The Next President is...

[Lord Ratner]

13 hours ago, drewpey said:

Wait...I'm lost...are you arguing for or against me?  I'm trying to follow...so our current system was written to favor rich white dudes and was used to exploit disenfranchised populations, and we shouldn't change it because it could be used to exploit more disenfranchised people?   Your false equivalency doesn't even make sense.  None of what I suggested was in effect back then, yet somehow it's to blame and we shouldn't consider any changes?  The utopia you seek doesn't exist.

If you clutch your pearls at power being consolidated under a singular authoritarian power then keep your head in the sand.  Your government is currently cleansing any investigative or oversight bodies, keeping immigrants in cages and quite literally sterilizing them while none of the checks and balances are checking or balancing, yet you think everything is fine and we don't need to rock the boat...ok sure

 

The contradictions re: slavery were well understood and agonized over by some of the founders. Our "system" did not enable slavery, it existed long before and worldwide. You couldn't flip the table overnight, still can't, so the system was set up, and the language chosen carefully, to sow the seeds for the eventual demise of slavery.

And it worked.

The rest of your post is just hysteria. 

[Negatory]

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.

Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012 all of the 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored.

States rights, huh?

Bring back a system that actually makes everyone’s votes matter.

 

[Lord Ratner]

21 minutes ago, brawnie said:

That’s not what it does, though. It just ensures that Wyoming farmers votes count 3.6 times more than California farmers. It ensures that Wyoming millionaire votes count 3.6 times more than California millionaires.

Your vote should exactly equal every other Americans vote everywhere when it comes to electing the federal government. And good point that the founding fathers literally made this policy up based on how they felt, with no basis in fact. The federalist papers, by the way, were written primarily by two young people who were 21 and 25 at the time of revolution: Hamilton and Madison. They are not some form of higher truth - they are normal people subject to fallacies and the inability to predict future struggles. Idolizing them does nothing to help.

The policy is an experiment that has no philosophical basis in truth, and, while it’s existed for hundreds of years, could still easily be flawed.

And where exactly are the philosophical "facts" in your post? What higher truth says that votes for federal office should be based on equal voter weight?

We. Do. Not. Live. In. A. Democracy.

We live in a republic, which is specifically designed to give you, the voter, some control over the life you live, through choosing the state you live in. You would instead doom us to 50 identical states as the concept of pure democracy eventually takes everything over, which is why those silly 20-something year olds were against it. You like how California is doing things? Move there. Want big guns? Go to Texas. Healthcare? Massachusetts.

 

The logical extension of your argument is for a world government with worldwide pure democratic voting. Why is a nation the level by which one vote equals one vote, as opposed to the state within a nation? Inconsistent.

 

And in all of this, let's not forget that our system has vastly outperformed the competition in virtually every metric. For all the talk of systemic racism and oppression, there is no country on Earth with significant minority populations where it is better to be a minority. This "experiment" is doing pretty well.

[Negatory]

There are no philosophical facts, that’s the point lol. No single idea, whether it came from a 21 year old founding father (like what you’re suggesting) or if it came from me should hold more inherent merit. Debate the ramifications - not the source.

[Kiloalpha]

12 hours ago, brawnie said:

That’s not what it does, though. It just ensures that Wyoming farmers votes count 3.6 times more than California farmers. It ensures that Wyoming millionaire votes count 3.6 times more than California millionaires.

Your vote should exactly equal every other Americans vote everywhere when it comes to electing the federal government.

Stop for a second and think about this. California already has 53 members of the House of Representatives (more than any other state) and two Senators. 

Wyoming has 1 member of the House and two Senators. 

1) California’s voters have a much greater impact on Federal legislation than Wyoming does due to their population giving them 52 more House members.

2) California‘s voters are much more likely to get budgetary dollars with that much representation.

... and you want to add in direct popular vote for the presidency on top of that?

What in the world does Wyoming get out of the deal? Why would they sign up for that?

12 hours ago, brawnie said:

And good point that the founding fathers literally made this policy up based on how they felt, with no basis in fact. The federalist papers, by the way, were written primarily by two young people who were 21 and 25 at the time of revolution: Hamilton and Madison. They are not some form of higher truth - they are normal people subject to fallacies and the inability to predict future struggles. Idolizing them does nothing to help.

The policy is an experiment that has no philosophical basis in truth, and, while it’s existed for hundreds of years, could still easily be flawed.

You clearly haven’t read the Federalist papers, and they were in their mid 30’s when they wrote them. 

They advocated for the Electoral College and the representative system we have as a give and take between states... with a clear aim to prevent the “tyranny of the majority.”

Why aren’t all the elections for every office held every 2 or 4 years? Why are judges lifetime positions? To prevent a tyrannical overthrow of the system in one election.

Bottom line, it’s designed for stability. The founders were smart enough to know that time cools heads, but didn’t make it so aggressive to prevent change over time. We have 17 amendments and God knows how many political changes as proof that formula works.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Kiloalpha
Spelling

[Negatory]

Yeah and an equal opposition argued against the electoral college in the anti-federalist papers. Just because they write “tyranny of the majority” doesn’t mean it turns out that way.
 

In fact, the majority of civil rights scholars agree that the electoral college and its perpetuation is a large reason that slavery wasn’t abolished sooner and the civil war happened. What is that, tyranny of the minority?

[busdriver]

2 hours ago, brawnie said:

And good point that the founding fathers literally made this policy up based on how they felt, with no basis in fact.

Which is exactly what you're doing in opposition.  Of course it was and is a philosophical debate. 

 

[Prozac]

 

[jrizzell]

Change it when it doesn't work for your party, but crickets when it does? Looks like Schumer and gang might regret their decision for requiring only a simple majority for SC judge appointments. 

If in 2016, Clinton won under the same conditions as Trump, do you know how many people would be saying that the electoral college need to be dismantled...Zero. Everyone knows how we elect the President in this country, campaign accordingly.

[Prozac]

BTW, I agree with Graham’s assessment of changes made by Democrats regarding approval of appellate judges in the last half of the video above. Both parties have a recent history of changing rules that is troubling.  However, denying a Democratic administration’s nomination nearly a year out from an election and making an about face when your party is in power is absolutely brazen hypocrisy. McConnell is making up rules as he goes. Republicans will say that it’s great for them, but what about the rest of the country? What do you think will happen when people come to terms with the fact that the presidential election is consistently skewed to the Republicans, that Republican congressional seats have been made artificially safe by gerrymandering, that Republicans have implemented rules in many state legislatures that make passing Democratic legislation nearly impossible, even when they hold the majority? Changing the rules and wryly manipulating the system for your own gains is all well and good, but if you are isolating and alienating the majority of the electorate in the process, you are actively harming the nation. 

[brickhistory]

Money, brute force, hot chicks.

 

"Elections have consequences, I won."

 

Same as it ever was...

[Negatory]

23 minutes ago, jrizzell said:

If in 2016, Clinton won under the same conditions as Trump, do you know how many people would be saying that the electoral college need to be dismantled...Zero. Everyone knows how we elect the President in this country, campaign accordingly.

You have no idea if that’s true. Judging by how many people still have “Hillary for Jail“ bumper stickers, I would even venture to say you’re wrong.

Edited September 20, 2020 by brawnie

[N730]

If in 2016, Clinton won under the same conditions as Trump, do you know how many people would be saying that the electoral college need to be dismantled...Zero. Everyone knows how we elect the President in this country, campaign accordingly.

Hard disagree. During the election there was a significant group of my coworkers who were convinced Trump would win the popular vote, but lose the election and they were already talking about the "serious conversations about the electoral college" we'd need to have.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, Desk Jobs Suck said:

Change it when it doesn't work for your party, but crickets when it does? Looks like Schumer and gang might regret their decision for requiring only a simple majority for SC judge appointments. 

It’s not like this is a new thing. It’s happened before and it has had criticism since literally the founding of the country. It was almost amended in 1970 but was opposed overwhelmingly by segregationists in southern states. Go ahead, read about the electoral college abolition amendment.

[Negatory]

45 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Which is exactly what you're doing in opposition.  Of course it was and is a philosophical debate. 

 

Of course it is, I even said it was true. There are no facts, there are opinions. Don’t twist the words.

The point is that some people idolize the system because it’s always been the system. Not because they can point to a clear way in which having someone from Wisconsin count 3.6 times as much as the exact same occupation from California makes sense for the welfare of the people.

[busdriver]

1 minute ago, brawnie said:

Not because they can point to a clear way in which having someone from Wisconsin count 3.6 times as much as the exact same occupation from California makes sense for the welfare of the people.

It actually been pointed out multiple times in this thread.  You just don't agree with that view point.  Just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean there isn't merit.

[brickhistory]

Man, it's like the key is in the name - The United States of America.  I dunno, something like The Great Compromise, The Missouri Compromise, The Civil War, Brown v. Board of Education, etc.  Individual states combine into a federated system with individuals and states listed as retaining all the power except for those spelled out.  

 

There's even a rule to change the rules if you can't figure them out or win using them.

 

But that requires effort.  Much easier to demand "the gubmint" do something.

Edited September 20, 2020 by brickhistory

[Negatory]

Hah, I guess then you guys are gonna support when Dems add 2 Supreme Court justices, approve stateship for DC and Puerto Rico, and end the 60 vote filibuster rule here in a year, as well, right? Because they’ll do it all under the legality of the US system and constitution. They’ll be playing “by the rules,” right?

https://www.axios.com/democrats-supreme-court-ginsburg-options-871f3e66-e7a4-4f40-9691-d20de1f4be61.html

Or are these not the rules that you want to play by? The truth is, a huge amount of US politics is contingent on good will and not doing shit like saying that Obama can’t have a judge within a year of election because of morality and then being a hypocrite less than 4 years later. 

This is the end of the republic. And it’s animosity on both sides, combined with a good amount of boot licking and pearl clutching, that’s gonna do it.

[brickhistory]

Yup.  Each legislative body sets its own rules.  The 60 vote filibuster thing is not a law that has to be undone.  Next legislative session in the Senate majority simply votes to change the rule.  And then faces the consequences at the next election.

If they want to pack the Supreme Court, they have the ability, assuming they win both Houses and the Presidency.

Elections have consequences.

Hillary shoulda tried harder in 2016.

As to adding states, there's a rule for that, too.  It's like those Founding Fathers did their homework and researched everything available on the systems of governments in history.

And I believe the territory has to apply for statehood, not just be hand-waved by Congress.  I am unfamiliar if Puerto Rico has had such a referendum that passed.  Same for DC.

And then we can get to Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, et al.

 

"You get a state!  And you get a state!  And you get a state!"

Bring it.

[busdriver]

2 hours ago, brawnie said:

They’ll be playing “by the rules,” right?

This is interesting.  Have you guys read/watched any of Jonathan Haidt's work on personality traits and political leanings?  It's a lot like men are from mars, women are from venus.  Basically, people will tend to lean one way or the other politically, and it strongly correlates to personality traits.  Here's one: Haidt's TedTalk

Or dumbed down to a very rough generality for discussion:  What animates liberals/conservative/libertarians?  Brett Eric Weinstein would say: unfairness, abandoning long successful systems without good cause, and coercion, respectively.  Which also make the two main teams bad and good at different things.  Dan Crenshaw has said, liberals are good at spotting unjust and unfair outcomes, but bad at figuring out how to actually fix them.  Instead preferring to tear down and replace.  Conservatives tend to be good at nuanced systems and making small changes work, but bad at seeing the unjust second order effects of their processes.

Anyway, nerdy pontification over.  I'll depart now.

Edited September 20, 2020 by busdriver

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, brawnie said:

There are no philosophical facts, that’s the point lol. No single idea, whether it came from a 21 year old founding father (like what you’re suggesting) or if it came from me should hold more inherent merit. Debate the ramifications - not the source.

No, there's just evidence. And the evidence reflects strongly on our system.

[lloyd christmas]

Why do we assume that Garland would have been confirmed by a Republican senate even if McConnell had allowed the vote?  And does anyone really think that the Dems would not be nominating RBG's replaced right now if they controlled the Oval Office and Senate?  They would have already started the process.  

[kaputt]

10 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

And does anyone really think that the Dems would not be nominating RBG's replaced right now if they controlled the Oval Office and Senate?  They would have already started the process.  

Exactly this. 
 

And while there would have been complaining from those on the right, I doubt you would have seen the threats that are currently coming from the left. 
 

People literally threatening violence over a Supreme Court nomination. And to be honest, based on how this year has gone, if Trump does get a nomination through, I fully except there to be actual riots and violence in the streets from the left...again. 

[Breckey]

If Garland would’ve gotten a vote then I don’t think that there would be the pushback that were seeing. Would they have bitched? Probably, but they wouldn’t be able to point to the blatant hypocrisy from the GOP Senators as evidence of their “rules for thee but not for me” policy. In essence Trump got an extra year on his term WRT the SCOTUS and they’re rightfully upset.

[lloyd christmas]

10 minutes ago, Breckey said:

If Garland would’ve gotten a vote then I don’t think that there would be the pushback that were seeing. Would they have bitched? Probably, but they wouldn’t be able to point to the blatant hypocrisy from the GOP Senators as evidence of their “rules for thee but not for me” policy. In essence Trump got an extra year on his term WRT the SCOTUS and they’re rightfully upset.

McConnell's play was a hell of a gamble.  Hillary was a shoe in at that point.