|
|
Post by guest2 on Oct 7, 2020 19:54:43 GMT -5
Bush v Gore says its a violation of equal protection for a state to use one criteria to judge what a voter wanted in one part of a state, while using another criteria to judge what a voter wanted in a different part of the state. Unlike many other parts of Bush v Gore that was not controversial. (It was 7-2 and Breyer and Souter were in the majority) Those justices saw an equal protection problem because two identical votes (a dimpled chad for example) were being treated differently depending on where the person lived. Now that only applied to votes counted to determine the electors for one state (and no one is sure how good that law is as precedent or an indicator) Now with the NPVIC you have a similar problem. Lets say California uses one standard for saying a somewhat ambiguous vote is good and Texas uses another, whereas Florida uses a third. If Florida is bound to count California' votes and Texas' votes in determining how Florida electors are awarded then you have an identical problem. Different standards being applied to voters for the same state electors. Thats far from a spurious argument. Maybe it stands up and maybe it doesn't but its not ridiculous. Not necessarily. There are statewide elections including for US Senate, the House (in smaller populations states), and of course for President. Different counties may use different equipment that could be subject to all sorts of issues. One could use a touchscreen machine that simply won't allow overvotes, another could use optical scan readers that warn the voter that there's an over or under vote and give a chance to have a complete ballot spoiled and recast, or one where ballots are simply dropped into a box and counted later with no warning about over or under votes. Heck - in California there was an option for some states to declare themselves mail-in counties in accordance with the California Voter's Choice Act. It's not an issue now since we're going mail-in for the whole state, but it will eventually return to the county by county model. www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voters-choice-actIn Montana there have been some claiming equal protection issues with their Governor giving counties the choice to conduct a mail-in election. nbcmontana.com/news/beyond-the-podium/judge-rules-in-bullocks-favor-in-mail-ballot-lawsuitI do recall the issue in 2018 over ballot curing in Arizona. Several counties had already allowed it past election day while others stopped it. A federal judge ruled that all counties must allow that up to a certain date to meet equal protection requirements. Yep, and this is why the ambiguity over whether Equal Protection applies. When that decision came out a whole bunch of people said some version of "but that happens all the time" (true) and SCOTUS hasn't really ruled on it yet. I'm not saying I think its a winning claim, but definitely one that could succeed, especially since I believe SCOTUS will be inherently hostile to this law anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 21:45:16 GMT -5
My point still stands, actually. Promises were made. Some of the colonies would not have signed up to fight, if they knew they were going to have less power than the others in the new federal government. When you look at it like 13 countries committing to something closer to the EU, it makes a lot more sense. Maybe that's what we should be, 50 countries with an EU style union. The per-population House/per-state Senate compromise did not come from any bargain related to the Revolutionary War: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_CompromiseThe Electoral College was a hack that came after that. As for the EU, they have the same problem we have, but coming from the opposite direction: how to provide a common currency/financial system while providing the desired autonomy to separate states. You're focusing on technicalities, for no good reason. Sure fine, I'm probably wrong on the technicalities. I'm most ignorant of the detailed history. It's the spirit of what I'm arguing, that I'm not hearing any valid counter-arguments: the 13 colonies would not all have signed up for a federal government if it was formed as an ideal democracy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 21:50:47 GMT -5
Candidates would have campaigned in California and New York instead of Florida and Ohio.Just like Hillary didn't need to campaign in Wisconsin, right? I know that's not the same point, but it is also the same thing. You need to win everywhere, not just in CA and NY. I'm sick of that silly, absurd, false argument. Its not a silly argument, its fundamentally true. If the popular vote were what mattered campaigns would function very differently. For example, lets look at campaign events in 2016. 1.05 million people voted for Trump or Clinton in Nevada in 2016. If we say that 20% of those were swing voters, then that means that Clinton and Trump held 17 campaign events (9th most of any state) to contest 205,000 votes In California, 13 million people voted for Trump or Clinton. If we apply the same formula, that gives us 2.6 million swing voters. In order to court these 2.6 million voters, Trump and Clinton held a combined 1 campaign event. I responded to a post that said they wouldn't campaign in Ohio or Florida, and you changed it to Nevada. There would likely be some reduction in Nevada events and increase in California events, as it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Oct 7, 2020 21:54:22 GMT -5
Its not a silly argument, its fundamentally true. If the popular vote were what mattered campaigns would function very differently. For example, lets look at campaign events in 2016. 1.05 million people voted for Trump or Clinton in Nevada in 2016. If we say that 20% of those were swing voters, then that means that Clinton and Trump held 17 campaign events (9th most of any state) to contest 205,000 votes In California, 13 million people voted for Trump or Clinton. If we apply the same formula, that gives us 2.6 million swing voters. In order to court these 2.6 million voters, Trump and Clinton held a combined 1 campaign event. I responded to a post that said they wouldn't campaign in Ohio or Florida, and you changed it to Nevada. There would likely be some reduction in Nevada events and increase in California events, as it should be. I must have misunderstood your post then. Reading it along with the one you quoted I thought you were arguing that if the popular vote were what controlled then candidates wouldnt campaign much more in CA and NY. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 21:58:59 GMT -5
I responded to a post that said they wouldn't campaign in Ohio or Florida, and you changed it to Nevada. There would likely be some reduction in Nevada events and increase in California events, as it should be. I must have misunderstood your post then. Reading it along with the one you quoted I thought you were arguing that if the popular vote were what controlled then candidates wouldnt campaign much more in CA and NY. "Much" more is weasel words. There would be more than zero change. But sick of people claiming they would only campaign in California and New York. That's absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Oct 7, 2020 22:04:42 GMT -5
I must have misunderstood your post then. Reading it along with the one you quoted I thought you were arguing that if the popular vote were what controlled then candidates wouldnt campaign much more in CA and NY. "Much" more is weasel words. There would be more than zero change. But sick of people claiming they would only campaign in California and New York. That's absurd. I hadn't heard that claim at all, obviously untrue. I'd be very curious to see how campaigns would look if it were only popular vote that mattered. I'd imagine get out the vote efforts would suddenly become a much greater part of each party's strategy |
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Oct 7, 2020 22:12:26 GMT -5
You're focusing on technicalities, for no good reason. Sure fine, I'm probably wrong on the technicalities. I'm most ignorant of the detailed history. It's the spirit of what I'm arguing, that I'm not hearing any valid counter-arguments: the 13 colonies would not all have signed up for a federal government if it was formed as an ideal democracy. You said "Some of the colonies would not have signed up to fight [the English in the Revolutionary War], if they knew they were going to have less power than the others in the new federal government." That is not accurate. If you had said "some of the colonies would not agree to have less power than others in the new federal government" then no one would have disagreed with you. I don't think it is reasonable to accuse others of "focusing on technicalities" when you were the one to chose to throw those inaccuracies into the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 7, 2020 22:24:25 GMT -5
You're focusing on technicalities, for no good reason. Sure fine, I'm probably wrong on the technicalities. I'm most ignorant of the detailed history. It's the spirit of what I'm arguing, that I'm not hearing any valid counter-arguments: the 13 colonies would not all have signed up for a federal government if it was formed as an ideal democracy. You said "Some of the colonies would not have signed up to fight [the English in the Revolutionary War], if they knew they were going to have less power than the others in the new federal government." That is not accurate. If you had said "some of the colonies would not agree to have less power than others in the new federal government" then no one would have disagreed with you. I don't think it is reasonable to accuse others of "focusing on technicalities" when you were the one to chose to throw those inaccuracies into the discussion. Also, the 13 colonies didn't sign up for the Constitution. When the Constitution was drafted, the colonies hadn't existed for years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 11:49:20 GMT -5
You're focusing on technicalities, for no good reason. Sure fine, I'm probably wrong on the technicalities. I'm most ignorant of the detailed history. It's the spirit of what I'm arguing, that I'm not hearing any valid counter-arguments: the 13 colonies would not all have signed up for a federal government if it was formed as an ideal democracy. You said "Some of the colonies would not have signed up to fight [the English in the Revolutionary War], if they knew they were going to have less power than the others in the new federal government." That is not accurate. If you had said "some of the colonies would not agree to have less power than others in the new federal government" then no one would have disagreed with you. I don't think it is reasonable to accuse others of "focusing on technicalities" when you were the one to chose to throw those inaccuracies into the discussion. It was the same spirit of what I was saying. Focus on that. But of course, you have no counter-argument for that. I didn't think there would be one, because I'm pretty sure it's the right answer for why we don't have an ideal democracy now.
The founders sacrificed it to get all 13 in, and we have to live that sacrifice to this day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 11:51:00 GMT -5
You said "Some of the colonies would not have signed up to fight [the English in the Revolutionary War], if they knew they were going to have less power than the others in the new federal government." That is not accurate. If you had said "some of the colonies would not agree to have less power than others in the new federal government" then no one would have disagreed with you. I don't think it is reasonable to accuse others of "focusing on technicalities" when you were the one to chose to throw those inaccuracies into the discussion. Also, the 13 colonies didn't sign up for the Constitution. When the Constitution was drafted, the colonies hadn't existed for years. Details, details. *twirls hand over head* |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 8, 2020 11:52:23 GMT -5
You said "Some of the colonies would not have signed up to fight [the English in the Revolutionary War], if they knew they were going to have less power than the others in the new federal government." That is not accurate. If you had said "some of the colonies would not agree to have less power than others in the new federal government" then no one would have disagreed with you. I don't think it is reasonable to accuse others of "focusing on technicalities" when you were the one to chose to throw those inaccuracies into the discussion. It was the same spirit of what I was saying. Focus on that. But of course, you have no counter-argument for that. I didn't think there would be one, because I'm pretty sure it's the right answer for why we don't have an ideal democracy now. The founders sacrificed it to get all 13 in, and we have to live that sacrifice to this day.
Sure, yes, nobody disagreed with that. But it had nothing to do with "banding together against England" the way you insisted it did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 11:57:20 GMT -5
It was the same spirit of what I was saying. Focus on that. But of course, you have no counter-argument for that. I didn't think there would be one, because I'm pretty sure it's the right answer for why we don't have an ideal democracy now. The founders sacrificed it to get all 13 in, and we have to live that sacrifice to this day.
Sure, yes, nobody disagreed with that. But it had nothing to do with "banding together against England" the way you insisted it did. So?
The topic was imperfect democracy. The founders did it, on purpose. Sadly
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Oct 8, 2020 12:05:05 GMT -5
I feel like you’re trying to squirm around the fact you got the history wrong. Chastising others because they didn’t provide counter arguments to the “spirit” of your argument is strange.
You should succinctly state your point first, and then others can bounce off of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 12:09:49 GMT -5
I feel like you’re trying to squirm around the fact you got the history wrong. Chastising others because they didn’t provide counter arguments to the “spirit” of your argument Is strange. You should succinctly state your point first, and then others can bounce off of it. I'm happy to say that I'm mostly ignorant of the detailed history. I believe I made that very statement.
I don't have time to do a thesis level literature review, before making a post on an internet message board. And besides, there seem to be a plethora of folks here who are very knowledge on these subjects, for whatever reasons. Not a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Oct 8, 2020 12:13:58 GMT -5
I feel like you’re trying to squirm around the fact you got the history wrong. Chastising others because they didn’t provide counter arguments to the “spirit” of your argument Is strange. You should succinctly state your point first, and then others can bounce off of it. I'm happy to say that I'm mostly ignorant of the detailed history. I believe I made that very statement.
I don't have time to do a thesis level literature review, before making a post on an internet message board. And besides, there seem to be a plethora of folks here who are very knowledge on these subjects, for whatever reasons. Not a bad thing.
No one is asking you to make a thesis-level literature review? Your argument just lacked factual support. And it was like pulling teeth getting you to admit that. Let’s start here: what are you basing your claim that “the 13 colonies would have never formed a union with an ‘ideal democracy’” (if I’m summarizing your argument correctly) on? Which documents, events, etc.? |
|
