Progressives, part 3...

On one hand, I agree that 16-year olds aren't mature enough to make informed decisions, as the vast majority of them have little to no "real world" experience. On the other, if people like CC can vote, one could make an argument that a 16-month old's opinion is equally valid to that...

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Not as long as 18 year olds can service in the military. It is hard to argue against if they can fight for our country and die, then they can vote for the people that can send them to war. 

It's the same argument for not raising the drinking age but nobody cared about that either. 

posted by iclfan2

That’s a good argument to raise the age, not lower it. 

The problem is that it's subjective.  How dumb/ignorant/naive/undeveloped do you have to be?
 

posted by jmog

This is more of an argument for raising the voting age to 21, not lowing it to 16.

I wasn't actually suggesting that.  I knew plenty who were dumb at 21, too.  It's subjective.

My only point is that since we allow 18-year-olds to vote, 16-year-olds aren't THAT much of a stretch.  We do let them drive, after all, and even get married with provisions in some states (including Ohio).

One might claim that, to an even greater degree, it's a blemish on democracy: that idiots in large numbers have the ability to make, determine, or influence decisions that involve everyone.

Well, there is a reason why cults, ideologues, credit card companies, etc. target people from 18-22ish. That is the stage when people are, generally, most easily lead into things and are most passionate/zealous. Perfect time to manipulate someone if you're going to do it. Right now there are kids that age freaking out thinking they are going to die from climate change in 12 years; adult women saying they don't want to have children only for them to do due to that same climate change. If these people are that easily lead into doomsday prophesies, why the fuck not give them the vote amirite? They'll easily do your bidding.

Want to see "progressives" pucker and have a meltdown?

Tell them you really, REALLY support "equality" and that all of the states should have the same number of electoral college votes.

Sort between the virtue signalers and the true believers.

*wink*

posted by CenterBHSFan

Want to see "progressives" pucker and have a meltdown?

Tell them you really, REALLY support "equality" and that all of the states should have the same number of electoral college votes.

Sort between the virtue signalers and the true believers.

*wink*

Not sure that would work since most progressives don’t want the electoral college anymore period. So you’d just get that argument. 

posted by kizer permanente

Not sure that would work since most progressives don’t want the electoral college anymore period. So you’d just get that argument. 

They're insane. Kamala and Pocahontas also said they would be for adding supreme court seats. They want Trump to win again.

posted by iclfan2

They're insane. Kamala and Pocahontas also said they would be for adding supreme court seats. They want Trump to win again.

Throw Beto in that mix.  He was saying something like up to 15 SCOTUS judges would be interesting.

When will the media ask AOC about this report from 1989?

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

At least they are giving us 12 yrs this time.

Delaware is on their way to going full retard with Colorado by deciding their electoral votes via popular vote.  It's unfortunate our schools refuse to teach civics. 

posted by like_that

Delaware is on their way to going full retard with Colorado by deciding their electoral votes via popular vote.  It's unfortunate our schools refuse to teach civics. 

Will they be forcing their Senators to vote with the House as well?

posted by like_that

Delaware is on their way to going full retard with Colorado by deciding their electoral votes via popular vote.  It's unfortunate our schools refuse to teach civics. 

U think they don’t understand the electoral college? Maybe they think it’s just outdated. I don’t think it makes a huge difference either way personally. 

posted by geeblock

U think they don’t understand the electoral college? Maybe they think it’s just outdated. I don’t think it makes a huge difference either way personally. 

Found someone who didn't take civics. 

posted by like_that

Found someone who didn't take civics. 

By all means please educate me on how important it is in 2019 and not just a way for southern states to protect slavery. I’ll accept just educate me on why we need it in 2019.  Also I thought u were for states rights?

The state with the greatest population at the constitutional convention was the slave state of Virginia.  The slave states of North Carolina and South Carolina had greater populations than the state of New York.

New Jersey, New hampshire, Rhode Island, and Delaware near the bottom.  Rhode Island being the last to sign.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

posted by geeblock

By all means please educate me on how important it is in 2019 and not just a way for southern states to protect slavery. I’ll accept just educate me on why we need it in 2019.  Also I thought u were for states rights?

I am for state rights, that's why I wouldn't want my vote to be given to the rest of the country...

It's not my duty to educate you, especially since you have proven to be a useful idiot with google.  I would recommend start by learning the difference between a democratic republic and a democracy.  

posted by geeblock

By all means please educate me on how important it is in 2019 and not just a way for southern states to protect slavery. I’ll accept just educate me on why we need it in 2019.  Also I thought u were for states rights?

Functionally, a popular vote makes most states irrelevant.  A dominating control of a dozen or so of the largest cities in the US would be all it would theoretically take to win an election.

The electoral college ensures that the entire country is theoretically relevant (as relevant as a state can be if they're essentially locked in as either red or blue).  Without it, you've essentially got ten or so regions that would dictate everything.

Don't get me wrong.  I certainly recognize that the electoral college is a flawed system.  There have indeed been a few close elections in which the person elected did not win the popular vote.  However, opting instead for a popular vote election institutes what amounts to a regional oligarchy with regard to leaders at the federal level, with the larger metropolitan areas being the only real determiners.  Stumping candidates would only address the problems or issues that are important to those areas.

Geographically speaking, the vast, vast majority of the country would be mostly useless in the election, and as such, would mostly go unheard and unconsidered, election after election.

If one wanted to address the problem(s) with the electoral college, I'd argue that the best way to do so would be to revamp the electoral college.  Not to get rid of it.

You do realize Abraham Lincoln won less than 40% of the popular vote.  Nearly 48% of democrats voted against Lincoln.  If we had some sort of run off system to achieve a majority of the popular vote it is more than likely Abraham Lincoln would not have become president.  The electoral college which geeblock insinuates is based in the preservation of slavery allowed the election of the man that led the end of it.