Nah, bullying is bullying, regardless of if I think someone is wrong, so wrong that their ideas are harmful to people.

Yeah, honestly it was cringy, but its also cringy make fun of people for being cringy

David Duke’s endorsement is a slander, and I think he knows that and uses it intentionally.

I agree, but did you say the same when racists endorsed Trump?

And you know, far more dense- which is the core of what makes it effective

We remove comments celebrating the killing of anyone.

A McDonalds employees named Bob tweeting something, and then Alice agreeing with it does not make Alice a McDonalds agent. It means she agreed with what Bob tweeted, even if he was being subversive/malicious

4 syllable words are very out of fashion, I don’t think it can become slang.

The source is cited above. I’m not surprised you’ve ignored it though.

No I read it. Just forgot since, you know, its been hours.

You’re clearly trying to paint the EC as part of the House/Senate compromise when no evidence for that exists.

Why would there be some pushing for the president to be nominated by congress?

That was why the conversation was Congress, the People’s will indirectly, or a popular vote directly.

Source?

The people who wrote the document knew an appointment system could not and would not stand.

But they also knew some states would prefer it and may be reluctant to ratify if a popular vote were required.

Throwing it to the state legislatures to officially decide was the compromise.

How is that a compromise? Unless you mean because it gave the states the authority, which yk, is what I said.

I’m not even sure why you’re arguing this? Are you trying to argue that we should appoint electors now?

You said “At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president. It was either the people directly or the people indirectly.”

Which is untrue. And again, the electoral college was intentionally designed to be a middle ground between “popular interest” and “state interest”- you falsely said “You’re thinking of the 3/5ths and the large state / small state compromises.”- which is not what I was thinking of.

The number of electors states were given was guaranteed to be 4 + population. The 4 constant was for the same reason as the senate 2 constant, to fairly represent all states, + population was for the same reason as the house- to represent the population of the country as a whole.

Okay you can dismiss it, but how about I just show you what the constitution says:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

The electors are determined by the state legislature. Same as what was intended of the senate.

The South Carolina legislature even appointed their electors until 1860

As Wikipedia says:

Each state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors.

At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president.

No, you’re simply wrong

This video is informative

Heres my example from another comment:

Ie, splitting a city(with a rural area in a crescent shape around it) into two equal districts down the middle each with a sizable urban and rural population(say this gave 45% rural, 55% urban in each of these districts which is pretty reasonable), vs giving the city its own district and the rural area its own district. The first option may be more “compact” but in my opinion would lead to unfair under representation of the rural voters- same as if the demographics were swapped. Districts are supposed to “represent a community” not just be compact.

It was a compromise but not between the Senate and House.

I wasn’t saying it was. I was saying it was designed to be representative of the people(also represented by the house) and the states(also represented by the senate).

The main drawback of the scheme is that you’re usually voting for a party rather than a person.

Eh, if you had like a “top 3” system then you would be voting for a person. But I agree- voting solely being voting for a party is something I oppose(and why I prefer the US system to parliamentary systems)

Actually, seeing you’re talking about the House elections, yeah I agree that would probably make sense, though it could over-double the size of the House. (And I don’t know that I agree that’s a good thing)

This is one of the reasons multi-member, proportional districts make sense.

Yeah I agree. The issue I have with that is just I don’t think it would be very practical, especially for smaller states. The Kentucky legislature now only has 138 members, and as far as I know nobody knows any of them.

I admit I have a ideological bias in favor of the current system because it makes a full sweep more difficult, limiting the federal government.

But,

There’s no reason to have the EC doing the same and it wasn’t the EC’s original purpose.

Yes it partially was. The point was to have the president basically be the middle point between state representation in the Senate, and popularish representation in the House.

My understanding is that’s just finding how “compact” a shape the districts are. There’s still plenty of gerrymandering to be done in the positioning and the shapes themselves. Furthermore, why does that necessarily make the most sense?

Ie, splitting a city(with a rural area in a crescent shape around it) into two equal districts down the middle each with a sizable urban and rural population(say this gave 45% rural, 55% urban in each of these districts which is pretty reasonable), vs giving the city its own district and the rural area its own district. The first option may be more “compact” but in my opinion would lead to unfair under representation of the rural voters- same as if the demographics were swapped. Districts are supposed to “represent a community” not just be compact.

And urban/rural divide is just an easy example.

California has like 67 times the population of Wyoming… yet they each have two senators.

But they have way more representatives. That was the point of separation of power, to limit federal power, while California does have a state legislature that can do most of what it wants.

The issue is that congress can regulate anything as “interstate commerce”