Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[Matthew]

12 minutes ago, User said:

It doesn't have to be applied to the Electoral College

Yes this is my point. It doesn't have to be because the US Constitution does not state that the EC represents the people. Therefore it has never been subjected to the one person, one vote standard.

14 minutes ago, User said:

it is, in fact, one person and one vote. 

The Supreme Court defines one person one vote as meaning that each vote has the same weight. Votes for US president have very different weights.

15 minutes ago, User said:

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

Gerrymandering today is about how the lines are drawn, not about the weighting of the vote. All districts in the US have the same population, except for small states with only one district.

[User]

11 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Yes this is my point. It doesn't have to be because the US Constitution does not state that the EC represents the people. Therefore it has never been subjected to the one person, one vote standard.

It doesn't have to be subjected to it, for the concept to still apply to it. As I have repeatedly said, the Electoral College does in fact represent the people of the state. It is those people whose wishes, based on their votes, that the Electors are carrying out. 

16 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The Supreme Court defines one person one vote as meaning that each vote has the same weight. Votes for US president have very different weights.

Within the state. Within the state the Electoral College does in fact have the same weight from each individual person. 

17 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Gerrymandering today is about how the lines are drawn, not about the weighting of the vote. All districts in the US have the same population, except for small states with only one district.

The doctrine you turned this into citing was in fact partially based on how gerrymandering was being used to make votes unequal... 

 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Matthew said:

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

Their vote is for a president  no matter how you slice it.  When has the people's vote EVER been different than who was chosen president? Never. 

You're just making a fool of yourself. You sound like a kook conspiracy theorist pretending that americans don't vote in the election. 

And the only reason you're being this willfully stupid is because your loser of a candidate is losing and you want to blame ANYTHNIG other than the fact she's a crap candidate and your side spent all its  time lying about trump instead of addressing real issue. 

Here's the swing states staring sep 1 .  She is dropping exactly as predicted and you're big mad about it. 

 

She'll probably lose. If that trendline continues the election will be outside of her grasp within a week.  

And its NOT because of the college, it's NOT because of the Russians. it's NOT even because trump ran a great campaign. 

It's because you dolts spent the last year attacking trump with the courts with nonsense faked up charges and talking night and day about weird conspiracy theory bullcrap about russian collusion (always a dem favorite),  how he's going to end elections and cancel democracy, shoot Mexicans at the border and now that Americans don't have any say in who the president is and don't vote. 🙄

You are being terrible people.  There was a time when democrats were respectable people even if you disagreed with them but now?  I'd rather have a sister who was a prostitute than one who's a democrat. Less shame to the family.

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

the Electoral College does in fact represent the people of the state.

It can do that. But the vote for the presidency is technically done by electors and those electors are not equal in terms represending similar numbers of citizens. This is not a contoversial fact.

1 hour ago, User said:

It is those people whose wishes, based on their votes, that the Electors are carrying out. 

The states can do that, if they want to. They have for quite a while. Trump tried to get 7 republican led states to ignore their state votes and send their own electors, which those state legislatures legally could do by statute.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I'd rather have a sister who was a prostitute

Most honest thing you've ever said.

[User]

8 minutes ago, Matthew said:

It can do that. But the vote for the presidency is technically done by electors and those electors are not equal in terms represending similar numbers of citizens. This is not a contoversial fact.

It does do that. Those electors represent the people of their state. They are equal for the people of their state. They are a proportional representation for the amount of people a state has. 

California has vastly more electors than Wyoming does. 

 

[Matthew]

2 minutes ago, User said:

It does do that. Those electors represent the people of their state.

Only if the states want it to. How the states do it is irrelevant to the electoral college vis-a-vis the Constitution.

The Electoral College is the 538 voters on December 17th. And those 538 electors do not reflect the one person one vote principle by any measure.

7 minutes ago, User said:

They are a proportional representation for the amount of people a state has. 

California has vastly more electors than Wyoming does. 

A single CA elector is worth 722,000 people (or 324,000 voters in 2020)

A WY elector is worth 577,000 people (or 92k voters in 2020)

[User]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

Only if the states want it to. How the states do it is irrelevant to the electoral college vis-a-vis the Constitution.

What do you mean only if the states want to? Who decides for the state what they want to do? Representatives elected by the people of that state. 

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

The Electoral College is the 538 voters on December 17th. And those 538 electors do not reflect the one person one vote principle by any measure.

Yes, how those Electoral College members vote does in fact represent the voters of the state. 

 

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, Matthew said:

It can do that.

It always does it, it has always done it since the very beginning of America, and it will continue to do so.

Thanks for admitting that your whole point is pointless

Quote

But the vote for the presidency is technically done by electors 

At the direction of the voters. And I suppose you could technically argue that the real voting is done by those who tally the votes and report them. Or some other such damn foolishness.

The people of America elect the president. Whether by proxy or any other methodology the person who becomes president is who the people of America choose.

 

Quote

The states can do that,

And have every time and will every time. And Thus you fail

Quote

Most honest thing you've ever said.

That prostitutes have more honor and dignity than Democrats?

I don't know if it's the most honest thing I've ever said but it certainly In the top 10   

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

What do you mean only if the states want to?

Who decides for the state what they want to do?

I mean states can choose their electors however they want. They could draw random names if they wanted to.

Who decides? The state legislators of course.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

it has always done it since the very beginning of America

Incorrect. About half the states initially chose their electors in the state legislatures instead of through elections. During the 1820s they switched to choosing electors via election.

1 hour ago, User said:

Yes, how those Electoral College members vote does in fact represent the voters of the state. 

It can, but idoesn't have to since the people aren't voting for president.

Also interesting how you quickly ditched your proportionality line of reasoning. 😄

Edited October 20, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

I mean states can choose their electors however they want. They could draw random names if they wanted to.

Well that's all part of democracy. People have choices as to how they want their voice to be represented. 

 

Quote

Who decides? The state legislators of course.

The elected officials you mean.

Quote

Incorrect. About half the states initially chose their electors in the state legislatures instead of through elections. During the 1820s they switched to choosing electors via election.

Irrelevant to what i said.  But nice attempt to change the subject   

Since the beginning the voters have chosen the president.  How they wish to set up their model may change but at the end of the day the president was whom the people picked. 

 

Quote

It can, but idoesn't have to since the people aren't voting for president.

The people are electing the president whether you like it or not.

Quote

Also interesting how you quickly ditched your proportionality line of reasoning. 😄

Didn't in the slightest   

I get that you like to keep hopping from one topic to another to avoid the fact you're wrong but nothing's changed 

The people of the United states elect the president.  Sorry kid. 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Since the beginning the voters have chosen the president.

No, they haven't done that since the beginning. There were once states where they didn't vote for president at all. Their elected state legislators would choose.

Also, as far as some things being irrelevant to what you said, I only replied to one sentence from your post. The rest was in reply to User, as indicated in the quotation boxes.

Edited October 21, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, Matthew said:

No, they haven't done that since the beginning.

Yeah they have. Your lies are becoming more and more desperate. The fact that some voters have preferred to leave it to others doesn't change the fact they've had votes since the beginning. 

Let's cut to the chase. The current system is Democratic and fair. You're ignorant twat of a candidate is going to lose because she's in ignorant twat. Not because there's a flaw in the system.

And your desperation and pathetic attempts to try and justify the loss as some sort of flaw with the system simply shows what your problems really are. 

Instead of looking at what you've done wrong and why people are rejecting you for the likes of trump, you're coming up with ridiculous flat-earth-level arguments and excuses .

Everything is happening PRECISELY as i predicted months ago. You better start listening or you guys will lose the next one as well. 

[User]

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

I mean states can choose their electors however they want. They could draw random names if they wanted to.

Who decides? The state legislators of course.

The vast majority do not do that though and as I already pointed out, those state legislators represent... the people!

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

It can, but idoesn't have to since the people aren't voting for president.

Also interesting how you quickly ditched your proportionality line of reasoning.

Yes, they are in fact voting for President. Its on the ballot and everything. 

I have not ditched anything. 

[Matthew]

51 minutes ago, User said:

those state legislators represent... the people!

What's your point?

53 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, they are in fact voting for President.

They are in fact voting for a group of electors. The actual election is in December.

55 minutes ago, User said:

I have not ditched anything. 

Do you acknowledge the fact that electors do not proportionally represent American citizens?

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, Matthew said:

 

Do you acknowledge the fact that electors do not proportionally represent American citizens?

But they do. They just account for more than population and make adjustments given the realities that People in different geographical areas will have different interests. But it's still proportional

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah they have.

Nope. Here is the transition from most states having legislatures pick their electors to eventually all states having statewide elections for choosing electors. It look about 30 years:

First election (1788) there were 11 states. 6 of them had their electors chosen by the state legislature: connecticut, georgia, new jersey, new york, new jersey, and massachusetts.

Second election (1792) there were 15 states. 9 of them had electors chosen by state legislature: connecticut, deleware, georgia, new jersey, new york, north carolina, rhode island, south carolina, vermont.

Third election (1796) there were 16 states.  8 states had their electors chosen by state legislatures: connecticut, deleware, georgia, new jersey, new york, rhode island, south carolina, vermont, massachusetts.

Fourth election (1800). Still 16 states.  10 had their electors chosen by state legislature.

Fifth election (1804). 17 states. 6 states still having state legislatures choose electors.

Sixth election (1808). 17 states. 7 states had their state legislatures choose electors.

Seventh election (1812). 18 states.  9 had state legislatures choose electors.

Eighth election (1816). 19 states.  9 had state legislatures choose electors.

Nineth election (1820). 25 states. 9 had state legislatures choose electors.

Tenth election (1925). 25 states. 6 had state legislatures choose electors.

Eleventh election (1928). 25 states. 2 had state legislatures choose electors: Delaware and South Carolina.

 

 

[Matthew]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They just account for more than population and make adjustments

Who makes adjustments?

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Nope. Here is the transition from most states

 

 

Only took you Eight words to screw up this time  

If it was most states then it wasn't all states which means that indeed the people in the states that wanted to were electing the president since day one. Those that wanted to let someone else do it were able to make that decision.

So I was right and you just screwed up. What a shock

. You're not losing because of the Electoral College. You losing because you're losers. Trump will get in. Is a good chance a guy who gets in after him will be republican as well. Nobody is changing the Electoral College.  It is a fair and reasonable system that allows for the people to be represented and choose the president.

Thanks for playing kiddo  

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Who makes adjustments?

I believe that all the states would have to agree to future deliberate changes to the percentages, otherwise increases are based on population .  I'd have to look 

But i guarantee whoever does it will be elected officials and the public will get a say  

 

Kid this whole line was stupid. The people elect the president, and the seats are balanced to account for population AND the people's regional issues.  In that respects it works as well as any presidency based position would.  Sorry your girl is getting her ass kicked and you're upset about it. 

[Matthew]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I believe that all the states would have to agree to future deliberate changes to the percentages,

Ok so your next homework assignment is to go learn about what each state's number of electors is based upon. Don't worry, it's very simple.

[User]

9 hours ago, Matthew said:

What's your point?

It appears we have wore you down. All your bad arguments defeated. You are now responding flippantly in short responses. 

The point is that you keep trying to say the Electoral College doesn't represent the people because the state legislature controls it, and the response to that is that it is the people who vote for that state legislature. 

9 hours ago, Matthew said:

They are in fact voting for a group of electors. The actual election is in December.

Which is for the President...

9 hours ago, Matthew said:

Do you acknowledge the fact that electors do not proportionally represent American citizens?

No. They clearly do. A State gets the number of Electors based on its congressional representation, which is based on its population. 
 

[Matthew]

33 minutes ago, User said:

The point is that you keep trying to say the Electoral College doesn't represent the people because the state legislature controls it, and the response to that is that it is the people who vote for that state legislature. 

My point is that the electoral college is not democratic and does not follow the one person one vote principle.

The founders wanted the electoral college to carry what they called "a sense" of what the people want. But the people do not directly have a say in a democratic sense.

Again these are basic facts of the system and are not controversial. You two are straining to contradict it only to because you need to be stubborn and contrary.

43 minutes ago, User said:

A State gets the number of Electors based on its congressional representation, which is based on its population. 

I showed you with exact numbers the vastly disproportionate electors between California and Wyoming. How do you explain that?

Also this statement i quoted here suggests that you do not know how congressional representation works in the United States. You should go read about that before continuing to sound ignorant on the topic.

[User]

2 minutes ago, Matthew said:

My point is that the electoral college is not democratic and does not follow the one person one vote principle.

Yes, and I have already responded to this. The process represents people who do in fact vote. That is Democratic. The EC is in fact based on each person in the State having a vote... which follows the principle. 

3 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The founders wanted the electoral college to carry what they called "a sense" of what the people want. But the people do not directly have a say in a democratic sense.

Of course they do. They go out on election day and quite literally vote. It is in fact every sense of the term a Democratic process.

9 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I showed you with exact numbers the vastly disproportionate electors between California and Wyoming. How do you explain that?

So, which is it, do you want proportional representation or not?

I was the one who told you there was a difference between the two, that is because California has a population of 40 Million people and Wyoming has a population of about half a million. 

11 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Also this statement i quoted here suggests that you do not know how congressional representation works in the United States. You should go read about that before continuing to sound ignorant on the topic.

Feel free to explain how you think I am ignorant of something if you can. 

 

[Matthew]

3 minutes ago, User said:

The process represents people who do in fact vote.

You're taking about being vaguly represented via intermediaries. I'm taking about voters having a direct say, which they do not.

5 minutes ago, User said:

The EC is in fact based on each person in the State having a vote

Factually untrue. There are only 538 people in the electoral college and their votes do not equally represent the same number of citizens.

8 minutes ago, User said:

do you want proportional representation

Yes, nobody wants their vote to count less than someone else's vote.

10 minutes ago, User said:

that is because California has a population of 40 Million people and Wyoming has a population of about half a million. 

Yeah, but it's not just that California has more people. The electors are disproportionate. A California elector is worth hundreds of thousands of more people than a wyoming elector. Proportional would be all 538 electors represent roughly similar numbers of Americans.

14 minutes ago, User said:

Feel free to explain how you think I am ignorant

Well you seem unaware that seats in half of the US congress are not based on state populations.

[User]

32 minutes ago, Matthew said:

You're taking about being vaguly represented via intermediaries. I'm taking about voters having a direct say, which they do not.

It is not vague at all. Voters go vote, the Electors go vote for who they chose, we have a President. 

If your argument is boiled down to nothing more than they don't "directly" have a say because the Electors go carry out their wishes... um, OK. So what?

33 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Factually untrue. There are only 538 people in the electoral college and their votes do not equally represent the same number of citizens.

They are based on a state's population. Yes, the do factually represent the citizens. 

35 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Yeah, but it's not just that California has more people. The electors are disproportionate. A California elector is worth hundreds of thousands of more people than a wyoming elector. Proportional would be all 538 electors represent roughly similar numbers of Americans.

They do roughly represent the same number of Americans. That is the entire definition of roughly. 

39 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Well you seem unaware that seats in half of the US congress are not based on state populations.

Yeah, lets see... what is more likely, that I don't know that each state gets 2 Senators regardless of population or that I was clearly talking about the House of Representatives, a part of Congress, being based on population... and could have been more precise in my language. 

This is just a dumb gotcha game at this point.