The Next President is...

[slackline]

You'll never get answers. Give up. It's like the Biden laptop with all of its damning, foolproof evidence. Gonna change the election, smoking gun, etc. Mum's the word on it. They threw a hail Mary bluff with it, but in truth, had nothing.

You'll never hear a mea culpa on it. They'll say, but the true media, the YouTube army says it's true! MSM wouldn't let it be published... Some other such garbage.

Remember, I asked about this very outcome before the election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

23 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Still looking for your response to the cognitive dissonance question of the hour:

Why did dems allow republicans to win the senate if they were controlling everything through massive manipulation? Could it be that Trump actually is unpopular? Maybe when you receive 5 million less popular votes than the other guy, you should lose?

 

And your whole argument still boils down to people's Presidential votes from Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska should count 2-3 times as much as someone from California, Florida, or Texas. That's the electoral college, a totally logical thing that definitely makes sense in the modern world.

The Electoral College absolutely still makes sense, your sarcasm aside. Your argument is essentially the same as getting rid of the senate because more populous states want to determine everything with respect to legislation. No thanks. 

[Negatory]

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth.

In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Negatory

[FLEA]

26 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Still looking for your response to the cognitive dissonance question of the hour:

Why did dems allow republicans to win the senate if they were controlling everything through massive manipulation? Could it be that Trump actually is unpopular? Maybe when you receive 5 million less popular votes than the other guy, you should lose?

 

And your whole argument still boils down to people's Presidential votes from Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska should count 2-3 times as much as someone from California, Florida, or Texas. That's the electoral college, a totally logical thing that definitely makes sense in the modern world.

The simplest answer is most often the correct one. The Dems lost the senate while committing voter fraud because the Republicans were also committing voter fraud. (Which is why they can be confident of its existence and its relevance.) Neither side knows exactly how much fraud the other is committing, therefore they can only tip and election and never guarantee it. 

 

Not saying this is 100% true but it absolutely, 100% makes sense in today's world, which makes it plausible. 

[Negatory]

6 minutes ago, slackline said:

You'll never hear a mea culpa on it. They'll say, but the true media, the YouTube army says it's true! MSM wouldn't let it be published... Some other such garbage.

Just wait until deepfakes make up 90% of internet content in 5 years. It will only get worse.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/artificial-intelligence-created-deepfake-videos-22761685

Mark my words, in 5 years the same crowd is going to be sending deepfakes of Biden molesting kids or murdering people and share that as truth. And a questionably high % of America will believe it because it aligns with their politics.

[Negatory]

3 minutes ago, FLEA said:

The simplest answer is most often the correct one. The Dems lost the senate while committing voter fraud because the Republicans were also committing voter fraud. (Which is why they can be confident of its existence and its relevance.) Neither side knows exactly how much fraud the other is committing, therefore they can only tip and election and never guarantee it. 

 

Not saying this is 100% true but it absolutely, 100% makes sense in today's world, which makes it plausible. 

In my mind that's a pretty complicated answer, haha. I think the simplest answer is that there probably isn't significant enough fraud on either side to matter.

Not saying it doesn't make sense, though.

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, Negatory said:

In my mind that's a pretty complicated answer, haha. I think the simplest answer is that there probably isn't significant enough fraud on either side to matter.

Not saying it doesn't make sense, though.

You must be an incredibly trusting person. I salute your optimism but in no way can I believe that people, especially politicians, are so moral they would refrain from a rather obvious means of securing power. 

[Pooter]

11 minutes ago, Negatory said:

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth.

In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

It's almost like we aren't a true democracy.. by design. 

[slackline]

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth.
In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

I gotta disagree with you on this one. The country is not evenly divided, and it is unhealthy for all the big cities to be making the legislation that governs the rural areas. Electoral college is the best prevention against one specific ideology running the country while alienating an entire half of the country. It's a good way to keep the masses from voting mob rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pooter]

4 minutes ago, slackline said:

I gotta disagree with you on this one. The country is not evenly divided, and it is unhealthy for all the big cities to be making the legislation that governs the rural areas. Electoral college is the best prevention against one specific ideology running the country while alienating an entire half of the country. It's a good way to keep the masses from voting mob rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm inclined to agree with you, but let's be honest with ourselves here. In an alternate reality, if big cities skewed heavily republican, you and I both know the right would be railing against the electoral college as un-democratic. 

This is the most annoying part of politics to me: anyone that pretends that either party actually has principles. Pragmatic opportunism drives 100% of politics. 

[Negatory]

That's fine, you guys are cleared to disagree. I still think you're wrong. There are more republican voters in California, whose votes don't matter at all, than those in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia combined.

If you look into it, you aren't really following the constitutional founding fathers' intentions. The number of electors was always intended to be the number of senators plus the number of representatives. As our society grew from about 35k people / representative to the 700k people / rep that we have now, the impact of the people should have increased proportionally because the number of representatives should have increased. George Washington argued that there should be a representative for every 30k people. But in  1913, # of representatives was capped arbitrarily to 435. This contributed, strongly, to the undue voter weight of extremely small portions of America and the disregard for vast sects of society. 

Now the tyranny of the minority has resulted in 2 of the last 3 presidents being elected by the minority of voters. Before, this had only happened 3 times. I'm doubtful this was the intent of the constitution or the founding fathers.

Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Negatory

[Pooter]

14 minutes ago, Negatory said:

That's fine, you guys are cleared to disagree. I still think you're wrong. There are more republican voters in California, whose votes don't matter at all, than those in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia combined.

If you look into it, you aren't really following the constitutional founding fathers' intentions. The number of electors was always intended to be the number of senators plus the number of representatives. As our society grew from about 35k people / representative to the 700k people / rep that we have now, the impact of the people should have increased proportionally because the number of representatives should have increased. George Washington argued that there should be a representative for every 30k people. But in  1913, # of representatives was capped arbitrarily to 435. This contributed, strongly, to the undue voter weight of extremely small portions of America and the disregard for vast sects of society. 

Now the tyranny of the minority has resulted in 2 of the last 3 presidents being elected by the minority of voters. Before, this had only happened 3 times. I'm doubtful this was the intent of the constitution or the founding fathers.

Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

All valid puts, but I still maintain that the left hates the electoral college simply because it doesn't benefit them. See my comment on political opportunism.
 

You're arguing on principle, but if we applied that principle evenly, why don't they have a problem with Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut electors or the senate in general? Is every not perfectly representational part of our government bad or just the parts that don't currently benefit the left?

[SurelySerious]

28 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I'm inclined to agree with you, but let's be honest with ourselves here. In an alternate reality, if big cities skewed heavily republican, you and I both know the right would be railing against the electoral college as un-democratic. 

This is the most annoying part of politics to me: anyone that pretends that either party actually has principles. Pragmatic opportunism drives 100% of politics. 

Nope, it should function as written no matter what the leaning of the metropolis. Those are the rules and how our country operates. 
 

The idea of California being at least three states, however, is definitely a good academic exercise because of how different things are in all those areas. 

[slackline]

Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

Tempted to "like" your post just for this alone. I would have had you said, "should just fall off into the ocean..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Waingro]

25 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Nope, it should function as written no matter what the leaning of the metropolis. Those are the rules and how our country operates. 

Except, it hasn't functioned as written in over 100 years, when the number of representatives was capped at 435. Anyone who claims to support the idea of the electoral college due to founding principles has to at least acknowledge this disparity, that gives a Wyoming resident 3x the voting power of a Texas resident. 

The "Wyoming Rule" is a workable fix for this, but I doubt we'll see it. 

[Negatory]

47 minutes ago, Pooter said:

You're arguing on principle, but if we applied that principle evenly, why don't they have a problem with Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut electors or the senate in general? Is every not perfectly representational part of our government bad or just the parts that don't currently benefit the left?

I agree.

Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, DC, Hawaii. All more examples of places that have more voting weight than they should.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Negatory

[Waingro]

5 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I agree.

Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, DC, Hawaii. All more examples of places that have more voting weight than they should.

Be careful, you're going counter to the tribal narrative that one can only support a change that benefits their team. 

PYB will unlikely be able to process this disconnect! 

[Guardian]

It doesn't "absolutely still make sense." There have been over 700 formal proposals to get rid of the electoral college since 1800, with it almost happening in the Bayh-Celler amendment of 1970. Which was only defeated due to a real philosophical and legal marvel - the filibuster. It's not like it is some philosophical truth.
In my opinion, it's antithetical to true democracy.

The US isn’t and shouldn’t be a true democracy. Not sure anyone claims it is.

[Guardian]

I gotta disagree with you on this one. The country is not evenly divided, and it is unhealthy for all the big cities to be making the legislation that governs the rural areas. Electoral college is the best prevention against one specific ideology running the country while alienating an entire half of the country. It's a good way to keep the masses from voting mob rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let it be recorded that I agree with you. Glad you think this way on this topic.

[Guardian]

That's fine, you guys are cleared to disagree. I still think you're wrong. There are more republican voters in California, whose votes don't matter at all, than those in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and West Virginia combined.
If you look into it, you aren't really following the constitutional founding fathers' intentions. The number of electors was always intended to be the number of senators plus the number of representatives. As our society grew from about 35k people / representative to the 700k people / rep that we have now, the impact of the people should have increased proportionally because the number of representatives should have increased. George Washington argued that there should be a representative for every 30k people. But in  1913, # of representatives was capped arbitrarily to 435. This contributed, strongly, to the undue voter weight of extremely small portions of America and the disregard for vast sects of society. 
Now the tyranny of the minority has resulted in 2 of the last 3 presidents being elected by the minority of voters. Before, this had only happened 3 times. I'm doubtful this was the intent of the constitution or the founding fathers.
Or maybe California should just split into 5-10 smaller states so that their voices are heard.

Pretty sure people hear California’s voices.

[Negatory]

25 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Pretty sure people hear California’s voices.

Do they hear the >5M republicans?

[ThreeHoler]

Nope, it should function as written no matter what the leaning of the metropolis. Those are the rules and how our country operates. 
 
The idea of California being at least three states, however, is definitely a good academic exercise because of how different things are in all those areas. 

I propose it becomes “Cal” in the north, “Ifor” in the middle, and “Nia” in the south.

[SurelySerious]

4 hours ago, Waingro said:

Except, it hasn't functioned as written in over 100 years, when the number of representatives was capped at 435. Anyone who claims to support the idea of the electoral college due to founding principles has to at least acknowledge this disparity, that gives a Wyoming resident 3x the voting power of a Texas resident. 

The "Wyoming Rule" is a workable fix for this, but I doubt we'll see it. 

So would you say there is a set of rules that we’ve been following? Cool...because that’s what I said.
 

I didn’t cry when Clinton, Bush, or Obama won by the set rules...it works. 

[N730]

So would you say there is a set of rules that we’ve been following? Cool...because that’s what I said.
 
I didn’t cry when Clinton, Bush, or Obama won by the set rules...it works. 

I think his point was that what the founders intended was the electoral college, not the modified version we have now.

The electoral college rightly favors smaller states, but the numbers cap created by congress was not what the founders had in mind.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

7 minutes ago, N730 said:

I think his point was that what the founders intended was the electoral college, not the modified version we have now.

The electoral college rightly favors smaller states, but the numbers cap created by congress was not what the founders had in mind.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app
 

How far back do you want to go with that? Repeal the 12th A and go straight back to the original constitution text? My original point was the system in place works, not sure why the other guy wants to argue like I erroneously said originalism was the only way as if that’s still in play.