2020 Primaries

#5,128
#5,128
Orange_Crush said:
I've heard far too many people from Illinois, California, etc that have transplanted to Tennessee for the very reason you bring up. They all argue for an EC at the state level, and I personally won't argue against it.

But for the sake of the discussion at hand--i.e. the difference between congressional and presidential elections--it seems the FFs made the distinction of "local" representation to be at the state level, and moved on.
Click to expand...
Every state attempt at an electoral college type system has been ruled unconstitutional by the SC.
Something about one man, one vote and they are all weighted equally.

It is what it is and unfortunately it's not going to change anytime soon, but the rational that EC supporters use would also apply completely at the state level, but the SC claims it's unconstitutional.
 
#5,130
#5,130
carlos86 said:
The burn has been extinguished.
Click to expand...

I'm a little disappointed because I think Trump would have beaten Bernie fairly easily..I don't see him beating Biden...in fact imo it won't be very close in electoral votes...but hey at least I get to keep my job in case something miraculous happened and Bernie somehow won
 
#5,131
#5,131
utvols88 said:
I'd argue that the State of Virginia is a glowing example of what can go wrong with an overpopulated area out voting 90% of the property area of a state. Many Virginians I know hate it there now and are looking to move.
Click to expand...
How about Nashville and Sneedville?
 
#5,132
#5,132
GAVol said:
Whatever we think of it now, it was one of the compromises that brought the states into agreement about a Constitution. It’s nothing more or less than that.
Click to expand...
100% true.
IMO, the compromise was a mistake made out of expediency and it's a mistake that cannot be corrected because of the very nature of the amendment process. Luckily, it only screws the country every now and then. But it also has tilted the process far to heavily toward purple states and completely away from solidly red or blue states, and makes the minority vote in those non-competitive states completely meaningless.
 
#5,134
#5,134
luthervol said:
Every state attempt at an electoral college type system has been ruled unconstitutional by the SC.
Something about one man, one vote and they are all weighted equally.

It is what it is and unfortunately it's not going to change anytime soon, but the rational that EC supporters use would also apply completely at the state level, but the SC claims it's unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
And?

Are you claiming that the EC is unconstitutional, when it's spelled out in the Constitution? You can't claim that I/we are being inconsistent if we support a presidential EC and would support state ECs. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by continuing to press this over the past couple of pages.

Do you want to step in where what's-his-name wouldn't go, and give us a shared foundation for justice and "fair"-ness?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NurseGoodVol and Rickyvol77
#5,135
#5,135
If we go straight popular vote, why do we even need the US Senate?

Democracies have worked so well historically, I guess. I mean, what were the FFs thinking in being vague for the sake of posterity? Folks now are a whole lot smarter, that is fo sho.

Hey, how about a system in which both sides compromise and not one in which Mitch the Miserable says from Day 1 "we will oppose this President" and eight years later the Dems say "he's not my President"? Children who used to act that way got their asses busted.

The 2000 butthurt over Al Gore in Florida (the place where they can read Bingo cards, but apparently not Presidential ballots) is powerful in some folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and AM64
#5,137
#5,137
Orange_Crush said:
And?

Are you claiming that the EC is unconstitutional, when it's spelled out in the Constitution? You can't claim that I/we are being inconsistent if we support a presidential EC and would support state ECs. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by continuing to press this over the past couple of pages.

Do you want to step in where what's-his-name wouldn't go, and give us a shared foundation for justice and "fair"-ness?
Click to expand...
My point is simply that there is no logical consistency.
Basically, it was a compromise, it was a mistake, and it will not be corrected.
 
#5,139
#5,139
C-south said:
Exactly. The 2 million citizens in Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota shouldn’t have their voices squashed by 10 million in California.
Click to expand...

Why are their voices squashed? Not one citizen in any of those states deserves to count any more or less than any other.
 
#5,142
#5,142
Orange_Crush said:
He's chosen by state electoral college. That's what you want to change, remember?

But alas, it explains (again) the difference between the elections that seems to befuddle you. Each state choosing their state reps vs all states choosing a joint federal rep.

You keep saying this while proving yourself incapable of making a rational argument for the change you want, or why it's "inappropriate". (Changing the word you use doesn't mean you've established your premise.)

I'm still all ears if you ever get around to not soiling yourself in the spotlight.
Click to expand...

I can’t believe that is so hard for you to grasp a premise that every vote should count equally. I have young children that can understand why that’s fair.
 
#5,143
#5,143
OHvol40 said:
I can’t believe that is so hard for you to grasp a premise that every vote should count equally. I have young children that can understand why that’s fair.
Click to expand...
If it's so simple, it shouldn't be hard for you to build a rational argument to support it, as opposed to just making bald assertions and having to rely on personal incredulity as a debating style. I've given two obvious exceptions to your claim of simple fairness. That should tell you that you have more work to do.

For the record, young children all over the world bypass rationality and believe their emotions to be fact. I'm not sure that helps your lack of case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#5,145
#5,145
Orange_Crush said:
If it's so simple, it shouldn't be hard for you to build a rational argument to support it, as opposed to just making bald assertions and having to rely on personal incredulity as a debating style. I've given two obvious exceptions to your claim of simple fairness. That should tell you that you have more work to do.

For the record, young children all over the world bypass rationality and believe their emotions to be fact. I'm not sure that helps your lack of case.
Click to expand...
I’m fairness most liberal debate points start and end with irrational feelings
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#5,146
#5,146
OHvol40 said:
The majority of Americans favor popular vote to EC. Rural states just stand behind “this is the status quo and we like it that way, so deal with it”.
Click to expand...
We have a speaker for the majority here folks everybody gather round now gather round
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and Rickyvol77
#5,147
#5,147
Orange_Crush said:
If it's so simple, it shouldn't be hard for you to build a rational argument to support it, as opposed to just making bald assertions and having to rely on personal incredulity as a debating style. I've given two obvious exceptions to your claim of simple fairness. That should tell you that you have more work to do.

For the record, young children all over the world bypass rationality and believe their emotions to be fact. I'm not sure that helps your lack of case.
Click to expand...

You’re obviously not open to changing your stance or even addressing the issue, and you’d like to talk more about me than the matter at hand, so why bother? I don’t have a duty to convince you of something you refuse to be convinced of, but as I’ve said before, you’re in the minority on this amongst Americans.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top