Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[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.

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.

Party Primaries are a dog and pony show anyway; not only is no state required to hold an election day at all, but no party is required to follow its own primary rules or winners. Democrats rig theirs with bullshit "superdelegates"; Republicans sent their primary winner packing when they wanted a new direction and he went down the street, started his own party and shoved the Republicans into third place. A political party can run anybody it wants to run; the illusion that voters have something to do with it is just that.

 

[OldLady]

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.

He might LOSE with this ranked choice voting thing. He's had two years to move against it and he didn't, until he got the news the second place choices might put his opponent Golden over the top.
LOL
Most people who understand all this constitutional stuff agree he hasn't got much of a legal leg to stand on, but who knows. Legislators have been blocking the will of the people on this for two years. It will no doubt be more years of shrieking and screaming before it is fully implemented. But we elected a majority of Dems in both the state house and senate and a Democratic governor, so there is hope. There's always hope, right?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Once AGAIN, professing ignorance of a controversy that's existed for two hundred years, doesn't just make it magically not-have-existed.

Here it is in 2012:

And here's the National Popular Vote compact designed to address it, launched ten years before the 2016 election (and supported we might add by members of both parties)

And here it is 195 years ago from James Madison --- before "Democrats" or "Republicans" existed at all.


You can choose to go for all those times when it's inconvenient to acknowledge, but this is, and has been, a constant. And will remain so until it's resolved. Every time we cite "red states" or "blue states" --- we're referring to this problem; there would be no such thing without the WTA/EC system. There would just be "states" less divided. Oh the horror.

 

[Pogo]

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.

He might LOSE with this ranked choice voting thing. He's had two years to move against it and he didn't, until he got the news the second place choices might put his opponent Golden over the top.
LOL
Most people who understand all this constitutional stuff agree he hasn't got much of a legal leg to stand on, but who knows. Legislators have been blocking the will of the people on this for two years. It will no doubt be more years of shrieking and screaming before it is fully implemented. But we elected a majority of Dems in both the state house and senate and a Democratic governor, so there is hope. There's always hope, right?

I just find it a glaring error that he tries to use the Constitution as his truncheon, when that document says nothing about holding elections anyway.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The US without California will be like Uzbekistan.

Thhe US without crazy Cali is a lot more sane

Dude you have no idea what California represents, give and so to the US and the world. NO CLUE.

Dude, you have no idea what exists outside of California. NO CLUE.

She's pretty much a lefty idiot. In case you haven't noticed.

Dum ass Issa is not a female name...it means jesus in Arabic you twat.

I don't know that she thought your name was feminine; I think she just thought YOU seemed kinda womanish.

 

[Claudette]

Thhe US without crazy Cali is a lot more sane

Dude you have no idea what California represents, give and so to the US and the world. NO CLUE.

Dude, you have no idea what exists outside of California. NO CLUE.

She's pretty much a lefty idiot. In case you haven't noticed.

Dum ass Issa is not a female name...it means jesus in Arabic you twat.

I don't know that she thought your name was feminine; I think she just thought YOU seemed kinda womanish.

Yup. Issa sounds like a female name.

Since I don't speak Arabic who knew.

Issa sure is an idiot though.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

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.

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.

Fuck off, you're not smarter than the Founding Fathers, you fucking narcissistic self-absorbed fucking asshole!

No matter how much you may think you are, you're not, bitch! Fuck You!

That you even think you might be pisses me off to no end, you fucking fuck! GRAH!

All Pogo has is delusions of grandeur.

 

[Pogo]

Dude you have no idea what California represents, give and so to the US and the world. NO CLUE.

Dude, you have no idea what exists outside of California. NO CLUE.

She's pretty much a lefty idiot. In case you haven't noticed.

Dum ass Issa is not a female name...it means jesus in Arabic you twat.

I don't know that she thought your name was feminine; I think she just thought YOU seemed kinda womanish.

Yup. Issa sounds like a female name.

Since I don't speak Arabic who knew.

Issa sure is an idiot though.

Does it.
Ever hear the name "Yeshua"? or its similar form, "Jesus"? See the similarities?

How ironic that this comes up right next to a troll calling himself "Marion".




Don't speak Arabic eh? Ever use coffee? With sugar? or al-cohol? How 'bout.... caravan?

 

[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.

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

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.

Fuck off, you're not smarter than the Founding Fathers, you fucking narcissistic self-absorbed fucking asshole!

No matter how much you may think you are, you're not, bitch! Fuck You!

That you even think you might be pisses me off to no end, you fucking fuck! GRAH!

James Madison *IS* a Founding Father DUMBASS.

What a pathetic troll. All you've done here is stand on the side yelling "you shut up". You haven't contributed jack shit to the topic here.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Does it.
Ever hear the name "Yeshua"? or its similar form, "Jesus"? See the similarities?

How ironic that this comes up right next to a troll calling himself "Marion".

Mr. Delusions of Grandeur claims what?

 

[Redfish]

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.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

 

[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.

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.

I am not one of those calling for elimination of the EC. Those calls are only coming from disgruntled Hillary supporters, who would not be saying that if she had won. and you fricken well know it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

Big sale on Strawmen at Schwegmann's this week?

 

[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.

I am not one of those calling for elimination of the EC. Those calls are only coming from disgruntled Hillary supporters, who would not be saying that if she had won. and you fricken well know it.

See post 303. A long and tattered history going back way way way before Hillary or her grandparents were born -- even before the Duopoly parties were born. Again, whether you chose to notice it before now, that's on you.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Big sale on Strawmen at Schwegmann's this week?

Butthurt since 2016 Pogo sez wut? Fuck off, butthurt douchebag.

Get the fuck over yourself, seriously.

 

[miketx]

This discussion only seems to come up when one sides candidate of choice wins the popular vote by overperforming in a state or states they were never going to lose like Hillary did in Califorina but lose the electoral vote. In 2016 as recall Trump lead in the popular vote till Califorina came in. If Califorina was a rock solid red state the left would not want the popular vote deciding the Presidency anymore than the right does now if it was a swing state both sides might support going to the popular vote to decide the Presidential election but I doubt it outside of these rare sour grapes moments the electoral system has worked very well for a long time and I sure don't trust the partisan hacks of today could work out a system that would be better.

Bullshit.

This discussion has been a constant for two hundred years. The fact that you choose to notice it only when it serves your fantasy to do so is irrelevant to pretty much anything. It generally comes up every four years, because ------- that's when it's in play. DUH.

Bullshit back at you the popular vote total in the presidential election has gotten major press atttention twice in my lifetime 2000 and 2016 that's not fantasy that's reality deal with it or piss off.

Once AGAIN you're admitting to the only times you bothered to pay attention. I just said that.

Also just posted a counterexample, to which you choose to go

AGAIN, this question is a constant, and always will be until it's resolved. PERIOD.

no it's not. It's only a question when democrats lose elections.

Care to explain those tweets above then?

No, didn't think so.

As an enema of the state, you know as well as I that unless the explanation fits your sick criminal agenda you won't accept it, will you?

I thought so.

 

[Pogo]

Big sale on Strawmen at Schwegmann's this week?

Butthurt since 2016 Pogo sez wut?

Pogo sez go look up my posts from way before '16 and you'll find the same thing. Consistently.
Get busy.

You'll have to exit my pants first.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Big sale on Strawmen at Schwegmann's this week?

Butthurt since 2016 Pogo sez wut?

Pogo sez go look up my posts from way before '16 and you'll find the same thing. Consistently.
Get busy.

You'll have to exit my pants first.

Marion sez GFY leftist Pogo.


You're fulla shit, always. Right up there with JoeB131 in being wrong, and that takes some doing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yes, what we REALLY need to make Presidential elections better is to just dive straight into voting from a slate of 16 candidates, no winnowing or narrowing-down whatsoever. And then, when it inevitably happens that no one has the required number of Electors, what do we do, oh "genius"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dude you have no idea what California represents, give and so to the US and the world. NO CLUE.

Dude, you have no idea what exists outside of California. NO CLUE.

She's pretty much a lefty idiot. In case you haven't noticed.

Dum ass Issa is not a female name...it means jesus in Arabic you twat.

I don't know that she thought your name was feminine; I think she just thought YOU seemed kinda womanish.

Yup. Issa sounds like a female name.

Since I don't speak Arabic who knew.

Issa sure is an idiot though.

I can say honestly that I didn't care before, and now . . . I care even less.

I'm not the least bit surprised to find that his/her/its choice of names exhibits a massive, and completely undeserved, ego.