Two positions that I've never heard a competent defense of: the electoral college and felon disenfranchisement.

For any and all, I'm genuinely curious in a logical reasons why these two things should continue to exist. I'll probably keep updating this with more topics as I find them.

Responses that I don't want (electoral college as an example):

"We're a Republic, not a Democracy!!!!"

I don't care. Give me a reason why the electoral college should continue to exist.

"We've always done X thing this way, so we should continue to do it this way!!!"

This is a logical fallacy.

fwiw, I'm completely in good faith here. I've tried to find reasons why either thing should continue to exist, and every argument made is a horrific one.

Posted by bagchucker on 3/7/2021 1:52:00 AM (view original):
FD same reason people don wanna put jabs in the arms of prisoners

you go off the reservation you get no rights

jail is supposed to mean something

those who hurt someone

make em think twice

Five responses:
1. Evidence suggests that how punitive a punishment is is not a deterrant to crime. The larger deterrant is the percieved risk of being caught.
2. Even if this was true, is the loss of voting rights really a deterrant? Was anyone going to commit a felony, but reconsidered because they would lose the right to vote?
3. This just doesn't play out empirically. You would need to provide evidence that felon disenfranchisement reduces crime rates.
4. It could actually be the opposite. There have been studies that have found (albeit flimsy) evidence that felon disenfranchisement increases recidivism rates.
5. Are felons not still citizens? Do they not pay taxes? Do government decisions not impact them? Why shouldn't they get a voice?

Voting is a privilege. If you commit crimes against the body politic you should not be able to contribute to it.

Without the electoral college, states like North Dakota and South Dakota and Wyoming and Nebraska (etc etc) have zero say in national elections. A New Yorker is not a North Dakotan even if there's 20x more of them and North Dakotans should have representation too.

Or how about we just remove any and all restrictions on voting like your fellow house dems want! 16 year olds voting? Heck sure! People serving life sentences for double murder? Yes, let em vote! (Very tellingly too...Democrats know that murderers lean left!)

ok boomer

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 3/7/2021 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Voting is a privilege. If you commit crimes against the body politic you should not be able to contribute to it.

Without the electoral college, states like North Dakota and South Dakota and Wyoming and Nebraska (etc etc) have zero say in national elections. A New Yorker is not a North Dakotan even if there's 20x more of them and North Dakotans should have representation too.

Your pseudo-intellectual mind can’t grasp the one person/one vote concept? Under the absolute bullshit electoral college those rural folks you like so much actually get MORE power with their vote. Maybe you can read a book that explains why you’re VERY FAR from the “smart guy” here on a fantasy sports website. The rest of us can see your bullshit from miles away.

Posted by bagchucker on 3/7/2021 2:36:00 AM (view original):
1 then the evidence suggests we need more security cameras and more neighborhood watch and more neighborhood policing. do i read you right you wanna live in f*ckerberg china

If we were solely focused on deterring crime, then yes, we would do that.

I don't think the benefits of doing those things would outweigh the drawbacks.

If we're strawmanning now, the logical conclusion of your argument would be to give all criminals the death penalty.

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 3/7/2021 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Voting is a privilege. If you commit crimes against the body politic you should not be able to contribute to it.

Without the electoral college, states like North Dakota and South Dakota and Wyoming and Nebraska (etc etc) have zero say in national elections. A New Yorker is not a North Dakotan even if there's 20x more of them and North Dakotans should have representation too.

I completely disagree that voting is a privilege. Can you justify why someone committing a crime shouldn't be able to vote? I'm a pretty big fan of "no taxation without representation." Maybe you aren't. Also, most felons have drug charges. Not sure how that's a crime against everyone.

Wrong. A voter in those states has more of a say in a popular vote system. Why would I ever show up to vote in any of those states? Politicians never campaign there, they know who the state is voting for, the my vote is completely meaningless. Under a popular vote system, my vote in Kansas matters just as much as a vote in Florida. Politicians will do MORE campaigning in the smaller states under a popular vote system.

The states lose some say, but the voters gain. Also, why should a voter in North Dakota have more power than a voter in New York? Aren't they both equally Americans?

If your argument is "tyranny of the majority," then ok, why shouldn't black people's vote count more than white people? Why shouldn't rich people have more of a vote than poor people? Why should we only apply this logic to geography?

Even if all of your arguments were true, guess what? We still have the Senate. That's a huge balancer. A vote to elect a President should be a NATIONAL vote.

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 3/7/2021 7:50:00 AM (view original):
Or how about we just remove any and all restrictions on voting like your fellow house dems want! 16 year olds voting? Heck sure! People serving life sentences for double murder? Yes, let em vote! (Very tellingly too...Democrats know that murderers lean left!)

You could make good arguments for 16 year olds voting (if they are taxpayers).

And yes, people serving life sentences should be able to vote. But that's not the position I am defending now.

Whether or not murderers lean left is completely irrelevant considering that I don't support felon voting for political reasons. It's also irrelevant to the positions of Democrats. However, I would challenge that most felons lean left. The majority are white men. That voting bloc tends to go Republican.

Gg is a bad person to debate the electoral college with because he doesn't think that anyone should be able to vote. So I'll amend my statement. If you're pro-democracy (or at least pro-voting), you can't defend the electoral college.

Posted by tangplay on 3/7/2021 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Gg is a bad person to debate the electoral college with because he doesn't think that anyone should be able to vote. So I'll amend my statement. If you're pro-democracy (or at least pro-voting), you can't defend the electoral college.

Not only do I believe that not everyone should be able to vote, in a perfect world, I believe, nobody should be able to vote. We need a system in place that dispenses with human agency in elections altogether.

Some people talk about robots replacing humans in minimum wage type jobs. I want robots in congress and in the executive branch, And only robots. Once the technology exists.

Do you want your plane flown by hand or autopilot?

Despite the rhetoric, voting must be considered a privilege since some are not allowed to do it.

Unless we want all those elementary school elections to really count.

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 3/7/2021 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 3/7/2021 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Gg is a bad person to debate the electoral college with because he doesn't think that anyone should be able to vote. So I'll amend my statement. If you're pro-democracy (or at least pro-voting), you can't defend the electoral college.

Not only do I believe that not everyone should be able to vote, in a perfect world, I believe, nobody should be able to vote. We need a system in place that dispenses with human agency in elections altogether.

Some people talk about robots replacing humans in minimum wage type jobs. I want robots in congress and in the executive branch, And only robots. Once the technology exists.

Do you want your plane flown by hand or autopilot?

Can you explain how a robot could be programmed to make such decisions?

How could you program them without bias, for example? How could you incorporate considerations of happiness?

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 3/7/2021 12:37:00 PM (view original):
Despite the rhetoric, voting must be considered a privilege since some are not allowed to do it.

Unless we want all those elementary school elections to really count.

So is freedom of speech a privilege? The second amendment a privilege? The right to life a privilege?

I could give examples where all of those rights are conditional or excluded to certain people.

Prisoners lose some freedom of speech rights. Felons can't buy guns. And we have the death penalty.

If this is your argument, "rights" don't exist.