debate

Tabris you threw a lot at me so I'll respond in order presented to me. "You think people hate the electoral college, because of only two reasons. That analysis is a very simplistic binary (0,1) choice argument. Don’t assume on what people know or do not know. Let me give you some more reasons as to why people hate the electoral college that isn’t based on, “People who do not understand the Electoral College or wish for an ideal direct democracy”. I'll admit my reasoning was a bit black and white and didn't leave much room for other reasons. At minimum you opened up a third line of reasoning that being "people opposed to things in because of theory versus practice" (much more on this later). Most of what you have presented to me in your long (and I assume thought out) posts points to "wishing for an ideal direct democracy" so its not like I completely wiffed on what I said either as it applies to you. Using territories like Puerto Rico as an argument certainly caught me off guard as simply put they are a separate country. A territory is in essence a hybrid status of being a state. In some areas they function exactly like a state in America would and in some ways they function as a separate country. They are not part of the union therefore they do not (and should not) have voting rights. They are taxed and pay into the US government and while they do not get voting representation they do get aid and services (one can debate how effective and valuable) from the US government so its not like we're just taking their money and giving squat. While this exchange is not equatable to voting rights and the power that comes from that it is something of value (when taxation without representation was a thing the exchange was pretty much one way - I believe this is a notable distinction). Territories do send delegates that have the ability to propose and debate legislation and sit on committies. While these delagtes do not have voting power there is (you can argue to the extent and effectiveness) in fact representation (in that they have delagates). You can argue that if they can't vote what good is said representation and I would answer that simply - Territories are *not* States and that fundamental difference is key. Whether a territory should be a state or considered equivalent to one and how we deal with States versus Territories to me are two separate issues. Given the hybrid nature of territories on the spectrum of soverign nation and being a full fledged state of the union there are going to be some things that seem odd or at odds with American laws and doctrine. They are taxed but they are not taxed in the way residents of the 50 US States are - they don't pay income tax. They do pay into things such as Social Security and Medicare but (I assume I haven't done all that much research into this) they also get the benefits of those programs. In other words they are not taxed comprehensively in the same way people in States are. You are right that taxation without representation was a major point of emphasis on the revolution and the founding of America. Territories aren't treated the same as States but they also don't have all of the responsibilities either governmentally or monetarily as the States do so it would be foolish to equate Territories to States since there are a notably different set of rules and circumstances involved. It is my understanding whatever territories do pay into are programs like Social Security where we are taxed specifically for that program (as opposed to taxes taken out for just about anything else like educaton and infrastructure). In other words they seem to pay into federal programs but not federal infrastructure overall. They aren't paying into our federal budget so why should they get federal voting power? There is no federal income tax (as far as I know) in Territories therefore there should be no federal representation in voting power. Caveat: I did very little research into this so I do not purport to present a thorough and completely correct (there are probably nit picky things I am overlooking entirely). If my understanding that territories do not pay into the federal infrastructure other than select programs such as Social Security (where they get "representation" by being able to access the program itself which isn't wrong if that is all they are paying into) if this understanding is incorrect and they do pay into the Federal infrastructure then I would concede this point (just the taxation without representation thing)

"Power concentrated in the swing states" Candidates spend too much time in the swing States. Many States are either locked red or blue. Thus candidates often ignore the issues and wants of most States. There is asymmetrical political power between the swing and non swing States." I never said the EC was perfect or didn't have flaws if you really wanted to nit pick at it. This is one example where I pretty much agree. A lot of focus is on the swing states but that is also more because they could go either way. Although I don't think its completely fair to say these deadlock states are completely ignored (overall). One party will completely ignore those states but the other party will at least look in their direction. In a non EC system large swaths of our country would be ignored for the population dense areas even more so than they are now. "You also stated that in regards to the electoral college is in part to ensure that the needs and values of less populated areas still matter ( I thought minorities mattered or is that only on skin color and not overall needs, lifestyle and values?).” The part in parenthesis wasn't a straw man to attack skin color or minorities it was to accentuate the point of minority opinion (being X on an issue when the majority is Y). You fundamentally misunderstood my point. It was also a test to see who would be intelligent enough to grasp my point and who wouldn't be - further reading would show that I was speaking to minority opinion and linking it to other minorities. States with a higher population shouldn't have disproportionate power as they would in a direct democracy. In a direct democracy a select few high population states would make all of the rules federally. Just about any population density map of America will tell you that we are in fact a population dense country with large amounts of people in relatively small square mileage. Sure the top 100 cities don't outweigh the rest of the country but how about counties? When you widen your search a little (or use different parameters) the story is very different than the picture you tried to paint that the most populous areas don't dominate the rest of us. Metropolitan areas aren't just the cities themselves but their surrounding suburbs. There are 3007 counties in America as of 2016 and of those 3007 counties over 50% of our population resides in 143 of them. That means that (143/3007 or .04755) 4.8% of the counties account for more than 50% of our population. That is an awful lot of people concentrated in a relatively few areas. For the visual people it looks like this ... https://www.census.gov/content/census/en/library/stories/2017/10/big-and-small-counties/_jcr_content/par/image.img.full.medium.jpg/1507664124289.jpg in meme form: http://a.nime.me/0081/2361/img_20161111_193224.jpg (numbers and data are also from the US Census Bureau that way I am as best I can comparing apples to apples since Tabris presented US Census Bureau data to me) The idea that our population isn't concentrated is just plain wrong. Population concentration lends itself very strongly to political power both state wide and federally (its even worse in some states). Sure the top 100 cities may not alone account for that. Under the EC the other counties and areas of our country have a voice that has actual influence. Under a direct democracy those 143 counties would dictate to the other 2864 how we are to operate on a federal level. "Less votes equals less power" and in a direct democracy less votes = no power (or a hell of a lot less than our current system). In a direct democracy even a slight majority will allow ramrodding of policies that large amounts of people are not in favor of while our current system requires a super majority in order for policy to be enacted (in a non executive fashion). A direct democracy favors only the majority - a representative democracy favors everyone (or at least more people than a direct democracy). "It is clear that most people don’t live in, “highly metropolitan areas”. Less people living in,” highly metropolitan areas” means less votes. Less votes equals less power. Therefore, it is a fallacy to state that people not living in,” highly metropolitan areas”, are disenfranchised under a non college electorate system." This entire statement above is therefore incorrect. Everything I pointed out about population density and its power remains true therefore what I said is either correct or at minimum more correct than the presented rebuttal. I have presented no population related fallacy. As I have shown there are more people living in metropolitan areas (metropolitan counties). Look at any population density map if you don't like the one I posted and it will tell basically the same story. Most of our population lives in a pretty condensed area. All votes should be worth the same - but all votes should actually matter too. In a direct democracy all votes are worth the same but in an EC system more votes *actually matter*. In a direct democracy in the end only the majority matters. Direct democracy is great *****in theory***** but the EC system has been better *****in practice*****. Better does not mean flawless (I have conceded the bit about disproportionate attention in swing states for example). It is hard to argue against one person one vote as it is true that the EC does infringe upon that. It could and should even be reduced by tweaking things in our representation data to even out to most accurately reflect the population. However there are many problems that a direct democracy leaves open that the Electoral College either solves or greatly mitigates. In getting rid of the Electoral College (primarily or solely) on this basis would create bigger problems than would be solved. Lets break down some pros and cons to Direct and Representative Democracy ... Direct Democracy (DD)- Pros: (I'm getting my list/inspiration for this here https://vittana.org/19-pros-and-cons-of-direct-democracy there are more but most of those pros are much more theoretical or at minimum not an argument against a representative democracy) *one vote per person unfiltered by representation - completely equal power to each person * voting power is decentralized- no governmental oversight or barrier in the election process (not meaning laws or regulations but representative votes like the EC) *the populace has more power to influence policy and legislation- by direct vote each policy would be voted on by a majority of the people not representatives on our behalf ... every law and policy proposition would require a trip to the voting booth Cons: *slow and difficult decision making- there are a whole lot of policies and laws in America and under a DD each and every policy would require a trip to the booth meaning a whole lot of time and effort is expended by the populace and policy. The amount of time it would take to go through this process on every single policy or law issue would be astronomical. *majority rule- in a DD once the majority has (finally) spoken that is it period. This means that people who are on the minority side of that issue get squat they lose the end. This can easily disenfranchise entire chunks of our population. Representative Democracy (RD) *efficiency- in an RD elected officials spend their time drafting policy and law while the rest of the population's time is freed up to do whatever. The logistics of an RD are much more efficient (every issue doesn't require a trip to the voting booth) and laws and policies can be passed with greater fluidity. Arguably the biggest advantage to an RD is efficiency and time *balance- in a RD polices require substantial super majorities therefore must appeal to a wide base of people (or at minimum not offend a wide base of people) that a DD would not have to (a DD policy just has to appeal to a simple majority - even 50.1% will do) *checks on power- in an RD there are many checks and balances on power that prevent the majority from enacting whatever policy they please Cons: *people are not directly represented or represented equally *elected officials are difficult to hold accountable outside of election time, officials can vote however despite the wishes of their constituents *the voice of the people is only heard during election time *encourages / doesn't discourage corruption or betraying the wishes of that officials constituency

A Direct Democracy just isn't practical in a country the size of the United States. Getting hundreds of millions of people to the voting booth on every single policy is just ludicrously impractical. Lets go through how policy would have to pass in a Direct Democracy with 200 million (200M) voting people (I know the US has a higher population than that but lets factor out minors and leave room for people who just don't vote). First the policy would have to be drafted and worded. For this to happen at minimum you would have to get 200+ million people to the polls once. Now we would have to figure out how to come together in that massive quantity to create a policy that fits our needs. Since like many things there is nuance and negotiation there might be the need to vote again and vote on specific provisions or exceptions so that could easily require three additional trips to the voting booth. So we're at 4 trips to the voting booth for just **one** piece of policy that hasn't even been ratified into law yet - this is just in crafting it to put up to a vote. Now lets just say after four trips to the voting booth a policy has been crafted that appeases the majority of those 200M. Now that the proposed policy has been crafted and amended by vote a fifth vote would happen to ratify the policy. Repeat this process on every single federal, state, and local policy. Nobody would have the time to be a productive member of society with all of the issues and nuances that face our society today. I mean lets just take two hot button issues - gun control and abortion ..... we could have to go to the polls 20x each just on those two issues alone and not have a satisfying resolution. Even more pressing however is going back to my other paragraph - after several votes and the societal and fiscal cost of gathering 200M people to the polls for just one policy that has now been ratified after five trips to the polls there is a big issue. The people on the losing side of that vote their voices and concerns matter not at all anymore. The policy is what it is and that majority could have been 190M out of 200M or it could have been 101M to 99M (or even narrower than that) and it passes and is ratified just the same. That can easily be 45% of a society completely voiceless and disenfranchised (especially on a federal level issue as I have proven that we *are* population dense and populous areas do have disproportionate impact). This means federally 143 counties would have majority rule on federal policy that could easily screw over and disenfranchise the remaining 2864 counties. In a Direct Democracy there is no protection against such a blatant practice. TL;DR Very few if any policies would ever be enacted successfully and if they are it would take an insane amount of time for it to occur. The logistical and societal cost would be astronomical as well (the time it would take to have 200+M researched opinions, wait in line to vote, time away from work family and friends, cost of the voting process and vote tallying). The ones that somehow make it through this logistical and procedural nightmare can easily make upwards of 40% of the population feel they have no voice and no recourse as Direct Democracy is basically mob rule (majority rule). The cons of doing this far outweigh the pro of pure voter equality that is present in "one person one vote". A direct democracy is great in theory but a representative democracy is better in practice. In other words more harm than good comes from a Direct Democracy in a country with such a large population like the United States. Sure a conservative in California or a democrat in Kansas feels disenfranchised and like their voice doesn't really matter. I won't argue against that at all (especially in local or state issues) but that isn't nearly as much disenfranchisement as there would be in a direct democracy. A direct democracy does nothing to protect or give voice to those in the minority opinion. The efficiency and balance of the Electoral College (Representative Democracy) is why it is overall better than a Direct Democracy. At some point what happens in practice has to be taken into consideration. Okay yeah a RD does create an inequality in voting power (in theory and mathematically) but in practice is that disproportionate power ever realized in a way that impacts the majority? A RD does the most good for the most people. A DD in theory does equal good for everyone but in practice does more harm to more people.

hot damn napalm, look at you flexin those brain muscles >w>/! honestly i never knew what a knowledgeable dude you were @everyone on the vegan issue, im working on my writing in my free time atm but dont worry ill come back and try and answer everyone

As for my statement that law is a conservative entity. The founding principle of our legal system "stare decisis" is a conservative ideology. Below is a definition of this principle by Merriam Webster (and of conservative). I use the term conservative from an ideological standpoint (not using conservative as a synonym for Republican - although I have been guilty of this before - or liberal as a synonym for democrat) Stare Decisis - a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice Conservative- *holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation*, typically in relation to politics or religion. What this means in other words is that the rules of United States Law are bound by this concept that precedent is binding. The rules and rulings of the past are binding on the present. A conservative stance in this regard is one that is for the "status quo" which is exactly what Stare Decisis is (you know the founding principle of our legal system). Maintaining the status quo is central to a conservative philosophy To say that our legal system by its foundation is a conservative entity is accurate and logically sound. Look above at those two definitions - they both speak to a similar ideology of adhering to the past for the answer. To say that an entity is similar to its founding principle isn't just some random opinion. It is factually accurate to call American law a conservative (leaning) entity because of the principles of its foundation. The vague meanings of our laws an policies frustrate me to no end but that doesn't make any of what I said above false or invalid. The wording is intentionally vague as society will from time to time and over years and decades (or some in a society at minimum) find that different meanings should apply to the same vaguely worded doctrine. In order to get a solid grasp of what any law or doctrine means you must look at case law. Case law is how we derive more specific meaning from intentionally vague policy wording. How we interpret the 1st or 4th amendment are no different. In your tunnel vision to make some point on the conservative entity part you missed a gigantic concept when it comes to law. How we define these vague words and phrases present in any law or policy is.... wait for it..... THE CASE LAW - in those court cases that were cited is the more specific definition of those vague words and phrases. When a person wonders "what does probable cause mean" they can look to court cases which have ruled on that (and have not been overturned by a later court ruling with binding precedent over that court). Citing Supreme Court cases is a large part of how we more specifically interpret those vague words. Those cases tell us what "probable cause" is in a much more specific way. If we want to change that we either have to enact a policy through legislation to define "probable cause" or a later court case either overturns or further specifies what "probable cause" means. My understanding of your arguments (which may be wrong) is that you don't see that those court rulings as the answer when they are in fact the answer. The case law answers the question of "what is an unreasonable search and seizure" When I say that law is conservative I mean that it is an entity that favors the status quo and resists change. It certainly can happen and does happen. That does not invalidate that law is a conservative entity with a conservative set of principles. Whether a judge or person or whoever can read a vague statute with a conservative or liberal interpretation does not invalidate that. Just because you and I can read the same thing (for example the text of the 4th amendment) and get different meanings out of it does not mean that the legal system in place with a founding principle of following an established precedent isn't naturally conservative. Our law is an entity that is by its nature resistant to change and puts binding power in precedent. This ideology is a central tenet to the American Legal System and is an ideology consistent with a conservative belief in adhering to the "status quo". Just because we can read doctrine and case law differently has no bearing or standing on my central point. It is a fallacy to equate those two ideas. It is not a fallacy to state that two entities or ideas with the same tenet are naturally linked. As I've stated over and over again our law is an entity that is resistant to change and adheres to established precedent - a conservative ideology if I've ever seen one. If you want to nit pick over wording be my guest but my general point is valid and correct while yours Tabris - is misguided and appears to be not fully educated (its not uneducated but you did fail to see the importance and role of case law in our legal system)

You stated, “People who do not understand the Electoral College or wish for an ideal direct democracy hate the Electoral College”. Let’s follow the logic here. A= People who do not understand the Electoral College B=People wishing for an ideal direct democracy People that don’t like the electoral college is because of A or B But then you stated, “The people who do not like the EC either do not understand it or are ideologically opposed to separation of power”. Let’s follow the logic here. A= People who do not understand the Electoral College C=People ideologically opposed to separation of power People that don’t like the electoral college is because of A or C Or statements are based on the binary logic of (0,1). People wishing for something and people being opposed to something are two different statements that are mutually exclusive and therefore not the same. Thus, your statement becomes: People that don’t like the electoral college is because of A or B or C. What type of nonsense contradiction is this? It is A or B or C. I'll admit you got me there. I originally presented two reasons and then later on opened up a third possibility. You failed to point out why this matters though. Does me violating my own binary logic invalidate my entire argument on this basis alone? You also double down on that straw man argument that really wasn't a straw man. so take A B and C A=People who do not understand the electoral college B= People wishing for ideal direct democracy C= People ideologically opposed to separation of power For one I see nothing that you posted that says I'm wrong about A B or C. If I'm so dumb and you're so enlightened why have you not bothered to educate me on what in my logic is actually wrong? Other than breaking my own arbitrary binary logic by introducing a third option what did I say that invalidates my actual logic? Did you just not have the time or patience to explain whats wrong with A B or C ? When I correct people I am at least decent enough to inform them what it is they got wrong and provide opportunity to learn. You've spent your entirety of your posts babbling about straw men, tunnel visioning very specific points losing sight of the bigger picture, and claiming some false sense of intellectual superiority. Like when you were going on about law I was laughing my ass off like how could he miss such an obvious answer. You asked a question (how to interpret probable cause) .... answered it (case law about probable cause and the 4th amendment in SCOTUS)... then act like there isn't a concise answer. You've called me out on at least three notable fallacies but on two of them you're plain wrong and the third you have no further point. 1. Straw man fallacy on minorities when it comes to Direct Democracy vs Representative Democracy. You completely missed my entire point of talking about people of the minority opinion and how they can become disenfranchised much like people of color claim they are disenfranchised. You took a tunnel vision approach to both "one person one vote" and the idea that I had to be making a straw man argument. You make no mention of the downsides of direct democracy or the logistical and practical nightmare a true political equality. 2. Your ideas and thoughts on American Law - you completely missed on that too. You once again got tunnel vision on the word "conservative" and just ran on some tangent with that. None of what you mentioned invalidates my ideas or findings. Also perhaps a little education into how our legal system is founded and functions is in order. 3. My binary logic that I myself destroyed by inserting a third option. Again you got me here but even if I was wrong on limiting things to two reasons then inserting a third..... so what? What did I say that was invalidated other than "one of two reasons". Is anything I said about a Direct or Representative democracy all of the sudden wrong just because of this? You're like the grammar nazi looking to invalidate arguments and logic because they used the wrong "their". Unlike the other two situations you didn't miss but you just kinda grazed me. Like you hit but you did no damage. Try to win on merit not automatic disqualifications. So I have identified three reasons not just two that people would dislike the EC - does that automatically invalidate everything I said on the topic - if you're trying to "win by disqualification" the answer is yes (someone trying to win on merit would not allow that to be the case)

please watch this video before asking me why im vegan *rolls eyes* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmADo8N3hQQ

You did sort of get me with the "consolidating power is bad" business and I do generally believe this to be true especially on a federal level. The premise of my argument is against consolidation of powers that much is correct. However your application of that argument is purely ideological and theoretical with little thought to the actual practical applications. The power that the legislature gets (535 people to legislate on behalf of the whole country) is certainly a consolidated figure no argument there. However that legislative power is divided in the legislative body itself (house and senate). That power is further divided by the executive branch and the judicial branch. While it isn't as divided as a pure direct democracy it isn't as if it is purely consolidated into one entity either. Also there is this thing called separation of powers to the states. If you wanted to strip power from the federal government (which for the most part I'm for) and give it to the states that can certainly be done to further divide power. "We have the big federal government micromanaging our lives. A limited government doesn’t tell people what they can and cannot smoke? What they can and cannot drink? What they can and cannot eat? Meanwhile States are fighting back against the tyranny of the Federal government through direct democracy. Direct democracy limits the power of the federal government. Many States through propositions made cannabis legal. People vote on whether cannabis should be legal in their state, be it recreational or medical. Instead of only the feds deciding cannabis policy, we have millions of Americans across many States deciding cannabis policy" A representative democracy can solve all of these issues by giving the rights back to the states (where for the most part they should be in the first place). You seem to think that representative democracy and overreaching federal government are equivalent or very similar. We seem to have points or ideas that we agree on but your solutions would just create a bigger headache than it would solve. Those 535 people shouldn't have as much power as they do but that isn't the fault of the Representative Democracy - that's mostly on the people not imposing enough accountability and restricting federal power grabs. When our Constitution and country was founded we were very afraid of consolidated power and still approved this and that is a pretty strong indicator that the power isn't consolidated enough to cause alarm. I've explained at length how impractical a direct democracy is in a large scale. Having a proposition on an issue here or there is one thing.... but what if we had to do that .... for...every....single.....issue or policy (probably more than once per issue) ? Most of what is great about a Direct Democracy is theoretical not practical or actual. Your arguments in the post I'm quoting aren't necessarily only accomplish able in a pure Direct Democracy. The ability to have state propositions and reduced federal oversight and policy can be done in our current system. The corruptness and such of our politicians however I believe to be a totally different conversation than RD vs DD. In a DD as you describe the people will have more political power (voting power being equal) but that power will be much harder to actually exercise and if it is actually exercised more people will actually be disenfranchised. A lazer like focus on a couple concepts blinds one to the bigger picture. You haven't presented a fuller picture of how a DD fixes the problems of an RD while speaking to how a DD would actually function in practice. Your lazer like focus on "one person one vote" and "equal voting power" while not unreasonable or even wrong to believe in have apparently left you blind to everything else. Have you even put thought into "what could go wrong" with what you're arguing for? A key for any sound argument is to have thought of counter arguments and holes in your own stance (since no idea is perfect or there would be nothing to debate).