[BET] Trump or Harris 2024, Poker Player vs suchmoon

[Free Market Capitalist]

On the electoral system, it is a logical fallacy to argue that it should not be changed "because anyway it won't be perfect".

No, what is a fallacy is to change what I say, so that it somehow resembles what I said but is not what I said, and then go on to refute me. And it's not the first time you've done that to me.

I don't know what you expect me to respond to. You want me to agree with you about your rebuttal to what I didn't say? Okay, you're right.

[TwitchySeal]

The problem with proportional electoral systems, those that come closest to each person's vote being equal in electoral weight to one vote, is that the great majority of people live in urban areas and for them the problems of rural areas are not a priority.

That's not the reason for the electoral college. (And it really doesn't make sense unless you have a valid argument that rural areas are inherently more important than urban areas, and that voters in urban areas are inherently unable to consider the importance of parts of the country they do not live)

When they were deciding how presidential elections would work, there were about 1.29 million in the north vs 1.34 million in the south - but the north still had an advantage of almost 40% more eligible voters.

How can that be, you ask?

Well, in the south of the 1.34 million people, about 500k of them were slaves who couldn't vote and about 800k were white.

In the north, only about 50k were slaves, leaving 1.2 million white people.

(only the white men that met various state requirements could vote)


The south knew if they didn't have enough political power, the radical woke social justice warriors would elect a liberal who would come and seize their property (black people) and their businesses would no longer be viable (slavery is extremely profitable).  They didn't want to go woke, because that would mean they went broke.  

So, in order to stop the woke mob from the north from electing a communist, the south insisted that their slaves should be counted as people when determining how much weight each state gets in the electoral college but counted as their personal property without any human rights at all other times.

The North didn't like this idea, but ultimately they compromised on counting each slave as 3/5ths of one white person.  

And everyone lived happily ever after.  God bless the USA.

[suchmoon]

only the white men that met various state requirements could vote

Give it a few more years and the Supreme Court will bring that back.


So here it is finally, the election day is just a few hours away. I wish I could say the circus will be over in a couple of days but it probably won't be. Some key states will be extremely slow to count votes, particularly mail-ins, and the orange one will be screaming "fraud" the whole time.

[Free Market Capitalist]

And everyone lived happily ever after.  God bless the USA.

I find this way of looking at reality that you have, based on which everything is discrimination, touching.

If you notice, I was speaking in the plural.

Surely in Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, UK, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia and many others they made a weighed electoral system, which, in fact, is the majority by far around the world, to discriminate against blacks.

According to you the majority electoral system around the world makes no sense, wonderful, but I am not surprised because I am already used to see that elitist thinking.

[TwitchySeal]

According to you the majority electoral system around the world makes no sense, wonderful, but I am not surprised because I am already used to see that elitist thinking.

It makes perfect sense.  And yes, it's absolutely elitist thinking.  And yes, not just in America.  Whenever a country decides to make some peoples votes count more than others, it's because the people that currently have power are concerned about losing it.  Full stop.  That's the primary reason. 

I think the Romans were first to do it, and they literally just did it based off wealth and social status. 

The electoral college in America was established in the the late 1700s. It wasn't until 1920 that women had the right to vote.  1965 for black people.  I'm trying to just give the facts, but do you not think that's really fucked up?  Or do you just hear a liberal talking about racism and assume it's just a made up world, or they must just be pretending care about it to make people think they are a good person?  I don't understand how anyone with a basic understanding of history can join this growing  "calling out racism is the real problem" movement. 

[paxmao]

On the electoral system, it is a logical fallacy to argue that it should not be changed "because anyway it won't be perfect".

No, what is a fallacy is to change what I say, so that it somehow resembles what I said but is not what I said, and then go on to refute me. And it's not the first time you've done that to me.

I don't know what you expect me to respond to. You want me to agree with you about your rebuttal to what I didn't say? Okay, you're right.

Ok, you said "no system is perfect", then we can agree there are different levels of imperfection?

Let's create the Paxmanian scale of Authoritarism ranging from 10 - North Korea (where normal people do not dare to even utter a word to a journalist) to 0 - Switzerland (who like referendums as sport).

A system in which there is a difference of 50 million people in favour of option A (Dems)  versus option B (Reps) and yet still option B gets simlar results to A in the Senate seems more towards the 4 than towards the  7. Same system that ges more people voting for Hilary, but gets you Trump as POTUS. I did not hear anything about "rigging" when that happened.

You argue that people in the country would be ignored if the system was proportional (hope I am accurate enough). Well, in my view it is because in a democracy more people decide over less people. All people have some individual rights (e.g. freedom of movement, no indentured servitude,...) and there are some general rights (e.g. free press), other than that, it is all about majorities yes.

I tend to use humour for illustration purposes, but I hope this addresses the core issues correctly.

only the white men that met various state requirements could vote

Give it a few more years and the Supreme Court will bring that back.


So here it is finally, the election day is just a few hours away. I wish I could say the circus will be over in a couple of days but it probably won't be. Some key states will be extremely slow to count votes, particularly mail-ins, and the orange one will be screaming "fraud" the whole time.

Yep, and one of the later ones will be Georgia. Virginia if comes out fast will be good from Kam, else for Trump.

The problem is that they are not going to limit themselves to cry, they may actually try to "take action" of some short.

[Sender78]

Trump will win and he will lead America to glory, not to communism, as Harris wants to do

[Free Market Capitalist]

It makes perfect sense.  And yes, it's absolutely elitist thinking. 

At least you recognize it. But it gets to a contradictory point because for you to say that the absolutely proportional system is better because the LA urbanite is going to be able to take into consideration in their vote what is in the interest of the Oklahoma highlands does not match with you saying that half of the electorate (75/80 million people) are retarded for voting for Trump.

And yes, not just in America.  Whenever a country decides to make some peoples votes count more than others, it's because the people that currently have power are concerned about losing it.  Full stop.  That's the primary reason. 

Take an eraser if you have written the point in pencil or white out if you have written it in pen and explain how the goat herders of the Scottish Highlands have more power than the Londoners of the Westminster district and that is why their votes weigh more.

I think the Romans were first to do it, and they literally just did it based off wealth and social status. 

The electoral college in America was established in the the late 1700s. It wasn't until 1920 that women had the right to vote.  1965 for black people.  I'm trying to just give the facts, but do you not think that's really fucked up?  Or do you just hear a liberal talking about racism and assume it's just a made up world, or they must just be pretending care about it to make people think they are a good person?  I don't understand how anyone with a basic understanding of history can join this growing  "calling out racism is the real problem" movement. 

No, you have a totally distorted vision because the weighed electoral systems of most of the world were established where there was no slavery and where more weight is given to the areas that have less power. The Romans and what happened in the USA are rather exceptions, not the norm.

Ok, you said "no system is perfect", then we can agree there are different levels of imperfection?

Yes, we can (lol).

You argue that people in the country would be ignored if the system was proportional (hope I am accurate enough).

No, what I am saying is that within the imperfection of all electoral systems the weighed one does not seem to me so bad and that the purely proportional one harms some minorities, which curiously in this case do not seem to worry you.

Although if we were to make the ideal system, the difference in weight between the most important vote and the least important one should not be more than double, and I believe that in the USA it is up to triple or more in some cases.

Trump will win and he will lead America to glory, not to communism, as Harris wants to do

I don't know if you have noticed that here there is a certain level in the discussions, since you say that you could explain why, otherwise you come off as an illiterate who gets carried away by slogans.

[suchmoon]

Take an eraser if you have written the point in pencil or white out if you have written it in pen and explain how the goat herders of the Scottish Highlands have more power than the Londoners of the Westminster district and that is why their votes weigh more.

You seem to be referring to imbalances of single-seat districts, that's not quite the same (purposeful gerrymandering aside) as deliberate disenfranchising of certain groups of voters. Districts can get redrawn to make them more fair, and multi-seat systems exist that achieve better proportionality, but that has nothing to do with the arcane BS that is US electorate system.

[Free Market Capitalist]

You seem to be referring to imbalances of single-seat districts, that's not quite the same (purposeful gerrymandering aside) as deliberate disenfranchising of certain groups of voters. Districts can get redrawn to make them more fair, and multi-seat systems exist that achieve better proportionality, but that has nothing to do with the arcane BS that is US electorate system.

Yes, surely my mentality is more focused on European electoral disproportions, where the difference in the weight of votes between regions is sometimes 1 to 0.9  or at most 1 to 0.5.

[NotATether]

Congratulations on having the balls to place such a bet, suchmoon. I could never bring myself to place such a wager even if I was so sure about the election result.

[BADecker]

Trump will win and he will lead America to glory, not to communism, as Harris wants to do

And as she has been doing with the Dem Deep State leaders for years. Anybody who wants a touch of understanding of how this all works, watch...

DR Lee Merritt and Dr Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/KDeYswPUyRVc

[paxmao]

You seem to be referring to imbalances of single-seat districts, that's not quite the same (purposeful gerrymandering aside) as deliberate disenfranchising of certain groups of voters. Districts can get redrawn to make them more fair, and multi-seat systems exist that achieve better proportionality, but that has nothing to do with the arcane BS that is US electorate system.

Yes, surely my mentality is more focused on European electoral disproportions, where the difference in the weight of votes between regions is sometimes 1 to 0.9  or at most 1 to 0.5.

I hope I am not again saying something you are not saying, but it looks a bit like "since Europe is not perfect, we are ok" or "it could be worse".

I am certainly not here to defend the different European systems, although I would like to see the Swiss system in the US for a couple of years, just for the laughs of the popular initiatives that would come out. I like one rep per districts, because you have someone, with a name, that can answer for what he or she has done individually and a small district  is sufficiently granular IMO.

On the British one, the imbalances are not massive. The French one is per "small-ish" districts, Spain has imbalances in the regions, but not massive, Italy reformed in 2017 and has a mix of representation and proportionality which in theory could be useful... I mean, if it were not Italy... Germany is a mixed system as well...

There are many electoral systems, but honestly so many people ignored is kind of a record. It is more evident in the senate, but also state by state.

Take Texas, which has not voted Dems since... Carter apparently. The real result in 2020 is 53% Reps, 44% Dems. All mayor cities are Dems. You would need to ask why the vote of nearly 45% of the people is valued at zero. That does not look like representing the will of the people correctly, I mean, 45% is nearly half.

You certainly have many options, even if at least you could assign representatives proportionally per state or using D'Hont you would be getting a significant improvement.

[suchmoon]

You certainly have many options, even if at least you could assign representatives proportionally per state or using D'Hont you would be getting a significant improvement.

It's nearly impossible for anything like that to happen even at the state level, let alone federal elections, which would basically require an amendment to the constitution. The party that stands to lose from it (Republicans in this case but I doubt it would be much different if the roles were reversed) has enough power to block any such changes.

[Hispo]

Trump will win and he will lead America to glory, not to communism, as Harris wants to do

And as she has been doing with the Dem Deep State leaders for years. Anybody who wants a touch of understanding of how this all works, watch...

DR Lee Merritt and Dr Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/KDeYswPUyRVc

It is not the deep state, it is the establishment and the politicians who are part of it which want the country to continue going through status quo. Republican party used to belong to the establishment but Donald Trump has a deviation of that trend, leading to most Republican politicians to hate the establishment as much as the common people do. Worth pointing out how most of democrats in Washington are still part of the establishment.
Though, it is silly to talk about communism when the Washington stablishment is completely pro-capitalism and has the backing of big business and companies worth billions of dollars in market capitalization. Companies and business backing communism? It does not make sense to me.

What Trump really would love to do is destroying establishment to establish himself as the new pattern of politics within the United States in years to come, but this is not a battle between communists and capitalists, this is a political battle between capitalist in a global view of business and capitalists who embrace national isolation.

[paxmao]

Trump will win and he will lead America to glory, not to communism, as Harris wants to do

And as she has been doing with the Dem Deep State leaders for years. Anybody who wants a touch of understanding of how this all works, watch...

DR Lee Merritt and Dr Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/KDeYswPUyRVc

It is not the deep state, it is the establishment and the politicians who are part of it which want the country to continue going through status quo. Republican party used to belong to the establishment but Donald Trump has a deviation of that trend, leading to most Republican politicians to hate the establishment as much as the common people do. Worth pointing out how most of democrats in Washington are still part of the establishment.
Though, it is silly to talk about communism when the Washington stablishment is completely pro-capitalism and has the backing of big business and companies worth billions of dollars in market capitalization. Companies and business backing communism? It does not make sense to me.

What Trump really would love to do is destroying establishment to establish himself as the new pattern of politics within the United States in years to come, but this is not a battle between communists and capitalists, this is a political battle between capitalist in a global view of business and capitalists who embrace national isolation.

How is Donald not part of the establishment. Family fortune made in an industry (construction) in a estate New York that is probably the place you need to be in the establishment and know everyone to even lay a brick?

The deep state myth has been another of his lame excuses to try to prevent perfectly normal people from doing their jobs when those jobs were about to stop Trump from either breaking the law of doing something really sucidal.

You certainly have many options, even if at least you could assign representatives proportionally per state or using D'Hont you would be getting a significant improvement.

It's nearly impossible for anything like that to happen even at the state level, let alone federal elections, which would basically require an amendment to the constitution. The party that stands to lose from it (Republicans in this case but I doubt it would be much different if the roles were reversed) has enough power to block any such changes.

Perhaps, I am think that there is a chance in Estates that can hold popular consultations. By definition these could be won by a majority of people and create something like they have in Maine and Nebraska was it? in which not all votes go to the most voted candidate.

[tainted_love]

This bet is silly, it doesn't matter who wins the presidency, the real winners will be the same regardless.  The faceless, unelected, deepstate, i.e. Israel, the CIA, and AIPAC.

~

There real reason for the electoral college; in the olden days the fed.gov was much smaller and had very little influence on Americans' daily lives.  States had much more power, and the fear was the states with a larger population could dominate the federal governmental process.  It's not a democracy, and it was never intended to be.  It's a representative republic with democratically elected representatives.

[NotATether]

Congratulations on having the balls to place such a bet, suchmoon. I could never bring myself to place such a wager even if I was so sure about the election result.

Fuck... this is why I don't bet on elections.

[Free Market Capitalist]

On the British one, the imbalances are not massive.

You could argue the opposite, since the most voted wins the seat of the constituency and the other votes of that constituency become worth 0. What I am saying is that no electoral system is perfect, the weighed ones are not and the absolutely proportional ones are not either.

How do you guys see the result? It smells more and more like a Trump victory, and the market seems to have taken it that way.

[NotATether]

The rapist felon won the election. Congratulations Poker Player on your win.