Ominous new details about Trump’s coup attempt require Democrats to act

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

IMO, anyone who brings this up when someone else simply refers to our country as a "democracy" isn't arguing in good faith.    

Since the entire issue is the difference between a republic and a democracy, your opinion is not worth much, then.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

So what?

Your statement was:

....... If we had a mob rule democracy, black people might still be living under Jim Crow.  The majority of the people in the country at the time of the Civil Rights act certainly weren't for it. 

I proved you wrong with this chart:

 

Presumably, you are now quibbling over this chart relating to the speed of change:

 

Don't see how that's relevant to the exchange.

Then you aren't very intelligent.  I've explained it.  I can't give you the IQ points to understand it.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Awwwwww. 

 

 

Dude, you were the one whining about being insulted.  I'm just pointing out what a hypocrite you are.

I think I see the problem here, and it isn't a difference of political opinion.

You're just a bitter old a$$h@le.  Congratulations.

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Since the entire issue is the difference between a republic and a democracy, your opinion is not worth much, then.

So you actually believe we cannot modify our electoral system and maintain a republic?

Well, your opinion is not worth much either.

[homersapien 11,393]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Dude, you were the one whining about being insulted.  I'm just pointing out what a hypocrite you are.

I think I see the problem here, and it isn't a difference of political opinion.

You're just a bitter old a$$h@le.  Congratulations.

What a raging hypocrite you are.

You've copped an attitude every since you showed up and now you're whining when it's reciprocated.

Edited October 6, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Then you aren't very intelligent.  I've explained it.  I can't give you the IQ points to understand it.

I suggest you at least take writing lessons.  (Honesty lessons aren't very effective.)

I simply quoted your post. "Explaining" it doesn't make it correct.If you want to admit you were wrong, just do so. No one will hold it against you.

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

On 9/29/2021 at 2:19 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Well, no, because voter fraud would (illegitimately) increase the number of popular votes on the side of the fraud so that they would be a majority.

Who told you you were entitled to a POTUS elected by popular vote?

There's that attitude of which I speak. 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What a raging hypocrite you are.

You've copped an attitude every since you showed up and now your whining when it's reciprocated.

O.k.

As for writing lessons...well, one of us needs some based on the quote above.  I don't think it's me, though.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So you actually believe we cannot modify our electoral system and maintain a republic?

Well, your opinion is not worth much either.

No, I already explained elsewhere why we don't need to modify our current electoral system for it to reflect popular vote while maintaining our status as a republic.  It just doesn't look like a democracy, it looks like a republic.

You and others think it has to look like a democracy and we need to modify the entire system.  We don't.  We just need voters to be engaged at the state level, pay attention, and express their political will through the system we already have.

If they won't, then you are staring the very reason why we have a republic rather than a democracy in the face and why it's better to use the system we've got than modify it.  The entire weakness of a democracy is the risk of uninformed, disengaged voters making decisions.  If all someone has to do is show up and pull a lever once every 4 years, that doesn't take much engagement.  Using the current system to express the public will to see the POTUS electoral votes mirror the popular votes from the state level requires a much higher level of engagement.

Thus why we have a republic in the first place.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[homersapien 11,393]

16 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

No, I already explained elsewhere why we don't need to modify our current electoral system for it to reflect popular vote while maintaining our status as a republic.  It just doesn't look like a democracy, it looks like a republic.

I think we do.  It's inherently undemocratic for citizens to have such inequities in their voting power.

And BTW, our peculiar election system is not required for us to maintain a democratic republic.  There is nothing about the latter that dictates a particular system such as ours. It's a total fallacy to equate our particular system as necessary to retain a democratic republic.

There are hundreds of democratic republics in the world.  None operate with our particular election system.  Implying - or actually stating - we cannot change or system of elections because we are a democratic republic, not  democracy is rather ignorant, if not outright dumb.

So you might want to find something else to try and hang your arguments on.  That one just doesn't fly.

Edited October 6, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Then you aren't very intelligent.  I've explained it.  I can't give you the IQ points to understand it.

More of that attitude.

How do you expect people to respond?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

Just now, homersapien said:

More of that attitude.

How do you expect people to respond?

LOL.

I'm sorry man, I'm just not going to play your games with you.  Because you're right, attempting to discuss things with you drags me down into a place that I'm just not interested in going.  You seem to constantly be looking for a fight, and I've known people like that before.  Not happy unless they're bickering with someone.  I'm not going to be your bickering partner any more.  

Good luck.

[homersapien 11,393]

24 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

You and others think it has to look like a democracy and we need to modify the entire system.  We don't.  We just need voters to be engaged at the state level, pay attention, and express their political will through the system we already have.

 

Yeah right.  How would that address the built in inequity of our system? 

The Electoral College Is Actually Worse Than You Think—Here’s Why

By Kyron Huigens • 02/27/19 4:37pm

 

As 2020 presidential candidates begin to declare their intentions, it’s time to think about what we’ll be doing after the polls close on Election Day. We won’t be counting votes. We’ll be counting states.

Twice in recent memory, the person elected president lost the popular vote but won the presidency in the Electoral College. Americans accepted this without any meaningful protest. We shouldn’t have.

The standard explanation (here, here and here) for the discrepancy between the popular vote and the election of the president is that the difference in state populations is not reflected in the number of electors each state has in the Electoral College. Each state’s set of electors consists of its two senators plus the number of representatives the state has in the House. California is the most populous state and Wyoming is the least. Because each elector in California represents 3.18 times as many people as each elector in Wyoming, the standard explanation tells us that Wyoming has 3.18 electoral votes to each one of California’s.

But the standard explanation is wrong. The disparity is far greater than this.

The total number of each state’s electors is not the relevant number in this calculation. The House electors don’t contribute to the disparity, because the House is apportioned between the states by population. The disparity is entirely due to the fact that each state, large or small, has two senators.  The reason the popular vote diverges from the Electoral College vote is that each voter in Wyoming has more voting power in the Senate—and so in the Electoral College—than each voter in California.

Here is the proper calculation. California has 25,002,812 eligible voters and two senators. Wyoming has 434,584 eligible voters and two senators. Carol’s voting power in California’s Senate delegation is diluted because she shares it with 25,002,811 other voters. Will’s voting power in Wyoming’s Senate delegation is also diluted because he shares it with 434,583 other voters. Since Will’s voting power in the Senate is less diluted, it’s greater than Carol’s voting power in the Senate. If Carol has one vote in the Senate, how many votes in the Senate does Will have?

Fifty-seven.

Leaving out the irrelevant electors from the House, this is essentially what happened in the Electoral College after the 2016 presidential election: “Carol from California casts her vote for Clinton; Calvin from California casts his vote for Clinton… Will from Wyoming casts his 57 votes for Trump; Wanda from Wyoming casts her 57 votes for Trump…”

So let’s stop talking about states voting for the president. Let’s be clear. Each voter in California has one vote for president, but each voter in Wyoming has 57, a voter in North Dakota has 44, a voter in South Dakota has 39, a voter in Montana has 31, and a voter in Nebraska has 18.

In 2016, disappointed Democrats focused on Hillary Clinton’s surprising losses in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. That wasn’t the problem. The problem was that each voter in New York cast one vote for president compared to each voter in Wyoming casting 28; each voter in Illinois cast one vote for president compared to each voter in Wyoming casting 21; and so on.

Those numbers are not only radically unequal, they are unrepresentative. Residents of the central states are, broadly speaking, more white, more religious, older and hold fewer college degrees than the residents of larger states.

Defenders of the undemocratic Senate argue that it was designed to be more deliberative and less reactive to the transitory popular impulses reflected in the House. Granting an equal number of senators to each state, however, was done only to entice the smaller original states to ratify the Constitution. Small states’ greater power in the Senate has no connection to the quality of the Senate’s deliberations—or the quality of the president.

The greater power of small states’ voters is sometimes defended on the ground that these states have unique interests because of their agricultural economies. But agriculture is a major part of the economies of California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas.  Another defense—the claim that the “Heartland” values of these citizens deserve greater representation—is completely indefensible in a democracy. Rural citizens are not more American than urban citizens.

Many bemoan polarization in American political life, but there is something much worse going on.  The more polarized we become, the more the Senate and the Electoral College distort democracy.  This is indefensible, and, ultimately, unsustainable.

Kyron Huigens is a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University.

https://observer.com/2019/02/electoral-college-explanation-popular-vote-loses/

 

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

51 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

You seem to constantly be looking for a fight, and I've known people like that before.  Not happy unless they're bickering with someone. 

Nothing wrong with that when you are old, rich, and angry.

 

53 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I'm not going to be your bickering partner any more

Hate to hear that. Enjoying your post

[homersapien 11,393]

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Nothing wrong with that when you are old, rich, and angry.

Salty, I need to hire you as a writer. 

(And Pony boy said I can't write.)

Edited October 6, 2021 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,056]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Salty, I need to hire you as a writer. 

(And Pony boy said I can't write.)

Let's compromise homer and use counties won for our presidential election. That seems fair to me since you don't like the EC (I have a feeling if a republican wins the popular vote but loses the EC you will "evolve" on your opinion of the EC).

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Nothing wrong with that when you are old, rich, and angry.

 

Hate to hear that. Enjoying your post

Oh, I'm not going to stop posting.  I'm just not going to get draw into that anymore.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Nothing wrong with that when you are old, rich, and angry.

 

Hate to hear that. Enjoying your post

Like him or not, Homer has moxie.....we bicker on here, but I would still buy him a beer. 

He may pour it on me, but that is neither here nor there...............

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Salty, I need to hire you as a writer. 

(And Pony boy said I can't write.)

My typing ability only good for two short paragraphs

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

28 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Like him or not, Homer has moxie.....we bicker on here, but I would still buy him a beer. 

He may pour it on me, but that is neither here nor there...............

Well buy me one, never recall pouring out a beer. Do not know what “moxie” is but Homer does have some good thoughts……can’t think of examples off the top of my head but will let you know if I do.

Edited October 6, 2021 by SaltyTiger

[wdefromtx 3,159]

14 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Well buy me one, never recall pouring out a beer. Do not know what “moxie” is but Homer does have some good thoughts……can’t think of examples off the top of my head but will let you know if I do.

I'd buy you one too..........

Moxie=Force of character, determination, nerve, etc. 

Don't get me wrong, we don't exactly see eye to eye on things, but he sticks his neck out for what he believes in. So I can respect that even if I think he's wrong.......😁.