Poll: Which way did you vote?

[Uncensored2008]

I voted for Johnson because I live in a Communist dictatorship and my vote doesn't count. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the entire California election was a fraud from top to bottom.

Outlaw grocery bags? Bull fucking shit. The Communist rulers wanted this, but I can't find even one person who did.

Oh I know, Bodecea will say she did, but she was passed out drunk and never got around to voting.

 

[Pogo]

If you did in fact want to know if pop. vote vs electoral vote affected how people voted why was that not the question the question asked in the poll? A simple yes/no question that doesn't rely on the truth of all these unwarranted assumptions you make?

Because what you just described has nothing in the world to do with my aim here.

It had nothing to do with a popular or electoral vote or any vote count at all. Again for the 179th time, the purpose was to find out to what degree voters voted not to elect a particular candidate, but to prevent the election of a different one. It's a measure of voter motivation -- and how that motivation is thus perverted specifically by the Electoral College system as it's practiced today. Without that system, this level of negative "block" voting simply does not exist. Just as the divisive bullshit concepts of "red states", "blue states" and "swing states" would not exist.since they would have no function at all. Just as the practice of candidates spending all their focus time in Ohio and North Carolina and Florida while ignoring Utah and Oregon and West Virginia would not exist. It's the same flaw of the same system driving ALL of that. Without that artificial binary-bullshit going on people would be free to simply vote. And a lot more of them would do so than do now.

THAT is what the point was here.

 

[Pogo]

T'hat's how everybody chooses anybody for any position. Got nothing to do with anything here.

Again --- what I was going for was the level of negative "block" voting. The same point you were making with the charts you posted as well. When I started I had no way to know what that level would be. If they didn't show what I expected I would not have had a point to follow through and I might have had to revisit my theory.

But in the event they showed even *more* of that dynamic than I expected, and affirmed my theory Bigly. It's no more complex than that.

Not the RNC. Do you really believe the RNC elite wanted Trump? They were throwing their weight behind Jeb! Just not the same way and with the same force as the DNC chose Hillary and you your "survey".

I don't believe the RNC wanted Rump, no, and they wussed out by not showing him the door.

But neither RNC nor DNC has anything to do with this thread anyway. This same quest could apply to any election in any year regardless who the candidates were/are/will be. Although this particular election with two candidates having such high negatives is a particularly effective one to demonstrate what I was after.

 

[Pogo]

Nothing at all was "forced". I left it open ended and didn't state directly what I was looking for. That's how you get honest answers......

Dude, why are you flip-flopping? You already admitted you "designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that."

There's no "flip flop" involved. I was accused of "bias" (which case never got demonstrated) -- and I pointed out that I arranged the questions as I did to measure a specific dynamic. And indeed I got that measurement. Ergo ---- it worked. Not rocket surgery.

From a glance at the poll numbers, not counting narratives from posters such as yourself that would have added to the disparity, I see 24 people went for a "block" while four voted in the positive.

That's a six-to-one ratio. And it means the system is fucked up.

 

[Divine Wind]

....Again for the 179th time, the purpose was to find out to what degree voters voted not to elect a particular candidate, but to prevent the election of a different one. It's a measure of voter motivation -- and how that motivation is thus perverted specifically by the Electoral College system as it's practiced today.....

Again for the 180th time, your survey is flawed because, as you already posted:

....I designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that. Currently 23 to 4 not counting narratives. Those who did not vote are simply not part of the target. That exclusion is intentional.

Next time try actually reading the thread before you stick your foot in your mouth. See post 34.

If I designed a survey for results I wanted, it's not an accurate survey. In this case, you designed the survey to prove your own premise about the EC. You've proven nothing except that you flunked science in HS.

That's a six-to-one ratio. And it means the system is fucked up.

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't believe the RNC wanted Rump, no, and they wussed out by not showing him the door.

But neither RNC nor DNC has anything to do with this thread anyway. This same quest could apply to any election in any year regardless who the candidates were/are/will be. Although this particular election with two candidates having such high negatives is a particularly effective one to demonstrate what I was after.

Wussed out for respecting democracy and not being authoritarian like the DNC in hand-picking Hillary? It's people like you why I don't trust the DNC.

 

[Divine Wind]

Again, given that Congress opens the Constitution for a rewrite and eliminates the EC ($500 says it won't happen) doesn't translate into a win for Hillary due to the Law of Unintended Consequences such as motivating more people to vote. Again, the easiest method for more "fairness" is each state apportioning their EC votes.

 

[9thIDdoc]

If you did in fact want to know if pop. vote vs electoral vote affected how people voted why was that not the question the question asked in the poll? A simple yes/no question that doesn't rely on the truth of all these unwarranted assumptions you make?

Because what you just described has nothing in the world to do with my aim here.

It had nothing to do with a popular or electoral vote or any vote count at all. Again for the 179th time, the purpose was to find out to what degree voters voted not to elect a particular candidate, but to prevent the election of a different one. It's a measure of voter motivation -- and how that motivation is thus perverted specifically by the Electoral College system as it's practiced today. Without that system, this level of negative "block" voting simply does not exist. Just as the divisive bullshit concepts of "red states", "blue states" and "swing states" would not exist.since they would have no function at all. Just as the practice of candidates spending all their focus time in Ohio and North Carolina and Florida while ignoring Utah and Oregon and West Virginia would not exist. It's the same flaw of the same system driving ALL of that. Without that artificial binary-bullshit going on people would be free to simply vote. And a lot more of them would do so than do now.

THAT is what the point was here.

And for the 179th time your poll was in fact pointless because it obtained no useful information about anything.

It's a measure of voter motivation -- and how that motivation is thus perverted specifically by the Electoral College system as it's practiced today.

First, your poll gave only gave a little information about a small subset of voters; not voters in general. 2nd, we are given no reason to believe that anyone would have voted differently under a popular vote system. Your assumption only.

Without that system, this level of negative "block" voting simply does not exist.

Really? Seems to me that voting for or against someone has exactly the same result and would continue to do so under a popular vote system. Another assumption on your part.

Just as the divisive bullshit concepts of "red states", "blue states" and "swing states" would not exist.since they would have no function at all.

Actually they are simply guesses about the levels of support for the candidates and would likely be exactly the same under either system. You provide no evidence to back your assumption..

Without that artificial binary-bullshit going on people would be free to simply vote.

Just as they are now.

 

[Pogo]

If you did in fact want to know if pop. vote vs electoral vote affected how people voted why was that not the question the question asked in the poll? A simple yes/no question that doesn't rely on the truth of all these unwarranted assumptions you make?

Because what you just described has nothing in the world to do with my aim here.

It had nothing to do with a popular or electoral vote or any vote count at all. Again for the 179th time, the purpose was to find out to what degree voters voted not to elect a particular candidate, but to prevent the election of a different one. It's a measure of voter motivation -- and how that motivation is thus perverted specifically by the Electoral College system as it's practiced today. Without that system, this level of negative "block" voting simply does not exist. Just as the divisive bullshit concepts of "red states", "blue states" and "swing states" would not exist.since they would have no function at all. Just as the practice of candidates spending all their focus time in Ohio and North Carolina and Florida while ignoring Utah and Oregon and West Virginia would not exist. It's the same flaw of the same system driving ALL of that. Without that artificial binary-bullshit going on people would be free to simply vote. And a lot more of them would do so than do now.

THAT is what the point was here.

And for the 179th time your poll was in fact pointless because it obtained no useful information about anything.

And for the 180th time I began with a theory and endeavoured to see if I could prove that theory.
And I did, in spades. I believe it was back in post 34. When you quit masturbating into your mirror go read it and learn something. Instead of, you know, trying to save face from not having read that far in the first place to the point where you try to make it into something it isn't.

It's a measure of voter motivation -- and how that motivation is thus perverted specifically by the Electoral College system as it's practiced today.

First, your poll gave only gave a little information about a small subset of voters; not voters in general. 2nd, we are given no reason to believe that anyone would have voted differently under a popular vote system. Your assumption only.

Again, had you read that basis you would have figured out by now that "what the popular vote would have been" is completely irrelevant here. Because it has nothing in the world to do with that.

Without that system, this level of negative "block" voting simply does not exist.

Really? Seems to me that voting for or against someone has exactly the same result and would continue to do so under a popular vote system. Another assumption on your part.

Yeah really. Because without said system your vote doesn't get steamrolled into a bullshit story that "hey Congress, everybody in our state voted for Joe Jagoff -- amazing it's unanimous". That's bullshit. And I've thoroughly gone over the many ways it's bullshit in the EC threads. You should learn to read those too.

Just as the divisive bullshit concepts of "red states", "blue states" and "swing states" would not exist.since they would have no function at all.


Actually they are simply guesses about the levels of support for the candidates and would likely be exactly the same under either system. You provide no evidence to back your assumption..

Once AGAIN ---- I made no guesses about anybody's level of support, either in the actual election or in a "what if". Does not exist. Your illiteracy rate is Bigly.

Without that artificial binary-bullshit going on people would be free to simply vote.

Just as they are now.

Just as they can't now.

Go forth and learn how to read, Jagoff.

 

[Pogo]

I don't believe the RNC wanted Rump, no, and they wussed out by not showing him the door.

But neither RNC nor DNC has anything to do with this thread anyway. This same quest could apply to any election in any year regardless who the candidates were/are/will be. Although this particular election with two candidates having such high negatives is a particularly effective one to demonstrate what I was after.

Wussed out for respecting democracy and not being authoritarian like the DNC in hand-picking Hillary? It's people like you why I don't trust the DNC.

"Authoritarian"? That's for governments. A political party is not a government ---- it can do what it wants. As you just illustrated with your DNC example.

So yes ---- wussed out. Caved in to a huckster out of opportunism and then had to live with it.

Go look up what the same party did in 1912 when another bombastic New Yorker swept through the primaries. They didn't wuss out then.

 

[Pogo]

....Again for the 179th time, the purpose was to find out to what degree voters voted not to elect a particular candidate, but to prevent the election of a different one. It's a measure of voter motivation -- and how that motivation is thus perverted specifically by the Electoral College system as it's practiced today.....

Again for the 180th time, your survey is flawed because, as you already posted:

....I designed it for the results I wanted and I got exactly that. Currently 23 to 4 not counting narratives. Those who did not vote are simply not part of the target. That exclusion is intentional.

Next time try actually reading the thread before you stick your foot in your mouth. See post 34.

If I designed a survey for results I wanted, it's not an accurate survey. In this case, you designed the survey to prove your own premise about the EC. You've proven nothing except that you flunked science in HS.

That's a six-to-one ratio. And it means the system is fucked up.

So you can't show where there was a bias.

I couldn't either when I designed it.

*DON'T* quote me without the context. That's dishonest. Rather than expose a bias on my part you just regurgitated one of your own. That won't fly.

 

[Divine Wind]

So you can't show where there was a bias.

I couldn't either when I designed it.

*DON'T* quote me without the context. That's dishonest. Rather than expose a bias on my part you just regurgitated one of your own. That won't fly.

Dude, I've proven you were biased. The fact you refuse to admit it is irrelevant to the fact most people can see it for themselves.

 

[Pogo]

So you can't show where there was a bias.

I couldn't either when I designed it.

*DON'T* quote me without the context. That's dishonest. Rather than expose a bias on my part you just regurgitated one of your own. That won't fly.

Dude, I've proven you were biased. The fact you refuse to admit it is irrelevant to the fact most people can see it for themselves.

No Dood --- you haven't. If it were something could 'see for oneself', you could quote it.

Four poll answers, four possibilities. You voted either for or against either Clinton or Trump. No leading language, no bias, totally even. Parallel answers worded identically. I even spelled Rump's name right. This ain't my first foray, trust me.

You got nothing.

What I was looking for was how many voters voted in the negative, to block.
And I got that answer. Simple as that.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Four poll answers, four possibilities. You voted either for or against either Clinton or Trump. No leading language, no bias, totally even. Parallel answers worded identically. I even spelled Rump's name right. This ain't my first foray, trust me.

The problem remains that you did not list all the possible motives for people voting as they did and so do not have the information you claim you got. You cannot measure motivation without asking questions that cover all possible motivations. Nor do you provide any evidence what-so-ever that people would vote differently under a pop. vote system. In your infinite wisdom have you ever heard of "begging the question"? (In case you're wondering that's a no-no.)

 

[Pogo]

The problem remains that you did not list all the possible motives for people voting as they did and so do not have the information you claim you got.

Again ---- I don't need "all the possible motives for people voting as they did". All I need is two ---- "Did you vote positively or negatively". That's a simple choice of one or the other. And realizing that for some it may have been a combination I specifically asked which one predominated.

That's it. Not rocket surgery. It's not a quest to find out WHO people voted for --- that's been done to death. It was a quest to find out HOW they went about their own decision process. You're just having a meltdown because I proved my point using an objective poll and you wish the results were different, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

North Carolina here and I voted Trump because I liked him.