US inches closer to change in how presidential elections are counted

[Grim Reaper]

You can't blame your problems on me, Sybil.

It is illegal and unconstitutional for noncitizens of a State to vote for anything in that State.

You didn’t answer anything I said, you just hit copy‑paste on your own talking point again. And nobody here is arguing for noncitizens to vote, so you’re not correcting anyone, you’re arguing with a ghost you invented. Throwing Sybil on top doesn’t make it a rebuttal, it just makes it obvious you can’t stay on the topic you were actually challenged on.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL somebody that has never read the CONSTITUTION telling somebody else to go read it , now that is funny.

Inversion fallacy. DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE, TBALL!

 

[Tbird19482]

You didn’t respond to what he said, you just slapped noncitizens voting on top of a point you didn’t understand. That’s not a rebuttal, it’s you dragging in a whole new argument because you couldn’t handle the one already on the table.

Into the night is one REALLY REALLY dumb FUCK.

 

[Into the Night]

You didn’t answer anything I said,

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

you just hit copy‑paste on your own talking point again.

Inversion fallacy.

And nobody here is arguing for noncitizens to vote,

You are. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

so you’re not correcting anyone, you’re arguing with a ghost you invented. Throwing Sybil on top doesn’t make it a rebuttal, it just makes it obvious you can’t stay on the topic you were actually challenged on.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problems on me or anybody else, Sybil.

 

[Grim Reaper]

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Inversion fallacy.

You are. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!


Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problems on me or anybody else, Sybil.

You’re not debating, you’re just looping the same two phrases like a wind‑up toy that got dropped on its head. Every time you get pressed, you chant another fallacy name like it’s going to save you, but all it does is make you look like someone arguing with the echo of their own last post.

 

[Tbird19482]

Yes you did. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

RAAA. It is unconstitutional for noncitizens of a State to vote in that State.

AND AGAIN you stupid FUCK show us where I have EVER DENIED making any of my posts, still waiting , you have said that BULL SHIT well over a hindered times and has STILL NOT been able to show us even ONE post where I did.
YOU are a complete ASSHOLE MORON.
GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE.

 

[Into the Night]

You’re not debating,

Inversion fallacy.

you’re just looping the same two phrases like a wind‑up toy that got dropped on its head. Every time you get pressed, you chant another fallacy name like it’s going to save you, but all it does is make you look like someone arguing with the echo of their own last post.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the night is one REALLY REALLY dumb FUCK.

Mantra 1a. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

AND AGAIN you stupid FUCK show us where I have EVER DENIED making any of my posts, still waiting , you have said that BULL SHIT well over a hindered times and has STILL NOT been able to show us even ONE post where I did.
YOU are a complete ASSHOLE MORON.
GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS, TBALL!

 

[Tbird19482]

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS, TBALL!

Still CAN NOT show us were I ever did as we all can see.
Go FUCK yourself ASSHOLE.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If you can't even admit to something so clearly axiomatic, I won't waste time on the other disagreements

which of these things are "untrue" exactly?

bigger districts, pricier campaigns, less local voice, and permanent redistricting wars.

In many House races the majority of the money comes from outside the district. Then there are special interests like unions, business, and political advocacy groups.

Outside money, inside influence: How national donors shaped the 2024 congressional elections

The nationalization of campaign contributions, once a concern among elections experts, is now a defining feature of congressional campaigns.

www.opensecrets.org

The Donor Went Down to Georgia: Out-of-District Donations and Rivalrous Representation - Political Behavior

Most of the money spent in U.S. congressional campaigns comes from donors residing outside the race’s electoral district. Scholars argue that legislators accepting out-of-district donations become “surrogate representatives” for outside donors. Yet researchers have neglected a critical question...

link.springer.com

Even 20 + years ago only about a third of money was local. Now it's getting close to 10%.

That's House races. The Senate is a bit better at about half 20 + years ago and now down to about 30%.

What's driving that is the electronics revolution (well, the internet and interconnectivity specifically). Money can flow around the world today in minutes. That means outsiders can easily donate to campaigns in key races and states in the virtual blink of an eye. You couldn't do that 20+ years ago nearly as easily.

 

[Grim Reaper]

Inversion fallacy.

Inversion fallacy.

Inversion fallacy. Of course. You’re basically a pull‑string doll at this point, yank the cord and out pops the same line, no thought required.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

States are the representation of the republican ideal.

Voters are that of the democratic ideal.

The idea is how to make them work together, and it seems we are not doing very well.

Put another way, it's representative government versus the mob--usually an angry mob.

 

[zymurgy]

In many House races the majority of the money comes from outside the district.

so if we went from 435 to 3,000 districts - you believe each election would cost the same as it does now?


The value of being 1 of 435 isn't more than the value of being 1 of 3,000? The incentive doesn't change?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Not majority vote, a supermajority vote requirement. That and the 17th amendment ruined the Senate. Requiring supermajority vote in the Senate is unconstitutional except for very specific cases, laid out in that same constitution.

I think I prefer that to a Senate that simply is another version of the House and just rubber stamps everything sent up to it by some narrow majority going either way.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

so if we went from 435 to 3,000 - you believe each election would cost the same?

It's likely. The donation limits per candidate would remain the same, and most of the money comes from big sources with political aspirations, so it's entirely possible the money would grow with the number of candidates.

The value of being 1 of 435 isn't more than the value of being 1 of 3,000? The incentive doesn't change?

The incentive with 435 or 3,000 is getting a majority in place that favors your stuff.

 

[zymurgy]

It's likely.

it is unlikely

Being one of 3,000 is not the same value as 1 of 435

axiomatic

 

[Tbird19482]

Inversion fallacy. Of course. You’re basically a pull‑string doll at this point, yank the cord and out pops the same line, no thought required.

To be able to have a thought / think you need to have a brain and INTO doesn't have one, if he does he only has an IQ of a MORON IF it is even that high.

 

[Hume]

I don't see how the "Compact" can override an essentially unamendable Constitution article.
We're nowhere near a national popular vote for president. We're not even close to reasonable districting for congressional elections.

see

Solely by agreement of the states. Nothing concerning the Constitution.

 

[Hume]

That is an effect not the purpose. The EC was designed to mollify smaller states in order to secure their necessary votes to enact and ratify The Constitution.

A common belief not born out by the facts.