Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Orange

2/3ds of Americans think the EC should go

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Of course not, which is why I’m arguing that those that would like them to be more blue do a better job of appealing to their interests so they can win the sliver of them that they need, rather than upend an entire system that has 50 smaller governments relying on its framework. Why throw the keystone away when washing it would make it shine the way you want?

Which demographic is coming at the expense of any other? How is it “unfair”? We hold fifty elections, each person’s vote is counted the same as any other. How are States a demographic?

Again, this argument isn’t about people, it’s about the value of states. Perhaps you see the states as antiquated or perhaps never holding any value in the first place. And maybe there are some decent things to be said about that idea. Those arguments have a lot to overcome regarding the structural basis upon which the republic rest, to say nothing of the cultural and societal feelings about being a Texan, or a Nevadan, or a New Yorker, or not being a New Yorker etc...One could make those arguments. But to frame it as some righteous exercise that is protecting people disenfranchised is completely wrong and misses the point. Everyone’s vote counts the same. You don’t like the United States of America? Give me a better argument that preserves the Union and the world order which we all are enjoying to a better extent than anyone who has ever lived, or give me a roadmap that leads to the same outcome with a Balkanized America, because this isn’t about making a better system from anything I’ve ever heard on the matter. This is about losing elections and not modifying in response.

The EC is not an exercise in honoring states' rights.  That had nothing to do with the Constitutional calculus.  It had EVERYTHING to do with the specific nature of elections and the population that existed in the 1780s, i.e. in particular the huge numbers of slaves (who had no suffrage, and would not be able to count their votes but for the EC) in Virginia, and other southern states that were reluctant to agree to the Constitution.  It was a compromise.  And a terrible one, that we should remedy, because the entire underpinning of the EC is moot thanks to universal suffrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Orange said:

Did it ever occur to you no-life-having pussies that I have better things to do on a weekend, like play with my kid, +++++ my girlfriend, smoke weed, go to concerts, camp, hike, and generally not read your inane drivel 24/7?

She’s one lucky lady....  :blink:

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Orange said:

You've yet to explain WHY this is the case.

They didn't do it in 1787, purely because they didn't believe voters were sophisticated. That was back when the literacy rate in the U.S. was less than great.  Now, we've granted suffrage to all adults, and we have compulsory education.  The calculus is different.  By clinging to the old ways, you stall growth and evolution.  It's the biggest threat to our country,  you regressives.

A continent sized, liberty loving, country with an enormous, diverse population that is the richest and most powerful nation on earth, which has been unified with one exception for almost 250 years. A feat unparalleled amongst nation states and governmental systems anywhere, anytime. You want to bring evolution into it, evolution is about effectively propagating the next generation. Find one example of a system producing better results than what we have. I’m still waiting.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

A continent sized, liberty loving, country with an enormous, diverse population that is the richest and most powerful nation on earth, which has been unified with one exception for almost 250 years. A feat unparalleled amongst nation states and governmental systems anywhere, anytime. You want to bring evolution into it, evolution is about effectively propagating the next generation. Find one example of a system producing better results than what we have. I’m still waiting.

Progressives ended slavery.

Progressives fought Indian removal and genocide.

Progressives fought for women's suffrage.

Progressives fought for a weekend, 40-hour week, and sick leave.

Progressives fought for civil rights.

Progressives fought for gay rights.

And you have the gall, as a non-progressive, to sit there and tell progressives they're  being too "reeeeee!!" because the nation has been great.....thanks to progressives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Orange said:

The EC is not an exercise in honoring states' rights.  That had nothing to do with the Constitutional calculus.  It had EVERYTHING to do with the specific nature of elections and the population that existed in the 1780s, i.e. in particular the huge numbers of slaves (who had no suffrage, and would not be able to count their votes but for the EC) in Virginia, and other southern states that were reluctant to agree to the Constitution.  It was a compromise.  And a terrible one, that we should remedy, because the entire underpinning of the EC is moot thanks to universal suffrage.

Except this ignores entirely that people considered themselves citizens of their states. It’s almost like a group of political geniuses invented a system with unforeseen positives that even they couldn’t comprehend. Let’s not throw it the baby because the bathwater we’ve long since rid ourselves of was bad. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Except this ignores entirely that people considered themselves citizens of their states. It’s almost like a group of political geniuses invented a system with unforeseen positives that even they couldn’t comprehend. Let’s not throw it the baby because the bathwater we’ve long since rid ourselves of was bad. 

The "baby" is the EC?  Jesus.

+++++ that noise.  It's an arcane, retarded system.  And you know you wouldn't be saying this if republicans were winning the popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Orange said:

Progressives ended slavery.

Progressives fought Indian removal and genocide.

Progressives fought for women's suffrage.

Progressives fought for a weekend, 40-hour week, and sick leave.

Progressives fought for civil rights.

Progressives fought for gay rights.

And you have the gall, as a non-progressive, to sit there and tell progressives they're  being too "reeeeee!!" because the nation has been great.....thanks to progressives.

Oh god, look at you standing on the shoulders of the racist Republican Party that ended slavery, those Christian groups populated mostly by women that couldn’t vote pressuring their men to oppose Indian removal, and the crowds getting dogs sicked on them by police in the civil rights era. Don’t pat yourself on the back too hard there buddy.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Orange said:

The "baby" is the EC?  Jesus.

+++++ that noise.  It's an arcane, retarded system.  And you know you wouldn't be saying this if republicans were winning the popular vote.

Good argument. You make a ton of sense. Especially since everyone knows I’ll go against Republicans at the drop of a hat if I believe something. But hey, I can’t be well liked around here.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Orange said:

Progressives ended slavery.

Progressives fought Indian removal and genocide.

Progressives fought for women's suffrage.

Progressives fought for a weekend, 40-hour week, and sick leave.

Progressives fought for civil rights.

Progressives fought for gay rights.

And you have the gall, as a non-progressive, to sit there and tell progressives they're  being too "reeeeee!!" because the nation has been great.....thanks to progressives.

Progressives championed social darwinism

Progressives fought for eugenics

Progressives invented white man's burden

Progressives wanted to deport em all to Africa

Progressives wanted tariffs and closed borders and quotas 

Let's not act like every new hotness getting championed by progressives always looks spotless in hind sight

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, happycamper said:

Progressives championed social darwinism

Progressives fought for eugenics

Progressives invented white man's burden

Progressives wanted to deport em all to Africa

Progressives wanted tariffs and closed borders and quotas 

Let's not act like every new hotness getting championed by progressives always looks spotless in hind sight

I don’t appreciate you giving credit for awful report the slaves reform ideas any more than him trying to steal the glory that doesn’t belong to the progressives. :foottap:

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orange reminds me of this drunk lesbian I knew who dropped out after 1L year to chase her dreams of teaching in Harlem. I'm going to guess their Instagram Stories are similar anyway, given his team mantra post here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

His girls name is Danielle, and she is busy right now.  Hit my premium snap up to see why 

The fry cook is with Danielle now? JFC, this is going to break Rasheda's heart.

Burgerville_2017-Chocolate-Hazelnut_Andr

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2019 at 2:58 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Of course not, which is why I’m arguing that those that would like them to be more blue do a better job of appealing to their interests so they can win the sliver of them that they need, rather than upend an entire system that has 50 smaller governments relying on its framework. Why throw the keystone away when washing it would make it shine the way you want?

Which demographic is coming at the expense of any other? How is it “unfair”? We hold fifty elections, each person’s vote is counted the same as any other. How are States a demographic?

Again, this argument isn’t about people, it’s about the value of states. Perhaps you see the states as antiquated or perhaps never holding any value in the first place. And maybe there are some decent things to be said about that idea. Those arguments have a lot to overcome regarding the structural basis upon which the republic rest, to say nothing of the cultural and societal feelings about being a Texan, or a Nevadan, or a New Yorker, or not being a New Yorker etc...One could make those arguments. But to frame it as some righteous exercise that is protecting people disenfranchised is completely wrong and misses the point. Everyone’s vote counts the same. You don’t like the United States of America? Give me a better argument that preserves the Union and the world order which we all are enjoying to a better extent than anyone who has ever lived, or give me a roadmap that leads to the same outcome with a Balkanized America, because this isn’t about making a better system from anything I’ve ever heard on the matter. This is about losing elections and not modifying in response.

 

You're saying voters in small town voters matter more than minority voters. You support a system that allows their will to be completely ignored, yet your fear of my proposal would be small towns being ignored.

It's not 50 different elections, it's 50 different states taking part in one election. Hillary does not get to be president of the states that she won. The difference in each state is that a person in Wyoming has more than 3 times the voting power of someone in California. That's mathematically inequitable. Your justification for that inequality is everybody being campaigned to, but that does not happen at all.


Claiming that the electoral college prevents Civil Wars (except the one time it didn't) is a hell of a reach, but fine let's go there. Why is your system more stable? You're not making a more appealing and equitable system, you're just changing who gets ignored except adding way more people to that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sebasour said:

 

You're saying voters in small town voters matter more than minority voters. You support a system that allows their will to be completely ignored, yet your fear of my proposal would be small towns being ignored.

It's not 50 different elections, it's 50 different states taking part in one election. Hillary does not get to be president of the states that she won. The difference in each state is that a person in Wyoming has more than 3 times the voting power of someone in California. That's mathematically inequitable. Your justification for that inequality is everybody being campaigned to, but that does not happen at all.


Claiming that the electoral college prevents Civil Wars (except the one time it didn't) is a hell of a reach, but fine let's go there. Why is your system more stable? You're not making a more appealing and equitable system, you're just changing who gets ignored except adding way more people to that group.

You understand we’re talking about just one branch of the government right? A branch that has, in my opinion, gained far too much power over the years and that should be reeled in. 

The electoral college was indeed set up as a compromise, part of that whole checks and balances thing that pisses a lot of statists off. To simply say it was put in place only because of slavery is a ridiculous over-simplification that doesn’t factor in the complexities of the time it was instituted.

The House of Representatives was supposed to be the most “democratic” branch of the government, with turnover every two years, and number of seats based upon population. The Senate was set up to be an equalizer, providing the smaller populated states with an equal share seats with the more populated. 

The executive branch was only supposed to have a say in but not to spearhead or control the legislative agenda. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2019 at 10:13 AM, Orange said:

https://www.prri.org/research/american-democracy-in-crisis-voters-midterms-trump-election-2018/

It's time to rid ourselves of this arcane disaster of an elector system.

Nah, 

We need to celebrate the wisdom of the founding fathers for building in a firewall to prevent big states from running over the top of the little states. 

The EC will never ever go away in our lifetimes, our children's lifetimes, or our grandchildren;s lifetimes. The smaller states will never support and amendment that hands over even more political power to big states. it will not happen. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2019 at 11:13 AM, Orange said:

https://www.prri.org/research/american-democracy-in-crisis-voters-midterms-trump-election-2018/

It's time to rid ourselves of this arcane disaster of an elector system.

And 2/3's of Americans would like to see you to donate your brain to science some day so that medical researchers can better understand the total goof-ball mentality. LOL. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

You understand we’re talking about just one branch of the government right? A branch that has, in my opinion, gained far too much power over the years and that should be reeled in. 

The electoral college was indeed set up as a compromise, part of that whole checks and balances thing that pisses a lot of statists off. To simply say it was put in place only because of slavery is a ridiculous over-simplification that doesn’t factor in the complexities of the time it was instituted.

The House of Representatives was supposed to be the most “democratic” branch of the government, with turnover every two years, and number of seats based upon population. The Senate was set up to be an equalizer, providing the smaller populated states with an equal share seats with the more populated. 

The executive branch was only supposed to have a say in but not to spearhead or control the legislative agenda. 

The power the executive branch should wield is a perfectly fair discussion, but what should equitable is everyone say in who that president is.

 

You're wanting to give small states disproportionate power over other groups 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sebasour said:

 

You're saying voters in small town voters matter more than minority voters. You support a system that allows their will to be completely ignored, yet your fear of my proposal would be small towns being ignored.

It's not 50 different elections, it's 50 different states taking part in one election. Hillary does not get to be president of the states that she won. The difference in each state is that a person in Wyoming has more than 3 times the voting power of someone in California. That's mathematically inequitable. Your justification for that inequality is everybody being campaigned to, but that does not happen at all.


Claiming that the electoral college prevents Civil Wars (except the one time it didn't) is a hell of a reach, but fine let's go there. Why is your system more stable? You're not making a more appealing and equitable system, you're just changing who gets ignored except adding way more people to that group.

It’s more stable because it forces candidates to take into account the needs and wants of people that live in all kinds of places in the fourth largest country on earth. The political parties are forced to evolve over time to adjust to changes in society, and they have done so constantly. The battleground states that decide the election change over time, and they have done so constantly. We have a vibrant, fluid system that, let’s not forget, has led to the most prosperous, most powerful, and yet still liberty loving nation on earth. 

Again, this never seems to be about creating a system that works better and gets at least the same results. It’s always about not modifying positions to appeal to the 70,000 people spread across a wide area that are the difference between losing and not having to hear about this because elections have consequences. 

So why don’t you tell me why your system is more stable. Will it lead to equal results? For how long can we expect this peace and prosperity? Where have you seen this system succeed and to what degree compared to our own?

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...