When Ted Cruz is appointed to the SC

[07pilt]

This appears to be the circular toddler argument pilt. Why? But why? But why?

Your answer to why the electoral college is superior to the popular vote is that allows a majority of states to override the majority of people. No shit. That still begs the question why anyone would want that.

Child: Daddy, why do you like hot coffee instead of cold coffee
Dad: Because the temperature is higher
Child: But why is a higher temperature better
Dad: Circular toddler arguments.
Child: This asshole

This is the Daddy Medic response. Because that's what the Constitution says son. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the country. Go read a book.

This is the perfect answer to the mythical person asking "why do we use the electoral college?"

PS, if you're voting by who makes you happy, you're very likely doing it wrong.

Damnit I have been doing it wrong all these years. Next time I'll vote for the candidate that will make me sad if they win.

 

[Medic007]

Your answer to why the electoral college is superior to the popular vote is that allows a majority of states to override the majority of people. No shit. That still begs the question why anyone would want that.

Child: Daddy, why do you like hot coffee instead of cold coffee
Dad: Because the temperature is higher
Child: But why is a higher temperature better
Dad: Circular toddler arguments.
Child: This asshole


This is the perfect answer to the mythical person asking "why do we use the electoral college?"


Damnit I have been doing it wrong all these years. Next time I'll vote for the candidate that will make me sad if they win.

You can read my actual serious response that follows my answer to your toddler arguments if you wish. If not, Constitution Beeeyotch.

Federalist Papers. Read them.

 

[CowboyJD]

Fair enough.

1. It aint broke? MAGA? "Again?" I don't buy it, but a guy just got elected on the premise that things are bad. So why isn't it intellectually honest to proceed on that basis?

2. "What's so special.... change it now?" Because the majority's will is being denied. Not a majority-requested offense against some inviolate republican liberty -- the will in the voting booth. I appreciate the burden of advocating change from the status quo, but arguing against denying a majority vote is a proposition that should meet a burden, imo.. Redefining what constitutes a "majority" doesn't honestly address the fact that a majority of U.S. citizens are told the minority wins because of where they live. A vote of a California U.S. citizen should carry the same weight as a Wisconsin citizen's vote. The destiny of the republic should be determined by collective wisdom and not by geographical coincidence.

3. Why people should be the unit that elects POTUSes instead of states: Because we should minimize the authority of government and maximize the role of the individual. Also, the constitution isn't sacred. It was deeply flawed. I don't want to trigger another debate over the same issue, but in regard to the founding fathers: So? They're dead, they endorsed slavery and mysogyny and had very primitive ideas about lots fo things. It's always tempting to lionize our forefathers. Eh.

4. The biggest policy in favor of straight per capita voting is because we need to foment revolution at the ballot box. When the majority is denied their revolution, that's not a good thing for a variety of reasons. Majority rule is in itself a virtue.

1. I'm not a Trumpie. I think America is pretty damn great already.

2. The balance sounds a lot like, my side lost so we need to change the rules IMO. We weren't hearing a damn word about the Electoral College in the media from anyone before the election. That's not an indictment per se, if the winning party was reversed in the same scenario, I'd anticipate we'd be hearing the same things from the other side.

3. Of course the founding fathers were flawed. I'm not lionizing them as individuals when I say that IMO the systems they established are pretty damned extraordinary in how well and fairly they work. Perfect? No. To me, it's going to take a pretty compelling disvirtue (even a word? You know what I mean) and compelling solution with a high likelihood of solving it without creating other issues before I'm interested in changing.

That being said, we have a process for changing the Constitution to get rid of the EC. If it's the will of the people to get rid of it, they should get to work.

 

[07pilt]

I would propose that those advocating a change in a system should attempt to make a convincing argument on why it should be changed. In other words, turn Pilt's question around and convince us that people should be the sovereign unit in choosing a president instead of the states.

I thought the arguments for the popular vote were pretty obvious and didn't need to be explicitly stated. The only moral agents available are the people. States are legal fictions and there is no utility generated by giving the states what they want. The utility is generated by giving the people of the state what they want. An electoral system that produces outcomes that the most people are in favor of is the the most optimal. I suspected I was missing out on some good reasoning in favor of the electoral college, and was actually kind of shocked by the stale answers I got.

I confess to not being able to think of any act of governing in the United States of America that is enacted or selected by the mass of the people as opposed to the state as the sovereign unit. What's so special about the President that we won't to change it now?

The president is the only elected official that represents the entire nation rather than a state or district. The people who represent congressional districts are elected by the popular vote of the people of that district. The senators that represent a state are elected by the popular vote of the people of that state.

 

[Medic007]

1. I'm not a Trumpie. I think America is pretty damn great already.

2. The balance sounds a lot like, my side lost so we need to change the rules IMO. We weren't hearing a damn word about the Electoral College in the media from anyone before the election. That's not an indictment per se, if the winning party was reversed in the same scenario, I'd anticipate we'd be hearing the same things from the other side.

3. Of course the founding fathers were flawed. I'm not lionizing them as individuals when I say that IMO the systems they established are pretty damned extraordinary in how well and fairly they work. Perfect? No. To me, it's going to take a pretty compelling disvirtue (even a word? You know what I mean) and compelling solution with a high likelihood of solving it without creating other issues before I'm interested in changing.

That being said, we have a process for changing the Constitution to get rid of the EC. If it's the will of the people to get rid of it, they should get to work.

Ouch. A lawyer got lawyered. That's like a double negative enriched by plutonium. To illustrate...

 

[CowboyJD]

I thought the arguments for the popular vote were pretty obvious and didn't need to be explicitly stated. The only moral agents available are the people. States are legal fictions and there is no utility generated by giving the states what they want. The utility is generated by giving the people of the state what they want. An electoral system that produces outcomes that the most people are in favor of is the the most optimal. I suspected I was missing out on some good reasoning in favor of the electoral college, and was actually kind of shocked by the stale answers I got.

The president is the only elected official that represents the entire nation rather than a state or district. The people who represent congressional districts are elected by the popular vote of the people of that district. The senators that represent a state are elected by the popular vote of the people of that state.

"States are legal fictions and there is no utility generated by giving states what they want."

"The president is the only elected official that represents the entire nation rather than a state or district."

The entire nation is a union of individual states. It makes sense that the representative of that union of individual states be selected by and through those states to me.

I guess I'll just be dismissive of statements as to utility, moral agents, and optimum outcomes by saying they are stale and sour grapes because we weren't having this discussion until you ended up with a result you don't like and we can all call it a night.

I'll also say that it is important enough to enough people in the nation, I wholeheartedly encourage them to get to work attempting to change the Constitution in one or both of the ways available.

 

[07pilt]

Based on the debates of the Founders, it is more than apparent that each state was to be represented by the whole of its people in selection of the President to ensure no corrupt or central source of power could alter the election.

Which federalist paper is that? No. 68 makes it clear that the the founders believed in the wisedom and removed nature of the electors, but we have done away with an semblance of relying the the judgement of the electors. The exact quote on preventing a source of power from altering the election refers to foreign governments bribing or infiltrating a hypothetical standing body that would choose the president.
"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment."

 

[Medic007]

"States are legal fictions and there is no utility generated by giving states what they want."

"The president is the only elected official that represents the entire nation rather than a state or district."

The entire nation is a union of individual states. It makes sense that the representative of that union of individual states be selected by and through those states to me.

I guess I'll just be dismissive of statements as to utility, moral agents, and optimum outcomes by saying they are stale and sour grapes because we weren't having this discussion until you ended up with a result you don't like and we can all call it a night.

I'll also say that it is important enough to enough people in the nation, I wholeheartedly encourage them to get to work attempting to change the Constitution in one or both of the ways available.

And just now, pilt got laywered. An additional illustration (not to take anything away from previous color graphics)...

 

[CowboyJD]

Ouch. A lawyer got lawyered. That's like a double negative enriched by plutonium. To illustrate...

I actually liked your post @syskatine. You actually attempted to respond with something other a Pilt style "your position is old and stale" and "mine are clear and obviously right". I appreciate it.

I just disagree with you on a subject that I believe reasonable people can disagree.

Now @Medic007, @MegaPoke, etc. will probably call me a cuck. I'm nearly certain @HighStickHarry will have something to say.

 

[Medic007]

Now @Medic007, @MegaPoke, etc. will probably call me a cuck. I'm nearly certain @HighStickHarry will have something to say

I would never mention your handle and cuck in the same sentence. Your chihuahua seems like he's trained in the marital arts.

 

[MegaPoke]

This thread has surpassed all the OP's expectations.

 

[07pilt]

I guess I'll just be dismissive of statements as to utility, moral agents, and optimum outcomes by saying they are stale and sour grapes because we weren't having this discussion until you ended up with a result you don't like and we can all call it a night.

Slick ad hominem there.

"For me it isn't sour grapes that HRC lost. She lost she knew the rules and she blew it."--Me earlier

I am not arguing the legitimacy of the EC or the election, I am questioning the desirability and philosophical grounding of the system going forward. If you are uncomfortable with engaging in that discussion that's fine, you don't have to hide behind ad hominem.

 

[CowboyJD]

Which federalist paper is that? No. 68 makes it clear that the the founders believed in the wisedom and removed nature of the electors, but we have done away with an semblance of relying the the judgement of the electors.

To the extent we have done away with a semblance of relying on the judgment of the electors, that has been done at choice and decision of the individual states that make up the union. It seems an argument is being made that the states have given up some of their authority directly to the individuals within their state so what's wrong with taking the rest away by going to popular nationwide cumulative vote.

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."...

Is relevant to the discussion.

 

[CowboyJD]

Slick ad hominem there.

"For me it isn't sour grapes that HRC lost. She lost she knew the rules and she blew it."--Me earlier

I am not arguing the legitimacy of the EC or the election, I am questioning the desirability and philosophical grounding of the system going forward. If you are uncomfortable with engaging in that discussion that's fine, you don't have to hide behind ad hominem.

Sure thing.

If it was a slick ad hominem, it was just one that mirrored your own ad hominem directly.

I suspected I was missing out on some good reasoning in favor of the electoral college, and was actually kind of shocked by the stale answers I got.

Btw, just because you claim it's not sour grapes....doesn't mean it definitely isn't.....for you and/or others.

I'm perfectly comfortable engaging in that conversation. In fact I was doing so with Sys. I was just following your rhetorical lead with the statement to which you are taking offense.

 

[07pilt]

Sure thing.

If it was a slick ad hominem, it was just one that mirrored your own ad hominem directly.



Btw, just because you claim it's not sour grapes....doesn't mean it definitely isn't.....for you and/or others.

Let me explain how and ad hominem works.

An ad hominem would be judging arguments based on the person from whom they come. Example: Dismissing arguments from someone because you think they are upset about the election.

Not ad hominem would be judging a person based on their arguments. Example: I am disappointed in all the people who's best defense of the EC was something stale like "More than 50% of the total population resides in the 10 most populous states. There are 40 other states." (no offense Medic, you are one of the good ones) Or another example: CowboyJD is wack for hiding behind the election results instead of addressing Pilt.

 

[CowboyJD]

Let me explain how and ad hominem works.

An ad hominem would be judging arguments based on the person from whom they come. Example: Dismissing arguments from someone because you think they are upset about the election.

Not ad hominem would be judging a person based on their arguments. Example: I am disappointed in all the people who's best defense of the EC was something stale like "More than 50% of the total population resides in the 10 most populous states. There are 40 other states." (no offense Medic, you are one of the good ones) Or another example: CowboyJD is wack for hiding behind the election results instead of addressing Pilt.

Lol.

You're a real piece of work.

I judged you based upon your argument just as much as you judged others based upon their arguments. The timing of the arguments and discussion is relevant to my judgment and isn't ad hominem in any way.

The truth is you just don't like having your own rhetorical techniques used against you. Don't derail the discussion by claiming an intellectual or moral high ground that isn't there for you. Stay focused on the original proposition.

 

[07pilt]

To the extent we have done away with a semblance of relying on the judgment of the electors, that has been done at choice and decision of the individual states that make up the union. It seems an argument is being made that the states have given up some of their authority directly to the individuals within their state so what's wrong with taking the rest away by going to popular nationwide cumulative vote.

Except the intent of the electors wasn't to grant authority to the states, it was to ensure the wise well informed people would elect the president, and to prevent people from directly electing the president and causing tumult.

"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
"The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes."

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."...

Is relevant to the discussion.

I too am against some one being popular in just one state becoming president. Unless of course that state holds more than 50% of the people in which case the person wouldn't have "little arts of popularity."

 

[CowboyJD]

Except the intent of the electors wasn't to grant authority to the states, it was to ensure the wise well informed people would elect the president, and to prevent people from directly electing the president and causing tumult.

"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
"The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes."

Leaving how the electors are chosen within a given state to that state is a granting of authority to the state.

I too am against some one being popular in just one state becoming president. Unless of course that state holds more than 50% of the people in which case the person wouldn't have "little arts of popularity."

Sure they would.....in a nation made up of individual United States. In the political spectrum between confederacy, federalism, and unitary governments, I choose federalism. A nationwide popular vote choosing the President is a movement from federalism to a unitary government.

We're just not going to agree or convince the other of the error of their opinion. We're at three pages or so already.

I'm going to call it a night.

Be well.

 

[07pilt]

I judged you based upon your argument just as much as you judged others based upon their arguments.The timing of the arguments and discussion is relevant to my judgment and isn't ad hominem in any way.

This is amazing. I found someone who can't understand the difference between being mean and ad hominem even after the difference is explained.

You dismissed arguments based on the motivations of the arguer not the merits of the arguments. That is textbook ad hominem. Whether you agree with the latin or not is irrelevant, though. We both know what you did. You hid behind the election results. Sad.

The truth is you just don't like having your own rhetorical techniques used against you.

Feel free to be mean, rude and incivil. I don't care about your style, just your content.

 

[CowboyJD]

This is amazing. I found someone who can't understand the difference between being mean and ad hominem even after the difference is explained.

You dismissed arguments based on the motivations of the arguer not the merits of the arguments. That is textbook ad hominem. Whether you agree with the latin or not is irrelevant, though. We both know what you did. You hid behind the election results. Sad.


Feel free to be mean, rude and incivil. I don't care about your style, just your content.

Lol.

Good night, junior.

 

[07pilt]

Lol.

Good night, junior.

I can get behind that, Nancy.

 

[Medic007]

Let me explain how and ad hominem works.

An ad hominem would be judging arguments based on the person from whom they come. Example: Dismissing arguments from someone because you think they are upset about the election.

Not ad hominem would be judging a person based on their arguments. Example: I am disappointed in all the people who's best defense of the EC was something stale like "More than 50% of the total population resides in the 10 most populous states. There are 40 other states." (no offense Medic, you are one of the good ones) Or another example: CowboyJD is wack for hiding behind the election results instead of addressing Pilt.

Why was the power of the purse given to the House? Under the Constitution, the Executive Branch truly has very limited power. Don't let "I've got a pen and a phone" fool you otherwise. The fact that challenges to 0bama's executive orders have been upheld in court should open everyone's eyes to the overreach that he attempted.

Not pointing the finger at you, but I didn't see a single liberal have issue with the Electoral College when it was assumed that the road to 270 ended at Hillary's doorstep.

 

[AC_Exotic]

So we can count on you to support the notion that one legal US citizen equals only one vote, requiring each actual voter to produce proof that they are in fact legally entitled to vote. If not, Constitution beeyotch. Those old dudes were definitely smarter than you liberals.

Interestingly, in the Michigan recounts, in heavy Democratic districts, they discovered some votes counted twice.

Shocker I know.

I would be interested in what they might uncover in a California or Chicago recount.

 

[imprimis]

I would be interested in what they might uncover in a California or Chicago recount.

They'd need lots of counters as each can only furnish 8 fingers and 2 thumbs to the job.

 

[MegaPoke]

Not pointing the finger at you, but I didn't see a single liberal have issue with the Electoral College when it was assumed that the road to 270 ended at Hillary's doorstep.

That's because they had no problem with it until they were told they should after the election. I wish I could see an alternate universe's 24/7 board where she won. There would be no discussion of the EC.

At minimum, it's telling that this hot topic has never come up in the history of this board until now.

Two things.

1. It won't change in our lifetime if ever. Suck it up. President Trump is your new reality.

2. This is the lamentation of their women.

For reference...

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

That's because they had no problem with it until they were told they should after the election. I wish I could see an alternate universe's 24/7 board where she won. There would be no discussion of the EC.

What am I missing? Is there a reason the electoral college would've been a big topic? Now that the winner has lost twice in 16 years would you expect anything less than people second guessing it?

And please point me to the chorus of conservatives extolling the virtues of the EC during the same time frame.

 

[MegaPoke]

What am I missing? Is there a reason the electoral college would've been a big topic? Now that the winner has lost twice in 16 years would you expect anything less than people second guessing it?

And please point me to the chorus of conservatives extolling the virtues of the EC during the same time frame.

Lamentation. ^^^^^^^

 

[SMemmett]

If Hilary had won the EC, but lost the popular, can you really tell me Donald Trump would have been quiet on Twitter about it? And how many people would have fallen in line with his complaints?

Maybe some members on this board wouldn't, but to say there would be ZERO discussion on here about the EC and popular vote if the situations were reversed? I'd strongly disagree with that.

 

[MegaPoke]

If Hilary had won the EC, but lost the popular, can you really tell me Donald Trump would have been quiet on Twitter about it? And how many people would have fallen in line with his complaints?

Maybe some members on this board wouldn't, but to say there would be ZERO discussion on here about the EC and popular vote if the situations were reversed? I'd strongly disagree with that.

What I'm actually telling you is, you guys all sound like pussies.

It's the way the system works. Complaining about it now is good theater. Carry on

 

[SMemmett]

I didn't vote for Hillary.

 

[SMemmett]

What I'm actually telling you is, you guys all sound like pussies.

It's the way the system works. Complaining about it now is good theater. Carry on

And I'M not complaining about it, he won. I'm suggesting if the scenario had been completely reversed there would have been mass complaints about it. Particularly from Trump.

 

[MegaPoke]

And I'M not complaining about it, he won. I'm suggesting if the scenario had been completely reversed there would have been mass complaints about it. Particularly from Trump.

If you say so. I just think it's incredibly lame to argue any aspect of this. And a hypothetical that may or may not be accurate isn't helping the case.

 

[SMemmett]

If you say so. I just think it's incredibly lame to argue any aspect of this. And a hypothetical that may or may not be accurate isn't helping the case.

You're the one who said, "I wish I could see an alternate universe's 24/7 board where she won. There would be no discussion of the EC."

That's your hypothetical that I was responding to and that I disagreed with.

 

[MegaPoke]

I didn't vote for Hillary.

That's fine if you did or didn't.

The EC isn't a problem however. It's a solution and it has worked for and against candidates of both parties for over 200 years.

 

[MegaPoke]

You're the one who said, "I wish I could see an alternate universe's 24/7 board where she won. There would be no discussion of the EC."

That's your hypothetical that I was responding to and that I disagreed with.

Fair point.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

And I'M not complaining about it, he won. I'm suggesting if the scenario had been completely reversed there would have been mass complaints about it. Particularly from Trump.

Good Lord, I'm almost positive I've never read a more wrong statement on this particular board. No way. You're just wrong. Completely. wrong.

 

[SMemmett]

That's fine if you did or didn't.

The EC isn't a problem however. It's a solution and it has worked for and against candidates of both parties for over 200 years.

I AGREE WITH YOU, I'm not in favor of abolishing the EC! I'm just resisting the suggestion around here that some are making that complaining about this unique situation (winning popular/losing EC) would only be done by liberals and Trump voters would have been quiet about it had the situation been reversed. I'm very confident Trump would be vocal about it and I assume many of the people who voted for him would be too.

 

[SMemmett]

Good Lord, I'm almost positive I've never read a more wrong statement on this particular board. No way. You're just wrong. Completely. wrong.

You don't think Donald Trump, the man who gets upset with a sketch TV show and then complains about it on Twitter, would have said a word about that he had won the popular vote but lost the EC, should the scenario been reversed?

Especially given that he complained about it in 2012 when he thought Romney had won the popular vote?

 

[MegaPoke]

You don't think Donald Trump, the man who gets upset with a sketch TV show and then complains about it on Twitter, would have said a word about that he had won the popular vote but lost the EC, should the scenario been reversed?

Especially given that he complained about it in 2012 when he thought Romney had won the popular vote?

For the record, I do think he would've challenged a loss via voter fraud - which exists and is why the recounts are only in close states Trump won. He would've bitched and loudly about it. I don't think he would blather on for a month about popular vote "trumping" (heh...) the EC. And I really doubt the Constitutionalists on this board would've said shit about it.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

No one on this board would be whining about it. None. Trump would've likely bloviated about it for 3-5 days but would not have embarrassed himself like the Democrats and Hillary.