Bill Introduced To Abolish Electoral College

#526
#526
OHvol40 said:
View attachment 308375
Click to expand...
It's not rigged. That's just the way things have worked out in this one moment. You could take this same example and apply yo a number of situations where the Dems are in power. This system isnt rigged for the Republicans. The system works one way. And the result of various votes have left the Republicans in charge of pieces of that system.
 
#528
#528
LouderVol said:
No you dont. You want the winners' vote to count more than the losers. You offer no equality to the minority than what the majority may leave them.
Click to expand...

That’s what voting is meant to do, you just prefer it to mean something different.
 
#529
#529
OHvol40 said:
A 1:1 vote per citizen is equality. You just want to ignore that because you don’t like it.
Click to expand...
And what happens after that vote? Still equality? Again you have narrowed the definition of equality down to the single act of voting.

Let's play it out, majority wins. Puts whoever in power, that person pushes a bunch of stuff the majority likes and none of what the minority does. Where is the equality? Where is the minorities representation? They may have a vote, but that vote doesnt mean anything, therefore no equality. You have removed their value from the equation. Without representation they have no avenue to express themselves in the system. That's not equality in any way, shape, or form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and BisonVol
#530
#530
OHvol40 said:
You’re right, I do take exception to the way the vote is conducted. Is representative democracy the best form of government... maybe... actually, probably. Does that make it infallible? Of course not. Examining and pointing out the faults as we see them is healthy. The problem we run into today is the lack of diversity in points of view and the unwillingness to have meaningful discussion about anything. The two party system grid locking us and infiltration of big money into politics are something the FF maybe didn’t have the foresight to address, but they are both lethal threats to our governmental system.
Click to expand...
Uh the FF were very much aware of threat the two parties would be. Just look up George Washingtons exit speech. It's why I think their educated voter bit doesnt mean books, but being educated on your representatives. Are they who they say they are? Are they actually representing their people?

And I continue to point out that democratic representation is not the best form of government. It's simply mob rule. That's not a good thing. And it leaves no voice for the minority. And disproportionately favors the winner over the loser. Our weighted system already does that. Remove the balancing that our system has and a pure democracy is even worse, more extreme.
 
#531
#531
OHvol40 said:
That’s what voting is meant to do, you just prefer it to mean something different.
Click to expand...
No that's what representational democratic voting means.

What if we voted issues or money instead of individuals. 40% of the vote goes to health care, the government can only spend 40%. 20% of the vote is for military, 20% spending on military. 10% couldnt decide so that goes to the general pot for Congress to spend. If you dont get X number of votes that money ends up in the general pot too.

In that case the "loser" still gets represented proportionally to their vote. They dont lose all value simply because they were on the losing side. But the will of people is actually represented.

If you wanted fair you would propose a system like that where the loser still gets results. You openly push a system that only cares about the winner and pretend that's fair that the winner gets over represented with no attempt to balance fairness for the losers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and BisonVol
#532
#532
OHvol40 said:
Talking about the president, keep up.
Click to expand...
Who is voted on by ECs, who all have an equal vote

Again it would help if you knew what you were arguing. This is why I used obtuse earlier. You refuse to see things as they are and work your argument forward. You want to weight the argument by pretending we are where you want things to be and we now have to post fact justify the way things actually are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#533
#533
LouderVol said:
And what happens after that vote? Still equality? Again you have narrowed the definition of equality down to the single act of voting.

Let's play it out, majority wins. Puts whoever in power, that person pushes a bunch of stuff the majority likes and none of what the minority does. Where is the equality? Where is the minorities representation? They may have a vote, but that vote doesnt mean anything, therefore no equality. You have removed their value from the equation. Without representation they have no avenue to express themselves in the system. That's not equality in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

What do you mean “what happens”? You just had an equitable vote, and then you’d do it again in 4 years.
 
#534
#534
LouderVol said:
No that's what representational democratic voting means.

What if we voted issues or money instead of individuals. 40% of the vote goes to health care, the government can only spend 40%. 20% of the vote is for military, 20% spending on military. 10% couldnt decide so that goes to the general pot for Congress to spend. If you dont get X number of votes that money ends up in the general pot too.

In that case the "loser" still gets represented proportionally to their vote. They dont lose all value simply because they were on the losing side. But the will of people is actually represented.

If you wanted fair you would propose a system like that where the loser still gets results. You openly push a system that only cares about the winner and pretend that's fair that the winner gets over represented with no attempt to balance fairness for the losers.
Click to expand...

So America, the society that places extreme value on winning, should prop-up the losers of an election?
 
#535
#535
OHvol40 said:
What do you mean “what happens”? You just had an equitable vote, and then you’d do it again in 4 years.
Click to expand...
But the representation, the end result of the vote, is not equal. How can you claim otherwise?

As I said you have boiled down equality or fairness to the one single act of voting. Ignoring anything that happens the next 4 years. Congrats you are equal for 1 of every 1461 days.

That's not a fix. It's worse. I am 1460x more interested in what happens on the non vote days than I am on Novemeber 3rd every fourth year. That seems a much better definition of equality to me. And you have yet to establish otherwise.
 
#536
#536
LouderVol said:
Who is voted on by ECs, who all have an equal vote

Again it would help if you knew what you were arguing. This is why I used obtuse earlier. You refuse to see things as they are and work your argument forward. You want to weight the argument by pretending we are where you want things to be and we now have to post fact justify the way things actually are.
Click to expand...


I have no illusions that we are where I prefer us to be.
 
#537
#537
OHvol40 said:
So America, the society that places extreme value on winning, should prop-up the losers of an election?
Click to expand...
It's not should. It does. The house of representatives takes the people into account. The act of filibuster represents the people who didnt win the national popular vote. Even the presidents veto, supreme court decisions, and whatever other checks and balances provides the possibility of the loser to be heard or represented.

The various clauses and amendments of the Consititution do so as well. But it also respects the fact that beyond the people we have a system of states that needs balancing as well. And a pure national democracy offers no attempt to balance the power of the mob.
 
#538
#538
LouderVol said:
It's not should. It does. The house of representatives takes the people into account. The act of filibuster represents the people who didnt win the national popular vote. Even the presidents veto, supreme court decisions, and whatever other checks and balances provides the possibility of the loser to be heard or represented.

The various clauses and amendments of the Consititution do so as well. But it also respects the fact that beyond the people we have a system of states that needs balancing as well. And a pure national democracy offers no attempt to balance the power of the mob.
Click to expand...

They want to get rid of that too. Can't imagine why.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top