Clinton Interview on Fox News

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I'm not sure I understand this post. Why a waste of time?

When you present arguments and they are ignored or labelled lies with no reasoning whatsoever it leaves you feeling like the half hour you spent trying to present your side of the issue might have been better spent elsewhere.

I simply can't stand that form of debate and Flash's arrogance was just icing on the cake.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

When you present arguments and they are ignored or labelled lies with no reasoning whatsoever it leaves you feeling like the half hour you spent trying to present your side of the issue might have been better spent elsewhere.

I simply can't stand that form of debate and Flash's arrogance was just icing on the cake.

I never called them lies. I said distinctly that, "I don't know if you're using them on purpose, so I won't call them lies", instead, refering to them as "non-factual...statements". Following that assertion, that your argument of one vote not counting more than another in a different area was not based on fact, I replied by supporting my statement with the be-all, end-all of the internet debate; the link.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

When you present arguments and they are ignored or labelled lies with no reasoning whatsoever it leaves you feeling like the half hour you spent trying to present your side of the issue might have been better spent elsewhere.

I simply can't stand that form of debate and Flash's arrogance was just icing on the cake.

Your statements were flawed. The way in which the two systems work is not an "issue". There is not two sides to choose from in which to argue. We were not debating which system is better. The way they function is the way the function.

He also gave some good examples of facts that tend to make your previous statments a little shakey.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I never called them lies. I said distinctly that, "I don't know if you're using them on purpose, so I won't call them lies", instead, refering to them as "non-factual...statements". Following that assertion, that your argument of one vote not counting more than another in a different area was not based on fact, I replied by supporting my statement with the be-all, end-all of the internet debate; the link.

Votes are not equally weighted in Canada either and we aren't able to vote for the leader of the party if you are not a member of that party.
So what was Flash's ppoint again?

Ahh.. yes, he didn't have one. that's right.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Votes are not equally weighted in Canada either and we aren't able to vote for the leader of the party if you are not a member of that party.
So what was Flash's ppoint again?

Ahh.. yes, he didn't have one. that's right.

Hmm... pretty sure anyone with a brain whose been reading this thread would know that Flash's point is that the electoral college is an outdated and innefficient system to produce a democratic government, a system that is rife with problems that have yet to be adressed.

Only a complete fool could read this thread and come to the conclusion that Flash had no points to be made at all.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Only a complete fool could read this thread and come to the conclusion that Flash had no points to be made at all.

Ouch... that's gettin kind of harsh. Of course I guess I've seen worse.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Only a complete fool could read this thread and come to the conclusion that Flash had no points to be made at all.

Consider the source!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Ouch... that's gettin kind of harsh. Of course I guess I've seen worse.

Yeah, well... the truth hurts. I think its obvious to anyone who cares to read the thread that, right or wrong, Flash had plenty of points.

[White Doors]

Well Canada's electoral system must be a complete joke too. Even worse then. That's the point I was making. To call the US system a joke from a person whose country's is even worse makes his point invalid.

Keep up now.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well Canada's electoral system must be a complete joke too. Even worse then. That's the point I was making. To call the US system a joke from a person whose country's is even worse makes his point invalid.

So what? Because you think Canada's system isn't perfect means debating the pro's and con's of the electoral college is useless? How does Canada's democractic system have anything to do with flaws in the US electoral college? To believe the electoral college is a flawed democratic process is not immediately invalid because someone is French, Canadian, Kenyan, or whatever.

Keep up now.

You said Flash had no points. He had plenty. Who's not keeping up?

[White Doors]

Our Parliamentary system isn't very democratic, but it is far more democratic and functional than the American electoral system.

I was refuting this point. It is patently false.
he may have had points, but they are invalid.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I was refuting this point. It is patently false.
he may have had points, but they are invalid.

I don't know--to me, both systems are flawed; and of course, no system is perfect. Even "perfect" proportional representation systems are typically very complicated, and do often have unpredictable results as a consequence. They also lead to more strategic voting in a lot of cases, which I guess isn't necessarily a bad thing, but does put a bit of a fly in the ointment, since those systems are generally designed to make all votes worth the same, and to encourage people to vote with their conscience.

Canada's system does have one major advantage over the U.S.--simplicity. Why do you suppose more Canadians participate in elections than Americans, proportionately? My feeling is that people feel more enfranchised by the system, whereas in the U.S. the entrenchment of incumbents combined with the fact that most states are "not in play" makes people feel like a single vote is pretty irrelevant. And it's to some extent a numbers game: if your vote is one in 60-100,000, that's pretty good. If your vote is one in 17 million, you might feel like it's more important to get dinner on for the kids. Smaller districts means more direct representation--and though the party system mutes it somewhat, that's what we have in Canada. Would it make a difference if we could vote separately for the Prime Minister? I don't really think so: most people vote on the basis of their feelings about a party leader anyway. Unless you think Rob Anders got in on the basis of his personal charisma.

Canadian elections are run more efficiently and tallied faster--and that's partly a question of infrastructure, but more immediately the result of FEDERAL oversight, something that the American system sorely lacks. And yes, although that's to some extent a separate issue from the "electoral college," it is an important factor in determining how democratic a system is--as the Supreme court (perhaps unwittingly) acknowledged in their otherwise fairly messed-up decision in Bush v. Gore.

Incidentally, here's a link to a description of one proposal for doing away with the electoral college. It's a little wacky, but may make for good discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/us...59&partner=AOL

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I was refuting this point. It is patently false.
he may have had points, but they are invalid.

Refuting a point as invalid and claiming that one has no point at all are different. You also did nothing to refute his points... he made a lot of comments on the US electoral college, and your 'point' was 'Canada's system is bad too'. Not exactly an example of masterful debate, and totally ignores the real points that he actually made.

This is the backtracking I was looking for though, thanks.

[White Doors]

whatever, beat it. you are a bad troll here now.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by White Doors

whatever, beat it. you are a bad troll here now.

Ah the famous White Doors rebuttal when he knows he's intellectually outgunned. WD you are joke on this forum and you're the only one who doesn't realize it.

[White Doors]

haha

too much!

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't know--to me, both systems are flawed; and of course, no system is perfect. Even "perfect" proportional representation systems are typically very complicated, and do often have unpredictable results as a consequence. They also lead to more strategic voting in a lot of cases, which I guess isn't necessarily a bad thing, but does put a bit of a fly in the ointment, since those systems are generally designed to make all votes worth the same, and to encourage people to vote with their conscience.

Canada's system does have one major advantage over the U.S.--simplicity. Why do you suppose more Canadians participate in elections than Americans, proportionately? My feeling is that people feel more enfranchised by the system, whereas in the U.S. the entrenchment of incumbents combined with the fact that most states are "not in play" makes people feel like a single vote is pretty irrelevant. And it's to some extent a numbers game: if your vote is one in 60-100,000, that's pretty good. If your vote is one in 17 million, you might feel like it's more important to get dinner on for the kids. Smaller districts means more direct representation--and though the party system mutes it somewhat, that's what we have in Canada. Would it make a difference if we could vote separately for the Prime Minister? I don't really think so: most people vote on the basis of their feelings about a party leader anyway. Unless you think Rob Anders got in on the basis of his personal charisma.

Canadian elections are run more efficiently and tallied faster--and that's partly a question of infrastructure, but more immediately the result of FEDERAL oversight, something that the American system sorely lacks. And yes, although that's to some extent a separate issue from the "electoral college," it is an important factor in determining how democratic a system is--as the Supreme court (perhaps unwittingly) acknowledged in their otherwise fairly messed-up decision in Bush v. Gore.

Incidentally, here's a link to a description of one proposal for doing away with the electoral college. It's a little wacky, but may make for good discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/us...59&partner=AOL

I agree, both systems are flawed. Nice to see a little clarity here.
Arguments can be made for and against each system, but for a Canadian to call the American system 'undemocratic' is asinine.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

whatever, beat it. you are a bad troll here now.

You said he had no points. He had plenty, they're all right here in the thread. You sir, are a liar.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I agree, both systems are flawed. Nice to see a little clarity here.
Arguments can be made for and against each system, but for a Canadian to call the American system 'undemocratic' is asinine.

Soo... Canadians can't comment on the electoral college because they're Canadian? Does that mean no one from anywhere can debate the electoral college's merits unless they're an American? That sounds prejudiced.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Soo... Canadians can't comment on the electoral college because they're Canadian? Does that mean no one from anywhere can debate the electoral college's merits unless they're an American? That sounds prejudiced.

There really is no point. White Doors contributions are about as relevent as t1ts on a bull.