I tried to “quote reply” to your original post, but it wouldn’t fit.
StraightUp wrote:
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.
I'm not disputing any of the facts. I'm saying tha... (
show quote)
I understood what you were saying. I was just hoping that you would have provided an example of this
illusion in the context of Mr. England’s speech. But it’s neither here nor there, I understand your point, we don’t need to split any hairs over this because, for the most part I agree with you. Thank you for taking the time to explain.
Quote:
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.
The article you pasted states that the author, Tre... (
show quote)
Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that that isn’t the sole publication to which he contributes. Others, to include
Christian Science Monitor, and
The Washington Times, are hardly bastions of conservative policy, especially the latter, at least not to the same extent as HF. But again, your point is fair.
Quote:
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.
Lol! Funny, and true. Though I still think it’s a little unfair not to apply the same standard. But again, not a hair worth the time to split.
Quote:
But that doesn't mean they aren't biased or incapable of packaging facts to encourage a false impression.
In total agreement with the bias aspect. But not very clear as to where Mr. England encouraged any false impression in his speech. It’s obviously your choice if you wish to clarify, I’d like to read it, but it’s not a big hang up for me.
Quote:
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.
Who he is as an individual is what makes him attractive to HF, his involvement with HF didn’t make him the individual he is. Nor does his involvement with
CSM, or
The Washington Times. Again, no big deal, I’m not really even arguing your point, just wanted to express how I see it in my mind.
Quote:
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.
Absolutely agree. But I still can’t see where in his speech even a covert or even a subliminal message of suppression of free will. I think where we might be crossing lines of thought is in the area of who in the EC process elects the president. It’s not the
people per say, but the states. The people have the free will to vote for whom ever they want. Even the electors themselves are not bound to vote inline with the people. Such as the case for example, Colorado in 2016. But I think we’ll touch further on this below.
Quote:
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.
Yes, I understand your logic as to how the distribution of representatives suppresses free will. I just don’t agree. Again, I think we’ll touch further on this part, below.
Quote:
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.
Indeed you have. I just disagree that Mr. England is implying covertly, advocating for the suppression of free will. For the reason I mentioned above.
Quote:
Doesn't defending an existing law imply that you are arguing for its existence?
Absolutely! To add even
maintaining its existence. Which I believe is the intent behind his speech.
Quote:
Also, I don't think think you're understanding my point.
Well, I was confused in the beginning, but your skills in articulating your point(s) has cleared that up. I think we’re good now; thank you.
Quote:
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.
This is where I’m still a little hazy on your position. What, exactly, is the problem with the current distribution? Each state receives an electoral vote per the number of their representatives. Using the states you used earlier, California has 55, Wyoming has 3. Are you suggesting that it’s unfair for California to contribute to 20.37 % of the electoral college, while Wyoming contributes 1.1 %? This would make for a fun discussion, unless I’m completely misunderstanding what your problem is...
Quote:
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 is rather bizarre, lol.
Quote:
It seems slogans rather than explanations win elections these days.
Agreed! Slogans, as well as
labeling the
”others”.
Quote:
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).
I have a theory about this, but I would like to wait and see your response to my questions in regards to this up above. The only thing I can say here is, again, the people don’t directly elect the president. (Obviously) And since you have no issues with the EC in and of itself, I would need further clarification. I think we’re close to something, I just want to be more sure.
Quote:
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.
I agree with the premise, just not in agreement with your view about his support for voter suppression. Again, here, I think we can agree to disagree.
Quote:
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.
It doesn’t, but you said he was implying something. All I was asking is for you to state what his underlying implication was, and you did, by saying,
voter suppression. And it’s fine with me that you see this, I just don’t agree is all.
Quote:
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.
True. Which is why it would require a search history. If someone decided last week that it was going to be their foundational belief, then that would hold less weight with me as opposed to someone like England who, in my experience, has always held such a belief. And he actually supports it.
Quote:
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.
I don't know enough about Trent England to reach a... (
show quote)
I think the missing element here is the difference between what the elections are for. For example, elections for POTUS, and elections for representatives. The former is won by winning states, the latter by majority vote (post 1913 and the ratification of the 17 amendment, modifying Article I, Section III). Prior to that, the Senate was picked by legislatures.
Quote:
So, you are actually saying that all voters get to decide who will be excluded from voting. That should be fun to watch - LOL
No. I’m saying that states decide presidential elections. But all voters take part in voting.
Quote:
Yes! I will always agree with that.
Amen to that!
Quote:
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".
True, we would. But, something must’ve got lost in translation. Yes, technically, the flip side of the coin to tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the minority, but that’s not what I’m saying is happening, or advocating. I’m saying that one of the foundational American traditions is protecting the minority, and the smallest minority is the individual. We mustn’t let the majority vote away the rights of the minority. Nor should we let the minority vote away the rights of the majority. But we sort of do today when we let the SCOTUS legislate from the bench, regarding mostly societal issues. But that’s a separate issue, I don’t want to distract from our conversation.
Quote:
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.
It wasn't ALL the founders either, it was just tho... (
show quote)
That’s a fair point to make in justification of your problem. (the one you stated above). But that hasn’t been an issue (technically) for more than 150 years. (But I’m not arguing your point)
Quote:
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.
Interesting, and I agree. I believe it was Bastiat though that stated our system was as near a miracle as a nation could get. I happen to like our system. Would I like to make a few changes? Sure. But for now I’m good.
Quote:
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.
This is the further down part I mentioned above. To reiterate: it’s not the voters (or population) that directly elect the POTUS, but the electors, as I’m sure you know. So here’s my counter problem... at 55 electors, California influences 20.37% of the EC vote, while Wyoming with 3 electors, influences 1.1% - the disproportionate influence by representation of each state’s population is almost nil in the grand scheme of it all. The difference being a little more than 100k people. That may seem significant to some, but in respect to electing the president, I’m not one them.
Quote:
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.
I agree to the approach of a case by case basis. Regional conflicts have subsets, they may be political, economic, environmental, or social. So I’ll present a political one, that seems to have also morphed into a social one as well: The right to keep and bare arms, and how that right is not to be infringed.
Quote:
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.
Agreed.
Quote:
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.
Excellent! Repeal the 17th amendment, right?
(Continued below)