Poll: Which way did you vote?

[Pogo]

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.

I've already articulated that. In a so-called "battleground" state, unless we happen to like both choices, which is an extremely rare breed this year, we have no option to vote FOR anybody ---- because there's the lingering chance that if we do NOT hold our nose and vote for Clintion, then Rump will win by our default, or vice versa.

Again --- if the EC, and more specifically the Winner-take-all manifestation of it, did not exist.............. then we would not have that limitation.

Hence you get so many voters exercising the negative, "block" vote, not because it's their choice but because "if I don't I'll get something even worse". That's coercion. And that's the effect. It reduces what should be an election to determine one's head of state into in effect a game of tic-tac-toe. "Paul Lynde to block".

One way to alter the `you could alter the system without opening the Constitution is to push for all states to apportion their EC votes. Some do, some don't.

ALL states vote unanimously except Maine and Nebraska which still vote unanimously by Congressional district, which is not much different. That's got as you note nothing to do with the Constitution but it is a mob mentality that got to this place. It was a snowball effect two centuries old where states said, "well shit if Connecticut is going to all-in their EV we'll have to do that too to protect our interests". And then we get the inevitable morass of all the antidemocratic effects of the system --- low turnout, millions of voters effectively disenfranchised, candidates ignoring entire regions, third parties completely shut out, and the entrenched Duopoly protected from any possibility of challenge at any time anywhere.

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.

Irrelevant. The results will be whatever the results will be. The process is what matters. And I've been on this campaign since long before there even was a Hillary.

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.

Whatever. That's why we have early voting. In fact given that we do have it I can't fathom why anyone would wait for Election Day.

---- which is another antique relic ----- being placed on a Tuesday in November so that the farming public could make their way to the polling place on horseback after the harvest is in. That needs to go too.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Irrelevant. The results will be whatever the results will be. The process is what matters. And I've been on this campaign since long before there even was a Hillary.

Interesting that you so quickly dismiss the Law of Unintended Consequences. I even gave an example of a possible consequence which you quickly pooh-poohed. Why?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-examples-of-the-law-of-unintended-consequences-in-action

30 Unintended Consequences Of Global Events That Shaped Where Humanity Is Today

Five examples of the Law of Unintended Consequences - AEI

 

[TNHarley]

For someone that rails against the duopoly, you sure put up a close minded poll..
I didn't vote for either. I wanted two different guys, one from each party. But partisans hate logic and reasoning, so they were out, quick.
I am SO FUCKING GLAD Hillary lost. Not happy about trump, but he us better than her.

 

[owebo]

You should have included an "I didn't like either and voted third party" option because that's my answer

I voted America.....

 

[Pogo]

For someone that rails against the duopoly, you sure put up a close minded poll..

As noted upthread, my intent was not to survey who voted for who. It was to establish what level of "negative" voting was going on, so as to point a finger at the Electoral College system for making it happen. IOW I really don't care how many are voting for this, that or the third candy --- I was establishing how many are voting AGAINST somebody. Which, thus far, is literally everybody. And that indicates a restriction in our system. And that restriction, yes, perpetuates the Duopoly by that action.

I didn't vote for either. I wanted two different guys, one from each party. But partisans hate logic and reasoning, so they were out, quick.
I am SO FUCKING GLAD Hillary lost. Not happy about trump, but he us better than her.

I wanted that too and I voted accordingly in the primary. But the Duopoly wasn't serving us, was it. The Duopoly serves only itself.

But you're in a locked-red state so you had no pressure to try to influence your state's EV. It was already settled. Here in North Carolina --- the state that created yours I hasten to remind you ---- we didn't have that luxury to vote for a third party. Because "Electoral College". And had you been in a state that was "in play", you would have had the same limitation and been forced to vote against somebody too.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Irrelevant. The results will be whatever the results will be. The process is what matters. And I've been on this campaign since long before there even was a Hillary.

Interesting that you so quickly dismiss the Law of Unintended Consequences. I even gave an example of a possible consequence which you quickly pooh-poohed. Why?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-examples-of-the-law-of-unintended-consequences-in-action

30 Unintended Consequences Of Global Events That Shaped Where Humanity Is Today

Five examples of the Law of Unintended Consequences - AEI

Quora is out. Can't read it. That site pops up all these annoying boxes that block the content and want money or whatever it wants.

You brought up Hillary not being elected or the nature of the electorate changing as unintended consequences. As I said, those consequences are irrelevant; the chips will fall where they may. It's the process I'm interested in, not massaging past results or gerrymandering future ones.

 

[Divine Wind]

Quora is out. Can't read it. That site pops up all these annoying boxes that block the content and want money or whatever it wants.

You brought up Hillary not being elected or the nature of the electorate changing as unintended consequences. As I said, those consequences are irrelevant; the chips will fall where they may. It's the process I'm interested in, not massaging past results or gerrymandering future ones.

Interesting that you took the time to complain about Quora yet have zero comments about the other two links.

The examples in those links show that unintended consequences are, indeed, relevant and should be considered in all governmental actions. It's your method of "no need to look before we leap" style of government which has caused our nation so many problems. Many of them listed as examples in the links you avoided reading.

You want a popular vote. Fine, all it takes is for you to amend the Constitution: Constitutional Amendment Process

OTOH, just bitching about it for four years is a lot easier. ¡Buena suerte!!

 

[blastoff]

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.

"...did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits..." Yeah, that's exactly why I voted for the next president of the United States. So since you asked, why no such option in your idiotic poll?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You forgot the I didn't vote for either of those idiots option

 

[eflatminor]

I'm in a blue state and voted libertarian. Were I in a battleground state, I would have voted Trump. She's that bad.

 

[mrbojanglezs]

Terrible poll doesn't have all options

 

[Rustic]

The Hildabeast was just a loophole for the slick Willy getting at more interns…

 

[Tehon]

I didn't vote against a candidate. I voted for the candidate I wanted, though I can't participate in the poll.

 

[Pogo]

Quora is out. Can't read it. That site pops up all these annoying boxes that block the content and want money or whatever it wants.

You brought up Hillary not being elected or the nature of the electorate changing as unintended consequences. As I said, those consequences are irrelevant; the chips will fall where they may. It's the process I'm interested in, not massaging past results or gerrymandering future ones.

Interesting that you took the time to complain about Quora yet have zero comments about the other two links.

The examples in those links show that unintended consequences are, indeed, relevant and should be considered in all governmental actions. It's your method of "no need to look before we leap" style of government which has caused our nation so many problems. Many of them listed as examples in the links you avoided reading.

You want a popular vote. Fine, all it takes is for you to amend the Constitution: Constitutional Amendment Process

OTOH, just bitching about it for four years is a lot easier. ¡Buena suerte!!

I don't need links to explain what "unintended consequences" is. Your point was the concept of "unintended consequences". I've told you three times that those do not exist. The "consequences" as in how the end result evolves, are entirely irrelevant. Whatever will be, will be. Again this point is entirely about the process. I don't know how I can use any smaller words than that.

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't need links to explain what "unintended consequences" is. Your point was the concept of "unintended consequences". I've told you three times that those do not exist. The "consequences" as in how the end result evolves, are entirely irrelevant. Whatever will be, will be. Again this point is entirely about the process. I don't know how I can use any smaller words than that.

LOL. Okay. Believe as you wish, sir.

 

[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.

"...did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits..." Yeah, that's exactly why I voted for the next president of the United States. So since you asked, why no such option in your idiotic poll?

I did --- two of them, one for each main candy.

It's limited to those two because the idea of voting in the negative for the purpose of blocking one of them, which is the aim of this poll, is only in play between those two. Unless you can show me a state where somebody voted for Clinton in order to stop Gary Johnson, or voted for Jill Stein to stop Rump. The goal of the poll is to establish how much negative-voting is going on.

And it seems to have done that, even more than I expected.

And again ---- that points the finger at the Electoral College system as it's practiced. So maybe it wasn't so "idiotic".

You forgot the I didn't vote for either of those idiots option

Didn't "forget" --- I deliberately left that out for the reason laid out above. As I said I would have restricted the poll to voters in so-called "battleground states" if I could, those being the voters who were forced into a position where negative voting would have been necessary.

We've all complained, with reason, about having to vote for "the lesser of two evils". Whelp -- this poll was intended to find out how deep that goes.

Terrible poll doesn't have all options

It's got all the options it needs for its purpose.
Again (sixth time?) the goal of the poll was indirect and intentionally not spelled out. That's how you get honest answers.

 

[Pogo]

I don't need links to explain what "unintended consequences" is. Your point was the concept of "unintended consequences". I've told you three times that those do not exist. The "consequences" as in how the end result evolves, are entirely irrelevant. Whatever will be, will be. Again this point is entirely about the process. I don't know how I can use any smaller words than that.

LOL. Okay. Believe as you wish, sir.

Are you actually purporting to dictate what my own thoughts are?

 

[Bush92]

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.

Should have added " I voted for Trump because he is one awesome motherfucker that will make America great again."

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't need links to explain what "unintended consequences" is. Your point was the concept of "unintended consequences". I've told you three times that those do not exist. The "consequences" as in how the end result evolves, are entirely irrelevant. Whatever will be, will be. Again this point is entirely about the process. I don't know how I can use any smaller words than that.

LOL. Okay. Believe as you wish, sir.

Are you actually purporting to dictate what my own thoughts are?

Nope, but keep posting. This is just starting to get interesting.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't vote against a candidate. I voted for the candidate I wanted, though I can't participate in the poll.

If it wasn't a third party, you have both options.

If it was a third party, then you must live in a 'locked' state. Those are the only voters who realistically get that option. I've done that myself when I lived in a locked state. Didn't get the chance this year though ----- because Electoral College. They claim the state's vote is unanimous. That forces everybody in the state to pick A or B. And that's one way the EC perpetuates the Duopoly.

As noted in another thread there are a ton of posters who make all this noise about "draining the swamp" and jettisoning the Same Old Thing, and it's supremely ironic that these seem to be the same voices railing against any threat to the Electoral College acting as a state robot --- which not only is the Same Old Thing but ensures the protection and perpetuation of the Same Old Thing, forever.

It would appear those who claim to be against the Same Old Thing and those who actually are against it are two distinctly different entities.