Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Pogo]

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

I didn’t a understand your first question ‘explain why it isn’t....’.

It means explain why it's a valid system for electing a head of state, yet somehow not a valid system for electing the head of a state. It's the same thing in microcosm. If it's a valid system, then "electors in Suillivan County should be going to Harrisburg and saying "wow it's incredible, everybody in our county voted for Skinflint so he gets all our votes ---- when Skinflint actually got 38% in that county.

But states don't do that, do they. Skinflint gets his 38%, the other candidates get what they got, it's all tallied statewide and the totals are all added up, one voter, one vote, and whoever ends up with the most votes is the next Governor and nobody calls it a "tyranny of the majority".

Are we actually suggesting all 50 states are doing it wrong and only the POTUS election --- where my state, in which more than 50% of us voted against Rump, yet he got 100% of our EV --- is doing it right?

Dafuck kind of "election" is that?

Regarding the winner take all system- Any state can change from the winner take all system if they choose. You’re right, it isn’t in the constitution. It should be obvious why they don’t. You know why, don’t you?

I think I do but let's hear yours. Mine will be too ironic.

 

[justoffal]

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

Funny I don't get the impression that you're @ very generis person at all.

Having done that punction' function
Let me just posit that you seem to be forgetting that the ultimate purpose of a voting system is to obtain a result.

It's not a an everyone gets a trophy kind of thing nor can It be. The end result whether you like it or not is a winner-takes-all situation. The presidency is not shared between the winner and the first runner-up...not even when it's a close call. Ultimately in a close election there are simply more people to feel disenfranchised then in one that's not so close. Even when everything is clean and legitimate there are millions of people who feel as though their vote was wasted. That feeling cannot be changed unless there is somehow a do over and the candidate they voted for wins instead .... which is not possible.

In short your insistence that we abandon a winner-takes-all system is a bit like asking for chocolate ice cream without the chocolate or the ice cream in it.

I know of no system anywhere in the world where the final result is not winner takes all.

Jo

 

[candycorn]

No. The EC is one of the best ideas we’ve come up with. I would prefer the President Elect be required to win both the EC as well as the PV. I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well. Anything short of winning all 3 of those tallies; the House decides.

I would change the entire election system as well but thats not the question before us.

It is fine the way it is. Trump wouldn't have won in 2016 and neither Hillary with your dumb idea. Who would be president?

I do appreciate you like the EC however.

He wouldn’t have won outright and neither would have Hillary. Neither would have GWB or Al Gore. As you may be aware, I’m no fan of the blob and I was/am/will never be a fan of GWB; the needless invasion of Iraq and Pat Tillman thing still infuriates me.

As for who would be President, the parameters of the 12th Amendment would take over. As you may also be aware, in both the case of GWB and the blob, the House would have almost certainly had installed both GWB and El Blabo as the President. The GOP controlled the House in both cases so my liberalism does not come into play here.

What does come into play is reality. In this day and age, there is no reason why the popular vote should not be considered; just like there is no reason why we as citizens should not insist that the election procedures ensure that only registered voters residing in their districts cast votes (i.e. picture voter ID—as long as the ID is free of charge).

Not sure what is “dumb” about allowing both the popular vote of all voters, the electoral college that allows for the electors as prescribed by the constitution—as well as requiring that a plurality of voters in 26 states (including DC) prefer the president elect. Perhaps you can tell us your objections?

 

[Pogo]

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

Funny I don't get the impression that you're @ very generis person at all.

Having done that punction' function
Let me just posit that you seem to be forgetting that the ultimate purpose of a voting system is to obtain a result.

It's not a an everyone gets a trophy kind of thing nor can It be. The end result whether you like it or not is a winner-takes-all situation. The presidency is not shared between the winner and the first runner-up.
Not even when it's a close call. Ultimately in a close election there are simply more people to feel disenfranchised then in one that's not so close. Even when everything is clean and legitimate there are millions of people who feel as though their vote was wasted. That feeling cannot be changed unless there is somehow a do over and the candidate they voted for wins instead .... which is not possible.

In short your insistence that we abandon a winner-takes-all system is a bit like asking for chocolate ice cream without the chocolate or the ice cream in it.

I know of no system anywhere in the world where the final result is not winner takes all.

Jo

Now you're deliberately (I think) distorting my point about WTA.

YES every vote for anything determines a winner by who gets the most votes, which is the reason this Orwellian Doublethinktalk about "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority" is contrived horse patoot. Indeed the whole point of an election is to determine that majority.

But that's not what I'm referring to except when I'm shooting down those Orwellian Doublethinktalk terms.

As regards the Electrical College howsomever, WTA refers to the practice such as I cited in my state where a candidate who most voters voted AGAINST, nevertheless gets ALL of our state's electoral votes. That means when our electors go to Congress in December and declare, "wow it's amazing, everybody, literally everybody in Carolina voted for Rump, why we haven't seen anything like this since the last time we came here and lied to you, musta been what, four years ago?", they're lying through their teeth, because most of us voted for somebody else.

My state gets a total of 15 EVs. If it had gone to Congress and cast 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton, that would have been more honest. But they didn't, did they. Which means that contingent who voted for somebody else -- the majority -- had our votes tossed in the shitcan, thanks for playin'.

THAT is what WTA is about. And to revive some other points, that in turn affects how people vote BECAUSE .... knowing that a close second will be shitcanned, voters are forced to vote to block a candy they don't want, rather than vote for a candy they do want. How many millions were no fan of either Rump or Clinton but voted for one just to block the other, KNOWING it was the only chance they had for their vote to mean anything at all?

And that, in turn, ensures that the Duopoly perpetuates itself in perpetuity, forever. Because no third (fourth, fifth) party can possibly have a fighting chance when the vote is already engineered into a dichotomy of Tweedle Dee vs. Tweedle Dum, and if you don't vote for Dee you'll be stuck with Dum.

I've voted third party when I lived in a state that was predetermined. Did it make a statement? Sure. Was it effective in doing a damn thing to fix any part of this? Not at all.

 

[justoffal]

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

Funny I don't get the impression that you're @ very generis person at all.

Having done that punction' function
Let me just posit that you seem to be forgetting that the ultimate purpose of a voting system is to obtain a result.

It's not a an everyone gets a trophy kind of thing nor can It be. The end result whether you like it or not is a winner-takes-all situation. The presidency is not shared between the winner and the first runner-up.
Not even when it's a close call. Ultimately in a close election there are simply more people to feel disenfranchised then in one that's not so close. Even when everything is clean and legitimate there are millions of people who feel as though their vote was wasted. That feeling cannot be changed unless there is somehow a do over and the candidate they voted for wins instead .... which is not possible.

In short your insistence that we abandon a winner-takes-all system is a bit like asking for chocolate ice cream without the chocolate or the ice cream in it.

I know of no system anywhere in the world where the final result is not winner takes all.

Jo

Now you're deliberately (I think) distorting my point about WTA.

YES every vote for anything determines a winner by who gets the most votes, which is the reason this Orwellian Doublethinktalk about "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority" is contrived horse patoot. Indeed the whole point of an election is to determine that majority.

But that's not what I'm referring to except when I'm shooting down those Orwellian Doublethinktalk terms.

As regards the Electrical College howsomever, WTA refers to the practice such as I cited in my state where a candidate who most voters voted AGAINST, nevertheless gets ALL of our state's electoral votes. That means when our electors go to Congress in December and declare, "wow it's amazing, everybody, literally everybody in Carolina voted for Rump, why we haven't seen anything like this since the last time we came here and lied to you, musta been what, four years ago?", they're lying through their teeth, because most of us voted for somebody else.

My state gets a total of 15 EVs. If it had gone to Congress and cast 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton, that would have been more honest. But they didn't, did they. Which means that contingent who voted for somebody else -- the majority -- had our votes tossed in the shitcan, thanks for playin'.

THAT is what WTA is about.

What would it change?

Jo

 

[Pogo]

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

Funny I don't get the impression that you're @ very generis person at all.

Having done that punction' function
Let me just posit that you seem to be forgetting that the ultimate purpose of a voting system is to obtain a result.

It's not a an everyone gets a trophy kind of thing nor can It be. The end result whether you like it or not is a winner-takes-all situation. The presidency is not shared between the winner and the first runner-up.
Not even when it's a close call. Ultimately in a close election there are simply more people to feel disenfranchised then in one that's not so close. Even when everything is clean and legitimate there are millions of people who feel as though their vote was wasted. That feeling cannot be changed unless there is somehow a do over and the candidate they voted for wins instead .... which is not possible.

In short your insistence that we abandon a winner-takes-all system is a bit like asking for chocolate ice cream without the chocolate or the ice cream in it.

I know of no system anywhere in the world where the final result is not winner takes all.

Jo

Now you're deliberately (I think) distorting my point about WTA.

YES every vote for anything determines a winner by who gets the most votes, which is the reason this Orwellian Doublethinktalk about "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority" is contrived horse patoot. Indeed the whole point of an election is to determine that majority.

But that's not what I'm referring to except when I'm shooting down those Orwellian Doublethinktalk terms.

As regards the Electrical College howsomever, WTA refers to the practice such as I cited in my state where a candidate who most voters voted AGAINST, nevertheless gets ALL of our state's electoral votes. That means when our electors go to Congress in December and declare, "wow it's amazing, everybody, literally everybody in Carolina voted for Rump, why we haven't seen anything like this since the last time we came here and lied to you, musta been what, four years ago?", they're lying through their teeth, because most of us voted for somebody else.

My state gets a total of 15 EVs. If it had gone to Congress and cast 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton, that would have been more honest. But they didn't, did they. Which means that contingent who voted for somebody else -- the majority -- had our votes tossed in the shitcan, thanks for playin'.

THAT is what WTA is about. And to revive some other points, that in turn affects how people vote BECAUSE .... knowing that a close second will be shitcanned, voters are forced to vote to block a candy they don't want, rather than vote for a candy they do want. How many millions were no fan of either Rump or Clinton but voted for one just to block the other, KNOWING it was the only chance they had for their vote to mean anything at all?

And that, in turn, ensures that the Duopoly perpetuates itself in perpetuity, forever. Because no third (fourth, fifth) party can possibly have a fighting chance when the vote is already engineered into a dichotomy of Tweedle Dee vs. Tweedle Dum, and if you don't vote for Dee you'll be stuck with Dum.

I've voted third party when I lived in a state that was predetermined. Did it make a statement? Sure. Was it effective in doing a damn thing to fix any part of this? Not at all.

What would it change?

Jo

What would what change?

Banning the practice of WTA as Madison wanted to do?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

I didn’t a understand your first question ‘explain why it isn’t....’.

It means explain why it's a valid system for electing a head of state, yet somehow not a valid system for electing the head of a state. It's the same thing in microcosm. If it's a valid system, then "electors in Suillivan County should be going to Harrisburg and saying "wow it's incredible, everybody in our county voted for Skinflint so he gets all our votes ---- when Skinflint actually got 38% in that county.

But states don't do that, do they. Skinflint gets his 38%, the other candidates get what they got, it's all tallied statewide and the totals are all added up, one voter, one vote, and whoever ends up with the most votes is the next Governor and nobody calls it a "tyranny of the majority".

Are we actually suggesting all 50 states are doing it wrong and only the POTUS election --- where my state, in which more than 50% of us voted against Rump, yet he got 100% of our EV --- is doing it right?

Dafuck kind of "election" is that?

Regarding the winner take all system- Any state can change from the winner take all system if they choose. You’re right, it isn’t in the constitution. It should be obvious why they don’t. You know why, don’t you?

I think I do but let's hear yours. Mine will be too ironic.

There is nothing ironic about it. It’s obvious why states stick with WTA. What possible reason would they have for changing it?

California could vote for proportional vote for their delegates, but it’s primarily a democratic state, and all their delegates go to the democratic canidate. If they went proportional then they would be giving some of their delegates to the Republican canidate. All the states keep WTA because it is the best way to maximize their influence. Without WTA smaller states would have no influence and larger states would have less. You see, states like their autonomy.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

Funny I don't get the impression that you're @ very generis person at all.

Having done that punction' function
Let me just posit that you seem to be forgetting that the ultimate purpose of a voting system is to obtain a result.

It's not a an everyone gets a trophy kind of thing nor can It be. The end result whether you like it or not is a winner-takes-all situation. The presidency is not shared between the winner and the first runner-up.
Not even when it's a close call. Ultimately in a close election there are simply more people to feel disenfranchised then in one that's not so close. Even when everything is clean and legitimate there are millions of people who feel as though their vote was wasted. That feeling cannot be changed unless there is somehow a do over and the candidate they voted for wins instead .... which is not possible.

In short your insistence that we abandon a winner-takes-all system is a bit like asking for chocolate ice cream without the chocolate or the ice cream in it.

I know of no system anywhere in the world where the final result is not winner takes all.

Jo

Now you're deliberately (I think) distorting my point about WTA.

YES every vote for anything determines a winner by who gets the most votes, which is the reason this Orwellian Doublethinktalk about "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority" is contrived horse patoot. Indeed the whole point of an election is to determine that majority.

But that's not what I'm referring to except when I'm shooting down those Orwellian Doublethinktalk terms.

As regards the Electrical College howsomever, WTA refers to the practice such as I cited in my state where a candidate who most voters voted AGAINST, nevertheless gets ALL of our state's electoral votes. That means when our electors go to Congress in December and declare, "wow it's amazing, everybody, literally everybody in Carolina voted for Rump, why we haven't seen anything like this since the last time we came here and lied to you, musta been what, four years ago?", they're lying through their teeth, because most of us voted for somebody else.

My state gets a total of 15 EVs. If it had gone to Congress and cast 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton, that would have been more honest. But they didn't, did they. Which means that contingent who voted for somebody else -- the majority -- had our votes tossed in the shitcan, thanks for playin'.

THAT is what WTA is about. And to revive some other points, that in turn affects how people vote BECAUSE .... knowing that a close second will be shitcanned, voters are forced to vote to block a candy they don't want, rather than vote for a candy they do want. How many millions were no fan of either Rump or Clinton but voted for one just to block the other, KNOWING it was the only chance they had for their vote to mean anything at all?

And that, in turn, ensures that the Duopoly perpetuates itself in perpetuity, forever. Because no third (fourth, fifth) party can possibly have a fighting chance when the vote is already engineered into a dichotomy of Tweedle Dee vs. Tweedle Dum, and if you don't vote for Dee you'll be stuck with Dum.

I've voted third party when I lived in a state that was predetermined. Did it make a statement? Sure. Was it effective in doing a damn thing to fix any part of this? Not at all.

States like majority rules, that’s why they opt for winner take all for their delegates. If you want proportional vote in your state, lobby for it. But you’ll get no takers, because everybody, except you perhaps, understands it’s best for the states in the electoral system. And you can’t change the electoral system because small states don’t want bigger states having all the power, just like the founders designed it. It’s delightfully annoying to people like you.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

Funny I don't get the impression that you're @ very generis person at all.

Having done that punction' function
Let me just posit that you seem to be forgetting that the ultimate purpose of a voting system is to obtain a result.

It's not a an everyone gets a trophy kind of thing nor can It be. The end result whether you like it or not is a winner-takes-all situation. The presidency is not shared between the winner and the first runner-up.
Not even when it's a close call. Ultimately in a close election there are simply more people to feel disenfranchised then in one that's not so close. Even when everything is clean and legitimate there are millions of people who feel as though their vote was wasted. That feeling cannot be changed unless there is somehow a do over and the candidate they voted for wins instead .... which is not possible.

In short your insistence that we abandon a winner-takes-all system is a bit like asking for chocolate ice cream without the chocolate or the ice cream in it.

I know of no system anywhere in the world where the final result is not winner takes all.

Jo

Now you're deliberately (I think) distorting my point about WTA.

YES every vote for anything determines a winner by who gets the most votes, which is the reason this Orwellian Doublethinktalk about "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority" is contrived horse patoot. Indeed the whole point of an election is to determine that majority.

But that's not what I'm referring to except when I'm shooting down those Orwellian Doublethinktalk terms.

As regards the Electrical College howsomever, WTA refers to the practice such as I cited in my state where a candidate who most voters voted AGAINST, nevertheless gets ALL of our state's electoral votes. That means when our electors go to Congress in December and declare, "wow it's amazing, everybody, literally everybody in Carolina voted for Rump, why we haven't seen anything like this since the last time we came here and lied to you, musta been what, four years ago?", they're lying through their teeth, because most of us voted for somebody else.

My state gets a total of 15 EVs. If it had gone to Congress and cast 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton, that would have been more honest. But they didn't, did they. Which means that contingent who voted for somebody else -- the majority -- had our votes tossed in the shitcan, thanks for playin'.

THAT is what WTA is about. And to revive some other points, that in turn affects how people vote BECAUSE .... knowing that a close second will be shitcanned, voters are forced to vote to block a candy they don't want, rather than vote for a candy they do want. How many millions were no fan of either Rump or Clinton but voted for one just to block the other, KNOWING it was the only chance they had for their vote to mean anything at all?

And that, in turn, ensures that the Duopoly perpetuates itself in perpetuity, forever. Because no third (fourth, fifth) party can possibly have a fighting chance when the vote is already engineered into a dichotomy of Tweedle Dee vs. Tweedle Dum, and if you don't vote for Dee you'll be stuck with Dum.

I've voted third party when I lived in a state that was predetermined. Did it make a statement? Sure. Was it effective in doing a damn thing to fix any part of this? Not at all.

What would it change?

Jo

What would what change?

Banning the practice of WTA as Madison wanted to do?

Nope, small states want it. Sorry, it’s here to stay.

 

[Godboy]

We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.

The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.

The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.

Lets examine your dumb thoughts. If California and NY start making all decisions for every other state, how long do you think those other states will want to remain in the Union? You are so simplistic and naive. There is a reason we dont use a "popular vote" system.

 

[JoeB131]

People who believe like you are exactly which the Dims took the House but failed to gain a majority in the Senate.

Actually, they failed to gain a majority in the Senate because they were defending 26 seats and the Republicans were only defending 9. But Math is one of those simple concepts that eludes you.

The Repubilcans SHOULD have mopped up this year, but so far, they've only gained a net 2 seats. That might go down to 1 depending how Florida pans out.

 

[JoeB131]

But Obozo was the worst ever. Bush saved us from Al Bore and Trump saved us from Hildabeast and you hate Hayes because he was a lawyer and staunch abolitionist who defended runaway slaves in court proceedings.

Naw, I hate Hayes because he ended reconstruction, allowing Jim Crow to take root.

Frankly, given Bush saving us from Al Gore involved 2 wars, 2 recessions and a major city getting wiped off the map, it sounds like the cure was worse than the problem.

 

[JoeB131]

If you believe that bovine excrement, you are one sick individual.

Naw, just see the folks in the Red States for what they are...

 

[JoeB131]

Pew Research: The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.

Yawn... boring.

Fact is, the GOP always gets 45% to 50% of the vote, and teh Democrat always get 48-55% of the vote, so at BEST we are talking about maybe 8% of the electorate that is in play any given year. I'm sure a lot of people call themselves 'independents', because, frankly, both parties are kind of embarrassing. But when the rubber hits the road... not so much.

 

[Marion Morrison]

No. The EC is one of the best ideas we’ve come up with. I would prefer the President Elect be required to win both the EC as well as the PV. I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well. Anything short of winning all 3 of those tallies; the House decides.

I would change the entire election system as well but thats not the question before us.

It is fine the way it is. Trump wouldn't have won in 2016 and neither Hillary with your dumb idea. Who would be president?

I do appreciate you like the EC however.

He wouldn’t have won outright and neither would have Hillary. Neither would have GWB or Al Gore. As you may be aware, I’m no fan of the blob and I was/am/will never be a fan of GWB; the needless invasion of Iraq and Pat Tillman thing still infuriates me.

As for who would be President, the parameters of the 12th Amendment would take over. As you may also be aware, in both the case of GWB and the blob, the House would have almost certainly had installed both GWB and El Blabo as the President. The GOP controlled the House in both cases so my liberalism does not come into play here.

What does come into play is reality. In this day and age, there is no reason why the popular vote should not be considered; just like there is no reason why we as citizens should not insist that the election procedures ensure that only registered voters residing in their districts cast votes (i.e. picture voter ID—as long as the ID is free of charge).

Not sure what is “dumb” about allowing both the popular vote of all voters, the electoral college that allows for the electors as prescribed by the constitution—as well as requiring that a plurality of voters in 26 states (including DC) prefer the president elect. Perhaps you can tell us your objections?

Your butt hurts since 2016 that bad?

Electoral College has worked for 240-ish years. I don't think your dumb ass has a better idea, or is capable of coming with one, for that matter.

 

[candycorn]

People who believe like you are exactly which the Dims took the House but failed to gain a majority in the Senate.

Actually, they failed to gain a majority in the Senate because they were defending 26 seats and the Republicans were only defending 9. But Math is one of those simple concepts that eludes you.

The Repubilcans SHOULD have mopped up this year, but so far, they've only gained a net 2 seats. That might go down to 1 depending how Florida pans out.

Excellent point.

 

[JoeB131]

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Um.. no.

The EC gives more weight to less populated states, and that's the problem with it. It nullifies the votes of people living in non-swing states. Kind of no point in voting Republican in IL or Democrat in TX.

Now, a runoff system would have some benefits. People could vote for third parties and express their opinion of "a pox on both your houses", but in the end, you have a runoff and one side or the other has to win a majority. It would actually weaken the two major parties and give more of a voice to moderates... which would be a generally good thing.

The fact that both parties are more extreme than they were 20 years ago is really part of the problem caused by the EC.

But since appealling to fair play or common decency is wasted on Right Wingers, you should probably consider simple pragmatism.

Arizona and Texas will eventually become Blue states due to their increasing Hispanic populations. Colorado and New Mexico are already there. Once that happens, there's no electoral combination the GOP could get that would allow them to win, even if they keep fooling the dumb white trash in the Rust Belt states that they will bring back daddy's factory job.

 

[candycorn]

Pew Research: The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.

Yawn... boring.

Fact is, the GOP always gets 45% to 50% of the vote, and teh Democrat always get 48-55% of the vote, so at BEST we are talking about maybe 8% of the electorate that is in play any given year. I'm sure a lot of people call themselves 'independents', because, frankly, both parties are kind of embarrassing. But when the rubber hits the road... not so much.

Karl Rove said pretty much the same thing. There are very few independents. There are “big” D’s and R’s and “little” D’s and R’s. The detriment of the two party system is that the corporate interests of the DNC and the RNC finds it easier to mine votes out of the “big” categories than the “little” categories so they become more radical

 

[Marion Morrison]

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Um.. no.

The EC gives more weight to less populated states, and that's the problem with it. It nullifies the votes of people living in non-swing states. Kind of no point in voting Republican in IL or Democrat in TX.

Now, a runoff system would have some benefits. People could vote for third parties and express their opinion of "a pox on both your houses", but in the end, you have a runoff and one side or the other has to win a majority. It would actually weaken the two major parties and give more of a voice to moderates... which would be a generally good thing.

The fact that both parties are more extreme than they were 20 years ago is really part of the problem caused by the EC.

But since appealling to fair play or common decency is wasted on Right Wingers, you should probably consider simple pragmatism.

Arizona and Texas will eventually become Blue states due to their increasing Hispanic populations. Colorado and New Mexico are already there. Once that happens, there's no electoral combination the GOP could get that would allow them to win, even if they keep fooling the dumb white trash in the Rust Belt states that they will bring back daddy's factory job.

It's not a problem if you live in the smaller state, jackass.

Yet another wrongism by JoeB131, asshat extraordinaire, wrong 997/1000 times.

You're not smarter or better than the Founding Fathers, no, you're not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

The original system wasn’t ever a popular vote. Delegates from the states voted for several candidates for President.

Mob rule is great for Marxists that want to persecute their political enemies. So the answer is no, we don’t ever need an overall popular vote system.

I think that it violates the original pact of states. If a small state say like Utah population wise was asked to join to a huge State like California population wise what incentive would they have knowing that the moment they joined they would no longer be represented?

Jo

Did you know that that pact has the ability to amendment the Constitution in it?

Do you agree that the Founding Fathers and the states agreed on a pact that wanted the Constitution to adapt with the times through Amendments or not?

You're saying there should be no change simply because there should be no change. That's a weak argument.