Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[User]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

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

Its basically: 

I don't like playing chess!!!! I want to play checkers!!!!! 

But instead of saying that, we have spent the past week and countless posts of him trying to argue in vain about how awful chess is because its an unfair game instead. 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, User said:

Its basically: 

I don't like playing chess!!!! I want to play checkers!!!!! 

But instead of saying that, we have spent the past week and countless posts of him trying to argue in vain about how awful chess is because its an unfair game instead. 

Essentially  

Or to be more accurate he wants to play chess but he knows he's going to lose the game unless his pawn can move two spaces instead of one, so now he's morally outraged that that's not the case in demanding that this grave and justice be corrected immediately!  CONSTATUTION!!!!!!  (black pawns matter!!!) 

He thankful you've only got two parties. Up here we constantly are bombarded daily with demands from our left wing that government Be proportional representation. So if one far right party gets 7% of the vote they get 7% of the seats, if a far left party gets 10% of the vote they get 10% of the seats and everything in between so that anybody can start up a party, try and get a few votes, and then turn parliament into a theater so they can try and attract a few more voters. Basically each parliament turns into an episode of survivor. 

It's been proposed in several promises but it always gets voted down by the public.

Edited October 27, 2024 by CdnFox

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

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

As you well know, only 81% of the electoral college is based on population and that is not enough for anyone trying to characterize the system as democratic.

1 hour ago, User said:

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

The Nov 5th vote in states is not the electoral college vote. The electoral college vote on Dec 17th does not follow the one person one vote principle because those electors represent vastly different numbers of citizens.

1 hour ago, User said:

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

You have falsely claimed. The numbers speak for themselves:

[User]

2 minutes ago, Matthew said:

As you well know, only 81% of the electoral college is based on population and that is not enough for anyone trying to characterize the system as democratic.

LOL, so now you are back to your its not even Democratic argument? Sigh...

Lets review:

People vote for their state legislators to represent them

People voted for the presidential candidate of their choice

Those legislators represent the people in making the laws of their state and electors

Those electors represent the people

Then those electors all vote based on what their states people wanted

Every step of the way this is a Democracy built on Democratic principles. 

You see, this is where YOU are being fundamentally dishonest, still. Instead of just making your arguments for why you want a direct popular vote instead, you have to make these dumb dishonest arguments against the EC. 

 

[Matthew]

19 minutes ago, User said:

But instead of saying that, we have spent the past week and countless posts of him trying to argue in vain about how awful chess is because its an unfair game instead. 

I have not judged the electoral college system as being bad or good, Ive only described the simple facts of it being a non democratic system. It's just a basic fact and nobody knowledgeable about it would claim otherwise. I do think a proportional system would be better but I have made no argument to that point nor do I even have strong feelings on the subject.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

I have not judged the electoral college system as being bad or good, Ive only described the simple facts of it being a non democratic system. It's just a basic fact and nobody knowledgeable about it would claim otherwise. I do think a proportional system would be better but I have made no argument to that point nor do I even have strong feelings on the subject.

You have said it was bad on the number of occasions you dishonest little thing you

[Matthew]

11 minutes ago, User said:

People vote for their state legislators to represent them

This is not the electoral college.

11 minutes ago, User said:

People voted for the presidential candidate of their choice

This is not the electoral college.

11 minutes ago, User said:

People voted for the presidential candidate of their choice

This is not the electoral college.

11 minutes ago, User said:

Those legislators represent the people in making the laws of their state and electors

This is not the electoral college.

11 minutes ago, User said:

Then those electors all vote based on what their states people wanted

This is the electoral college and those electors do not constitutionally have to vote the way their state voted and again the weighting of them is disproportional and therefore not democratic.

You can focus on the states all you want but it won't ever help you to change the fact that at the national level the electoral college is not democratic even if the choosing of electors was.

Edited October 27, 2024 by Matthew

[Matthew]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You have said it was bad on the number of occasions

It should be pretty easy to quote me on that then, right?

[User]

5 minutes ago, Matthew said:

This is not the electoral college.

This is not the electoral college.

This is not the electoral college.

This is not the electoral college.

This is the electoral college and those electors do not constitutionally have to vote the way their state voted and again the weighting of them is disproportional and therefore not democratic.

You can focus on the states all you want but it won't ever help you to change the fact that at the national level the electoral college is not democratic even if the choosing of electors was.

Those are all the components of the Electoral College. 

You keep arguing it is not democratic. It is. 

But hey, lets play your new game now. So, what is your point here if you are not even arguing this is bad?

 

[Matthew]

Just now, User said:

Those are all the components of the Electoral College. 

Whatever system a state has for naming electors is completely independent from the electoral college system itself as outlined in the constitution.

Your chess vs checkers analogy is closer to your own argument. You keep conflating the electoral college with the activities in the states to choose electors.You're falsely assuming that because the state level systems for choosing electors are democratic, that therefore the separate constitutional system for choosing a president via the electoral college is also democratic and the distribution of those electors is also democratic. Even the founders were quite open about it these things not being democratic, even though from the start there was a significant movement in some of the states to make the choosing of electors more directly democratic.

[User]

9 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Whatever system a state has for naming electors is completely independent from the electoral college system itself as outlined in the constitution.

Your chess vs checkers analogy is closer to your own argument. You keep conflating the electoral college with the activities in the states to choose electors.You're falsely assuming that because the state level systems for choosing electors are democratic, that therefore the separate constitutional system for choosing a president via the electoral college is also democratic and the distribution of those electors is also democratic. Even the founders were quite open about it these things not being democratic, even though from the start there was a significant movement in some of the states to make the choosing of electors more directly democratic.

Sorry, no point in moving past this little gem from you, which is likely why you ignored it:

But hey, lets play your new game now. So, what is your point here if you are not even arguing this is bad?

[Matthew]

36 minutes ago, User said:

what is your point here if you are not even arguing this is bad?

The current argument is just about facts. I'm outlining encyclopedic facts concerning the way in which the electoral college functions constitutionally and the respresentstional principles that are and are not by design not a part of the electoral college system within the framework of the republic.

If the basic facts of reality were ever agreed to then I suppose an actual debate could occur about the merits of that system, or lack thereof.

[Fluffypants]

6 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Whatever system a state has for naming electors is completely independent from the electoral college system itself as outlined in the constitution.

Your chess vs checkers analogy is closer to your own argument. You keep conflating the electoral college with the activities in the states to choose electors.You're falsely assuming that because the state level systems for choosing electors are democratic, that therefore the separate constitutional system for choosing a president via the electoral college is also democratic and the distribution of those electors is also democratic. Even the founders were quite open about it these things not being democratic, even though from the start there was a significant movement in some of the states to make the choosing of electors more directly democratic.

How Democratic is the Canadian way of government? You don't choose your Prime Minister directly, whichever party dominates your parliament essentially chooses them. You always have one party rule no matter what.

Personally I would say that the electoral college is far more democratic than Canada's way. At least we get to vote for the President more directly.

Electoral college works for us because the 50 states are essentially their own countries culturally. That is why our Senate is set up where each state has 2 reps so each state has equal say so no one state gets inordinate control over the government.

[User]

13 minutes ago, Matthew said:

If the basic facts of reality were ever agreed to then I suppose an actual debate could occur about the merits of that system, or lack thereof.

So, you think the basic facts here are good. 

 

[Matthew]

6 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

How Democratic is the Canadian way of government? You don't choose your Prime Minister directly, whichever party dominates your parliament essentially chooses them. You always have one party rule no matter what.

Im from Iowa btw. Unlike most parliamentary systems the UK and Canada do have a lack of one person one vote proportionality. Citizen votes are not equal. But most other parliamentary systems are extremely focused on proportionality. So I think it would be difficult to sort out which is more representative of voters-- they each have their serious flaws.

6 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Personally I would say that the electoral college is far more democratic than Canada's way. At least we get to vote for the President more directly.

Unless you're one of the 538 electors you will never vote for the president. But i get what you're saying. Americans do have significant indirect influence on the outcome, though the fact that some citizens votes count far less than other citizens suggests an extreme failure of democracy.

6 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Electoral college works for us because the 50 states are essentially their own countries culturally. That is why our Senate is set up where each state has 2 reps so each state has equal say so no one state gets inordinate control over the government.

That's true, if you value land voting and having equal rights rather than citizens voting and having equal rights.

6 hours ago, User said:

So, you think the basic facts here are good. 

Is that meant to be a question?

Edited October 28, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

It should be pretty easy to quote me on that then, right?

It ain't hard, but let's face it. You haven't been here arguing for 4 days because you think that the Electoral College is great.

You have said over and over and over again that one person one vote is what you want.

[Matthew]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You have said over and over and over again that one person one vote is what you want.

Interesting. Is it not what you want?

[Matthew]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

arguing for 4 days

Also I love how you think this has been going on for 4 days. 😆

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Interesting. Is it not what you want?

I have been insanely clear on this.

Well the principle of one person went both should be respected as much as reasonably possible, it is important that any democratic system also take into account regional issues and make sure that no one region is subject to the tyranny of the majority.

Post models to help prevent this people within a region vote for their local Representatives. I cannot vote for Trudeau. I cannot even vote for the liberal party per se. I vote for my local representative and whichever party gets the most local Representatives conform government essentially.

One person one vote across a whole country leads to the tyranny of the majority and it is a very bad thing. Eventually it leads to significant tensions and puts a strain on the Which can have terrible effects

Which is why the founding fathers with massive amounts of thought created a system the way they do so that all the states would still be states but would have national representation that was fair.

I feel like this has been explained to you about a thousand times and you're going to tear off on some complete tangent without actually addressing the issues and then get mad when people repeat the issues as I have done a hundred times

 

The current system is fair and representational and effective.

[Matthew]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

tyranny of the majority

How do you define this phrase you like to use? At what point does the basic majority rule of any democracy become "tyranny?"

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

How do you define this phrase you like to use? At what point does the basic majority rule of any democracy become "tyranny?"

I've already explained that in detail

See this is the thing with you. You lose an argument and people put up facts and explain their positions and go through their reason and logic for you and you realize you're wrong. Then what you do is ignore that and start asking the same questions over and over and over again.

If you couldn't understand it the first time I have no interest in going out and purchasing crayons so that I can spell it out to you in language you can understand.

Your job at this point which you have absolutely failed to do is demonstrate why it would be more fair if we ignored the fact that various states exist and the people in those states have their own interests. Because unless you can make that argument than with the presidential system similar to what the US has you're going to have to have an electoral college and you are going to have to weight regions because population density isn't consistent from region to region and the people of each region have unique and often competing interests. 

 

So go ahead I"ve asked for that a bunch of times now and you can't come up with a reasoned answer. 

[Matthew]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I've already explained that in detail

Here is everything you've said about the so-called tyranny of the majority in this thread and none of it provides any detail about what you think it means whatsoever:

1. "Oh look , the lefty supports the tyranny of the majority. what a surprise"

2. "It is important that democracy is restricted to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

3. "I said right in the beginning that there was a discrepancy in order to give people in smaller states protection against the tyranny of the majority."

4. "It is for that very reason that we do not attempt to make our system a true democracy. Instead we go with a constitutional representational democracy that uses a number of elements to protect people against the tyranny of the majority... The college is one example of those things. It exists to help protect people against the tyranny of the majority, and make sure that no one area or region has an completely outside influence over other regions."

 

5. "democracy is only bad when it's untempered to prevent the tyranny of the majority."

6. "And of course they're absolutely is a scenario where balancing the voting power to prevent tyranny makes the system better and more fair"

7. "States with larger areas and smaller population density may be weighted to more fairly represent their interests and reduce the effect of the tyranny of the majority."

8. "to prevent the effect of the tyrrany of the majority it was decided to weight states to ensure fair and honest representation of the people"

9. "Well the principle of one person went both should be respected as much as reasonably possible, it is important that any democratic system also take into account regional issues and make sure that no one region is subject to the tyranny of the majority."

10. "One person one vote across a whole country leads to the tyranny of the majority and it is a very bad thing. Eventually it leads to significant tensions and puts a strain on the Which can have terrible effects"

 

Edited October 29, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

Just now, Matthew said:

Here is everything you've said about the so-called tyranny of the majority in this thread and none of it provides any detail about what you think it means whatsoever:

1. "Oh look , the lefty supports the tyranny of the majority. what a surprise"

2. "It is important that democracy is restricted to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

3. "I said right in the beginning that there was a discrepancy in order to give people in smaller states protection against the tyranny of the majority."

4. "It is for that very reason that we do not attempt to make our system a true democracy. Instead we go with a constitutional representational democracy that uses a number of elements to protect people against the tyranny of the majority... The college is one example of those things. It exists to help protect people against the tyranny of the majority, and make sure that no one area or region has an completely outside influence over other regions."

 

5. "democracy is only bad when it's untempered to prevent the tyranny of the majority."

6. "And of course they're absolutely is a scenario where balancing the voting power to prevent tyranny makes the system better and more fair"

7. "States with larger areas and smaller population density may be weighted to more fairly represent their interests and reduce the effect of the tyranny of the majority."

8. "to prevent the effect of the tyrrany of the majority it was decided to weight states to ensure fair and honest representation of the people"

9. "Well the principle of one person went both should be respected as much as reasonably possible, it is important that any democratic system also take into account regional issues and make sure that no one region is subject to the tyranny of the majority."

10. "One person one vote across a whole country leads to the tyranny of the majority and it is a very bad thing. Eventually it leads to significant tensions and puts a strain on the Which can have terrible effects"

 

And here you said i'd never explained it to you   

If you don't feel like a loser right now you need to stop drinking  

[Matthew]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Your job at this point which you have absolutely failed to do is demonstrate why it would be more fair if we ignored the fact that various states exist

Why would I even care about trying to do that? Again, my stance in this thread is simply to describe the system. If you're waiting for a dispute about some better system, that would of course be very easy to explain because the electoral college is obviously garbage. But people who can't comprehend the current system will hardly be able to comprehend abstract ideas about a better one.

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And here you said i'd never explained it to you

So then, what does "tyranny of the majority" specifically mean? Or is it just a BS phrase you use against anything that would be more democratic?

Edited October 29, 2024 by Matthew

[User]

11 hours ago, Matthew said:

So then, what does "tyranny of the majority" specifically mean? Or is it just a BS phrase you use against anything that would be more democratic?

4 wolves and 1 sheep voting on who to have for dinner is "more democratic," so do you support that?