Ed Justice Barrett

[JoeMorgue]

This is not a logical argument, it is merely an axiomatic assertion. I have no reason to accept it.

"I live in a post-facts world" would take fewer words to type.

 

[Upchurch]

This is not a logical argument, it is merely an axiomatic assertion. I have no reason to accept it.

You have no reason to reject it either as it is also not logical for an election system where most people get a vote, but some votes count more than others.

The question becomes: What principles do we admire, fairness for all or the accumulation of power by a few?

 

[Ziggurat]

"I live in a post-facts world" would take fewer words to type.

I see you're confusing your values with facts. Understandable, that's been the trend in indoctrination lately.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have no reason to reject it either as it is also not logical for an election system where most people get a vote, but some votes count more than others.

The question becomes: What principles do we admire, fairness for all or the accumulation of power by a few?

You say that as if that's the dichotomy. But it isn't. A "fair" voting system can still produce accumulation of power by a few.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You have no reason to reject it either as it is also not logical for an election system where most people get a vote, but some votes count more than others.

The question becomes: What principles do we admire, fairness for all or the accumulation of power by a few?

Minority white rule is good, that's the message from the Trumpsters.
Make Apartheid Great Again!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well shocking the board's leading Trump cultist sees nothing wrong with Trump being in power despite most peopling not supporting him and now that he has reached that point he will only talk in riddles and truisms.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well shocking the board's leading Trump cultist sees nothing wrong with Trump being in power despite most peopling not supporting him

The popular vote doesn't actually indicate whether most people support him or not. I shouldn't have to point out this basic fact to you, but apparently I do.

And no, I don't see anything wrong with the person who won an election according to the established rules of the election holding the office that the election was for. Why is that a controversial position?

 

[Ziggurat]

Minority white rule is good, that's the message from the Trumpsters.
Make Apartheid Great Again!

The racism card. It's inevitable when you have nothing actually worthwhile to say.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck.

It's a ******* racist!

 

[Upchurch]

You say that as if that's the dichotomy. But it isn't. A "fair" voting system can still produce accumulation of power by a few.

It can hardly be fair if some people's votes are inherently worth more than others'.

 

[Ziggurat]

It can hardly be fair if some people's votes are inherently worth more than others'.

No, it isn't maximally fair. But why is that a problem? You yourself only mentioned fairness as a means of achieving a more important end, avoiding the concentration of power into the hands of a few. There are more important things than maximal fairness, and fair outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It can hardly be fair if some people's votes are inherently worth more than others'.

It's about minority white rule, not fairness.

 

[Upchurch]

No, it isn't maximally fair. But why is that a problem? You yourself only mentioned fairness as a means of achieving a more important end, avoiding the concentration of power into the hands of a few.

You misunderstand. By concentrating power into the hands of the few, I'm referring to some people's votes being worth more than others'. I'm not specifically referring to the Republican's current power grab, despite representing fewer Americans than the Democrats.

There are more important things than maximal fairness, and fair outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes.

That seems irrelevant, since minority rule outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes either.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You misunderstand. By concentrating power into the hands of the few, I'm referring to some people's votes being worth more than others'. I'm not specifically referring to the Republican's current power grab, despite representing fewer Americans than the Democrats.



That seems irrelevant, since minority rule outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes either.

It's good if you are in the minority and want to maintain power.

 

[Ziggurat]

You misunderstand. By concentrating power into the hands of the few, I'm referring to some people's votes being worth more than others'.

Then your definition of "few" is pure nonsense. So is your definition of "concentrating".

That seems irrelevant, since minority rule outcomes aren't necessarily good outcomes either.

That's true, they aren't necessarily better. Which is why that's not a goal for me.

 

[Upchurch]

Then your definition of "few" is pure nonsense. So is your definition of "concentrating".

Perhaps you don't understand the terms, then.

Just because you don't like the implications does not mean that what I said was wrong.

That's true, they aren't necessarily better. Which is why that's not a goal for me.

What is your goal, that is more important than fairness in an electoral process?

 

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps you don't understand the terms, then.

Just because you don't like the implications does not mean that what I said was wrong.

True. You're wrong because millions and millions of people aren't "few", and power isn't concentrated when they have only marginally more influence with their votes.

What is your goal, that is more important than fairness in an electoral process?

First off, note I said "maximal fairness". Our electoral system is still reasonably fair, honestly.

Producing good outcomes is more important than maximal fairness. That's hard to engineer into a system, though, so I'll settle for something a little more practical to achieve: protecting federalist structure of our government.

 

[Upchurch]

True. You're wrong because millions and millions of people aren't "few", and power isn't concentrated when they have only marginally more influence with their votes.

2 or 3 times or more than some states is only marginally more influence, huh?

First off, note I said "maximal fairness". Our electoral system is still reasonably fair, honestly.

How do you find it to be reasonably fair?

Producing good outcomes is more important than maximal fairness. That's hard to engineer into a system, though, so I'll settle for something a little more practical to achieve: protecting federalist structure of our government.

How do you think the Electoral College does this better than a direct election of the President?

 

[Ziggurat]

2 or 3 times or more than some states is only marginally more influence, huh?

Given how little influence their more powerful vote still has, yes, it's marginal.

 

[Upchurch]

Given how little influence their more powerful vote still has, yes, it's marginal.

With those states, you can win the Presidency with only 21.91% of the popular vote. That is a touch more than "marginal", I'd say.

You can start at 4:18ish for my point, but you should really watch the whole thing.


Also, exactly how does the electoral college protect the federalist structure of our government?