ADVERTISEMENT

Elections have meaning.

Senators are supposed to represent their entire state and so they're elected by majority vote from their state.
But that's not what happens.... they represent their party. For example, IN has a Republican and a Democrat for senators and they'll vote opposite 90% of the time so one is just about always not representing what the majority of the state wants.
 
But the results of doing that would just about always line up with the popular vote.... notice I said just about always.
It already does now. It's only been wrong in our entire history, what, four times? But the details of those four times are, I would think, important, to the discussion of whether or not the EC is the best method for choosing the president.
 
It already does now. It's only been wrong in our entire history, what, four times? But the details of those four times are, I would think, important, to the discussion of whether or not the EC is the best method for choosing the president.
My whole point was that what Aloha suggested is essentially the same as electling by popular vote isn't it.
 
I think that’s the point I was discussing before. Obviously context matters. Which is how I knew what the guy was doing when I saw it. No idea that there were Asians in Proud Boys or why.
By the way, wasn’t the context just a college kid making the OK sign for a picture? I’m still wondering how you made the leap that he was using it for white power or something.
Nope
 
I think that’s the point I was discussing before. Obviously context matters. Which is how I knew what the guy was doing when I saw it. No idea that there were Asians in Proud Boys or why.
They’re in the picture in your link - Asians and blacks making the sign with those guys. By the way, yet another fringe group I’ve never heard of.
I know. I saw them, as I said I didn’t know there were any in Proud Boys? You’ve never heard of them? They’ve been a thing since the Trump era.
 
But that's not what happens.... they represent their party. For example, IN has a Republican and a Democrat for senators and they'll vote opposite 90% of the time so one is just about always not representing what the majority of the state wants.

If 60% of the state agrees with a position, what’s closer to representing that? 50% of the senators voting for it or 100%?
 
But that's not what happens.... they represent their party. For example, IN has a Republican and a Democrat for senators and they'll vote opposite 90% of the time so one is just about always not representing what the majority of the state wants.
No. Your interpretation is an exceedingly good example of a partisan take. The majority chose the candidate in each case, meaning that in each case they wanted that candidate to represent them. Period. You're adding the partisanship into an equation that doesn't require that added variable.
 
Eh, it's not really. So long as the EC gives each state two extra vote, you won't be able to make that equation.
Well the way I took Aloha's statement is that the the electors would be in proportion to the votes received in that state. For example, CA has 55 electors and Hillary got 62.3% of the vote so she would get 34 votes, Trump got 31.9% of the vote so he would get 18, and the other two candidates would get the other 3. If that's not what he meant maybe he can clarify it a little.
 
No. Your interpretation is an exceedingly good example of a partisan take. The majority chose the candidate in each case, meaning that in each case they wanted that candidate to represent them. Period. You're adding the partisanship into an equation that doesn't require that added variable.
That's a true statement BUT on a particular bill/subject or whatever you want to call it there can only be one majority. For example either the majority of the voters in IN wanted Kavanaugh approved or the majority of them didn't want him approved.
 
That's a true statement BUT on a particular bill/subject or whatever you want to call it there can only be one majority. For example either the majority of the voters in IN wanted Kavanaugh approved or the majority of them didn't want him approved.
Or it's equal. Actually, talking about majorities is a bit incorrect even if you say of voters since candidates rarely get enough votes to qualify as a majority of eligible voters. Furthermore, there are invariably a lot of undecideds for each issue, so having one of each party in toss-up states might easily be most representative of the state.
 
If 60% of the state agrees with a position, what’s closer to representing that? 50% of the senators voting for it or 100%?
Well if you're gonna do it that way then senators would just about always vote opposite on everything because there are not many things where over 75% of the people would support it which would be required in your example for both to vote the same way.
 
Or it's equal. Actually, talking about majorities is a bit incorrect even if you say of voters since candidates rarely get enough votes to qualify as a majority of eligible voters. Furthermore, there are invariably a lot of undecideds for each issue, so having one of each party in toss-up states might easily be most representative of the state.
Those are good points. I don't know if you could get close on important subjects by polling or not. Obviously you can't poll on everything and obviously you would have to get a company without an agenda to poll (if that would be possible.:) )
 
Wouldn't that essentially be the same as electing the president via popular vote.
Not really. The smaller states still get a slight boost in the value of their votes as the do now. Also, the Democrats (these days) wouldn’t get every EC vote from large states like California and New York.
 
Well the way I took Aloha's statement is that the the electors would be in proportion to the votes received in that state. For example, CA has 55 electors and Hillary got 62.3% of the vote so she would get 34 votes, Trump got 31.9% of the vote so he would get 18, and the other two candidates would get the other 3. If that's not what he meant maybe he can clarify it a little.
That's not how I took it, but if you're right, yes, that would make it closer to approximating the popular vote. Not exact, obviously, but closer.
 
I know. I saw them, as I said I didn’t know there were any in Proud Boys? You’ve never heard of them? They’ve been a thing since the Trump era.
Never heard of them. Im sure you read the lefty sites that don’t ignore the fringes on the other side. I read pretty much straight up news sites.
 
Well the way I took Aloha's statement is that the the electors would be in proportion to the votes received in that state. For example, CA has 55 electors and Hillary got 62.3% of the vote so she would get 34 votes, Trump got 31.9% of the vote so he would get 18, and the other two candidates would get the other 3. If that's not what he meant maybe he can clarify it a little.
Pretty much. Doubtful the third party people would get any, but that would depend on the formula used.
 
Check with your controller leadership. They decide where, when and how much to pay those engaging in mob conduct on the side of Dems.

If you really believe that, you’re a lost cause.

You know why conspiracies are really rare? Because the more people that are involved, the harder it is to keep the secret.

You’re talking about a “hidden hand” that is directing nation wide protests- and somehow they’re all paid (or even most are paid). That’s insanity. Of the highest level.

Deep down, you have to realize that can’t even be remotely true.

At the risk of whatabouting, did you feel the same way about the tea party wave of protests? In general, those were much more vicious and full of hate.

And, I take exception that I follow “controller leadership”. I am contrarian by nature- I don’t follow anyone that I don’t agree with on anything. Go look up the psychological term “projection”. You’re demonstrating a classic example of the phenomenon right now. It never fails- whatever Fox News (or worse “News” outlets) says- you’re on here parroting whatever the hell they just said. I don’t even have to read those outlets anymore (which I do)- because your posts are going to mimic whatever it is they fed you that day.

Why is it always us vs them/tribal with you? I got news for you- that type of view is destructive, and it’s not healthy- for you, brother.

Can’t people just be really pissed off? And protest on their own? You’re again projecting the actions of a few knuckleheads on to an entire party. Which, again, is insanity.

Protest is absolutely the most American thing an American can do. Without that streak, the country wouldn’t even exist. I’d suggest you stop being so damn angry, and tribal. And start thinking for yourself a little bit. But then again, that would require introspection and self evaluation, which aren’t exactly strong suits of yours.
 
Not internet tuff guy at all. I am just tired of watching idiots in the streets beating on old folks cars and trying to pull them out of their cars. Why would anyone not drive through theses thugs? Wait for them to beat the hell out of you?

You’ve seen how many examples of it? And somehow it’s a huge problem that all (or most) of the dem party is involved with?

All the Dems that I’ve seen on here and in media outlets absolutely condemn that type of stuff. Possible Maxine Waters may be seen to advocate that type of stuff, but she’s largely a joke. Even among the Dems.

It’s like the Dems projecting the actions of Michelle Bachmann or Steve King on the entire Party. It’s just not realistic.

C’mon man!
 
You’ve seen how many examples of it? And somehow it’s a huge problem that all (or most) of the dem party is involved with?

All the Dems that I’ve seen on here and in media outlets absolutely condemn that type of stuff. Possible Maxine Waters may be seen to advocate that type of stuff, but she’s largely a joke. Even among the Dems.

It’s like the Dems projecting the actions of Michelle Bachmann or Steve King on the entire Party. It’s just not realistic.

C’mon man!
Well, unlike the lunatics in the street, Bachman and King have actually been elected, so I don't think it's unfair to indicate that they're are least part of the face of the Republican Party. Heck, Bachmann ran for President (and even won an early Iowa straw poll).
 
If you really believe that, you’re a lost cause.

You know why conspiracies are really rare? Because the more people that are involved, the harder it is to keep the secret.

You’re talking about a “hidden hand” that is directing nation wide protests- and somehow they’re all paid (or even most are paid). That’s insanity. Of the highest level.

Deep down, you have to realize that can’t even be remotely true.

At the risk of whatabouting, did you feel the same way about the tea party wave of protests? In general, those were much more vicious and full of hate.

And, I take exception that I follow “controller leadership”. I am contrarian by nature- I don’t follow anyone that I don’t agree with on anything. Go look up the psychological term “projection”. You’re demonstrating a classic example of the phenomenon right now. It never fails- whatever Fox News (or worse “News” outlets) says- you’re on here parroting whatever the hell they just said. I don’t even have to read those outlets anymore (which I do)- because your posts are going to mimic whatever it is they fed you that day.

Why is it always us vs them/tribal with you? I got news for you- that type of view is destructive, and it’s not healthy- for you, brother.

Can’t people just be really pissed off? And protest on their own? You’re again projecting the actions of a few knuckleheads on to an entire party. Which, again, is insanity.

Protest is absolutely the most American thing an American can do. Without that streak, the country wouldn’t even exist. I’d suggest you stop being so damn angry, and tribal. And start thinking for yourself a little bit. But then again, that would require introspection and self evaluation, which aren’t exactly strong suits of yours.
https://www.adamschindler.com/politics/story-behind-kavanaugh-paid-protesters/
 
Not directed to you as I do not recall you touting originalism. But for those that do, your mention of the LA purchase is perfect. Even TJ thought it was unconstitutional, but did it anyway. Our country, if governed by perfect original thinking, would be a shadow of what it now is.

Originalism is a funny concept to me. It’s as if Advances in technology don’t exist under that way of thinking. Or, somehow a contract/document written literally over 240 years or so ago should EXACTLY dictate how things operate today- even though it was written through the prism of 240 years ago. In a world where women didn’t have many rights and slavery was acceptable. And, was written VERY vaguely. Except for in a few key places.

Originalism doesn’t allow for any adaptations. I’m not saying that the courts should go change everything, but there should be some flexibility. The ideals are fine- but details should change a little to keep up with our current situation.

And I realize that the courts aren’t here to make the law- that’s for the legislature. But, if we didn’t have the courts take the lead on certain things (like segregation in schools), then we still might have those things.

And, I’ve seen judges like K and Gorsuch impose THIER viewpoints on things, rather than allowing some things promulgated by administrative bodies or elected officials to rule the day. They come from the Clarence Thomas school of thought, which essentially works like this. I would like to see a certain action to occur/preserve a certain worldview. So, I’m going to go out and try to find anything that I can hang my hat on to rule the way I want to rule. Even if it wasn’t the majority view at the time, and it’s speculation in most cases. And it arrogantly assumes that somehow they know the truth- even though the founding fathers were far from a monolithic group that all thought in the same patterns.

It’s akin to folks that literally take bible passages literally- even though the Bible itself was an amalgam of many different stories, many passed down verbally and finally committed to paper many, many generations later. And, the Bible itself was influenced by politics- there’s a LOT of gospels that were left out, because it doesn’t fit the person in charge’s political/power agenda. It was also translated many times, which introduced even further distortions into the original truth of a document like the Bible.

Re: K & Gorsuch (and other disciples of Thomas/the federalist society). I’m sure they would whole heartedly re-endorse a ruling like citizens untitled. Which reframed a debate about the exercise of raw $$$ influencing politics, and framed it instead as a question of free speech. Which, of course benefited their tribe tremendously. The vast majority of the really rich folks that can single handily have a huge influence on an election via their $$$ are Republicans. Sheldon A for example.

It’s like how Ted Cruz operates- it’s masquerading as purity and truth. But at the end of the day, it’s strictly political, and only cares about preserving the power of those like them. While they still have the power.

I believe that the constitution was deliberately written in a very vague way- that’s the only way they could get so many people with varying views to agree to sign the damn thing. And as such, it’s got to have some flexibility. And never forget that a sister document to the constitution was in many ways the Declaration of Independence. And I don’t have to remind you of the ideals that it pontificates about. Which, if justices like Thomas had their way, the courts would completely ignore ideals like those and impose their (somewhat arrogant) view of how things should be. Because that’s the way it’s always been. Or, somehow they’re omniscient, and they just know what the diverse group of founding fathers actually meant.

Which is complete BS, in my opinion. And leads to us being reactionary as a country, vs adapting along with our national changing realities.

As a side note, it kills me to see republican folks like McConnell absolutely dig in on making sure federalist society judges are in the bench- and then completely ignore someone (Trump) taking a sledgehammer to all of our traditional norms, values & institutions. If you’re a defender of the ways things have always been, be consistent damnit.
 
Originalism is a funny concept to me. It’s as if Advances in technology don’t exist under that way of thinking. Or, somehow a contract/document written literally over 240 years or so ago should EXACTLY dictate how things operate today- even though it was written through the prism of 240 years ago. In a world where women didn’t have many rights and slavery was acceptable. And, was written VERY vaguely. Except for in a few key places.

Originalism doesn’t allow for any adaptations. I’m not saying that the courts should go change everything, but there should be some flexibility. The ideals are fine- but details should change a little to keep up with our current situation.

And I realize that the courts aren’t here to make the law- that’s for the legislature. But, if we didn’t have the courts take the lead on certain things (like segregation in schools), then we still might have those things.

And, I’ve seen judges like K and Gorsuch impose THIER viewpoints on things, rather than allowing some things promulgated by administrative bodies or elected officials to rule the day. They come from the Clarence Thomas school of thought, which essentially works like this. I would like to see a certain action to occur/preserve a certain worldview. So, I’m going to go out and try to find anything that I can hang my hat on to rule the way I want to rule. Even if it wasn’t the majority view at the time, and it’s speculation in most cases. And it arrogantly assumes that somehow they know the truth- even though the founding fathers were far from a monolithic group that all thought in the same patterns.

It’s akin to folks that literally take bible passages literally- even though the Bible itself was an amalgam of many different stories, many passed down verbally and finally committed to paper many, many generations later. And, the Bible itself was influenced by politics- there’s a LOT of gospels that were left out, because it doesn’t fit the person in charge’s political/power agenda. It was also translated many times, which introduced even further distortions into the original truth of a document like the Bible.

Re: K & Gorsuch (and other disciples of Thomas/the federalist society). I’m sure they would whole heartedly re-endorse a ruling like citizens untitled. Which reframed a debate about the exercise of raw $$$ influencing politics, and framed it instead as a question of free speech. Which, of course benefited their tribe tremendously. The vast majority of the really rich folks that can single handily have a huge influence on an election via their $$$ are Republicans. Sheldon A for example.

It’s like how Ted Cruz operates- it’s masquerading as purity and truth. But at the end of the day, it’s strictly political, and only cares about preserving the power of those like them. While they still have the power.

I believe that the constitution was deliberately written in a very vague way- that’s the only way they could get so many people with varying views to agree to sign the damn thing. And as such, it’s got to have some flexibility. And never forget that a sister document to the constitution was in many ways the Declaration of Independence. And I don’t have to remind you of the ideals that it pontificates about. Which, if justices like Thomas had their way, the courts would completely ignore ideals like those and impose their (somewhat arrogant) view of how things should be. Because that’s the way it’s always been. Or, somehow they’re omniscient, and they just know what the diverse group of founding fathers actually meant.

Which is complete BS, in my opinion. And leads to us being reactionary as a country, vs adapting along with our national changing realities.

As a side note, it kills me to see republican folks like McConnell absolutely dig in on making sure federalist society judges are in the bench- and then completely ignore someone (Trump) taking a sledgehammer to all of our traditional norms, values & institutions. If you’re a defender of the ways things have always been, be consistent damnit.
The fact that it was vague in points was why the Constitution was brilliant, and also why originalism is stupid. The Constitution only works because we apply it to modern circumstances.
 
This discussion is interesting but there is one simple truth. Trying political times make for great songs.
 
Last edited:
The fact that it was vague in points was why the Constitution was brilliant, and also why originalism is stupid. The Constitution only works because we apply it to modern circumstances.
There are First Principles to be found in our other founding documents, the Declaration foremost, and I also include the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. [Yes, those two latter might raise eyebrows, but if you are of the view that the Civil War was the second American Revolution (which I am), I think a case can be made for their inclusion.] To ignore those First Principles when interpreting the nation's fundamental law is a dereliction of duty. "Originalists" and "texturalists" who only look to the Constitution and not the other founding documents are guilty of willful ignorance of the broader foundation the nation rests on.
 
If you really believe that, you’re a lost cause.

You know why conspiracies are really rare? Because the more people that are involved, the harder it is to keep the secret.

You’re talking about a “hidden hand” that is directing nation wide protests- and somehow they’re all paid (or even most are paid). That’s insanity. Of the highest level.

Deep down, you have to realize that can’t even be remotely true.

At the risk of whatabouting, did you feel the same way about the tea party wave of protests? In general, those were much more vicious and full of hate.

And, I take exception that I follow “controller leadership”. I am contrarian by nature- I don’t follow anyone that I don’t agree with on anything. Go look up the psychological term “projection”. You’re demonstrating a classic example of the phenomenon right now. It never fails- whatever Fox News (or worse “News” outlets) says- you’re on here parroting whatever the hell they just said. I don’t even have to read those outlets anymore (which I do)- because your posts are going to mimic whatever it is they fed you that day.

Why is it always us vs them/tribal with you? I got news for you- that type of view is destructive, and it’s not healthy- for you, brother.

Can’t people just be really pissed off? And protest on their own? You’re again projecting the actions of a few knuckleheads on to an entire party. Which, again, is insanity.

Protest is absolutely the most American thing an American can do. Without that streak, the country wouldn’t even exist. I’d suggest you stop being so damn angry, and tribal. And start thinking for yourself a little bit. But then again, that would require introspection and self evaluation, which aren’t exactly strong suits of yours.
Did Tea Partiers stop traffic, attack police cars, crap on the street, break shop windows, hit cars as they pass by, yell at and intimidate old people that happened to be passing by? I really don’t remember stuff like that from them.
 
Not internet tuff guy at all. I am just tired of watching idiots in the streets beating on old folks cars and trying to pull them out of their cars. Why would anyone not drive through theses thugs? Wait for them to beat the hell out of you?

You’ve seen how many examples of it? And somehow it’s a huge problem that all (or most) of the dem party is involved with?

All the Dems that I’ve seen on here and in media outlets absolutely condemn that type of stuff. Possible Maxine Waters may be seen to advocate that type of stuff, but she’s largely a joke. Even among the Dems.

It’s like the Dems projecting the actions of Michelle Bachmann or Steve King on the entire Party. It’s just not realistic.

C’mon man!
Maxine Waters doesn’t advocate that, cmon. She’s made it very clear she doesn’t advocate violence, merely protesting.
 
The fact that it was vague in points was why the Constitution was brilliant, and also why originalism is stupid. The Constitution only works because we apply it to modern circumstances.

Looking at US history in view of originalism. I have made the claim that the Louisiana Purchase would not have happened which also means no Alaska. No transcontinental railroad. No land grant universities (okay, no Purdue means not all bad). No homestead act so US migration west is delayed.

No Panama Canal, so US economy is impacted and US Navy is greatly impacted. No TVA/WPA so all those things built to win world war two in large parts of America are never built. No Salk vaccine, no interstate highway system, no moon landings.

I do not know what the US would look like, given strict constructionists would have impeached Lincoln I am not sure how large the country would be. But I don't see any way we are the economic and military power we are, and many of us would suffer from polio.
 
I just find it odd you haven’t heard of them. I think most politically astute people have.
I’d bet most “politically astute” people have not. My colleagues and I work with political appointees, senior career service and other government personnel every day and I doubt any of them have ever heard of them either. They’re not very relevant. If they were, I’d have heard of them. I’ve honestly heard about all the fringe stuff for the first time almost always here, possibly usually from you. Like I said, you have your finger on the pulse of that stuff. Someone should have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
I’d bet most “politically astute” people have not. My colleagues and I work with political appointees, senior career service and other government personnel every day and I doubt any of them have ever heard of them either. They’re not very relevant. If they were, I’d have heard of them. I’ve honestly heard about all the fringe stuff for the first time almost always here, possibly usually from you. Like I said, you have your finger on the pulse of that stuff. Someone should have.

Things like “gamergate” are important things for “politically astute” Americans to know. Thank goodness I learned all about it on The WC.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT