Poll: Which way did you vote?

[pismoe]

Go Trump , ------------------- Also , i think that i heard bits and pieces of the TRUMP lambasting the 'u.n.' but i was driving in bad weather so didn't really pay attention . Anyway , if the TRUMP was lambasting the 'u.n.' then thats another YUGE plus for the Trump Pogo !! So yeah , Go Trump 100 percent Pogo !!

 

[Crixus]

Since these were popularly cited as "the two most despised candidates ever", whether that's true or not, did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits, or a negative vote to try to prevent the other choice from winning?

Please add whether you were in a "battleground" state or a "locked" state.
Votes are anonymous so don't be shy.

I hated Trump, and i voted NOT HILLARY then went home, took a three hour shower and cried myself to sleep after drinking a whole bottle of rumplmins. Now I am glad I voted for Trump. Not because I all of a sudden believe his bull shit, but because it cut Hillary so deeply, and has Bammer scrambling around trying to save his "first half black president" legacy. That and the democrat party makes them selves matter less every time they talk.

 

[pismoe]

i could NEVER accept 'ilary' if she had been elected . If she had been elected i'd be pizzing and moaning all the time Pogo !!

 

[Pogo]

So where's the category for "I thought Trump would make a good president AND wanted to block Clinton"?

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

 

[Pogo]

Since these were popularly cited as "the two most despised candidates ever", whether that's true or not, did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits, or a negative vote to try to prevent the other choice from winning?

Please add whether you were in a "battleground" state or a "locked" state.
Votes are anonymous so don't be shy.

I hated Trump, and i voted NOT HILLARY then went home, took a three hour shower and cried myself to sleep after drinking a whole bottle of rumplmins. Now I am glad I voted for Trump. Not because I all of a sudden believe his bull shit, but because it cut Hillary so deeply, and has Bammer scrambling around trying to save his "first half black president" legacy. That and the democrat party makes them selves matter less every time they talk.

I see. So for you an election is all about Entertainment.

As they say, call your doctor if an election lasts more than four hours.

 

[Pogo]

i could NEVER accept 'ilary' if she had been elected . If she had been elected i'd be pizzing and moaning all the time Pogo !!

That's what most of us call "Tuesday".

 

[Divine Wind]

Since these were popularly cited as "the two most despised candidates ever", whether that's true or not, did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits, or a negative vote to try to prevent the other choice from winning?

Please add whether you were in a "battleground" state or a "locked" state.
Votes are anonymous so don't be shy.

None of the above. I voted Libertarian because I couldn't hold my nose long enough for either Clinton nor Trump, although if I had to pick between just those two (i.e. couldn't abstain or vote 3rd party), it would have been Trump for him to stop "more of the same" bullshit.

Texas, red state. 52.2% Trump 43.2% Clinton

 

[Vigilante]

What an ass you are...Most voted for a candidate, their ideas, and stated policies....The bitch had only Hussein's to run on!

That's uh, what the poll attempts to establish, isn't it Sprinkles. Try to keep up.

You see, not everybody oozes around here with the assumption that their own little Bubblesphere is the sum total of all knowledge.

Then put that choice down in your poll. OCDGirl!....Too hard for you low intellect to comprehen.

 

[Divine Wind]

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Fine, just realize GIGO; if you try to use the poll results to prove something, all you are doing is piling bullshit on bullshit.

 

[Pogo]

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Fine, just realize GIGO; if you try to use the poll results to prove something, all you are doing is piling bullshit on bullshit.

I am making a point with this poll but ------------ I have not yet articulated what it is.

 

[9thIDdoc]

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Fine, just realize GIGO; if you try to use the poll results to prove something, all you are doing is piling bullshit on bullshit.

I am making a point with this poll but ------------ I have not yet articulated what it is.

Or maybe you're missing a point.

 

[Divine Wind]

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Fine, just realize GIGO; if you try to use the poll results to prove something, all you are doing is piling bullshit on bullshit.

I am making a point with this poll but ------------ I have not yet articulated what it is.

Okey dokey! Just for fun, I'll repost the data I posted on the other thread:

Voter dissatisfaction reached a low point in this election.
Already-low voter satisfaction with choice of candidates falls even further

Negative views of opposing candidate were 28%
Aversion to Other Candidate Key Factor in 2016 Vote Choice
As noted, 28% of both Clinton and Trump voters say they are backing that person because of something they don't like about the other candidate. Among the specific responses that make up this category, Trump voters are most likely to cite their lack of trust in Clinton. This is followed by their dislike of her, their determination to vote against her and their decision to vote for Trump as the "lesser of two evils."

Clinton voters are a bit more likely to give the "lesser of two evils" response, followed by saying that they dislike Trump and that he doesn't have the temperament to be president.

But it's more than dislike, it's also simply being against the opposing side, another factor that increased this election:
1. Voters’ general election preferences

 

[Pogo]

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Fine, just realize GIGO; if you try to use the poll results to prove something, all you are doing is piling bullshit on bullshit.

I am making a point with this poll but ------------ I have not yet articulated what it is.

Or maybe you're missing a point.

Oh no not at all. My point is making itself in spades.

I'm gonna grab something to eat and then flesh it out.

 

[Pogo]

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Fine, just realize GIGO; if you try to use the poll results to prove something, all you are doing is piling bullshit on bullshit.

I am making a point with this poll but ------------ I have not yet articulated what it is.

OK, now that the poll has pushed off the "Active Topics" list and had its peak, here's what's really going on.

This poll wasn't intended to show anything about either major candidate or political party. Obviously both are despised, but we already knew that.

I'm seeing three votes to "block" Hillary and three more to "block" Trump. Plus two more from posts 22 and 27 assuming they did not participate in the count as at least one indicates.

That's six, probably seven, maybe eight votes in the negative and ZERO in the positive. Everybody who chimed in so far voted to *stop* another candidate.

And the only reason they would vote that way is the actual target of this polll ---- the Electoral College. Only the inane "winner take all" structure of the EC as it currently operates makes it in any way necessary to cast a "block" vote. And that only applies to states that were "competitive", i.e. unclear going into Election Day which way would prevail.

That's only ten states out of 57 (defined as having been decided by 3% or less) (and yes I included Nevada). As noted earlier it would have been impossible to restrict to only respondents from competitive states. Most people live in locked states whose EV was already determined before Election Day and therefore had no reason to cast a "block" vote. And yet every single respondent here so far voted in the negative, to stop B rather than to elect A.

Every one of those respondents was thus trapped by the Electoral College effect. That's what it does --- it negates millions of votes, it makes us dependent on polls to find out if our vote in our state is going to even matter or not; it keeps general turnout low (ours is typically around 60% which on the world stage is a joke), and it perpetuates the Duopoly by requiring millions of voters to, whether effectively or not, try to "block" the lesser of two evils. And as long as we keep this broken system ----- we'll get those same results. And 'we'll keep the same stale way-overstayed-its-welcome Duopoly, because those "block" votes are ones that are unable to consider a third party.

So to the extent we can conclude anything we may conclude that albeit a small sample, USMB posters overwhelmingly find the EC effect constrainiing. It's unanimous.

And I agree with that. I've been saying this for literally years.

 

[Divine Wind]

....That's six, probably seven, maybe eight votes in the negative and ZERO in the positive. Everybody who chimed in so far voted to *stop* another candidate.

And the only reason they would vote that way is the actual target of this polll ---- the Electoral College. Only the inane "winner take all" structure of the EC as it currently operates makes it in any way necessary to cast a "block" vote. And that only applies to states that were "competitive", i.e. unclear going into Election Day which way would prevail.....

Sorry, but disagreed with your leap in logic from voting to "stop another candidate" to the EC. Do you think people would have voted differently if we didn't have an EC? Wouldn't those same voters still voted against the opponent?

Again, I caution you to not assume anything from the thread poll because it's not an accurate indicator of how people voted, who they voted for and their reasons for voting as they did.

 

[Pogo]

....That's six, probably seven, maybe eight votes in the negative and ZERO in the positive. Everybody who chimed in so far voted to *stop* another candidate.

And the only reason they would vote that way is the actual target of this polll ---- the Electoral College. Only the inane "winner take all" structure of the EC as it currently operates makes it in any way necessary to cast a "block" vote. And that only applies to states that were "competitive", i.e. unclear going into Election Day which way would prevail.....

Sorry, but disagreed with your leap in logic from voting to "stop another candidate" to the EC. Do you think people would have voted differently if we didn't have an EC? Wouldn't those same voters still voted against the opponent?

Again, I caution you to not assume anything from the thread poll because it's not an accurate indicator of how people voted, who they voted for and their reasons for voting as they did.

Absolutely people would have voted differently. There's no question about that. If you don't need to "block" somebody to save your state's all-in Electoral vote, then your candidate roster is wide open and you can actually pick somebody you like, rather than one who has the best chance to block the one you don't like.

EVERYBODY who's in a so-called "competitive" state ----- only so classified because of the arcane and inane EC "Winner take all" crapola ----- had their choices limited down to TWO. We couldn't possibly vote in favor of some candidate we really believed in, because that would cancel our ability to block the other most-nefarious one, which is the only power we had at all.

And on the other side nobody who lives in a locked-red or locked-blue state had any reason to get out of bed on Election Day since whether they voted with their state, against their state, or didn't vote at all, their state was already pre-decided as "red" or "blue" --- which is why our turnout is so low. Millions are effectively disenfranchised. The only advantage for a voter in a locked state is they can cast a drop-in-the-bucket third party vote. But most don't.

And by the way two more respondents have cited their vote as a block. Even with most states locked-red or locked-blue. It's still unanimous --- voters are voting to block, rather than to elect --- as the charts you put up also exhibited.

And the Electoral College is to blame for that.

 

[Crixus]

So where's the category for "I thought Trump would make a good president AND wanted to block Clinton"?

You gotta choose which of those was the more important.

Keeping Hillary out. No brainer.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Far far too many unwarranted assumptions on your part. Your "results" are meaningless.

 

[Pogo]

Far far too many unwarranted assumptions on your part. Your "results" are meaningless.

Funny then that you have no counterargumet or counterexplanation.

With the confirmation in post 37 and confidence to count that as another block, I'm seeing eleven voters who exercised their option to block the worser of two evils, and again, ZERO who voted for the better of two choices..

That's eleven out of eleven* pushed into that corner by the Electoral College. If the EC didn't declare "everybody in our state votes for Hillary" --- there would be no reason to cast a Rump vote to make that not-happen. And vice versa. QED.

*EDIT -- another vote is in. Make it twelve.

 

[Divine Wind]

Absolutely people would have voted differently. There's no question about that. If you don't need to "block" somebody to save your state's all-in Electoral vote, then your candidate roster is wide open and you can actually pick somebody you like, rather than one who has the best chance to block the one you don't like.

EVERYBODY who's in a so-called "competitive" state ----- only so classified because of the arcane and inane EC "Winner take all" crapola ----- had their choices limited down to TWO. We couldn't possibly vote in favor of some candidate we really believed in, because that would cancel our ability to block the other most-nefarious one, which is the only power we had at all.

And on the other side nobody who lives in a locked-red or locked-blue state had any reason to get out of bed on Election Day since whether they voted with their state, against their state, or didn't vote at all, their state was already pre-decided as "red" or "blue" --- which is why our turnout is so low. Millions are effectively disenfranchised. The only advantage for a voter in a locked state is they can cast a drop-in-the-bucket third party vote. But most don't.

And by the way two more respondents have cited their vote as a block. Even with most states locked-red or locked-blue. It's still unanimous --- voters are voting to block, rather than to elect --- as the charts you put up also exhibited.

And the Electoral College is to blame for that.

Disagreed. Interesting theory, but unproved. While I'd like to see election reform, #1 being "ranking candidates", when it's two very powerful political parties against much smaller parties, many people will pick who they 1) best like and 2) most likely to win. I fail to see how eliminating the EC will change this.

One way to alter the winner-take-all aspect without opening the Constitution is to push for all states to apportion their EC votes. Some do, some don't.

While I understand your effort to change our election system so your candidate can win "the popular vote", don't forget the Law of Unintended Consequences. Voter turnout is abysmally low for the world's greatest nation. If you change one variable, such as apportioned votes, you could easily affect voter turnout. This could easily work for or against your desire to see someone like Hillary elected for several reasons.

One major factor to consider is income; most Democrats are lower income. If all American voters were more incentivized to vote, the higher income (middle class and above) are more likely to vote simply because they have better means to access the polls whereas, if it's raining or cold, lower income voters are less likely to vote since such conditions aren't pleasant at the bus stop.


A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation

How Income Divides Democrats, Republicans, And Independents