• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Keep Electoral College or have direct elections?

  • The Electoral College works, keep it.

    Votes: 41 45.1%

  • The presidency should be determined by direct national vote.

    Votes: 39 42.9%

  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 11 12.1%
  • Total voters
    91
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/fallacies/red-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.
Click to expand...

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:
Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...
All you need to do is have your state change its laws as to the allocation of electors.
 
Here we go around the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush ...

haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.



haymarket said:
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
Click to expand...
:doh
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.


haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...
More dishonesty I see. What a shame.



haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?

Tucker Case said:
Sadly, I am not omnipotent. Neither party will allow a change that will threaten their power.
Click to expand...

Can we agree that Parties are not enshrined in the Constitution?
 
it's funny to see the opinions change dependent on the election. when Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, republicans defended the EC tooth and nail. now democrats are pro-EC.

my opinion is that it does get less populated states more attention. without it, candidates would pay attention mostly to heavily populated areas. this could be a good thing in some cases, but I wouldn't want to see the rural issues ignored.

on the other hand, I don't see a problem with letting people pick the president directly, and putting a buffer between them and the election seems archaic.

I suppose I'm still mildly pro-EC, but if they got rid of it, I'd understand.
 
Excon said:
Here we go around the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush ...
Click to expand...

I present you with two authoritative sources which show you the proper usage of the term RED HERRING and you present us with nothing more more self justification for your own misuses of the term.

Your children's nursery rhyme is indeed revealing. Although I must say dealing with you brings up the image of the Mad Hatter in Wonderland rather than the prancing around a mere bush.

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

You stated an opinion - not a fact. You stated that even if a state had NO PEOPLE AT ALL that they would still get representation in Congress and cast votes in the electoral college. Asking you about the mechanics of how that would actually work is part and parcel of your claim. The actual mechanics of how you would carry out what you claim can be carried out is indeed highly relevant to showing the validity or the absurdity of your position.

Since you like children's stories so much, lets use a noted kiddie lit story to illuminate and educate you. If I tell you I can gather enough air in my lungs to huff and puff and blow your house made of bricks to the ground.... and you provide me with the mechanical and anatomical specifications necessary to do just that.... and you demonstrate that one cannot physically do what is claimed ..... how is that a red herring?

For that is what is being done here. I am telling you flat out that if you have a state with no people, that is it a physical impossibility to have anyone casting votes to elect representatives or be representatives.

And you are woefully impotent to get around that, answer it or deal with it in any rational and intelligent way.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Can we agree that Parties are not enshrined in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Enshrined might be the wrong word, but I agree there is nothing really in the constitution about a two-party (or any other number) political system. It is just the nature of the political landscape we find ourselves in. At that same time there is nothing really in the constitution preventing them either.
 
haymarket said:
I present you with two authoritative sources which show you the proper usage of the term RED HERRING and you present us with nothing more more self justification for your own misuses of the term.

Your children's nursery rhyme is indeed revealing. Although I must say dealing with you brings up the image of the Mad Hatter in Wonderland rather than the prancing around a mere bush.



You stated an opinion - not a fact. You stated that even if a state had NO PEOPLE AT ALL that they would still get representation in Congress and cast votes in the electoral college. Asking you about the mechanics of how that would actually work is part and parcel of your claim. The actual mechanics of how you would carry out what you claim can be carried out is indeed highly relevant to showing the validity or the absurdity of your position.

Since you like children's stories so much, lets use a noted kiddie lit story to illuminate and educate you. If I tell you I can gather enough air in my lungs to huff and puff and blow your house made of bricks to the ground.... and you provide me with the mechanical and anatomical specifications necessary to do just that.... and you demonstrate that one cannot physically do what is claimed ..... how is that a red herring?

For that is what is being done here. I am telling you flat out that if you have a state with no people, that is it a physical impossibility to have anyone casting votes to elect representatives or be representatives.

And you are woefully impotent to get around that, answer it or deal with it in any rational and intelligent way.
Click to expand...
:doh
More dishonesty I see. I haven't misused it.
And my factual statement was made in reply to your ridiculous assertion which was and still is, as a distraction, a red herring, as all can see.
You are wrong! Get used to it.


Excon said:
haymarket said:
Excon said:
WTF?

They represent the State as an entity, not the people.
Click to expand...
The so called State as an entity is meaningless and irrelevant without the citizens who live in it. As such, they ARE the State.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress.
Click to expand...
 
Excon said:
:doh
More dishonesty I see. .
Click to expand...

You first did not know what Congress was and had to be schooled on that error you made. :roll:
Then you confused a fallacy with sensing sound and had to be schooled on that error you made. :shock:
Now you have been educated on your fallacious use of the term RED HERRING but you continue to issue pompous personal pontifications without any evidence to back them. :doh

And you have the unmitigated gall to use the term DISHONESTY?

Amazing!!!!! Truly gob smacking amazing!!!!!
 
haymarket said:
You first did not know what Congress was and had to be schooled on that error you made. :roll:
Then you confused a fallacy with sensing sound and had to be schooled on that error you made. :shock:
Now you have been educated on your fallacious use of the term RED HERRING but you continue to issue pompous personal pontifications without any evidence to back them. :doh

And you have the unmitigated gall to use the term DISHONESTY?

Amazing!!!!! Truly gob smacking amazing!!!!!
Click to expand...
Hyperbole and dishonesty. What a great combination.

You haven't schooled anyone here. It is hilarious that you think you have.
And I was spot on for calling your distraction out to be the red herring it was.


Got any more tricks in the bag to deflect away from your ridiculous position? iLOL
 
joko104 said:
We know that it is possible for the candidate receiving the most votes to lose (Gore) and the voters in all but 7 states are now irrelevant to the candidates. The strategy of both is to forget about recieving a majority of votes and instead only care about the delegate count of 7 states.

Do you think that regardless of the election outcome, there should be a constitutional amendment to have national elections (president) decided by direct democracy in which the winner is determined by which candidate received more votes nationwide?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Ballot access laws, and the influence of wealthy institutions (PACs, corporations, hedge funds, oil cos) over the government's police forces effectively suppress any possibility of democracy (or a Republic) in the US.

The US is as much a democracy as Iran is. In the US, PACs, oil cos, hedge funds, etc. are the Ayatollahs.
 
Excon said:
Hyperbole and dishonesty. What a great combination.

You haven't schooled anyone here. It is hilarious that you think you have.
And I was spot on for calling your distraction out to be the red herring it was.


Got any more tricks in the bag to deflect away from your ridiculous position? iLOL
Click to expand...

Is there some reason you are attempting to make this a rather juvenille exercise in mud throwing?
 
Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?

Why do I think I'm in the middle of a Monty Python skit about herrings?
 
haymarket said:
Is there some reason you are attempting to make this a rather juvenille exercise in mud throwing?
Click to expand...
:doh

Said the mud slinger. Go figure!





AliHajiSheik said:
Why do I think I'm in the middle of a Monty Python skit about herrings?
Click to expand...
Because you are. Are you enjoying it?

Get some popcorn and join Michael.
tCp90-Copy.gif
 
Excon said:
:doh

Said the mud slinger. Go figure!






Because you are. Are you enjoying it?

Get some popcorn and join Michael.
tCp90-Copy.gif
Click to expand...

What does Michael Jackson have to do with this thread?
What does Michael Jackson have to do with the Electoral College?
What does Michael Jackson have to do with you not knowing what a red herring is and how to identify it?
What does Michael Jackson have to do with you not knowing the difference between Congress and what constitutes Congress?

It seems that now you are simply baiting and trying to get me down to wallow at your level. Why are you doing this and why can't you simply engage in intelligent discourse here?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Everyone needs to stick to the topic of the thread, please.
 
joko104 said:
We know that it is possible for the candidate receiving the most votes to lose (Gore) and the voters in all but 7 states are now irrelevant to the candidates. The strategy of both is to forget about recieving a majority of votes and instead only care about the delegate count of 7 states.

Do you think that regardless of the election outcome, there should be a constitutional amendment to have national elections (president) decided by direct democracy in which the winner is determined by which candidate received more votes nationwide?
Click to expand...
Personally, I think that a lot of confusion has been created with the practice of voting for electors. It gives the mistaken impression that the president is elected by a plebiscite and not by electors. I would prefer that the electors for president were chosen by the state legislature, as prescribed in the constitution. That would eliminate any confusion as to the meaning of "the popular vote", as there would simply be no popular vote.
 
Federalist said:
Personally, I think that a lot of confusion has been created with the practice of voting for electors. It gives the mistaken impression that the president is elected by a plebiscite and not by electors. I would prefer that the electors for president were chosen by the state legislature, as prescribed in the constitution. That would eliminate any confusion as to the meaning of "the popular vote", as there would simply be no popular vote.
Click to expand...

I would hope that such a plan be given lots of national publicity so that the American people are well aware of what some on the right would do with their right to vote.
 
haymarket said:
I would hope that such a plan be given lots of national publicity so that the American people are well aware of what some on the right would do with their right to vote.
Click to expand...

And do you also feel the citizens of the UK are being denied their right to vote for Prime Minister?

Do you feel as if US citizens are being denied their right to vote for federal justices?
 
Federalist said:
And do you also feel the citizens of the UK are being denied their right to vote for Prime Minister?

Do you feel as if US citizens are being denied their right to vote for federal justices?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what either of those two questions have to do with the advocating that the American people be stripped of their vote.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what either of those two questions have to do with the advocating that the American people be stripped of their vote.
Click to expand...

Well, think it through. The American people don't vote for Federal justices. Do you regard them as having been stripped of their right to vote? If not, why not?
 
peepnklown said:
Now if we could eliminate the 17th Amendment and get back to basics.
Click to expand...
Your "we" here is obviously not "we, the people." Which isolated, sheltered, and conceited clique do you mean by "we"? And why do you identify yourself with people who have as much contempt for those who support their elitism as they do for us, the people? Are you hoping that they will appoint you to be one of their new unelected Senators?
 
Excon said:
:doh
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.
Click to expand...
If Haymarket puts on a red wig, will that be a red hairing too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom