Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

but in this specific argument, you certainly did choose to make it a US legal doctrine to argue from. 

Yep, I'm with you here. We're talking about a US election system so the meaning of electoral principles from those sources is informative.

1 hour ago, User said:

you were the one who brought it up

Yes it's an important principle. The intent of my question here wasnt to be snide. You seem to be spending a lot of time and energy bickering about this issue but it's not clear how it relates to any actual argument of yours. The only clear point you've ever made with it is that the state contest to choose electors follows the one person one vote principle. I've never disagreed with that and it doesn't contradict or relate to my own point in terms of how I've applied this principle.

1 hour ago, User said:

It does. There is not a differing formula for each states apportionment of the number of electors.

Proportionality is a ratio. The ratio of citizens per elector does differ. This is a dumb and simplistic thing for you to disagree about. We could literally make a list of the ratios for each state and most of them would not be similar.

1 hour ago, User said:

the ratio is in fact the same... everyone gets 2.

The number 2 is not a ratio. The ratio is people per elector.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Yep, I'm with you here. We're talking about a US election system so the meaning of electoral principles from those sources is informative.

Yes it's an important principle. The intent of my question here wasnt to be snide. You seem to be spending a lot of time and energy bickering about this issue but it's not clear how it relates to any actual argument of yours. The only clear point you've ever made with it is that the state contest to choose electors follows the one person one vote principle. I've never disagreed with that and it doesn't contradict or relate to my own point in terms of how I've applied this principle.

Proportionality is a ratio. The ratio of citizens per elector does differ. This is a dumb and simplistic thing for you to disagree about. We could literally make a list of the ratios for each state and most of them would not be similar.

The number 2 is not a ratio. The ratio is people per elector.

Still losing I see.

Did you come up with an answer yet for why you have states? LOLOL

[User]

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

Proportionality is a ratio. The ratio of citizens per elector does differ. This is a dumb and simplistic thing for you to disagree about. We could literally make a list of the ratios for each state and most of them would not be similar.

The amount of electors awarded per state is proportional

The amount of electors awarded per person is proportional

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

The number 2 is not a ratio. The ratio is people per elector.

OK, this is beyond being obtuse now. 

1 state = 2 electors. 

That is literally a ratio of 1 to 2. 

You have reached the bottom of the barrel for your arguments are and trying to scrape through. 

 

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, User said:

The amount of electors awarded per person is proportional

Really? Lets see how you figure that. What are two states and their elector per person proportions in the way that you're thinking about this?

2 hours ago, User said:

1 state = 2 electors. 

That is literally a ratio of 1 to 2. 

Ah we're full circle now. So you admit then that it's states voting and not citizens in the electoral college? Because you're giving the ratio per state and not the ratio per citizen. All this jerking around about one person one vote and democracy is moot then, right?

[Matthew]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Did you come up with an answer yet for why you have states?

Longstanding autonomous colonial governments did not want to give up power. So they created a system to continue semiautonomous provincial governments. Any more irrelevant questions?

[User]

51 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Really? Lets see how you figure that. What are two states and their elector per person proportions in the way that you're thinking about this?

Method of Equal Proportions

 

Mathematically speaking, the goal of the Method of Equal Proportions is to minimize the relative (or percentage) differences in representation (the number of people per representative) among the states.

In practice, we use this method to determine the number of seats each state receives by:

1. Calculating a set of “priority values” for each state, based on the state’s apportionment population.
2. Sorting those values from largest to smallest.
3. Allocating a seat to a state each time one of its priority values is included in the largest 385 values in the list (An example of this process is available in the Priority Values for 2010 Census table).

We calculate the priority values by dividing the state’s apportionment population by the geometric mean of its theoretical current and next seats.

The formula for calculating priority values is as follows:

 

 

 

• V represents a priority value.
• P represents a state’s apportionment population.
• n represents the number of seats a state would have if it gained a seat.

Because all states automatically receive one seat, we start with “seat one” being the current seat, and “seat two” being the next seat. The priority value for each seat follows this pattern:

• The priority value for a state’s “seat two” equals its apportionment population divided by the square root of 2(2-1).
• The priority value for a state’s “seat three” equals its apportionment population divided by the square root of 3(3-1).
• And so on.

We need to calculate enough priority values for each state to account for the largest possible number of seats any one state could theoretically receive. California, the most populous state, currently has 53 seats. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, we calculate priority values for each state’s potential seat numbers 2 through 70. This leads to a total of 3,450 priority values that we rank to identify the largest 385 values, and then we determine which states and seat numbers those values belong to.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2021/04/how-apportionment-is-calculated.html

 

[User]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Ah we're full circle now. So you admit then that it's states voting and not citizens in the electoral college? Because you're giving the ratio per state and not the ratio per citizen. All this jerking around about one person one vote and democracy is moot then, right?

Full circle? No. You absurdly tried to claim that it was not a ratio being used here. Now that I have demonstrated what was quite obvious, you are doing what you do, move on to the next piece of mud to throw at the wall to see if it sticks. 

As I have repeatedly pointed out now, it is most certainly one person one vote at the state level where people are voting. 

Every step of the way people are voting here and you want to claim this make democracy moot? 

 

[Matthew]

8 minutes ago, User said:

belong to.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2021/04/how-apportionment-is-calculated.html

No this does not support your claim that "The amount of electors awarded per person is proportional." That's the calculation for apportionment of districts. It does not account for 19% of the electors.

You need to pick two states and show me what the electors per person ratio is according to your understanding.

7 minutes ago, User said:

Now that I have demonstrated what was quite obvious

No "one person one vote" is about PEOPLE voting. Instead of giving the ratio to people, you have the ratio to a state. So either you're incredibly dense or you're avoiding what can clearly see is disproportionate elector-person ratios.

Either you believe the land is voting or you believe the people are voting. So far you've been pretty clear that it's the states voting and not the people, thus supporting my argument.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Matthew said:

No this does not support your claim that "The amount of electors awarded per person is proportional." That's the calculation for apportionment of districts. It does not account for 19% of the electors.

You need to pick two states and show me what the electors per person ratio is according to your understanding.

No "one person one vote" is about PEOPLE voting. Instead of giving the ratio to people, you have the ratio to a state. So either you're incredibly dense or you're avoiding what can clearly see is disproportionate elector-person ratios.

Either you believe the land is voting or you believe the people are voting. So far you've been pretty clear that it's the states voting and not the people, thus supporting my argument.

I see your candidate is down in the polls yet again today.  Quick! Argue harder! 

[User]

3 minutes ago, Matthew said:

No this does not support your claim that "The amount of electors awarded per person is proportional." That's the calculation for apportionment of districts. It does not account for 19% of the electors.

It explicitly supports my claim. That is the method for proportionally allocating electors based on population. Just as the remainder are also proportionally allocated by state, as I claimed. 

5 minutes ago, Matthew said:

You need to pick two states and show me what the electors per person ratio is according to your understanding.

No, I don't. I just gave you the formula. 

6 minutes ago, Matthew said:

No "one person one vote" is about PEOPLE voting.

Yes, people voted at the state level. The electors represent their wishes. 

7 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Either you believe the land is voting or you believe the people are voting. So far you've been pretty clear that it's the states voting and not the people, thus supporting my argument.

Nope, states are composed of people and represent their interests. 

 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

It explicitly supports my claim. That is the method for proportionally allocating electors based on population. Just as the remainder are also proportionally allocated by state, as I claimed. 

Ok with that I now see that you are in fact actively avoiding a direct and honest conversation. Again conservatives for centuries have not relied on this kind of bullshit doubletalk and hiding their true position on this issue.

1 hour ago, User said:

I just gave you the formula. 

That's false and you know it. The fact that you can't show states having the same proportion of electors to citizens is proof positive that your statement and entire argument is false.

1 hour ago, User said:

Yes, people voted at the state level. The electors represent their wishes. 

State voting is not the electoral college vote. Which you know and are again avoiding.

Edited October 25, 2024 by Matthew

[User]

10 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Ok with that I now see that you are in fact actively avoiding a direct and honest conversation. Again conservatives for centuries have not relied on this kind of bullshit doubletalk and hiding their true position on this issue.

I was quite honest earlier when I explained that we were a Constitutional Republic of a United States with a system of checks and balances between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive and not a tyranny of the majority which you seem to want. 

You have a fundamentally dishonest or outright ignorant understanding of what constitutes a Democracy. I am going to go with dishonest, because you know Trump is likely going to win within the system we have and that really makes you angry because you want it to just be a straight national popular vote and it isn't. 

If you were honest, you would just say that or argue for a straight national popular vote instead of all these phony arguments for how the EC is not a democracy. 

 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

I was quite honest earlier

Intestesting. So you're willing to have days on days of bad faith discussion with someone knowing what you're currently saying is dishonest. Just another day in trump land I guess?

 

1 hour ago, User said:

You have a fundamentally dishonest or outright ignorant understanding of what constitutes a Democracy.

Ah the person actively hiding their true position and lying is now going to call the other person dishonest. Very nice.

1 hour ago, User said:

I am going to go with dishonest, because you know Trump is likely going to win within the system we have and that really makes you angry

So you admit to being a spiteful troll. You will know them by their fruits indeed.

Ive had similar discussions with people for decades. In the last 248 years there have more proposed constitutional amendments related to the electoral college than any other topic. People around the world-- even people with actual democratic voting systems-- very often want greater proportionality and work towards getting it. So if you think this is a recent or localized opinion you're wrong.

As far as donald trump, he isnt my preference but if he wins I'll be fine. I've been watching republicans degrade and weaken the country since at least the 1980s. I'm used to it.

Edited October 25, 2024 by Matthew

[User]

7 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Intesteresting. So you're willing to have days on days of bad faith discussion with someone knowing what you're currently saying is dishonest. Just another day in trump land I guess?

Nope, I am quite willing to continue to try to have an honest discussion with someone like you who is obviously being dishonest. 

10 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Ah the person actively hiding their true position and lying is now going to call the other person dishonest. Very nice.

LOL, I have not hidden anything. 

10 minutes ago, Matthew said:

So you admit to being a spiteful troll. You will know them by their fruits indeed.

No, I admit I am engaging with a spiteful troll... just to see how fundamentally dishonest you can continue to be. Its just an exercise of my own dumb curiosity at this point. 

 

[Matthew]

33 minutes ago, User said:

I am quite willing to continue to try to have an honest discussion

I really doubt this now. I've found you to be at worst an annoying dumbass a few times in past disagreements but I hadn't realized until the post before last that you were so egregiously deceptive and arguing in bad faith.

33 minutes ago, User said:

I have not hidden anything.

Yes, you've made statements that you know full well are not true and posted responses to things that you knew were not relevant to the thing you were responding to.

Edited October 25, 2024 by Matthew

[User]

16 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I really doubt this now. I've found you to be at worst an annoying dumbass a few times in past disagreements but I hadn't realized until the post before last that you were so egregiously deceptive and arguing in bad faith.

Projection much?

17 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Yes, you've made statements that you know full well are not true and posted responses to things that you knew were not relevant to the thing you were responding to.

Feel free to make the argument then. What have I hidden?

You guys usually end up doing this in the end. After all your bad arguments have been called out and defeated, it is now time for the vague accusations you will never back up... 

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, Matthew said:

 

Quote

 

1 hour ago, User said:

I am quite willing to continue to try to have an honest discussion

 

 

I really doubt this now. I've found you to be at worst an annoying dumbass a few times in past disagreements but I hadn't realized until the post before last that you were so egregiously deceptive and arguing in bad faith.

 

LOL  pot meet kettle, kettle's wife, their three kids and their dog blackie  

You've been dishonest from the get go. You refuse to actually address the points and instead try to either change the channel or obfuscate. 

I kicked your ass, now @User kicked your ass, you STILL haven't explained why the current situation is unfair other than "It  big bad me say" and a tonne of proof has been provided that this is appropriate and normal and why. 

And like every lefty everywhere your poor arguing skills and lack of reason is everyone else's fault. 

And your girls' in trouble again.  Enjoy the next 4 years. 

 

 

[Matthew]

42 minutes ago, User said:

Projection much?

Nope, unlike you i have no reason to lie in this thread.

42 minutes ago, User said:

Feel free to make the argument then. What have I hidden?

You refuse to acknowledge the disproportionate ratios of people per elector. Here are the exact ratios. Even absurdly claiming that the people per electors is proportional.

 

Edited October 25, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Nope, unlike you i have no reason to lie in this thread.

You refuse to acknowledge the disproportionate ratios of people per elector. Here are the exact ratios. Even absurdly claiming that the people per electors is proportional.

 

He did and that's been explained to you.

You just like to pretend that it hasn't been addressed because it destroys your argument.  Seriously that's pathetic 

[User]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Nope, unlike you i have no reason to lie in this thread.

More projection. 

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

You refuse to acknowledge the disproportionate ratios of people per elector. Here are the exact ratios. Even absurdly claiming that the people per electors is proportional.

Did you not understand the question? Clearly not. You accused me of hiding something. Now you want to rehash your bad argument about proportions. 

Those were not the exact ratios of electors awarded based on population. This has already been explained to you. There is the proportional ratio for each state and their population. 

[Matthew]

On 10/25/2024 at 8:04 PM, User said:

Those were not the exact ratios of electors awarded

The fact that some portion of electors is based on population is a given and beside the point. Overall these are the exact people per elector which shows that unlike democratic voting systems based on one person one vote, the electoral college is not based on a proprtional equal weighting of citizens.

[Matthew]

On 10/25/2024 at 5:30 PM, CdnFox said:

You just like to pretend that it hasn't been addressed because it destroys your argument.

Right, says the guy who hasn't had any relevant argument in the thread for like 2 weeks.

[User]

56 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The fact that some portion of electors is based on population is a given and beside the point. Overall these are the exact people per elector which shows that unlike democratic voting systems based on one person one vote, the electoral college is not based on a proprtional equal weighting of citizens.

Now it is besides the point that electors are based on population? *facepalm*

Yet again, it is in fact one person and one vote when people in a state are electing a President. 

The EC is in fact based on proportional representation, as I have pointed out several times now. 

[Legato]

On 10/25/2024 at 3:35 PM, Matthew said:

As far as donald trump, he isnt my preference but if he wins I'll be fine. I've been watching republicans degrade and weaken the country since at least the 1980s. I'm used to it.

And there gentleman or all to see is the one and only reason you are attempting to sway others to fall into your ideology.

I admit to not knowing much about the US electoral system so if I were to judge this debate as an outsider, based upon the arguments presented here, you sir have lost resoundingly.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Right, says the guy who hasn't had any relevant argument in the thread for like 2 weeks.

I made every relevant argument that needed to be made. You weren't able to refute a single point, you just kept changing the subject when I kept bringing up valid points. You still never answered the basic question that I asked.

Once you explain to somebody that two plus two equals four, there's only so many other ways you can say that before you've really exhausted all the possibilities and either they get it or they don't. And you don't. So @User had to school you for another hunk of time.  And you're still stuggling. 

The current system is fair and effective, it's logical and reasoned it's not just arbitrary, it reflects similar thinking in democracies around the world and it won't be changing. 

Sorry to hear that your choice of president is losing the race.  But that does not change any of those material facts.