romuluzJoin Date: 2010-04-12
Post Count: 18124 |
Also to elaborate again on my first point, in a popular vote system, red votes in California would actually count. Along with blue votes in Texas, making it a much more accurate system. On top of this every state would matter to both politicians instead of just swing states. Even in states they would pull minority numbers in you'll still likely have a candidate pledging to fix things in said state or make things better because they still want to pull a sizable vote. In short it gets the whole country involved in the election as opposed to just the swing states. It makes it so candidates need to ###### to the whole country instead of just some states and their political ideals, and imo would make the party divide much smaller. Although I could honestly be wrong on that one with how much they go at each other's throats. |
|
|
"You guys realize that majority rule is incredibly terrible and would not make for a good system of gov't, right?"
what other rule would you suggest, miniority control?
|
|
WowgnomesJoin Date: 2009-09-27
Post Count: 26255 |
A republic that has had a peaceful transfer of power for nearly all of it's span, even when handed to people of radically different beliefs, sounds like a good system.
Do you guys not understand the shortcomings with pure democracy?
Have you not read the history of our world's philosophers? One of the greatest minds our world has ever known thought very poorly of the state and especially of his fellow peers, and he was sentenced to death by them.
You guys are idiots, I've lived in the red portions of CA, we get representation in congress for our policies, and gain more from the state than lose from our senator's values or the *three* electoral votes we would have if we were the state of jefferson. Doesn't make a difference.
The federal gov't shouldn't be such a big deal in ppl's lives, bc ppl have abused powers of presidency is only reason y'all so angry.
You're saying "this system has some minor flaws that were intended and because of that, it's not fair"
It would have been much easier in 1700s to collect popular vote rather than today. The 2010 census costed $13 Billion to give you an idea on how much it would cost if we were going to get an accurate view of everyone and let everyone vote in a popular election.
|
|
romuluzJoin Date: 2010-04-12
Post Count: 18124 |
>A republic that has had a peaceful transfer of power for nearly all of it's span, even when handed to people of radically different beliefs, sounds like a good system.
Ignoring the fact that there would be tons of pointless votes. This point right here actually is completely irrelevant to the conversation. This would probably be the case with whether or not we had popular vote from day one or not. Try again.
>Do you guys not understand the shortcomings with pure democracy?
Have you not read the history of our world's philosophers? One of the greatest minds our world has ever known thought very poorly of the state and especially of his fellow peers, and he was sentenced to death by them.
We still wouldn't be a pure democracy... all we're talking about is deciding the presidential election by popular vote. By this logic we're already a pure democracy just with a janky voting system We would still have a senate that would be responsible for passing and introducing laws, who would be responsible for checking the president just as the president would be responsible for checking congress. It's not like we're demanding a pure democracy where every single facet of our government including laws is decided by mass vote, that would take too much time and would be completely impractical.
>You guys are idiots, I've lived in the red portions of CA, we get representation in congress for our policies, and gain more from the state than lose from our senator's values or the *three* electoral votes we would have if we were the state of jefferson. Doesn't make a difference.
Again irrelevant. We're talking about the electoral college and the presidency not congress. Please try to stay on topic.
"The federal gov't shouldn't be such a big deal in ppl's lives, bc ppl have abused powers of presidency is only reason y'all so angry."
Don't get what you're trying to argue here/why it's relevant to the debate.
"ou're saying "this system has some minor flaws that were intended and because of that, it's not fair"
Uh no, if someone can mess with the districts and completely change the outcome of the election no matter how those states vote then I'd consider that a pretty major flaw. Along with votes more or less being irrelevant in a general election I'd say the electoral college is pretty flawed.
"It would have been much easier in 1700s to collect popular vote rather than today."
Wh-What? You're joking right? Or did I miss the part where they had computers in the 1700's that could count votes in a matter of hours. That was the entire cornerstone for why the founding fathers didn't implement it despite the desire along with the compromises.
"The 2010 census costed $13 Billion to give you an idea on how much it would cost if we were going to get an accurate view of everyone and let everyone vote in a popular election."
Soo.... did it cost us 13 bil to count the popular vote this time or am I missing something? We already count the popular vote lol. It wouldn't cost us anymore in 4 years than it would have this year. This argument is completely wrong, the fact that we count the popular vote each and every election anyways proves this wrong, I don't even need to go into the fundementals of what makes a census different than an election.
|
|
|
"A republic that has had a peaceful transfer of power for nearly all of it's span, even when handed to people of radically different beliefs, sounds like a good system."
How would you decide the peaceful transfer of power? Decided by a council? What if the council ignores the beliefs of the majority of the population? What safeguard would protect against that? How would the council even be elected?
"Have you not read the history of our world's philosophers? One of the greatest minds our world has ever known thought very poorly of the state and especially of his fellow peers, and he was sentenced to death by them."
Why should I care about the beliefs of a old white guy from centuries ago? Does he have hidden knowledge we don't have?
"You guys are idiots, I've lived in the red portions of CA, we get representation in congress for our policies, and gain more from the state than lose from our senator's values or the *three* electoral votes we would have if we were the state of jefferson. Doesn't make a difference."
Doesn't make sense, rephrase it.
"The federal gov't shouldn't be such a big deal in ppl's lives, bc ppl have abused powers of presidency is only reason y'all so angry."
Not revelant to the debate...
"You're saying "this system has some minor flaws that were intended and because of that, it's not fair""
Intended flaws are still flaws ;/
"It would have been much easier in 1700s to collect popular vote rather than today. The 2010 census costed $13 Billion to give you an idea on how much it would cost if we were going to get an accurate view of everyone and let everyone vote in a popular election."
Th main reason America didn't have a popular vote in the 1700's was because it was impossible to tally votes accurately without our current technology.
The Census doesn't tally votes, it collects an extreme amount of data, far more complex then a popular vote. We already have people calucating popular votes in every election anyways.
|
|
|
electoral college works because it elected trump
we can argue all day about theory but in the end it chose the right person so there's no harm done |
|
|
Good argument Shadow, I wish more of these "debaters" could be like you.
|
|
WowgnomesJoin Date: 2009-09-27
Post Count: 26255 |
electoral college works because it elected trump
we can argue all day about theory but in the end it chose the right person so there's no harm done
[2]
you guys are idiots for thinking the system needs to change
|
|
romuluzJoin Date: 2010-04-12
Post Count: 18124 |
^
Tons of harm done when 3 million more people didn't want him as the president of their country.
I won't get into the facets of 'whether or not he's a good/bad choice.' but realistically speaking, like with gore in 2000, the vote should have gone to Hillary whether you like trump or not.
|
|
romuluzJoin Date: 2010-04-12
Post Count: 18124 |
So, do you not have a counterargument? Are we done here?
|
|
|
Bad argument @Wow.
Format your reasoning more like my comrade Shadow over here.
|
|
romuluzJoin Date: 2010-04-12
Post Count: 18124 |
I honestly think we're barking up the wrong tree Peng. These guys seem completely impervious to facts.
|
|
|
My name is zep dumb idiot stay mad Trump won liberal whiners.
|
|
romuluzJoin Date: 2010-04-12
Post Count: 18124 |
;( But I love you.
|
|
WowgnomesJoin Date: 2009-09-27
Post Count: 26255 |
I was writing about the peaceful change of power, as it is something we continue to do even if we do not agree with because of how it has worked for our great nation since the creation of our gov't.
Besides those that would not see the validity if the constitution was amended in order to create just a popular vote and would attempt to disrupt the transfer of power, I will concede that it would not be affected if we still held the same respect for law and order.
"Why should I care about the beliefs of a old white guy from centuries ago? Does he have hidden knowledge we don't have?"
Tells me not to attack ya'll with disparaging remarks, proceeds to insult the literal creator of philosophy and logic. He has knowledge about things that most people never learn -- even though we've only salvaged a minute percentage of his teachings.
"Doesn't make sense, rephrase it."
I've lived in the red portions of CA -- although it sounds nice to *be heard*, we benefit immensely from being part of the state of California and if we were a separate state we would have such a small population that we would only be given 3 electoral votes. We already have congressional representation in the house, and it is not a big deal to most of the people who actually live there that our ~500k conservative votes do not count toward the presidency.
"Not revelant to the debate..."
If you are talking about creating a whole new system because of how the presidential office is looked upon today, why not just go back to the roots of what powers the president should actually have? My point is, you are fixating on a small thing that you may think will help you, that you may think is good for our nation, but isn't the only solution.
"Intended flaws are still flaws ;/"
I meant, I don't see them and many people do not see them as flaws but protections and the reason our diverse nation was able to continue throughout some of the most changing times in the history of our species.
"Th main reason America didn't have a popular vote in the 1700's was because it was impossible to tally votes accurately without our current technology.
The Census doesn't tally votes, it collects an extreme amount of data, far more complex then a popular vote. We already have people calucating popular votes in every election anyways."
You are telling me, in the 1700's people would not have been able to keep track of numbers and people because of lack of technology? Something they did for tax purposes? Are you serious? Do you think it is impossible to manage numbers on paper? Have you ever witnessed a logistics process happen? Logistics is life.
Are you telling me, that collecting 30 things about a person's life etc is very radically different that it would reduce cost immensely from collecting 30 answers to questions that pertain to propositions and candidates?
|
|
|
I bet you dumb liberals like zepenguin wouldnt be complaining if the results were the complete opposite
no risk no fun |
|
|
I was writing about the peaceful change of power, as it is something we continue to do even if we do not agree with because of how it has worked for our great nation since the creation of our gov't.
-What.
Besides those that would not see the validity if the constitution was amended in order to create just a popular vote and would attempt to disrupt the transfer of power, I will concede that it would not be affected if we still held the same respect for law and order.
-What.
Tells me not to attack ya'll with disparaging remarks, proceeds to insult the literal creator of philosophy and logic. He has knowledge about things that most people never learn -- even though we've only salvaged a minute percentage of his teachings.
-Appeal to authority, logical fallacy.
I've lived in the red portions of CA -- although it sounds nice to *be heard*, we benefit immensely from being part of the state of California and if we were a separate state we would have such a small population that we would only be given 3 electoral votes. We already have congressional representation in the house, and it is not a big deal to most of the people who actually live there that our ~500k conservative votes do not count toward the presidency.
-3 electoral votes for a state your size? That's a lot of voting power given to a tiny community.
If you are talking about creating a whole new system because of how the presidential office is looked upon today, why not just go back to the roots of what powers the president should actually have? My point is, you are fixating on a small thing that you may think will help you, that you may think is good for our nation, but isn't the only solution.
-Popular vote isn't a whole new system, it's much more simple then our current electoral college and people still keep count of it each election.
I meant, I don't see them and many people do not see them as flaws but protections and the reason our diverse nation was able to continue throughout some of the most changing times in the history of our species.
-What.
You are telling me, in the 1700's people would not have been able to keep track of numbers and people because of lack of technology? Something they did for tax purposes? Are you serious? Do you think it is impossible to manage numbers on paper? Have you ever witnessed a logistics process happen? Logistics is life.
-The vote would take a month, due to the long travel time and it would be easily suspectable to fraud and corruption.
Are you telling me, that collecting 30 things about a person's life etc is very radically different that it would reduce cost immensely from collecting 30 answers to questions that pertain to propositions and candidates?
-The process for collecting a census and collecting a vote is racidally different.
|
|
|
Andrew you suck at moving your mouse don't talk to me ;/
|
|
|
where were all the whiny libs when obama won
they only seem to bring up the electoral college when they lose
weird coincidence huh? |
|
|
I know that's supposed to be bait Shadow, however a lot of people hold that opinion.
The electoral college gives each state 3 votes no matter their population. However because of this, underpopulated states will have more voting power per person. Urban centers in large states will have their voting power taken away by these small states.
Urban votes mostly liberal
Rural votes mostly conversative
That's the issue liberals will always have, it gives a certain community more votes, even if they are a minority of the population.
|
|
|
so ur saying libs will always be salty
but wait we already knew that |
|
|
Zep the fact that your ranting about a "council" controlling the peacefull transition of power in the US government which has been a sucessfull tradition for over 200 years shows how little you know about the U.S government your just some 12 year old liberal who knows nothing.
2. The fact that you don't know the reference to socrates really upsets me considering he is the man who literally created the basis for all of western though and ideologies(including liberalism and conservatism). |
|
WowgnomesJoin Date: 2009-09-27
Post Count: 26255 |
Not going to respond to anything that you couldn't be bothered to wrap your brain around
"-Appeal to authority, logical fallacy."
No, when you refer to an expert on a subject, not an authority figure, it cannot be appeal to authority. Learn what the words you use mean.
"-3 electoral votes for a state your size? That's a lot of voting power given to a tiny community."
That's what it would be, if the state of jefferson (The republican NorCal), was it's own state. I was explaining why it doesn't matter to those that live there that their vote has effectively no affect on the presidential election.
"-Popular vote isn't a whole new system, it's much more simple then our current electoral college and people still keep count of it each election."
It would be a new system for electing the president, because the current system is NOT the popular vote.
"-The vote would take a month, due to the long travel time and it would be easily suspectable to fraud and corruption."
The vote wouldn't take a month, lol. That's just ridiculous. fraud and corruption would be just as likely and possible as it is today. How about only letting people who say, owned land and paid taxes vote, so you could verify they were real people? I'd say there would have been very little voter fraud back then.
"-The process for collecting a census and collecting a vote is racidally different."
Statement without any evidence -- same as all of your points -- no points awarded.
|
|
WowgnomesJoin Date: 2009-09-27
Post Count: 26255 |
@broken, exactly! And he goes further to say that we are appealing to the authority of someone who has been dead for several hundred years!! LOL
|
|
|
Not going to respond to anything that you couldn't be bothered to wrap your brain around
-Learning to communicate your thoughts would be an excellent solution to this.
No, when you refer to an expert on a subject, not an authority figure, it cannot be appeal to authority. Learn what the words you use mean.
-That is an appeal to authority. And all experts have opinons, you can't use their quotes as facts.
That's what it would be, if the state of jefferson (The republican NorCal), was it's own state. I was explaining why it doesn't matter to those that live there that their vote has effectively no affect on the presidential election.
-That's not my problem with the electoral college, I think that was @rom's
It would be a new system for electing the president, because the current system is NOT the popular vote.
-"If you are talking about creating a whole new system..." You can take your own quote in context and infer that you mean to emphasis how difficult it would be to replace the current system with a popular vote. Don't take things out of context.
The vote wouldn't take a month, lol. That's just ridiculous. fraud and corruption would be just as likely and possible as it is today. How about only letting people who say, owned land and paid taxes vote, so you could verify they were real people? I'd say there would have been very little voter fraud back then.
-Fraud and corruption in the presidental vote is insanely difficult and just does not happen on a large scale. There is already a system in place to verify that voters are actual citizens, and no illegal immigrant would risk being deported just to cast a vote in a majority liberal state.
Statement without any evidence -- same as all of your points -- no points awarded.
-^^^ Refer to your above point ^^^
|
|