Dem debate tonight

[ChumpDumper]

irregularities are fine if the margins are big enough to look like a solid win.

[spurraider21]

For one, it's never going to happen because the left and right cannot agree to a ing thing, and it requires some consensus in Washington to change the cons ution. 2nd, fairness is just a lovely dressing the left wraps this in, because if it was about majority rules, then the minorities in the country would have no voice. The non-urban areas of the US, and states not named California and New York also have an interest in how the country is run, but the left only seems to care about majority rules when they have the majority. At the same time, they want their minority opinions to be dragged to the forefront of social discussion.

when in doubt, broad-strokes comments about "the left"

and the feasibility of getting a cons utional amendment in place is a legitimate concern... but ultimately not what was being discussed. i prefaced a number of my comments with "notwithstanding the feasibility"

if you want to argue that the current political climate wont allow for a cons utional amendment to abolish the EC in place of a popular vote, i'd probably agree with you. but i'm arguing that a popular vote would be a more fair system than the one in place which allows for minority rule as long as those people live sufficiently far apart from one another. that your argument against it keeps evolving as the discussion goes along, followed by a "well bah humbug its never going to happen anyway" tells me that you know its true or dont really have a good faith argument against that being the case. its ok, you weret alone. CC has been the same way. a lot of nothing followed by "lol its never going to happen anyway" instead of giving a good answer for why it's not a more fair/democratic system

[Spurtacular]

irregularities are fine

Pretty much your stance on Iowa.

[pgardn]

One thing that the blue team absolutely has to come to grips with is that Trump won the election under our current rules.
This has to be accepted and respected. And Hillary 2 million ahead in the popular vote is still a very close election.

So I personally have no problem with 2016 results. But if the red team does not recognize and actually take foreign interference seriously, instead of claiming 2 million Democrat vote were cast illegally, then the red team is far worse than the some of the blue team refusing to accept Trump as president. This lying and fake news has to be treated like the a virus. Its real, lets try to get the best numbers we can, and put the best people out there trying to predict what could happen and why. And then move and take precautions that EVERYONE agrees with. But they cant, because a virus and real numbers and logic defy politics. For some, deep seated hatred, that really does not pass as legitimate concern rules.

Stop ing around with elections. Tell the truth. Yes blue team, claiming victory in a fd up useless Iowa caucas counts as Trumpian manipulation. I won, no I won, but, but... Just stop it and reveal exactly why it was such a mess. Then fix it.

[DMC]

cool. so if the general election ends up being very close, you should have a good faith basis to decide where a recount is needed. if some states had irregularities with reporting, thats might indicate a need to look there. if there's a compelling case for a nationwide recount, so be it. 2000 is the only time in the last 40 years that the popular vote was less than ~3 million apart.

Good faith? Did you watch the impeachment trial?

You're trying to use results from one equation to answer a different equation. What happened under today's rules wouldn't necessarily be what happens under different rules. I thought you got that concept, I've said it 3 times at least, but you keep going back to past counts.

the concern for a potential recount is a lazy argument against a popular vote, because the same concern would be used to argue against any instance that calls for a vote of the people, whether its national or otherwise. a national recount would be huge in scope, but on the off chance that one is needed, i think the office of the presidency is significant enough to warrant it

You don't get it though - the EC is how it currently is. You're asking people to defend it. You need to provide a compelling reason to change it. I can lob reasons at you all day, but you can just wave them off with "lazy" or "over complicating things". You want it changed. You explain why it's worth the effort and how it would be implemented.

what facts do i claim to have researched? its true that a popular vote is already recorded every election. you're the one who is deciding that we would need a completely new apparatus to end up with the same popular vote figures that we already record every election. you're the one who is bringing up the concern of "what if there are more people on the ballot" even though that isn't an issue which would be unique to a popular vote, and is equally applicable to the current EC system we have. you're just making up as you go along. not so long ago you for some reason claimed that we'd have to scrap our system of having states in order to accommodate a popular vote

How accurate is the popular vote currently and how relevant is it in a system of winner take all in states like California, Texas and New York? You seem to think numbers no one is really trying to get are meaningful in retrospect when considering a new system.

What you're doing is akin to counting how much of a product is consumed when the product is free and trying to figure the profit when you start charging for it.

im not following any website, this is all my opinion. nice narrative though. and LOL EDITS

Your opinion isn't well thought out. You should blame it on someone else.

[DMC]

when in doubt, broad-strokes comments about "the left"

I said left and right. How is that a broad stroke about the left?

However the right isn't pushing for rule changes to the entire election process because "muh popular vote".

and the feasibility of getting a cons utional amendment in place is a legitimate concern... but ultimately not what was being discussed. i prefaced a number of my comments with "notwithstanding the feasibility"

It's being discussed if that's what I want to discuss. Do you want to control the narrative now too?

if you want to argue that the current political climate wont allow for a cons utional amendment to abolish the EC in place of a popular vote, i'd probably agree with you. but i'm arguing that a popular vote would be a more fair system than the one in place which allows for minority rule as long as those people live sufficiently far apart from one another. that your argument against it keeps evolving as the discussion goes along, followed by a "well bah humbug its never going to happen anyway" tells me that you know its true or dont really have a good faith argument against that being the case. its ok, you weret alone. CC has been the same way. a lot of nothing followed by "lol its never going to happen anyway" instead of giving a good answer for why it's not a more fair/democratic system

It evolves because the burden is on you, not me. As I said, anything I say you can just dismiss casually. So you have the EC system and a ton of obstacles to clear in order to change it. Your "fairness" is personal opinion, and how can I disprove your view on fairness? So we'll default to burden of proof. You want it changed, provide something besides your version of "fair" that somehow conveniently aligns with the left's version of fair when they lose elections.

[spurraider21]

You're trying to use results from one equation to answer a different equation. What happened under today's rules wouldn't necessarily be what happens under different rules. I thought you got that concept, I've said it 3 times at least, but you keep going back to past counts.

teah you keep repeating this and never elaborate when asked. It’s a vague and cryptic concern. Explain how it would manifest

You don't get it though - the EC is how it currently is. You're asking people to defend it. You need to provide a compelling reason to change it. I can lob reasons at you all day, but you can just wave them off with "lazy" or "over complicating things". You want it changed. You explain why it's worth the effort and how it would be implemented.

really? Why don’t you look back at how the conversation started. You always whine about people jumping into discussions without having read the previous dialogue.

Choosing the winner by popular vote is more fair and sensical because it gives every Americans vote equal weight and consequence. The EC creates the unnecessary potential of allowing a minority vote to prevail because of the geography of the voters. The EC disincentivizes voting in non battleground states. Republican voters in New York are essentially disenfranchised when it comes to presidential elections. And so on.

The EC makes it such that the same persons vote is significantly more consequential if he lives in Ohio as opposed to Oregon, even though the president is nationally elected.

How accurate is the popular vote currently and how relevant is it in a system of winner take all in states like California, Texas and New York? You seem to think numbers no one is really trying to get are meaningful in retrospect when considering a new system.

if cir stances reflect that there’s a significant likelihood of inaccuracy they can recount. This isn’t a novel concept. Even in state wide elections sometimes they only hold recounts in those counties where there were irregularities. If the issues can’t be reasonably narrowed and results are within some accepted margin (say, 1%) then sure maybe the possibility arises that we need a national recount. Recounts are a possibility in any election scheme. That’s not enough of a deterrent.

What you're doing is akin to counting how much of a product is consumed when the product is free and trying to figure the profit when you start charging for it.

what?

Your opinion isn't well thought out. You should blame it on someone else.

Oh ok. Maybe if you change your counter arguments a few more times you might end up with a god one

[spurraider21]

It's being discussed if that's what I want to discuss. Do you want to control the narrative now too?

ive said i agree that the feasibility of amending the cons ution is an obstacle unlikely to be overcome. How much more do you want to discuss it. Would you be satisfied if we repeat this line back to each other a few more times?

It evolves because the burden is on you, not me. As I said, anything I say you can just dismiss casually. So you have the EC system and a ton of obstacles to clear in order to change it. Your "fairness" is personal opinion, and how can I disprove your view on fairness? So we'll default to burden of proof. You want it changed, provide something besides your version of "fair" that somehow conveniently aligns with the left's version of fair when they lose elections.

Your arguments have evolved over such a short period of time because they aren’t well thought out and are pointed out as such.

but ok. Let’s talk fairness. I think the most fair method of a national election is more every American vote to carry with it equal weight and consequence.

Do you disagree?

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty much your stance on Iowa.

What are you saying happened in Iowa?

[Spurtacular]

What are you saying happened in Iowa?

Su ious activity. You want info refer to the posts in that thread instead of doing your infinite loop.

[ChumpDumper]

Su ious activity. You want info refer to the posts in that thread instead of doing your infinite loop.

Sorry, why don't you say what you found so su ious in your own words?

Let's discuss your concerns.

[Spurtacular]

Sorry, why don't you say what you found so su ious in your own words?

Let's discuss your concerns.

Because there is a current thread that lists plenty of su ious activity and I don't need to list stuff for you to nitpick.

Nitpicking is your endgame always.

[ElNono]

Ok.

Dems should pick the most leftist candidate. That's what most Americans are starving for.

I'm not sure why you say this, when Trump campaigned for a closed economy (tariffs, bringing back manufacturing, stopping outsourcing), "cheap and best" healthcare, that the rich hedge fund guys were going to have to lose money this time, leave Social Security as it is, etc... That's textbook left populist message.

Maybe not Bernie's level left, but decidedly left of center.

Sure, he aligned with the right on environmental regulations and tax cuts, and that's exactly why I mention ideology has little to do with it. He was all over the place, and very light on details.

[CosmicCowboy]

when in doubt, broad-strokes comments about "the left"

and the feasibility of getting a cons utional amendment in place is a legitimate concern... but ultimately not what was being discussed. i prefaced a number of my comments with "notwithstanding the feasibility"

if you want to argue that the current political climate wont allow for a cons utional amendment to abolish the EC in place of a popular vote, i'd probably agree with you. but i'm arguing that a popular vote would be a more fair system than the one in place which allows for minority rule as long as those people live sufficiently far apart from one another. that your argument against it keeps evolving as the discussion goes along, followed by a "well bah humbug its never going to happen anyway" tells me that you know its true or dont really have a good faith argument against that being the case. its ok, you weret alone. CC has been the same way. a lot of nothing followed by "lol its never going to happen anyway" instead of giving a good answer for why it's not a more fair/democratic system

Way back at post 400 I told you how you could accomplish your goal of the Presidential vote tracking the popular vote without doing away with the EC and you just blew right by it and kept whining. States can individually decide to have their electors proportionately track their popular vote.

[DMC]

teah you keep repeating this and never elaborate when asked. It’s a vague and cryptic concern. Explain how it would manifest


really? Why don’t you look back at how the conversation started. You always whine about people jumping into discussions without having read the previous dialogue.

Choosing the winner by popular vote is more fair and sensical because it gives every Americans vote equal weight and consequence. The EC creates the unnecessary potential of allowing a minority vote to prevail because of the geography of the voters. The EC disincentivizes voting in non battleground states. Republican voters in New York are essentially disenfranchised when it comes to presidential elections. And so on.

The EC makes it such that the same persons vote is significantly more consequential if he lives in Ohio as opposed to Oregon, even though the president is nationally elected.


if cir stances reflect that there’s a significant likelihood of inaccuracy they can recount. This isn’t a novel concept. Even in state wide elections sometimes they only hold recounts in those counties where there were irregularities. If the issues can’t be reasonably narrowed and results are within some accepted margin (say, 1%) then sure maybe the possibility arises that we need a national recount. Recounts are a possibility in any election scheme. That’s not enough of a deterrent.


what?


Oh ok. Maybe if you change your counter arguments a few more times you might end up with a god one

ive said i agree that the feasibility of amending the cons ution is an obstacle unlikely to be overcome. How much more do you want to discuss it. Would you be satisfied if we repeat this line back to each other a few more times?


Your arguments have evolved over such a short period of time because they aren’t well thought out and are pointed out as such.

but ok. Let’s talk fairness. I think the most fair method of a national election is more every American vote to carry with it equal weight and consequence.

Do you disagree?

Parsimony is needed here.

People live in states and they vote with state needs in mind. Without states, you would be correct. States with more people have more power than states with fewer people. Thats represented also with the EC and reps in Washington.

So no states, popular vote is ok. With states, voters are already segregated and the voting controlled by states.

As for retrospect, if we decided to take total points over the season for each team we may have a different outcome than we have now. Teams only put points on the board to win a game. You could hypothetically say that one team scored more than another team for the season then use that to say it's a better team. It would just be faulty reasoning. This is what dems are doing with past popular vote.

If states are counting all votes now, all votes count.

[ChumpDumper]

Because there is a current thread that lists plenty of su ious activity and I don't need to list stuff for you to nitpick.

Nitpicking is your endgame always.

derp folds

Folding is your endgame always.

[spurraider21]

Parsimony is needed here.

People live in states and they vote with state needs in mind. Without states, you would be correct. States with more people have more power than states with fewer people. Thats represented also with the EC and reps in Washington.

So no states, popular vote is ok. With states, voters are already segregated and the voting controlled by states.

so you don’t think every Americans vote should have equal effect and weight when it comes to voting for president. Ok, that’s where we are at an impasse

As for retrospect, if we decided to take total points over the season for each team we may have a different outcome than we have now. Teams only put points on the board to win a game. You could hypothetically say that one team scored more than another team for the season then use that to say it's a better team. It would just be faulty reasoning. This is what dems are doing with past popular vote.

If states are counting all votes now, all votes count.

Nobody is suggesting we undo previous elections, so this concern is unfounded.

[spurraider21]

Way back at post 400 I told you how you could accomplish your goal of the Presidential vote tracking the popular vote without doing away with the EC and you just blew right by it and kept whining. States can individually decide to have their electors proportionately track their popular vote.

This was post 400

Why not do away with the EC and go with the popular vote? It's really pretty simple. Article 2, section 1, clause 2 of the US Cons ution. You can wish all you want but you are stuck with it.

But to your post, i agree that it would be an improvement to our current system. It would require all 50 states to buy in, though, which is arguably harder than amending the cons ution.

Since that system is almost seeking to emulate the effect of a popular vote, can i take that to mean that you would agree it’s a better system to have everybody’s vote count as equal regardless of where they live?

[CosmicCowboy]

[spurraider21]

just answer the question tbh ...

Since that system is almost seeking to emulate the effect of a popular vote, can i take that to mean that you would agree it’s a better system to have everybody’s vote count as equal regardless of where they live?

[CosmicCowboy]

just answer the question tbh ...

er thinks he is Chump now. Ask the same stupid question for three pages.

[spurraider21]

er thinks he is Chump now. Ask the same stupid question for three pages.

you're spending more effort finding gifs and making these posts than spitting out an answer to whats a really basic question about the entire premise of this conversation

[Spurminator]

Maybe if you want to wish for something then wish for all the states to go to proportional representation in the choosing of electors.

This is what I'd do. Keep it a state-by-state vote, but Wyoming should be so disproportionately represented in the EC vs. California.

[CosmicCowboy]

you're spending more effort finding gifs and making these posts than spitting out an answer to whats a really basic question about the entire premise of this conversation

I think every state should do what it considers to be in its best interest. There. I answered your last rephrased question.

[spurraider21]

This is what I'd do. Keep it a state-by-state vote, but Wyoming should be so disproportionately represented in the EC vs. California.

thats a result of the senate and the fixed number of reps which leads to imperfect proportional representation