Looks to me like the thing is done. Obama would have to lose Wash, Ore, or Cali at
this point, and that doesn't seem likely.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Yes, I agree – but there are still lots of precincts that haven't reported in the states that have been called. Still watching, waiting…

Still waiting for FL. Taking a while. Please don't repeat 2000.

Obama can lose fla and va at this point. The called states plus
cali plus wa plus hawaii add up to 270. My projections always
assumed fla went red, even if they meant to be blue.

It's not premature. Obama wins.

On the other hand, people still need to vote on their
representation and local referenda, so they do need to show up
to their open polls.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

No, you attributed Constitutional beliefs to me that did not exist, and when called on it ducked.

You stated:
"You seem to want to interpret the constitution very literally at some points and not-so-literally at others… "

Yet when asked to provide proof for this statement are unable to do so. There is a reason for this, you stated something that was not factual about me.

Provide the quotes where I switched my views on the Constitution, withdraw the statement or at least admit you were incorrect.

Obama won.

Mabus, look, let me put it nicely one more time: I already gave you the relevant bits, you obviously think you were talking about something else, so I'm sticking with the non sequitur assessment. :shrug: Feel free to declare victory if that makes you happy. :smirk: I get to declare victory for the presidential election, so I'm a lot happier about that than this silly nonsense.

I looked through the posts again, and see you making an unfounded accusation that I somehow change my mind on Constitutional matters, but at no point do you provide any evidence of this. If I were to state "You seem to believe we should either have declared independence from England or not, depending on the weather" you would likely do as I did with your statement on my Constitutional beliefs; Scratch your head, and ask where this belief could came from.

It is not about "victory", but about the ability to discuss topics without making such unfounded accusations against those that take part in the discussion.

The constitution can be amended, so calling something unconstitutional isn't a strong argument, if you can call it an argument at all.

Umm, look. Just to humor you, let me break it down simply. I don't feel like copy-pasting exact quotes but this is basically what was said:
Mabus: Constitution says you can't have direct vote
David: why not? here's how you could fake it and basically accomplish it
Mabus: yeah but the adversity of the authors to that (i.e. it is against their intentions) is why the constitution is as is
David: uh…

I'm surprised that you're still taking this seriously any more seriously. :smile:

I really don't need to be "humored". I would prefer that overly broad, and incorrect, statements about my political beliefs be instead left out of the discussion.

Exact quotes are helpful if going to resolve an issue on a forum. Since exact quotes do not exist to support your position, I can see why you do not use them in this case.

Perhaps you meant this:

The two statements (your view of the statement, and the actual statement) are not the same.

If we look at the debates and writings of the founders we can find how and why they came to the conclusions they did. Take Madison's letter to George Hay, or Federalist #10. And read the writings of George Clinton and Hamilton dealing with the subject. It was to keep the country, and the individual, safe from manipulated majority factions that we went with the electoral system we did. Well, one of the reasons. You can read the full debates of the convention and the various letters of the founders for the rest.

There is no "faking" votes when dealing with the election of our executive. There is a Constitutional framework provided which the states are allowed to operate within.

What you proposed, a "proportional vote", is not the direct popular vote that I stated was against the Constitution.

From my statement that you objected to:

Notice, "direct election by popular vote" in my quote, not "proportional election" (which you then proposed).

Either a voting scheme is within the bounds of the Constitution, or it is not. This is defined within the Constitution, and by the rulings of the courts since.

Looking at the writings of the founders, and even the etymology and understandings of their time, does not take away from being an Originalist. It enhances it. I see no conflict between the two.

That makes your statement dealing with my Constitutional beliefs false.

Woot!

Of course the Constitution can be amended, and I am all for the ability (which is spelled out in the Constitution). But until such time as an amendment is ratified it is not a part of the Constitution.

Your argument seems to be stating that "everything is constitutional because we could amend the Constitution to make it so", which if this is your argument it might be best if you do not often question the arguments of others.

And I wish him, and our country, the greatest success.

You've done a pretty lousy job going through the previous posts if you think that is what I was referring to. Let me give you a refresher:


I sure as heck am not going to trudge through the rest of your whole post and I'm not exactly sure why you expect me to after what I've said. :wink: Nor am I sure why you took my extremely quick paraphrasing so literally when it should be pretty clear that I'm not taking this seriously anymore.

Here, let's try this instead: you win, yay, woohoo, long live your argument, now can we move on to more interesting topics that actually mean something?

The quote was in my response. I guess you just did a "pretty lousy job going through" it.

I told you, I didn't read your whole post. :smile: Which part of "this is not interesting anymore" was unclear? :wink:

Good heavens. I believe we're going to be entering the realm of
criminal pedantry here pretty soon.

Lookit Mabus, thank you for gracing us with what you have learned
about Constitutional Law. It is obvious you care about it and I
commend your impulse to share what you know.

But you're being a ballbuster with it, and that's annoying.

You replied to me, quoting my post, with a hypothetical that
was non-sequitur to my point, and proceeded to labor your
non-sequitur hypothetical for…well for showing that your
hypothetical was hypothetically possible. Fine, but…what for?

I guess it was a mistake on my part to try to address your
hypothetical in the context of what I'd been saying, but
looking back on it I just can't figure out what you were
up to other than talking at me about something you wanted
me to know that you knew. Ok, cool, you know some stuff.
Maybe you could submit an article to MB rather than make
an argument to me without a point.

And now this business with direct voting. You called it
unconstitutional, but the plan David described actually fits
perfectly well in the literal interpretation of the Constitution
you used to lay your hypothetical. So now it's not convenient
to interpret the constitution literally, now you need to
point to extraconstitutional sources to be "right".

I don't really care what label you use to describe your
relationship to the constitution, nor do I have any interest
in how internally consistent your positions are. I'm sure
you've got it all really well thought out. The part that
I find interesting is how weird you're getting with having
to demonstrate that you're right, and you'll damn well hear
us say you're right, or you'll keep insisting on your rightness.

From out here, outside your head, it just looks like you're intent
on demonstrating a superior correctness on the Constitution, and
switching between standing on literalism and resorting to contextualism
as convenience presents…but without actually having a point to make.
Other than, perhaps, reminding us that "People seem to forget that we are
governed by the Constitution".

Thanks for the reminder, but unless there's some other point
here, I'm gonna have to say you're more a strict ballbusterist
than any other kind of scholar.

-Crat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Po...

People and their polemics. :rolleyes:

Skipping the usual "attack the poster" tactics that seem prevalent in David's and your posts, what David described is not "direct popular election of a president", which is what I claimed was not constitutional.