Electoral college argument.

Bryan writes:

Thanks for the link, I didn't actually know what the proposal was. I thought this was talking about house representation.

DrBill writes:

Abolishing the Electoral College does not have a replacement, except by default, total vote, a departure from representative republic and turn to pure democracy.

Larger states already have more "say" in the EC than smaller ones.

What some states argue is fair may come down to who's ox is gored.

Objectively, the states, as "states" were assured of importance at the founding, in part by enabling the EC, and the states were encouraged to give up some of their independence by that assurance.  It can be argued that changing things now, to enable a popular vote to depreciate the impact of smaller states is "bait and switch".

Bryan writes:
[To DrBill]

I don't understand your wording, you mean it doesn't have a proposed replacement, or it's somehow impossible? I could propose off the top of my head that each state is broken up into districts proportionate to the population, and the result of each goes towards a ln overall tally. Or maybe that's how it currently is; bear in mind I don't know how it works.

I appreciate that smaller states might not like having to go along with the majority, as my country historically votes to the left, while our more populace neighbour votes to the right, and we get what they want. In recent history the government voted in had either zero or at most one MP elected (each MP counting as a vote for the Prime Minister position). And yet when we had the chance of independence half the country shat itself thinking that we're too feckless to rule ourselves. 

I would say that any argument that it's bait and switch is simply wrong. A bait and switch is one where you attract someone's interest, then offer an alternative as the final product. Changjng afterward because things are different (quite a few more than the original 13 states, technology, education, etc.) is not analogous to this. By that measure having amendments would be bait and switch. You're not bound by what was seen to be appropriate at the time, and what seemed good was apparently quickly seen to require changes.

DrBill writes:
[To Bryan]

Bryan.

  Your definition of bait and switch is correct and applies.  The Colonies were independent states in the European sense, before becoming linked first as a confederation and finally unified under the Constitution. The idea that things change, so the Constitution may need to is included in the Constitution.  The small states were given some assurances in order to get them to agree to unify when they could have maintained more independence. Now they cannot be independent, some would like to change the assurances: bait and switch.

The assertion that things have changed, so the Constitution needs to be amended by discarding the Electoral College is obviously a ploy by losers of an election to enable their preference for winning by Moving the Goalposts  or even more fundamentally by Special Pleading 

The removal without replacement leaves the default of general election, simple democracy.  Hope that clarifies my "wording".

Bryan writes:

[To DrBill]

My definition of bait and switch does not apply. They signed up to something over 200 years ago, they got what they got and amending it does not change what they signed up for. 

"The assertion that things have changed, so the Constitution needs to be amended by discarding the Electoral College is obviously a ploy by losers of an election to enable their preference for winning by Moving the Goalposts  or even more fundamentally by Special Pleading"

I'm neither eligible to run for election nor vote, so I've no idea where you got the idea that I lost anything. Nor did I say anything about the constitution  needing to be amended, I gave this as an illustration of why this wasn't analogous.

You clearly don't understand what moving the goalposts means, that applies to an argument where, for example, person A sets out some requirements, and then when person B satisfies those requirements, person A changes them and adds further requirements. Not even close.

How is it special pleading? How about you support your assertion instead of just leave it without basis? As it stands I get the impression that you don't understand that either.

"The removal without replacement leaves the default of general election, simple democracy.  Hope that clarifies my "wording"."

No, I understand that removal without a replacement would leave that, but I said originally that it would depend what replaced it. Just saying that there's no replacement makes no sense given that there isn't a proposal to make a change (or is there?), which would necessarily include a replacement. 

DrBill writes:
[To Bryan]

Subjectivist Fallacy Merely revealing defensive intransigence.  

You argue both sides of the issue and disagree with both. You "understand that removal without a replacement would leave that" and proceed to argue that "...no replacement makes no sense ....".

Removal of EC either has a replacement or it does not.  This is not false dichotomy, but the real thing. If it does not have a replacement, the default is all that's left. If you argue that there is no default, I won't contend, as the meta-alternative is replacement of democracy with authoritarian rule.  Time for another revolution.  The default is simple democracy.  If you don't see this...we are not working towards the same goal.

Bryan writes:
[To DrBill]

Subjectivist Fallacy

(also known as: relativist fallacy)

Description: Claiming something is true for one person, but not for someone else when, in fact, it is true for everyone (objective) as demonstrated by empirical evidence.

So where exactly did I do anything even remotely resembling this? You just seen to pick random fallacies an throw them at me. 

"Removal of EC either has a replacement or it does not. This is not false dichotomy, but the real thing."

Where did I say anything, again, even close to that?

"If it does not have a replacement, the default is all that's left."

Why would there be a replacement when it hasn't been proposed officially? That doesn't mean that there couldn't be a replacement.

"If you argue that there is no default, I won't contend, as the meta-alternative is replacement of democracy with authoritarian rule."

I didn't argue that, but I have only your word to take that this is the default. Why does it need to be whatever a meta-alternative is? How about an alternative, like I suggested? 

"The default is simple democracy.  If you don't see this...we are not working towards the same goal."

All I'm seeing is "I'm correct because reasons".