Official Kavanaugh hearing thread

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Maybe so.  I put the individual above the state here.  Sorry, I can't get behind a system that weights votes of it's citizens unfairly.

My premise is that the current system is objectively more desirable than a direct democracy. As I alluded to in the prior posts, a direct democracy merely shifts the emphasis from swing states to metropolitan regions.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My premise is that the current system is objectively more desirable than a direct democracy. As I alluded to in the prior posts, a direct democracy merely shifts the emphasis from swing states to metropolitan regions.

I get your premise.  I fundamentally disagree with it for reasons I've already stated.  If a direct election means more weight to cities, so be it.  People live there because of jobs and opportunity, which is what this country preaches to it's citizens.  I don't believe in punishing a large portion of our electorate just because of where they live.  Their vote should count just as much as the farmer in Iowa, but it doesn't, and that's a problem.

[homersapien 11,440]

19 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If you're going to accuse me of being fallacious, don't be fallacious when doing so. 

The bad things don't discredit the positive things. Argue better. 

It was an argument from authority. Period.  You implied that greater expertise of the Constitutional Convention would lend more credence to one position or the other, which is BS.

I am just pointing out that "original thinking" is no reason to retain an archaic provision, as your constitutional convention remark implied.  (But you knew that.)

Simply being a part of the original constitution -  like the electoral system - doesn't mean it's good for today.  Many other parts of the constitution were repealed for that reason and this is one of them.

Argue more honestly.

 

[homersapien 11,440]

34 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

@homersapien and @Brad_ATX I will lay out exactly why a direct democracy is undesirable and "worse than" the system currently in place. This is a debated legal topic, so my interest in sparked. I have written on this before.  Feel free to rebut, but I will rest my case. I am happy to provide citations if you need them.

I think there are three fundamental points of emphasis that are fatal to the prospect of a direct democracy. I will share one. If you want to hear what else I think, let me know. This is a short summation.

Such a system would require candidates to concentrate campaigning efforts and resources in heavily populated areas where the majority of United State's citizens live in order to maximize voter turnout in those regions. Senator McHose (NJ) said "Large Urban areas like L.A. and Chicago" would determine "the outcomes of elections." Delaware's former Governor supported this opinion when he observed: 

"First, the direct election of presidents would lead to geographically narrower campaigns, for election efforts would be largely urban. In 2000, Al Gore won 677 counties and Bush 2,434, but Gore received more total votes. Circumvent the EC and move to a direct national vote, and those 677 largely urban counties would become the focus of presidential campaigns."

This becomes even more evident by looking at specific examples. Look at Los Angeles County. The 2010 US Census shows that it was home to nearly 10 million residents, meaning more people live in that county than in the nine least populated states combined. It stands then to reason that candidates would focus their efforts efforts exclusively on major metropolitan areas to maximize turnouts of the respective voters. In 2012, Obama received over 2.1 million votes in Los Angeles County, compared to less than 2.1 million votes received in Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Utah combined. More notably, he received more votes in that county than in each of 42 states combined. 

Atlanta would be another example. Tell me if you would like the numbers for ATL.

Further consensus studies show that population patterns in the country reveal great portions of the United States are very sparsely populated, with other areas being very heavily populated. With such concentrated populations of voters in places like LA, Phoenix, NY, Houston, Dallas, Miami, ATL, and Chicago, the swing-state focused campaigns would become centralized on metropolitan areas where the voters reside. Thus, the direct democracy system does not correct the principal alleged problem of the bifurcated nature of American politics, it only switches the emphasis from swing states to major cities. Therefore, a campaign focused on large metropolitan areas would lead candidates to focus only on issues that are important to those voters living there. Issues related to farming, manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, and other rural activities would be omitted from candidate's platforms, while issues paramount to the populated areas would receive disproportionately greater attention. The direct democracy would be a step in wrong direction. The current system, which lends to swing state centered campaigning, requires candidates to focus on broad cross-section issues, since many of the swing states are very economically, culturally, and demographically diverse. Take Ohio for example. Three major metropolitan areas (Cleveland, Columbus, And Cincinnati) - which requires candidates to seek their votes by tailoring their campaigns to pressing issues unique to those areas. However, Ohio also has vast rural areas that have different economic activities such as the coal industry in parts of the east and west, farming in the rural western part, and manufacturing in the northern part. Thus, the candidates must tailor to these areas also. The current system much more effectively addresses the diverse issues and needs of our country than does the purported direct democracy. 

Why should land area be a consideration at all?

Why should the "diverse issues and needs" of one part of the country be weighted as more important to the diverse issues and needs of a different part of the country?

Why are rural interests inherently more important than urban interests?

We already have a "weighted" legislative system to address conflicting needs of the various regions, regardless of their population densities. 

There is no rational reason for a national office electoral system to arbitrarily favor some regions (states) by giving their voters much more power than voters from a different region (state). It's  inherently unfair and antidemocratic, by definition.  It needs to be changed.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I get your premise.  I fundamentally disagree with it for reasons I've already stated.  If a direct election means more weight to cities, so be it.  People live there because of jobs and opportunity, which is what this country preaches to it's citizens.  I don't believe in punishing a large portion of our electorate just because of where they live.  Their vote should count just as much as the farmer in Iowa, but it doesn't, and that's a problem.

You claim that they’re being punished. Interesting. But under a direct democracy, considering what I articulated to you and Homer, it would be somehow more fair? You couldn’t pitch to the people in rural areas. Again, the system we have in place is far more desirable.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Why should land area be a consideration at all?

Why should the "diverse issues and needs" of one part of the country be weighted as more important to the diverse issues and needs of a different part of the country?

Why are rural interests inherently more important than urban interests?

We already have a "weighted" legislative system to address conflicting needs of the various regions, regardless of their population densities. 

There is no rational reason for a national office electoral system to arbitrarily favor some regions (states) by giving their voters much more power than voters from a different region (state). It's  inherently unfair and antidemocratic, by definition.  It needs to be changed.

Look if you think it should be changed then great. But a direct democracy clearly and demonstrably doesn’t move us forward. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

You claim that they’re being punished. Interesting. But under a direct democracy, considering what I articulated to you and Homer, it would be somehow more fair? You couldn’t pitch to the people in rural areas. Again, the system we have in place is far more desirable.

You haven't articulated to me how it's fair that some voters get to have more weight with their votes than others.  How is that remotely fair?  Why is it OK for my vote count for less than my mom's, who lives in Alabama, despite the fact that I'm a law abiding, tax paying citizen? Because that's the case right now.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It was an argument from authority. Period.  You implied that greater expertise of the Constitutional Convention would lend more credence to one position or the other, which is BS.

I am just pointing out that "original thinking" is no reason to retain an archaic provision, as your constitutional convention remark implied.  (But you knew that.)

Simply being a part of the original constitution -  like the electoral system - doesn't mean it's good for today.  Many other parts of the constitution were repealed for that reason and this is one of them.

Argue more honestly.

 

You said it wasn’t “Democratic.” When considering what constitutes democratic, how can one not consider the convention? Is that not a foundation of our democracy?

[homersapien 11,440]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Look if you think it should be changed then great. But a direct democracy clearly and demonstrably doesn’t move us forward. 

It would certainly reduce the political division in the country.

The losing side would have no excuse other to accept the newly elected president as the fair and square winner of a truly democratic election.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

You haven't articulated to me how it's fair that some voters get to have more weight with their votes than others.  How is that remotely fair?  Why is it OK for my vote count for less than my mom's, who lives in Alabama, despite the fact that I'm a law abiding, tax paying citizen? Because that's the case right now.

More fair than what, though? A direct democracy? I’m speaking to fairness in light of the two opposing propositions. You would have L.A. county alone have more weight than the voters in nine other states combined.....

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It would certainly reduce the political division in the country.

The losing side would have no excuse other to accept the newly elected president as the fair and square winner of a truly democratic election.

That’s absurd. To hell with what the people of South Dakota want, let the residents of LA chose.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It would certainly reduce the political division in the country.

The losing side would have no excuse other to accept the newly elected president as the fair and square winner of a truly democratic election.

It's literally the only election in this country that I can think of where popular vote doesn't win.  Your Senators aren't chosen by some weird system of votes based on districts or counties.  It's a popular vote within the state. 

[homersapien 11,440]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You said it wasn’t “Democratic.” When considering what constitutes democratic, how can one not consider the convention? Is that not a foundation of our democracy?

The fact that it is a product of the convention doesn't make the electoral college any more "democratic" than the suffrage and citizenship laws that came out of the convention. 

The changes in both of the latter provisions - by eliminating them - are more democratic than the original provisions. 

Likewise, elimination of the electoral college would be more democratic than the original provision.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

It's literally the only election in this country that I can think of where popular vote doesn't win.  Your Senators aren't chosen by some weird system of votes based on districts or counties.  It's a popular vote within the state. 

Well yes because it’s the state’s interest only. A presidential election is suppose to lend to collective interests of all states....

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

More fair than what, though? A direct democracy? I’m speaking to fairness in light of the two opposing propositions. You would have L.A. county alone have more weight than the voters in nine other states combined.....

You keep looking at it from a geographical POV.  I have stated several times that I'm looking at it from an individual perspective.  A person in L.A.'s vote should count as much as someone in South Dakota.  When you can articulate to me why it's ok for one voter to carry more sway than another just because of where they live, I'll listen.  Otherwise your just spinning your wheels.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

The fact that it is a product of the convention doesn't make the electoral college any more "democratic" than the suffrage and citizenship laws that came out of the convention. 

The changes in both of the latter provisions - by eliminating them - are more democratic than the original provisions. 

Likewise, elimination of the electoral college would be more democratic than the original provision.

And replace it with what though Homer?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

You keep looking at it from a geographical POV.  I have stated several times that I'm looking at it from an individual perspective.  A person in L.A.'s vote should count as much as someone in South Dakota.  When you can articulate to me why it's ok for one voter to carry more sway than another just because of where they live, I'll listen.  Otherwise your just spinning your wheels.

Individual interests collectively vary geographically becuase of economic diversity. The geographical perspective takes into account individual interests by definition. To ignore it is ignorant.

[homersapien 11,440]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

More fair than what, though? A direct democracy? I’m speaking to fairness in light of the two opposing propositions. You would have L.A. county alone have more weight than the voters in nine other states combined.....

You continue to couch the election of the presidency as a contest between regions.

There is no rational justification for that perspective. The legislature is the branch of government in which the regions (states) compete, and that is already weighted to favor one class of states.

The presidency is a national office and the "nation" is made up of all of it's citizens. One man one vote for the presidency is fairer than weighting one citizen's vote over the other, by definition.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Individual interests collectively vary geographically becuase of economic diversity. The geographical perspective takes into account individual interests by definition. To ignore it is ignorant.

No it doesn't.  Think the banker in Birmingham cares about the same things that the farmer in Opp cares about?  Doubtful.

[homersapien 11,440]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That’s absurd. To hell with what the people of South Dakota want, let the residents of LA chose.

No, it's not "absurd".  It's perfectly rational and logical.

One man one vote.  It's the citizens who decide the presidency, not the state of South Dakota (who have two senators) or the citizens of Los Angeles (who have two senators).

Each citizen in South Dakota has the same voice as each citizen of Los Angeles.

[homersapien 11,440]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

And replace it with what though Homer?

Straight popular vote.  (You had to ask?)

You could start with allocating electoral college votes proportionally but I don't see any more rationale for doing that the simply eliminating the electoral college all together.

The electoral college may have served a legitimate purpose when the country was in it's founding years, but not today.  It's archaic.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

No it doesn't.  Think the banker in Birmingham cares about the same things that the farmer in Opp cares about?  Doubtful.

I said the interests “collectively.” You’re smart enough to understand this.

[homersapien 11,440]

26 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You claim that they’re being punished. Interesting. But under a direct democracy, considering what I articulated to you and Homer, it would be somehow more fair? You couldn’t pitch to the people in rural areas. Again, the system we have in place is far more desirable.

I think you sell rural people short.

I don't think they would have a problem with accepting the value of one man, one vote at all.   

And again, you are arbitrarily placing a value on the vote of a rural voter that is higher than the value of the vote of an urban voter.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

I said the interests “collectively.” You’re smart enough to understand this.

So again, I'm saying individually.  The collective does not matter when it comes to how one chooses to vote.

[homersapien 11,440]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I said the interests “collectively.” You’re smart enough to understand this.

So you are assuming that all individual voters in a state have the same interests?