The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[carpedm9587]

I can't delete a duplicate post... so...

[Sparko]

A popular vote ignores state powers in favor of the individual. The current system ignores individuals in favor of state powers. If the vote were to balance these things, then each state would divide their electoral votes the same way Congress is elected: one electoral vote allocated on the basis of the congressional district, and two electoral votes allocated based on the vote of the state. That is what I would consider ideal. But it is not enforceable. So the second best is to simply revert to the popular vote and align the presidency with the other offices in our country. States still have representation in Congress and there is still a judicial branch.



What makes you think I haven't? And asserting someone is "ignorant" does not make them actually ignorant. I actually have a pretty extensive knowledge of U.S. history and government. Disagreeing is not the same as not knowing.

You really should try to stay focused on the arguments and set aside the personal observations. They don't really help your arguments. But if it's the best you can do....

You told OBP you wouldn't bother with them. And your arguments here show you haven't.

Do you think you or other modern people are the first to think of a popular vote for President? The founding fathers considered that when they decided on the electoral college instead. All of these arguments pro and con were argued by the founding fathers at the beginning. And they determined that the best compromise between the states and the people voting for president was to use REPRESENTATIVE Electors in the electoral college.

[carpedm9587]

You told OBP you wouldn't bother with them. And your arguments here show you haven't.

I changed my mind and decided I was cutting myself off from available information.

And you are confusing "disagreement" with "lack of knowledge."

Do you think you or other modern people are the first to think of a popular vote for President?

No.

The founding fathers considered that when they decided on the electoral college instead.

I'm aware. I disagree with them. The electoral college was conceived before the formation of political parties (which many of the Founding Fathers were dead set against) and was never meant to be "party aligned." But that is what has happened since they were formed, subverting the initial purposes of the electoral college.

All of these arguments pro and con were argued by the founding fathers at the beginning. And they determined that the best compromise between the states and the people voting for president was to use REPRESENTATIVE Electors in the electoral college.

And I disagree with them*

The historical record suggests I am right - the electoral college does NOT do what it was intended to do in any way that would be substantively different than a straight popular vote. I favor the popular vote for that reason AND the fact that it disproportionately favors specific voters. IN a very real sense, it makes it possible for some people to vote 3.73 times (effectively) for the candidate of their choice (different values arise between different states). Dividing them by district/state helps, but does not eliminate this phenomenon.

One person - one vote - at all levels of government. That is what I favor, so I am 100% behind the Interstate Compact that would give electors to the winner of the popular vote. The electoral college remains, but the popular vote drives their allocation, instead of the current system of winner-takes-all at the state level.

*Note that the FFs also believed that only landed, white, men should be allowed to vote. I disagree with that too!

[Sparko]

I changed my mind and decided I was cutting myself off from available information.

And you are confusing "disagreement" with "lack of knowledge."



No.



I'm aware. I disagree with them. The electoral college was conceived before the formation of political parties (which many of the Founding Fathers were dead set against) and was never meant to be "party aligned." But that is what has happened since they were formed, subverting the initial purposes of the electoral college.



And I disagree with them*

The historical record suggests I am right - the electoral college does NOT do what it was intended to do in any way that would be substantively different than a straight popular vote. I favor the popular vote for that reason AND the fact that it disproportionately favors specific voters. IN a very real sense, it makes it possible for some people to vote 3.73 times (effectively) for the candidate of their choice (different values arise between different states). Dividing them by district/state helps, but does not eliminate this phenomenon.

One person - one vote - at all levels of government. That is what I favor, so I am 100% behind the Interstate Compact that would give electors to the winner of the popular vote. The electoral college remains, but the popular vote drives their allocation, instead of the current system of winner-takes-all at the state level.

*Note that the FFs also believed that only landed, white, men should be allowed to vote. I disagree with that too!

Well I and most others disagree with you! so there.

[carpedm9587]

Well I and most others disagree with you! so there.

Not sure that "most others" is accurate. Clearly there is some energy behind this since 14 states have signed onto the compact. Also, there is at least some data to suggest that more people would like to see the popular vote than the electoral college. As with so many things these days, the numbers tend to fall along partisan lines, with an overwhelming majority of conservatives/Republicans wanting the electoral college and an overwhelming number of liberals/democrats wanting the popular vote. Independents apparently skew towards the popular vote.

I suspect many liberals/Democrats have that sentiment because they feel that two presidential elections were "stolen" from them. That perspective was probably further aggravated when Senate Republicans stole a SCOTUS seat in 2016. There's a lot of bad blood right now in the political fray - and it is coloring a lot of opinions.

[Mountain Man]

That is the brief version of your argument, MM:

The minority needs to be protected against the majority, because the majority is "mob rule."

If you think it's not, feel free to correct whatever part of what I just said is NOT correct. Do you not, in the end, want the smaller mob to be able to win?

I've corrected you several times already. I have no interest in doing it again.

[carpedm9587]

I've corrected you several times already. I have no interest in doing it again.

Yeah - kind of what I thought. Sorry, MM, but I have gone through all of your posts twice now, and this is basically what you have said:

1) popular vote = mob rule
2) mob rule = bad
3) FF's didn't want perpetual mob rule and wanted to protect the minority against the "tyranny of the majority."

1) has not been shown to be true. Indeed, the difference between the majority and minority is less than 2% for most of the elections, which means we have two mobs of slightly different sizes. Making the case for the will of the smaller mob being better than the larger mob will be essentially impossible for you to accomplish.

2) becomes irrelevant because of the failure of 1)

3) is irrelevant because it is an appeal to authority - not an argument.

QED

ETA: You also added the note about the Clinton election and the emergence of small parties. I, personally, would welcome the emergence small parties. The two party system we have now has led to the polarization we have now. Time, IMO< for a change.

[lilpixieofterror]

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah - kind of what I thought. Sorry, MM, but I have gone through all of your posts twice now, and this is basically what you have said:

1) popular vote = mob rule
2) mob rule = bad
3) FF's didn't want perpetual mob rule and wanted to protect the minority against the "tyranny of the majority."

1) has not been shown to be true. Indeed, the difference between the majority and minority is less than 2% for most of the elections, which means we have two mobs of slightly different sizes. Making the case for the will of the smaller mob being better than the larger mob will be essentially impossible for you to accomplish.

2) becomes irrelevant because of the failure of 1)

3) is irrelevant because it is an appeal to authority - not an argument.

QED

ETA: You also added the note about the Clinton election and the emergence of small parties. I, personally, would welcome the emergence small parties. The two party system we have now has led to the polarization we have now. Time, IMO< for a change.

The two parties have so throughly entrenched themselves in the political landscape, you would need a total restructure of election laws to make a valid 3rd party.

[Cow Poke]

The two parties have so throughly entrenched themselves in the political landscape, you would need a total restructure of election laws to make a valid 3rd party.

Until then, any 3rd party or independent candidate serves only as a spoiler to one or the other "two party" candidates.

[lilpixieofterror]

Until then, any 3rd party or independent candidate serves only as a spoiler to one or the other "two party" candidates.

[rogue06]

But only the minorities that they approve of and who reside on their plantation.

[Sparko]

^That.

[carpedm9587]

And how are these things mutually exclusive?

[carpedm9587]

The two parties have so throughly entrenched themselves in the political landscape, you would need a total restructure of election laws to make a valid 3rd party.

Actually - not at all. Everything is in place for as many parties as we want. The problem is largely that the two parties have such a hammer-lock on the process that a third party gaining dominance is pretty much impossible.

Of course if we ever HAD a significant third party, the presidential election would probably go to Congress more often than not.

But all of this is speculation. We don't have much of a chance of a significant third party emerging.