2020 Primaries

#5,026
#5,026
Orange_Crush said:
You want to put the onus for me to defend the fairness of the EC? That's not how it works. I'm not trying to convince you of jack caca. I'm fine the way it is, don't feel the need to change it, nor change your mind. Nor did I bring some half-baked concept of "fair" to the conversation without the ability to found the concept I'm seeking to argue.

As I've alluded to, I defend the EC from a practical standpoint (it holds the federated nation together by representing states' perceived self interests) while not being unfair, in that a small segment of geographic interests aren't dictating national representation.

But again... You're here to change our mind, remember? This is the big stage you asked for. The spotlight is on you. Don't ____ the bed now that you have your chance.

Your argument is that the EC should be changed because it isn't "fair". That's your argument; not mine. You wanted to debate "fair". Go for it.

Again... I would recommend grounding justice in an objective, shared standard. Otherwise, we'll just need to go with the shared standard we currently have--the Constitution. What does it say again?
Click to expand...

Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.
 
#5,027
#5,027
I believe Ole Joe is over it. Sadly, the man is staggering around and doesn't know what's going on. Couldn't function without those handlers. They're gonna need Hillary's old Scooby Van to throw him into before summer.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Zues1
#5,028
#5,028
OHvol40 said:
My point is if we’re voting by popular vote then candidates would have to run on issues that matter to Americans as a whole, not just “Urban” or “Rural” issues, because those don’t really exist. Unless you’re using “urban” as code for liberal and “rural” as code for conservative. Are you?
Click to expand...
A popular vote based election will see candidates ignoring large areas of the country with less population concentration. They'll come up with some algorithm using time and money spent to gather votes focusing on large population areas. Why worry about Arkansas, Mississippi, either of the Dakotas, ect when you can campaign to more voters with less travel and money spent by focusing on the NE, California, Texas and Florida?

We'd see less voter turnout because candidates wouldn't want to spend the time and money over Americans not living in the most populous states. People arent going to vote when they know a president has no interest in them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1 and AM64
#5,030
#5,030
Sea Ray said:
Whereas there is overlap there are also competing issues. Urban folks tend to want more gun control and rural folks want less. Urban folks tend to want abortion rights and the rural tend towards religion and pro life. Urban folks want more gov't, rural want less. If you do away with the EC it'd behoove a candidate to support the urban side of these issues.

I doubt I'll change your mind. But to get back to my earlier point, I don't have to 'cause I support leaving it as it is. You're the one who has work in front of you. You'll need to convince 2/3s of America
Click to expand...

False, you have to convince at least 1/2 the rural states, not 2/3 of America... which is the point lol
 
#5,031
#5,031
luthervol said:
The FFs never imagined the EC evolving to what it is today.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. The FFs didn't want the election to be determined by Pennsylvania and Virginia. They wanted the other 11 states to have a say. I think that same principle holds true today. I think they'd be proud of how the EC has worked
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, 37L1, AM64 and 1 other person
#5,032
#5,032
TheDeeble said:
A popular vote based election will see candidates ignoring large areas of the country with less population concentration. They'll come up with some algorithm using time and money spent to gather votes focusing on large population areas. Why worry about Arkansas, Mississippi, either of the Dakotas, ect when you can campaign to more voters with less travel and money spent by focusing on the NE, California, Texas and Florida?

We'd see less voter turnout because candidates wouldn't want to spend the time and money over Americans not living in the most populous states. People arent going to vote when they know a president has no interest in them.
Click to expand...

Isn’t this what happens in gubernatorial races?
 
#5,033
#5,033
OHvol40 said:
False, you have to convince at least 1/2 the rural states, not 2/3 of America... which is the point lol
Click to expand...

You need two thirds to change the Constitution. You're still struggling with this fact I see

Article 5 of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1 and AM64
#5,034
#5,034
OHvol40 said:
Breaking America down into “urban” and “rural” issues is a binary view that doesn’t represent America as a whole. There’s crossover in interests, beliefs, and pints of view everywhere. It would be like me saying candidates running on issues for the educated vs uneducated. There are trends, sure, but there is also a lot of crossover.
Click to expand...

How about another viewpoint, NY has a lot of people, but what does NY produce that you actually need in your daily life? What does a large farming state with fewer people produce that you need in your daily life? We've seen Bloomberg's farming wisdom. Do you really think it's wise to govern the entire country based on the "wisdom" of the urbanites? Do you really think a mass of people who don't believe the civilized world exists outside their metropolitan area are fit to decide how the biggest part of the country grows your food and produces your energy? That's what we are really talking about. If this were a business, primarily those states in the middle would be producing the products, and the heavy duty blue urban states would be the overhead. I've yet to figure out just what in the hell NYC does that's so important to our lives, or why it has to be done there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and tbwhhs
#5,036
#5,036
OHvol40 said:
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.
Click to expand...
How so? I explained why I support the EC, thus why I don't support a change. You have condescended and accused those who disagree with you. You've made an objective claim about its "fairness". You've been invited to logically ground your claims and accusations, and yet you keep stiff-arming the invitation to support your claims and make an argument that may move us to your side. Instead of supporting your claims and bald assertions, you just try to shift the burden and hope everyone else is stupid enough not to notice.

And you claim that I'm ducking?

Project much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#5,037
#5,037
luthervol said:
The FFs never imagined the EC evolving to what it is today.
Click to expand...



The founding fathers were at the limit of what they could imagine. It's not like they were going to let the poors vote, or anything. We are lucky we have wrenched the few rights we have out of the hands of our wealthy betters.

Change is slow, and it probably should be because actual revolutions normally are only good at producing dead bodies. Also, what we call the American Revolution is by definition more properly defined as a revolt.
 
#5,038
#5,038
Rifleman said:
Sorry. Not all of us are toughened up by having debilitating bone spurs and an addiction to women's make up like your big tough hero Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
No yours is a guy who wants to give away everything for free, can’t remember which state he’s in half the time, can’t remember his own name, can’t remember who he was a VP for, can’t remember what office he’s running for, fired a prosecutor for looking into his crack head kids corrupt business dealings, tells people they don’t have any business having 100 rounds of ammo, tells voters he doesn’t work for them and gets highly pissed and cusses voters when they question him
 
#5,039
#5,039
Rifleman said:


The founding fathers were at the limit of what they could imagine. It's not like they were going to let the poors vote, or anything. We are lucky we have wrenched the few rights we have out of the hands of our wealthy betters.

Change is slow, and it probably should be because actual revolutions normally are only good at producing dead bodies. Also, what we call the American Revolution is by definition more properly defined as a revolt.
Click to expand...

Great clip.
 
#5,040
#5,040
Sea Ray said:
You need two thirds to change the Constitution. You're still struggling with this fact I see

Article 5 of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about. That’s just what’s I said. There are like 40 rural states, each having equal representation in the Senate. To reach 2/3 for and amendment you’d have to convince the Senators from half those states that it’s in their best interest to give up the disproportionate power their citizens wield in choosing the president... which would never happen. Why do you think Im the the one struggling with concepts? I think it may be you.
 
#5,041
#5,041
Maybe we should bring back the Three-Fifths Compromise for illegals.


Yes, I'm joking.
 
#5,042
#5,042
AM64 said:
How about another viewpoint, NY has a lot of people, but what does NY produce that you actually need in your daily life? What does a large farming state with fewer people produce that you need in your daily life? We've seen Bloomberg's farming wisdom. Do you really think it's wise to govern the entire country based on the "wisdom" of the urbanites? Do you really think a mass of people who don't believe the civilized world exists outside their metropolitan area are fit to decide how the biggest part of the country grows your food and produces your energy? That's what we are really talking about. If this were a business, primarily those states in the middle would be producing the products, and the heavy duty blue urban states would be the overhead. I've yet to figure out just what in the hell NYC does that's so important to our lives, or why it has to be done there.
Click to expand...

This is full of assumptions and biases about people, that, in my experience, is totally off base. I’ve lived in rural, small town, suburban, and urban America. All of what you said is basically just a stereotype and doesn’t at all address the fact that we are “created equal” and our votes should count as such.
 
#5,043
#5,043
OHvol40 said:
What are you talking about. That’s just what’s I said. There are like 40 rural states, each having equal representation in the Senate. To reach 2/3 for and amendment you’d have to convince the Senators from half those states that it’s in their best interest to give up the disproportionate power their citizens wield in choosing the president... which would never happen. Why do you think Im the the one struggling with concepts? I think it may be you.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says nothing of rural states. Your number of 40 is your own calculation. Let's not argue over who's a rural state and who's an urban state. You need two thirds to change this. You've got a lot of work to do
 
#5,044
#5,044
Sea Ray said:
The Constitution says nothing of rural states. Your number of 40 is your own calculation. Let's not argue over who's a rural state and who's an urban state. You need two thirds to change this. You've got a lot of work to do
Click to expand...

“Too bad so sad” is such a thoughtful stance. Thank you for your contribution.
 
#5,046
#5,046
OHvol40 said:
“Too bad so sad” is such a thoughtful stance. Thank you for your contribution.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that quote from? Did you just make it up? If you want to be accurate, copy/paste my comments. If you don't care about accuracy then just admit it right here and now
 
#5,048
#5,048
Sea Ray said:
I don't know about that. The FFs didn't want the election to be determined by Pennsylvania and Virginia. They wanted the other 11 states to have a say. I think that same principle holds true today. I think they'd be proud of how the EC has worked
Click to expand...

Now we have Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. That's much better...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman and luthervol
#5,050
#5,050
OHvol40 said:
Isn’t this what happens in gubernatorial races?
Click to expand...
Im not rehashing everything that's been debated the past 10 pages on state vs presidential elections.

My point is you think a popular vote will make a president focus on issues that concern all Americans. I don't think that's what will happen at all. They'll focus on issues that appeal to high population concentration areas because they will require less money, less time, and less travel to reach voters. Not because those people are right, more deserving, or more needful. It will just be the easiest path to victory. It will simply be where can we go to maximize time/money spent to reach the most voters. Doing that will leave portions of the country on the outside looking in.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top