Author Topic: The Bronx chick strikes out  (Read 110740 times)

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,743
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #450 on: August 28, 2019, 08:05:29 PM »
And to be clear, would having a popular vote for president turn us into something other than a representative republic?

Yes. The whole point of a representative republic is to represent everyone - not just the majority. I'm unsure why that is so difficult to understand.

What presidential candidate, who wants to win the popular vote, would spend even a minute of their time campaigning in any state with under 7 million people? They can just concentrate on sucking up to the top fifteen by population.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

RoadKingLarry

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,841
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #451 on: August 28, 2019, 08:06:58 PM »
Your suicidal commitment to radical egalitarianism is breathtakingly myopic.

That's about the nicest thing I can say.





I concur
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,881
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #452 on: August 28, 2019, 08:10:40 PM »
Yes. The whole point of a representative republic is to represent everyone - not just the majority. I'm unsure why that is so difficult to understand.

What presidential candidate, who wants to win the popular vote, would spend even a minute of their time campaigning in any state with under 7 million people? They can just concentrate on sucking up to the top fifteen by population.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

Because fairness or something.
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #453 on: August 28, 2019, 08:48:26 PM »
Yes.
Wrong
Show me what definition of a representative republic you're using that no longer applies if the president is elected by popular vote instead of electors.
We still have the split state/federal governments, we still make laws through elected representatives, we still have different branches of government. It would still be a representative republic.
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

RoadKingLarry

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,841
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #454 on: August 28, 2019, 08:57:50 PM »
Wrong
Show me what definition of a representative republic you're using that no longer applies if the president is elected by popular vote instead of electors.
We still have the split state/federal governments, we still make laws through elected representatives, we still have different branches of government. It would still be a representative republic.

And we would never have a republican, let alone conservative in the white house again. Imagine the damage that could do to the make up of the Supreme court.
It would also take a constitutional amendment to change things properly.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #455 on: August 28, 2019, 09:03:53 PM »
It would also take a constitutional amendment to change things properly.

Absolutely, and a constitutional amendment is not going to happen. It's all theoretical unless that interstate compact happens which isn't likely either (and I don't support anyway).
Yet we obviously can't have a discussion about the merits of a system without people going nuts about permanent liberal overlords and accusations of treason.  ;/
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

zxcvbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,208
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #456 on: August 28, 2019, 09:27:55 PM »
Another thing that the EC accomplishes is it compartmentalizes recounts.  Remember the Florida recount in... I think it was 2000?  Imagine what would happen if a national popular-vote resulted in a tie  :O  The recount and the challenges and the re-recounts would take forever.
"It's good, though..."

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,743
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #457 on: August 28, 2019, 09:33:48 PM »
Wrong
Show me what definition of a representative republic you're using that no longer applies if the president is elected by popular vote instead of electors.
We still have the split state/federal governments, we still make laws through elected representatives, we still have different branches of government. It would still be a representative republic.

No, you're wrong. Several people have already explained this to you. When you can potentially ignore over 80% of population distributions geographically, you're not a representative republic. Or at least you're a lousy example of one.

Hillary Clinton won 51% of the popular vote by winning only 100 counties nationally. 100 out 3000. That was pretty much CA, TX, FL, and NY.

It has nothing to do with "people going nuts over liberal overlords". Those are your words, so save the rolly eyes for yourself. It's a crappy idea regardless of political party.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #458 on: August 28, 2019, 10:23:44 PM »
When you can potentially ignore over 80% of population distributions geographically, you're not a representative republic. Or at least you're a lousy example of one.
Why does the geographical population distribution matter more than the actual voting population?
I'm the same person whether I live in Montana or New York, why should my vote for the same office count differently if I move?

It has nothing to do with "people going nuts over liberal overlords". Those are your words, so save the rolly eyes for yourself.
Excuse me for paraphrasing but it was brought up by a few other people...
With a permanent Democrat presidency there would never be another Republican bill passed into law.
The economy would be *expletive deleted*ed, the justice system would be really *expletive deleted*ed(beyond the *expletive deleted*ed it is now), taxes would be sky *expletive deleted*ing high, crime would be insanely high, etc.
And we would never have a republican, let alone conservative in the white house again. Imagine the damage that could do to the make up of the Supreme court.

People seem to be totally incapable of separating out how something that might hurt their political party might also be a fairer system.
A good system can produce a bad outcome. Our current system, which everyone else here seems to prefer, has produced some bad outcomes (Obama?).
It doesn't mean it's a bad system, but there might be better systems and there might be fairer systems.
I've been talking about fairness, everyone else keeps obsessing over the political ramifications.
It's a crappy idea regardless of political party
If that's true, why do people keep bringing up political parties in their arguments against it?
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,329
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #459 on: August 28, 2019, 11:03:35 PM »
Why does the geographical population distribution matter more than the actual voting population?
I'm the same person whether I live in Montana or New York, why should my vote for the same office count differently if I move?

You ought to know the answer to that. It requires candidates to compete for votes from multiple and heterogeneous regions. While the system has changed somewhat since the Framers' day, they understood the need to give smaller states some counterbalance against the larger states. That it also protects more rational hinterlanders against the depravity of the coasts is a bonus.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,881
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #460 on: August 29, 2019, 07:29:22 AM »
You're concept of fairness is actually tyranny of the majority.

We are not supposed to be a Democracy.

There is nothing fair about large metropolitan areas ruling the country with an iron fist.

Your faulty concept of fairness will actually have the opposite effect and become the vehicle of injustice.

It's almost as if you want to fundmentally transform the USA into something different.
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,743
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #461 on: August 29, 2019, 07:49:35 AM »
Why does the geographical population distribution matter more than the actual voting population?
I'm the same person whether I live in Montana or New York, why should my vote for the same office count differently if I move?

Federalist #10 actually goes into that regarding "factions".

This is starting to go circular, so I don't want to keep typing basically the same thing over and over again, and I'm sure you don't either. Last word, as far as any debate with me on the subject, is yours if you want it. :)
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

RoadKingLarry

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,841
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #462 on: August 29, 2019, 07:50:10 AM »
You're concept of fairness is actually tyranny of the majority.

We are not supposed to be a Democracy.

There is nothing fair about large metropolitan areas ruling the country with an iron fist.

Your faulty concept of fairness will actually have the opposite effect and become the vehicle of injustice.

It's almost as if you want to fundmentally transform the USA into something different.

Yeah, it was just a fictional book/movie series but wasn't that pretty much the premise of The Hunger Games?
At one time 1984 was "just fiction".
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #463 on: August 29, 2019, 08:18:33 AM »
This is starting to go circular, so I don't want to keep typing basically the same thing over and over again, and I'm sure you don't either. Last word, as far as any debate with me on the subject, is yours if you want it. :)

I agree, this has gone circular and I'm pretty much done with it. My best guess is that maybe my regional identity just isn't as strong as others here so I don't see the need to vote at that level rather than the individual level. Counties, states, congressional districts, etc., are arbitrary entities that exist for limited purpose - they shouldn't have voting power in an election that could belong to the individual. I don't think my region or state is important enough, or so unique in our viewpoint that it needs extra voting power compared to it's population. If it was that great then people would vote with their feet and move. I think the fundamental disagreement lies somewhere in there, but it's hard for me to pinpoint.

I still think that it's absurd hyperbole to claim that changing who votes on one elected position within the entire government without changing any of the fundamental structure is a change in the type of government and is a direct path to tyranny.

And I'm still not sure what to make of that Bulwark comment.


In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #464 on: August 29, 2019, 08:26:05 AM »
I agree, this has gone circular and I'm pretty much done with it. My best guess is that maybe my regional identity just isn't as strong as others here so I don't see the need to vote at that level rather than the individual level. Counties, states, congressional districts, etc., are arbitrary entities that exist for limited purpose - they shouldn't have voting power in an election that could belong to the individual. I don't think my region or state is important enough, or so unique in our viewpoint that it needs extra voting power compared to it's population. If it was that great then people would vote with their feet and move. I think the fundamental disagreement lies somewhere in there, but it's hard for me to pinpoint.

I still think that it's absurd hyperbole to claim that changing who votes on one elected position within the entire government without changing any of the fundamental structure is a change in the type of government and is a direct path to tyranny.

And I'm still not sure what to make of that Bulwark comment.


... have you read the Federalist papers?

Honestly, these aren't new arguments we're dealing with.

Further, these United States agreed to a structure within the government that preserved the concerns of the separate states. "Just changing how they vote" is not some minor issue, and we'd have never had a Union had your naive views allowed Massachusetts and Virginia to run roughshod over the rest of the states.
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

DittoHead

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,574
  • Writing for the Bulwark since August 2019
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #465 on: August 29, 2019, 09:10:09 AM »
... have you read the Federalist papers?
When referenced here or elsewhere I have, and as a result I would venture to guess I've read them more than the average voter.
Honestly, these aren't new arguments we're dealing with.
Further, these United States agreed to a structure within the government that preserved the concerns of the separate states.
No argument with that.
"Just changing how they vote" is not some minor issue
I never said it was a minor issue, clearly it gets a lot of people riled up and would take a constitutional amendment to change.
What I did say is that it wouldn't be a change in the fundamental structure/type of our government.
Would we still be a representative republic if we elected the president with popular vote?
I'm still looking for a definition that requires the electoral college.
In the moral, catatonic stupor America finds itself in today it is only disagreement we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,030
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #466 on: August 29, 2019, 10:49:47 AM »
If a candidate had the majority of the votes but 35 states voted overwhelmingly for the other, I would question the statement that they won the popular vote.
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,743
  • I'm an Extremist!
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,197
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #468 on: August 31, 2019, 10:30:05 PM »
When referenced here or elsewhere I have, and as a result I would venture to guess I've read them more than the average voter.


The average voter has never heard of The Federalist Papers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,329
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #469 on: August 31, 2019, 11:34:15 PM »
The average voter has never heard of The Federalist Papers.

The average voter has never read the Constitution. Or any book that's not about wizards, vampires, or dominance fetishists.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,197
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #470 on: September 01, 2019, 12:05:48 AM »
The average voter has never read the Constitution. Or any book that's not about wizards, vampires, or dominance fetishists.

You left out Che Guevara and unicorns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3myr7WdTgr4

(Pay attention at 1:23)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,743
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #471 on: September 04, 2019, 06:19:08 PM »
Wasn't sure where to put this as it could go in several active topics right now, but since it's the imbecile again, I guess here. I've been taking a step back on Crenshaw because he appears to support red flag laws, but he seems to be taking our side in this back and forth.

Pretty offensive to have someone claim that if you're a gun owner, you're an abuser of some kind, and apparently if you're not a gun owner, you shouldn't touch a gun, because you're probably an abuser of some kind (at least if you're a male).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/reps-ocasio-cortez-and-crenshaw-gun-control
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,743
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #472 on: September 11, 2019, 08:12:47 AM »
Now she lobbies for erasing student loan debt while complaining about her own, which is a whole $20K. Besides the fact that she's lobbying in her own self-interest, she makes $170K/yr. She doesn't get to do the "poor bartender" thing anymore. Shut up and pay back the money you agreed to borrow.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-reveals-how-much-she-owes-in-student-loans-after-making-payment-during-college-debt-hearing
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,329
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #473 on: September 11, 2019, 09:08:12 AM »
Adulting is hard.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,197
Re: The Bronx chick strikes out
« Reply #474 on: September 11, 2019, 02:02:05 PM »
Adulting is hard.

And more hard when you're stupid.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design