Senate Democrats introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the

[JonNC]

They” don’t bring anything because they are not human. They are automatic computerized votes

That is simply false. Here is a link to their names in 2016. https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy....-republicans-vote-clinton-trump-faithles/amp/

That is an example of a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Nonsense. He made campaign stops, promising changes in trade policies that were hurting these states. They voted for him, in part, because of that. There is no post hoc involved.

That’s not “adding”. That is relaying or delivering, similar to the post office. The post office does not add information to the letters it delivers.

That’s informing. They are informing the rest of the states the desires and choice of their state.

A critical importance you have failed to demonstrate.

I think it is more an unwillingness to recognize the importance of the federal system, an unwillingness demonstrated by your dismissive references to the states.

 

[JonNC]

You are giving me a civics lesson on how things are now. I know how things are now, and that is not under dispute.

Good. It’s value should be undisputed.

Meaningless statement.

Only for those who oppose federalism.

If there is corruption at the federal level, that corruption is unaffected by whether the senators are directly elected or through the legislature. Direct election reduces the corruption that was real and evident, not just theoretical, in the appointment of senators.

No. It has increased corruption because it has helped increase general government power. Increased power always increases corruption.

Another Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, eh?

I will take this an admission that central power has increased. I encourage to read up on the authoritarian/progressive views of Woodrow Wilson.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

They” don’t bring anything because they are not human. They are automatic computerized votes

That is simply false. Here is a link to their names in 2016.

Attaching names to the votes does not change the fact that the votes are automatic. The person does not get to make and decisions.

That is an example of a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Nonsense. He made campaign stops, promising changes in trade policies that were hurting these states. They voted for him, in part, because of that. There is no post hoc involved.

I don’t think you quite understand the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Here is how your statement was an example of it:

You claimed “Of course they are not sitting in the Oval Office with the president, but they certainly do bring the concerns of citizens from individual states. One can see that in the example of Trump’s work in trade deals in response to his promises in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.” You claim was about causation. You claimed that the actions of the EC in “bringing the concerns” from the citizens of individual states was the cause of Trump’s trade deals. But in fact there is no causal relationship that would not have been there even without the EC. It is like claiming that just because the sun rose after the rooster crowed that the rooster caused the sun to rise. The two things happened, but the real cause of Trump’s policies was the fact that people voted for him because they agreed with what he said. They would have voted for him even if there was no EC. The EC was not necessary to bring about this connection. The EC is just the rooster in the barnyard. And that is just what the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is all about. So now that you know, you can avoid it in the future.

That’s not “adding”. That is relaying or delivering, similar to the post office. The post office does not add information to the letters it delivers.

That’s informing. They are informing the rest of the states the desires and choice of their state.

You don’t need an EC to do that.

A critical importance you have failed to demonstrate.

I think it is more an unwillingness to recognize the importance of the federal system, an unwillingness demonstrated by your dismissive references to the states.

I am dismissive of references to states devoid of people. All the due consideration comes from the fact of having people in the state. Without them, the state is nothing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No. It has increased corruption because it has helped increase general government power. Increased power always increases corruption.

Give me that data to show a causal relationship between the 17th amendment and the growth of corruption. And remember, it has to be causal, not just happenstance. Don’t want to do another Post hoc ergo propter hoc, do you?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

No. It has increased corruption because it has helped increase general government power. Increased power always increases corruption.

Give me that data to show a causal relationship between the 17th amendment and the growth of corruption. And remember, it has to be causal, not just happenstance. Don’t want to do another Post hoc ergo propter hoc, do you?

First show me the evidence that electors aren’t human beings.

 

[JonNC]

Attaching names to the votes does not change the fact that the votes are automatic. The person does not get to make and decisions.

I made my votes in 2016 digitally. Does that meN my votes are not made by a human?

I don’t think you quite understand the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Here is how your statement was an example of it:

Nonsense. I understand your accusation quite well. It, too, is nonsense.

 

[JonNC]

I am dismissive of references to states devoid of people. All the due consideration comes from the fact of having people in the state. Without them, the state is nothing.

Good. I am too. That doesn’t mean that the entity doesn’t exist. The republic has no meaning either without its citizens, but that doesn’t mean the republic doesn’t exist. In fact, the republic exists because the states exist. The states ( yes, the people within them) created it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I am dismissive of references to states devoid of people. All the due consideration comes from the fact of having people in the state. Without them, the state is nothing.

Good. I am too. That doesn’t mean that the entity doesn’t exist. The republic has no meaning either without its citizens, but that doesn’t mean the republic doesn’t exist. In fact, the republic exists because the states exist. The states ( yes, the people within them) created it.

OK, now that we understand that people are the heart and soul of the various states, you can see why taking a vote of people is just as valid as taking a vote of representatives those people select.

 

[JonNC]

OK, now that we understand that people are the heart and soul of the various states, you can see why taking a vote of people is just as valid as taking a vote of representatives those people select.

And that’s what happens with the EC. People vote for their representatives, in this case electors, to represent their state in the choice of the president.

 

[JonNC]

Don’t you find it puzzling, to say the least, that those who want to do away with the electoral college to “empower” the individual voter and give each citizen more “fair” representation, are the same people who want to remove voter ID, fight against cleaning up voter rolls, open the borders, let undocumented aliens vote, let criminal felons vote, and encourage all kinds of vote harvesting or delayed counts purely for the sake of counting as many votes – no matter their provenance – to gain as much power as possible?

This is why I’ve pushed back about the dismissal of the importance of states. If where you live is merely parcels of land, then the states become mere provinces and the vote is opened to anyone regardless of where they live (I used a Greek in Athens).
Five years ago they would have denied that they want foreign nationals here illegally to vote. Now it is a progressive mantra. Well, if where you are doesn’t matter, and citizenship doesn’t matter, then the entire world population should be allowed to vote in US elections. Foreign nationals are foreign nationals regardless of their location.

 

[HarryStotle]

OK, now that we understand that people are the heart and soul of the various states, you can see why taking a vote of people is just as valid as taking a vote of representatives those people select.

You still don’t seem to understand the three wolves and a sheep analogy do you?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

OK, now that we understand that people are the heart and soul of the various states, you can see why taking a vote of people is just as valid as taking a vote of representatives those people select.

You still don’t seem to understand the three wolves and a sheep analogy do you?

I understand how it is flawed analogy for democracy, and if you had any interest, I would explain it to you. But as you have completely ignored all my previous extensive explanations of philosophical concepts, I don’t feel inclined to do so at this time.

 

[JonNC]

LeafByNiggle:

OK, now that we understand that people are the heart and soul of the various states, you can see why taking a vote of people is just as valid as taking a vote of representatives those people select.

You still don’t seem to understand the three wolves and a sheep analogy do you?

Not speaking about Leaf personally, because he hasn’t expressed this, but progressivism has always used democracy as a tool to increase government power. Lenin says that democracy is indispensable for socialism.
The founders were right about democracy,and leaders in the progressive movement know it and depend on it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

OK, now that we understand that people are the heart and soul of the various states, you can see why taking a vote of people is just as valid as taking a vote of representatives those people select.

You still don’t seem to understand the three wolves and a sheep analogy do you?

Not speaking about Leaf personally, because he hasn’t expressed this, but progressivism has always used democracy as a tool to increase government power. Lenin says that democracy is indispensable for socialism.
The founders were right about democracy,and leaders in the progressive movement know it and depend on it.

…just as leaders way on the right (not speaking of anyone here) know and depend on the fact that democracy is their enemy.

 

[HarryStotle]

I understand how it is flawed analogy for democracy, and if you had any interest, I would explain it to you. But as you have completely ignored all my previous extensive explanations of philosophical concepts, I don’t feel inclined to do so at this time.

Oh, haven’t ignored any of your posts, but you still haven’t explained why we would TRUST those who…

… want to remove voter ID, fight against cleaning up voter rolls, open the borders, let undocumented aliens vote, let criminal felons vote, and encourage all kinds of vote harvesting or delayed counts purely for the sake of counting as many votes – no matter their provenance – to gain as much power as possible…

…to insure that “the people” of the United States, whom these people uniquely represent, are more fairly represented by dismantling the electoral college?

Something odd, there, no?

You never did address that point.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

HarryStotle:

… want to remove voter ID, fight against cleaning up voter rolls, open the borders, let undocumented aliens vote, let criminal felons vote, and encourage all kinds of vote harvesting or delayed counts purely for the sake of counting as many votes – no matter their provenance – to gain as much power as possible…

…to insure that “the people” of the United States, whom these people uniquely represent, are more fairly represented by dismantling the electoral college?

Something odd, there, no?

You never did address that point.

That’s because I don’t see anything odd there. Perhaps you could explain rather than have me guess what you might mean.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

HarryStotle:

… want to remove voter ID, fight against cleaning up voter rolls, open the borders, let undocumented aliens vote, let criminal felons vote, and encourage all kinds of vote harvesting or delayed counts purely for the sake of counting as many votes – no matter their provenance – to gain as much power as possible…

…to insure that “the people” of the United States, whom these people uniquely represent, are more fairly represented by dismantling the electoral college?

Something odd, there, no?

You never did address that point.

That’s because I don’t see anything odd there. Perhaps you could explain rather than have me guess what you might mean.

So representing actual citizens of a country has very little to do with actually representing those citizens and nothing at all to do with determining who qualifies as a citizen or whether those citizens – who you contend would be better be represented without the mediation of an electoral college – are properly counted or represented?

You said…

OK, now that we understand that people are the heart and soul of the various states, you can see why taking a vote of people is just as valid as taking a vote of representatives those people select

Which people are the “heart and soul of the various states,” the actual citizens of those states or anyone who temporarily resides there, whether legally or illegally?

And if “taking a vote of people is as valid as taking a vote of representatives,” wouldn’t improperly accounting for those votes be doing a great disservice to the validity of the votes of those people who should be validly represented? Seeing as those votes are improperly counted, misrepresented or include votes of people who don’t exist, have died or are in the state illegally?

 

[JonNC]

just as leaders way on the right (not speaking of anyone here) know and depend on the fact that democracy is their enemy.

I don’t know about “depend on”, but yes, democracy is a threat to individual rights. Democratic principles exercised under a constitutional system that imposes strict limits on government power is valuable.