08-23-2023, 06:33 PM
(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?
