Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

CdnFox · October 21, 2024

7 hours ago, Matthew said:

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.

I don't generally accept homework assignments from kindergarten students

You've been wrong about literally everything you've raised in this thread so far. So I'm not going chasing after the next thing you're wrong about.

The people of the states democratically choose how they will be represented when selecting a president. And they then exercise that to select the president.

The process is democratic and fair.

States with larger areas and smaller population density may be weighted to more fairly represent their interests and reduce the effect of the tyranny of the majority.

Those are the facts. Once you get that through your thick head you will know as much as the rest of the entire population that is achieved grade 1 education or better.

Matthew · October 21, 2024

7 hours ago, User said:

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.

Your claim was that "A State gets the number of Electors based on its congressional representation, which is based on its population."

So you now understand this is false, correct? 18.6% of the Electoral College is not based on the population of the states.

7 hours ago, User said:

They do roughly represent the same number of Americans.

What's your proof of this? I showed you specifically how different they are. A Californians vote for president is about 25% worth the vote of a Wyomingian.

7 hours ago, User said:

They are based on a state's population.

Since you're struggling on this point, here are visual aids of the electoral vote per capita:

7 hours ago, User said:

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?

Americans are not the ones voting for president, and the people who are voting in our place do not proportionally represent the American people. It is therefore not a democratic system and it subverts the one person one vote principle.

Edited October 22, 2024 by Matthew

Matthew · October 22, 2024

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

States with larger areas and smaller population density may be weighted

See, the fact that you think the states are "being weighted" and that occasionally elected officials "make adjustments" and tinker with "changes to the percentages" shows that you have no idea what the number of electors in each state is based upon. So yes you are free to skip my advised reading adventure and continue to sound like an ignoramus about this topic.

User · October 22, 2024

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Your claim was that "A State gets the number of Electors based on its congressional representation, which is based on its population."

So you now understand this is false, correct? 18.6% of the Electoral College is not based on the population of the states.

Stating that some percentage of the total is baked into the pie because everyone gets 2 additional electors based on everyone having 2 senators doesn't make it false.

It means, as I already conceded to, that it is more precise to say that States are allocated votes based on Congressional Representation which is based on population and every state having 2 Senators in addition to that.

Still based on population.

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

What's your proof of this? I showed you specifically how different they are. A Californians vote for president is about 25% worth the vote of a Wyomingian.

Do you really not know that census data is used to determine state populations and to determine how many Representatives each state has and that determines the electors each state is awarded?

Read the Constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Americans are not the ones voting for president, and the people who are voting in our place do not proportionally represent the American people. It is therefore not a democratic system and it subverts the one person one vote principle.

Yes, Americans are the ones voting. It certainly is not Iranians. Well, at least for now. Democrats would certainly welcome Illegal Aliens voting from other countries...

That aside, as it has been pointed out to you over and over again now, those Americans are in fact voting for President, the Electors go carry out their wishes. That is the very concept of a democratic system. I have already refuted your one vote principle nonsense as well.

A person in each state, no matter where they live, has their vote counted the same as someone else in that state = one vote principle.

Matthew · October 22, 2024

3 hours ago, User said:

Still based on population.

The 538 electors are about 81% based on population. So while that is significant, having it be 18.6% non-proportional is far beyond a reasonable departure from the one person one vote principle and is enough to tilt many elections into rule by a minority.

3 hours ago, User said:

Do you really not know that census data is used

Your claim here is that electors "roughly represent the same number of Americans." The proof for this is not house of representatives reapportionment since the electors are again only 81% based on the House. Instead you have a few relevant choices:

1. State population per elector

2. Citizens of the state per elector

3. Registered voters per elector

4. Actual voter turnout per elector

In any of these metrics you will see how much that 19% of Senate- based electors greatly skew the proportionality.

3 hours ago, User said:

Americans are the ones voting. It certainly is not Iranians.

It is only the 538 electors who vote for president. The people of the state chose electors. If you're needing help with this point, The US National Archives is the foremost authority on the Electoral College and here is how they outline the presidential election:

Edited October 22, 2024 by Matthew

Matthew · October 22, 2024

3 hours ago, User said:

A person in each state, no matter where they live, has their vote counted the same as someone else in that state = one vote principle.

The vote for electors within a state may follow the one person one vote doctrine, but the electors voting for the US president does not since these electors are not representing american citizens proportionally.

Edited October 22, 2024 by Matthew

CdnFox · October 22, 2024

17 hours ago, Matthew said:

See, the fact that you think the states are "being weighted" and that occasionally elected officials "make adjustments" and tinker with "changes to the percentages" shows that you have no idea what the number of electors in each state is based upon.

Sigh. Yes dear

User · October 22, 2024

17 hours ago, Matthew said:

The vote for electors within a state may follow the one person one vote doctrine, but the electors voting for the US president does not since these electors are not representing american citizens proportionally.

The one person one vote doctrine is a state level doctrine... It does in fact apply here, as within the state, each persons vote is equally represented in their choice for President as any other persons in that state.

This was already explained earlier.

User · October 22, 2024

17 hours ago, Matthew said:

The 538 electors are about 81% based on population. So while that is significant, having it be 18.6% non-proportional is far beyond a reasonable departure from the one person one vote principle and is enough to tilt many elections into rule by a minority.

That is not where the one person one vote principle is applied though. It is at the state level, where each persons vote is equal to the others.

We are a federal republic of a united states. There is no rule by anyone. That is the entire point. It is a system of checks and balances which is why we have a Senate and House to comprise the Congress, a Judiciary, and an Executive.

17 hours ago, Matthew said:

The people of the state chose electors.

Yes, the people elected the President. The electors are chosen to represent them.

CdnFox · October 22, 2024

2 hours ago, User said:

That is not where the one person one vote principle is applied though. It is at the state level, where each persons vote is equal to the others.

We are a federal republic of a united states. There is no rule by anyone. That is the entire point. It is a system of checks and balances which is why we have a Senate and House to comprise the Congress, a Judiciary, and an Executive.

Yes, the people elected the President. The electors are chosen to represent them.

Honestly dude, at this point it's like explaining quantum physics to a mildly dyslexic frog with a short attention span.

He knows he's wrong. He's behaving this way in a fashion to lash out against the fact that he knows Kamala is about to lose. She keeps going down in the polls, she has negative momentum which is death at this stage of an American election, and she really has no way of reversing that other than severe Hail Marys which are more likely to make things worse.

And it's making him cranky. So he's trying to make the claim that there is no Democracy in America and that people don't like the president and that the system is broken because it didn't work the way he wanted it to this time.

At least he's not claiming Russian collusion.

Matthew · October 22, 2024

1 hour ago, User said:

The one person one vote doctrine is a state level doctrine

"One person one vote" is a universal principle by which any electoral system in the world is judged.

The electoral college at the national level and within the Constitution makes no pretense of being democratic and clearly fails to meet this principle. Whether the states follow this principle is not relevant since the national vote is not proportional.

The context of what you're saying is that the Supreme Court has held the states to this standard but not the electoral college itself. This is because the US Constitution DOES claim that the House votes represent "the people" but no such claim is madein the constitution about the EC.

2 hours ago, User said:

There is no rule by anyone.

Lol that's cute but "majority rule" is simply a political principle in any democratic society wherein the numerical majority holds the political power to make decisions. "Minority rule" just implies the opposite--an oppressive anti-democratic system where a numerically smaller group hold power over the majority of society. This is what the electoral College does with the presidency.

2 hours ago, User said:

Yes, the people elected the President. The electors are chosen to represent them.

Electors do not accurately represent the people since citizens votes are not proportional.

CdnFox · October 22, 2024

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

"One person one vote" is a universal principle by which any electoral system in the world is judged.

Almost no system anywhere in the first world is 'one person one vote'. The vast majority don't even vote for their Gov't leader. None of the westminsters do (britian canada australia etc etc). germany doesn't. France elects their president directly but they're the exception.

So nope - you're wrong

User · October 22, 2024

3 minutes ago, Matthew said:

"One person one vote" is a universal principle by which any electoral system in the world is judged.

Oh come on now. You already went down the road of defining this as a US legal doctrine, citing the case law you were using.

Now that I have flipped this on you and accurately call out that it was applied at a State level, now you want to play games and talk about it being a universal principle.

Come on man.

5 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The context of what you're saying is that the Supreme Court has held the states to this standard but not the electoral college itself.

I have already addressed this argument from you. You are just repeating yourself now.

It doesn't have to be legally bound to the standard when it already embodies it.

7 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Lol that's cute but "majority rule" is simply a political principle in any democratic society wherein the numerical majority holds the political power to make decisions.

That is not what defines a democratic society at all, that a majority must rule. That is a tyranny of the majority that you are speaking of now.

A democratic society is based on many things, of which is merely that it is the people that govern. Part of that is a respect for individual liberty and rights of others, not merely that the majority get their say.

Also... the Electoral College is a majority rule principle. The winner must get a majority of the electoral college votes.

10 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Electors do not accurately represent the people since citizens votes are not proportional.

The Electors do in fact represent the people of their state.

Matthew · October 23, 2024

2 hours ago, User said:

Oh come on now. You already went down the road of defining this as a US legal doctrine, citing the case law you were using.

Lol it's not a US concept. Those cases were used to show the specific MEANING of that concept within US law in light of your previous efforts to create your own self-serving meaning. But democracy and the various principles like this related to it are used worldwide.

2 hours ago, User said:

You are just repeating yourself now.

Yeah, no shit. I'm mainly just stating general encyclopedic facts about the system in reponse to factual inaccuracies.

2 hours ago, User said:

It doesn't have to be legally bound to the standard when it already embodies it.

The electoral votes for president do not proportionally represent Americans.

And any representative election system not legally held to a proportionality standard will not have proportionally weighted votes.

2 hours ago, User said:

That is not what defines a democratic society at all

I said it was "a political principle in any democratic society" which is not to say it is the only principle. Respect for the rights of those in the minority is also a core principle. But there is in fact no democracy without a principle of majority rule. That is the point of voting--to see what the majority of people want. If majority rule was not a core principle of democracy, then we would not associate democracy with voting.

2 hours ago, User said:

the Electoral College is a majority rule principle

Because the electors do not proportionally represent American citizens, the resulting winner of the electoral vote often represents only a minority of American citizens. So it often fails to meet this standard.

3 hours ago, User said:

The Electors do in fact represent the people of their state.

People are certainly assigned to represent their state as electors, but the distribution of those electors is not proportional. The auto- complete on my phone is just about able to reply to these inane comments without my help. 🙂

Matthew · October 23, 2024

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Almost no system anywhere in the first world is 'one person one vote'. The vast majority don't even vote for their Gov't leader.

The main issue in terms of critique is not the American voters lack of direct voting for president. The critical flaw is the lack of proportionality. The parliamentary systems you listed perform pretty well in terms of imposing proportionally weighted votes and preserving one person one vote principle.

Any system of having fairly elected representatives choose a head of state would be superior and more democratic than having a disproportionate minority-rule system choose a head of state as with the electoral college.

CdnFox · October 23, 2024

3 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The main issue in terms of critique is not the American voters lack of direct voting for president. The critical flaw is the lack of proportionality. The parliamentary systems you listed perform pretty well in terms of imposing proportionally weighted votes and preserving one person one vote principle.

In other words they weight the results by reigion (twice) just like the states but on a slightly more grannular level but somehow you're fine with that

The point is almost no places actually use a one person one vote system without some species of regional consideration. Just like America.

It's recognized as necessary in almost every corner of the world. And again this is why we have states instead of one great big country or why we have provinces in Canada instead of one great big country

I've brought that up a few times and you dodge it every time. If it's worth having states, then it is only logical that we accept that the purpose of those states is to reflect the interests of the people of that region and therefore it does make sense to consider that when allocating representation

Seriously man, you lost this one about four posts back at least. There's nothing wrong with the college system. It is fair, it is representative, it takes into account the wishes and desires of the people of the regions far better than any other model would shy of moving to something like a Westminster system and for the most part it's quite effective.

Yes, that does mean that it's possible at least for Kamala to win the popular vote but not the presidency. Although even that's looking less likely every day.

But that's the point. That would be an example of the college doing its job

Matthew · October 23, 2024

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The point is almost no places actually use a one person one vote system without some species of regional consideration

You're talking in meaningless made-up generalizations.

You mentioned Germany. Germany's Bundestag steats are calculated to precisely maintain proportionality and majority rule. Their regional considerations don't require any distorted weighting.

TreeBeard · October 23, 2024

On 10/9/2024 at 11:33 AM, gatomontes99 said:

The harris camp wants to get rid of the EC. They didn't deny that position. What they said was, they wouldn't say that publicly.

Probably a good idea. It’s an archaic idea. Like the right to bear arms.

CdnFox · October 23, 2024

50 minutes ago, Matthew said:

You're talking in meaningless made-up generalizations.

They are not meaningless they're not made up and they are not Generalizations. Canada is not made up. Britain is not made up. France is not made up. Read a book

51 minutes ago, Matthew said:

You mentioned Germany. Germany's Bundestag steats are calculated to precisely maintain proportionality and majority rule. Their regional considerations don't require any distorted weighting.

,Sure but chancellor isn't, and the lander is proportiona;l

And if you stop and think for just a minute you'll go back to the very beginning when I said it's not possible. The number of people who are eligible to vote and who live in a specific writing on the day when they take the census to calculate the seats will not be the same as voting day. No matter how you slice it, It will not be accurate

And I noticed you missed the literally hundreds of other countries that are included in the various models I mentioned.

If you have a very small country without a lot of regions you are more likely to be able to get away with the concept but the reality is is even then it can be very difficult.

You're just wrong kid. It's it's really that simple. You've tried everything right down to American constitutional law you tried to play the other states do it differently game that didn't work out, you tried the other countries game and most of them do it similar to the us as far as weighing specific areas one way or another, no matter how you dance and sing it's particular model of democracy is effective representational fair.

Sorry, you're losing this race because Kamala sucks, not because the system sucks

User · October 23, 2024

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

Lol it's not a US concept. Those cases were used to show the specific MEANING of that concept within US law in light of your previous efforts to create your own self-serving meaning. But democracy and the various principles like this related to it are used worldwide.

YOU argued it was. I was the one arguing the point from a more universal principle, then your counter argument was to say no, no, no, that you were specifically talking about it from a legal doctrine. Now that I have defeated that line of argument you are circling back around and trying to gaslight me and going back to it being a universal principle.

Seriously, man, this is beyond disingenuous.

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

The electoral votes for president do not proportionally represent Americans.

And any representative election system not legally held to a proportionality standard will not have proportionally weighted votes.

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

We have covered this already.

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

But there is in fact no democracy without a principle of majority rule. That is the point of voting--to see what the majority of people want. If majority rule was not a core principle of democracy, then we would not associate democracy with voting.

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

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

Because the electors do not proportionally represent American citizens, the resulting winner of the electoral vote often represents only a minority of American citizens. So it often fails to meet this standard.

Yes, they do proportionally represent Americans AND the States. We are a Constitutional, Federal, Republic of a United States built on a system of checks and balances.

It is not a standard to be met, it is not some check box, it is a principle and every step of the way that principle exists as the power rests with the people, we are governed by consent of the people, it is a majority of people who voted at the state level and a majority of those electors.

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

People are certainly assigned to represent their state as electors, but the distribution of those electors is not proportional. The auto- complete on my phone is just about able to reply to these inane comments without my help.

Yes, they are proportional.

Nationalist · October 23, 2024

I wanna see Kamala get 52% of the popular vote...

AND LOSE.

I know that would only aggravate the Libbies and make them howl at the moon again.

But that's the point.

Matthew · October 23, 2024

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure but chancellor isn't, and the lander is proportiona;l

The Bundestag and provincial Landstag are both highly proportional. Germany's supreme court repeatedly required reforms between 2008 and 2011 to make the electoral system proportional.

France has a two different voting systems-- one for president and one for their parliament. The two stage voting system for president is not well liked but none of France's voting problems relate to disproportionate weighting of voters.

Canada and the UK do some problems with unequally-weighted non-proportional voting, though nowhere close to the severe disproportionality of the US electoral college.

CdnFox · October 23, 2024

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

The Bundestag and provincial Landstag are both highly proportional. Germany's supreme court repeatedly required reforms between 2008 and 2011 to make the electoral system proportional.

France has a two different voting systems-- one for president and one for their parliament. The two stage voting system for president is not well liked but none of France's voting problems relate to disproportionate weighting of voters.

Canada and the UK do some problems with unequally-weighted non-proportional voting, though nowhere close to the severe disproportionality of the US electoral college.

Kid you already lost this. You don't understand how the system works and you don't understand what you're talking about. Virtually none of what you said so far has been correct as both I and User have had to point out to you when multiple occasions.

Pure democracy is unfair and excludes people. The democratic model that the united states uses is both fair and effective.

We get it. Your girl is losing and your big mad. You feel if it was a one person one vote system your side would win more often. Which is kind of proving my point.

By the way, in the last two elections in Canada the party that got the most votes is not the party that forms government. The conservatives won the popular vote but the liberals formed power. You didn't hear conservatives whining.

Black Dog · October 23, 2024

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

By the way, in the last two elections in Canada the party that got the most votes is not the party that forms government. The conservatives won the popular vote but the liberals formed power. You didn't hear conservatives whining.

This is entirely a product of the fact we have more than two parties and operate on a Westminster model. The conservatives wouldn't have formed the government even with a more proportional voting system. And yes, conservatives have whined about this endlessly.

Our way is shitty and unfair, but it's shitty and unfair in a different way than the American's joke of a system.

Edited October 23, 2024 by Black Dog

CdnFox · October 23, 2024

7 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

This is entirely a product of the fact we have more than two parties and operate on a Westminster model.

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

Quote

The conservatives wouldn't have formed the government even with a more proportional voting system.

In a proportional system they would have. Absolutely.

Quote

And yes, conservatives have whined about this endlessly.

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