Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[Matthew]

8 hours ago, User said:

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

The needs of people wherever they are geographically are not met by making some voters worth more than others in an election.

8 hours ago, User said:

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. 

I agree with every word of this. But civil rights and liberties are protected via legislation, courts, and policies maintained by state and federal agencies. Manipulating a voting system to establish minority rule at the ballot box is not a justifiable or effective way to safeguard rights and instead simply shifts the risk of abuse onto the majority.

[User]

19 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The needs of people wherever they are geographically are not met by making some voters worth more than others in an election.

What election? The ONLY election we are talking about here is President. He is elected to represent the UNITED STATES of America. 

Those people have Senators and Representatives to elect their local interest at the Federal level and they have their State Representatives to represent them at the state level... and on an on to the local city council. 

20 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I agree with every word of this. But civil rights and liberties are protected via legislation, courts, and policies maintained by state and federal agencies. Manipulating a voting system to establish minority rule at the ballot box is not a justifiable or effective way to safeguard rights and instead simply shifts the risk of abuse onto the majority.

No voting system is being "manipulated" here, it is the voting system. It is not minority rule, it is that the President represents the UNITED STATES of America at a federal level. Those same voters have Senators and Representatives to represent them locally. 

We have a balance of powers here between the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. 

[Matthew]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Or more likely they don't exist.

You don't know about the concept of faithless electors? It's happened 165 times, 70 times for president. There were seven faithless electors in 2016.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Now you're complaining because there's too much for you to follow.

You misunderstand.  I'm complaining about you trying to take both sides of the issue. On one hand pretending that the electoral college is a highly democratic and logical system in which voters are all roughly equal. Meanwhile also arguing that democracy is very bad for society and that it would be terrible for the electoral college to even be reformed toward a slightly more representative direction.

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No point if I ever suggested even hinted at the possibility that the state's interest is more important than what the people want.

So then you DO believe that all citizens votes should be equal? Or do you believe that making the voters of some states more powerful in the election is more important than voters having a fair and equal say?

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I've said a couple of times now that you could eliminate the states and simply have one great big giant united state.

Perhaps i misread your previous comment on this point. If so then we agree on this. Federalism with semi-autonomous states has overall not worked well.

Edited October 16, 2024 by Matthew

[Matthew]

8 minutes ago, User said:

No voting system is being "manipulated" here, it is the voting system. It is not minority rule

Keep telling yourself that.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Keep telling yourself that.

I am not telling myself anything. You made an assertion, I countered with an explanation for how our system is designed with checks and balances. 

Instead of responding to any of that, this is the garbage response you come up with. 

 

[Matthew]

32 minutes ago, User said:

I am not telling myself anything.

You did not add anything to what you already said on the issue nor directly respond to anything I said. You simply reiterated a generalized claim. If you're feeling entitled to a more robust conversation then contribute something worthwhile.

For example, if you have a compelling reason for why some voters must have more say than other voters at the ballot box in order for the checks and balances to function or whatever, then let's hear it. Otherwise it's not exactly relevant.

Edited October 16, 2024 by Matthew

[User]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

You did not add anything to what you already said on the issue

Here you go, feel free to actually respond to the things I said here instead of ignoring them:

 

[Matthew]

12 minutes ago, User said:

feel free to actually respond to the things I said here instead of ignoring them

Still nothing interesting or relevant there. Sorry, here is a participation trophy: 🏆

[User]

26 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Still nothing interesting or relevant there. Sorry, here is a participation trophy: 🏆

No worries. I am used to you folks running away when your surface level deep assertions are challenged. 

 

[CdnFox]

 

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

You don't know about the concept of faithless electors? It's happened 165 times, 70 times for president. There were seven faithless electors in 2016.

I'm aware they've never affected the outcome of an election. And I'm aware that if a state doesn't like that concept they can pass laws to prevent it. And in fact many have that.

In the past where it's been used is where a college voter believes that there is some reason to doubt an outcome. And then in most cases they don't just vote for the other party they either abstain or vote for a nonsense candidate

So if your state prefers to have the additional security Of having a motor who can take action in the event that they feel there's some sort of problem with the vote then you can do that, and if you don't want that you can pass a law Forbidding it.

It's up to the people to choose that. This is a perfect example of where it would be inappropriate to have a one-size-fits-all solution and not take into account regional preferences

Well that didn't go well for you If you're trying to claim that you like to see more democratic choice  

 

Quote

You misunderstand.  I'm complaining about you trying to take both sides of the issue. On one hand pretending that the electoral college is a highly democratic and logical system in which voters are all roughly equal. Meanwhile also arguing that democracy is very bad for society and that it would be terrible for the electoral college to even be reformed toward a slightly more representative direction.

 LOL  well perhaps it's not my understanding thats the issue here and perhaps its your painting yourself in a corner and desperately trying to find a way out  

Those two positions are not necessarily at odds at all.

As I said, pure democracy is horrible. So we try and temper it with checks and balances and rights of the individual to try to minimize the bad parts  And maximize the good parts.

What were left with is still far from perfect, but it's the best system that we have available by far. Something can be seriously flawed but still be the very best you've got to work with. 

The Electoral College is an effective method for helping to try and remove some of the negative elements of democracy, but it's far from perfect.  And that's not any kind of 'having it both ways'.  

Quote

So then you DO believe that all citizens votes should be equal? Or do you believe that making the voters of some states more powerful in the election is more important than voters having a fair and equal say?

First off, your comment that iI was replying to dishonestly attempted to say that i claimed my preference was for the state to have rights or the region to have rights over the people, rather than the people of the region having special interests. Which i never said to start with. So you're reinterpretation of your reinterpretation of what I didn't say isn't entirely accurate  

I believe that very small imbalances to Create a more fair and balanced system overall can be tolerated and can enhance a Democratic model, and that's a belief that is reflected around the world successfully.

The idea that California should be voting on Wyoming's gun laws while Wyoming's vote is so watered down as to be meaningless is substantially unfair. The people in both of those regions have different views and their views should be reflected as much as possible. Having california dictate what's happening in Wyoming based on their greater population may appear to be a democracy, in reality that's not entirely true. So a small correction to give Wyoming just enough weight so that it cannot be steamrolled is an effective way to address that the imbalance.

 

Quote

Perhaps i misread your previous comment on this point. If so then we agree on this. Federalism with semi-autonomous states has overall not worked well.

 

It depends on what you mean by "Well".  There is no model imaginable that will make everybody happy in a larger group. Tell most of the time you can't even get 20 people to agree on what kind of pizza to order never mind whether or not they should invade Iran  

So when it comes to governance, being the effective management of the individual rights and interests of a large population group, It's never going to go smoothly. There will always be significant disagreements over literally everything. 

The bigger the group, the more spread out geographically that group is, the worse it gets. 

In that respect compared to virtually any other model I have ever heard of,  constitutional Democratic representation Is the best overall concept by far. So in that respect it's done very well.

I don't think that the US model is the best model at all by a long shot within that specific framework. But I think given the inherent flaws of attempting to find consensus and satisfaction for over 300 million people it's hard to say that it's bad.

 

Truth be told, the most effective way to resolve the problems of democracy and governance is to reduce the size of the government. The less the feds can do the less they affect the people on the ground so the less problem there is with what California wants versus what Wyoming wants.

Even better shrink the government's all together so that virtually all the decisions are made at the state level and  Eliminate the federal government altogether. Dates can negotiate and enter into agreements or things of common interest.

And without a doubt that's what some states thought they were basically buying into when they signed on to confederation. And if we had stuck with that model we still have slavery in the south. So while it would deliver more democracy to do it that way, that's not necessarily a good thing   

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

You don't know about the concept of faithless electors? It's happened 165 times, 70 times for president. There were seven faithless electors in 2016.

You misunderstand.  I'm complaining about you trying to take both sides of the issue. On one hand pretending that the electoral college is a highly democratic and logical system in which voters are all roughly equal. Meanwhile also arguing that democracy is very bad for society and that it would be terrible for the electoral college to even be reformed toward a slightly more representative direction.

So then you DO believe that all citizens votes should be equal? Or do you believe that making the voters of some states more powerful in the election is more important than voters having a fair and equal say?

Perhaps i misread your previous comment on this point. If so then we agree on this. Federalism with semi-autonomous states has overall not worked well.

Breaking it into two posts because that first one was already psychotically large. It's a complex issue And deserves lengthy discussion so I don't mind but it was getting out of control size wise  

I just wanted to add to that that what we often see today is an expectation of perfection and a true reflection of what every person wants from the government.

In other words too many people today think "This result isn't what I wanted, therefore our democratic model must be flawed". And that's just not how democracy is intended to work.

Currently kamala is heading towards Defeat, and it will most likely be a defeat as a result of the college vote and not of the popular vote. There is an excellent chance she will win the popular vote by a small amount but lose the college.

So every democrat is coming out and screaming about how terrible the colleges. If the college was handing her a victory and trump won the popular vote I imagine we'd be hearing something similar from them from republicans, although maybe I'm wrong about that

In any case, the correct answer here is for democrats to go to those regions and find out why they didn't feel represented by the democrats there. Find out what the problem was and why the people of  that region did not feel like granting The right to govern to the democrats.

The correct answer is not to go and try and steal their rights away so that they can't oppose you in the future.

Democracy means you're going to be disappointed some of the time. And if you can't respect that then your democracy will fall apart and your country will fall to ruin.  

[Matthew]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'm aware they've never affected the outcome of an election. And I'm aware that if a state doesn't like that concept they can pass laws to prevent it. And in fact many have that.

Attaboy, see you just needed to do little reading. Now that you've consulted wikipedia you can hopefully agree that electors don't necessarily vote "only at the instruction of the people of their state."

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Those two positions are not necessarily at odds at all.

They are. Either the electoral college is based on democracy or it is not. Either the people are primarily getting the say or else these abstact territorial entities called states are primarily getting the say.

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

pure democracy

Democracy means rule by the people. There is no such thing as pure democracy vs impure democracy. There is a range of degrees to which a thing embodies democracy. The electoral college is from a proto-democratic period of history and the system is not by design intended to be democratic. Though the contest for electors became more democratic eventually. Still, the selection of president is not.

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I believe that very small imbalances to Create a more fair and balanced system overall can be tolerated

You don't believe votes cast should be equal. There is no scenario where taking voting power away from certain citizens makes the system better or more fair.

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The idea that California should be voting on Wyoming's gun laws while Wyoming's vote is so watered down as to be meaningless is substantially unfair.

You appear to be talking about state legislation. That's not relevant to the electoral college vote for president. Plus the <500,000 people of Wyoming will certainly have laws made at the national level that they don't agree with. So what? That's how a representative government works. Making some citizen's votes worth more or less is not a reasonable fix and just creates even worse problems.

 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Attaboy, see you just needed to do little reading. Now that you've consulted wikipedia you can hopefully agree that electors don't necessarily vote "only at the instruction of the people of their state.

 

Your congratulating me for pointing out that your entire point was pointless. Which is what my point was to begin with   

But sure if you ever need me to confirm the fact that you're being stupid let me know  

30 minutes ago, Matthew said:

They are. Either the electoral college is based on democracy or it is not.

I can confirm you're being stupid again   This isn't an on or off situation. There is no such thing as "Either it's democracy or it isn't". If you wanted to be that black and white then no, America is not a democracy. The people don't get to vote on every single action which is what a democracy is.

As I have explained to you before and I'm patiently trying to explain to you again america is a constitutional and representative democracy, not an actual democracy. That means elements of democracy are involved in the choosing of a leader, but not full democracy. Thanks a lot

That's pretty simple. Our system is not 'Based" on democracy, it incorporates elements of democracy 

34 minutes ago, Matthew said:

You don't believe votes cast should be equal. There is no scenario where taking voting power away from certain citizens makes the system better or more fair.

In fact I do believe that they should be equal in outcome, as a lefty you should love that  

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

Look if you're just going to plug your ears and say no no no as loud as you can when somebody gives you the facts and explains things to you then not only are you destined to living ignorance, you're destined to look like an ignoramus to the people around you. It's not like you've even refuted a single point, you just repeat over and over again that You wish it was different.

36 minutes ago, Matthew said:

You appear to be talking about state legislation. That's not relevant to the electoral college vote for president.

No it isn't. The states can individually pass laws with regards to what the electoral College voters are required to do and how they're chosen. So it is 100% relevant. They can absolutely pass a law that says the college must vote as per the people and even decide that the college itself should be elected

Again, why the hell am I as a Canadian having to explain this to you?

 

Either come up with something in the way of an argument or some other precedent or the like or admit that this has nothing more than your inability to cope with reality.

This principle is recognized in every modern country in the world. Canada has the same thing. Britain has the same thing. Germany and the entire eU recognizes the same principles in their systems. Regional differences in the voters must be respected If you're going to have free and fair representation.

The fact that it means you can't Steamroller over other people's rights the way you'd like to does not change that simple fact

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Your congratulating me

Yes, you went and learned about faithless electors and now you know that what you originally said about them is false.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

no, America is not a democracy. The people don't get to vote on every single action which is what a democracy is.

More reductio ad absurdum. That's not what democracy is.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it incorporates elements of democracy 

Correct, and the specific function of choosing a president is not one of those.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The states can individually pass laws with regards to what the electoral College voters are required to do and how they're chosen. So it is 100% relevant.

Lol You were talking about wyoming gun laws.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

you can't Steamroller over other people's rights

That's rich, since you openly and proudly believe in using government power to make some people's votes count more than others in an election.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Yes, you went and learned about faithless electors and now you know that what you originally said about them is false.

Awwww Look at you, taking me out of context to try and feel better about your own failed argument   

 

Quote

More reductio ad absurdum. That's not what democracy is.

It isn't and it is in that order. Stop using words that you don't understand

 

Quote

Correct, and the specific function of choosing a president is not one of those.

LOL  it is in BOTH of our opinions  Didn't you say that the college voters vote for the president? Guess what voting is  

So whether we believe your lie or my truth it's STILL got democratic elements   LOL man you suck at this  

Quote

Lol You were talking about wyoming gun laws.

No,  i was being very specific in that reference to their ability to control the college voters  

So we're at the point where you know you've lost and you look like an !diot and you're going to try and bait me I guess by lying about what I said? Because that will make you look like more of an adult?

 

Quote

That's rich, since you openly and proudly believe in using government power to make some people's votes count more than others in an election.

Where is you openly opposed free and fair elections with appropriate representation.

The difference is I can explain my argument and make it, where you haven't done any of that. All you've done is basically put your fingers in your ears and whistle. Hell you didn't even realize that people voting on something was democracy   

Hard shell with this one kiddo, you didn't even get close to an argument. And you couldn't address why every country in the Democratic world accepts the same sort of weighting.  And you couldn't explain how it was undemocratic if the college voters must follow the will of the people and the people get to choose that with their laws. Nori could you explain why we should be ignoring the fact that people in different regions have different interests based on their region.

I will say this. When you have failed you fail pretty hard  

[Matthew]

On 10/17/2024 at 1:10 AM, CdnFox said:

taking me out of context

Nope. It's ok that you were wrong about a simple fact that you didn't know about. It happens to the best of us.

 

On 10/17/2024 at 1:10 AM, CdnFox said:

Didn't you say that the college voters vote for the president?

Electors represent the state, not the people. Democracy is when the people have the say. 1 person 1 vote, voters equal.

 

On 10/17/2024 at 1:10 AM, CdnFox said:

i was being very specific in that reference to their ability to control the college voters

That's complete gibberish.

On 10/17/2024 at 1:10 AM, CdnFox said:

Where is you openly opposed free and fair elections with appropriate representation.

Lol what?

Listen pumpkin, a few days ago you actually managed to be coherent for a change, for like a full day. Now your posts have degraded into a botched lobotomy level of drivel.

You keep recycling the same sad half-baked talking points.

Meanwhile you keep running away from the core argument of justfying why it's ok for the EC to make some voters count more than other voters. Your tactic so far is to downplay it and then ignore it, suggesting more lack of knowledge on your part. So if this is something you're too ill-informed, too lazy, and too wrong to defend then I guess you're done here and just going to ride it out with these worthless non-replies.

[gatomontes99]

The electoral college is a beautiful thing

[User]

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

Electors represent the state, not the people. Democracy is when the people have the say. 1 person 1 vote, voters equal.

Electors represent the state... for the states people. Those same people who vote for their State Representatives to enact laws and represent them. 

Those states people voted. They had a say. It was 1 person and 1 vote. 

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

Meanwhile you keep running away from the core argument of justfying why it's ok for the EC to make some voters count more than other voters.

It doesn't. At least no more so than any other election does. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Matthew said:

Nope. It's ok that you were wrong about a simple fact that you didn't know about. It happens to the best of us.

Sure kid🙄 Whatever helps you feel better

Quote

Electors represent the state, not the people.

We've already been through this. What you just said is a lie and you're well aware of it.

If you have to lie to make your point then you have no point

Quote

 

That's complete gibberish.

 

It isn't in the slightest. I've told you many times not to use words you don't understand

Quote

 

Lol what?

Listen pumpkin, a few days ago you actually managed to be coherent for a change, for like a full day. Now your posts have degraded into a botched lobotomy level of drivel.

 

Go back on your meds. They'll make sense again

Quote

You keep recycling the same sad half-baked talking points.

Funny thing about the truth  - it stays the same  

 

Quote

Meanwhile you keep running away from the core argument of justfying why it's ok for the EC to make some voters count more than other voters. Your tactic so far is to downplay it and then ignore it, suggesting more lack of knowledge on your part. So if this is something you're too ill-informed, too lazy, and too wrong to defend then I guess you're done here and just going to ride it out with these worthless non-replies.

I've addressed it at length.  I've been quite clear. And i've noted that its like that all over the world. 

 

Kid - you failed across the board and you're reduced to lies to try to salvage your argument. When you've gotten to that point it's over. 

Edited October 18, 2024 by CdnFox

[Matthew]

On 10/18/2024 at 10:53 AM, User said:

It was 1 person and 1 vote. 

Only in your opinion. This phrase has a specific meaning in US law. For example, just as voters are currently unequal in the electoral college, voters were once unequal within their districts. Votes in some districts were once worth far more than voters in other districts within the same states. This was done with the exact same logic--that lightly populated rural areas needed to balance out the urban areas within state elections.

The US Supreme Court went through a series of cases to combat unequal districts via Gray v. Sanders, Reynolds v. Sims, and Westberry v. Sanders by arguing that it is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Today almost all districts are worth the same populations. They conclude that "the command of Art. I, § 2, that Representatives be chosen 'by the People of the several States' means that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's." (see Wesberry v Sanderes opinion, p 7). These cases establish the meaning of the "one person, one vote" principle within US law. 

But unlike the election to the House of Representatives, the electoral college system for President in the US Constitution does not make any claim or pretext to "representing the people" or to be voted in "by the people." The voters for president within the state contests are vastly unequal within the system. But since it's not Constitutionally set up as a vote of the people it has never been held by the Court to the One Person, One Vote doctrine. 

On 10/18/2024 at 2:12 PM, CdnFox said:

What you just said is a lie

Well, the actual casting of votes for President takes place on December 17th and the American People are not welcome to that event.

Edited October 20, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

 

Well, the actual casting of votes for President takes place on December 17th and the American People are not welcome to that event.

No, the final casting of the votes is on December 17th. The American people have already cast their vote by that time. The fact that it is a multi-step process does not in any way shape or form change the fact that Americans still vote.

You've been lying about this all along. You are trying to pretend that there is no such thing as a vote of the public for president. That is very obviously and patently wrong and false.

Regardless of the process the people elect the president. The people vote, and then the college presents their vote based on the people's vote entirely. If the electorate wishes the voters can have some flexibility in the event that they feel that there is a discrepancy or problem with the count or vote.

But it is the people who elect the president. Even though it's a multi-step process, there has never been a case in history where the president was elected by anybody other than the people or where the college electors elected a president different than the will of the people.

You might as well argue that the earth is flat. It has about as much logic to it.

[Matthew]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The American people have already cast their vote by that time.

Their vote is for electors. Only electors get to actually vote for the President. 

[User]

14 hours ago, Matthew said:

One Person, One Vote doctrine

Lovely game you are trying to play here, but this concept lies within the state they are in. So, yes, in regards to the Electoral College, each voting persons vote has equal weight to the others within their state when voting for whom they want to be President. 

There is no gerrymandering or districting to consider as it is a state wide vote. A person voting in the most rural area of the state in the smallest towns vote is counted the same as a person voting in the most popular city in the state. 

You are trying to muddy the waters here with gerrymandering and districting concepts of equality of votes because one district might be distorted in some nefarious way as compared to others as to give people unequal voting powers. 

Cute try, but wrong. 

 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

this concept lies within the state they are in.

The principle of one person one vote was established nationwide by the Supreme Court. All states now follow this doctrine but it has never been applied to the electoral college by any US law or US court precedent. If you disagree, just show me the law, the Supreme Court opinion, or the Constitutional clause that in any way connects the Electoral College vote to "The People" or to the one person, one vote doctrine. The Court has been very specific about applying this principle to any level of government where it applies.

1 hour ago, User said:

You are trying to muddy the waters here with gerrymandering

No, gerrymandering is not relevant to any point I'm making.

Edited October 20, 2024 by Matthew

[User]

2 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The principle of one person one vote was established nationwide by the Supreme Court. All states now follow this doctrine but it has never been applied to the electoral college by any US law or US court precedent. If you disagree, just show me the law, the Supreme Court opinion, or the Constitutional clause that in any way connects the Electoral College vote to "The People" or to the one person, one vote doctrine. The Court has been very specific about applying this principle to any level of government where it applies.

Yes, it was established by SCOTUS as it applies within a state... 

It doesn't have to be applied to the Electoral College; it's the concept we are arguing about here. I explained to you how it is, in fact, one person and one vote. 

3 minutes ago, Matthew said:

No, gerrymandering is not relevant to any point I'm making.

Yes, it was part of that whole One Person One Vote argument you were making regarding the equality of votes...