View Poll Results: Keep Electoral College or have direct elections?

Voters
107. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Electoral College works, keep it.

    46 42.99%
  • The presidency should be determined by direct national vote.

    49 45.79%
  • IDK/Other

    12 11.21%
Page 18 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 319

Thread: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

  1. #171
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]


    iLOL

    I wasn't taking an exam.



    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You failed to take one baby step to counter the obstacles raised against your empty state proposition but still insist you are right even though you admitted you were wrong. Amazing.
    Your questions were and are still a red herring.
    And there is simply no reason to go off on a tangent and answer them.
    They are nothing more than a distraction, as stated.

    Nothing you said has changed, or will change the fact that "They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress." Nothing.
    Try again teacher, because you fail for going off on a red herring and now for trying to justify it.

  2. #172
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,819

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    iLOL

    I wasn't taking an exam.



    Your questions were and are still a red herring.
    And there is simply no reason to go off on a tangent and answer them.
    They are nothing more than a distraction, as stated.

    Nothing you said has changed, or will change the fact that "They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress." Nothing.
    Try again teacher, because you fail for going off on a red herring and now for trying to justify it.
    Progress. You have learned the difference between a fish and the ability to hear sound. Excellent.

    The state without a population was YOUR INVENTION. It was not mine. If it is a red herring or red hearing or red anything, it is one of your own invention, creation and construction.

    You want to pretend that your statements are divorced from the political reality we all live in. You want to simply grasp onto a concept of government as it existed on paper in the 1700's and pretend that would rule the day in the real world of the 21st century where conditions would have drastically changed.

    What makes you think that the idea of a STATE - not an abstract theoretical hypothetical one - but a real actual state like Rhode Island or Florida actually is would continue to last for any actual length of time if it could not longer support any population? That is the point here and that is the reality that you pretend to play ostrich from.

    Let us say that YOUR SCENARIO comes to pass and one of the fifty states ceases to have any population. You insist that the State (who ever the heck those people would be when nobody lives there) would still have members in Congress and would still elect or select Electors (who ever the heck those people would be when nobody lives there) to cast their ballots in the Electoral College.

    My question to you is a simple and direct one: in your scenario of a State without a population casting their votes in the Electoral College, just who is it that actually attends that Electoral College meeting and casts those votes when nobody lives there and nobody was there to select anybody to go to Washington DC to do that actual task?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #173
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    I agree with those who are saying end the winner-take-all nature of our elections. That action would also be the end of the two party stranglehold, though, so it's never going to happen.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #174
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Progress. You have learned the difference between a fish and the ability to hear sound. Excellent.
    Pedantic much?
    Ooops!
    Never mind, of course you are.
    But since these type of things are all you have, it is understandable. iLOL



    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The state without a population was YOUR INVENTION. It was not mine. If it is a red herring or red hearing or red anything, it is one of your own invention, creation and construction.
    Trying to still deflect from your red herring huh?
    What a laugh!

    This is where you introduced the first one.

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The so called State as an entity is meaningless and irrelevant without the citizens who live in it. As such, they ARE the State.
    My reply, pointing out that you were wrong is not a red herring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Incorrect.
    They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress.

    Because it would still be a State and represented, as stated. Period.
    Your continuance with the questions, was also a red herring, as it is nothing more than a distraction. As already stated.





    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You want to pretend that your statements are divorced from the political reality we all live in. You want to simply grasp onto a concept of government as it existed on paper in the 1700's and pretend that would rule the day in the real world of the 21st century where conditions would have drastically changed.

    iLOL
    The Constitution is as written and applies no matter when it was written.
    Sorry you do not like that.




    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    What makes you think that the idea of a STATE - not an abstract theoretical hypothetical one - but a real actual state like Rhode Island or Florida actually is would continue to last for any actual length of time if it could not longer support any population? That is the point here and that is the reality that you pretend to play ostrich from.

    Let us say that YOUR SCENARIO comes to pass and one of the fifty states ceases to have any population. You insist that the State (who ever the heck those people would be when nobody lives there) would still have members in Congress and would still elect or select Electors (who ever the heck those people would be when nobody lives there) to cast their ballots in the Electoral College.

    My question to you is a simple and direct one: in your scenario of a State without a population casting their votes in the Electoral College, just who is it that actually attends that Electoral College meeting and casts those votes when nobody lives there and nobody was there to select anybody to go to Washington DC to do that actual task?
    And again, there is no reason to entertain your red herrings.

  5. #175
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,819

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    Because it would still be a State and represented, as stated. Period.


    [/COLOR]
    Period. Question mark. Exclamation mark. Put in any punctuation you want to put at the end of your self serving pompous pontifications. it. It still does not provide the very real answers to practical questions which show your thinking about a state without any people in it still gets representation is a fantasy that makes Wonderland look like basic common sense.

    While you continue to engage in personal attacks upon me, perhaps you will someday get around to answering the key question about your proposition that a State without people still gets representation in Congress and to cast its electoral votes.... those very real world questions being
    1- in a state with no people, just who is it that is voting to elect or select these representatives
    2- in a state with no people, just who is it that is going to be the representatives to the Electoral College session?

    No people equals nobody to select or elect them. No people equals nobody to do the representing. That is simple reality.

    You can continue to engage in personal attacks on me and pathetically attempt to characterize exact facts and the insistence of correct information as a negative in your view, but after all that is said and done and you have painted me as the worst villain since Satan in the DIVINE COMEDY, you still have those very practical questions to answer.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #176
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Period. Question mark. Exclamation mark. Put in any punctuation you want to put at the end of your self serving pompous pontifications. it. It still does not provide the very real answers to practical questions which show your thinking about a state without any people in it still gets representation is a fantasy that makes Wonderland look like basic common sense.

    While you continue to engage in personal attacks upon me, perhaps you will someday get around to answering the key question about your proposition that a State without people still gets representation in Congress and to cast its electoral votes.... those very real world questions being
    1- in a state with no people, just who is it that is voting to elect or select these representatives
    2- in a state with no people, just who is it that is going to be the representatives to the Electoral College session?

    No people equals nobody to select or elect them. No people equals nobody to do the representing. That is simple reality.

    You can continue to engage in personal attacks on me and pathetically attempt to characterize exact facts and the insistence of correct information as a negative in your view, but after all that is said and done and you have painted me as the worst villain since Satan in the DIVINE COMEDY, you still have those very practical questions to answer.
    Will wonders never cease? Obviously not. Just more red herrings.

    And now you are even on to dishonesty, saying that I made a personal attacks on you. Figures.

  7. #177
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,819

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Will wonders never cease? Obviously not. Just more red herrings.

    And now you are even on to dishonesty, saying that I made a personal attacks on you. Figures.
    Do you even know what a red herring is? We know you did not know how to spell it earlier. We know you confused it with the ability to decipher sound earlier.

    Do you even know what red herring is because your use of it shows you have no idea of any kind?

    Read this please:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

    A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

    Topic A is under discussion.
    Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    Topic A is abandoned.
    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
    You claiming that a State devoid of any people would still be entitled to Congressional representation as well as electoral college voting rights and me asking questions as to how that claim would be carried out is part of the same Topic. I amd simply asking you the mechanics of how you would carry out your claim of congressional representation. The mechanics of the carrying out of your claim are indeed part and parcel, blood and sinew of the same issue.

    It is not close to becoming a red herring.

    Asking you practical questions which expose the utter absurdity and fanciful folly of your premise are NOT a red herring. Perhaps this will help inform and educate you on the term and its proper usage

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

    And you continuing to use that term without benefit of a logical explanation as to why you consider them a red herring is simply a joke.

    Perhaps you cannot see the error of your ways because you are too close to the actual statement and you will defend it at all costs? So let us have you step away from your allegation that even without one citizen, you still would have a state and you would have representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Let us step away from that for a moment and try to view this as a teachable moment for you to learn something via another route.

    Answer this if you can: what exactly is a State and what must you have to constitute a State?

    yeah yeah yeah... I can see it now..... those questions are just more scarlet hearings..... er... red herrings ... or whatever you call them...... try to get past your defensive tactics for a moment.

    Answer those questions: what exactly is a State and what must you have to constitute a State?

    If you can honestly answer those you will see where you are making your serious errors in thinking.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-27-12 at 11:26 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The great lakes
    Last Seen
    06-12-13 @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,907

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I agree with those who are saying end the winner-take-all nature of our elections. That action would also be the end of the two party stranglehold, though, so it's never going to happen.
    All you need to do is have your state change its laws as to the allocation of electors.

  9. #179
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Here we go around the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush ...

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Do you even know what a red herring is? We know you did not know how to spell it earlier. We know you confused it with the ability to decipher sound earlier.

    Do you even know what red herring is because your use of it shows you have no idea of any kind?
    Look at that. Trying to bait with a red herring even. iLOL

    Apparently you have no clue as to the phrases full meaning.

    You are distracting from the main issue with your questions from that which was a factually correct statement.

    Nor do they have any bearing on the factual correctness of what was said
    .



    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Asking you practical questions which expose the utter absurdity and fanciful folly of your premise are NOT a red herring. Perhaps this will help inform and educate you on the term and its proper usage

    Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Your red herrings are now practical questions? That is hilarious.

    I suggest you read your link and recognize the error of your ways.
    And then do a little more research to educate your self on the subject.



    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    And you continuing to use that term without benefit of a logical explanation as to why you consider them a red herring is simply a joke.
    More dishonesty I see. What a shame.



    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Perhaps you cannot see the error of your ways because you are too close to the actual statement and you will defend it at all costs? So let us have you step away from your allegation that even without one citizen, you still would have a state and you would have representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Let us step away from that for a moment and try to view this as a teachable moment for you to learn something via another route.

    Answer this if you can: what exactly is a State and what must you have to constitute a State?

    yeah yeah yeah... I can see it now..... those questions are just more scarlet hearings..... er... red herrings ... or whatever you call them...... try to get past your defensive tactics for a moment.

    Answer those questions: what exactly is a State and what must you have to constitute a State?

    If you can honestly answer those you will see where you are making your serious errors in thinking.
    I have seen the error of your ways, that is why your post #126 was refuted and pointed out to you.
    As for the rest of your distractions, they will not be answered, or do you not understand that I will not entertain those red herrings of yours?


    But please go ahead and bait all you want. You are not going to get different results.
    So please keep banging your head. lol

  10. #180
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by H. Lee White View Post
    All you need to do is have your state change its laws as to the allocation of electors.
    Sadly, I am not omnipotent. Neither party will allow a change that will threaten their power.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 18 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •