Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[robosmith]

On 10/10/2024 at 2:33 PM, Nationalist said:

Go cry to your momma...

We know that's what you do. But my mom died 6 years ago, a-hole.

On 10/10/2024 at 2:42 PM, Nationalist said:

No. I'm saying the electoral collage helps the less densely populated areas have a say in American governance. 

And that "help" is anti-democratic, just what YOU WANT. 🤮

[robosmith]

On 10/10/2024 at 2:56 PM, Hodad said:

The POTUS is only one job in the government. The house and senate are elected as always without the EC. Is there any logical reason why this one role should not be elected by a popular vote? One job. Shouldn't it go to the person supported by the most Americans?

In most cases:
If someone runs for governor, they must win at least a plurality of votes.

If someone wins for mayor, they must win at least a plurality of votes.

If someone runs for dogcatcher, they must win at least a plurality of votes.

But for some reason some people still think that a candidate who receives fewer votes moves in the Oval Office. 

And right wingers applaud that, cause it's the only way they can win most of the time. 🤮

On 10/10/2024 at 4:59 PM, Fluffypants said:

If the electoral college was abolished then politicians would stop caring about rural areas and would pander to the urban areas. We don't know what would change without the electoral college Liberals just assume they would win but the strategy would change for politicians.

There is an old saying, The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't.

ONLY "better" to pols pushing unpopular policies that the majority doesn't want. 🤮

[robosmith]

20 hours ago, Nationalist said:

It levels the playing field. I'm sorry that doesn't fit into your desires but...

Tough.

Majority wins IS a "level playing field." Duh

What we have now gives rural populations a disproportionate and unjustified advantage in representation. 

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You Libbies...always trying to stack the deck. Try playing by the rules for a change. 

The deck is already stacked. Duh.

We want to unstack it, so all men (votes) are created equal.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Majority wins IS a "level playing field." Duh

It isn't. Duh.

Which is why no modern democratic country uses it. They all use variations on the concept of the Electoral College. Canada's last two elections the party with the most popular vote did not win the election

The congress and the senate is a different story. Local people elect their local rep.

But for the presidency the most fair way to do it is to treat each state like an Electoral district.

Everybody still gets a vote. And everybody's vote counts.

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

We know that's what you do. But my mom died 6 years ago, a-hole.

And that "help" is anti-democratic, just what YOU WANT. 🤮

Sorry about your mother.

No it's not. It's how the USA elects presidents. 

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Majority wins IS a "level playing field." Duh

What we have now gives rural populations a disproportionate and unjustified advantage in representation. 

The deck is already stacked. Duh.

We want to unstack it, so all men (votes) are created equal.

Lol...you now know the Democrats are gonna lose and are now opposing the EC in order to save face.

[gatomontes99]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yes, you suddenly invented the concept of "word salad" and and this is the first time ever that anyone mentioned that Trump is an incoherently rambling ldiot. You're an innovator and an inspiration! 🙄

No, we did not invent the concept. But Kamala and Timmy have taken it to levels that leads me to say they are the goats of word salad.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No, we did not invent the concept. But Kamala and Timmy have taken it to levels that leads me to say they are the goats of word salad.

You are completely delusional. Nobody does insane nonsense like the person you want to be president. His speech at the Detroit Economic Club this week might be the new high/low point for a human who not tripping balls. Trump is just a babbling old man, sooooo crazy he makes Biden's debate performance look sharp. It makes his "sharks vs electrocution" riff seem like a reasonable question. 

If you haven't watched it, and fancy yourself a consniseur of word salad you really owe it to yourself. 

Elon's rockets landing on the moon. The beautiful little circles...🤣

 

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...you now know the Democrats are gonna lose and are now opposing the EC in order to save face.

YOU (AGAIN) don't know what you're talking about. I have ALWAYS opposed the EC ON PRINCIPLE.

You don't even know what principle means. LMAO

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No, we did not invent the concept. But Kamala and Timmy have taken it to levels that leads me to say they are the goats of word salad.

Your failure to understand words, does not make them salad. 

It makes you an lDIOT.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

YOU (AGAIN) don't know what you're talking about. I have ALWAYS opposed the EC ON PRINCIPLE.

 

you have no principles, and you wouldn't be bringing it up if you thought you were winning the election.

He's right, You're extremely worried that your side is going to lose the election and you're attempting to come up with excuses already.

"And i'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling College kids!"

-The Democrats

[gatomontes99]

56 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your failure to understand words, does not make them salad. 

It makes you an lDIOT.

Ok, c'mon. Let's be real. You don't actually believe that, do you?

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Ok, c'mon. Let's be real. You don't actually believe that, do you?

I listened to what you guys call "word salad," and it's NOT because it is entirely comprehendable even if it is a little disjointed at times. 

[gatomontes99]

Just now, robosmith said:

I listened to what you guys call "word salad," and it's NOT because it is entirely comprehendable even if it is a little disjointed at times. 

Get serious.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

YOU (AGAIN) don't know what you're talking about. I have ALWAYS opposed the EC ON PRINCIPLE.

You don't even know what principle means. LMAO

Your failure to understand words, does not make them salad. 

It makes you an lDIOT.

Says the village id1ot who has very sketchy principals.

[Matthew]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The territory votes as the people want.

Lol first you try to deny that it's the territoy that gets to vote and then one sentence later you admit reality that it's the territory that gets to vote rather than the citizens.

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Everybody's vote counts now. And everybody gets one vote.

538 total people get to vote for president.

Within the state contests for electors, some people's votes count more than other people's votes.

[Matthew]

20 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

They are only terrible systems to people that need to dominate rather than negotiate.

Backwards again. All citizens getting to have an equal vote for president puts the people in charge. Those wishing to dominate unjustly (you) want to prevent citizens from having a say.

[Aristides]

On 10/10/2024 at 7:35 PM, CdnFox said:

Look man, nobody expects you to be bright. We've pretty much accepted you not the sharpest stick in the forest. But surely even you can do better than that.

Trying to claim that by leveling the playing field states like maine will somehow have tyranny over states like California is just stupid. At no point will the minority have an advantage over anyone.  But it does cut the majority's dominance.  

I guess that really bothers you. 

And as far as tyrrany of the minority goes, that's more like the left wing's love of calling for reparations and the like  

If EC votes were applied proportionally they would reflect how all the people in a state voted, not just a simple majority. A majority would still get more votes than the  minority. The millions of Republican voters in states like California would still get some EC votes instead of none like they get now.  In the meantime, stick you personal insults up your ass. Thanks for reminding me to put you back on ignore because you are incapable of disagreement without insults.

Edited October 12, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Lol first you try to deny that it's the territoy that gets to vote and then one sentence later you admit reality that it's the territory that gets to vote rather than the citizens.

Still struggling with comprehension i see    IF the territory votes the way the people tell them to, then it's still the people voting   

If you mail in a ballot is it you voting or the postal service  LOLOL

 

Quote

538 total people get to vote for president.

538 People pass on the instructions of their states. 

Your comment is as rediculous as saying the people who count the ballots are the ones voting. It's childish. 

Quote

Within the state contests for electors, some people's votes count more than other people's votes.

Ok - whose? Give me examples. I bet there's a reason or the difference is so small as to be inconsequential. 

This is just a lost cause - and frankly i recall you demanding it was appropriate to illegally keep trump's name from a ballot in several states, so you're really not in any position to pretend you're hyper concerned about democracy  

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If EC votes were applied proportionally they would reflect how all the people in a state voted, not just a simple majority. A majority would still get more votes than the  minority.

How are they NOT applied proportionally? It's still majority votes inside the state. The college simply takes what the electors of the state decides and then passes their wishes along for who won the state. 

And as far as personal insults goes - you reap what you sew .  You start it, you live with the results, and that's been explained to you before. making bullshit statements like i'm claiming somehow that maine will dominate over California is going to get you insutled and if you don't like it maybe wake that hamster in your brain up and use it BEFORE making asinine comments. 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Still struggling with comprehension i see    IF the territory votes the way the people tell them to, then it's still the people voting   

If you mail in a ballot is it you voting or the postal service  LOLOL

Ah emoji time. We all know what that means.

Territories voting is not people voting and it subverts the principle of voters being equal at the ballot box.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

538 People pass on the instructions of their states. 

Nope. 50.1% of the state contest turns into 100% of the states electors. Territories voting rather than people = voters being ignored.

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Your comment is as rediculous as saying the people who count the ballots are the ones voting.

Poor analogy. Electors ARE the actual (and only) voters for president. People who count the votes are not.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Ok - whose? Give me examples.

Sure I'm happy to help you learn more about this system you're trying to defend. Wyoming for example has 3 electors and a population of about 500,000. That's 166,666 people per elector. In California there are 40 million people and they get 54 electors. That's 740,000 people per elector.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

i recall you demanding it was appropriate to illegally keep trump's name from a ballot in several states

I've never had any opinion on that issue.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Ah emoji time. We all know what that means.

Yep..  It means ya done said something stupid and amusing    

 

Quote

Territories voting is not people voting and it subverts the principle of voters being equal at the ballot box.

It is people voting and it doesn't subvert a single thing.

The people still vote. THe state records the vote.  The state reports the winner of the vote via the college. 

Nothing whatsoever is subverted. 

Quote

Nope. 50.1% of the state contest turns into 100% of the states electors.

Yeah-  that's how democracy works.  How would it be different if everyone voted directly for the president, 50.1 percent would STILL decide 100 percent of the president

Its exactly the same -  in a fptp electoral system 49.9 percent of the people may well be disappointed and get nothing. 

Fortunately, the founding fathers were smarter than you and also gave them congress and the senate so that people in the state would also have additional directly elected representation. 

 

Quote

Poor analogy. Electors ARE the actual (and only) voters for president. People who count the votes are not.

If the college is voting the will of the people as per the election then the college is not either.  they talley, they  report who won their state.

Quote

Sure I'm happy to help you learn more about this system you're trying to defend.

LOLOL oh goodie  

Quote

Wyoming for example has 3 electors and a population of about 500,000. That's 166,666 people per elector. In California there are 40 million people and they get 54 electors. That's 740,000 people per elector.

How many are citizens?

Quote

I've never had any opinion on that issue.

I rather don't believe you.  I think you can figure out why  

Edited October 13, 2024 by CdnFox

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The people still vote.

Only 538 people vote for president.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

that's how democracy works.

Democracy is people choosing, not land.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If the college is voting the will of the people

The electoral college does not represent people, it represents territories.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

How many are citizens?

Oopsie, I guess you have no relevant response to people in states not being fairly represented by the electoral college.

But good luck pivoting to some immigration BS. The electoral college gives a huge boost to states with more illegals. Because it doesn't represent people it represents states based on their raw populations. Functioning democracy would be based on citizens voting.

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I think you can figure out why

Yes I can. You are lazy and frequently make uninformed assumptions.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Only 538 people vote for president.

And only at the instruction of the people of their state.  So it's the people who vote. 

Quote

Democracy is people choosing, not land.

Pretending people don't live on land is kind of dumb.  And in a presidential election it's the people who vote.

Quote

The electoral college does not represent people, it represents territories.

the college vote is directly a reflection of the people's choice. It represents the people,

Quote

Oopsie, I guess you have no relevant response to people in states not being fairly represented by the electoral college.

You would have to be 10 different kinds of stupid to believe that.  which means you're overqualified.

Quote

But good luck pivoting to some immigration BS. The electoral college gives a huge boost to states with more illegals.

So in other words you couldn't answer my question without blowing your own argument

Hey  no problem , lets fix that. Only citizens can be counted for determining the college allocations, how's that? Your problem is solved   

Funny how it's the republicans who've been pushing for that and the dems who've been resisting. 

 

[Matthew]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

only at the instruction of the people of their state

No, they can vote however they want.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Pretending people don't live on land is kind of dumb. 

I'm not. The land gets to vote though and not the people.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

the college vote is directly a reflection of the people's choice

Nope, if it were even attempting to directly reflect the people's choice, then each state would send electors proportional to the candidates that received votes.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So in other words you couldn't answer my question

Its true I don't know how many citizens there are vs non-citizens nor did I see the point you were trying to make, but I see what you're getting at so let's find some estimates to see if it matters (spoiler alert: it won't).

Looks like California's population is 38.9 million. 6% of the state's population is undocumented. So that would be about 2,334,000 undocumented. Just to make you happy let's double that and say 4 million (Btw you could quadruble, quintiple it etc and it still wouldn't balance out).

That leaves 34.9 million Calufornia citizens and 54 electoral votes. That's 646,296 US citizens per elector.

Over in Wyoming there are 576,851 people. They have about 22,000 undocumented. Just to help you out, let's not even subtract that number. So with 3 electoral votes thats 192,283 per elector.

For a California elector to be equal with a wyoming voter you'd have to get California down to just 10,383,282 people-- eliminating 28.6 million Californians.

Edited October 13, 2024 by Matthew