11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[Pogo]

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

Simply changing to a popular vote wouldn't do squat. All it would do is remove some of the safeguards protecting lower population states. If we want to improve our elections we have to replace plurality, winner-take-all elections. Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff- FairVote

Of course it would. I just laid out exactly why it would, points you made no effort here to contest, instead detouring off to this mythology about "low population states", which has zero to do with anything related to 3P.

"Low population states" in the current paradigm are not "protected" but rather "inflated". See the various maps already posted demonstrating how it takes three and a half voters in New York to equal the power of one voter in Wyoming.

 

[xyz]

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

Simply changing to a popular vote wouldn't do squat. All it would do is remove some of the safeguards protecting lower population states. If we want to improve our elections we have to replace plurality, winner-take-all elections. Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff- FairVote

I don't see how it protects the people in those states, because if one candidate wins by a very small number of votes, the votes for the other candidate are nulled.

 

[Pogo]

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

Simply changing to a popular vote wouldn't do squat. All it would do is remove some of the safeguards protecting lower population states. If we want to improve our elections we have to replace plurality, winner-take-all elections. Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff- FairVote

I don't see how it protects the people in those states, because if one candidate wins by a very small number of votes, the votes for the other candidate are nulled.

It's a myth they like to keep parroting. As soon as we ask them to explain it --- they can't.

 

[Montrovant]

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

Simply changing to a popular vote wouldn't do squat. All it would do is remove some of the safeguards protecting lower population states. If we want to improve our elections we have to replace plurality, winner-take-all elections. Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff- FairVote

I think changing to the popular vote would certainly have at least some affect on presidential elections. However, I agree that getting rid of the WTA format is the most important thing. I would embrace more states following the lead of Maine and Nebraska and splitting up their EC votes based on their state's election results.

 

[dblack]

I don't see how it protects the people in those states, because if one candidate wins by a very small number of votes, the votes for the other candidate are nulled.

Well, what you're talking about isn't really a problem with the electoral college, but with states assigning all their delegates to the popular vote winner of their state. They're not required to do that, and not all states do.

The uneven distribution of electors (the feature of EC that gives low-pop states more electors per vote than populous states) protects rural voters from being disregarded in a situation where most voters are from urban areas. It's like many of the check and balances of the Constitution designed to protect minorities from unlimited democracy. And with Trump's election, it functioned exactly as it was designed. Democrats convinced themselves they didn't need the support of rural voters and it bit them in the ass.

 

[Pogo]

I don't see how it protects the people in those states, because if one candidate wins by a very small number of votes, the votes for the other candidate are nulled.

Well, what you're talking about isn't really a problem with the electoral college, but with states assigning all their delegates to the popular vote winner of their state. They're not required to do that, and not all states do.

The uneven distribution of electors (the feature of EC that gives low-pop states more electors per vote than populous states) protects rural voters from being disregarded in a situation where most voters are from urban areas. It's like many of the check and balances of the Constitution designed to protect minorities from unlimited democracy. And with Trump's election, it functioned exactly as it was designed. Democrats convinced themselves they didn't need the support of rural voters and it bit them in the ass.

That's not its function at all. It was set up to protect Slavery. We've already spelled that out.

Its other main function was to even the playing field among states that had widely varying definitions of who could vote. THAT is where it served a "population balance", considering the population of New Jersey voters (directly) would be disproportionate to the population of South Carolina voters -- even without the slavery issue, due to for instance NJ allowing women to vote while SC not only didn't allow women but required property ownership. Those were the disparities the EC was supposed to smooth out.

The thing is, both Slavery and widely-varying state definitions of who can vote, with the exception of ex-felons, have since been eliminated, and with them the basis for the Electoral College.

If "protecting minorities from unlimited democracy" were a real thing, let alone utterable with a straight face, we'd see such an indirect proxy system where the popular vote is reduced to a suggestion used widely for that purpose. Yet the only country in the world that elects a head of state that way is Pakistan. Nobody else pretends "aiee! we need to 'protect' the rural areas from da eebil cities". That's absurd. You don't "protect" somebody's vote by making it worth triple somebody else's vote.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Democrats lose one election because of the Electoral College, so like the mind-numbed robots they are, they wage war against the Electoral College system. It never occurs to them that it could easily have gone the other way.

States can decide how they allocate their votes

Than you wouldn't mind if Ohio and Florida pass the legislation to give all of their electoral votes to whomever California doesn’t.

Senseless, but not unconstitutional.

 

[BlindBoo]

Great news. Thanks Connecticut.

But in reality we need an amendment to not only abolish the EC Constitutiionally, but also to reform elections in general and abolish the corrupt monopoly the two parties have on our political system.

Q: How Can the Constitution Be Changed?
A: Under Article Five, the Constitution can be amended in two ways: through a two-thirds majority vote in Congress or by a two-thirds vote of a national convention at the request of at least two-thirds of the states. To become operative, three-quarters of the states, or state ratifying conventions, must ratify.

Go for it.

In today's climate the likelihood of success is slim to none. Those who benefit from this system have the power to tell most of the people what to think.

This initiative could work to tie the EC vote to the Popular one, but legislatures can change and drop out. It still wouldn't fix the corruption.

 

[easyt65]

If Hillary and her campaign team would not have been so stupid, would not have run the worst - and most illegal - campaign in US history....had Hillary WON the election as predicted she would (in a 'landslide' victory), not one mention of the US Electoral Process would have been made.

Hillary's 'Electoral College Loss' is just yet another excuse for why Hilary lost the 2016 Presidential and secured her spot in the US history books as the 1st '1st Lady', US Senator, Secretary of State, and 2-TIME PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RACE / CAMPAIGN LOSER!

 

[Pogo]

If Hillary and her campaign team would not have been so stupid, would not have run the worst - and most illegal - campaign in US history....

Really?

What'd she do, have a bouncy-bouncy with Stormy Daniels and then pay her off with a way-over-the-campaign-limits bribe to keep quiet about it just before the election?

Hahaha, I know, that's crazy. What kind of moron would even think of that.

had Hillary WON the election as predicted she would (in a 'landslide' victory), not one mention of the US Electoral Process would have been made.

Hate to tell ya something you could have found out fifteen times over just by reading the thread Princess, but (a) this particular initiative was already a decade old before that election happened, and (b) discussion of the glaring problems the EC foists on the voting public have been in conversation for generations, especially around election times when its flaws really stand out.

Here for example:

Scrape yer shoes, dude.

 

[easyt65]

I never thought I would see a day in my lifetime when 'The Great Democratic Party Presidential Election Loss Butt-Hurt of 2000' would be replaced by an even greater reality-denying, excuse-making, election-results-acceptance-rejecting, Putin-PsyOp-Enabling 'Battle Cry' for the 'Ages'!

In 2000, the Democrats lost the Presidential election in an extremely close election... LOSER Al Gore screamed that the election in Florida needed to be recast to preserve the integrity and critical existence of EVERY vote cast by American citizens. when it was explained to him that all of the military absentees votes cast and those of Americans overseas could not be recast in a timely manner, Mr. 'Every Vote Must Count' demanded that ALL of the Absentee Ballots - to include all military absentee ballots - simply be discarded then and the election be decided by in-state voters who should vote again.



Despite a court order instructing all re-counts to stop, Democrats continued to conduct hand re-counts all over the state. What the Liberals don't like to bring up is that the final tally showed, as originally, Bush won the election.

The loss of a FELON - who was under multiple FBI investigations for crimes she was proven to have committed but from which she was protected from indictment, a candidate who should have been forced out of the race - as any GOP candidate would have been had they been in the same situation Hillary was in, a candidate who could not even win her party's nomination without cheating & rigging primaries, and a candidate who committed by collaborating with foreign spies and Russians AND a rogue criminal FBI and co-conspirators to attempt to overthrow the GOP candidate and eventual elected President, a 2-time LOSER - has driven Liberals literally insane....to the point where they can not accept the election results...to the point evidence shows they were conned into organizing and marching for the Russians as a result of a PsyOp program designed to play on their emotions / hate, and evidence shows Liberal groups (like The Black Fist, BLM, and Antifa) accepted money from the Russians to spread racial division and violence across the US....and the loss of this professional, career/life-long self-serving criminal has led Democrats to committing treason outright in an attempt to 'UN-ELECT' President Trump, that seeks them to attempt to 'un-do' an election by Un-Constitutionally give a politically partisan-motivated lone prosecutor with an agenda to treasonously' take-down the democratically elected President.

Much like how the Obama administration's criminal FBI leadership's illegal / treasonous use of false documents provided by a political party nominee, foreign spies, and Russians to acquire FISA warrants to spy on the GOP candidate during the election blows Watergate out of the water as the worst political crime / scandal, The Obama administration orchestrated 'Secret Society's attempt to take down President Trump blows Gore's Loss as the biggest Liberal election loss butt-hurt tantrum!

 

[easyt65]

If Hillary and her campaign team would not have been so stupid, would not have run the worst - and most illegal - campaign in US history....

Really?

What'd she do, have a bouncy-bouncy with Stormy Daniels and then pay her off with a way-over-the-campaign-limits bribe to keep quiet about it just before the election?

Hahaha, I know, that's crazy. What kind of moron would even think of that.

had Hillary WON the election as predicted she would (in a 'landslide' victory), not one mention of the US Electoral Process would have been made.

Hate to tell ya something you could have found out fifteen times over just by reading the thread Princess, but (a) this particular initiative was already a decade old before that election happened, and (b) discussion of the glaring problems the EC foists on the voting public have been in conversation for generations, especially around election times when its flaws really stand out.

Here for example:

Scrape yer shoes, dude.

It's funny...the guy you clowns mock constantly and seek to Impeach based simply on your hatred of him and fact that he beat Hillary is the man you are using to defend your moronic idea (based on a lack of understanding of the Electoral college or the fact that Hillary lost 'because of it'...according to snowflakes_.

Bwuhahahahaha!

 

[easyt65]

If Hillary and her campaign team would not have been so stupid, would not have run the worst - and most illegal - campaign in US history....

Really?

What'd she do, have a bouncy-bouncy with Stormy Daniels and then pay her off with a way-over-the-campaign-limits bribe to keep quiet about it just before the election?

Hahaha, I know, that's crazy. What kind of moron would even think of that.

had Hillary WON the election as predicted she would (in a 'landslide' victory), not one mention of the US Electoral Process would have been made.

Hate to tell ya something you could have found out fifteen times over just by reading the thread Princess, but (a) this particular initiative was already a decade old before that election happened, and (b) discussion of the glaring problems the EC foists on the voting public have been in conversation for generations, especially around election times when its flaws really stand out.

Here for example:

Scrape yer shoes, dude.

The fact that in a discussion about the Electoral College you felt the 'intellectual' need to bring up Daniels is friggin' hilarious...and only proves my comment about how you snowflakes are driven by pure, un-adultered irrational HATRED of the man.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, basically they want to give up their electoral vote and just want to have their electoral votes go to whoever wins the NATIONAL popular vote. Basically, their state has no say in the outcome of presidential elections anymore. Their citizens votes don't matter if the majority in THEIR state voted for the other candidate.

Well no, not really. The people have a say in the election just as everyone else does in the nation - and under this system they would have the exact same weight as everyone else as well.

The state is simply stating that they are going to stand behind the winner of the vote rather than stand behind the winner based on EV results.

It is a good way to negate those states that have transitioned to WTA in order to be relevant.

 

[FA_Q2]

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

No, it would not. There is absolutely no difference in the outcome with a PV over the EC as it stands now. 3P votes will make exactly the same 'splash.'

People do not vote against one candidate or for the other because the state may take it all - they vote against the candidate because they see voting for a 3P as wasting a vote that is necessary to stop their feared candidate.

The one thing that a PV like this addresses are all those disenfranchised voters in 'pre determined' states that never vote at all because their state will go to the other guy anyway.

What is FAR more likely is that a system like this actually makes things worse for 3P candidates - many of those disenfranchised voters actually vote for a 3P BECAUSE their votes are going to the one candidate they do not want to win anyway so they are free to put in a protest vote for their shitty options - a situation that is erased by PV.

There is only one way that I see of improving the situation that we find ourselves in with the duopoly without going to a parliamentary system and that is what dblack already mentioned. The only real way to give 3P a chance is to utterly remove the fear that one is 'wasting' their vote with a candidate that is almost certainly not going to win. IRV accomplishes this beautifully.

 

[FA_Q2]

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

Simply changing to a popular vote wouldn't do squat. All it would do is remove some of the safeguards protecting lower population states. If we want to improve our elections we have to replace plurality, winner-take-all elections. Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff- FairVote

I don't see how it protects the people in those states, because if one candidate wins by a very small number of votes, the votes for the other candidate are nulled.

It protects them because their votes are at least relevant. If 90 people live in the village center and 10 people live on the outskirts, giving those 10 more weight makes their voice relevant in a situation where they could otherwise be utterly ignored. This is just the facts of math.

The question really is not if rural areas are protected through the EC - the real question in my mind is if that is something that should be the case or not. There is a good argument to be had that it should but I think that it falls short as the local governments are where their voices are (and should) be heard. On a national scale, PV makes more sense.

Then again, I believe that the national scale should be doing a shit ton less and the local governments should be doing a lot more.

 

[Pogo]

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

No, it would not. There is absolutely no difference in the outcome with a PV over the EC as it stands now. 3P votes will make exactly the same 'splash.'

People do not vote against one candidate or for the other because the state may take it all - they vote against the candidate because they see voting for a 3P as wasting a vote that is necessary to stop their feared candidate.

The one thing that a PV like this addresses are all those disenfranchised voters in 'pre determined' states that never vote at all because their state will go to the other guy anyway.

What is FAR more likely is that a system like this actually makes things worse for 3P candidates - many of those disenfranchised voters actually vote for a 3P BECAUSE their votes are going to the one candidate they do not want to win anyway so they are free to put in a protest vote for their shitty options - a situation that is erased by PV.

There is only one way that I see of improving the situation that we find ourselves in with the duopoly without going to a parliamentary system and that is what dblack already mentioned. The only real way to give 3P a chance is to utterly remove the fear that one is 'wasting' their vote with a candidate that is almost certainly not going to win. IRV accomplishes this beautifully.

I don't get it. You started out here taking issue with the idea that a PV would help 3P candies, and then proceed to make the same arguments I did supporting that it indeed would do that.

A protest vote for a 3P in a locked state is pissing into the wind. It's supremely unsatisfying. Literally nobody notices, and it dawns on you that the entire time you went to the polls you could have been doing something more productive like clipping your toenails.

At present under WTA-EC you're in one of three situations -- a state that's going to cast its entire lot with the Democrat, a state that's going to cast its EVs for the Republican, or a state that could swing to either but absolutely not anybody else, therefore if you have a negative preference you're forced to vote for the R to prevent the D (or vice versa). All Three of those scenaria prevent any 3P from having any chance at all of being elected as the People's Choice -- even if they are the people's choice.

When was the last time --- in fact I believe the only time since the Duopoly established itself --- that any 3P candy pulled enough EVs to eclipse either Duopoly candidate? 1912. And that was only because the 3P candy Teddy Roosevelt was a well-known former POTUS who had dominated the primaries before being denied nomination.

The Ross Perots, the John Andersons, the Ralph Naders, even the George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds, could only hope to suck enough votes from one side of Duopoly or the other, arguably from both, which in the end produces exactly the same non-result as does my 3P vote in a locked state --- less productive than clipping one's toenails.

All of which is closely related to my other point of the same WTA-EC system heavily depressing voter turnout because what's the point of voting when chances are the vote will be ignored. One might get lucky and see one's Duopoly choice voted in but one will never get the opportunity to overthrow the Duopoly. The system is rigged.

 

[Pogo]

If Hillary and her campaign team would not have been so stupid, would not have run the worst - and most illegal - campaign in US history....

Really?

What'd she do, have a bouncy-bouncy with Stormy Daniels and then pay her off with a way-over-the-campaign-limits bribe to keep quiet about it just before the election?

Hahaha, I know, that's crazy. What kind of moron would even think of that.

had Hillary WON the election as predicted she would (in a 'landslide' victory), not one mention of the US Electoral Process would have been made.

Hate to tell ya something you could have found out fifteen times over just by reading the thread Princess, but (a) this particular initiative was already a decade old before that election happened, and (b) discussion of the glaring problems the EC foists on the voting public have been in conversation for generations, especially around election times when its flaws really stand out.

Here for example:

Scrape yer shoes, dude.

It's funny...the guy you clowns mock constantly and seek to Impeach based simply on your hatred of him and fact that he beat Hillary is the man you are using to defend your moronic idea (based on a lack of understanding of the Electoral college or the fact that Hillary lost 'because of it'...according to snowflakes_.

Bwuhahahahaha!

Apparently you're too dim to get this but you claimed this initiative emanated out of 2016. I just showed you how it goes back several years. And here you are trying to re-make the same point I just disproved.

That takes a "special"(bus) talent.

You also don't seem to get that this plan can't help a political party anyway. I understand the OP titled itself on that premise but that idea's been hacked into little pieces and left for dead.

 

[easyt65]

If Hillary and her campaign team would not have been so stupid, would not have run the worst - and most illegal - campaign in US history....

Really?

What'd she do, have a bouncy-bouncy with Stormy Daniels and then pay her off with a way-over-the-campaign-limits bribe to keep quiet about it just before the election?

Hahaha, I know, that's crazy. What kind of moron would even think of that.

had Hillary WON the election as predicted she would (in a 'landslide' victory), not one mention of the US Electoral Process would have been made.

Hate to tell ya something you could have found out fifteen times over just by reading the thread Princess, but (a) this particular initiative was already a decade old before that election happened, and (b) discussion of the glaring problems the EC foists on the voting public have been in conversation for generations, especially around election times when its flaws really stand out.

Here for example:

Scrape yer shoes, dude.

It's funny...the guy you clowns mock constantly and seek to Impeach based simply on your hatred of him and fact that he beat Hillary is the man you are using to defend your moronic idea (based on a lack of understanding of the Electoral college or the fact that Hillary lost 'because of it'...according to snowflakes_.

Bwuhahahahaha!

Apparently you're too dim to get this but you claimed this initiative emanated out o f2016. I just showed you how it goes back several years. And here you are trying to re-make the same point I just disproved.

That takes a "special"(bus) talent.

I was mocking you snowflakes for claiming Trump can't be believed yet try to use him to make a point..... lol

 

[Pogo]

I never thought I would see a day in my lifetime when 'The Great Democratic Party Presidential Election Loss Butt-Hurt of 2000' would be replaced by an even greater reality-denying, excuse-making, election-results-acceptance-rejecting, Putin-PsyOp-Enabling 'Battle Cry' for the 'Ages'!

In 2000, the Democrats lost the Presidential election in an extremely close election... LOSER Al Gore screamed that the election in Florida needed to be recast to preserve the integrity and critical existence of EVERY vote cast by American citizens. when it was explained to him that all of the military absentees votes cast and those of Americans overseas could not be recast in a timely manner, Mr. 'Every Vote Must Count' demanded that ALL of the Absentee Ballots - to include all military absentee ballots - simply be discarded then and the election be decided by in-state voters who should vote again.

Ummm yeah that too didn't happen.

And it's not the topic here anyway. This one's about how the Electrical College short-circuits the ability to vote and grounds the intent of the electricate into one of two poles -- and about wiring in a short-circuiting of that short-circuit to spark a desired result. You might say, inducing a resistance.