Jussie Smollett

[*bfine32*]

(02-21-2019, 12:45 AM)Benton Wrote: The last two Republican candidates lost their first bid at being POTUS  by the popular vote, but still assumed office.

Sure, maybe that's a coincidence. Or maybe it's just a reflection that the system doesn't genuinely reflect the will of the people.

It does seem to matter a bit more with the power people have given to the Executive branch. When the POTUS is going to claim he's authorized to use executive actions because he's working off the will of the people... but the same guy lost the popular vote... it's kind of silly.

I'll take that as a: "we cannot accept how we've elected POTS for the past couple hundred years."

It could be a coincidence or it could be the candidates understand how the EC works. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-21-2019, 12:45 AM)Benton Wrote: The last two Republican candidates lost their first bid at being POTUS  by the popular vote, but still assumed office.

Sure, maybe that's a coincidence. Or maybe it's just a reflection that the system doesn't genuinely reflect the will of the people.

The system isn't designed to directly reflect the will of the people.  If it were the Electoral College wouldn't exist and the Senate wouldn't be more powerful than the House.  The Framers knew that the tyranny of the majority was to be avoided and they were right to think so.  Was the majority right about slavery?  Was the majority right about Jim Crow?  Was the majority right about gay marriage?  You can't have it both ways.

Quote:It does seem to matter a bit more with the power people have given to the Executive branch. When the POTUS is going to claim he's authorized to use executive actions because he's working off the will of the people... but the same guy lost the popular vote... it's kind of silly.

No, it's not silly at all.  "Working as intended" is common in the software world and applies here as well.  One could argue that the EC was designed to prevent a person like Trump from being elected and that's an argument I could entertain.  What I could not entertain is the idea that the system isn't designed to prevent the majority from unilaterally imposing their will on others.  The Framers were utmost about individual liberty.  When the majority infringed on this it was to be squashed.  As Franklin said, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

[Benton]

(02-21-2019, 12:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll take that as a: "we cannot accept how we've elected POTS for the past couple hundred years."

It could be a coincidence or it could be the candidates understand how the EC works. 

I accept it, I just think we've outgrown it.

We aren't rolling around in horse and buggies any more. Voters have access to information, and vote counters have access to their data within hours of the vote cast. 

The whole "we need to be herded" argument is outdated. Let people's votes count for something.

[Stonyhands]

(02-21-2019, 12:45 AM)Benton Wrote: The last two Republican candidates lost their first bid at being POTUS  by the popular vote, but still assumed office.

Sure, maybe that's a coincidence. Or maybe it's just a reflection that the system doesn't genuinely reflect the will of the people.

It does seem to matter a bit more with the power people have given to the Executive branch. When the POTUS is going to claim he's authorized to use executive actions because he's working off the will of the people... but the same guy lost the popular vote... it's kind of silly.

No what’s silly is that you have zero concept to why we use the electoral system. It’s also silly to believe that a few highly populated metropolitan areas should decide on a President that represents the entire country. This is the United States of America...not United States of New York and California. The more heavily poplulated states have more House members and as such have more electoral votes. If you do not like the system move somewhere else or just quit complaining about something that is not broke and works exactly as the creators of the system intended.

[Benton]

(02-21-2019, 12:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The system isn't designed to directly reflect the will of the people.  If it were the Electoral College wouldn't exist and the Senate wouldn't be more powerful than the House.  The Framers knew that the tyranny of the majority was to be avoided and they were right to think so.  Was the majority right about slavery?  Was the majority right about Jim Crow?  Was the majority right about gay marriage?  You can't have it both ways.

The EC was reflective of the time. Not everyone could vote effectively and timely, so the EC was a chance to have tabulations both timely and reflective of the populace given the constraints of communication and travel. This isn't 1880. 

As far as the rest, come on SSF, you're better than that.

[*bfine32*]

(02-21-2019, 12:55 AM)Benton Wrote: I accept it, I just think we've outgrown it.

We aren't rolling around in horse and buggies any more. Voters have access to information, and vote counters have access to their data within hours of the vote cast. 

The whole "we need to be herded" argument is outdated. Let people's votes count for something.

The arguments you have recently been presented aside:

None of that changes the fact that every candidate for POTUS knew exactly how we elected a President. Folks that continue to bring up popular vote are just being silly. It's sorta like: I realize that the Bengals beat the Bucs on the scoreboard, but the Bucs gained more yards...so the Bengals really didn't win. 

It's because both teams realized the winner was the one who scored the most points, not gained the most yards. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-21-2019, 12:55 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: No what’s silly is that you have zero concept to why we use the electoral system.  It’s also silly to believe that a few highly populated metropolitan areas should decide on a President that represents the entire country.  This is the United States of America...not United States of New York and California.  The more heavily poplulated states have more House members and as such have more electoral votes.  If you do not like the system move somewhere else or just quit complaining about something that is not broke and works exactly as the creators of the system intended.

Stoney, I love you and agree with you; but just tone it down a bit. I'd love to see you stick around; we need you. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-21-2019, 12:59 AM)Benton Wrote: The EC was reflective of the time. Not everyone could vote effectively and timely, so the EC was a chance to have tabulations both timely and reflective of the populace given the constraints of communication and travel. This isn't 1880.

I think it was more based on the desire to have the "intellectual and educated" have the final say. 

Quote:As far as the rest, come on SSF, you're better than that.

I'm honestly not trying to shitstir, I'm pointing out that the majority opinion is not necessarily the right one.  These are all examples of this.  Yes, there is some historical relativism involved, which I am whole set against, but it illustrates the point that the majority opinion is not necessarily the correct opinion.  Is the second Iraq war a better example for you?

[Benton]

(02-21-2019, 01:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The arguments you have recently been presented aside:

None of that changes the fact that every candidate for POTUS knew exactly how we elected a President. Folks that continue to bring up popular vote are just being silly. It's sorta like: I realize that the Bengals beat the Bucs on the scoreboard, but the Bucs gained more yards...so the Bengals really didn't win. 

It's because both teams realized the winner was the one who scored the most points, not gained the most yards. 

Well, that's just a silly analogy. Hell, it's backwards, in terms of things.

In 2000 and 2016, Democrats scored the most points; Republicans gained the most yards. But the system is built around who gains the most yards.

Did they know how that was going to happen? Sure. And I care 0 about that. 

I don't like the two part system, mainly because both parties are reflective of the same ideals. The best hope at the moment is for a third party to gain significant traction by having reasonable solutions to things the majority of Americans care about.  The problem there is, even if someone were to mount a decent campaign with realistic solutions to spending, crime and the economy, they'll likely get beaten by the EC. 

Honestly, do you think the ideologies of the framers was to have a handful of special interests in control of the government?

[Matt_Crimson]

(02-21-2019, 12:45 AM)Benton Wrote: The last two Republican candidates lost their first bid at being POTUS  by the popular vote, but still assumed office.

Sure, maybe that's a coincidence. Or maybe it's just a reflection that the system doesn't genuinely reflect the will of the people.

It does seem to matter a bit more with the power people have given to the Executive branch. When the POTUS is going to claim he's authorized to use executive actions because he's working off the will of the people... but the same guy lost the popular vote... it's kind of silly.

But winning the popular vote doesnt mean you're working off the will of the people either. The idea of "working off the will of the people" is a silly statement altogether.

[*bfine32*]

(02-21-2019, 01:09 AM)Benton Wrote: Well, that's just a silly analogy. Hell, it's backwards, in terms of things.

In 2000 and 2016, Democrats scored the most points; Republicans gained the most yards. But the system is built around who gains the most yards.

Did they know how that was going to happen? Sure. And I care 0 about that. 

I don't like the two part system, mainly because both parties are reflective of the same ideals. The best hope at the moment is for a third party to gain significant traction by having reasonable solutions to things the majority of Americans care about.  The problem there is, even if someone were to mount a decent campaign with realistic solutions to spending, crime and the economy, they'll likely get beaten by the EC. 

Honestly, do you think the ideologies of the framers was to have a handful of special interests in control of the government?

The analogy is not backwards; although, I don't expect you to accept it.

I share your thoughts of a 3rd party, but that doesn't excuse the obsession with who won the popular vote when it is currently moot. 

I think the framers' ideology is represented by the current system 

BTW: How did this thread morph into a discussion about Trump losing the popular vote?

[Matt_Crimson]

(02-21-2019, 01:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: BTW: How did this thread morph into a discussion about Trump losing the popular vote?

Because NATI thought your thread was stupid and felt that we should be focusing on more pressing matters like stopping Trump from launching the nukes he was supposed to launch right after he took office 2 years ago.

[Benton]

(02-21-2019, 01:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think it was more based on the desire to have the "intellectual and educated" have the final say. 


I'm honestly not trying to shitstir, I'm pointing out that the majority opinion is not necessarily the right one.  These are all examples of this.  Yes, there is some historical relativism involved, which I am whole set against, but it illustrates the point that the majority opinion is not necessarily the correct opinion.  Is the second Iraq war a better example for you?

Intellectual and educated? Crap, don't make me take the low road here in regard to either one of those elections. 

Regardless, that's not the way the framers, I think, intended for things to be. They were soldiers, farmers and, in many cases, scholars. But they weren't just some high brow bunch of dreamers that thought the common man didn't have a say.


As far as the majority, come on man. Public opinion and the 'right thing' don't always line up.  Sometimes it takes legislation for the populace to realize the world isn't going to end. Hell, I live in a community that only two years ago went wet. Why? Because for decades the elected leaders said God would punish voters for ending prohibition.

But, end of the day, the majority of people should have a say in who represents them. Period. From there, if the person they elected doesn't legislate well, then voters have a choice. But just giving legislators carte blanche is never what was intended. 

[Benton]

(02-21-2019, 01:13 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But winning the popular vote doesnt mean you're working off the will of the people either. The idea of "working off the will of the people" is a silly statement altogether.

Agreed.

(02-21-2019, 01:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The analogy is not backwards; although, I don't expect you to accept it.

I share your thoughts of a 3rd party, but that doesn't excuse the obsession with who won the popular vote when it is currently moot. 

I think the framers' ideology is represented by the current system 

BTW: How did this thread morph into a discussion about Trump losing the popular vote?

To the bold: Didn't someone bring up MAGA hats?

[*bfine32*]

(02-21-2019, 01:26 AM)Benton Wrote: Agreed.


To the bold: Didn't someone bring up MAGA hats?

Hey that someone was me.

Still really didn't answer the question I posed.

I think Crimson might have better hit the nail on the head. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-21-2019, 01:24 AM)Benton Wrote: Intellectual and educated? Crap, don't make me take the low road here in regard to either one of those elections. 

Regardless, that's not the way the framers, I think, intended for things to be. They were soldiers, farmers and, in many cases, scholars. But they weren't just some high brow bunch of dreamers that thought the common man didn't have a say.

Agreed.  I was speaking to their original intent, not the current state of things.  Regardless, they did not want the final say to be in the hands of the general populace, nor did they want to allow the majority to automatically dictate to the majority.  This really can't be disputed.

Quote:As far as the majority, come on man. Public opinion and the 'right thing' don't always line up.  Sometimes it takes legislation for the populace to realize the world isn't going to end. Hell, I live in a community that only two years ago went wet. Why? Because for decades the elected leaders said God would punish voters for ending prohibition.

Precisely!  Majority rule is a fine idea in principle.  This, of course, assumes that the majority are well meaning and informed people.  This is often not the case.  50.00001% of the people should not have control over 49.99999% of the people.  Checks and balances are inherent in our system for this exact reason.

Quote:But, end of the day, the majority of people should have a say in who represents them. Period. From there, if the person they elected doesn't legislate well, then voters have a choice. But just giving legislators carte blanche is never what was intended. 

They do, they just don't get precisely proportional representation.  This is why the House is based on population and Senate is not.  A Federation cannot survive when each member is not equally represented in some fashion.  Our system is far from perfect, I doubt we'll ever achieve a perfect one, but it strikes a nice balance between majority rule and limiting mob rule.

[Benton]

(02-21-2019, 01:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They do, they just don't get precisely proportional representation.  This is why the House is based on population and Senate is not.  A Federation cannot survive when each member is not equally represented in some fashion.  Our system is far from perfect, I doubt we'll ever achieve a perfect one, but it strikes a nice balance between majority rule and limiting mob rule.

...with the legislature, not the executive branch. Congress has (which is more reflective of the populace) has increasingly turned over more authority to the executive branch (which is less relfective). I don't believe it was any framers intent to have an individual dictating the course of the country.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-21-2019, 02:16 AM)Benton Wrote: ...with the legislature, not the executive branch. Congress has (which is more reflective of the populace) has increasingly turned over more authority to the executive branch (which is less relfective). I don't believe it was any framers intent to have an individual dictating the course of the country.

On this we completely agree.  However this does not change my opinion of the EC or its intended purpose.  In any event, back to the lying Jussie Smollett and his impending felony charges.  

[GMDino]

(02-21-2019, 12:55 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: No what’s silly is that you have zero concept to why we use the electoral system.  It’s also silly to believe that a few highly populated metropolitan areas should decide on a President that represents the entire country.  This is the United States of America...not United States of New York and California.  The more heavily poplulated states have more House members and as such have more electoral votes.  If you do not like the system move somewhere else or just quit complaining about something that is not broke and works exactly as the creators of the system intended.

And IMHO at a time when not everyone could vote and those could vote could not vote easily (time/travel) the EC made much more sense.

If we made voting even easier (national holiday. longer hours, more voting sites) we may see an even larger percentage of citizens vote.

I agree with you that that every vote should count the same.  Whether they are a Republican trapped in NYC or a Democrat trapped in Kansas.  One person, one vote.  Winner take all.  

[*michaelsean*]

Candidates campaign based on the electoral college which makes the whole discussion on popular vote meaningless.