What do you think is really going on? Let's get a little political here.

I assume you've all heard of the recent Vermont power grid "hacking" story. A few days ago a Vermont utility company found a russian virus on some guy's computer and (part of) the press extrapolated the fact, turning it into a so-called proof of a Russian conspiracy to hack the US power grid... That title was a fucking clickbait, and I just knew it. But not just your average buzzshit clickbait, a serious fucking one this time. When you read the article it became clear: pure bullshit. No evidence whatsoever, all that happened is that they found a regular virus on a random guy's computer, which happens a million times a day everywhere in the world. A few hours later they retracted, a lot of other sites and agencies stated that there was no such thing as a power grid hack attempt. Those media outlets jumped to conclusions to serve their own agenda, it seems.

Now regarding the "hacking" of the US election. Several US government agencies are claiming it's real. Are we being lied to? Are the FBI and homeland security and others all following orders of a higher instance or do they have actual evidence?
So far, they haven't shared much with the general public. Last week they released a document, which I read, but if you read it too you will find that it's absolutely empty of evidence. All it states is "we found some IP addresses in the logs" and "we found a bit of code that was used before". That amounts to nothing at all.

So why do they keep going on about this?
Do you think these agencies have insights they cant share with the public? could they have informants within the russian goverment? that's one of the few things I can think of that they would never be able to reveal. Or maybe it is just more political bullshit... but what's the point? Trump will take office soon and all this Russia crap isn't working. Apparently Trump has something to say on the subject that he will reveal on tuesday or wednesday. I wonder what that may be.

 

[Foxi4]

The "Picasso map" is meant to show (roughly) what individuals voted where, without gerrymandered districts influencing it

I know what it shows - it shows straws that the dems grasp at to cheer themselves up. Did the county vote A or B? Red or Blue? Onto the map. Most are Red? Okay. No need to muddle it with nonsense.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I know what it shows - it shows straws that the dems grasp at to cheer themselves up. Did the county vote A or B? Red or Blue? Onto the map. Most are Red? Okay. No need to muddle it with nonsense.

See my edit

 

[Foxi4]

See my edit

I already explained why I care so little. 5 Starbucks employees from NY can't tell 1 farmer from Texas what to do with his farm, their state doesn't rely on farming, they don't know shit. Anywho, ideally federal government should have as little power as possible anyways, most things should be decided on a state level, with the federal government concerning itself only with international relations and the overall direction for the Union. Since that's not the case, checks and balances were implemented.

Don't worry though, Americans have 7 years to groom the next Democratic candidate that won't be embarrassing. Just pick some younger guy, since Bernie will either be dead or in prison by then. Funny how people who like to share other people's money have an inclination towards financial fuckery - topical, considering Sanders' recent legal trouble.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I already explained why I care so little. 5 Starbucks employees from NY can't tell 1 farmer from Texas what to do with his farm, their state doesn't rely on farming, they don't know shit.

You're right, but currently that one farmer is trying to tell those five Starbucks employees how to do their jobs, under your analogy

 

[Foxi4]

You're right, but currently that one farmer is trying to tell those five Starbucks employees how to do their jobs, under your analogy

All the college did was equalise the chances of the two groups to have their say, nothing more.

 

[Lacius]

I picked the first election map by county that showed up on Google and wasn't in dogshit resolution, I've *never* seen the bizzare Picasso painting you're touting as evidence. If your only points are "muh slave states" and a gotcha of "it's not a Republic, it's a DEMOCRATIC Republic" then I'll end the exchange here because it has no substance.

Look, I understand why you don't want to continue to argue that the Electoral College system is fair, because it's barely a defensible position. But, here are the facts:

• The Electoral College was not created, like you argued, because we're any sort of republic. The Electoral College was created in part because slave states didn't like a direct election of the president by popular vote due to their high populations but low number of voters, and some felt that a direct election of the president was too hard for everybody. To say these points lack substance is to demonstrate that you don't care about having a genuine conversation about the Electoral College. If you want to criticize a hypothetically fair election for president by popular vote so you can defend an arbitrary and racist Electoral College because it yielded the result you wanted last year, great, but a rebuttal doesn't lack substance just because you don't like it.
• I really don't blame you though. The United States is generally Democratic (with a capital D). If I favored conservatism, I would have an erection for the Electoral College too. Afterall, a non-incumbent Republican candidate for president hasn't won the popular vote since 1988.
• Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. To argue for the Electoral College is to argue that a relatively low number of votes are somehow worth more than those 3 million votes because of where they lived.
• Everybody knew the rules of the Electoral College, and Secretary Clinton lost in part because of a bad campaign that didn't do enough in the right states.

I know what it shows - it shows straws that the dems grasp at to cheer themselves up. Did the county vote A or B? Red or Blue? Onto the map. Most are Red? Okay. No need to muddle it with nonsense.

It shows that, without the Electoral College, Secretary Clinton clearly won the election. I don't care what a bunch of counties with populations of less than 800 people each voted for relative to how the whole country voted. I could easily draw arbitrary lines in a way that shows much more blue. I could also draw no lines and show a country map that's entirely blue, since that's how the country voted.

I already explained why I care so little. 5 Starbucks employees from NY can't tell 1 farmer from Texas what to do with his farm, their state doesn't rely on farming, they don't know shit. Anywho, ideally federal government should have as little power as possible anyways, most things should be decided on a state level, with the federal government concerning itself only with international relations and the overall direction for the Union. Since that's not the case, checks and balances were implemented.

Your analogy is flawed. We're not talking about voters in New York choosing the senators from Texas; we're talking about a countywide election.

Anywho, ideally federal government should have as little power as possible anyways, most things should be decided on a state level, with the federal government concerning itself only with international relations and the overall direction for the Union.

Whether or not we agree on this is irrelevant to the conversation.

Since that's not the case, checks and balances were implemented.

The Separation of Powers has nothing to do with the Electoral College.

Don't worry though, Americans have 7 years to groom the next Democratic candidate that won't be embarrassing.

We have presidential elections every four years, not every eight years.

All the college did was equalise the chances of the two groups to have their say, nothing more.

No, the Electoral College throws a wrench into an otherwise fair election by popular vote. Equalization occurs when each person is given one vote. The Electoral College gives more weight to some voters than others based on where they live. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by around 3 million votes, but a few metaphorical farmers got to dictate policy for the rest of the country because of where they lived, even though most of the country disagrees.

 

[Foxi4]

Look, I understand why you don't want to continue to argue that the Electoral College system is fair, because it's barely a defensible position. But, here are the facts:

• The Electoral College was not created, like you argued, because we're any sort of republic. The Electoral College was created in part because slave states didn't like a direct election of the president by popular vote due to their high populations but low number of voters, and some felt that a direct election of the president was too hard for everybody. To say these points lack substance is to demonstrate that you don't care about having a genuine conversation about the Electoral College. If you want to criticize a hypothetically fair election for president by popular vote so you can defend an arbitrary and racist Electoral College because it yielded the result you wanted last year, great, but a rebuttal doesn't lack substance just because you don't like it.
• I really don't blame you though. The United States is generally Democratic (with a capital D). If I favored conservatism, I would have an erection for the Electoral College too. Afterall, a non-incumbent Republican candidate for president hasn't won the popular vote since 1988.
• Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. To argue for the Electoral College is to argue that a relatively low number of votes are somehow worth more than those 3 million votes because of where they lived.
• Everybody knew the rules of the Electoral College, and Secretary Clinton lost in part because of a bad campaign that didn't do enough in the right states.

It shows that, without the Electoral College, Secretary Clinton clearly won the election. I don't care what a bunch of counties with populations of less than 800 people each voted for relative to how the whole country voted. I could easily draw arbitrary lines in a way that shows much more blue. I could also draw no lines and show a country map that's entirely blue, since that's how the country voted.

Your analogy is flawed. We're not talking about voters in New York choosing the senators from Texas; we're talking about a countywide election.

Whether or not we agree on this is irrelevant to the conversation.

The Separation of Powers has nothing to do with the Electoral College.

We have presidential elections every four years, not every eight years.

No, the Electoral College throws a wrench into an otherwise fair election by popular vote. Equalization occurs when each person is given one vote. The Electoral College gives more weight to some voters than others based on where they live. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by around 3 million votes, but a few metaphorical farmers got to dictate policy for the rest of the country because of where they lived, even though most of the country disagrees.

Since our positions on this are diametrically opposed, there's no point in me addressing your points - there's no exchange of ideas occurring, just a presentation of stances, and that's not interesting to me - I know what you stand for, and I hate most of it. I'm sure you're a good person, most people are generally good, however we have a different preference of means to achieve goals. As for the election cycle, I'm well-aware that you hold elections every 4 years, I'm telling you to brace for impact. Back before the election you said that the polls indicate that Clinton has a +/-95% chance of winning the election, to which I responded that Trump is going to win, and I was correct. Now I'm telling you that he's going to win second term, and the only thing that can save you from it is him getting bored of being POTUS and not running. You're in for 8 years of Trump, start grooming a candidate now, or else you just won't have a good one when the time comes.

 

[Viri]

We have presidential elections every four years, not every eight years.

Spoiler

 

[Foxi4]

While we're on the subject of the Electoral College being a racist invention and a wrench in the cogs of democracy, Democrats only recently started to speak against it - back in 2008 they all wholeheartedly defended it because they thought it behooved their candidate:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/04/uselections2008.usa

You stonewalled a Republican movement to reform it because you thought it'd cost you the seat of POTUS, that's your beer, you brewed it yourselves. Now drink it.

It's clearly not a principle of the party if you keep changing your mind about it - either it's democratic or it's not, it can't be "democratic, but only when it serves us". Republicans don't have that issue, they don't represent a democratic stance - you do. You're like a a blade of grass - you bend to whatever gust of wind comes along. Trump was the mower.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

While we're on the subject of the Electoral College being a racist invention and a wrench in the cogs of democracy, Democrats only recently started to speak against it - back in 2008 they all wholeheartedly defended it because they thought it behooved their candidate:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/04/uselections2008.usa

You stonewalled a Republican movement to reform it because you thought it'd cost you the seat of POTUS, that's your beer, you brew it yourselves. Now drink it.

I can't tell if you actually read the articles that you post as opposed to just skimming them after looking at the headlines, or if you just don't understand what they're saying from the opposite side of the political spectrum, because...

The Republicans are proposing that instead of all the electoral votes going to the winner, the 55 votes be allocated on a Congressional district basis, which would give the Republicans around 20, almost certainly enough to secure the White House.

...that is not fair in the slightest. What the Republicans were effectively trying to do was set up voting districts in a way that they could poll citizens based on location, then deliberately draw Congressional districts in a way that would ensure they win the election

 

[Foxi4]

I can't tell if you actually read the articles that you post as opposed to just skimming them after looking at the headlines, or if you just don't understand what they're saying from the opposite side of the political spectrum, because...

...that is not fair in the slightest. What the Republicans were effectively trying to do was set up voting districts in a way that they could poll citizens based on location, then deliberately draw Congressional districts in a way that would ensure they win the election

Oh boy. Republicans trying to implement smaller government and allowing smaller voting districts to let smaller groups be heard? Someone stop the presses, the Republicans are trying to enact their primary party goals!

 

[Lacius]

Since our positions on this are diametrically opposed, there's no point in me addressing your points - there's no exchange of ideas occurring, just a presentation of stances, and that's not interesting to me - I know what you stand for, and I hate most of it. I'm sure you're a good person, most people are generally good, however we have a different preference of means to achieve goals. As for the election cycle, I'm well-aware that you hold elections every 4 years, I'm telling you to brace for impact. Back before the election you said that the polls indicate that Clinton has a +/-95% chance of winning the election, to which I responded that Trump is going to win, and I was correct. Now I'm telling you that he's going to win second term, and the only thing that can save you from it is him getting bored of being POTUS and not running. You're in for 8 years of Trump, start grooming a candidate now, or else you just won't have a good one when the time comes.

This is why I don't like talking to you; you're disingenuous and misrepresent positions. Near the end of the campaign, I acknowledged a roughly 70% chance of Clinton winning, which gave Trump better odds than flipping a coin heads twice in a row. If, as you claim, you said Trump was going to win, you had no way of knowing that for sure. Considering the upset of the win and the razor-thin margin he won the Electoral College by, it definitely wasn't the sound position to take at the time.

Both Clinton and Trump had toxic poll numbers during the campaign. In other words, Trump ran against probably the only Democrat he could beat, and Clinton ran against probably the only Republican she could beat. Trump's numbers are even more toxic now, so if the Democrats run someone with decent numbers four years from now, he's probably not going to win. Obviously, a lot can happen between now and then, and it's too early to make actual predictions. Given these facts, when you say Trump is going to win in four years, you sound less like a prognosticator and more like a troll.

While we're on the subject of the Electoral College being a racist invention and a wrench in the cogs of democracy, Democrats only recently started to speak against it - back in 2008 they all wholeheartedly defended it because they thought it behooved their candidate:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/04/uselections2008.usa

You stonewalled a Republican movement to reform it because you thought it'd cost you the seat of POTUS, that's your beer, you brewed it yourselves. Now drink it.

It's clearly not a principle of the party if you keep changing your mind about it - either it's democratic or it's not, it can't be "democratic, but only when it serves us". Republicans don't have that issue, they don't represent a democratic stance - you do. You're like a a blade of grass - you bend to whatever gust of wind comes along. Trump was the mower.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Did you even read the article, or did you Google something you wanted to assert, read the title, and then post it here to prove a point? Again, you're one of the most disingenuous people I've talked to here.

The Republicans in California were pushing to arbitrarily allocate electoral votes by congressional district in that state alone in order to divide the heavily blue California electoral votes and give Republicans an edge nationwide, while simultaneously leaving alone the Electoral College system in other (red) states. It would be like the Democrats trying to allocate the 38 electoral votes of Texas by congressional district, making it so 19 or so of those electoral votes go blue while the rest of the nation stays the same. In other words, it's not a repeal of the Electoral College system; it's a manipulation of it for political gain. In addition, none of this gets into the arbitrary nature of redistricting and gerrymandering that could also be used to manipulate such a system.

Also, if there had been a nationwide movement by Republicans to actually get rid of the Electoral College, and the Democrats opposed it, I would say, "So what?" I'm still for getting rid of the Electoral College, and my points would still stand.

Oh boy. Republicans trying to implement smaller government and allowing smaller voting districts to let smaller groups be heard? Someone stop the presses, the Republicans are trying to enact their primary party goals!

Rigging the system since a majority of the country disagrees with them on almost all policy positions?

 

[Foxi4]

@Lacius, I never suggested that the Republicans wanted to repeal the Electoral College system, but if someone's being disingenuous, it's you. The Electoral College wasn't established because of "muh slave states", it was a consensus established during the Constitutional Convention to reconciliate State and Federal interests. The two sides of the political debate in the United States are and always have been clashing on one field and one field only - State vs. Federal government. One side wanted the President to be elected by a direct popular election, as you suggest is just, while the other wanted a more streamlined system of choosing the president by the already elected representatives, for instance the governors or the Congress itself. The Electoral College was a solution accepted by an overwhelming majority as a good compromise - it kept the position of POTUS independent from the Congress, kept the element of a popular election intact, gave less populous states some leverage to ensure that they're heard as well. It was a point of mutual understanding between the parties, not a trick of a Republican fairy, and I'm sure you know that. As for the article I posted, this is just one of the recent instances of Democrats defending the Electoral College when it was convenient to them. Allowing for smaller districts to have a more decisive say nationwide would've tilted the scales in your favour this election season, at least on first glance, I'd have to run the numbers to establish that, but I suppose it wasn't a perfect example - not that I'm particularly bothered. It's funny that Democrats seem to be in favour of majority rule now, I thought that the whole Democrat shtick in recent years was minority rights. The whole image of the party is muddled, I really don't know if Democrats themselves know what they want. The way your party operates is riddled with contradictions. As for the reason why talking to me frustrates you, I presume that it's because I do what I do for entertainment whereas you try to prove a point.

 

[Viri]

Spoiler

A reminder that this guy ran Hillary's campaign.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

@Lacius, I never suggested that the Republicans wanted to repeal the Electoral College system, but if someone's being disingenuous, it's you. The Electoral College wasn't established because of "muh slave states", it was a consensus established during the Constitutional Convention to reconciliate State and Federal interests. The two sides of the political debate in the United States are and always have been clashing on one field and one field only - State vs. Federal government. One side wanted the President to be elected by a direct popular election, as you suggest is just, while the other wanted a more streamlined system of choosing the president by the already elected representatives, for instance the governors or the Congress itself. The Electoral College was a solution accepted by an overwhelming majority as a good compromise - it kept the position of POTUS independent from the Congress, kept the element of a popular election intact, gave less populous states some leverage to ensure that they're heard as well.

... ish... the reasons that are commonly attributed are
a) the original Constitutional Convention thought that it would be impossible for anyone to know enough about Presidential candidates outside of their own local area due to slow passage of news, which would lead people to vote simply for the most popular/well-known person (ironic, considering the 2016 election), and
b) that, among other reasons at the time, a "popular vote" would be incredibly inefficient, considering that all transmission of documents at the time was done by horse

Neither of which are applicable anymore, given that we have the internet and a centralized and secure postal system now.

It was a point of mutual understanding between the parties, not a trick of a Republican fairy, and I'm sure you know that.

There's no way that you don't know that's not what we're saying, right?...

As for the article I posted, this is just one of the recent instances of Democrats defending the Electoral College when it was convenient to them. Allowing for smaller districts to have a more decisive say nationwide would've tilted the scales in your favour this election season, but I suppose it wasn't a perfect example - not that I'm particularly bothered.

That's fair, I mean political parties are always going to do what's in their own best interests. That doesn't exactly enhance or detract from anyone's argument, though, all that @Lacius and I are asking is that you actually read/understand the articles you cite from our perspective as well, as opposed to just throwing the first Google result that has a headline that fits your narrative into the conversation.

It's funny that Democrats seem to be in favour of majority rule now, I thought that the whole Democrat shtick in recent years was minority rights. The whole image of the party is muddled, I really don't know if Democrats themselves know what they want. The way your party operates is riddled with contradictions.

The "Democrat shtick" is a level playing field for all; egalitarianism, if you will. Minority rights is a part of that, and would be enhanced by a popular vote vs. the electoral college. I don't understand exactly why you're trying to make the argument that it would do anything else, unless you just thought that the "majority/minority" wordplay was funny and was hoping it would stick as an insult, or something?...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Spoiler

A reminder that this guy ran Hillary's campaign.

It would be easier to read if it wasn't splattered in memes

 

[Lacius]

@Lacius, I never suggested that the Republicans wanted to repeal the Electoral College system, but if someone's being disingenuous, it's you. The Electoral College wasn't established because of "muh slave states", it was a consensus established during the Constitutional Convention to reconciliate State and Federal interests. The two sides of the political debate in the United States are and always have been clashing on one field and one field only - State vs. Federal government. One side wanted the President to be elected by a direct popular election, as you suggest is just, while the other wanted a more streamlined system of choosing the president by the already elected representatives, for instance the governors or the Congress itself. The Electoral College was a solution accepted by an overwhelming majority as a good compromise - it kept the position of POTUS independent from the Congress, kept the element of a popular election intact, gave less populous states some leverage to ensure that they're heard as well. It was a point of mutual understanding between the parties, not a trick of a Republican fairy, and I'm sure you know that.

You can disparage the "muh slave states" argument all you want, but it's what happened. It's like you haven't even read James Madison's contemporaneous account on the subject:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

That's why the Electoral College exists. You can tout the "muh states' rights" argument all you want, and that might even be what conservatives retroactively use to defend the Electoral College now that it's benefiting them, but don't pretend it's the historic reason why the Electoral College exists. It's embarrassing, since we have contemporaneous accounts of what happened.

Also, childishly putting "muh" before someone's argument doesn't invalidate it.

As for the article I posted, this is just one of the recent instances of Democrats defending the Electoral College when it was convenient to them. Allowing for smaller districts to have a more decisive say nationwide would've tilted the scales in your favour this election season, but I suppose it wasn't a perfect example - not that I'm particularly bothered.

You should have seen that the Democrats weren't defending the Electoral College. Here's an excerpt from your own article, since you didn't bother to read it:

"It is a terrible idea," he said. It would produce a partisan shift in only one state. To work fairly, it would have to be introduced in at least a few large states and, preferably, nationwide.

Just stop. Read your own articles.

Arbitrarily dividing the electoral votes in one state but not in others gives one party an overwhelming advantage, depending on the state. I've explained how this works above using my California and Texas examples. I'm overwhelmingly against the existence of the Electoral College, and I'm overwhelmingly against what the Republicans were trying to do in California. If you don't understand how that's not contradictory, you need to reread my posts. I don't know how else to put it.

I also don't care if there has been inconsistency on this. There are instances of Democrats trying to pick up electoral votes in other states using dirty practices like what was proposed in California. That's bad. There are sleezy politicians on both sides. What's your point? It doesn't invalidate my argument against the Electoral College. I'm not them.

It's funny that Democrats seem to be in favour of majority rule now, I thought that the whole Democrat shtick in recent years was minority rights.

There are historical examples of majority rule being used to oppress minorities. In other words, direct democracy, when it comes to minority rights, doesn't always work. For example, same-sex marriage was opposed by a majority of people in a lot of states during the 2004 election, but that doesn't mean same-sex couples didn't deserve marriage rights.

In other words, minorities have certain rights despite what the majority says, but that doesn't mean minorities should have the right to violate other people's rights. A plurality of people believe Hillary Clinton should be President. Ignoring hypothetical runoff voting systems, there is no such thing as a fair system that doesn't result in her becoming President.

The whole image of the party is muddled, I really don't know if Democrats themselves know what they want. The way your party operates is riddled with contradictions.

I don't speak for the Democratic Party, but I've been pretty clear and consistent about what I want.

 

[Foxi4]

You can disparage the "muh slave states" argument all you want, but it's what happened. It's like you haven't even read James Madison's contemporaneous account on the subject:

That's why the Electoral College exists. You can tout the "muh states' rights" argument all you want, and that might even be what conservatives retroactively use to defend the Electoral College now that it's benefiting them, but don't pretend it's the historic reason why the Electoral College exists. It's embarrassing, since we have contemporaneous accounts of what happened.

Also, childishly putting "muh" before someone's argument doesn't invalidate it.

You should have seen that the Democrats weren't defending the Electoral College. Here's an excerpt from your own article, since you didn't bother to read it:

Just stop. Read your own articles.

Arbitrarily dividing the electoral votes in one state but not in others gives one party an overwhelming advantage, depending on the state. I've explained how this works above using my California and Texas examples. I'm overwhelmingly against the existence of the Electoral College, and I'm overwhelmingly against what the Republicans were trying to do in California. If you don't understand how that's not contradictory, you need to reread my posts. I don't know how else to put it.

I also don't care if there has been inconsistency on this. There are instances of Democrats trying to pick up electoral votes in other states using dirty practices like what was proposed in California. That's bad. There are sleezy politicians on both sides. What's your point? It doesn't invalidate my argument against the Electoral College. I'm not them.

There are historical examples of majority rule being used to oppress minorities. In other words, direct democracy, when it comes to minority rights, doesn't always work. For example, same-sex marriage was opposed by a majority of people in a lot of states during the 2004 election, but that doesn't mean same-sex couples didn't deserve marriage rights.

In other words, minorities have certain rights despite what the majority says, but that doesn't mean minorities should have the right to violate other people's rights. A plurality of people believe Hillary Clinton should be President. Ignoring hypothetical runoff voting systems, there is no such thing as a fair system that doesn't result in her becoming President.

I don't speak for the Democratic Party, but I've been pretty clear and consistent about what I want.

It's like you didn't read my post at all, nevermind the article. What I actually said was that if such a division system was implemented nationwide, Democrats would have a huge advantage, on account of all the segregated minority neighbourhoods that they themselves built back during the Jim Crow years and beyond by lumping poor with the poor and minorities with minorities, creating pockets of perpetual poverty. Those neighbourhoods are numerous, they're present nation-wide and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat since the Republican party was advertised to them as "the racist party". I never advocated applying the rule just in Cali, I was talking about applying it nationwide, which you conveniently omitted, choosing to focus on the article instead since you fancied beating a strawman. You're treating flavour text as *my* argument - it's not, it was merely an example of Democrats opposing any change in the present system. If they want to dismantle the Electoral College, they're more than welcome to try, however it is one of the pillars of the federal system specifically placed there to oppose mob rule. Outdated? Yes. Effective? Certainly - we saw it this election cycle.

As for your division of what's a minority and a majority interest, I think it's completely arbitrary and based on an equally arbitrary moral code. The only interest I am concerned with is the interest of an individual, I don't like focusing on groups, hence my preference of small, local governments. Take marriage, for instance - that's a talking point that we're on completely opposite poles on. You believe that marriage is a human right and that everybody is entitled to marry should they wish to do so. I think the opposite - I think marriage as a legal institution is an invasion of the state into the lives of private citizens and it should be completely dismantled. The state has no interest in who goes to bed with whom and why. Across the years marriage was used as a quick solution to solve inheritance issues and disputes over land, it was also used by the government to promote higher birth rates by giving marriages certain rights and tax cuts based solely on the premise that married couples intend to procreate. I have several gripes with that - firstly, as far as inheritance, visitation rights, residency etc. are concerned, notaries exist for a reason and all of those issues can be sorted out outside of a marriage. On the second point, I don't think it's even remotely fair to give two people benefits because they sleep with eachother at the cost of one person who doesn't have a partner, not to mention that the procreation aspect completely excludes homosexual couples. The whole idea seems even more dated than the Electoral College, but we've been perpetuating it for millenia simply because it's romanticised. You want to make it legal for everyone, I don't want it to be legal for anyone, because it's not a legal issue to begin with. The idea of inviting the state into a union between two people to get a stamp of approval seems disgusting to me, and if such a relationship wants to proclaim their love to the world, they can just do it in their backyard at a BBQ, that doesn't mean that they're not individuals and that they should get special treatment. When two people sign a document that entails their financial cooperation, that's not a relationship - at that point it's a corporation. A bit of a rant, but it demonstrates that we're not only on very different fields on such matters, we're on different stadiums altogether, carrying different balls, so our little debates will never be particularly fruitful.

... ish... the reasons that are commonly attributed are
a) the original Constitutional Convention thought that it would be impossible for anyone to know enough about Presidential candidates outside of their own local area due to slow passage of news, which would lead people to vote simply for the most popular/well-known person (ironic, considering the 2016 election), and
b) that, among other reasons at the time, a "popular vote" would be incredibly inefficient, considering that all transmission of documents at the time was done by horse

Neither of which are applicable anymore, given that we have the internet and a centralized and secure postal system now.

There's no way that you don't know that's not what we're saying, right?...

That's fair, I mean political parties are always going to do what's in their own best interests. That doesn't exactly enhance or detract from anyone's argument, though, all that @Lacius and I are asking is that you actually read/understand the articles you cite from our perspective as well, as opposed to just throwing the first Google result that has a headline that fits your narrative into the conversation.

The "Democrat shtick" is a level playing field for all; egalitarianism, if you will. Minority rights is a part of that, and would be enhanced by a popular vote vs. the electoral college. I don't understand exactly why you're trying to make the argument that it would do anything else, unless you just thought that the "majority/minority" wordplay was funny and was hoping it would stick as an insult, or something?...

Oh, good. I'm against a completely egalitarian society, so my opposition is well-placed then. There are many very different kinds of equality - I advocate for equality under the law, I lean on the side of equal opportunity as long as it doesn't entail Affirmative Action, but I draw the line at equality of outcome. I'd like to live in a world where the law applies to everyone equally and nobody gets special treatment as an individual - people should rise and fall on their own merit. That's not the Democratic definition of equality, therefore it's equality that I cannot stomach. The idea of the government taking something from me and giving it to my neighbour because I have it and he doesn't seems invasive to me - I worked for everything I own, I contribute to society enough through participating in it via my labour and my custom, I shouldn't be burdened with having to pay for the inadequacy of others while I'm at it.

 

[Lacius]

It's like you didn't read my post at all, nevermind the article. What I actually said was that if such a division system was implemented nationwide, Democrats would have a huge advantage, on account of all the segregated minority neighbourhoods that they themselves built back during the Jim Crow years and beyond by lumping poor with the poor and minorities with minorities, creating pockets of perpetual poverty. Those neighbourhoods are numerous, they're present nation-wide and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat since the Republican party was advertised to them as "the racist party".

Distributing electoral votes by congressional district is arbitrary. Considering how gerrymandered the congressional districts are, it's also idiotic to distribute electoral votes that way.

Everything you're arguing for is arbitrary. Why stop at congressional district? Why not tally electoral votes by county? Why not tally electoral votes by neighborhood? Why not tally electoral votes by household? Why not tally electoral votes by individual? That latter one is the fairest.

I never advocated applying the rule just in Cali

The Republicans in your article did. That's what I was addressing. This wasn't unclear.

I was talking about applying it nationwide, which you conveniently omitted, choosing to focus on the article instead since you fancied beating a strawman.

That's not an argument you made, so I wasn't able to respond to it. I'll respond to it now though; that's a terrible idea. Congressional districts are terribly gerrymandered, and the whole thing is arbitrary. See above.

I will agree with you that doing it in all of the states is less arbitrary than only doing it in some states. The process is still arbitrary though.

You're treating flavour text as *my* argument - it's not, it was merely an example of Democrats opposing any change in the present system.

If you're going to conflate opposing any change with opposing a very specific change, then you're more disingenuous than I thought.

If they want to dismantle the Electoral College, they're more than welcome to try, however it is one of the pillars of the federal system specifically placed there to oppose mob rule. Outdated? Yes. Effective? Certainly - we saw it this election cycle.

As I've already mentioned several times now, the Electoral College was not a pillar of a federal system, and it was not specifically placed there to "oppose mob rule." It was placed there as a compromise in part so slave states would be happy. A position that's defended with nonsense is probably itself nonsense.

As for whether or not the Electoral College is effective, we have to define what it's effective at. If you want to say that the Electoral College is effective at throwing a presidential election into chaos and placing more of an emphasis on chance rather than voters, then I agree that it's effective at that.

If you want to say the Electoral College is effective at reflecting the will of the people, I would wholeheartedly disagree.

As for your division of what's a minority and a majority interest, I think it's completely arbitrary and based on an equally arbitrary moral code. The only interest I am concerned with is the interest of an individual, I don't like focusing on groups, hence my preference of small, local governments. Take marriage, for instance - that's a talking point that we're on completely opposite poles on. You believe that marriage is a human right and that everybody is entitled to marry should they wish to do so. I think the opposite - I think marriage as a legal institution is an invasion of the state into the lives of private citizens and it should be completely dismantled. The state has no interest in who goes to bed with whom and why. Across the years marriage was used as a quick solution to solve inheritance issues and disputes over land, it was also used by the government to promote higher birth rates by giving marriages certain rights and tax cuts based solely on the premise that married couples intend to procreate. I have several gripes with that - firstly, as far as inheritance, visitation rights, residency etc. are concerned, notaries exist for a reason and all of those issues can be sorted out outside of a marriage. On the second point, I don't think it's even remotely fair to give two people benefits because they sleep with eachother at the cost of one person who doesn't have a partner, not to mention that the procreation aspect completely excludes homosexual couples. The whole idea seems even more dated than the Electoral College, but we've been perpetuating it for millenia simply because it's romanticised. You want to make it legal for everyone, I don't want it to be legal for anyone, because it's not a legal issue to begin with. The idea of inviting the state into a union between two people to get a stamp of approval seems disgusting to me, and if such a relationship wants to proclaim their love to the world, they can just do it in their backyard at a BBQ, that doesn't mean that they're not individuals and that they should get special treatment. When two people sign a document that entails their financial cooperation, that's not a relationship - at that point it's a corporation. A bit of a rant, but it demonstrates that we're not only on very different fields on such matters, we're on different stadiums altogether, carrying different balls, so our little debates will never be particularly fruitful.

I'm not going to rehash old arguments we've had. Since legal marriage does exist, should people have equal access to it? Saying "nobody should have it" doesn't answer the question.

Oh, good. I'm against a completely egalitarian society, so my opposition is well-placed then. There are many very different kinds of equality - I advocate for equality under the law, I lean on the side of equal opportunity as long as it doesn't entail Affirmative Action, but I draw the line at equality of outcome. I'd like to live in a world where the law applies to everyone equally and nobody gets special treatment as an individual - people should rise and fall on their own merit. That's not the Democratic definition of equality, therefore it's equality that I cannot stomach. The idea of the government taking something from me and giving it to my neighbour because I have it and he doesn't seems invasive to me - I worked for everything I own, I contribute to society enough through participating in it via my labour and my custom, I shouldn't be burdened with having to pay for the inadequacy of others while I'm at it.

What about when people are disadvantaged relative to you due to an immutable characteristic? In other words, if a person can't rise and fall the same as you despite equal work and equal merit, what should be done (if anything)? If nothing, what can be said about the type of society that you want to live in?

Edit: Pardon the edit, but I do hope I've helped you to see the contradiction between your belief and your view on policy. If you can't find it, please let me know.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Oh, good. I'm against a completely egalitarian society, so my opposition is well-placed then. There are many very different kinds of equality - I advocate for equality under the law, I lean on the side of equal opportunity as long as it doesn't entail Affirmative Action, but I draw the line at equality of outcome. I'd like to live in a world where the law applies to everyone equally and nobody gets special treatment as an individual - people should rise and fall on their own merit. That's not the Democratic definition of equality, therefore it's equality that I cannot stomach. The idea of the government taking something from me and giving it to my neighbour because I have it and he doesn't seems invasive to me - I worked for everything I own, I contribute to society enough through participating in it via my labour and my custom, I shouldn't be burdened with having to pay for the inadequacy of others while I'm at it.

"It's like you didn't read my post at all"

And, if we're going to start discussing a tangent that I made offhand as opposed to staying on the topic we're currently discussing, what makes you think your neighbor isn't contributing to society as much as you are? Disadvantaged people don't always get there because of laziness or lack of motivation, there are many factors. And if that person needs a tiny, tiny percentage of my net worth to help get back on their feet, I see no reason why I shouldn't give back to society in that way. Besides, paying taxes gets me a lot of "exclusive citizen benefits," like the ability to use publicly funded freeways, parks, and county/state buildings, for example. I even get a guarantee to decently-priced healthcare through my family's employment, although that may not be the case for very much longer

 

[Foxi4]

Distributing electoral votes by congressional district is arbitrary. Considering how gerrymandered the congressional districts are, it's also idiotic to distribute electoral votes that way.

Everything you're arguing for is arbitrary. Why stop at congressional district? Why not tally electoral votes by county? Why not tally electoral votes by neighborhood? Why not tally electoral votes by household? Why not tally electoral votes by individual? That latter one is the fairest.


The Republicans in your article did. That's what I was addressing. This wasn't unclear.


That's not an argument you made, so I wasn't able to respond to it. I'll respond to it now though; that's a terrible idea. Congressional districts are terribly gerrymandered, and the whole thing is arbitrary. See above.

I will agree with you that doing it in all of the states is less arbitrary than only doing it in some states. The process is still arbitrary though.


If you're going to conflate opposing any change with opposing a very specific change, then you're more disingenuous than I thought.


As I've already mentioned several times now, the Electoral College was not a pillar of a federal system, and it was not specifically placed there to "oppose mob rule." It was placed there as a compromise in part so slave states would be happy. A position that's defended with nonsense is probably itself nonsense.

As for whether or not the Electoral College is effective, we have to define what it's effective at. If you want to say that the Electoral College is effective at throwing a presidential election into chaos and placing more of an emphasis on chance rather than voters, then I agree that it's effective at that.

If you want to say the Electoral College is effective at reflecting the will of the people, I would wholeheartedly disagree.

If you're going to call me disingenuous each time you disagree with me on something, we're not going to have a level-headed discussion. I'm as genuine as it gets - I always speak my mind, which often gets me in trouble, but that's just the way I am. If I made a mistake, you can just point it out - I will happily concede it provided the evidence supports what you're saying, which in this case it does. I'm not a fan of the Electoral College either, just so we're clear, however! Since the states have been stripped off most of their power by implementing sweeping federal-level legislature, the Electoral College is the last vestige of said power which is necessary until the power to self-determine is restored to the states where it belongs. A good example here are the Marihuana laws. The drug became legal in numerous states as of late, a great victory from both a Democratic and Libertarian standpoints alike, which is unprecedented. It is, however, still illegal on a federal level. What this basically means is that if I want to become a weed farmer conforming with all the legal requirements of such a business, start employing people to tend to my plants and distribute them in accordance to all health and safety regulations, I must ask for a permit from the state, at which point I have no guarantee that the DEA won't put me in jail and the FDA won't shut me down since, technically, I'm a criminal, except I'm not, except I am. I would wholeheartedly support the idea of dismantling the Electoral College and I'd march towards Washington chanting the same slogans with you side-by-side if only the Federal government didn't intervene in the lives of private citizens and supersede whatever rules they wanted to live by, enacted by their representatives. The difference between a state government and the federal government is that one can very easily move states should the legislation in a state become unpalatable to one's taste, the same cannot be said about moving out of the country. The United States protect freedom of movement within the Union, moving out of the Union is an international affair. That's a whole different can of worms though, not really relevant in the context of the Russian narrative.

"It's like you didn't read my post at all"

And, if we're going to start discussing a tangent that I made offhand as opposed to staying on the topic we're currently discussing, what makes you think your neighbor isn't contributing to society as much as you are? Disadvantaged people don't always get there because of laziness or lack of motivation, there are many factors. And if that person needs a tiny, tiny percentage of my net worth to help get back on their feet, I see no reason why I shouldn't give back to society in that way. Besides, paying taxes gets me a lot of "exclusive citizen benefits," like the ability to use publicly funded freeways, parks, and county/state buildings, for example. I even get a guarantee to decently-priced healthcare through my family's employment, although that may not be the case for very much longer

I'm not against public roads - I will happily pay for any service I use as long as you don't ask me to pay for it at gunpoint. Helping your fellow man is a virtue - do so through charity, don't force others to do so at the threat of violence. Forced charity isn't charity at all - it's theft. We go back to the ten thieves argument. Just because ten thieves democratically decided to steal from you doesn't mean they're not thieves, they're just thieves with a proclivity towards bureaucracy. If you don't think it's under the threat of violence and at gunpoint, you should try not paying taxes - government agents will soon knock on your door, and they have better guns. As for healthcare, I wouldn't let my employer choose what toppings I get on my pizza, why on earth would I want them to choose my healthcare plan? That's ridiculous in and out of itself and not at all what I'm advocating for - that's as anti-free market as it can possibly be.