2019-2020 US Election Megathread II: Tim Ryan's Empire

[Tarsonis]

It's fair because it balances needs and requires people to work together. As it stands, sides don't need to work together, they can get a simple majority and rule unchecked power. A balancing mechanic would require them to coalition build.

As it further stands I'm also in favor of the status quo and not changing anything.

No it isn’t fair your weighting statewide elections in favor of one side because of less population.

Counterbalancing interests isn't unfair, it ensures the majority can't run roughshod over the majority and vice versa.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Why should the people who pay most of the taxes not get most of the say in how those taxes are used?

That's just a nice way of saying "Why shouldn't the city folk get to dictate to the farmers?"

Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the city folk get to dictate to the farmers?

How am I supposed to debate the merits of your ideal system if you don't have a system to debate?
Wait, no, I do have one question you can probably answer. How do you plan on setting this up so that state governments can't just keep themselves in power indefinitely? They are, after all, the ones who will end up deciding how the elections are run.

I don't. I'm perfectly fine with the status quo as is. San Lumen keeps trying to make me advocate for a state system and I keep falling into the trap.

How unreasonable must we be to ask you to explain what exactly you want to do and how it would be better than our plan.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

No it isn’t fair your weighting statewide elections in favor of one side because of less population.

Counterbalancing interests isn't unfair, it ensures the majority can't run roughshod over the majority and vice versa.

And yet you seem to have no problem letting the minority run roughshod over the majority.

[Tarsonis]

That's just a nice way of saying "Why shouldn't the city folk get to dictate to the farmers?"

Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the city folk get to dictate to the farmers?

I just showed you why, California is a demonstrable in real time how consolidated power by urban centers runs roughshod over the rural areas.

I don't. I'm perfectly fine with the status quo as is. San Lumen keeps trying to make me advocate for a state system and I keep falling into the trap.

How unreasonable must we be to ask you to explain what exactly you want to do and how it would be better than our plan.

Except, and let me clear, I don't want to actually do anything. The system is fine the way it is. y'all are the ones who want to make a change.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the city folk get to dictate to the farmers?

I just showed you why, California is a demonstrable in real time how consolidated power by urban centers runs roughshod over the rural areas.

And if you had a situation where farmers passed anti-city laws (such as slashing property tax and raising sales tax), would you say that this was fair?

How unreasonable must we be to ask you to explain what exactly you want to do and how it would be better than our plan.

Except, and let me clear, I don't want to actually do anything. The system is fine the way it is. y'all are the ones who want to make a change.

The system that you've been describing doesn't seem to be what we actually have (since when have we let state governments arbitrarily decide how elections are conducted?), and you keep citing examples from our current system (such as the California one above) as examples of why the current system doesn't work. In short, I call bullshit on this.

[San Lumen]

No it isn’t fair your weighting statewide elections in favor of one side because of less population.

Counterbalancing interests isn't unfair, it ensures the majority can't run roughshod over the majority and vice versa.

By making it so only one side can win even if they get less votes

Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the city folk get to dictate to the farmers?

I just showed you why, California is a demonstrable in real time how consolidated power by urban centers runs roughshod over the rural areas.

How unreasonable must we be to ask you to explain what exactly you want to do and how it would be better than our plan.

Except, and let me clear, I don't want to actually do anything. The system is fine the way it is. y'all are the ones who want to make a change.

im fine with how things are. The person who gets the most votes wins. We should elect the president the same way like every other country that directly elects it’s president

[Tarsonis]

Counterbalancing interests isn't unfair, it ensures the majority can't run roughshod over the majority and vice versa.

By making it so only one side can win even if they get less votes

Not making it so only one side can win. No where does it say only Republicans can win. What it does is give the smaller areas a fighting chance to have their views heard.

I just showed you why, California is a demonstrable in real time how consolidated power by urban centers runs roughshod over the rural areas.


Except, and let me clear, I don't want to actually do anything. The system is fine the way it is. y'all are the ones who want to make a change.

im fine with how things are. The person who gets the most votes wins. We should elect the president the same way like every other country that directly elects it’s president

Except that’s not how things are. Who ever wins the EC gets elected. You’re proposing to change that.

[Tarsonis]

I just showed you why, California is a demonstrable in real time how consolidated power by urban centers runs roughshod over the rural areas.

And if you had a situation where farmers passed anti-city laws (such as slashing property tax and raising sales tax), would you say that this was fair?

If the system allowed them to completely override their objections then know. Again with this false dichotomy.

Except, and let me clear, I don't want to actually do anything. The system is fine the way it is. y'all are the ones who want to make a change.

The system that you've been describing doesn't seem to be what we actually have (since when have we let state governments arbitrarily decide how elections are conducted?), and you keep citing examples from our current system (such as the California one above) as examples of why the current system doesn't work. In short, I call bullshit on this.

It isn’t what we have in place. As I tried to explain, the whole issue with the stares is San Lumens thing. I’m perfectly fine with the present US system as is. Theoretically I could see places to make changes at the state level, such as breaking up California, but that’s really all just flights of fancy. The system should stay as is.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

By making it so only one side can win even if they get less votes

Not making it so only one side can win. No where does it say only Republicans can win. What it does is give the smaller areas a fighting chance to have their views heard.

You know, for someone who allegedly doesn't want to change the status quo, this sounds a lot like a change to the status quo...

[San Lumen]

By making it so only one side can win even if they get less votes

Not making it so only one side can win. No where does it say only Republicans can win. What it does is give the smaller areas a fighting chance to have their views heard.

im fine with how things are. The person who gets the most votes wins. We should elect the president the same way like every other country that directly elects it’s president

Except that’s not how things are. Who ever wins the EC gets elected. You’re proposing to change that.

They are heard. It’s called a ballot. They also have state legislators or should the rural areas of Washington get more representation than the Puget Sound region?

Yes I do want to change it. The person with the most votes should be president not the most land area

[Kowani]

By making it so only one side can win even if they get less votes

Not making it so only one side can win. No where does it say only Republicans can win. What it does is give the smaller areas a fighting chance to have their views heard.

im fine with how things are. The person who gets the most votes wins. We should elect the president the same way like every other country that directly elects it’s president

Except that’s not how things are. Who ever wins the EC gets elected. You’re proposing to change that.

Imagine thinking the EC gave small states a voice.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

And if you had a situation where farmers passed anti-city laws (such as slashing property tax and raising sales tax), would you say that this was fair?

If the system allowed them to completely override their objections then know. Again with this false dichotomy.

You don't like it that cities get most of the votes, so you want to rebalance the system so farmers get most of the votes instead. Please, explain why this won't create the same situation that we have now, except we swap urbanites with farmers (and none of that "but they'll have to work together!" nonsense, because one side or the other is going to get a majority - that's how literally all governments work - and the side that gets the majority usually doesn't have to work with the opposing side), or stop telling me that it's a false dichotomy.

The system that you've been describing doesn't seem to be what we actually have (since when have we let state governments arbitrarily decide how elections are conducted?), and you keep citing examples from our current system (such as the California one above) as examples of why the current system doesn't work. In short, I call bullshit on this.

It isn’t what we have in place. As I tried to explain, the whole issue with the stares is San Lumens thing. I’m perfectly fine with the present US system as is. Theoretically I could see places to make changes at the state level, such as breaking up California, but that’s really all just flights of fancy. The system should stay as is.

>says that the system should stay as it is
>also says that we should nerf California because it's apparently too OP

[Valrifell]

Did anyone watch the Pete Buttigieg Fox Townhall?

I'm no blue-dog democrat, but I would happily cast my ballot for him after that. He brought down the house, even better then Bernie.

Buttigieg tends to do really well in town halls, it was his CNN townhall that moved from the "0-1%" pack to the midrange, viabile candidate pack of 5-10%.

Also he's not really a Blue Dog.

[Galloism]

Did anyone watch the Pete Buttigieg Fox Townhall?

I'm no blue-dog democrat, but I would happily cast my ballot for him after that. He brought down the house, even better then Bernie.

Buttigieg tends to do really well in town halls, it was his CNN townhall that moved from the "0-1%" pack to the midrange, viabile candidate pack of 5-10%.

Also he's not really a Blue Dog.

Bill seen crying in the corner over not being first gentleman.

[Valrifell]

Buttigieg tends to do really well in town halls, it was his CNN townhall that moved from the "0-1%" pack to the midrange, viabile candidate pack of 5-10%.

Also he's not really a Blue Dog.

Bill seen crying in the corner over not being first gentleman.

Chasten Buttigieg is the First Gentleman America needs and deserves.

[Tarsonis]

If the system allowed them to completely override their objections then know. Again with this false dichotomy.

You don't like it that cities get most of the votes, so you want to rebalance the system so farmers get most of the votes instead. Please, explain why this won't create the same situation that we have now, except we swap urbanites with farmers (and none of that "but they'll have to work together!" nonsense, because one side or the other is going to get a majority - that's how literally all governments work - and the side that gets the majority usually doesn't have to work with the opposing side), or stop telling me that it's a false dichotomy.

It isn’t what we have in place. As I tried to explain, the whole issue with the stares is San Lumens thing. I’m perfectly fine with the present US system as is. Theoretically I could see places to make changes at the state level, such as breaking up California, but that’s really all just flights of fancy. The system should stay as is.

>says that the system should stay as it is
>also says that we should nerf California because it's apparently too OP

I didn’t say we should. Once again, that is me entertaining San Lumens desire to use states a hypothetical examples.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

You don't like it that cities get most of the votes, so you want to rebalance the system so farmers get most of the votes instead. Please, explain why this won't create the same situation that we have now, except we swap urbanites with farmers (and none of that "but they'll have to work together!" nonsense, because one side or the other is going to get a majority - that's how literally all governments work - and the side that gets the majority usually doesn't have to work with the opposing side), or stop telling me that it's a false dichotomy.

>says that the system should stay as it is
>also says that we should nerf California because it's apparently too OP

I didn’t say we should. Once again, that is me entertaining San Lumens desire to use states a hypothetical examples.

Could you either stop saying that you don't want to change the status quo or stop giving us examples of how you'd want to change the status quo? I don't really care which, I'm just asking for consistency.

[Tarsonis]

I didn’t say we should. Once again, that is me entertaining San Lumens desire to use states a hypothetical examples.

Could you either stop saying that you don't want to change the status quo or stop giving us examples of how you'd want to change the status quo? I don't really care which, I'm just asking for consistency.

Okay. Here’s the conversation thus far.

Y’all: We should change the system.
Me: No we shouldn’t.
Y’all: How would that system work in these hypotheticals
Me: maybe like this.
Y’all: if you’re gonna advocate a position you should have details.
Me: I’m not advocating anything, I’m responding to your hypotheticaeng scenarios.
Y’all: can you be consistent?



I am being consistent. You don’t want me to engage in hypotheticals then stop bringing them up.

[San Lumen]

Could you either stop saying that you don't want to change the status quo or stop giving us examples of how you'd want to change the status quo? I don't really care which, I'm just asking for consistency.

Okay. Here’s the conversation thus far.

Y’all: We should change the system.
Me: No we shouldn’t.
Y’all: How would that system work in these hypotheticals
Me: maybe like this.
Y’all: if you’re gonna advocate a position you should have details.
Me: I’m not advocating anything, I’m responding to your hypotheticaeng scenarios.
Y’all: can you be consistent?



I am being consistent. You don’t want me to engage in hypotheticals then stop bringing them up.

Your being contradictory.You propose hypotheticals to make the system supposedly fairer but then say you like the status quo of whomever gets the most votes in a statewide election winning.

[Tarsonis]

Okay. Here’s the conversation thus far.

Y’all: We should change the system.
Me: No we shouldn’t.
Y’all: How would that system work in these hypotheticals
Me: maybe like this.
Y’all: if you’re gonna advocate a position you should have details.
Me: I’m not advocating anything, I’m responding to your hypotheticaeng scenarios.
Y’all: can you be consistent?



I am being consistent. You don’t want me to engage in hypotheticals then stop bringing them up.

Your being contradictory.You propose hypotheticals to make the system supposedly fairer but then say you like the status quo of whomever gets the most votes in a statewide election winning.

I never proposed a hypothetical, I engaged with yours. There’s a difference.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Could you either stop saying that you don't want to change the status quo or stop giving us examples of how you'd want to change the status quo? I don't really care which, I'm just asking for consistency.

Okay. Here’s the conversation thus far.

Y’all: We should change the system.
Me: No we shouldn’t.
Y’all: How would that system work in these hypotheticals
Me: maybe like this.
Y’all: if you’re gonna advocate a position you should have details.
Me: I’m not advocating anything, I’m responding to your hypotheticaeng scenarios.
Y’all: can you be consistent?



I am being consistent. You don’t want me to engage in hypotheticals then stop bringing them up.

You're telling us that you want no change to the status quo but everything you've said on the topic that isn't a variation of "I want no change to the status quo" is a sweeping change to the status quo.
When I asked how your ideal system works, you could have replied "the system we have now is fine" instead of describing a massive change to our state election system. If you wanted the massive change to our electoral structure, then you could have owned it instead of denying that you want change. I'm not saying that you can't want change, I'm not saying that you can't have the status quo, but if your ideal is not the status quo, then don't say it is.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Your being contradictory.You propose hypotheticals to make the system supposedly fairer but then say you like the status quo of whomever gets the most votes in a statewide election winning.

I never proposed a hypothetical, I engaged with yours. There’s a difference.

No, you pretty clearly proposed a hypothetical. It was in response to ours, but that doesn't change what it was.

[Tarsonis]

I never proposed a hypothetical, I engaged with yours. There’s a difference.

No, you pretty clearly proposed a hypothetical. It was in response to ours, but that doesn't change what it was.

Which hypothetical? New York? That just showing how vast the disparity can be. I was asked how would it work? I gave the honest response, I don't know. I haven't thought about it in great detail. I haven't proposed anything specific, I haven't even advocated that we actually do anything. I've only defended the EC as is. If you think I've proposed things we "should" do, ill retract them all here and now as that wasn't my intent.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

No, you pretty clearly proposed a hypothetical. It was in response to ours, but that doesn't change what it was.

Which hypothetical? New York? That just showing how vast the disparity can be. I was asked how would it work? I gave the honest response, I don't know. I haven't thought about it in great detail. I haven't proposed anything specific, I haven't even advocated that we actually do anything. I've only defended the EC as is. If you think I've proposed things we "should" do, ill retract them all here and now as that wasn't my intent.

You've stated that you think the EC should be expanded to state elections, and you've at least implied that you want the power of rural counties to be greater in comparison to urban counties. Seems like a change to the status quo if you ask me.
As far as specifics go, yes, you've been vague, but that's not necessarily a good thing, since we can't say in good faith that we agree with your system unless we have at least some information about how it would be done, meaning that it's impossible for you to actually win the debate. The way I see it, if I have a clear plan and you don't, then my plan's almost certainly better, especially if you've been going back and forth on whether or not you want change.
As for the 'hypothetical' thing, I reread the post I was referring to (this one, if you're curious) and now I'm not sure if it actually counts as a hypothetical. I concede that point.

To go on a bit of a tangent, I want to apologize for the debates we had a few days ago, and clarify that I'm not trying to dismantle what you're trying to say (at least, no more than I have to for purposes of analyzing it) or deliberately misrepresent what you're saying. I'm mostly just trying to figure out what you actually want, and my lack of consistency in my arguments (which I fully admit is present) is the result of me genuinely not being able to figure out what I'm arguing against. But looking back on this, I think I might have figured it out:
Am I correct in thinking that your "true" ideal system is not the one that we have currently, but you prefer the status quo over instituting change that might not end up being positive?

[Tarsonis]

Which hypothetical? New York? That just showing how vast the disparity can be. I was asked how would it work? I gave the honest response, I don't know. I haven't thought about it in great detail. I haven't proposed anything specific, I haven't even advocated that we actually do anything. I've only defended the EC as is. If you think I've proposed things we "should" do, ill retract them all here and now as that wasn't my intent.

You've stated that you think the EC should be expanded to state elections, and you've at least implied that you want the power of rural counties to be greater in comparison to urban counties. Seems like a change to the status quo if you ask me.
As far as specifics go, yes, you've been vague, but that's not necessarily a good thing, since we can't say in good faith that we agree with your system unless we have at least some information about how it would be done, meaning that it's impossible for you to actually win the debate. The way I see it, if I have a clear plan and you don't, then my plan's almost certainly better, especially if you've been going back and forth on whether or not you want change.
As for the 'hypothetical' thing, I reread the post I was referring to (this one, if you're curious) and now I'm not sure if it actually counts as a hypothetical. I concede that point.

To go on a bit of a tangent, I want to apologize for the debates we had a few days ago, and clarify that I'm not trying to dismantle what you're trying to say (at least, no more than I have to for purposes of analyzing it) or deliberately misrepresent what you're saying. I'm mostly just trying to figure out what you actually want, and my lack of consistency in my arguments (which I fully admit is present) is the result of me genuinely not being able to figure out what I'm arguing against. But looking back on this, I think I might have figured it out:
Am I correct in thinking that your "true" ideal system is not the one that we have currently, but you prefer the status quo over instituting change that might not end up being positive?

I'll be as clear as I can. I want the System to stay as is. I'm not proposing any changes. My comments about expanding it to the states were in response San using Wash and Delaware as examples as why they think the EC is unfair. I did not mean to imply that we should do that, I was simply engaging with San's discussion. IF, and I mean, IF, states wanted to incorporate an EC style system I would be okay with that. If MA wanted to institute one, I said I'd probably vote for it depending on how it's constructed, but that should not be taken as me saying "this is something we should do going forward." I'm just saying it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea.


Also, I wouldn't necessarily say the status quo is perfect or the "ideal" system, but I think it works as is and there's no reason to change it, and I don't see popular vote election as somehow making it "better."