the forum could seriously use better moderation …. personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated on either side. None of this contributes to any meaningful or constructive discussion.

We can disagree without being idiots , morons or a POS.

Over at the Texans forum we all but did away with the political discussion forum as it was every bit the ugly stain this section is on occasion , it is now a hidden section and almost dead.

 

That was overly strong language - I agree. But let's be clear, it's not about a disagreement. It's a matter of a poster intentionally posting things he knows is untrue and being deceptive.

 

Then call him on it without the asshattery.

I have one rule for myself - attack the substance of the post - not the poster. Keep it civil or don't engage.

 

I think it's fair game to call out deceptive behavior. His character is in question - it's not just the substance of his posts. And it's eye-opening that you give him a free pass on this.

 

I didn't say it wasn't fair game to call him out - In fact I said "Call him out"

What I took exception to was your choice of words and combativeness in general. That was uncalled for.


What he posted was irrelevant to your behavior - You made the choice to be crude.

 

well that's inconvenient

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/27/gop-wants-apology-liberal-pac-over-regretful-trump/

 

First of all, I've already mentioned I've disliked the EC since middle school. To dismiss my stance on the issue as me merely being a sore loser because of 2000 and 2016 is humorous to me. Especially, whenever all you're armed with here is a rather tedious lesson on political philosophy. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it's very difficult to argue the system itself doesn't at least need improvement. There are a lot of holes in the 2019 application of a system that was devised in 1787. Acknowledging and correcting those issues interest me. The actual mechanism itself, and how its impacting elections, interests me. Political philosophy seminars do not. That said, as a pseudo-philosopher, you can probably appreciate evolution. Well, the EC essentially enshrines the two-party system and ensures there will never be a serious third party candidate. That we will always be stuck in this rut of Red vs. Blue, and that's just the way it is. That should bother you.

And I'm not sure how you can accuse of me of misunderstanding the importance of bipartisan support for making such a change, whenever you're directly quoting me acknowledging the political impossibility of the Constitutional amendment required to do so. Very strange.

 

It's a travesty and distortion of reality to me for a number of reasons.

Let's start off with three of the primary defenses of the EC: it gives smaller states a voice (aka tyranny of the majority), forces campaigns to run broad geographic campaigns and creates clear winners.

For starters, its hypocritical. Why is it acceptable to elect Senators and Governors via popular vote but not our President? Each state has the same urban vs. rural divides that you see on a much larger basis when you look at the entire country. Why is the "tyranny of the majority" not an issue on a state-wide basis, but all of a sudden a concern whenever you look at the country as a whole? Most major urban cities and surrounding metropolitan areas are going to outnumber the rural districts. Why doesn't each state have their own Electoral College? It probably had something to do with the fact that many people in the 1700's couldn't read or write, weren't educated and got their news from word-of-mouth, hence why the Founders essentially thought the population wasn't smart enough to pick a President. It still doesn't explain why you can choose Senators or Governors (mini Presidents) on a state-wide basis, and why they felt the need to make this distinction.

Also, its the epitome of hypocrisy to use the "it gives the little guy a voice" argument whenever tax-paying American citizens cannot vote in Presidential elections and are excluded from the voting process because of the EC. Little known fact: roughly 4M people in US territories cannot vote in Presidential elections because of the EC, since they lack voting representation.

Furthermore, in 2016, after each party had their respective conventions, 94% of all campaign visits occurred in just 12 states. 24 weren't visited at all. How is the little guy's voice being heard when they're ignored by both sides nationally? Those states only "have a voice" in the sense that their delegates do get awarded, but nothing practically speaking. I could also get into how the swing state vs. solid red/blue dynamic leads to apathy, voter suppression and a general my-vote-doesn't-really-matter side rant, but I'll spare you since those complaints are well documented. It all gets filed under the same category, though.

As for creating clear winners, we have two highly controversial examples in recent history of the system subverting the will of the American people. Not only that, but the application itself is full of holes. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about "winner take all". It makes no sense that I could hypothetically carry a state like Colorado (9 EC votes) with 100% of the electorate (and its higher population), and you could carry states like Idaho/Utah (10 EC votes combined) with 50.1% of the vote, and you would come out on top.

Furthermore, it's well documented how electoral votes aren't allocated equally. How a state like California gets something like 1 elector per 700,000 people, versus a state like Wyoming that gets 1 elector per 190,000 or so. It's also theoretically possible to win the EC by carrying only the 11 most populous state. You can also win by carrying (though politically unlikely) just 22% of the popular vote. Those two points, alone, are arguably egregious enough to justify eliminating the entire system. Then there's the actual electors themselves, and state laws vary, but they are largely free to vote for whomever they want. They could team up and all vote for Baby Yoda if they wanted. Yet another just astonishingly ridiculous component of this system.

I understand this is a controversial topic and there's almost no chance of it going away anytime soon. I will be interested to see, though, what happens whenever this system eventually costs the GOP the White House. Political winds are ever changing. I think, and some of you native Texans might reject this, but many are suggesting Texas going Blue in a Presidential election in the next decade or two isn't that all far-fetched. How will the GOP react if/when those normally reliable 38 EC votes go Blue?