Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[Aristides]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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. 

If one candidate gets 51% of the votes in a state they get 100% of that state's  EC votes and the one that got 49% gets none. How as that proportional.

I never made any such statement.

In all our disagreements I have never insulted you once but you just can't disagree with anyone without making it personal. This the last response you will get from me.

Edited October 13, 2024 by Aristides

[Aristides]

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

No, they can vote however they want.

Really. When has that ever happened. 
Never? Never ever?

Uh huh. 

Quote

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

Of course you are 

Do the people vote? Have you ever heard of anyone going out and "voting" on election day? 

you HAVE?!?!? Were they a piece of property? Were they real estate perhaps? Someone's detached bungalow got up and said "yes" to trump and now you're angry?

People vote. The college then looks at the people's vote and votes according to the people's instructions. 

At no point will any 'land' be involved. 

 

Quote

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.

That's not mathematically possible.  Everyone's got SOME difference in opinion and no party fully represents anyone - so basically you'd need as many reps as you have voters to achieve what you're saying.  

This is a representative democracy we're talking about.  People by CONCENSUS, NOT UNANIMOTY, agree on their representation. 

Quote

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).

I DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN SO I"LL GUESS AT AN ANSWER!

You're a frakking genius  

Quote

 

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.

 

Sigh.  Kid - your debate techniques might work really well with the other elementary shcool children but you're going to have to do better than that with me. At the moment it's like hulk hogan fighting a toddler. 

You think i didn't see what you did there?  You swapped "citizen" for "undocumented".   As if all non citizens are undocumented.  And you thought i wouldn't  notice.

SO - lets look at some real numbers. 

Immigrants in California - American Immigration Council

California has long been home to a large number of immigrants. About 26.7 percent of the state’s residents are foreign-born, and 19.7 percent of its U.S.-born residents live with at least one immigrant parent. Immigrants make up 32.0 percent of California's labor force and support the state’s economy in many ways. They account for 38.6 percent of entrepreneurs, 39.4 percent of STEM workers, and 35.0 percent of nurses in the state. As neighbors, business owners, taxpayers, and workers, immigrants are an integral part of California’s diverse and thriving communities and make extensive contributions that benefit all.

Now we can't assume that ALL immigrants are not citizens, but i can't find hard numbers and the numbers i can find strongly suggest that it's a very high percent who are only landed immigrant. 

And - a disproportionate percentage of those people are adults - meaning of the remainder a more sizeable percent are children who aren't eligable to vote even tho they're citizens.  About 3 million are immigrant kids and about 25 are natural born. 

THEN you probably have to add the undocumented on that as well. 

So in REALITY when we're talking about voting age adults who are citizens  you're talking about A lot closer to 15 million after the undocumented. And considering 11 million people voted in the last election in cali that would seem to make a reasonable amount of sense. 

so more like 277 k per citizen

Wyoming's adult population is about 450,450 (not a typo, its just a weird number) which means about 150,150 votes per person. 

So sure - that's about 45 percent more 'votes' for wyoming.  Not anywhere remotely close to the discrepency that you suggested. 

But that helps protect the people of wyoming who have unique needs specific to their region from being completely and utterly dominated by the people of california. To put it in perspective,  wyoming has been granted TWO PERCENT more power than their population calls for when compared directly to california, or less than a third of one percent overall. 

And as i said, that is fair. That is the whole premise of having states. Otherwise why have states at all. why not just one  big federal gov't.  Why should "territory" have any meaning?

 

BTW its the same in Canada, our smallest provinces have some extra seats just to keep them from being completely dominated by the others. Every country is like this. 

 

So.  Now that i've taught you how to do math, as you can see its no where near REMOTELY as unfair as you claimed. The biggest gao in the us is still next to nothing. 

So. It would seem that your biggest objection was that you can't math very well.  Now that we've looked at it a little more reasonably as you can see there's a TINY advantage for wyoming that only helps prevent the people of wyoming from being completely overwritten by the remaining states. 

 

And for the rest of you who bothered to read that all the way through, sorry for the long response but unfortunately training lefties is like training puppies.  You have to go slow and repeat often and yank their choker a bit here and there to get the message across    Hopefully she won't piddle on the carpet now. 

[Matthew]

54 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Really. When has that ever happened. 

Lol you really should read a book or something. They are called faithless electors.

54 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Do the people vote? Have you ever heard of anyone going out and "voting" on election day?

No the people don't vote for president. On the November election day voters vote for a group of electors. In December the actual voters (538 electors) do the actual vote.

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's not mathematically possible.

Sure it is. 34% of California voters voted for Trump in 2020. If the system reflected that then 18 of California's electors would be republicans. See? Not difficult.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So in REALITY when we're talking about voting age adults who are citizens  you're talking about A lot closer to 15 million after the undocumented. And considering 11 million people voted in the last election in cali that would seem to make a reasonable amount of sense. 

LOL. Ok so let's just look at the last presidental election. 17,785,151 votes were cast in California and 278,503 were cast in Wyoming. So an elector in CA is worth 329,354 2020 election day voters while in WY its 92,834 2020 voters. You can try to polish this turd all day long if you can't get around the absurd inequalities of this voting system.

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Lol you really should read a book or something. They are called faithless electors.

So you couldn't name one time when it happened. Okay there you go

Quote

No the people don't vote for president. On the November election day voters vote for a group of electors. In December the actual voters (538 electors) do the actual vote.

The people do vote for the president. Sorry. When has the president ever been elected that wasn't a result of the people voting? When did the people ever vote one way in a state and that state did not vote based on that

Kid you can lie to your heart's content but everybody around you knows it's a lie

Quote

Sure it is. 34% of California voters voted for Trump in 2020. If the system reflected that then 18 of California's electors would be republicans. See? Not difficult.

But wait, some of the people voted for an independent. How come they're not represented. And what about the people that liked the republican party but not trump? Why are you leaving them out in the cold?

Even better, your system wouldn't allow for anybody to pick the representative. They would just have to have the republicans assign somebody, because the moment you go to pick a specific person the people that vote against them aren't represented according to you

It is not possible for everybody's preference to be reflected in the results and it's not supposed to be.

this is relatively simple. And as I pointed out you fcuked up the math already. Going back to correct you again is pointless.

The people elect the president. That's why the Candidates run ads for the people, do events with the people do interviews to talk to the people and have a debate for the people. And The College votes based on what the people tell them to do. When was the last time you saw a ralley with the state voters only?

Some very small states will have a slightly increase number of seats based on their population just because they are so small that otherwise they would be voiceless. This is a common practice throughout the world.

So all you've done is lie about it and pretend that there's no such thing as a presidential vote or that the people have absolutely no influence in who is the president. Everybody reading this knows that that's absolute nonsense.

The people instruct the college, the College votes for the president based on those instructions.

The very fact that you need to lie about it and create fake narratives is proof that you know the current system is fair, you just want to change it because you think it will give the party of your choice a better shot.

Enjoy four more years of trump

 

[Aristides]

The US has a weird election system to begin with, where individual states control federal elections and then elect presidents with their electors who in 48 states are determined by a winner take all the votes within that state. This not a very democratic system but in order to not make it worse, all the states would have to go to a congressional district system like Maine and Nebraska at the same time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1239107257/nebraska-and-maine-allocate-electoral-college-votes-differently-than-other-state

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

The US has a weird election system to begin with, where individual states control federal elections and then elect presidents with their electors who in 48 states are determined by a winner take all the votes within that state. This not a very democratic system but in order to not make it worse, all the states would have to go to a congressional district system like Maine and Nebraska at the same time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1239107257/nebraska-and-maine-allocate-electoral-college-votes-differently-than-other-state

It is in truth a very weird system. And cumbersome. It was born from the idea that the states wanted to maintain a high level of independence while still functioning together. This discrepancy is what led to the civil war and disagreements over what power of the state should have and what power the federal government should have.

To be honest, I find the idea of a president that's elected to be weird and somewhat undemocratic. Unless you have a very even population distribution there's no way that anyone given representative can accurately reflect the choice and will of the people in a single vote. Which is why I prefer a Westminster system where you vote for your local MP and then the party with the most MPS forms government and if that happens to be a minority then that is the will of the people. There is no such thing as a minority president.

Having said that democracy is misunderstood and pure democracy is not a positive thing. True democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. So all democracy does have to be tempered and limited to prevent abuse. I don't care for the American system but I guess it works for them, and a logical restraint to the democratic process is to have each state do its own tally and then put the consensus forward as a single block vote.

 

[Matthew]

On 10/13/2024 at 2:48 PM, CdnFox said:

you couldn't name one time when it happened

It's happened 90-some times. It's basic encyclopedic information.

On 10/13/2024 at 2:48 PM, CdnFox said:

The people do vote for the president.

They don't. The states do. The people vote for electors.

On 10/13/2024 at 2:48 PM, CdnFox said:

But wait, some of the people voted for an independent. How come they're not represented

2.2% of Californians voted for minor parties. Based on CA having 54 electors, a candidate would need to get at least 1.8% to earn an electoral vote. A state with less electors would have a higher threshold. But your point that proportionality would be "impossible" is clearly false.

On 10/13/2024 at 2:48 PM, CdnFox said:

Some very small states will have a slightly increase number of seats based on their population just because they are so small

You don't know what you're taking about. You should learn how it works rather than making stuff up.

Also I see you've given up trying to defend the problem of the EC giving more voting power to some citizens over others in state contests. Baby steps,  but still progress.  Good job!

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

True democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

That's not democracy. You should read about the principles of a democratic society rather than making up nonsense.

[Matthew]

On 10/12/2024 at 5:35 PM, CdnFox said:

How are they NOT applied proportionally? It's still majority votes inside the state. The college simply takes what the electors

This would be somewhat true if the electoral votes were distributed proportionality so that electors in one state were roughly worth the same as electors in another state. But this is very much not the case.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Matthew said:

It's happened 90-some times. It's basic encyclopedic information.

And yet strangely you couldn't mention one how interesting

Quote

They don't. The states do. The people vote for electors.

You can lie about it to your heart's content. At the end of the day come November the people will go out and they will vote and that vote will lead directly to who is going to be president

 

Quote

2.2% of Californians voted for minor parties. Based on CA having 54 electors, a candidate would need to get at least 1.8% to earn an electoral vote.

Well that's unfair then according to you. They don't get any opportunity for representation. How Anti-Democratic you are 
 

 

Quote

A state with less electors would have a higher threshold. But your point that proportionality would be "impossible" is clearly false.

It isn't. There's one president.

 

Quote

You don't know what you're taking about. You should learn how it works rather than making stuff up.

 

I know exactly how it works. But as usual you can't form an argument and you want it to be my fault

Quote

Also I see you've given up trying to defend the problem of the EC giving more voting power to some citizens over others in state contests. 

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.

Somebody made the ridiculous prediction that somehow wyoming has three or more times as much representation. By forcing that issue to question I demonstrated it was nothing like that. Instead of get something like about half of 1% more influence.

 

Quote

That's not democracy. You should read about the principles of a democratic society rather than making up nonsense.

That is absolutely what democracy is. That is literally the definition of democracy. And we both know I'm right because once again you have no argument but you want everything to be my fault.

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.

And as I noted virtually every system around the world contains the same elements.

 

Frankly I think having a president that people vote for is stupid. In a westminster system you vote for your local "congressperson", and then the governer general will invite a party to form gov't based on the confidence of the house and that party's leader is the prime minister. That opens the door to minority gov'ts that have to work together to get things done, it's a more efficient and direct way of deciding representation and it avoids a lot of the problems that having just one position to vote for creates when tallying votes for  over a hundred million people.  (not that we have 100 million, theres more people in california than canada). 

But  if you're going to do it that effed up way then this is the most reasonable and the most fair. 

Fun fact  - originally they were looking at a slightly complex THREE president system as a way to address some of the problems.    LOL, man it would take a MONTH to figure out who won and for the lawyering to stop     At least they didn't go that route.  

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Matthew said:

This would be somewhat true if the electoral votes were distributed proportionality so that electors in one state were roughly worth the same as electors in another state. But this is very much not the case.

No, it's 100 percent true regardless of that. You're bringing up a separate issue. 

There is a reason why states get "weighted'.  The weighting is small and it's a necessary part of representation across such a wide geographical area as the us.  Again, these systems are in place to prevent the tyrrany of the majority. 

The united states is not a 'pure' democracy nor even a Pure representational democracy and there are VERY GOOD reasons for that. 

I mean, if we follow your arugment why have states at all? Everyone should just have the same laws and they all get to vote for one president and everyone ignores the fact that some regions have different interest.   But i think instinctively you realize why that wouldn't fly. 

At this point you're just making excuses for the loss you're afraid Kamala is going to take.  "She'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those nosy electoral college kids!! " Grab a scoobie snak and settle down, she hasn't lost yet. 

[Matthew]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And yet strangely you couldn't mention one how interesting

These are publicly available. I'm not interested in your diversion tactics becoming homework assignments for me.

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You can lie about it to your heart's content.

You need to decide what your point is. States voting rather than people is literally the thing you're defending when you are claiming that democracy is bad and and that states 'have to' exist and and their interests are ultimately more important than what the people want. Pick a lane--either you're for a democratic society or you're for the anti-democracy of the electoral college. The US founders wanted the electoral college to capture "a sense" of what the people want but by design they did not want it to be democratic. So straining to claim that it's democratic is a dead end argument for you.

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's unfair then according to you. They don't get any opportunity for representation

Reductio ad aburdum pseudo-reasoning. If even the tiniest viewpoints can't be represented, then why represent anyone is what you're saying. Once again you're clearly against people being democratically represented, so why do you sometimes pretend otherwise?

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

That is not why it exists. It exists because of the federalist structure of the government. Back in 1789 it was seen as a way to manage states choosing a chief executive and giving them the sovereignty to decide how to choose their electors. Many states initially just had state legislatures chose their electors. Democratic ideology did not pick up until around the 1820s, so states gradually switched to a vote.

But I do agree with you that the parliamentary system is a better system for choosing an exective. The separation of powers and federalism experiments are a failure and has created the exact opposite of what the founders intended.

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It isn't. There's one president.

Don't be obtuse, we're talking about who gets to have a say in the election. Making the electoral college proportional would still be flawed but it would be less flawed. You're claiming that doing so would be impossible.

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Instead of get something like about half of 1% more influence.

Now there is flat out lie. You implied voters were roughly equal. They are not, by far and rather than own up to it you're just fabricating numbers now.

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

Societies mitigate against a tyranny of the majority by safeguarding the rights of those in the minority. Due process, free speech, and a host of other civil rights and liberties.

Subverting democracy by having a rule of the minority is simply a tyranny of the minority-- the typical state of affairs in all authoritarian societies which you are defending.

What prevents democracy in most societies is a powerful minority of elite interests who keep the masses of disadvataged ordinary people largely out of the political process.

[Matthew]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

, if we follow your arugment why have states at all? Everyone should just have the same laws and they all get to vote for one president and everyone ignores the fact that some regions have different interest. 

Why does your reasoning here not apply at the state level? If a majority decision is tyranny, then how does the EC protect local interests from being overpowered by the majority of their state? My mostly suburban district here in northeastern iowa is always overpowered by the more rural majority of my state. According to your logic this is unjust, correct?

[User]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Why does your reasoning here not apply at the state level? If a majority decision is tyranny, then how does the EC protect local interests from being overpowered by the majority of their state? My mostly suburban district here in northeastern iowa is always overpowered by the more rural majority of my state. According to your logic this is unjust, correct?

This is a separate argument, and it has merit. You look at states like Washington, and 80% of the place is more Republican, but the urban Seattle left-wing liberal policies impact the whole state. 

Yeah, that sucks. The folks in Washington should change that up. 

Conservatives generally support more local control and as little government as possible. The more decisions that can be settled at the local level, the better. 

Edited October 15, 2024 by User

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Why does your reasoning here not apply at the state level? If a majority decision is tyranny, then how does the EC protect local interests from being overpowered by the majority of their state?

It really doesn't. It mitigates the problems down to a state level but that's as far as it can go. It helps more when we're talking about congress and the senate. But when you've got one president and everybody's voting for who that's going to be you run into a problem.

I told you, democracy sucks. It's only benefit is that it's better than all the other systems  

In Canada we resolved that problem to a more granular level by having a riding system. There's a separate riding for every approximately 110,000 people and those people vote on who they're representative to the house of commons will be. The party who gets the most Representatives gets to pick the prime minister. If the people don't like how the prime minister is doing things they may very well throw out their local representative, which motivates them to try and make sure that whatever is going on is fair for everybody and everybody's interests are fairly represented.

Even there though Obviously not everybody in the writing is going to get the candidate they want.

But you know, there have been many referendums on switching provincial systems to a more representational model like single transferable vote or proportional representation. And in every province where it's been raised,that's multiple times in some of the provinces, when the people take a good long hard look at it, they vote to keep the current system.

If you're honest and fair, the current system in the US is probably as good as you're going to get with a presidency. As problematic as it might be everything else is worse

[impartialobserver]

Recently attended my first political rally. Tim Walz came to my neck of the woods. Not sure if I can say it was well attended being as I have no basis for comparison. My wife is pretty liberal and cares about politics whereas I do not. I went there to be with her. I found it boring and unremarkable. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

Recently attended my first political rally. Tim Walz came to my neck of the woods. Not sure if I can say it was well attended being as I have no basis for comparison. My wife is pretty liberal and cares about politics whereas I do not. I went there to be with her. I found it boring and unremarkable. 

then  you're probably doing it right    

I've been to my share of debates and I've heard candidates talk, but the the rallies are an appeal to emotion and an effort to give the impression that millions and millions and millions of people like this candidate so why don't you.

For those of us who make political decisions more based on reason and logic rallies hold less interest. Debates are interesting some of the time if they're done right and they can be beneficial exposing how leaders operate under pressure forcing them to explain their opinions outside of a controlled environment.

But rallies are an hour intrinsic and inherent part of politics so we live with them and there are lots of people who enjoy going and getting excited. It's been that way since Caesar's time

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

For those of us who make political decisions more based on reason and logic rallies hold less interest. Debates are interesting some of the time if they're done right and they can be beneficial exposing how leaders operate under pressure forcing them to explain their opinions outside of a controlled environment.

Might be on to something. I could not care less who someone else votes for. Being among like minded individuals has its place (concerts, sporting events, political rallies) but being that I strip the emotions out of my political views (or at least try to).. I found it pretty boring. Had I been against a wall, I may have taken a nap. 

[Matthew]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

the current system in the US is probably as good as you're going to get with a presidency.

Well I disagree. The needs and interests of people are important to me. The needs and interests of a territory have zero importance to me. 

People are best protected from injustice via fierce defense of their civil rights and liberties, not via a system of minority rule.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Well I disagree.

You can disagree about whether or not the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but unfortunately your disagreement doesn't change some of the facts

Quote

The needs and interests of people are important to me.

That is at odds with what you are saying. Changes that you've suggested would mean that fewer people would have their rights respected

 

Quote

The needs and interests of a territory have zero importance to me. 

It has nothing to do with the interests of a territory. The people that live in a given area have unique needs and interests that are specific to that area. If you don't protect that then you are ignoring a large hunk of the people's interests and needs

Quote

People are best protected from injustice via fierce defense of their civil rights and liberties

Which you're suggesting that should be thrown away

Quote

, not via a system of minority rule.

There's more whites than blacks. Is abolishing slavery and giving blacks the vote minority rule? Use your head and stop trying to come up with cutesy phrases which are simply false. By giving power to the minorities you protect minority rights, you don't steal the rights of the majority and it is no different here.

So here's the problem. You started off with a conclusion because you like how that conclusion works for you. Now you're trying to work your way back to a question and trying to fill in the gaps with invented logic. This is a common human trait but it is very poor thinking.

As long as there are states then this is the best way to go about things. By far and for more than one reason. Different people in different regions have different interests and this system helps reflect it. It makes it difficult for any president to ignore any one area in favor of others that are more populous.  Is it still allows the people to elect the president. It has a side benefit of making accounting and recounting practical and it helps focus the debate as to what the best policy is within a given state.

The democrats would like to get rid of the system specifically because they feel it protects the minority against their majority wishes because states like California tend to have a higher population and lean to the left.

Make no mistake, you're on the wrong side of history with this thinking. I'd give it some serious thought from a more objective position before you fell in love with the idea too much

Edited October 16, 2024 by CdnFox

[Matthew]

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The people that live in a given area have unique needs and interests that are specific to that area. If you don't protect that then you are ignoring a large hunk of the people's interests and needs

A. The people's needs are more important. Minority rule over any society is fundamentally unjust.

B. The electoral college does nothing to make presidental candidates care more about small states. Only 7 states matter in the current election in terms of wooing attention.

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Which you're suggesting that should be thrown away

What a garbage response by someone preaching authoritarianism.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There's more whites than blacks. Is abolishing slavery and giving blacks the vote minority rule?

No. But a more analogous example would be a voting system where black people's votes each counted as like 5 votes, to an extent that they were able to control the outcome of most elections. You're logic is that this would be fair and protect everyone's rights better. Correct?

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Matthew said:

A. The people's needs are more important.

Okay, are you just deliberately being stupid and obtuse here? I literally just say you need to account for people's needs and your reply is people's needs are more important than people's needs?

I'm struggling with the idea that you might actually be as stupid as your response suggests. I prefer to think you're just yanking my chain because you're not smart enough to come up with a cohesive argument

If we're not going to be serious then I can just go back to insulting you lIf you prefer. God knows you give plenty of opportunity

 

People in different Geological regions have unique issues and needs. When you address that fact you are in fact addressing people's issues and needs. When you ignore that simple truth about people and their needs then what you are doing is ignoring people's needs.

This doesn't get more simple. Like we're now talking about this at a grade one level and you're still struggling with it. You can argue that people in specific areas don't have unique needs or the like but you cannot argue that if people have unique needs addressing those needs is in fact addressing people's needs.

I can't even believe I'm having this conversation

And of course the Electoral College absolutely without a doubt makes presidents care more about people in those regions. That was one of the reasons it was created. 

23 minutes ago, Matthew said:

No. 

Well there you go.

And no would you suggested isn't an allergist in the slightest. The point you were trying to make is that if the unique interests of a given group are addressed that somehow it's the tyranny of the minority. Which was Childish. Protecting the minority against the majority is not tyranny of the minority. If we only ever considered the needs of the minority instead of the needs of the majority, that would be tyranny.

There are so many of the arguments here that you've danced around and completely avoided because you can't answer them. It's pretty obvious at this point you realize that you're wrong. When you have to work this hard to avoid dealing with simple truths and make such nonsense comments as addressing people's needs isn't addressing people's needs because people's needs are more important, It's pretty obvious even you have realized that what you're saying is complete crap

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I literally just say you need to account for people's needs and your reply is people's needs are more important than people's needs?

Like typical right wing fascists, your idea of "accounting for people's needs" is to take away their voting power as individuals.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

People in different Geological regions have unique issues and needs. When you address that fact you are in fact addressing people's issues and needs.

This is functionally meaningless as it relates to the electoral college. Can you cite an example of how the electoral college has helped an otherwise ignored region of the United States meet their unique needs?

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The point you were trying to make is that if the unique interests of a given group are addressed that somehow it's the tyranny of the minority.

Nope, that's a Straw Man and has never been my point.

Tyranny of the minority is when a minority of the country rules unjustly over the majority of citizens. This is what you're defending.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There are so many of the arguments here that you've danced around and completely avoided because you can't answer them. It's pretty obvious at this point you realize that you're wrong. When you have to work this hard to avoid dealing with simple truths

I think you're projecting your own aimlessness and insecurity. You're arguing in support of an indefensible and immoral system,  so it makes sense that you're expressing feelings of shame rather than responding to anything rationally.

[User]

7 hours ago, Matthew said:

Well I disagree. The needs and interests of people are important to me. The needs and interests of a territory have zero importance to me. 

It is the needs and interests of the people in those territories at issue. 

Folks in LA have entirely different cultures, desires, needs, and wants than folks in Cheyenne. 

7 hours ago, Matthew said:

People are best protected from injustice via fierce defense of their civil rights and liberties, not via a system of minority rule.

We are a system of United States. Those civil rights and liberties are represented at the State AND Federal level. 

The entire premise of a system based on respect for rights and liberties is based on the minority being protected from the majority or mob rule. 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

These are publicly available. I'm not interested in your diversion tactics becoming homework assignments for me.

Or more likely they don't exist. I didn't ask you for a site or a link, just name one or two that you can think of but you couldn't

Quote

You need to decide what your point is

These are all things you brought up. Now you're complaining because there's too much for you to follow. If you can only mentally track one point at a time then only raise one issue at a time.

Quote

States voting rather than people is literally the thing you're defending when you are claiming that democracy is bad and and that states 'have to' exist and and their interests are ultimately more important than what the people want.

 

No, that's a blatant lie and you know it. No point if I ever suggested even hinted at the possibility that the state's interest is more important than what the people want. And I was quite clear that democracy is only bad when it's untempered to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Which a four year old could understand.

Or did I say that the states have to exist. In fact I've said a couple of times now that you could eliminate the states and simply have one great big giant united state. But if you don't want to do that, and you want to have states then pretending they don't exist makes no sense.

 

And all of that just proves that you know you're wrong. You have to lie to try and make your point because you know that the truth proves you wrong.

I'll just go through the rest of your dishonesty quickly.

No it's not reductio and absurdum or even remotely close. It is literally the same principle applied. If you disagree with it then you are absolutely agreeing with the effect that democratic representation in a system such as the united states is not intended to have everybody's viewpoint represented equally. At some point somebody's vote is wasted.

It absolutely is why it exists. They could have achieved everything else you said without weighting the vote

How the HELL is it that i know this as a canadian and you don't as an american??@?@