The Critical Critic wrote:
The facts are there, because they have already been validated, that’s why they’re called facts. I am curious as to which part(s) you found to be misleading. If you’re willing to expand on that, I’d like to read it.
I'm not disputing any of the facts. I'm saying that you can actually construct an entire illusion with proven facts alone and that's an artform that's been around since ancient Greece. I'll give you an example... the unemployment rate that presidents always mention when it drops. Obama did it and now Trump is doing it. They use one simple fact. The unemployment rate. It's an indisputable fact that the unemployment rate today is better than it's been for a long time... The illusion created is that there are fewer people out of work, but the part that gets left out is that the unemployment rate only counts people who are drawing on unemployment benefits. None of the people that have been out of work and no longer qualify for benefits are included in the picture. The fact remains true, but the context is misleading. It's a basic element of rhetorical discourse.
The Critical Critic wrote:
Not sure why you make the connection to the Heritage Foundation. Is it just because he contributes to the Heritage Guide? If that’s the case then, you’d have to apply your standard to the Wall Street Journal, and the other publications he contributes to. Fact is, he was invited as a guest speaker to Hillsdale College to speak as an individual, not to push any of the listed publications’ agendas. Your singular focus on the Heritage Foundation says more to me than anything else.
The article you pasted states that the author, Trent England, is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, so there's the connection and it seemed sufficient to use the HF as the example in my response.
Not even the HF itself will suggest they are unbiased. The HF is and always has been a think tank for conservative policy. You don't get a job at the HF as a policy analyst unless you have a conservative bias. This alone presents no issue for me, but as a frequent reader of HF publications, I have become very familiar with their use of rhetoric and I only mentioned it because I recognize the similarities between the article and a lot of HF publications.
Saying that I need to apply my standard to the WSJ doesn't help because I used to subscribe to that paper and I still read it on occasion... it's the same thing. Both organizations are informative, factual and respectable, the farthest thing from crack-pots like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck. But that doesn't mean they aren't biased or incapable of packaging facts to encourage a false impression.
England may have been invited to speak as an individual but his involvement in the Heritage Foundation all but guarantees that his personal bias is in-line with that of the HF and the transcript of his speech, at least in my mind, confirms that.
The Critical Critic wrote:
Well it’s a good thing you acknowledge it as fact, because, it is. The distinction between law and will was omitted because that wasn’t his point. He certainly doesn’t advocate for the suppression of free will. Reading any of his other writings clearly demonstrates this.
Well, of course that wasn't his point. When you're promoting a narrative you don't include issues that conflict with it. Nor do you overtly suggest things like the suppression of free-will if you know your audience would disagree. But the hard fact here is that he is defending the current election system which DOES suppress free-will. Sometimes all you need is logic to reveal the facts.
The Critical Critic wrote:
Where in this speech did you read this “implication”?
When you imply something it means you aren't stating it directly, so it's not like I can highlight it. But I have been explaining it.
The Critical Critic wrote:
What he is doing, is defending what is already LAW, the Constitution, in which is contained the method of the Electoral College system.
Doesn't defending an existing law imply that you are arguing for its existence?
Also, I don't think think you're understanding my point. I actually support the Electoral College system as defined in the Constitution. The problem I have is with the current distribution of representatives, not the Electoral College and I'm dumbfounded by how this critical distinction is so invisible to so many Americans. We even have presidential candidates on the Democratic side arguing for the removal of the Electoral College. I don't know if they are really that confused or if they simply don't have the faith in their potential voters to understand the complications. It seems slogans rather than explanations win elections these days.
I think England is doing pretty much the same. He probably understands the distinction. He probably understands that the problem isn't the EC but the distribution of representatives, but he knows that the EC is catching all the flak on media and so he is using the facts of the EC (as designed) to defend it while ignoring the unfair distribution of representatives that has been developing since 1913 and turning the EC (as designed) into an agent of voter suppression (as NOT designed).
So it's by virtue of what he is saying AND what he is NOT saying that I am suggesting his support for voter suppression. He isn't saying it directly but that's how political rhetoric works. It's the art of suggesting something without actually saying it.
The Critical Critic wrote:
straightUp wrote:
In fact for all this worry about tyranny of the majority, the suggested solution is just another form of tyranny... tyranny of the elite.
Surely it would. But again, I don’t see where in his speech such an implication exists.
Why does everything have to be overtly stated? You agreed with my point because logic dictates, so what does it matter if Mr. England mentions it or not? Obviously, this is something he chose not to divulge.
The Critical Critic wrote:
It would also contradict Mr. England’s foundational beliefs, which are mostly based on individual personal responsibility, and free will. In no way, fashion, or form does England attempt to suppress free will. If anything his speech shines a spotlight on the suppression of the free will of those in the minority in the case of a national popular vote.
Individual personal responsibility and free will is pretty much EVERYONE's stated foundational belief. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians - all of them claim that same virtue because it's popular. That doesn't mean they actually support it.
I don't know enough about Trent England to reach any conclusions about him as a person or a writer. But I am using very simple logic to test his argument in this case alone and I am finding conflicts. On one hand he is "saying" that people should have a voice, but on the other hand the system he is defending is preserving the unfair distribution of representatives that in reality conflicts with his "stated" belief and this is a reality he is leaving out. Either that or he is actually unaware of the contradiction - I'm assuming that as a policy analyst at HF, he is too intelligent for the later.
The Critical Critic wrote:
Not one group, but all voters, like it has always been done. Red, blue, and purple.
So, you are actually saying that all voters get to decide who will be excluded from voting. That should be fun to watch - LOL
The Critical Critic wrote:
What’s important is education for future generations.
Yes! I will always agree with that.
The Critical Critic wrote:
Not scared. But, scoff at the notion of majority rule, to expose its idiocy, and the inevitable tyranny it leads to. A fact of which you already conceded.
And you already conceded to the fact that the only alternative to the "tyranny" of majority rule is the "tyranny" of minority rule. This is the reality we have to deal with. As the saying goes, you can satisfy some people some of the time, but you can't satisfy all the people all the time. If every time an election happens the losers start calling the results a "tyranny" then I guess we'll always have a "tyranny".
I know I agreed that a majority would prevail (that's how democracy works) and at the time, we were calling that a "tyranny of the majority" because everyone else is. But is it really a tyranny? This is where I say, no it's not. And I'm calling bullsh*t on the founders for this one.
It wasn't ALL the founders either, it was just those from the southern states that wanted more representation in the federal government than their populations justified. They wanted to use their slave populations to justify more even though their slaves couldn't vote. They used the term "tyranny of the majority" as a buzzword in their arguments and it was total BS. Tyranny doesn't mean you got outvoted, it means you can't vote. Not the same thing. People need think about this instead of subscribing to the rhetoric of power-hungry slave owners from the 18th century.
If everyone gets an equal vote, there is no actual tyranny. Yes, there are losers but they are not barred from voting, nor are their votes devalued. The only system that would be better for all citizens would be something called a miracle.
In the meantime, with the current distortion in representation, it takes 5 votes in California to counter 1 vote in Wyoming... clearly not a fair situation. I would even argue that it's a partial tyranny because Californians effectively only get a 5th of a vote.
The only argument I've heard against a popular vote that makes any sense involves regional conflicts of interest and I think this can be handled on a case by case basis because I don't think those conflicts are as abundant as people think. If you can present at least one regional conflict of interest, I'll be more than happy to suggest a better solution for parity than the partial tyranny Trent England is defending.
In a nutshell, this is my position...
1. Stick with the Constitution which dictates that Congress shall elect the president.
2. Use the surrogate voters (Electoral College) to avoid corruption in Congress as that has ALWAYS been its purpose.
Those are the easy steps because it's already done.
3. Align representation to the most recent census to correct the 104-year fault that makes our democracy the most unfair example in the developed world.
4. Resolve regional conflicts on a case-by-case basis.
Put all the gloom and doom references to "majority rule" to bed. It hasn't been a valid issue since the 13th Amendment, when 3/5th humans were eliminated
I'm always up for more argument on this, but I just want to make sure people understand my position before engaging any further. I'm sure you understand.