Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[miketx]

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.

Consistently lying and hating America. But why would anyone want to look up your ignorant hating rants?

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/----/ Libs will find a way to work around Voter ID laws. Desk top publishing can generate excellent forgeries for driver's licenses.

You’re really stupid.

/——/ Who are you calling stupid?

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

You can’t be surprised. He hasn’t contributed anything other than carbon dioxide to any conversation; ever.

 

[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.

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.

You can’t be surprised. He hasn’t contributed anything other than carbon dioxide to any conversation; ever.

Yeah sometimes I state the obvious. Guilty as charged.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

 

[candycorn]

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.

/----/ Libs will find a way to work around Voter ID laws. Desk top publishing can generate excellent forgeries for driver's licenses.

You’re really stupid.

/——/ Who are you calling stupid?

That would be you.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Exactly, Ms. Mainer.

Something OL has seen this year that I have not: Snow.

Tbh, haven't seen it since 1975.

Pretty sure it was in Utah. There were tubes and a mountain.

Tubing is a bit different out west than here.


I prefer tubing here, yes.

Crawdaddies for supper!

 

[candycorn]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Its easier and more efficient to reach the voters in big cities than it is to go door to door in Rural America.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Its easier and more efficient to reach the voters in big cities than it is to go door to door in Rural America.

That doesn't mean their vote should be denigrated, derp!

 

[OldLady]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Exactly, Ms. Mainer.

Something OL has seen this year that I have not: Snow.

Tbh, haven't seen it since 1975.

Pretty sure it was in Utah. There were tubes and a mountain.

Tubing is a bit different out west than here.


I prefer tubing here, yes.

Crawdaddies for supper!

Not yet, I haven't seen snow, but I will tomorrow. I live on the coast so it has all been rain so far. tomorrow though. A few inches.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Exactly, Ms. Mainer.

Something OL has seen this year that I have not: Snow.

Tbh, haven't seen it since 1975.

Pretty sure it was in Utah. There were tubes and a mountain.

Tubing is a bit different out west than here.


I prefer tubing here, yes.

Crawdaddies for supper!

Not yet, I haven't seen snow, but I will tomorrow. I live on the coast so it has all been rain so far. tomorrow though. A few inches.

Prediction for snow here tomorrow: None.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Its easier and more efficient to reach the voters in big cities than it is to go door to door in Rural America.

So it's more of an issue for campaign workers?

I heard someone say that states with low populations would never see a candidate again. LOL. That would be fine with most of us, I think. Who cares if they show up in person? We all have tv's and papers.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Exactly, Ms. Mainer.

Something OL has seen this year that I have not: Snow.

Tbh, haven't seen it since 1975.

Pretty sure it was in Utah. There were tubes and a mountain.

Tubing is a bit different out west than here.


I prefer tubing here, yes.

Crawdaddies for supper!

Not yet, I haven't seen snow, but I will tomorrow. I live on the coast so it has all been rain so far. tomorrow though. A few inches.

Prediction for snow here tomorrow: None.

Don't rub it in Marion. It was cold this morning--15 degrees.

 

[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.

And there's a reason nobody takes your posts seriously, which is that propensity to plug in strawman premises as if they're a fait accompli. You don't think that actually sells, do you?

Yeah sorry Doodles, if you wanna run with the ball of "California and NY making all decisions" the first thing you have to do is prove that ball exists. If you can do that, THEN you can run with it.

Wow, crushing your stupidity is super easy.

There are major benefits for the country when all states are involved in the process, rather than just the two or three high-voter states of California, New York and Massachusetts. If a few large states tried to get five justices of the Supreme Court to kill the electoral college on their own, we probably would see our second civil war.

Don’t abandon the electoral college — it’s good for our democracy

Electoral College – California Rules America Without the Constitution’s System | National Review

Ditching Electoral College would allow California to impose imperial rule on a colonial America - AEI

Without Electoral College, we'd live in real-life 'Hunger Games'

 

[OldLady]

Update for you, Pogo . The judge in a preliminary ruling did not stop the ranked choice voting from continuing, and Poliquin, who brought the suit to stop it, lost to his opponent by a hair (50.5 Golden, 49.5 Poliquin). Now we wait to see what the federal court's ruling is on the constitutionality of RCV.

 

[Redfish]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

The True Founding Fathers Were the Pioneers Heading Out to the Sparsely Populated Territories

That's why, despite Constitutionazi propaganda, the popular vote is unpopular.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

"Mob rule" seems to be something that comes up a lot. You think DEMOCRACY is mob rule, which means you think dictatorship is better or what?

It would seem the Koch brothers have spent a lot of money to tell people it's "mob rule".

I really don't understand what your problem with democracy is.

I really don't understand what your problem with democracy is.


Gays would of not been able to get married, abortion would be Illegal..


.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

But you think everyone in Cal, TX, NY and FL vote the same way or something?
I don't think that's true. I sure don't see how the EC is supposed to give states equal representation, since my state gets 4 and California gets 55. As a matter of fact, the states you listed are the 4 states with the most electoral votes.
So how does that make Maine equal with California, again? Somehow, I don't think it had anything to do with making it equal. That's the Senate's job.

 

[justoffal]

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.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

But you think everyone in Cal, TX, NY and FL vote the same way or something?
I don't think that's true. I sure don't see how the EC is supposed to give states equal representation, since my state gets 4 and California gets 55. As a matter of fact, the states you listed are the 4 states with the most electoral votes.
So how does that make Maine equal with California, again? Somehow, I don't think it had anything to do with making it equal. That's the Senate's job.

I believe at one point there was a plan to have the Senators be the electors. Makes more sense. In answer to your paradox yes those states do have the most electoral votes but even so the EC takes the edgre off of the population disparity.

Jo