Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-23-2023, 10:58 AM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, NO WAY can someone lose a U.S. election with more votes.

No way the party with fewest votes nationally could become a majority in one house of Congress. 
("The majority party cannot simultaneously be the minority. Note the circles we are going in now?")

Ahh, you're actually creeping up on a point here.  One wonders why you didn't just make it.

Quote:And gerrymandering would never be a concern if people just took the time to vote. Takes a "majority" to implement, right? 

Does it not?  It'd be interesting if you actually made an argument one way or the other.

Quote:Sure. One "rebuttal" conflates the majority of Ohio Republicans with the majority of Ohioans who think abortion should be legal. 

Who said it does?

Quote:Once you've done that, her examples "provide a point in your favor." Thus she was "easily understood." 

Did they not?  You haven't made an attempt to say one way or the other.

Quote:You also rebutted the claim that Ohio would have a shot at becoming blue without gerrymandering.  At least twice. 


No one made that claim, and nothing to do with Pally's argument, but you still get credit for rebutting it. 

Actually, if one reads Pally's post she absolutely does say that.

(08-21-2023, 06:51 PM)pally Wrote: If redistricting was true to the intent of Ohio's laws, the statehouse would be approximately 52%-48% Republican.  

Now, just hear me out.  If the GOP had 48% representation in the Ohio legislature, what party would constitute the other 52%?  The Green Party?  The Libertarian Party?  Or maybe, just maybe it would be the only other major party in the US, the Democratic Party.  I know majority and minority is causing you some consternation, but 52% is a majority.  So, yeah, Pally did say Ohio had a shot at being blue without gerrymandering.  Something you would have known if you read her post.

Quote:LOL Did you just make your "understanding" the measure of someone else's argument? 

You did. That's not a "good faith" standard.

LOL, no I didn't.  Maybe if you spent some time actually rebutting points made instead of trying to bait me into posting something actionable we'd have a real discussion here.  Your motives are clear, and actually discussing the topic at hand is not part of it.  So again, enjoy the rest of your day.

[Dill]

(08-23-2023, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You also rebutted the claim that Ohio would have a shot at becoming blue without gerrymandering.  At least twice. 
No one made that claim, and nothing to do with Pally's argument, but you still get credit for rebutting it. 

Actually, if one reads Pally's post she absolutely does say that.

Now, just hear me out.  If the GOP had 48% representation in the Ohio legislature, what party would constitute the other 52%?  The Green Party?  The Libertarian Party?  Or maybe, just maybe it would be the only other major party in the US, the Democratic Party.  I know majority and minority is causing you some consternation, but 52% is a majority.  So, yeah, Pally did say Ohio had a shot at being blue without gerrymandering.  Something you would have known if you read her post

If someone asks "How'd the game go last Saturday?" And someone else responds "27-17 Steelers," most would assume the steelers won.

In post # 712 Pally writes:

If redistricting was true to the intent of Ohio's laws, the statehouse would be approximately 52%-48% Republican.  The Ohio House is 68% Republican and the Senate is 78% Republican.  A legit redistricting would have ended up with multiple contestable seats which generally forces candidates to the center.  
I'm not saying even a smaller majority would have changed the outcome on multiple bills but give voters a legitimate shot at deciding the victor instead of the district deciding it
Looks to me like she says the statehouse would be 52% Republican WITHOUT gerrymandering. The "smaller majority" she refers to is 52% Republican down from 68/78% Republican. (What did you think "smaller majority" referred to?) With that 52%, voters would be more likely to decide a bill than current districting allows. I.e., they would have a "better shot" at deciding the outcome of "multiple bills," not making Ohio blue. (Or what did you think she meant by reference to the the "outcome" of "multiple bills"?) 

That's my summary of her argument. If I misunderstood her I'll bet she lets me know. 

Still looks to me like you misread Pally, and rebutted a claim no one made.

[Dill]

(08-23-2023, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: LOL Did you just make your "understanding" the measure of someone else's argument? 
You did. That's not a "good faith" standard.

LOL, no I didn't.  Maybe if you spent some time actually rebutting points made instead of trying to bait me into posting something actionable we'd have a real discussion here.  Your motives are clear, and actually discussing the topic at hand is not part of it.  So again, enjoy the rest of your day.

                                                               

(08-22-2023, 07:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If I'm not understanding your point then it's clearly because you're doing a very poor job of making it.  The aforementioned pally's post was easily comprehensible and did not rely on hyperbole like "super-minority" and was, thus, easily understood.  But you may be correct, if you cannot articulate your point in an understandable manner it is time to cease the back and forth.  Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-23-2023, 05:54 PM)Dill Wrote: If someone asks "How'd the game go last Saturday?" And someone else responds "27-17 Steelers," most would assume the steelers won.

In post # 712 Pally writes:

If redistricting was true to the intent of Ohio's laws, the statehouse would be approximately 52%-48% Republican.  The Ohio House is 68% Republican and the Senate is 78% Republican.  A legit redistricting would have ended up with multiple contestable seats which generally forces candidates to the center.  
I'm not saying even a smaller majority would have changed the outcome on multiple bills but give voters a legitimate shot at deciding the victor instead of the district deciding it
Looks to me like she says the statehouse would be 52% Republican WITHOUT gerrymandering. The "smaller majority" she refers to is 52% Republican down from 68/78% Republican. (What did you think "smaller majority" referred to?) With that 52%, voters would be more likely to decide a bill than current districting allows. I.e., they would have a "better shot" at deciding the outcome of "multiple bills," not making Ohio blue. (Or what did you think she meant by reference to the the "outcome" of "multiple bills"?) 

That's my summary of her argument. If I misunderstood her I'll bet she lets me know. 

Still looks to me like you misread Pally, and rebutted a claim no one made.

Actually, I may have done exactly that.  That doesn't change the fact you couldn't respond to anything else in my post.  Like I've said many times, we all know you do this when you found nothing to nitpick, even after five or six attempts at the same post.  But, as I also said, you're clearly not interesting in actually having a discussion, as your past two posts continue to indicate.  So, please enjoy the rest of your day.

[Dill]

(08-23-2023, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, you're actually creeping up on a point here.  One wonders why you didn't just make it.
Does it not?  It'd be interesting if you actually made an argument one way or the other.

The trick is to follow the argument.

(08-23-2023, 10:58 AM)Dill Wrote: A minority of a voting population in a liberal democracy can impose it's will on a majority in several ways, one of which is to capture the legislative branch, and then, as a legislative majority, capture the judiciary via control of nomination.
Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:Sure, if enough people don't vote.  But that's a personal decision and if you take no time to vote then you cannot then claim to be an oppressed majority.

Yeah, NO WAY can someone lose a U.S. election with more votes.
No way the party with fewest votes nationally could become a majority in one house of Congress. 
("The majority party cannot simultaneously be the minority. Note the circles we are going in now?")
And gerrymandering would never be a concern if people just took the time to vote. Takes a "majority" to implement, right? 

After I spoke of legislative capture, you responded as if that were merely a problem of people not voting. 

My statements, decoded, mean 

1. Thanks to the electoral college, the party with the most people who make a "personal decision" to vote can still lose a presidential election.
2. Given two Senators per state representation in the Senate, Dems can get millions more personally chosen votes than Republicans and still be the minority there while representing a majority of voters.
3. Thanks to gerrymandering, one party can gain a permanent majority in the state legislature while remaining a minority of the state's voters. 
You argue as if 3 can't illustrate "minority" control if the minority of one party has a "majority" in the legislature--because it takes a majority to pass legislation and a majority is not a minority.

When I did "just make [my] point" of how a minority can gain control of government and impose its values on a majority via law, you responded with point-by-point-beside-the-point statements like "what the majority wants is irrelevant to what is Constitutional" and "Dobbs didn't put any laws into effect," and "37% is not a super-minority." But I should spend more time "rebutting points made"? 

[Dill]

(08-23-2023, 06:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, I may have done exactly that.  That doesn't change the fact you couldn't respond to anything else in my post.  Like I've said many times, we all know you do this when you found nothing to nitpick, even after five or six attempts at the same post.  But, as I also said, you're clearly not interesting in actually having a discussion, as your past two posts continue to indicate.  So, please enjoy the rest of your day.

Hmm  looks like you spoke too soon. Well I'm satisfied with the day's work.

I don't know who your silent "we" is, but my "we" has pretty clearly demonstrated how a minority holding one view can impose its view on a majority who oppose that view. With specific examples. It only looked complicated because of the barrage of side issues and misconstructions disputing this rather obvious truth; something to "nitpick" about that for sure.  


Glad it's over now. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-23-2023, 06:04 PM)Dill Wrote: The trick is to follow the argument.

No, the trick is to actually make one in the first place.

Quote:After I spoke of legislative capture, you responded as if that were merely a problem of people not voting. 

No, I listed that as a possible reason.  As you refused to actually state your case you left me to guess.

Quote:My statements, decoded, mean 

Interesting.  Why would you need to code your argument instead of actually making it, like for the first time, below?  It's almost like you had another agenda in your previous posts than actually making a cogent argument.

Quote:1. Thanks to the electoral college, the party with the most people who make a "personal decision" to vote can still lose a presidential election.

Indeed, as our Framers intended.  Weren't you on the same side as me on the EC issue after the 2016 election?  Changed your mind since then?

Quote:2. Given two Senators per state representation in the Senate, Dems can get millions more personally chosen votes than Republicans and still be the minority there while representing a majority of voters.

Again, as directly intended by the Framers.

Quote:3. Thanks to gerrymandering, one party can gain a permanent majority in the state legislature while remaining a minority of the state's voters. 
You argue as if 3 can't illustrate "minority" control if the minority of one party has a "majority" in the legislature--because it takes a majority to pass legislation and a majority is not a minority.

Yes, it can, in both blue and red states.  But you're missing a key point here, as evidenced by your confusion in the second sentence.  In order to enact gerrymandering legislation one must first have a majority in the state legislature.  So, while gerrymandering certainly expands on that majority (that is its purpose after all) it cannot be created without a majority to enact it.  Hence it is still not a minority in control of a majority.

Quote:When I did "just make [my] point" of how a minority can gain control of government and impose its values on a majority via law, you responded with point-by-point-beside-the-point statements like "what the majority wants is irrelevant to what is Constitutional" and "Dobbs didn't put any laws into effect," and "37% is not a super-minority." But I should spend more time "rebutting points made"? 

Yes, when you referred to the SCOTUS as a "super-minority" I correctly pointed out that majority opinion does nothing to determine whether something is constitutional.  Also, 37% isn't a "super-minority".  Those are both direct rebuttals to points you made, albeit not made very clearly.  


The bottom line is you're basically saying you don't like our system of government because it doesn't allow majority opinion to run roughshod over minority interests.  You don't like that right now because you perceive it as damaging to your political positions.  If the shoe was on the other foot you'd be singing its praises, god bless the Senate for keeping that evil GOP majority from enacting legislation as it pleases!  I, on the other hand, take the consistent and imminently more logical position that policies, when applied equally, will sometime hurt your interests and will sometimes aid them.  But if applied fairly you can always rely on them and their outcome.  I personally agree with the Framers and their position that simple majority rule is anathema to a truly free society.  Putting protections in place that protect minority interests directly protects against a tyrannical government, something I'd assume you'd be very much in favor of.  Maybe not if your side could be the tyrants though, eh?

[Dill]

(08-23-2023, 06:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The bottom line is you're basically saying you don't like our system of government because it doesn't allow majority opinion to run roughshod over minority interests.  You don't like that right now because you perceive it as damaging to your political positions.  If the shoe was on the other foot you'd be singing its praises, god bless the Senate for keeping that evil GOP majority from enacting legislation as it pleases!  I, on the other hand, take the consistent and imminently more logical position that policies, when applied equally, will sometime hurt your interests and will sometimes aid them.  But if applied fairly you can always rely on them and their outcome.  I personally agree with the Framers and their position that simple majority rule is anathema to a truly free society.  Putting protections in place that protect minority interests directly protects against a tyrannical government, something I'd assume you'd be very much in favor of.  Maybe not if your side could be the tyrants though, eh?

Yow, mention the Framers and we are back on it. 

As I recall, and explained to you once, the Framers ditched the Articles of Confederation precisely because they were tired of minority control of legislation.
They intended a simple majority votes to decide legislative issues. You are confusing minority protection built into the separation of power and interests with super-minority control, a kind of tyranny which the Framers, certainly Madison, Jefferson, and Washington and Franklin did NOT want.

Looks like you've been coming at my arguments with all these presumptions about "what I don't like," and that's what pushes you past the actual argument and into all these "point-by-point-beside-the-points," meant to address not my actual words but the other intentions/goals you think are behind them. Not an evil deliberate misconstruction, but a misconstruction nevertheless. One that may be sorted out.

For now, let's adjourn and watch the debate.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-23-2023, 07:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Yow, mention the Framers and we are back on it. 

As I recall, and explained to you once, the Framers ditched the Articles of Confederation precisely because they were tired of minority control of legislation.
They intended a simple majority votes to decide legislative issues. You are confusing minority protection built into the separation of power and interests with super-minority control, a kind of tyranny which the Framers, certainly Madison, Jefferson, and Washington and Franklin did NOT want.

Looks like you've been coming at my arguments with all these presumptions about "what I don't like," and that's what pushes you past the actual argument and into all these "point-by-point-beside-the-points," meant to address not my actual words but the other intentions/goals you think are behind them. Not an evil deliberate misconstruction, but a misconstruction nevertheless. One that may be sorted out.

For now, let's adjourn and watch the debate.  

Wanting a simple majority to pass legislation does not equal no regard, or protection, for the minority.  Which is exactly why the Senate exists as it does.  Enjoy the debate, I'm still working.

[Dill]

(08-23-2023, 07:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wanting a simple majority to pass legislation does not equal no regard, or protection, for the minority.  Which is exactly why the Senate exists as it does.  Enjoy the debate, I'm still working.

But the question before us is whether minority protection can become minority control. 

[GMDino]

(08-24-2023, 07:13 AM)Dill Wrote: But the question before us is whether minority protection can become minority control. 

I think that line really adds clarity to the discussion.

A party elected by a minority of citizens who vote creating laws that even a majority of their own voters do not support. Interesting to think about.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-24-2023, 07:13 AM)Dill Wrote: But the question before us is whether minority protection can become minority control. 

Can it?  Yes.  Has it?  No.

Unless your argument is founded on the idea that we need to raze our current system of government and start anew, we're really only talking in circles now.

[Dill]

(08-24-2023, 10:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Can it?  Yes.  Has it?  No.

Unless your argument is founded on the idea that we need to raze our current system of government and start anew, we're really only talking in circles now.

??? Where do these extreme, off the wall alternatives come from? 

Regarding your first question, how would we know when a minority has enough control of the government
to impose its will on the majority?

What criterion or criteria would enable us to judge that? 

We're certainly talking in circles if we haven't agreed on what counts as minority control,
or how to measure it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-24-2023, 12:26 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? Where do these extreme, off the wall alternatives come from?

From your posts.  It's not a difficult conclusion to come to. 

Quote:Regarding your first question, how would we know when a minority has enough control of the government
to impose its will on the majority?

What criterion or criteria would enable us to judge that? 

An interesting question.  Since you're the one advancing that argument maybe you'd like to tell us?

Quote:We're certainly talking in circles if we haven't agreed on what counts as minority control,
or how to measure it.

It's not that we haven't agreed.  It's that you've supplied no definition for what it is beyond terms like "super-minority".  As asked above, what criteria are you using to judge this?  So far the only issue you've even raised in which this is occurring is abortion, and there are excellent examples, such as Kansas, of the electorate exercising their voice and power to reverse the legislature.  Hardly minority control when the majority voted the law down.

[Dill]

(08-24-2023, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: From your posts.  It's not a difficult conclusion to come to. 

Critique of minority control =/="we need to raze our current system of government."


That extra leap to total rejection doesn't come from "my posts." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-24-2023, 02:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Critique of minority control =/="we need to raze our current system of government."


That extra leap to total rejection doesn't come from "my posts." 

It rather does when one of the three branches of government is predicated on "minority control" as you define it in the following post. 

(08-23-2023, 06:04 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. Given two Senators per state representation in the Senate, Dems can get millions more personally chosen votes than Republicans and still be the minority there while representing a majority of voters.

Or am I incorrect that the Senate is one of the bedrock institutions of the federal government?

[Dill]

(08-24-2023, 03:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It rather does when one of the three branches of government is predicated on "minority control" as you define it in the following post. 

Or am I incorrect that the Senate is one of the bedrock institutions of the federal government?

Yow. That's not "predicated on minority control." 

The senate was created so there would be a "department" (as Madison called it) in which the states could meet as equal powers,
regardless of population. It's members were to serve for 6 years so they could be more "deliberative" and not have to worry about
reelection every two years. 

"Predicated" would mean the point of the institution was intended to enable a minority party to control legislation, and through that control,
the government itself.  It was not. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-24-2023, 05:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Yow. That's not "predicated on minority control."

It is as you chose to define it in the post I quoted. 

Quote:The senate was created so there would be a "department" (as Madison called it) in which the states could meet as equal powers,
regardless of population. It's members were to serve for 6 years so they could be more "deliberative" and not have to worry about
reelection every two years. 

Indeed, yet you see the Senate as a place in which minority populations equal or exceed the power of higher population states.  This is an argument you specifically made.  Again, as I quoted above.

Quote:"Predicated" would mean the point of the institution was intended to enable a minority party to control legislation, and through that control,
the government itself.  It was not. 

And again, it is the way you chose to define it.  Your issue is with your own definition, not with my reading what you actually wrote.

[Dill]

(08-24-2023, 05:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is as you chose to define it in the post I quoted. 

Indeed, yet you see the Senate as a place in which minority populations equal or exceed the power of higher population states.  This is an argument you specifically made.  Again, as I quoted above.

And again, it is the way you chose to define it.  Your issue is with your own definition, not with my reading what you actually wrote.

I do see the Senate as a place where a party representing fewer voters or the will of fewer voters can hijack the will of the majority, sure.

The filibuster enables super-minority control, and that control has been used to block the will of the majority.
That was not the "intent of the Framers" though it was the intent of those who instituted the filibuster. (We've gone over this before.) 

And in both Houses a minority party representing minority views can gain majority control--legally/constitutionally in the Senate and
illegally in the house, via gerrymandering. Same at the state level.

None of this makes the U.S. Senate "predicated" on minority control, as I have defined it. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-24-2023, 07:09 PM)Dill Wrote: I do see the Senate as a place where a party representing fewer voters or the will of fewer voters can hijack the will of the majority, sure.

Yes, as I quoted.

Quote:The filibuster enables super-minority control, and that control has been used to block the will of the majority.
That was not the "intent of the Framers" though it was the intent of those who instituted the filibuster. (We've gone over this before.) 

This is the first time you're mentioning the filibuster in this thread.  I'll reiterate that the Dems had zero issue with the filibuster during Trump's first two years in office.  Odd that.

Quote:And in both Houses a minority party representing minority views can gain majority control--legally/constitutionally in the Senate and
illegally in the house, via gerrymandering. Same at the state level.

Incorrect.  You have to have a majority to enact legislation to gerrymander..  This has been stated by me several times and you've yet to refute it.

Quote:None of this makes the U.S. Senate "predicated" on minority control, as I have defined it. 

Except it does, using your own words.