Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

By the way, in the last two elections in Canada the party that got the most votes is not the party that forms government.

I did JUST say that Canada and the UK are two other governments with disproportionality weighted votes. In other words they face similar problems living up to one person one vote major rule. Pretty much every very democracy in Europe uses proportional voting.

I notice you just like claim "victory" in a thread day after day rather than actually making any kind of lucid or relevant arguments. Considering we've been talking about this for a week, you've brought literally nothing of consequence to the entire conversation.

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sort of, I mean it has happened in the states too and they don't have the same model. Whenever you have a system that addresses regional differences and isn't focused on population entirely you have the potential for that.

A federal system that prioritizes on regional differences is inherently flawed. Regions don't vote, people do.

Quote

In a proportional system they would have. Absolutely. 

Nope. If you go purely by vote share in 2021, the Cons would have got fewer seats than they did under FPTP (they received 33.7% of the vote and got 35% of the seats). the models I've seen for a PR system would also only give them 125 seats instead of 119, still well shy of the 170 seats needed for a majority government. No idea how you get a government out of that.

Quote

 not even a little bit.   Where's the calls to change our system? Wheres the newspaper articles? etc etc?  Aside from a few people being bitter that the cpc didn't win they don't while about it at.

They whined but they didn't want to change the system because it normally benefits conservative parties who would otherwise almost never get a sniff at forming the government.

Quote

Our way is pretty damn good and extremely fair, unless you're a leftist  - they define "unfair" as "the conservatives might win  once in a while"   

I define unfair by meaning it isn't fair that some votes count more than others, while you think it's fair because it delivers results you prefer. 

Edited October 23, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I did JUST say that Canada and the UK are two other governments with disproportionality weighted votes. In other words they face similar problems living up to one person one vote major rule. Pretty much every very democracy in Europe uses proportional voting.

And i did JUST SAY when that lead to conservative losses WE didn't crybaby about it like a bunch of losers as you are doing  

Pay attention. 

Quote

I notice you just like claim "victory" in a thread day after day rather than actually making any kind of lucid or relevant arguments. Considering we've been talking about this for a week, you've brought literally nothing of consequence to the entire conversation.

That''s the kind of thing a loser lefty would say. I made plenty of arguments, gave examples, provided facts, explained the history and truth and facts behind why things are the way they are, and addressed all of your points.

Like most losers on the left rather than address that or cope with that or acknowledge that what you choose to do is just make the same statements about the same lies over and over again. And it is you who have provided no proof whatsoever or made any logical argument. Everything you do bring up turns out to be false or irrelevant and not just with me.

So there gets to be a point where all you can do is repeat the truth to people like you and point out that everything you're bringing up again and again has already been addressed.

I know you don't like that. I know that in your teeny tiny little leftist mind as long as you're still arguing even if what you're arguing makes no sense whatsoever somehow you think you haven't lost and that the debate rages on. That's not how it works.

You have utterly failed to make your point. You have not explained why we should be ignoring the fact that people in different regions have different interests, you haven't explained why if we have states we shouldn't wait things based on the people of that state, you have failed to demonstrate that other places in the world don't have the same systems for the same reasons, you have not shown any constitutional basis for your argument, and when you do present math it's entirely wrong.

You have absolutely nothing left. You've lost. What points you made you could not support with either logic or facts. Our people are just looking at you feeling like you're embarrassing yourself.

Sorry kiddo. Better luck next time

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Like most losers on the left rather than address that or cope with that or acknowledge that what you choose to do is just make the same statements about the same lies over and over again. And it is you who have provided no proof whatsoever or made any logical argument. Everything you do bring up turns out to be false or irrelevant and not just with me.

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

A federal system that prioritizes on regional differences is inherently flawed. Regions don't vote, people do.

People in the regions vote. People in various regions have different interests than people in other regions and that is recognized and most modern voting systems. When you graduate from preschool you'll learn about this kind of stuff

Quote

Nope. If you go purely by vote share in 2021, the Cons would have got fewer seats than they did under FPTP (they received 33.7% of the vote and got 35% of the seats)

Why am i having to explain to you how this works? Seriously?

They still would have gotten MORE seats than anyone else.  The liberals would have LOST seats, others would have gained some but the CPC would have had the MOST seats.   So THEY WOULD HAVE FORMED GOV"T!   Jezuz how are you that stupid?

Federal election 2021 live results

Quote

the models I've seen for a PR system would also only give them 125 seats instead of 119, still well shy of the 170 seats needed for a majority government. No idea how you get a government out of that.

 

Nobody right now has over 170 seats!  Do you think we don't have a gov't? Harper didn't have a majority of seats between 2006 and 2011,  do you think canada didn't have a gov't all that time????  Holy shit kid  this is BASIC STUFF.

They would have formed a minority gov't!  Are you SERIOUSLY saying you don't know what a minority gov't is?  We have a minority gov't RIGHT NOW!  We have since 2019! 

Yeah, you just lost any credibility at all on political discussions. 

 

Quote

They whined but they didn't want to change the system because it normally benefits conservative parties who would otherwise almost never get a sniff at forming the government.

They didn't whine at all and they don't want to change the system because it's the most fair. And it normaly benefits the left wing parties historically.  And it benefitted the left wing party this time too.  You're an !diot. 

Quote

I define unfair by meaning it isn't fair that some votes count more than others, while you think it's fair because it delivers results you prefer. 

 

Sure kid 🙄   A guy who doesn't know what a minority gov't is really doesn't have the brains to comment either way. 

[Matthew]

7 hours ago, User said:

YOU argued it was. I was the one arguing the point from a more universal principle, then your counter argument was to say no, no, no, that you were specifically talking about it from a legal doctrine.

When you have tried to change the meaning of "one person one vote," I have used the US Supreme Court to show what it legally means in the US. When you have tried to absurdly claim that the way the US limits it to the states is the true spirit of that doctrine, I have pointed to the fact that it is a universal principle. These points are not contradictory.

7 hours ago, User said:

it does proportionally represent the people of the state whom voted and it is still proportional based on the US population

What? If a Texan's vote is worth 75% less that a North Dakotans vote, how is that proportional?

 

7 hours ago, User said:

Sure, and the majority of people in a state voted for the electors and a majority of the electors voted for the President... there is your principle in action. 

That makes no difference if the electoral college is not proportionally representative in the first place. The end result is that the a minority of the population chose something and the majority was ignored

7 hours ago, User said:

It is not a standard to be met, it is not some check box, it is a principle and every step of the way that principle exists as the power rests with the people

Wishful thinking. You have yet to demonstrate any proportionality in the electoral college.

7 hours ago, User said:

Yes, they are proportional. 

Prove it.

[User]

46 minutes ago, Matthew said:

When you have tried to change the meaning of "one person one vote," I have used the US Supreme Court to show what it legally means in the US. When you have tried to absurdly claim that the way the US limits it to the states is the true spirit of that doctrine, I have pointed to the fact that it is a universal principle. These points are not contradictory.

I did not try to change the meaning of anything, you said there was not 1 person 1 vote, I disagreed. Then you brought up US case law to define it. 

I have used that ever since to refute your arguments repeatedly. 

Now, you want to go back and not use that definition because you failed to realize it was applied at the state level. 

It doesn't change anything, if you want to argue it as a more vague principle, then our system is still one person voting and their vote counting just as others are in the state and the same proportional rules across the states. 

50 minutes ago, Matthew said:

What? If a Texan's vote is worth 75% less that a North Dakotans vote, how is that proportional?

Proportional in that each state has the same proportion of base electoral votes in addition to the same proportion of electoral votes corresponding to their population. 

That is the very definition of proportional. 

Texas does not get 100 Electoral Votes just for being the state of Texas. Both North Dakota and Texas each get 2, then they each get an additional amount based on population. 

52 minutes ago, Matthew said:

That makes no difference if the electoral college is not proportionally representative in the first place. The end result is that the a minority of the population chose something and the majority was ignored

No, a majority of the population from the states was heard. 

56 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Wishful thinking. You have yet to demonstrate any proportionality in the electoral college.

Not wishful thinking at all. I just did. 

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

LOL  -  every leftist accusation turns out to be a confession  

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, User said:

to refute your arguments repeatedly

You don't even directly respond to arguments, let alone try to refute them. You're whole tactic is to reframe every argument into a strawman instead of directly confront the actual facts and arguments presented.

3 hours ago, User said:

I did not try to change the meaning of anything

You were implying that just because people voted for president that it was automatically "one person one vote." So I showed that according to the supreme court the meaning requires equal weighting of citizens votes.

3 hours ago, User said:

Now, you want to go back and not use that definition

False. I stand byv everything I've said on the subject and my definition of one person one vote is the same as ever. I can't tell if you're just not following the conversation well or if you're really this deliberately dishonest.

3 hours ago, User said:

Proportional in that each state has the same proportion of base electoral votes in addition to the same proportion of electoral votes corresponding to their population. 

That is the very definition of proportional. 

Extremely inaccurate definitions. Do you really not know what proportional means?

"each state has the same proportion of base electoral votes" is literally the opposite of proportional. The extra 100 electors you're describing here again are almost 19% of the entire election.

In case you skipped math class here is a precise definition:

3 hours ago, User said:

No, a majority of the population from the states was heard. 

That's a non-response.

3 hours ago, User said:

I just did. 

You have made false claims, and then supported those with more unsupported false claims. I've given you specific facts and numbers demonstrating the huge disproportionality. Which you've repeatedly avoided directly responding to.

[CdnFox]

58 minutes ago, Matthew said:

You don't even directly respond to arguments, let alone try to refute them. You're whole tactic is to reframe every argument into a strawman instead of directly confront the actual facts and arguments presented.

You were implying that just because people voted for president that it was automatically "one person one vote." So I showed that according to the supreme court the meaning requires equal weighting of citizens votes.

False. I stand byv everything I've said on the subject and my definition of one person one vote is the same as ever. I can't tell if you're just not following the conversation well or if you're really this deliberately dishonest.

Extremely inaccurate definitions. Do you really not know what proportional means?

"each state has the same proportion of base electoral votes" is literally the opposite of proportional. The extra 100 electors you're describing here again are almost 19% of the entire election.

In case you skipped math class here is a precise definition:

That's a non-response.

You have made false claims, and then supported those with more unsupported false claims. I've given you specific facts and numbers demonstrating the huge disproportionality. Which you've repeatedly avoided directly responding to.

Dude he has previously shot almost all of that down.

You have utterly failed to make any kind of argument as to why making adjustments for representation based on area is somehow wrong.

Your girl's going to lose. Make peace with it and stop being such a bitter little twat

[Matthew]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Dude he has previously shot almost all of that down.

You have utterly failed to make any kind of argument as to why making adjustments for representation based on area is somehow wrong.

Your girl's going to lose. Make peace with it and stop being such a bitter little twat

What's most amusing is that you guys haven't even offered the actual conservative argument for the electoral college and instead have opted to try to deny facts and try to redefine them, which has gotten you nowhere.

Its such an artifact of our time that the right wing is now so inept at making intellectually robust and honest conservative arguments and instead relies entirely on lies and disinformation.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Matthew said:

What's most amusing

What's' most amusing is you have the brains of a particularly slow tree sloth and having said dozens of things wrong you think you can make it better by saying something else stupid   

 

 

Quote

Its such an artifact of our time that the right wing is now so inept at making intellectually robust and honest conservative arguments and instead relies entirely on lies and disinformation.

Translation - "WAAAAAHHHHH  I CAN"T REFUTE THE POINTS SO I"LL JUST PRETEND I"M SOMEHOW SMARTER AN DDON"T HAVE TO!!! WAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!"

LOL - kid i'm sure that kind of simpleton thinking and cheezy tactics really wow them on the playground at recess but here in the adult world you're going to have to do better  

The united states is made up of a bunch of states, which have decided to be united.  I'm sure even your brain can wrap your head around that   

The people in each state have issues and concerns and ideas and such that are unique to that state or region. 

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 of that region in a larger body, being the UNITED states. 

This is a practice done all over the world in dozens and dozens of countries especially larger ones with more regional diversity. 

 

And you have failed to make  an argument as to why that's inappropriate.  You tried the constitution - got shot down. You've tried "but but but but democracy!" and that got shot down.  Other than that you've just whined and complained. 

If you think the people of  all states and regions to be the same, then there should BE no states. Just one big country.  The "State" of america. 

But there are states. And that's because people decided they wanted to address their regional and local interests, and part of that is making sure no region is unfairly underrepresented at the national level. 

Nothing you've said changes that.   That's all the argument that's necessary - and it's one that both republicans and democrats agreed on for a long time. 

Now that you're dumb biatch is losing an election you're all pissy about it  

[User]

54 minutes ago, Matthew said:

What's most amusing is that you guys haven't even offered the actual conservative argument for the electoral college and instead have opted to try to deny facts and try to redefine them, which has gotten you nowhere.

Its such an artifact of our time that the right wing is now so inept at making intellectually robust and honest conservative arguments and instead relies entirely on lies and disinformation.

I likely have already, you just ignored it like you do most of anything else that is not convenient for you. 

[User]

15 hours ago, Matthew said:

You don't even directly respond to arguments, let alone try to refute them. You're whole tactic is to reframe every argument into a strawman instead of directly confront the actual facts and arguments presented.

No strawman here. You tried to assert this as a specific US case lase doctrine, after I repeatedly defeated your arguments by pointing out what it meant and how it did in fact apply correctly to the EC, you now want to move the goal posts back to trying to argue it from some universal principle. 

15 hours ago, Matthew said:

False. I stand byv everything I've said on the subject and my definition of one person one vote is the same as ever. I can't tell if you're just not following the conversation well or if you're really this deliberately dishonest.

OK, great. Then you agree with me that the EC does in fact meet the conditions of the doctrine. 

15 hours ago, Matthew said:

"each state has the same proportion of base electoral votes" is literally the opposite of proportional.

That is the exact meaning of proportional. They all get 2. 

 

[Matthew]

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

"WAAAAAHHHHH  I CAN"T REFUTE THE POINTS SO I"LL JUST PRETEND I"M SOMEHOW SMARTER AN DDON"T HAVE TO!!! WAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!"

Thanks for helping to support my point about the lack of rational thought among current conservatives.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Matthew said:

Thanks for helping to support my point about the lack of rational thought among current conservatives.

LOL  sure kid    

I totally forgot the left has no sense of humour or irony    LOLOL

But i love that that's the part of that post you felt you could refute and none of the rest of it  

[Matthew]

37 minutes ago, User said:

I likely have already, you just ignored it like you do most of anything else that is not convenient for you. 

I try to only respond to things that are germane to the topic and argument at hand. And no I keep waiting for the real argument to begin but I think I'm dealing with the C squad here.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Matthew

[User]

52 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I try to only respond to things that are germane to the topic and argument at hand. And no I keep waiting for the real argument to begin but I think I'm dealing with the C squad here.

So... you bring up something not germane to the topic and argument at hand to say you have yet to see it, then claim you only respond to things germane to the topic and argument at hand... 

Yeah, OK. Let me know when you figure this out for yourself. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

I try to only respond to things that are germane to the topic and argument at hand. And no I keep waiting for the real argument to begin but I think I'm dealing with the C squad here.

That's a lie. What you do is reply to things where you think you might be able to still make an argument and ignore things where you lost until about five posts later when you'll bring it up again and claim nobody's ever refuted it

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, User said:

You tried to assert this as a specific US case lase doctrine

Nope. There certainly is useful case law about its meaning in the US, which is relevant to this discussion. But I would never claim that any basic principle of democracy is exclusively American.

What is your actual point about the "one person one vote" principle? I have no dispute that the choosing of electors follows that principle. But the actual vote of 538 electors for president obviously fails this principle due to the disproportionate weighting of those electors per citizens being represented.

2 hours ago, User said:

That is the exact meaning of proportional. They all get 2. 

Proportional means that as the states population goes up, the number of Electors would go up by the same ratio.

Here is simple and precise definition:

"Proportionality, In algebra, equality between two ratios. In the expression a/b = c/d, a and b are in the same proportion as c and d...The term proportionality describes any relationship that is always in the same ratio. The number of apples in a crop, for example, is proportional to the number of trees in the orchard, the ratio of proportionality being the average number of apples per tree."

Based on this definition, giving each state no matter their population two electoral votes would not be proportional.

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

and none of the rest of it  

Well i always give you one or two sentences to demonstrate that you're going to be on point and not post worthless garbage. You typically fail that threshold. It's been weeks since I've read more than your opening sentences.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Well i always give you one or two sentences to demonstrate that you're going to be on point and not post worthless garbage. You typically fail that threshold. It's been weeks since I've read more than your opening sentences.

Well it is a pretty common trait for liberals to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the facts   

Oh  and you've quoted from the middle and bottom of my posts on this very page just a day or so ago    I guess that's your way of admitting you're both a liar and unable to refute the points i've made which you actually did read  

[Matthew]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ignore the facts

Riiight. You do a lot of lengthy stream-of-consciousness word vomit that doesn't directly pertain to much and is often untethered to reality. So if you ever have anything import to say help us all out by just leading with that. 😄

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Riiight. You do a lot of lengthy stream-of-consciousness word vomit that doesn't directly pertain to much and is often untethered to reality. So if you ever have anything import to say help us all out by just leading with that. 😄

Awww kiddo.,  i forgot you have trouble with anything more advanced than dr seuss  were some of those mean old nasty words too big for you?  

And again, typical lefty. You're wrong, you can't refute the points, but somehow it's all my fault  

[User]

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

But I would never claim that any basic principle of democracy is exclusively American.

Lovely strawman, as I never claimed you said it was "exclusively American," but in this specific argument, you certainly did choose to make it a US legal doctrine to argue from. 

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

What is your actual point about the "one person one vote" principle? I have no dispute that the choosing of electors follows that principle. But the actual vote of 538 electors for president obviously fails this principle due to the disproportionate weighting of those electors per citizens being represented.

LOL, you were the one who brought it up. And as I have repeatedly pointed out YOU chose to make it about the US legal doctrine to which again, that clearly applies when people are voting for the President. Each of their votes counts the same as any others. 

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

Proportional means that as the states population goes up, the number of Electors would go up by the same ratio.

It does. There is not a differing formula for each states apportionment of the number of electors. A census is taken, total population determined for each state, and then they are given that many Representatives that then corresponds to the number of electors. 

 

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

Based on this definition, giving each state no matter their population two electoral votes would not be proportional.

Well, this is not algebra, that aside, the ratio is in fact the same... everyone gets 2. That is literally proportional.