Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Pogo]

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.


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".

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.


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.

The question wasn't for you. It was asking clarification from the previous post (the OP).

Butt since you felt the need to butt in to a question that wasn't put to you, is it not ironic then that the only two states that don't use the WTA system are both --- small states. So I imagine they'll thank you to not presume to speak for them.

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.

No, NOT at all "as the Founders designed it" --- one of those Founders (Madison), who also architected the Electoral College itself, lobbied against the WTA mob-rule practice once it infected the system, to such a degree that he wanted a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice. So don't come in here trying to speak for "Founders" either.

 

[Redfish]

That's the point this is not really what you would call a large homogeneous Nation like Japan or even China where one culture stretches across the width and breadth of the entire nation. Instead this is a very large and powerful conglomeration of many little Nations. It's an important aspect that adds both flexibility and durability to the union and must never be forgotten in a race to eliminate the states right's or boundaries.

Jo

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

and there is no reason they can't take their political views with them.

But, imagine you're a Democrat from California, and you move to Wyoming. Oh, you're screwed. You won't have a Democrat to represent you in the house. In the Presidential election your vote doesn't count any more.

What bullshit is that?

Then, if political affiliation is so important to you, why the hell would you move to Wyoming? Get real.

Hmm... maybe because your job says so.

That's hardly the point and your question is ignoring the reality of DEMOCRACY, or lack of it in the US.

We do not have a pure democracy. A pure democracy is mob rule, group rule, group think, the many against the few. Its amazing that you dems want that.

 

[Redfish]

What I find amusing is that if Trump had won the PV and crooked Hillary had won the EC, the libs and dems would never bring up changing the system. Hypocrisy thy name is democrat.

 

[Pogo]

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.


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.

Eh --- not quite. Has nothing to do with political parties. And you'll find that a lot of states that usually vote one way for POTUS, are internally run by the opposite party anyway. No, it's really about self-interest -- you were right about maximizing their influence in that way -- in pushing their own candidates, which is where it started. If a candidate happens to hail from Virginia, then Virginia can push that person stronger, and perhaps over the top, by cascading all of its votes to them regardless what a popular vote might have been. And then Pennsylvania goes, "well if they're gonna do that then we're gonna do it too", and then Massachusetts muses the same thing, etc etc etc. So to me the question isn't "why does any state do it", it's "why do they all do it".*

And this is where the irony kicks in (I haven't stated it yet so you haven't seen it) -- for all the Doubletalkian babble about "Tyrannies of the majority" and "mob rule", the several states --- 48 of them anyway ---- are practicing a very REAL mob mentality: "we're just doing it because everybody else is doing it and we're too stupid to think beyond that level".


*two states, Nebraska and Maine, break up their vote according to Congressional district instead of the whole state, but it still amounts to the same thing on a smaller level since everybody's vote in that district gets cascaded into a unanimous one. Compared to an entire state going to WTA it's akin to the difference between a dislocated shoulder and a shattered one.

Poor Maid Marion, can't think of anything to say, can't participate so he oozes in to go HEY LOOKA ME.

Want to walk around on my roof in the ice? Might give you something to do.

 

[Pogo]

What I find amusing is that if Trump had won the PV and crooked Hillary had won the EC, the libs and dems would never bring up changing the system. Hypocrisy thy name is democrat.

Sorry, you can't make "hypocrisy" out of a speculation fallacy. You need something real.

And btw 'democrat' means 'one who believes in democracy'.

As we said at the beginning ---- and as we say every time some wag tries to cherrypick exactly this speculation fallacy --- the EC/WTA has been under criticism for two centuries back to the time of Madison. Some people only choose to notice it at certain times but that's also cherrypicking.

 

[Taz]

Anyway we vote, the people will get screwed. Gerimandering is but one way.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Eh --- not quite. Has nothing to do with political parties. And you'll find that a lot of states that usually vote one way for POTUS, are internally run by the opposite party anyway. No, it's really about self-interest -- you were right about maximizing their influence in that way -- in pushing their own candidates, which is where it started. If a candidate happens to hail from Virginia, then Virginia can push that person stronger, and perhaps over the top, by cascading all of its votes to them regardless what a popular vote might have been. And then Pennsylvania goes, "well if they're gonna do that then we're gonna do it too", and then Massachusetts muses the same thing, etc etc etc. So to me the question isn't "why does any state do it", it's "why do they all do it".*

And this is where the irony kicks in (I haven't stated it yet so you haven't seen it) -- for all the Doubletalkian babble about "Tyrannies of the majority" and "mob rule", the several states --- 48 of them anyway ---- are practicing a very REAL mob mentality: "we're just doing it because everybody else is doing it and we're too stupid to think beyond that level".


*two states, Nebraska and Maine, break up their vote according to Congressional district instead of the whole state, but it still amounts to the same thing on a smaller level since everybody's vote in that district gets cascaded into a unanimous one. Compared to an entire state going to WTA it's akin to the difference between a dislocated shoulder and a shattered one.

Poor Maid Marion, can't think of anything to say, can't participate so he oozes in to go HEY LOOKA ME.

Want to walk around on my roof in the ice? Might give you something to do.

What is there to say, you're bloviating and pissing into the wind. Wanna come play with a gator in a pond, bitch? How 'bout some bull sharks, boy?

Chum sez wut?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a fuck what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

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

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

Doesn't Maine do something like that? OldLady mentioned it but it's too far back now...

Know what else we need? A choice for NOTA. That would have won 2016 in a landslide.

Another suggestion: Don't list any political parties on the ballot at all. Eliminate those sheeple voting for a party instead of a person.

 

[Pogo]

What is there to say, you're bloviating and pissing into the wind. Wanna come play with a gator in a pond, bitch? How 'bout some bull sharks, boy?

Chum sez wut?

Yeah yeah, we all know the Cult of Ignorance wants nobody else talking when the topic is over their pointed little head. Old nooz. Poor Maid Marion, wants to get in the game but has no ball.

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

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

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

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

You're putting way too much thought into something that will never happen. Helluva daydream, though.

The ultimate problem with the adjustments that these individuals want to make to the system we already have is that none of them are willing to accept loss as a final result for their choice. Each one of them sees loss as a problem with the system instead of realizing that the system ...in fact any system....is designed to create one winner and many losers. It is therefore likely that they will continue to seek change for as long as they are unwilling to accept loss. The Democratic party in this current political outlay is a perfect example of this condition.

Jo

Not true. If you don’t like the remedy I prescribe (the PE having to win the plurality of the Popular Vote overall, the plurality of the 26 states individual popular votes, as well as the plurality of electoral college) and if you don’t win all three, the 12th Amendment takes over…. that’s cool. But the fact of the matter is that the remedy I prescribed would have only come up twice during my lifetime; 2000 and 2016 when the EC winner didn’t win the popular vote. However, in each of those cases the GOP controlled the House in each case so the outcome would have not been different at all.

I’m a liberal.

I break with almost all other liberals insofar as I see no good reason to not have a nationwide picture ID card that must be presented when one casts a ballot as long as the ID card is free to the voter.

To me, we have a very easy way to make the voting process as sterile as possible. Why not do it?

The same thing applies to the way we elect our President. In 1800, counting the votes was tedious, in 1900 it was tedious, in 1950 it was tedious. In 2018, it is done almost effortlessly. Why not leverage those technological advancements to yield a better result where the people who live here have a direct hand in deciding who leads us?

If there are no improvements made (I have yet to hear a good reason to not improve the system) however, I agree, leave it the way it is. The electoral college is one of the best ideas we have had.

Your daydream will never happen, it's a nice thought, though.

It's always elucidating to have some gadfly in the room who, whenever somebody comes up with an idea, chimes in with nothing more than "will never work".

Really gotta wonder why trolls can't just go find a topic they can actually handle.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a fuck what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

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

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

Doesn't Maine do something like that? OldLady mentioned it but it's too far back now...

Know what else we need? A choice for NOTA. That would have won 2016 in a landslide.

Another suggestion: Don't list any political parties on the ballot at all. Eliminate those sheeple voting for a party instead of a person.

Yes, Maine is struggling to implement ranked choice voting, but the wording of our state Constitution needs to be changed to allow it on state office holders, so it was tried during the primaries and also for the federal office holders. But guess what, a Republican Congressman has filed a suit to stop it--he might lose. We are supposed to get a preliminary decision today from the federal judge. He was just appointed by Trump a couple months ago. We'll see what happens.

In Tight Race, Maine Republican Sues To Block State's Ranked-Choice Voting Law

 

[Redfish]

Anyway we vote, the people will get screwed. Gerimandering is but one way.

there is no gerrymandering in national elections. are you related to Behar?

 

[Redfish]

What I find amusing is that if Trump had won the PV and crooked Hillary had won the EC, the libs and dems would never bring up changing the system. Hypocrisy thy name is democrat.

Sorry, you can't make "hypocrisy" out of a speculation fallacy. You need something real.

And btw 'democrat' means 'one who believes in democracy'.

As we said at the beginning ---- and as we say every time some wag tries to cherrypick exactly this speculation fallacy --- the EC/WTA has been under criticism for two centuries back to the time of Madison. Some people only choose to notice it at certain times but that's also cherrypicking.

My point is 100% valid. If crooked Hillary had won the EC the dems would be praising the system and calling the founders geniuses.

but since she lost, the system sucks (according to them)

hypocrisy is the correct word to describe it, and you know I am right, hopstick.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a fuck what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

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

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

Doesn't Maine do something like that? OldLady mentioned it but it's too far back now...

Know what else we need? A choice for NOTA. That would have won 2016 in a landslide.

Another suggestion: Don't list any political parties on the ballot at all. Eliminate those sheeple voting for a party instead of a person.

I agree with you on eliminating the party labels on the ballot.

I also understand why you want the ghetto areas of the big cities to decide who is president. those votes are much easier to buy.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a fuck what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

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

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

Doesn't Maine do something like that? OldLady mentioned it but it's too far back now...

Know what else we need? A choice for NOTA. That would have won 2016 in a landslide.

Another suggestion: Don't list any political parties on the ballot at all. Eliminate those sheeple voting for a party instead of a person.

I agree with you on eliminating the party labels on the ballot.

I also understand why you want the ghetto areas of the big cities to decide who is president. those votes are much easier to buy.

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

 

[Pogo]

What I find amusing is that if Trump had won the PV and crooked Hillary had won the EC, the libs and dems would never bring up changing the system. Hypocrisy thy name is democrat.

Sorry, you can't make "hypocrisy" out of a speculation fallacy. You need something real.

And btw 'democrat' means 'one who believes in democracy'.

As we said at the beginning ---- and as we say every time some wag tries to cherrypick exactly this speculation fallacy --- the EC/WTA has been under criticism for two centuries back to the time of Madison. Some people only choose to notice it at certain times but that's also cherrypicking.

My point is 100% valid. If crooked Hillary had won the EC the dems would be praising the system and calling the founders geniuses.

but since she lost, the system sucks (according to them)

hypocrisy is the correct word to describe it, and you know I am right, hopstick.

Not only is this still speculation fallacy --- it's still the same speculation. Based, one might add, on nothing but pure fantasia wishful thinking.

You cannot possibly be "right" (or "valid") about an event that never took place. Violates the laws of Existence. You have speculation. That, if and only if combined with a four-dollar bill, will get you a basic coffee at Starbucks.

And again, critical examination of the EC/WTA system goes all the way back to Madison; the fact that you only started noticing it two years ago is nobody else's fault.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

You're mistaken. We've never had a popular vote for president

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.

Just because Democrats lose doesn't mean the current system is broken.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a fuck what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

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

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

Doesn't Maine do something like that? OldLady mentioned it but it's too far back now...

Know what else we need? A choice for NOTA. That would have won 2016 in a landslide.

Another suggestion: Don't list any political parties on the ballot at all. Eliminate those sheeple voting for a party instead of a person.

Yes, Maine is struggling to implement ranked choice voting, but the wording of our state Constitution needs to be changed to allow it on state office holders, so it was tried during the primaries and also for the federal office holders. But guess what, a Republican Congressman has filed a suit to stop it--he might lose. We are supposed to get a preliminary decision today from the federal judge. He was just appointed by Trump a couple months ago. We'll see what happens.

In Tight Race, Maine Republican Sues To Block State's Ranked-Choice Voting Law

Thanks OL, sorry I let the last one slip by.
This is interesting where the guy starts crowing about whether the state practice is "Constitutional". He doesn't seem to know the US Constitution doesn't call for any popular vote at all, which is a staggering ignorance if one is going to put his foot in his mouth.

 

[Pogo]

Just because Democrats lose doesn't mean the current system is broken.

Correct, but nobody suggested that. A whole slew of other things mean the system is broken, which have been already spelled out here from the beginning.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a fuck what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

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

Jo

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

Doesn't Maine do something like that? OldLady mentioned it but it's too far back now...

Know what else we need? A choice for NOTA. That would have won 2016 in a landslide.

Another suggestion: Don't list any political parties on the ballot at all. Eliminate those sheeple voting for a party instead of a person.

Well the purest way to do it is get rid of party primaries. There is no constitutional requirement for these things. You have one ballot and you vote once; not a primary. You vote and then give a ranking as i mentioned earlier. The Party Primary is a devil’s bargain the States made with the parties to essentially outsource the election.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Just because Democrats lose doesn't mean the current system is broken.

Correct, but nobody suggested that.

They never had a problem with it until it happened.