As a professional statistician [certified Six Sigma Black Belt, retired], I made a study of the effect of popular vote vs. electoral college, using the 2016 election as raw data for the study. I compared how many states, in order of population, largest first [CA], and descending to the least [WY], were required to elect the president strictly by popular vote. Then I did a comparative study of how many states, in reverse order of population, least first [WY] to most [CA], were required to elect the president, strictly by electoral college. I was not surprised by the results, given that I was already convinced that the electoral college voting method was superior to popular vote. This study confirmed it.
I found that in popular vote, it required only 24 states to elect the president; the first 24 states in largest population, and that victor would have been Clinton. Whereas, by electoral college vote, it required 40 states in ascending population order, least to most, to elect the president [Trump]. Which system appears to you to be the more equitable, and representative of all the citizens?
Pro [PliceSheep] alleges that the Electoral College unequally weights the vote in favor of Republicans, citing four instances [1876, 1888, 2000, 2016] wherein the Electoral College disagreed with popular vote to elect the President.
The 2000 election must be withdrawn from that list because it was neither the Electoral College, nor the popular vote, that gave Bush 43 the Presidency. It was the Supreme Court, given the failure of FL to declare a definitive winner of that State. The conflict should have been resolved in the House, which would have very likely voted as SCOTUS decided, given the R advantage of numbers in the House.
Moreover, in the history of the current major political parties, 14 Democrat Presidents have been elected, while 20 Republicans have been elected. There’s the skew, and, even if the claim of E.C. partisanship were true in three cases, removing the 2000 election, there are still more Republicans elected than Democrats, even though the Democrats began with Jackson [#6], and Republicans are first elected with Lincoln [#16]. With a 10-election advantage, Democrats fall short of Republicans, even considering the few failures of the E.C in agreement with the popular vote.
My opponent wants you to believe my argument centers on a conditional conjunction. Those of you who know what that is, raise your hands. I’ll wager many do not without looking it up. Go ahead, there’s no shame in learning more today than you knew yesterday.
Conditional conjunctions are not the enemy in language and they do not, on their own merit, support an always false conclusion, as my opponent claims. They exist because of what they are: a two-clause [it may be more, but my premise is a two-clause] statement, the first of which describes an action that occurred, or will occur if the other clause is a satisfactory conclusion. That if is what makes the conditional state, and only if the second clause is not satisfied is the condition a false statement.
Now, read my conditional conjunction: “If is the most useless word in any language, because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true.” The condition is, “if” is a useless word [I contend the most useless word] and will occur... “if.” The satisfaction clause is that only ‘not true’ occurs, and only in a current tense: Now.
Good subject, although personally, I agree with your Pro position. Nevertheless, I have two separate arguments against the proposal, but both have weaknesses, and two is not sufficient for the debate. I will hold for now, but, if within 12 days' time, you do not have a Con argument, I will engage.
Think again. Better; see the data. Both vas deferens and fallopian tubes can reconnect by completely natural, non-surgical means. Heard of stem cells? We all have them. They exist to regrow healthy tissue from damaged tissue. There are both specific [preprogrammed, if you will, to specific tissue type] and non-specific, generic stem cells. It's what they do. They do decline in numbers with age, but we start with millions of them. Also depends on the relative skill of the surgeon in the first place. Let's just say that all surgeons, like in any profession, are not top notch.
See the statistics. Vasectomies have a typical failure rate of 1%. That rises after five to ten years for the simple reason that the vas deferens can re-connect. As Dr. Micheal Crichton once said through Jurassic Park character, Ian Malcom, "Life finds a way."
In your #3 post, you speak of statistics, and specifically of the statistical success of using condoms vs. vasectomy. There is a process that is 100% effective if practiced with dedicated avoidance: abstinence. Mind over matter, my friend. Many clam it can't be done. When that's their decision; no, it can't. That does not speak to the impossibility of employing the tactic.
The thesis is "if... because" not "if... or" Read the thesis to the end, yeah? However, if you want to argue the point, enjoin the debate. This is not the place to do that, and I will not respond otherwise.
Amazing how many are willing to engage a one-on-none conversation of the subject by commentary rather than accept the debate challenge. For what? Quibbling about definition? Sorry, not in this to quibble. To the debate, then!
As a professional statistician [certified Six Sigma Black Belt, retired], I made a study of the effect of popular vote vs. electoral college, using the 2016 election as raw data for the study. I compared how many states, in order of population, largest first [CA], and descending to the least [WY], were required to elect the president strictly by popular vote. Then I did a comparative study of how many states, in reverse order of population, least first [WY] to most [CA], were required to elect the president, strictly by electoral college. I was not surprised by the results, given that I was already convinced that the electoral college voting method was superior to popular vote. This study confirmed it.
I found that in popular vote, it required only 24 states to elect the president; the first 24 states in largest population, and that victor would have been Clinton. Whereas, by electoral college vote, it required 40 states in ascending population order, least to most, to elect the president [Trump]. Which system appears to you to be the more equitable, and representative of all the citizens?
Pro [PliceSheep] alleges that the Electoral College unequally weights the vote in favor of Republicans, citing four instances [1876, 1888, 2000, 2016] wherein the Electoral College disagreed with popular vote to elect the President.
The 2000 election must be withdrawn from that list because it was neither the Electoral College, nor the popular vote, that gave Bush 43 the Presidency. It was the Supreme Court, given the failure of FL to declare a definitive winner of that State. The conflict should have been resolved in the House, which would have very likely voted as SCOTUS decided, given the R advantage of numbers in the House.
Moreover, in the history of the current major political parties, 14 Democrat Presidents have been elected, while 20 Republicans have been elected. There’s the skew, and, even if the claim of E.C. partisanship were true in three cases, removing the 2000 election, there are still more Republicans elected than Democrats, even though the Democrats began with Jackson [#6], and Republicans are first elected with Lincoln [#16]. With a 10-election advantage, Democrats fall short of Republicans, even considering the few failures of the E.C in agreement with the popular vote.
My opponent wants you to believe my argument centers on a conditional conjunction. Those of you who know what that is, raise your hands. I’ll wager many do not without looking it up. Go ahead, there’s no shame in learning more today than you knew yesterday.
Conditional conjunctions are not the enemy in language and they do not, on their own merit, support an always false conclusion, as my opponent claims. They exist because of what they are: a two-clause [it may be more, but my premise is a two-clause] statement, the first of which describes an action that occurred, or will occur if the other clause is a satisfactory conclusion. That if is what makes the conditional state, and only if the second clause is not satisfied is the condition a false statement.
Now, read my conditional conjunction: “If is the most useless word in any language, because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true.” The condition is, “if” is a useless word [I contend the most useless word] and will occur... “if.” The satisfaction clause is that only ‘not true’ occurs, and only in a current tense: Now.
Good subject, although personally, I agree with your Pro position. Nevertheless, I have two separate arguments against the proposal, but both have weaknesses, and two is not sufficient for the debate. I will hold for now, but, if within 12 days' time, you do not have a Con argument, I will engage.
Think again. Better; see the data. Both vas deferens and fallopian tubes can reconnect by completely natural, non-surgical means. Heard of stem cells? We all have them. They exist to regrow healthy tissue from damaged tissue. There are both specific [preprogrammed, if you will, to specific tissue type] and non-specific, generic stem cells. It's what they do. They do decline in numbers with age, but we start with millions of them. Also depends on the relative skill of the surgeon in the first place. Let's just say that all surgeons, like in any profession, are not top notch.
See the statistics. Vasectomies have a typical failure rate of 1%. That rises after five to ten years for the simple reason that the vas deferens can re-connect. As Dr. Micheal Crichton once said through Jurassic Park character, Ian Malcom, "Life finds a way."
In your #3 post, you speak of statistics, and specifically of the statistical success of using condoms vs. vasectomy. There is a process that is 100% effective if practiced with dedicated avoidance: abstinence. Mind over matter, my friend. Many clam it can't be done. When that's their decision; no, it can't. That does not speak to the impossibility of employing the tactic.
The thesis is "if... because" not "if... or" Read the thesis to the end, yeah? However, if you want to argue the point, enjoin the debate. This is not the place to do that, and I will not respond otherwise.
Amazing how many are willing to engage a one-on-none conversation of the subject by commentary rather than accept the debate challenge. For what? Quibbling about definition? Sorry, not in this to quibble. To the debate, then!