Hypocrisy against women

[henry quirk]

The EC exists simply and solely to blunt what Alexis de Tocqueville called the tyranny of the majority (factionalism).

The presidency is the only office all American voters have a say in, but America isn't a smoothly pure democracy and isn't an internally borderless nation. No, America is a clunky, multi-layered, awkward kludge of representativism and democracy and negative rights ladled over 50 distinct, autonomous/self-regulating, states. The EC is the mechanism that balances the 'will of the people' and the 'sovereignty of the state'.

It isn't a perfect system, but it was never intended to be perfect, only to work (which it does).

Personally: I would prefer a revision wherein the popular vote of a state wins the state, so there'd be 50 votes. A gets 24, B gets 26, B wins. In the event of 25/25 split, congress, as a whole, votes with a simple majority to win for the 51st vote.

It's simple, preserves the balance between national will and state sovereignty, eliminates some of the power of 'party'.

It'll never happen, of course, just as the EC is not goin' anywhere (though state level attempts to do an end-run on the EC seem to be gettin' some traction, I suspect a challenge on constiutional grounds will undo all that commie handiwork).

[Walker]

Finally, something of substance to replace Logik's bullshit.

[henry quirk]

he's a contrarian for the sake of bein' contary

[Walker]

he's a contrarian for the sake of bein' contary

He needs practice.

He just sounds like a Moron.

Maybe he'll learned something from me.

How to do it without ambiguity.

[henry quirk]

HA!

[Logik]

I'll let you in on a secret.

You're just demonstrating stupidity.

Glad to help.

OK, Leftie

[Logik]

he's a contrarian for the sake of bein' contary

I never do anything for its own sake.

That's pointless.

[Walker]

The EC exists simply and solely to blunt what Alexis de Tocqueville called the tyranny of the majority (factionalism).

The presidency is the only office all American voters have a say in, but America isn't a smoothly pure democracy and isn't an internally borderless nation. No, America is a clunky, multi-layered, awkward kludge of representativism and democracy and negative rights ladled over 50 distinct, autonomous/self-regulating, states. The EC is the mechanism that balances the 'will of the people' and the 'sovereignty of the state'.

It isn't a perfect system, but it was never intended to be perfect, only to work (which it does).

Personally: I would prefer a revision wherein the popular vote of a state wins the state, so there'd be 50 votes. A gets 24, B gets 26, B wins. In the event of 25/25 split, congress, as a whole, votes with a simple majority to win for the 51st vote.

It's simple, preserves the balance between national will and state sovereignty, eliminates some of the power of 'party'.

It'll never happen, of course, just as the EC is not goin' anywhere (though state level attempts to do an end-run on the EC seem to be gettin' some traction, I suspect a challenge on constiutional grounds will undo all that commie handiwork).

Yeah, I’ll lay off the little fella.

Thank you for the informed opinion rather than some ignorant screed of destruction based on conditioning.

It's an oasis in the Hypocrisy Thread *.

Most of the 50 (not Obama's 57) states are Red. If your idea did happen it would give a huge advantage to the red states, just as abolishing the EC would give a huge advantage to the blue states.

Both ideas would result in a one-party system.

And that’s ‘nuff said, seeing as how the thread belongs to a Leftist, and thus is more about feelings than rationality.

* The squealing about irrelevant is likely soon to commence.

[Walker]

he's a contrarian for the sake of bein' contary

I never do anything for its own sake.

That's pointless.

Yeah, you're super duper.

Cooper duper.

(I said I would lay off, then sarcastically called you super duper. That's makes me a liar in your book, Bosco.)

[henry quirk]

Yeah, that ain't how I see it (or you), but who am I to argue with your self-assessments?

So: as you like.

[Walker]

Yeah, that ain't how I see it (or you), but who am I to argue with your self-assessments?

So: as you like.

It's a simple matter of numbers.

All the millions of folks in California would be reduced to 1 vote.

That certainly won't do.

[Logik]

Yeah, that ain't how I see it (or you), but who am I to argue with your self-assessments?

So: as you like.

You don't need to "argue with my self-assessment".

All you need to do to convince yourself otherwise is read my mind and intentions.

[Walker]

Then again, many of those millions shouldn't even be voting.

[henry quirk]

Probably.

And: that last post of mine, the one about self-assessessment, that was directed at logick (as I'm sure is now apparent).

##

"All you need to do to convince yourself is read my mind and intentions."

I'll pass. I got my view of you and I think it's accurate.

You can go play with someone else now.

[Logik]

I got my view of you and I think it's accurate.

Your view was "contrarianism for contrarianism's sake".

I told you it's inaccurate. You are welcome to continue believing that it is.

You can go play with someone else now.

Until you can read my mind/intentions - you have a choice.

Engage me on confrontational or co-operative terms.

I can play both games.