The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[tabibito]

Trump is indeed strange, oh so unbelievably bizzaro strange.

But by no means as bizarre as his political opponents and the media. So much time and money expended and resources tied up in attempting to bring him down; investigations conducted by a partisan investigator who could, in the final analysis, do no more than produce innuendo in condemnation of Trump. It all points to insurmountable incompetence on the part of his opponents, or that Trump is (within the limits for a politician) squeaky clean (actually, that would point just as certainly to incompetence on the part of his opponents). Either way, his middle name is teflon.

[Mountain Man]

You have yet to show how this would be any more imbalanced at the national level than it is at the state or district or town level.

Surely you recognize that the dynamics of national politics are distinctly different from the state and local level where the imbalance is often less pronounced, and leaders are closer to and more directly answerable to the people. That sort of system doesn't scale up.

And, besides, "mob rule" can be a problem even at the local level. In my city, for instance, city council members are elected on a straight popular vote. The problem is that the most densely populated areas of the city lean strongly Democrat, so we have an exclusively Democrat governing body from the mayor on down. A district system was proposed by some citizens to try and encourage more equal representation, but it was unanimously rejected by the city council who is unwilling to give up their power monopoly.

Like I said, mob rule is great as long as it's your mob who rules.

You're also ignoring the fact that even at the national level, the system is deliberately designed to promote representation of an entire state's population, which is why we have Republican congressmen even from a dark blue state like California. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is illustrated by the fact that, unlike my own city, it is virtually impossible for any single political power to maintain a lock on any one branch of government.

[Cow Poke]

Trump is indeed strange, oh so unbelievably bizzaro strange.

So, perhaps, you'd like the title to be "The Great Strangeness of Donald Trump"?

[oxmixmudd]

So, perhaps, you'd like the title to be "The Great Strangeness of Donald Trump"?

Yep. Thats the only sensible rendering. I just assumed the title was a typo

Jim

[One Bad Pig]

A bad argument is a bad argument - it doesn't matter when it was put forward and by whom it was put forward.

Well, true. The argument you put forward IS bad, but not because you advanced it.

[shunyadragon]

So, perhaps, you'd like the title to be "The Great Strangeness of Donald Trump"?

Trump is indeed strange, oh so unbelievably bizzaro 'Great Strangeness.'

Sounds better.

[Cow Poke]

Trump is indeed strange, oh so unbelievably bizzaro 'Great Strangeness.'

Sounds better.

I certainly can't disagree that he's a totally different breed of cat.

[carpedm9587]

Surely you recognize that the dynamics of national politics are distinctly different from the state and local level where the imbalance is often less pronounced, and leaders are closer to and more directly answerable to the people. That sort of system doesn't scale up.

No - I do not. That is true for some states (i.e., Rhode Island is almost completely urban/suburban, while Wyoming and Alaska are predominantly rural) but most states have the same kind of urban rural mix at the state level that exists at the national level (California, Texas, New York, Virginia, Florida, Illinois, and the list goes on). You are attempting to carve out an exception without justification.

And, besides, "mob rule" can be a problem even at the local level. In my city, for instance, city council members are elected on a straight popular vote. The problem is that the most densely populated areas of the city lean strongly Democrat, so we have an exclusively Democrat governing body from the mayor on down. A district system was proposed by some citizens to try and encourage more equal representation, but it was unanimously rejected by the city council who is unwilling to give up their power monopoly.

Like I said, mob rule is great as long as it's your mob who rules.

You're also ignoring the fact that even at the national level, the system is deliberately designed to promote representation of an entire state's population, which is why we have Republican congressmen even from a dark blue state like California. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is illustrated by the fact that, unlike my own city, it is virtually impossible for any single political power to maintain a lock on any one branch of government.

The dynamic you describe is more a function of a) gerrymandering" and b) self-sorting mobility than it is a function of "mob rule." Again - I find no justification in any part of your post for giving one person's vote 50%+ more power than another person's vote solely on the basis of where they live. One person - one vote. It's a simple concept.

[carpedm9587]

Well, true. The argument you put forward IS bad, but not because you advanced it.

It is easy to say, "it's bad." It is a lot harder to make a post in which an argument is actually framed so it can be examined and discussed. What I know from your post is "OBP thinks Michel's argument is bad." Nice to know, I guess. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But your post provides no basis for evaluation or for even beginning to reassess my position.

[Mountain Man]

No - I do not. That is true for some states (i.e., Rhode Island is almost completely urban/suburban, while Wyoming and Alaska are predominantly rural) but most states have the same kind of urban rural mix at the state level that exists at the national level (California, Texas, New York, Virginia, Florida, Illinois, and the list goes on). You are attempting to carve out an exception without justification.



The dynamic you describe is more a function of a) gerrymandering" and b) self-sorting mobility than it is a function of "mob rule." Again - I find no justification in any part of your post for giving one person's vote 50%+ more power than another person's vote solely on the basis of where they live. One person - one vote. It's a simple concept.

I suppose I should point out that I disagree with your assertion that the electoral college gives an unfair advantage to small states. It doesn't. On the contrary, it's a weighting system with the intent of giving everyone an equal opportunity to have his voice heard. It prevents a state like Rhode Island or Vermont from being lost in the mob of states like California and Florida. California with its large number of electoral votes still has a very loud voice, it just doesn't have an overpowering one; in other words, the electoral college is working exactly as intended.

As for your "one person, one vote" nonsense, I think Thomas Jefferson put it best: A democracy allows 51% of the population to vote to suppress the rights of the other 49%.

[carpedm9587]

I suppose I should point out that I disagree with your assertion that the electoral college gives an unfair advantage to small states. It doesn't. On the contrary, it's a weighting system with the intent of giving everyone an equal opportunity to have his voice heard. It prevents a state like Rhode Island or Vermont from being lost in the mob of states like California and Florida. California with its large number of electoral votes still has a very loud voice, it just doesn't have an overpowering one; in other words, the electoral college is working exactly as intended.

MM - you don't seem to realize that my argument has never been about states - and I have never made the assertion you are trying to force on me. I have never said anything about "favoring this state over that state." "The state" is your rebuttal argument, not mine. We have state-level representation in Congress and I have no problem with it. We elect those representatives with a popular vote. I am advocating for the same model for the executive office at a national level that we have at state and district levels. The math is fairly simple. Using California and Wyoming as examples:

California: 39.56 million people / 55 electoral votes = 719,272 persons/electoral vote
Wyoming: 577,737 / 3 electoral votes = 192,579 persons/electoral vote

Ergo, a vote by someone from Wyoming has 373% the weight of a vote by someone from California. This discrepancy is at its extreme between California and Wyoming because we have the most populous state with the least populous state, but it exists between all states to varying degrees.

Rhode Island: 1.059 people / 4 electoral votes = 264,909 persons/electoral vote

So the vote of someone from Rhode Island has 137.6% the weight of a person from Wyoming.

There is no rational justification for this discrepancy in votes. One person - one vote - simple.

As for your "one person, one vote" nonsense, I think Thomas Jefferson put it best: A democracy allows 51% of the population to get to suppress the rights of the other 49%.

Any voting system will permit those who win the vote to suppress the rights of those who don't. There is no voting system you can design that does not have this characteristic. Ergo - it's an irrelevant attribute because it cannot be excluded from the process. You're simply advocating that 45% of the people should be able to suppress the rights of 55% of the people (or any other combination where the minority wins).

Majority rules has a long history, and is not equivalent to "mob rule," despite your attempt to paint it as such. When the vote is 66M to 63M - you have two mobs of slightly differing sizes. There is no reason to consider 63M people any less a "mob" than 66M. So you just want the smaller mob to be able to win, apparently.

[Mountain Man]

Ergo, a vote by someone from Wyoming has 373% the weight of a vote by someone from California.

Yes, and it's all in the interest of preventing big dog states like California from ruling the entire country. You're trying to erase borders and say that the interests of individual states shouldn't matter when choosing a president. That's just ignorant.

There is no rational justification for this discrepancy in votes.

Yes, there is. It was debated to a great extent by our Founding Fathers, and you should have been taught the rationale for it in high school civics. As I said before, it has been my experience that those who argue against the electoral college are usually the ones who don't understand it.

Any voting system will permit those who win the vote to suppress the rights of those who don't. There is no voting system you can design that does not have this characteristic.

But it can be mitigated to a very great extent by allowing everyone to have a proportionally equal voice which promotes equal representation; to put it another way, you design a system where the majority doesn't always get its way. And as history proves, this system has worked exceptionally well for the United States, preventing any one political entity from gaining a permanent stranglehold on the country. Wanting to upend the entire infrastructure just because Hillary lost is naive and shortsighted.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, and it's all in the interest of preventing big dog states like California from ruling the entire country. You're trying to erase borders and say that the interests of individual states shouldn't matter when choosing a president. That's just ignorant.

You cannot be "ruled" by another state in the U.S. - we have state boundaries and we have state-level representation in Congress. The discussion is only about how the president is elected. You are inflating the significance without justification. "That's just ignorant" is not an argument, so I have no response.

Yes, there is. It was debated to a great extent by our Founding Fathers, and you should have been taught the rationale for it in high school civics. As I said before, it has been my experience that those who argue against the electoral college are usually the ones who don't understand it.

So several responses. First, you are appealing to authority and I don't find such arguments compelling. I don't care if the FF's said something. I care why they said it and whether it makes sense. It doesn't and you have not offered an argument for why it does. Appealing to the FFs doesn't cut it. Arguing that I "don't understand" also doesn't cut it. I am familiar with the arguments. They don't justify the system or the discrepancy. Indeed, much of the electoral college is rooted in the desire NOT to hand election of the president directly to the people, so there would be a check/balance in the event that an unscrupulous leader managed to get elected. This is why the electors technically have freedom of choice. In practice, that has not happened, so the experiment is essentially a failure. One person - one vote. Simple.

But it can be mitigated to a very great extent by allowing everyone to have a proportionally equal voice which promotes equal representation; to put it another way, you design a system where the majority doesn't always get its way. And as history proves, this system has worked exceptionally well for the United States, preventing any one political entity from gaining a permanent stranglehold on the country. Wanting to upend the entire infrastructure just because Hillary lost is naive and shortsighted.

There is no way you can make an argument that one person's vote having 373% the power of another is "proportional." One person one vote is proportional.

[Mountain Man]

When you dismiss the expert opinions of those who extensively debated the ideas we find in the a Constitution as an "appeal to authority" then I know any further discussion with you is pointless.

[carpedm9587]

When you dismiss the expert opinions of those who extensively debated the ideas we find in the a Constitution as an "appeal to authority" then I know any further discussion with you is pointless.

When you appeal to authority without actually outlining an argument, I suspect you have none.

ETA: You do this a lot, MM, at least in our discussions. You rail against a stated position, provide no actual argument against it - ignore most of the points made - and then simply declare further discussion pointless. Going back through this exchange, I find multiple points made which have zero response made from you. I have to conclude you have no rebuttals for those points, and simply prefer to ignore them. And now your core argument appears to be "the experts say so," which is a blatant appeal to authority. Even experts can be wrong - and I have outlined why I believe they were - or at least are for our time.