• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Suggestion on How to Place Delegates

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm talking about states. I had asked what our current membership is and it occurs to me that we'll be speaking for 50 states most likely. Having said that it also occurs to me that having states instead of names might make voting less confusing. Therefore, I would propose, that given our numbers, we create delegate states that match a year in American history: 13, 26, etc. We don't build our project around that time period or consider the politics of the day, we just use that many state delegates for simple consolidation so that perhaps no current State opinion is left out of the mix.

15 delegates = 1795 (15 states)

20 = 1818... etc etc and just use those states.

Thoughts?
 
I'm talking about states. I had asked what our current membership is and it occurs to me that we'll be speaking for 50 states most likely. Having said that it also occurs to me that having states instead of names might make voting less confusing. Therefore, I would propose, that given our numbers, we create delegate states that match a year in American history: 13, 26, etc. We don't build our project around that time period or consider the politics of the day, we just use that many state delegates for simple consolidation so that perhaps no current State opinion is left out of the mix.

15 delegates = 1795 (15 states)

20 = 1818... etc etc and just use those states.

Thoughts?

There is no reason for us to be delegates of the states.
 
There is no reason for us to be delegates of the states.

The idea is to make the voting more cohesive and easier to remember.
 
I guess I can change my mind on this assuming we do not spend the next year deciding who is from what State.
 
simple and effective, I like Sir Jesse Trollington Boothe's ideas.

EDIT

Goddamit Jesse you deleted your post so now people are going to look at me weird and say "what did Jesse say I don't get it?"

YOU TROLL!!!
 
Just out of curiosity, how would this make voting more cohesive?
I'm not understanding this plan, either.
I'll revisit this afternoon when I have more time.
 
I'm not understanding this plan, either.
I'll revisit this afternoon when I have more time.

I'm not seeing the point of it either or how it would make voting more cohesive

Maybe I'm missing something but to me, no matter what we do it will still boil down to a group of people on the internet voting for stuff.
 
Just out of curiosity, how would this make voting more cohesive?

Well, when it comes to voting we'll be dealing, say New Hampshire and not jet57... It'll be easier to to some up percentages 2/3s etc. I think it'll just simplify things. Already there seems to be waaaay too much discussion about nothing.
 
Well, when it comes to voting we'll be dealing, say New Hampshire and not jet57... It'll be easier to to some up percentages 2/3s etc. I think it'll just simplify things.
I'm pondering your proposal.

Already there seems to be waaaay too much discussion about nothing.
Well, I think it's been kinda interesting.
Constitution writing is a laborious process and very time consuming.
The original CC took a few months.....and it was in Philadelphia.
Those delegates probably rushed the process just so they could get out of Philly.
 
I'm talking about states. I had asked what our current membership is and it occurs to me that we'll be speaking for 50 states most likely. Having said that it also occurs to me that having states instead of names might make voting less confusing. Therefore, I would propose, that given our numbers, we create delegate states that match a year in American history: 13, 26, etc. We don't build our project around that time period or consider the politics of the day, we just use that many state delegates for simple consolidation so that perhaps no current State opinion is left out of the mix.

15 delegates = 1795 (15 states)

20 = 1818... etc etc and just use those states.

Thoughts?
I'm not trying to be difficult....and I'm honestly open to any and all options.
But I don't understand this idea.
I'm not sure how selecting a random year in history and basing our number of delegates on the number of states existing in that random year simplifies anything.
I'm exhausted just reading my last sentence.
Any clarification, by anyone, would be welcomed.
 
I'm not trying to be difficult....and I'm honestly open to any and all options.
But I don't understand this idea.
I'm not sure how selecting a random year in history and basing our number of delegates on the number of states existing in that random year simplifies anything.
I'm exhausted just reading my last sentence.
Any clarification, by anyone, would be welcomed.

I should say that from the beginning, I thought that we would "assign delegates" to represent states. So, with this new suggestion, it's not picking a random year: I thought I was clear about that. It's taking the number of participants, less office holders and then choosing a year where the number of states matches the number of "delegates" so that we wouldn't argue over which states to include.

Yes, no matter how we do this, it will still be a group of internet personalities recreating a convention for a new constitution. Having said that, assigning delegates adds more of a roll playing element to it: "California votes yes".... I think that states will be easier to keep track of than names, and as things progress the simpler the better in my view. It's just a fun element and perhaps and easier record keeping system for those of us who are not officers.
 
I frankly do not think it matters.

I do think we should have a requirement somewhere that this document cannot apply to states which do not ratify it - much as the current constitution was originally...

But apart from that it doesn't really matter where we're from or what states we represent. With the internet location/origin is much less important than it used to be.
 
I frankly do not think it matters.

I do think we should have a requirement somewhere that this document cannot apply to states which do not ratify it - much as the current constitution was originally...

But apart from that it doesn't really matter where we're from or what states we represent. With the internet location/origin is much less important than it used to be.

It isnt that I disagree with you (this is just a bunch of internet people in a debate forum, no way of ignoring that reality). And our actual locations are a bit trivial, I mean I was born In Washington State grew up in Oregon, I have lived in New Mexico over 20 years, and I also lived in a few other States as well.

But The States are a dynamic of a Constitutional Convention that it would be a injustice to ignore. This DB convention is sounding less and less like a convention and more like some people writing a fantasy Constitution and fighting over their partisan and pet ideas. There isnt any real procedure that I can identify. The main rule (outside of secrecy) in the US Constitutional Convention was that at anytime they can change their minds. But it doesnt seem that way here. It looks like people are going to just keep making polls and some people will vote on the polls despite there not being a none of above option.
 
Are all delegates Americans? Do you know? Jet doesn't say where he's from as example. Nor does radioman or Jessie, just from this thread.
 
It isnt that I disagree with you (this is just a bunch of internet people in a debate forum, no way of ignoring that reality). And our actual locations are a bit trivial, I mean I was born In Washington State grew up in Oregon, I have lived in New Mexico over 20 years, and I also lived in a few other States as well.

But The States are a dynamic of a Constitutional Convention that it would be a injustice to ignore. This DB convention is sounding less and less like a convention and more like some people writing a fantasy Constitution and fighting over their partisan and pet ideas. There isnt any real procedure that I can identify. The main rule (outside of secrecy) in the US Constitutional Convention was that at anytime they can change their minds. But it doesn't seem that way here. It looks like people are going to just keep making polls and some people will vote on the polls despite there not being a none of above option.

I would fully support the votes/polls we have here containing a "none of the above" or "I abstain/disagree with these options"...option.

I just don't see what benefit it would have for us to pretend that we represent the States.

We do not.

We are not actually a convention, and we cannot claim to be in any real sense - we only represent ourselves and what we might imagine others would like us to do. If we had some sort of outside feedback to guide/instruct us as to the interests of those we represented, it would be a different story.

To be accurate, we ARE just a bunch of people writing a fantasy constitution - and, yes, fighting over our partisan and pet ideas - you think the founders didn't do that last? I think they did.

But if we try our best to make the best constitution for what we imagine the states and/or people to want, it will be a good experience for all involved, i think.
 
I would fully support the votes/polls we have here containing a "none of the above" or "I abstain/disagree with these options"...option.

I just don't see what benefit it would have for us to pretend that we represent the States.

We do not.

We are not actually a convention, and we cannot claim to be in any real sense - we only represent ourselves and what we might imagine others would like us to do. If we had some sort of outside feedback to guide/instruct us as to the interests of those we represented, it would be a different story.

To be accurate, we ARE just a bunch of people writing a fantasy constitution - and, yes, fighting over our partisan and pet ideas - you think the founders didn't do that last? I think they did.

But if we try our best to make the best constitution for what we imagine the states and/or people to want, it will be a good experience for all involved, i think.

Lol Of course you are right, we are not having a real convention. And I seriously doubt that there will be a real one anytime soon. So this DB convention is properly placed in the game area for good reason. Its because this is really a game. Except instead of roll playing with mobsters this one is centered around a Constitutional Convention. It would be a lot more fun if we had game rules and structure to roll play off of.

But I think that some people dont think of it as a roll playing game. They seriously want to make a constitution and dream about it being eventually touted as a great thing. Just read some of the posts so far.

As a game I think that we can write the Constitution then debate what it would do if it were real. Then restart and write a different one. Perhaps we could go for a theme each time? Like a Libertarian Constitution, an Socialist Constitution, Liberal, Republican, Anarchist etc. It would be interesting to see how different ideological perspectives would play out.
 
Lol Of course you are right, we are not having a real convention. And I seriously doubt that there will be a real one anytime soon. So this DB convention is properly placed in the game area for good reason. Its because this is really a game. Except instead of roll playing with mobsters this one is centered around a Constitutional Convention. It would be a lot more fun if we had game rules and structure to roll play off of.

But I think that some people dont think of it as a roll playing game. They seriously want to make a constitution and dream about it being eventually touted as a great thing. Just read some of the posts so far.

As a game I think that we can write the Constitution then debate what it would do if it were real. Then restart and write a different one. Perhaps we could go for a theme each time? Like a Libertarian Constitution, an Socialist Constitution, Liberal, Republican, Anarchist etc. It would be interesting to see how different ideological perspectives would play out.
I never said it was a game.

It's a fantasy constitution that has no support from a mass of people, or really anyone except the convention members.

However I see no reason we shouldn't treat it as a potentially real constitution for the USA (or anyone who likes it), and operate from that premise.


Basically I'm saying we treat it as if it's real, but with the knowledge that there is next to no chance anyone will ratify it.


Pretending we're states delegates is too much playacting for my taste.
 
I never said it was a game.

It's a fantasy constitution that has no support from a mass of people, or really anyone except the convention members.

However I see no reason we shouldn't treat it as a potentially real constitution for the USA (or anyone who likes it), and operate from that premise.


Basically I'm saying we treat it as if it's real, but with the knowledge that there is next to no chance anyone will ratify it.


Pretending we're states delegates is too much playacting for my taste.

I agree I am not much into roll playing games either but I see that so far we are lacking on any real organization. Some feel that we should just jump right into it to hell with rules and formatting. ANd well this is in the game section for a reason. WHy isnt this subforum in the US Constitution forum in the first place? The people that come along are going to be confused when looking at this game.
 
Well, when it comes to voting we'll be dealing, say New Hampshire and not jet57... It'll be easier to to some up percentages 2/3s etc. I think it'll just simplify things. Already there seems to be waaaay too much discussion about nothing.

How would there be any difference between one vote from jet57 and one vote from New Hampshire? That doesn't make any sense!
 
Are all delegates Americans? Do you know? Jet doesn't say where he's from as example. Nor does radioman or Jessie, just from this thread.

It's Jesse, there's no i in there. And I'm from Georgia. I decided it was best not to continue listing my city and state, given that it would only take a college or possible employer three pages of search results to find my profile on here.
 
Are all delegates Americans?
Good point. So are you suspicious of royalists amongst us?

Do you know?
No, I don't. Another good point.

Jet doesn't say where he's from as example.
Good point. Jet57 doesn't sound like an American name.

Nor does radioman or Jessie, just from this thread.
Good point...!!??
Wait a minute, that's not a good point at all...
BTW......where are YOU from?
What sort of name is joko, anyway?
We may have to sign loyalty oaths.
 
It's Jesse, there's no i in there.
Accuracy is important.

And I'm from Georgia.
You can represent the deep south.

I decided it was best not to continue listing my city and state, given that it would only take a college or possible employer three pages of search results to find my profile on here.
Wise decision on your part.
I don't worry about that sort of thing happening in my area, everyone here seems oddly passive and forgetful.
 
re the op - I do see where saying "California votes yes" is more impressive and easier to remember than "Paddy votes yes".

But ... I'm still playing around with the idea of dumping the states anyway. Or reconfiguring them. Or having districts or something. Our current set of states are pretty arbitrary.
 
If we are not going to represent states, then I see no reason at all to call ourselves delegates. I mean delegates from where?
 
Back
Top Bottom