04-03-2019, 08:21 PM
(04-03-2019, 05:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree entirely with your premise that this is the design because the Electoral College does not exist as it was designed. As I pointed out in another post, the reasons for the Electoral College are moot because of it not acting as it was intended. We no longer vote for Electors, we vote for president and vice-president. The design was that we elect people to make the decision on our behalf.
Since we aren't utilizing the process in that way, any argument that the way the EC currently works is how it was designed is fallacious.
I completely agree that the EC now functions in a way not intended at its creation. That being said I believe that it now functions in a way that directly reflects the intentions of the Framers.
Quote:Not all of Wisconsin rural. Even Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana have urban centers.
I think we've descended into semantics here. When I say rural I mean lower population centers. Milwaukee is rural compared to LA or NYC. Long Beach has close to as many residents as Milwaukee.
Quote:Oh, absolutely. I've been on this ride for a long time and get frustrated with it. But I'm enjoying using the fact the argument is in the current Zeitgeist to help the push.
I get that, but doesn't the motivation behind the Zeitgeist give you some measure of disquiet?
Quote:There is no inequity in a direct popular election, save voter suppression. Each vote counts as one vote.
Not at the individual level, no. At the state level, absolutely there is.
Quote:Not necessarily. In 2012 the Republicans maintained control of the House, even though there were more votes cast for Democrats in House elections. Much like the current system, there is a possibility for that to happen, but it lessens the probability.
Which, I think, is a good argument in favor of your expanding House membership numbers. As a counter argument to the EC, I don't buy it.
