Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Pogo]

Actually that's George Orwell. He never dreamed nightmared that Doublethink would take off to this degree.

"Mob rule" is a ludicrous construct on its face. The whole purpose of ANY election, whether it's for President, Mayor, dogcatcher or whether we should all wear cheese wedges on our heads, is to determine what the MAJORITY wants. If after the vote said majority has decided that no, we should not wear cheese wedges on our heads, then it makes NO sense to begin wearing said cheese wedges on the basis that NOT to do so would be acceding to what the vote said and therefore "mob rule". That's utterly absurd, and always has been. May as well quit trying to sell it, as no one is buying this brand of Doublethink.

The fact that all sides have agreed to proceed on the basis of a vote means that what happens as a result CANNOT be "mob rule". Hate to play the part of Captain Obvious but that's what it is and always was.

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Elections are 'mob rule'"

CHEESES.

so, if the majority of people are fine with the system the way it is, then "mob rules" and we leave it alone. it would also mean a majority of people disagree with you and YOUR doublethink.

For Lefty losing is never an option....
They will all shut the hell up when one of theirs wins that way.

Jo

They want NYC, Chicago, and LA to elect our president.

And the SF Bay Area.

Geography is what it is. Highly populous areas already enjoy the benefit of more electoral votes....thankless pricks.....now they just want total, unopposed dominance.

Where and when did anyone, anywhere say, imply or even hint at that?

Hm?

And I mean in real life, not in the Echobubble where y'all walk around murmuring these Doublethinkian rosary beads to each other in self-delusional Confirmation.

If that's not mob rule....what is it? Might makes right rule?

It's called "one voter one vote". Why do summa y'all think you can just cherrypick votes you don't like and declare "this set over here doesn't count"?

Hm?

Why don't they count? Why do you want to FORCE people to leave where they choose to live? Isn't that their decision?

Hm?

If it wasn't for the agricultural production of those less populated areas the most highly populated areas would go hungry. Perhaps we should reconsider the basis upon which the electoral college votes are apportioned.

Jo

Complete non sequitur here. Hate to be the bearer of old news but voting has nothing to do with wealth or "what you make". If it wasn't for the technology of those more populated areas those agricultural areas would go fallow. So what's your point? And wtf does it have to do with voting?

 

[Pogo]

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.

you explained it and you don't even realize that you did, Cal has more people than several other states combined. the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population. the founders foresaw a situation where the more populous states could gang up on the smaller states and virtually vote them out of any say in the federal government.

I am sorry that you and gator don't understand that, its relatively simple.

The irony here:

"the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population"

--- is that this is literally what a straight popular vote would do. Without a middleman. And it would do it more effectively. In the case I cited of my own state that gave all of its 15 EVs to Rump even though he got less than 50% of the voters' votes, where I said it would have been more honest to award 8 EVs to Rump and 7 to Clinton, that still would not count the votes for Stein, Johnson et al. But a popular vote would.

Furthermore, as I pointed out directly to you and AFAIK you had no response, simply knowing that the vote would be taken that way would change the whole character of the vote, since now voters for a third (fourth, fifth, etc) party would actually count for something, and the Duopoly forcing most of the electorate to vote against one to block the other, would be eliminated.

if that was done the candidates would only campaign in 4 states Cal, NY, Tx, and FL. mostly in Cal and NY. Those two states could swing the vote if the rest of the country split 50/50.

I understand that you are pissed that the hildebeast lost, but she lost not because of the EC, but because she was/is an old, crooked, lying, unlikeable bitch who ran a stupid campaign.

If 2016 had been based on PV, then Trump would have held huge rallys in Cal and NY and none of us can predict what the outcome would have been.

You just need to get over the butthurt and realize that the EC is not going away, and that crooked Hillary will never be president.

Once AGAIN you completely whiff on my point about how the EC forces untold millions to vote against one of the Duopoly in order to block the only remaining realistic choice. Apparently you're afraid of that point.

"Hildebeast" was never my candidate and I voted against her. But the WTA/EC left me no way out. Every vote in my state that was against Rump was tossed in the shitcan. And that means the majority of the votes in the state.

DEAL with that.

You also conveniently ignore that I've been on this same rant about the WTA/EC for decades. Including here, WAY before 2016. So take your fantasies that you'd affix to me because you wish they were the case and shove them up your dishonest ass. Deal with what I post, not what you set up as your personal strawman because you're too much of a wimp to address what's on the page.

 

[Pogo]

We have been arguing about it for five minutes and I haven't acknowledged it for two reasons --- one, it has nothing to do with what I have posted above, and two, even if [country's] were an actual word, we would NOT be 50 separate ones of them.

B.S. it's been at least 2 years we have been arguing about this and you will never acknowledge the fact we are 50 separate country's ..United


You want to think people have the same values all over America but we don't...a huge difference between a queer in San Francisco and a redneck in Georgia .

Bull The Fuck Shit. I've opined no such thing, ever. Find me a quote and prove me wrong or admit you can't do it and you pulled it out of your ass.

You search for it, this is like the 50 thread on the subject where you claim people are the same across America.


That's like saying Germans are the same as Portuguese..the Italians are the same as brits


View attachment 228994

IT AIN'T MY CLAIM Pussinboots. I don't NEED to "search for it". YOU do. I know exactly what I've posted and apparently you don't.

Once AGAIN ------------ prove me wrong or shut the fuck up.

No need to be embarrassed you have posted it in numerous threads on the subject, you think a ho in New York City has the same values as a southern lady

You're going to Ignore until you grow the fuck up, asshole.

DO NOT sit here and waste my time along with everybody else's. Come back when you can converse like an adult. SEE ya moron.

:: poof::::

 

[Wyatt earp]

B.S. it's been at least 2 years we have been arguing about this and you will never acknowledge the fact we are 50 separate country's ..United


You want to think people have the same values all over America but we don't...a huge difference between a queer in San Francisco and a redneck in Georgia .

Bull The Fuck Shit. I've opined no such thing, ever. Find me a quote and prove me wrong or admit you can't do it and you pulled it out of your ass.

You search for it, this is like the 50 thread on the subject where you claim people are the same across America.


That's like saying Germans are the same as Portuguese..the Italians are the same as brits


View attachment 228994

IT AIN'T MY CLAIM Pussinboots. I don't NEED to "search for it". YOU do. I know exactly what I've posted and apparently you don't.

Once AGAIN ------------ prove me wrong or shut the fuck up.

No need to be embarrassed you have posted it in numerous threads on the subject, you think a ho in New York City has the same values as a southern lady

You're going to Ignore until you grow the fuck up, asshole.

DO NOT sit here and waste my time along with everybody else's. Come back when you can converse like an adult. SEE ya moron.

::oof::::

You never admitted it..even in this thread.


.

 

[justoffal]

so, if the majority of people are fine with the system the way it is, then "mob rules" and we leave it alone. it would also mean a majority of people disagree with you and YOUR doublethink.

For Lefty losing is never an option....
They will all shut the hell up when one of theirs wins that way.

Jo

They want NYC, Chicago, and LA to elect our president.

And the SF Bay Area.

Geography is what it is. Highly populous areas already enjoy the benefit of more electoral votes....thankless pricks.....now they just want total, unopposed dominance.

Where and when did anyone, anywhere say, imply or even hint at that?

Hm?

And I mean in real life, not in the Echobubble where y'all walk around murmuring these Doublethinkian rosary beads to each other in self-delusional Confirmation.

If that's not mob rule....what is it? Might makes right rule?

It's called "one voter one vote". Why do summa y'all think you can just cherrypick votes you don't like and declare "this set over here doesn't count"?

Hm?

Why don't they count? Why do you want to FORCE people to leave where they choose to live? Isn't that their decision?

Hm?

If it wasn't for the agricultural production of those less populated areas the most highly populated areas would go hungry. Perhaps we should reconsider the basis upon which the electoral college votes are apportioned.

Jo

Complete non sequitur here. Hate to be the bearer of old news but voting has nothing to do with wealth or "what you make". If it wasn't for the technology of those more populated areas those agricultural areas would go fallow. So what's your point? And wtf does it have to do with voting?

Actually no it's not NS. Agricultural production is necessarily done in wide open spaces that discourage dense population centers. Why should an agricultural State be disadvantaged because they choose to provide for everyone else and it costs them population density?

In reality it's not one person one vote just because it looks that way. Those who vote along with more densely populated voting blocs have many times more assured value for their vote and their ambient voting interests than a person who votes from a voting Bloc that is much less densely populated. On the face of it the votes appear to be equal but in reality they are not.

Jo

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

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

Jo

Why not?
Every other educated country has a popular vote
a paper written by slave owners and slave rapists is a pathetic thing to go by.
It's 2018 folks

The wishes of uneducated egomaniacs like you would be even more pathetic.

I realize that you think you're morally and intellectually superior to the Founding Fathers. I'm here to tell you that you're not superior in any way to anyone. You do not have the brains to rise above your cultural conditioning, as they did, and you certainly don't have the sack to do it, as they did. No one will ever be building upon anything that ever emanated from YOUR blowhole to improve humanity as a whole. No one will remember what you say five minutes after you stop speaking, let alone two centuries.

Get over yourself.

The Founding Fathers put something in place that is totally different to what exists now.

Here's the election map of the first Presidential election.

Notice the lack of voting going on except in PA, DE and MA.

Things changed over time, the Constitution has changed over time too.

The Founders put in the amendment process in order for the country to change to meet the requirements of the modern era.

This was their intelligence. To suggest that things remain the same because of the Founders intelligence is rather strange.

It is amazing.
A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists covering 1/10 of the current country being so worshiped. In 2018
I thought I saw where the uk supremes have to retire at 62.
Another concept we should consider

A better concept would be to have the Supreme Court not be based on luck.

 

[Doc1]

B.S. it's been at least 2 years we have been arguing about this and you will never acknowledge the fact we are 50 separate country's ..United


You want to think people have the same values all over America but we don't...a huge difference between a queer in San Francisco and a redneck in Georgia .

Bull The Fuck Shit. I've opined no such thing, ever. Find me a quote and prove me wrong or admit you can't do it and you pulled it out of your ass.

You search for it, this is like the 50 thread on the subject where you claim people are the same across America.


That's like saying Germans are the same as Portuguese..the Italians are the same as brits


View attachment 228994

IT AIN'T MY CLAIM Pussinboots. I don't NEED to "search for it". YOU do. I know exactly what I've posted and apparently you don't.

Once AGAIN ------------ prove me wrong or shut the fuck up.

No need to be embarrassed you have posted it in numerous threads on the subject, you think a ho in New York City has the same values as a southern lady

You're going to Ignore until you grow the fuck up, asshole.

DO NOT sit here and waste my time along with everybody else's. Come back when you can converse like an adult. SEE ya moron.

:: poof::::

LOL, you're a pathetic brain washed dumbass. Why is it you so detest ANYONE who dares to disagree with you?

 

[Auld Phart]

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

Why not?
Every other educated country has a popular vote
a paper written by slave owners and slave rapists is a pathetic thing to go by.
It's 2018 folks

The wishes of uneducated egomaniacs like you would be even more pathetic.

I realize that you think you're morally and intellectually superior to the Founding Fathers. I'm here to tell you that you're not superior in any way to anyone. You do not have the brains to rise above your cultural conditioning, as they did, and you certainly don't have the sack to do it, as they did. No one will ever be building upon anything that ever emanated from YOUR blowhole to improve humanity as a whole. No one will remember what you say five minutes after you stop speaking, let alone two centuries.

Get over yourself.

The Founding Fathers put something in place that is totally different to what exists now.

Here's the election map of the first Presidential election.

Notice the lack of voting going on except in PA, DE and MA.

Things changed over time, the Constitution has changed over time too.

The Founders put in the amendment process in order for the country to change to meet the requirements of the modern era.

This was their intelligence. To suggest that things remain the same because of the Founders intelligence is rather strange.

It is amazing.
A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists covering 1/10 of the current country being so worshiped. In 2018
I thought I saw where the uk supremes have to retire at 62.
Another concept we should consider

A better concept would be to have the Supreme Court not be based on luck.

A better concept would be to have the Supreme Court not be based on luck.

Luck?


Please explain

 

[Wyatt earp]

Bull The Fuck Shit. I've opined no such thing, ever. Find me a quote and prove me wrong or admit you can't do it and you pulled it out of your ass.

You search for it, this is like the 50 thread on the subject where you claim people are the same across America.


That's like saying Germans are the same as Portuguese..the Italians are the same as brits


View attachment 228994

IT AIN'T MY CLAIM Pussinboots. I don't NEED to "search for it". YOU do. I know exactly what I've posted and apparently you don't.

Once AGAIN ------------ prove me wrong or shut the fuck up.

No need to be embarrassed you have posted it in numerous threads on the subject, you think a ho in New York City has the same values as a southern lady

You're going to Ignore until you grow the fuck up, asshole.

DO NOT sit here and waste my time along with everybody else's. Come back when you can converse like an adult. SEE ya moron.

:: poof::::

LOL, you're a pathetic brain washed dumbass. Why is it you so detest ANYONE who dares to disagree with you?

It's because he doesn't want to admit the truth..

He wants the six whores in New York City to have more power then the southern lady and force her into being a tramp like them.


.

 

[justoffal]

Why not?
Every other educated country has a popular vote
a paper written by slave owners and slave rapists is a pathetic thing to go by.
It's 2018 folks

The wishes of uneducated egomaniacs like you would be even more pathetic.

I realize that you think you're morally and intellectually superior to the Founding Fathers. I'm here to tell you that you're not superior in any way to anyone. You do not have the brains to rise above your cultural conditioning, as they did, and you certainly don't have the sack to do it, as they did. No one will ever be building upon anything that ever emanated from YOUR blowhole to improve humanity as a whole. No one will remember what you say five minutes after you stop speaking, let alone two centuries.

Get over yourself.

The Founding Fathers put something in place that is totally different to what exists now.

Here's the election map of the first Presidential election.

Notice the lack of voting going on except in PA, DE and MA.

Things changed over time, the Constitution has changed over time too.

The Founders put in the amendment process in order for the country to change to meet the requirements of the modern era.

This was their intelligence. To suggest that things remain the same because of the Founders intelligence is rather strange.

It is amazing.
A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists covering 1/10 of the current country being so worshiped. In 2018
I thought I saw where the uk supremes have to retire at 62.
Another concept we should consider

A better concept would be to have the Supreme Court not be based on luck.

A better concept would be to have the Supreme Court not be based on luck.

Luck?


Please explain

Yeah I'd like to see that one myself.

Jo

 

[frigidweirdo]

The wishes of uneducated egomaniacs like you would be even more pathetic.

I realize that you think you're morally and intellectually superior to the Founding Fathers. I'm here to tell you that you're not superior in any way to anyone. You do not have the brains to rise above your cultural conditioning, as they did, and you certainly don't have the sack to do it, as they did. No one will ever be building upon anything that ever emanated from YOUR blowhole to improve humanity as a whole. No one will remember what you say five minutes after you stop speaking, let alone two centuries.

Get over yourself.

The Founding Fathers put something in place that is totally different to what exists now.

Here's the election map of the first Presidential election.

Notice the lack of voting going on except in PA, DE and MA.

Things changed over time, the Constitution has changed over time too.

The Founders put in the amendment process in order for the country to change to meet the requirements of the modern era.

This was their intelligence. To suggest that things remain the same because of the Founders intelligence is rather strange.

It is amazing.
A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists covering 1/10 of the current country being so worshiped. In 2018
I thought I saw where the uk supremes have to retire at 62.
Another concept we should consider

A better concept would be to have the Supreme Court not be based on luck.

A better concept would be to have the Supreme Court not be based on luck.

Luck?


Please explain

Yeah I'd like to see that one myself.

Jo

Then why don't you ask?

 

[Snouter]

The popular vote should be the ultimate decide if and only if only law abiding, taxpaying citizens with IQs above 100 vote. Otherwise, look at the Middle East, Africa or South America to see the result of low IQ participation in government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The popular vote should be the ultimate decide if and only if only law abiding, taxpaying citizens with IQs above 100 vote. Otherwise, look at the Middle East, Africa or South America to see the result of low IQ participation in government.

One only needs look at the US. In fact IQ isn't actually the deciding factor in people making shitty choices.

I know a guy, fairly intelligent, admits he's ignorant as hell when it comes to politics, but votes anyway.

 

[Redfish]

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.

you explained it and you don't even realize that you did, Cal has more people than several other states combined. the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population. the founders foresaw a situation where the more populous states could gang up on the smaller states and virtually vote them out of any say in the federal government.

I am sorry that you and gator don't understand that, its relatively simple.

The irony here:

"the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population"

--- is that this is literally what a straight popular vote would do. Without a middleman. And it would do it more effectively. In the case I cited of my own state that gave all of its 15 EVs to Rump even though he got less than 50% of the voters' votes, where I said it would have been more honest to award 8 EVs to Rump and 7 to Clinton, that still would not count the votes for Stein, Johnson et al. But a popular vote would.

Furthermore, as I pointed out directly to you and AFAIK you had no response, simply knowing that the vote would be taken that way would change the whole character of the vote, since now voters for a third (fourth, fifth, etc) party would actually count for something, and the Duopoly forcing most of the electorate to vote against one to block the other, would be eliminated.

if that was done the candidates would only campaign in 4 states Cal, NY, Tx, and FL. mostly in Cal and NY. Those two states could swing the vote if the rest of the country split 50/50.

I understand that you are pissed that the hildebeast lost, but she lost not because of the EC, but because she was/is an old, crooked, lying, unlikeable bitch who ran a stupid campaign.

If 2016 had been based on PV, then Trump would have held huge rallys in Cal and NY and none of us can predict what the outcome would have been.

You just need to get over the butthurt and realize that the EC is not going away, and that crooked Hillary will never be president.

Once AGAIN you completely whiff on my point about how the EC forces untold millions to vote against one of the Duopoly in order to block the only remaining realistic choice. Apparently you're afraid of that point.

"Hildebeast" was never my candidate and I voted against her. But the WTA/EC left me no way out. Every vote in my state that was against Rump was tossed in the shitcan. And that means the majority of the votes in the state.

DEAL with that.

You also conveniently ignore that I've been on this same rant about the WTA/EC for decades. Including here, WAY before 2016. So take your fantasies that you'd affix to me because you wish they were the case and shove them up your dishonest ass. Deal with what I post, not what you set up as your personal strawman because you're too much of a wimp to address what's on the page.

not sure what your point was since your reply was a convoluted mess or unrelated words.

Yes, many times we vote against a candidate rather than for the other candidate, lessor of two evils in almost every election. Removing the EC would not change that.

I too have voted for third party candidates and wasted my vote, that's just a reality of life in a free democratic republic, and again removing the EC would not change that either.

So you live in a state that gave its EC votes to Trump, so do I. If we lived in Cal our votes would have made no difference because all of Cal's votes went for crooked Hillary. And BTW the entire PV delta occurred in Cal and NY. Trump won based on the rules in affect since 1776, they all knew the rules. Stupid crooked Hillary decided not to campaign in MIch, Wisc, and Penn because she thought she had them in her crooked pocket. She was wrong. Its over.

 

[Doc1]

 

[Auld Phart]

View attachment 229277

From 2000?

 

[OldLady]

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.

you explained it and you don't even realize that you did, Cal has more people than several other states combined. the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population. the founders foresaw a situation where the more populous states could gang up on the smaller states and virtually vote them out of any say in the federal government.

I am sorry that you and gator don't understand that, its relatively simple.

The irony here:

"the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population"

--- is that this is literally what a straight popular vote would do. Without a middleman. And it would do it more effectively. In the case I cited of my own state that gave all of its 15 EVs to Rump even though he got less than 50% of the voters' votes, where I said it would have been more honest to award 8 EVs to Rump and 7 to Clinton, that still would not count the votes for Stein, Johnson et al. But a popular vote would.

Furthermore, as I pointed out directly to you and AFAIK you had no response, simply knowing that the vote would be taken that way would change the whole character of the vote, since now voters for a third (fourth, fifth, etc) party would actually count for something, and the Duopoly forcing most of the electorate to vote against one to block the other, would be eliminated.

if that was done the candidates would only campaign in 4 states Cal, NY, Tx, and FL. mostly in Cal and NY. Those two states could swing the vote if the rest of the country split 50/50.

I understand that you are pissed that the hildebeast lost, but she lost not because of the EC, but because she was/is an old, crooked, lying, unlikeable bitch who ran a stupid campaign.

If 2016 had been based on PV, then Trump would have held huge rallys in Cal and NY and none of us can predict what the outcome would have been.

You just need to get over the butthurt and realize that the EC is not going away, and that crooked Hillary will never be president.

Once AGAIN you completely whiff on my point about how the EC forces untold millions to vote against one of the Duopoly in order to block the only remaining realistic choice. Apparently you're afraid of that point.

"Hildebeast" was never my candidate and I voted against her. But the WTA/EC left me no way out. Every vote in my state that was against Rump was tossed in the shitcan. And that means the majority of the votes in the state.

DEAL with that.

You also conveniently ignore that I've been on this same rant about the WTA/EC for decades. Including here, WAY before 2016. So take your fantasies that you'd affix to me because you wish they were the case and shove them up your dishonest ass. Deal with what I post, not what you set up as your personal strawman because you're too much of a wimp to address what's on the page.

Being politically unsophisticated, I have never thought of my vote being wasted. I think of the 2000 election.
If we went with "projections," no one in the 2nd District here would have bothered showing up to vote for Trump, since Maine has elected Democratic presidents for a couple of decades now.
But the 2nd District DID vote for Trump, giving a Republican an EC vote for the first time in a long time.
There's always hope, Pogo.

 

[Redfish]

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.

you explained it and you don't even realize that you did, Cal has more people than several other states combined. the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population. the founders foresaw a situation where the more populous states could gang up on the smaller states and virtually vote them out of any say in the federal government.

I am sorry that you and gator don't understand that, its relatively simple.

The irony here:

"the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population"

--- is that this is literally what a straight popular vote would do. Without a middleman. And it would do it more effectively. In the case I cited of my own state that gave all of its 15 EVs to Rump even though he got less than 50% of the voters' votes, where I said it would have been more honest to award 8 EVs to Rump and 7 to Clinton, that still would not count the votes for Stein, Johnson et al. But a popular vote would.

Furthermore, as I pointed out directly to you and AFAIK you had no response, simply knowing that the vote would be taken that way would change the whole character of the vote, since now voters for a third (fourth, fifth, etc) party would actually count for something, and the Duopoly forcing most of the electorate to vote against one to block the other, would be eliminated.

if that was done the candidates would only campaign in 4 states Cal, NY, Tx, and FL. mostly in Cal and NY. Those two states could swing the vote if the rest of the country split 50/50.

I understand that you are pissed that the hildebeast lost, but she lost not because of the EC, but because she was/is an old, crooked, lying, unlikeable bitch who ran a stupid campaign.

If 2016 had been based on PV, then Trump would have held huge rallys in Cal and NY and none of us can predict what the outcome would have been.

You just need to get over the butthurt and realize that the EC is not going away, and that crooked Hillary will never be president.

Once AGAIN you completely whiff on my point about how the EC forces untold millions to vote against one of the Duopoly in order to block the only remaining realistic choice. Apparently you're afraid of that point.

"Hildebeast" was never my candidate and I voted against her. But the WTA/EC left me no way out. Every vote in my state that was against Rump was tossed in the shitcan. And that means the majority of the votes in the state.

DEAL with that.

You also conveniently ignore that I've been on this same rant about the WTA/EC for decades. Including here, WAY before 2016. So take your fantasies that you'd affix to me because you wish they were the case and shove them up your dishonest ass. Deal with what I post, not what you set up as your personal strawman because you're too much of a wimp to address what's on the page.

Being politically unsophisticated, I have never thought of my vote being wasted. I think of the 2000 election.
If we went with "projections," no one in the 2nd District here would have bothered showing up to vote for Trump, since Maine has elected Democratic presidents for a couple of decades now.
But the 2nd District DID vote for Trump, giving a Republican an EC vote for the first time in a long time.
There's always hope, Pogo.

What you are really pointing out here is that the pollsters lied to us. We need to accept the reality that the polls today are not designed to report on public opinion, they are designed to influence public opinion. As you said, if you believed the polls you and others would have stayed home on election day-----------exactly what the pollsters were trying to get you to do.

 

[justoffal]

you explained it and you don't even realize that you did, Cal has more people than several other states combined. the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population. the founders foresaw a situation where the more populous states could gang up on the smaller states and virtually vote them out of any say in the federal government.

I am sorry that you and gator don't understand that, its relatively simple.

The irony here:

"the purpose of the EC is to give a voice to every state proportional to its population"

--- is that this is literally what a straight popular vote would do. Without a middleman. And it would do it more effectively. In the case I cited of my own state that gave all of its 15 EVs to Rump even though he got less than 50% of the voters' votes, where I said it would have been more honest to award 8 EVs to Rump and 7 to Clinton, that still would not count the votes for Stein, Johnson et al. But a popular vote would.

Furthermore, as I pointed out directly to you and AFAIK you had no response, simply knowing that the vote would be taken that way would change the whole character of the vote, since now voters for a third (fourth, fifth, etc) party would actually count for something, and the Duopoly forcing most of the electorate to vote against one to block the other, would be eliminated.

if that was done the candidates would only campaign in 4 states Cal, NY, Tx, and FL. mostly in Cal and NY. Those two states could swing the vote if the rest of the country split 50/50.

I understand that you are pissed that the hildebeast lost, but she lost not because of the EC, but because she was/is an old, crooked, lying, unlikeable bitch who ran a stupid campaign.

If 2016 had been based on PV, then Trump would have held huge rallys in Cal and NY and none of us can predict what the outcome would have been.

You just need to get over the butthurt and realize that the EC is not going away, and that crooked Hillary will never be president.

Once AGAIN you completely whiff on my point about how the EC forces untold millions to vote against one of the Duopoly in order to block the only remaining realistic choice. Apparently you're afraid of that point.

"Hildebeast" was never my candidate and I voted against her. But the WTA/EC left me no way out. Every vote in my state that was against Rump was tossed in the shitcan. And that means the majority of the votes in the state.

DEAL with that.

You also conveniently ignore that I've been on this same rant about the WTA/EC for decades. Including here, WAY before 2016. So take your fantasies that you'd affix to me because you wish they were the case and shove them up your dishonest ass. Deal with what I post, not what you set up as your personal strawman because you're too much of a wimp to address what's on the page.

Being politically unsophisticated, I have never thought of my vote being wasted. I think of the 2000 election.
If we went with "projections," no one in the 2nd District here would have bothered showing up to vote for Trump, since Maine has elected Democratic presidents for a couple of decades now.
But the 2nd District DID vote for Trump, giving a Republican an EC vote for the first time in a long time.
There's always hope, Pogo.

What you are really pointing out here is that the pollsters lied to us. We need to accept the reality that the polls today are not designed to report on public opinion, they are designed to influence public opinion. As you said, if you believed the polls you and others would have stayed home on election day-----------exactly what the pollsters were trying to get you to do.

Are there no reliable sources of info anymore?

Jo

 

[ph3iron]

The popular vote should be the ultimate decide if and only if only law abiding, taxpaying citizens with IQs above 100 vote. Otherwise, look at the Middle East, Africa or South America to see the result of low IQ participation in government.

That eliminates the confederacy and Texas I guess.
White landowners, that's what I say