Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Pogo]

No poll if done ethically is "designed to influence public opinion". There are pseudo-polls that are set up for that purpose, but those are not "polls". The one that always comes to mind is George Bush calling South Carolina voters and "asking", "would you be less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". But that's not a poll -- that's a "push-poll". A device made to look like a poll, marinated in dishonesty.

But since you bring up polls, that's another pitfall of the WTA/EC as practiced now --- it makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting up on election day to vote at all. Because if your state's leaning 59% one way, then it's decided, and your single vote will get washed away, so stay home and learn to crochet. Only those states "too close to call" have a reason for voters to exercise their franchise at all, and even then it's by definition ---- as I already explained to you ---- limited to the "red" or the "blue", because one of them is going to prevail, and ONLY one of them will.

If you have any winner at all ... No matter how you get that winner.... He takes ALL.....
Those who did not vote for him/her will feel cheated as always and feel as though their vote was wasted. Unless we come up with a power sharing scheme which is probably just a short cut to civil war.

You cannot escape this.

Jo

If you and I and USMB vote on whether "JO" stands for "Jerkoff" and the vote is 51-48, then that's the vote, period. The 48 voters lost and they'll deal with it.

But if we take the same vote and some committee on our behalf goes to the mods and says "guess what, we all took a poll and ALL NINETY-NINE PEOPLE in the poll unanimously say JO is a jerkoff", that's a different thing.

Isn't it.

In my state in the last POTUS election nobody got as much as 50% of the vote. It was spread out among mostly Rump and Hillary, with smatterings of Steins and Johnsons and McMullins and Castles etc.

And yet our fifteen electors went out to Congress and lied through their teeth, telling them we ALL voted for Rump. Which was BULLSHIT.

Four years earlier they told Congress the same kind of lie, lying that "wow it's amazing, everybody in North Carolina voted for Romney". Which is BULLSHIT.

Four years before that they did the same thing, lying to Congress that "everybody in Carolina voted for O'bama". Which was BULLSHIT.

Stop me when you begin to see a pattern here.

Hmmm......

I see no pattern at all in the post though I read it numerous times.

I do see frustration, intolerance and condescension .... But no real reason on the issue.

You decry WTA..... Which means you don't want a winner.... At best your want power
Sharing.... Or another way of saying civil war.

Jo

Here's ^^ the most nonsequituresque red herring strawman in the fewest number of words that I've seen for many a day.

Yyyyyyyeah, "power sharing" --- which has nothing to do with my point --- is "another way of saying civil war". Go tell that to all the bicameral legislatures and parliaments around the globe. Collect the whole set of guffaws.

If my point is indisputable, just say so. Don't flail around with absurdities.

SMFH --- the hoops people will jump through just to avoid admitting they can't refute an argument...

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

That's utter bullshit.

If the Toledo Mudhens play the Hoboken Zephyrs and Toledo scores five runs and Hoboken scores four, then Toledo wins by *ONE* run. They do NOT win by a score of nine to nothing.

I already spelled out my argument in sixteen ways. You have no counter. Matter of fact the only argument anybody even tried --- and I believe it was you --- was trying to sell this malarkey that small states would never abandon WTA because it would diminish their power, whereupon I immediately pointed out to you that there are already two states that do not, and they're BOTH small states, and that was the end of that.

The fact that those two states exist mean you're already wrong right there.

 

[Pogo]

Not one demolib would be screaming to do away with the EC if crooked Hillary had won. This whole discussion is just another example of left wing hypocrisy.

Over, done, Trump won, Hillary lost, 2016 is history, get the fuck over it and move on.

No arguments in this thread have linked to or hung on any specific election. Once AGAIN you can't seem to deal with the fact that this thread is about how the EC works, not about 2016, not about 2012, not about 2000, not about 19bloody68, not about 18fucking76, not about 18frickin'28, not about any specific election at all. It's about the way the EC works in ***EVERY ELECTION***.

Your speculation fallacy is dismissed out of hand. If you can't deal with the topic as it is, and you've contributed absolute zero in this post, then you should move on to something where you can contribute. K?

 

[Pogo]

If you have any winner at all ... No matter how you get that winner.... He takes ALL.....
Those who did not vote for him/her will feel cheated as always and feel as though their vote was wasted. Unless we come up with a power sharing scheme which is probably just a short cut to civil war.

You cannot escape this.

Jo

If you and I and USMB vote on whether "JO" stands for "Jerkoff" and the vote is 51-48, then that's the vote, period. The 48 voters lost and they'll deal with it.

But if we take the same vote and some committee on our behalf goes to the mods and says "guess what, we all took a poll and ALL NINETY-NINE PEOPLE in the poll unanimously say JO is a jerkoff", that's a different thing.

Isn't it.

In my state in the last POTUS election nobody got as much as 50% of the vote. It was spread out among mostly Rump and Hillary, with smatterings of Steins and Johnsons and McMullins and Castles etc.

And yet our fifteen electors went out to Congress and lied through their teeth, telling them we ALL voted for Rump. Which was BULLSHIT.

Four years earlier they told Congress the same kind of lie, lying that "wow it's amazing, everybody in North Carolina voted for Romney". Which is BULLSHIT.

Four years before that they did the same thing, lying to Congress that "everybody in Carolina voted for O'bama". Which was BULLSHIT.

Stop me when you begin to see a pattern here.

Hmmm......

I see no pattern at all in the post though I read it numerous times.

I do see frustration, intolerance and condescension .... But no real reason on the issue.

You decry WTA..... Which means you don't want a winner.... At best your want power
Sharing.... Or another way of saying civil war.

Jo

Here's ^^ the most nonsequituresque red herring strawman in the fewest number of words that I've seen for many a day.

Yyyyyyyeah, "power sharing" --- which has nothing to do with my point --- is "another way of saying civil war". Go tell that to all the bicameral legislatures and parliaments around the globe. Collect the whole set of guffaws.

If my point is indisputable, just say so. Don't flail around with absurdities.

SMFH --- the hoops people will jump through just to avoid admitting they can't refute an argument...

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

Member the last time your state held a vote for governor, or a Senator, or both? Member how each county counted up its votes and then went to the state capital with its alloted electors and lied to your state legislator telling it EVERYBODY in county (Q) voted for Smith for Governor and Jones for Senator?

What? They didn't do that?

Whaddaya mean they counted up the total state votes? Why didn't they go with the "winner take all" wet dream, if it's how stuff works?

Having it both ways?

 

[Redfish]

Not one demolib would be screaming to do away with the EC if crooked Hillary had won. This whole discussion is just another example of left wing hypocrisy.

Over, done, Trump won, Hillary lost, 2016 is history, get the fuck over it and move on.

No arguments in this thread have linked to or hung on any specific election. Once AGAIN you can't seem to deal with the fact that this thread is about how the EC works, not about 2016, not about 2012, not about 2000, not about 19bloody68, not about 18fucking76, not about 18frickin'28, not about any specific election at all. It's about the way the EC works in ***EVERY ELECTION***.

Your speculation fallacy is dismissed out of hand. If you can't deal with the topic as it is, and you've contributed absolute zero in this post, then you should move on to something where you can contribute. K?

I have dealt with it. I am perfectly fine with the EC. I like the way it is set up to prevent the large population centers from choosing our presidents and allowing even the small population states to have a voice in the elections. the founders got it right.

Why specifically do you want to do away with it? and seriously, would you be ranting about it if Hillary had won? I doubt it.

 

[Redfish]

If you have any winner at all ... No matter how you get that winner.... He takes ALL.....
Those who did not vote for him/her will feel cheated as always and feel as though their vote was wasted. Unless we come up with a power sharing scheme which is probably just a short cut to civil war.

You cannot escape this.

Jo

If you and I and USMB vote on whether "JO" stands for "Jerkoff" and the vote is 51-48, then that's the vote, period. The 48 voters lost and they'll deal with it.

But if we take the same vote and some committee on our behalf goes to the mods and says "guess what, we all took a poll and ALL NINETY-NINE PEOPLE in the poll unanimously say JO is a jerkoff", that's a different thing.

Isn't it.

In my state in the last POTUS election nobody got as much as 50% of the vote. It was spread out among mostly Rump and Hillary, with smatterings of Steins and Johnsons and McMullins and Castles etc.

And yet our fifteen electors went out to Congress and lied through their teeth, telling them we ALL voted for Rump. Which was BULLSHIT.

Four years earlier they told Congress the same kind of lie, lying that "wow it's amazing, everybody in North Carolina voted for Romney". Which is BULLSHIT.

Four years before that they did the same thing, lying to Congress that "everybody in Carolina voted for O'bama". Which was BULLSHIT.

Stop me when you begin to see a pattern here.

Hmmm......

I see no pattern at all in the post though I read it numerous times.

I do see frustration, intolerance and condescension .... But no real reason on the issue.

You decry WTA..... Which means you don't want a winner.... At best your want power
Sharing.... Or another way of saying civil war.

Jo

Here's ^^ the most nonsequituresque red herring strawman in the fewest number of words that I've seen for many a day.

Yyyyyyyeah, "power sharing" --- which has nothing to do with my point --- is "another way of saying civil war". Go tell that to all the bicameral legislatures and parliaments around the globe. Collect the whole set of guffaws.

If my point is indisputable, just say so. Don't flail around with absurdities.

SMFH --- the hoops people will jump through just to avoid admitting they can't refute an argument...

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

Member the last time your state held a vote for governor, or a Senator, or both? Member how each county counted up its votes and then went to the state capital with its alloted electors and lied to your state legislator telling it EVERYBODY in county (Q) voted for Smith for Governor and Jones for Senator?

What? They didn't do that?

Whaddaya mean they counted up the total state votes? Why didn't they go with the "winner take all" wet dream, if it's how stuff works?

Having it both ways?

yes, that's they way state elections work, and as a result, NYC has more influence that Rochester, and New Orleans has more influence than Monroe, and Miami has more influence than panama city, and Atlanta has more influence than Dalton. That is why the recent elections in Florida and Georgia were close. the big cities choose governors and senators, the rest of the states might as well stay home.

 

[Pogo]

Not one demolib would be screaming to do away with the EC if crooked Hillary had won. This whole discussion is just another example of left wing hypocrisy.

Over, done, Trump won, Hillary lost, 2016 is history, get the fuck over it and move on.

No arguments in this thread have linked to or hung on any specific election. Once AGAIN you can't seem to deal with the fact that this thread is about how the EC works, not about 2016, not about 2012, not about 2000, not about 19bloody68, not about 18fucking76, not about 18frickin'28, not about any specific election at all. It's about the way the EC works in ***EVERY ELECTION***.

Your speculation fallacy is dismissed out of hand. If you can't deal with the topic as it is, and you've contributed absolute zero in this post, then you should move on to something where you can contribute. K?

I have dealt with it. I am perfectly fine with the EC. I like the way it is set up to prevent the large population centers from choosing our presidents and allowing even the small population states to have a voice in the elections. the founders got it right.

Why specifically do you want to do away with it? and seriously, would you be ranting about it if Hillary had won? I doubt it.

You don't read much because, again, and I KNOW I pointed this out before --- I've been on the same argument about the EC for *YEARS*, WAY before 2016 with which that argument has nothing to do and obviously never did. This is a case of you looking for a cheap way out of addressing it, by pretending it's about something else. And that's just dishonest.

Also AGAIN --- and I know I said this before too --- I'm not saying I "want to do away with" the EC. What I've concentrated on is the WTA part of it that makes it insidious. That laundry list of my criticism of the system status quo ---- that it tosses away millions of votes, creates artificial "red" and "blue" states, makes us all dependent on polls, perpetuates the Duopoly, depresses general turnout ---- is all lain at the feet of the WTA, which has *ZERO* to do with the Constitution.

But yanno what, just skip those paragraphs above and ignore them again, because

 

[Pogo]

If you and I and USMB vote on whether "JO" stands for "Jerkoff" and the vote is 51-48, then that's the vote, period. The 48 voters lost and they'll deal with it.

But if we take the same vote and some committee on our behalf goes to the mods and says "guess what, we all took a poll and ALL NINETY-NINE PEOPLE in the poll unanimously say JO is a jerkoff", that's a different thing.

Isn't it.

In my state in the last POTUS election nobody got as much as 50% of the vote. It was spread out among mostly Rump and Hillary, with smatterings of Steins and Johnsons and McMullins and Castles etc.

And yet our fifteen electors went out to Congress and lied through their teeth, telling them we ALL voted for Rump. Which was BULLSHIT.

Four years earlier they told Congress the same kind of lie, lying that "wow it's amazing, everybody in North Carolina voted for Romney". Which is BULLSHIT.

Four years before that they did the same thing, lying to Congress that "everybody in Carolina voted for O'bama". Which was BULLSHIT.

Stop me when you begin to see a pattern here.

Hmmm......

I see no pattern at all in the post though I read it numerous times.

I do see frustration, intolerance and condescension .... But no real reason on the issue.

You decry WTA..... Which means you don't want a winner.... At best your want power
Sharing.... Or another way of saying civil war.

Jo

Here's ^^ the most nonsequituresque red herring strawman in the fewest number of words that I've seen for many a day.

Yyyyyyyeah, "power sharing" --- which has nothing to do with my point --- is "another way of saying civil war". Go tell that to all the bicameral legislatures and parliaments around the globe. Collect the whole set of guffaws.

If my point is indisputable, just say so. Don't flail around with absurdities.

SMFH --- the hoops people will jump through just to avoid admitting they can't refute an argument...

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

Member the last time your state held a vote for governor, or a Senator, or both? Member how each county counted up its votes and then went to the state capital with its alloted electors and lied to your state legislator telling it EVERYBODY in county (Q) voted for Smith for Governor and Jones for Senator?

What? They didn't do that?

Whaddaya mean they counted up the total state votes? Why didn't they go with the "winner take all" wet dream, if it's how stuff works?

Having it both ways?

yes, that's they way state elections work, and as a result, NYC has more influence that Rochester, and New Orleans has more influence than Monroe, and Miami has more influence than panama city, and Atlanta has more influence than Dalton. That is why the recent elections in Florida and Georgia were close. the big cities choose governors and senators, the rest of the states might as well stay home.

That kinda makes the legacy string of (in this case) Georgia Republican Governors and Senators hard to explain, doesn't it.

You can take ANY bloc of however-defined statistics that is a larger number than the remainder, and that bloc has more influence. This isn't news. It's how numbers work.

The point above being avoided is that, if this proxy-elector system is the way to elect a head of state ---- then why isn't it valid to elect the head of A state? Same dynamics going on, same reasoning should apply. Why then doesn't it?

I can see why that question would be avoided, since it has no answer.

 

[justoffal]

If you have any winner at all ... No matter how you get that winner.... He takes ALL.....
Those who did not vote for him/her will feel cheated as always and feel as though their vote was wasted. Unless we come up with a power sharing scheme which is probably just a short cut to civil war.

You cannot escape this.

Jo

If you and I and USMB vote on whether "JO" stands for "Jerkoff" and the vote is 51-48, then that's the vote, period. The 48 voters lost and they'll deal with it.

But if we take the same vote and some committee on our behalf goes to the mods and says "guess what, we all took a poll and ALL NINETY-NINE PEOPLE in the poll unanimously say JO is a jerkoff", that's a different thing.

Isn't it.

In my state in the last POTUS election nobody got as much as 50% of the vote. It was spread out among mostly Rump and Hillary, with smatterings of Steins and Johnsons and McMullins and Castles etc.

And yet our fifteen electors went out to Congress and lied through their teeth, telling them we ALL voted for Rump. Which was BULLSHIT.

Four years earlier they told Congress the same kind of lie, lying that "wow it's amazing, everybody in North Carolina voted for Romney". Which is BULLSHIT.

Four years before that they did the same thing, lying to Congress that "everybody in Carolina voted for O'bama". Which was BULLSHIT.

Stop me when you begin to see a pattern here.

Hmmm......

I see no pattern at all in the post though I read it numerous times.

I do see frustration, intolerance and condescension .... But no real reason on the issue.

You decry WTA..... Which means you don't want a winner.... At best your want power
Sharing.... Or another way of saying civil war.

Jo

Here's ^^ the most nonsequituresque red herring strawman in the fewest number of words that I've seen for many a day.

Yyyyyyyeah, "power sharing" --- which has nothing to do with my point --- is "another way of saying civil war". Go tell that to all the bicameral legislatures and parliaments around the globe. Collect the whole set of guffaws.

If my point is indisputable, just say so. Don't flail around with absurdities.

SMFH --- the hoops people will jump through just to avoid admitting they can't refute an argument...

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

That's utter bullshit.

If the Toledo Mudhens play the Hoboken Zephyrs and Toledo scores five runs and Hoboken scores four, then Toledo wins by *ONE* run. They do NOT win by a score of nine to nothing.

I already spelled out my argument in sixteen ways. You have no counter. Matter of fact the only argument anybody even tried --- and I believe it was you --- was trying to sell this malarkey that small states would never abandon WTA because it would diminish their power, whereupon I immediately pointed out to you that there are already two states that do not, and they're BOTH small states, and that was the end of that.

The fact that those two states exist mean you're already wrong right there.

Is there some difference in the victory dude?
One team still walks away with all the credit.
Unless you want to assign only partial victory
to the one run squeaker. ( I'm thinking 3/5 ) I'm not totally against that concept but somehow I don't think you could sell it to the left....they like total victory and total control.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Hmmm......

I see no pattern at all in the post though I read it numerous times.

I do see frustration, intolerance and condescension .... But no real reason on the issue.

You decry WTA..... Which means you don't want a winner.... At best your want power
Sharing.... Or another way of saying civil war.

Jo

Here's ^^ the most nonsequituresque red herring strawman in the fewest number of words that I've seen for many a day.

Yyyyyyyeah, "power sharing" --- which has nothing to do with my point --- is "another way of saying civil war". Go tell that to all the bicameral legislatures and parliaments around the globe. Collect the whole set of guffaws.

If my point is indisputable, just say so. Don't flail around with absurdities.

SMFH --- the hoops people will jump through just to avoid admitting they can't refute an argument...

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

Member the last time your state held a vote for governor, or a Senator, or both? Member how each county counted up its votes and then went to the state capital with its alloted electors and lied to your state legislator telling it EVERYBODY in county (Q) voted for Smith for Governor and Jones for Senator?

What? They didn't do that?

Whaddaya mean they counted up the total state votes? Why didn't they go with the "winner take all" wet dream, if it's how stuff works?

Having it both ways?

yes, that's they way state elections work, and as a result, NYC has more influence that Rochester, and New Orleans has more influence than Monroe, and Miami has more influence than panama city, and Atlanta has more influence than Dalton. That is why the recent elections in Florida and Georgia were close. the big cities choose governors and senators, the rest of the states might as well stay home.

That kinda makes the legacy string of (in this case) Georgia Republican Governors and Senators hard to explain, doesn't it.

You can take ANY bloc of however-defined statistics that is a larger number than the remainder, and that bloc has more influence. This isn't news. It's how numbers work.

The point above being avoided is that, if this proxy-elector system is the way to elect a head of state ---- then why isn't it valid to elect the head of A state? Same dynamics going on, same reasoning should apply. Why then doesn't it?

I can see why that question would be avoided, since it has no answer.

it doesn't have just one answer....it has as many answers as there are opinions on the subject.

Think back and try to recall your history.
There were a lot of good things for an independent territory to be attracted to in the Union. One of them however was not the elimination of their voice on matters. Whereas territories were formed somewhat like instant mashed potatoes the union was not, it was cobbled together a piece at a time.

Jo

 

[JoeB131]

I have dealt with it. I am perfectly fine with the EC. I like the way it is set up to prevent the large population centers from choosing our presidents and allowing even the small population states to have a voice in the elections. the founders got it right.

NO, they didn't. The ONLY Reason they did this was to keep the Slave States from trying to form their own country... and that didn't work because they tried to anyway.

If the larger states have more of a voice, THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE.

 

[Pogo]

Here's ^^ the most nonsequituresque red herring strawman in the fewest number of words that I've seen for many a day.

Yyyyyyyeah, "power sharing" --- which has nothing to do with my point --- is "another way of saying civil war". Go tell that to all the bicameral legislatures and parliaments around the globe. Collect the whole set of guffaws.

If my point is indisputable, just say so. Don't flail around with absurdities.

SMFH --- the hoops people will jump through just to avoid admitting they can't refute an argument...

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

Member the last time your state held a vote for governor, or a Senator, or both? Member how each county counted up its votes and then went to the state capital with its alloted electors and lied to your state legislator telling it EVERYBODY in county (Q) voted for Smith for Governor and Jones for Senator?

What? They didn't do that?

Whaddaya mean they counted up the total state votes? Why didn't they go with the "winner take all" wet dream, if it's how stuff works?

Having it both ways?

yes, that's they way state elections work, and as a result, NYC has more influence that Rochester, and New Orleans has more influence than Monroe, and Miami has more influence than panama city, and Atlanta has more influence than Dalton. That is why the recent elections in Florida and Georgia were close. the big cities choose governors and senators, the rest of the states might as well stay home.

That kinda makes the legacy string of (in this case) Georgia Republican Governors and Senators hard to explain, doesn't it.

You can take ANY bloc of however-defined statistics that is a larger number than the remainder, and that bloc has more influence. This isn't news. It's how numbers work.

The point above being avoided is that, if this proxy-elector system is the way to elect a head of state ---- then why isn't it valid to elect the head of A state? Same dynamics going on, same reasoning should apply. Why then doesn't it?

I can see why that question would be avoided, since it has no answer.

it doesn't have just one answer....it has as many answers as there are opinions on the subject.

Think back and try to recall your history.
There were a lot of good things for an independent territory to be attracted to in the Union. One of them however was not the elimination of their voice on matters. Whereas territories were formed somewhat like instant mashed potatoes the union was not, it was cobbled together a piece at a time.

Jo

Once AGAIN you can't answer the question. If your proxy clusterfuck system is so genius within a national election --- then why is it used by ZERO of the fifty states?

Because the premise is false, that's why ---------- it isn't genius. If it were some states would be using it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

No poll if done ethically is "designed to influence public opinion". There are pseudo-polls that are set up for that purpose, but those are not "polls". The one that always comes to mind is George Bush calling South Carolina voters and "asking", "would you be less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". But that's not a poll -- that's a "push-poll". A device made to look like a poll, marinated in dishonesty.

But since you bring up polls, that's another pitfall of the WTA/EC as practiced now --- it makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting up on election day to vote at all. Because if your state's leaning 59% one way, then it's decided, and your single vote will get washed away, so stay home and learn to crochet. Only those states "too close to call" have a reason for voters to exercise their franchise at all, and even then it's by definition ---- as I already explained to you ---- limited to the "red" or the "blue", because one of them is going to prevail, and ONLY one of them will.

If you have any winner at all ... No matter how you get that winner.... He takes ALL.....
Those who did not vote for him/her will feel cheated as always and feel as though their vote was wasted. Unless we come up with a power sharing scheme which is probably just a short cut to civil war.

You cannot escape this.

Jo

If you and I and USMB vote on whether "JO" stands for "Jerkoff" and the vote is 51-48, then that's the vote, period. The 48 voters lost and they'll deal with it.

But if we take the same vote and some committee on our behalf goes to the mods and says "guess what, we all took a poll and ALL NINETY-NINE PEOPLE in the poll unanimously say JO is a jerkoff", that's a different thing.

Isn't it.

In my state in the last POTUS election nobody got as much as 50% of the vote. It was spread out among mostly Rump and Hillary, with smatterings of Steins and Johnsons and McMullins and Castles etc.

And yet our fifteen electors went out to Congress and lied through their teeth, telling them we ALL voted for Rump. Which was BULLSHIT.

Four years earlier they told Congress the same kind of lie, lying that "wow it's amazing, everybody in North Carolina voted for Romney". Which is BULLSHIT.

Four years before that they did the same thing, lying to Congress that "everybody in Carolina voted for O'bama". Which was BULLSHIT.

Stop me when you begin to see a pattern here.

I do, it's a pattern of butthurt posting from Pogo since November 2016.

 

[Redfish]

Not one demolib would be screaming to do away with the EC if crooked Hillary had won. This whole discussion is just another example of left wing hypocrisy.

Over, done, Trump won, Hillary lost, 2016 is history, get the fuck over it and move on.

No arguments in this thread have linked to or hung on any specific election. Once AGAIN you can't seem to deal with the fact that this thread is about how the EC works, not about 2016, not about 2012, not about 2000, not about 19bloody68, not about 18fucking76, not about 18frickin'28, not about any specific election at all. It's about the way the EC works in ***EVERY ELECTION***.

Your speculation fallacy is dismissed out of hand. If you can't deal with the topic as it is, and you've contributed absolute zero in this post, then you should move on to something where you can contribute. K?

I have dealt with it. I am perfectly fine with the EC. I like the way it is set up to prevent the large population centers from choosing our presidents and allowing even the small population states to have a voice in the elections. the founders got it right.

Why specifically do you want to do away with it? and seriously, would you be ranting about it if Hillary had won? I doubt it.

You don't read much because, again, and I KNOW I pointed this out before --- I've been on the same argument about the EC for *YEARS*, WAY before 2016 with which that argument has nothing to do and obviously never did. This is a case of you looking for a cheap way out of addressing it, by pretending it's about something else. And that's just dishonest.

Also AGAIN --- and I know I said this before too --- I'm not saying I "want to do away with" the EC. What I've concentrated on is the WTA part of it that makes it insidious. That laundry list of my criticism of the system status quo ---- that it tosses away millions of votes, creates artificial "red" and "blue" states, makes us all dependent on polls, perpetuates the Duopoly, depresses general turnout ---- is all lain at the feet of the WTA, which has *ZERO* to do with the Constitution.

But yanno what, just skip those paragraphs above and ignore them again, because

without the WTA aspect it would become meaningless. Might as well scrap it and go with PV and let the big population centers choose our presidents-------------exactly what the founders feared and the exact reason that they set up the EC

 

[Redfish]

Hmmm......

I see no pattern at all in the post though I read it numerous times.

I do see frustration, intolerance and condescension .... But no real reason on the issue.

You decry WTA..... Which means you don't want a winner.... At best your want power
Sharing.... Or another way of saying civil war.

Jo

Here's ^^ the most nonsequituresque red herring strawman in the fewest number of words that I've seen for many a day.

Yyyyyyyeah, "power sharing" --- which has nothing to do with my point --- is "another way of saying civil war". Go tell that to all the bicameral legislatures and parliaments around the globe. Collect the whole set of guffaws.

If my point is indisputable, just say so. Don't flail around with absurdities.

SMFH --- the hoops people will jump through just to avoid admitting they can't refute an argument...

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

Member the last time your state held a vote for governor, or a Senator, or both? Member how each county counted up its votes and then went to the state capital with its alloted electors and lied to your state legislator telling it EVERYBODY in county (Q) voted for Smith for Governor and Jones for Senator?

What? They didn't do that?

Whaddaya mean they counted up the total state votes? Why didn't they go with the "winner take all" wet dream, if it's how stuff works?

Having it both ways?

yes, that's they way state elections work, and as a result, NYC has more influence that Rochester, and New Orleans has more influence than Monroe, and Miami has more influence than panama city, and Atlanta has more influence than Dalton. That is why the recent elections in Florida and Georgia were close. the big cities choose governors and senators, the rest of the states might as well stay home.

That kinda makes the legacy string of (in this case) Georgia Republican Governors and Senators hard to explain, doesn't it.

You can take ANY bloc of however-defined statistics that is a larger number than the remainder, and that bloc has more influence. This isn't news. It's how numbers work.

The point above being avoided is that, if this proxy-elector system is the way to elect a head of state ---- then why isn't it valid to elect the head of A state? Same dynamics going on, same reasoning should apply. Why then doesn't it?

I can see why that question would be avoided, since it has no answer.

I think that some form of EC in the states would probably be a good change. Each county would have a fixed number of electors and those electors would choose the governor and senators. I agree with you, it works at the federal level so it would also work at the state level.

no one was avoiding your question, the answer was just so obvious no one thought it necessary to comment.

 

[Doc1]

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?

They shouldn't, and they aren't. You just made up that idea. Hope your strawman came with disassembly instructions.


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

Indeed they aren't, as it's practiced. Electoral Votes are apportioned on the basis of population, plus weighted for the state itself, which means it takes three-point-six Californians to muster the voting power of one voter in Wyoming. So yes, they already ARE unequal in practice ---- and this doesn't even take into account that that voter in California if he/she votes "red", or that voter in Wyoming if he/she votes "blue", is going to have their vote tossed directly in the shitcan anyway before the polls close, and they both know that, therefore neither one has any reason to bother to go to the polls in the first place.

There ain't no way to justify that. None. Zero.

>> The Electoral College was slapped together by the drafters of the Constitutions in 1789 as a sop to the smaller states, giving them some incentive to ratify the document. But that was an era when there was no popular vote for the election of presidents. The idea that the Electoral College would evolve into a sort of a stand-in for the popular vote would have shocked James Madison and the other drafters. Among its other vices, the Electoral College has distorted political campaigns. Candidates practically camp out in “swing states” and ignore the voters in the other “safe states” entirely. And it affects the way that issues are raised in the campaign. In years when the electoral votes of Iowa are in play, you can practically see the candidates inhaling the Ethanol fumes.

But the biggest vice of the Electoral College is its blatant unfairness to voters in the bigger states. As a resident of the largest state, California, I look at the residents of the smallest state, Wyoming, with particular envy during election season. Each vote cast in Wyoming is worth 3.6 as much as the same vote cast in California. How can that be, you might ask? It’s easy to see, when you do the math. Although Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767, it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman. California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each. The 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1.<< --- Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have.​

Yes, the current system is perfectly justifiable. Our form of government is a Federal Republic of States...not One Unified Voting Precinct.

You didn't address what I said there's "no way to justify" at all.

Red herring on the field, fifteen yards, repeat second down.

I did. "Federal Republic of STATES" says it all.

No you did not. Whatever your definition of "federal republic of states" (it's not a proper name, no caps), it cannot mean "most voters get their ballot immediately tossed in the shitcan so what's the point".

But hey, ONLY Pubs do it right? Dumbass, your system is rigged from within

 

[Pogo]

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.

No poll if done ethically is "designed to influence public opinion". There are pseudo-polls that are set up for that purpose, but those are not "polls". The one that always comes to mind is George Bush calling South Carolina voters and "asking", "would you be less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". But that's not a poll -- that's a "push-poll". A device made to look like a poll, marinated in dishonesty.

But since you bring up polls, that's another pitfall of the WTA/EC as practiced now --- it makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting up on election day to vote at all. Because if your state's leaning 59% one way, then it's decided, and your single vote will get washed away, so stay home and learn to crochet. Only those states "too close to call" have a reason for voters to exercise their franchise at all, and even then it's by definition ---- as I already explained to you ---- limited to the "red" or the "blue", because one of them is going to prevail, and ONLY one of them will.

If you have any winner at all ... No matter how you get that winner.... He takes ALL.....
Those who did not vote for him/her will feel cheated as always and feel as though their vote was wasted. Unless we come up with a power sharing scheme which is probably just a short cut to civil war.

You cannot escape this.

Jo

If you and I and USMB vote on whether "JO" stands for "Jerkoff" and the vote is 51-48, then that's the vote, period. The 48 voters lost and they'll deal with it.

But if we take the same vote and some committee on our behalf goes to the mods and says "guess what, we all took a poll and ALL NINETY-NINE PEOPLE in the poll unanimously say JO is a jerkoff", that's a different thing.

Isn't it.

In my state in the last POTUS election nobody got as much as 50% of the vote. It was spread out among mostly Rump and Hillary, with smatterings of Steins and Johnsons and McMullins and Castles etc.

And yet our fifteen electors went out to Congress and lied through their teeth, telling them we ALL voted for Rump. Which was BULLSHIT.

Four years earlier they told Congress the same kind of lie, lying that "wow it's amazing, everybody in North Carolina voted for Romney". Which is BULLSHIT.

Four years before that they did the same thing, lying to Congress that "everybody in Carolina voted for O'bama". Which was BULLSHIT.

Stop me when you begin to see a pattern here.

I do, it's a pattern of butthurt posting from Pogo since November 2016.

Then it's odd I've been making the same comments since I joined this site four years prior to that, and for years prior to being here.

Isn't it.

As I told you in the oil thread, when you have nothing to post about butthurt that I've pointed out the facts that you can't handle, you have no point to make.

Yet that doesn't stop you from posting anyway.
Does it.

 

[Pogo]

Not one demolib would be screaming to do away with the EC if crooked Hillary had won. This whole discussion is just another example of left wing hypocrisy.

Over, done, Trump won, Hillary lost, 2016 is history, get the fuck over it and move on.

No arguments in this thread have linked to or hung on any specific election. Once AGAIN you can't seem to deal with the fact that this thread is about how the EC works, not about 2016, not about 2012, not about 2000, not about 19bloody68, not about 18fucking76, not about 18frickin'28, not about any specific election at all. It's about the way the EC works in ***EVERY ELECTION***.

Your speculation fallacy is dismissed out of hand. If you can't deal with the topic as it is, and you've contributed absolute zero in this post, then you should move on to something where you can contribute. K?

I have dealt with it. I am perfectly fine with the EC. I like the way it is set up to prevent the large population centers from choosing our presidents and allowing even the small population states to have a voice in the elections. the founders got it right.

Why specifically do you want to do away with it? and seriously, would you be ranting about it if Hillary had won? I doubt it.

You don't read much because, again, and I KNOW I pointed this out before --- I've been on the same argument about the EC for *YEARS*, WAY before 2016 with which that argument has nothing to do and obviously never did. This is a case of you looking for a cheap way out of addressing it, by pretending it's about something else. And that's just dishonest.

Also AGAIN --- and I know I said this before too --- I'm not saying I "want to do away with" the EC. What I've concentrated on is the WTA part of it that makes it insidious. That laundry list of my criticism of the system status quo ---- that it tosses away millions of votes, creates artificial "red" and "blue" states, makes us all dependent on polls, perpetuates the Duopoly, depresses general turnout ---- is all lain at the feet of the WTA, which has *ZERO* to do with the Constitution.

But yanno what, just skip those paragraphs above and ignore them again, because

without the WTA aspect it would become meaningless. Might as well scrap it and go with PV and let the big population centers choose our presidents-------------exactly what the founders feared and the exact reason that they set up the EC

That assertion is absolute bullshit. Go ahead and try to flesh it out, this concern about 'population centers' that didn't exist in the 18th century. By all means show us these quotes about 'population centers' and the concern thereof.

As for what the "founders feared", as I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread and many before over the years, one of those founders who was a principal architect OF the Electoral College, one James Madison, POTUS 4, wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would BAN the practice of WTA once it started to snowball. Even though such a ban would weaken his own home state of Virginia. What Madison indeed feared, was the WTA.

 

[Pogo]

Here's ^^ the most nonsequituresque red herring strawman in the fewest number of words that I've seen for many a day.

Yyyyyyyeah, "power sharing" --- which has nothing to do with my point --- is "another way of saying civil war". Go tell that to all the bicameral legislatures and parliaments around the globe. Collect the whole set of guffaws.

If my point is indisputable, just say so. Don't flail around with absurdities.

SMFH --- the hoops people will jump through just to avoid admitting they can't refute an argument...

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

Member the last time your state held a vote for governor, or a Senator, or both? Member how each county counted up its votes and then went to the state capital with its alloted electors and lied to your state legislator telling it EVERYBODY in county (Q) voted for Smith for Governor and Jones for Senator?

What? They didn't do that?

Whaddaya mean they counted up the total state votes? Why didn't they go with the "winner take all" wet dream, if it's how stuff works?

Having it both ways?

yes, that's they way state elections work, and as a result, NYC has more influence that Rochester, and New Orleans has more influence than Monroe, and Miami has more influence than panama city, and Atlanta has more influence than Dalton. That is why the recent elections in Florida and Georgia were close. the big cities choose governors and senators, the rest of the states might as well stay home.

That kinda makes the legacy string of (in this case) Georgia Republican Governors and Senators hard to explain, doesn't it.

You can take ANY bloc of however-defined statistics that is a larger number than the remainder, and that bloc has more influence. This isn't news. It's how numbers work.

The point above being avoided is that, if this proxy-elector system is the way to elect a head of state ---- then why isn't it valid to elect the head of A state? Same dynamics going on, same reasoning should apply. Why then doesn't it?

I can see why that question would be avoided, since it has no answer.

I think that some form of EC in the states would probably be a good change. Each county would have a fixed number of electors and those electors would choose the governor and senators. I agree with you, it works at the federal level so it would also work at the state level.

no one was avoiding your question, the answer was just so obvious no one thought it necessary to comment.

This is the first post to even so much as acknowledge the question --- although it didn't expect to be addressed.

In original form the question was, if this proxy-electoral-WTA system was such a stroke of genius, then how come zero of the 57 states have ever adopted it to elect their Governor or Senator.

Not a one.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only thing absurd is your refusal to admit that in any system, save the few dysfunctional power sharing fiasco's, ( and frankly even they have a senior partner) the winner always takes all. There is no other kind of winner. THAT is what is indisputable. As to your argument.... Your don't have one. I mean dude... There's nothing to refute.


Jo

Member the last time your state held a vote for governor, or a Senator, or both? Member how each county counted up its votes and then went to the state capital with its alloted electors and lied to your state legislator telling it EVERYBODY in county (Q) voted for Smith for Governor and Jones for Senator?

What? They didn't do that?

Whaddaya mean they counted up the total state votes? Why didn't they go with the "winner take all" wet dream, if it's how stuff works?

Having it both ways?

yes, that's they way state elections work, and as a result, NYC has more influence that Rochester, and New Orleans has more influence than Monroe, and Miami has more influence than panama city, and Atlanta has more influence than Dalton. That is why the recent elections in Florida and Georgia were close. the big cities choose governors and senators, the rest of the states might as well stay home.

That kinda makes the legacy string of (in this case) Georgia Republican Governors and Senators hard to explain, doesn't it.

You can take ANY bloc of however-defined statistics that is a larger number than the remainder, and that bloc has more influence. This isn't news. It's how numbers work.

The point above being avoided is that, if this proxy-elector system is the way to elect a head of state ---- then why isn't it valid to elect the head of A state? Same dynamics going on, same reasoning should apply. Why then doesn't it?

I can see why that question would be avoided, since it has no answer.

it doesn't have just one answer....it has as many answers as there are opinions on the subject.

Think back and try to recall your history.
There were a lot of good things for an independent territory to be attracted to in the Union. One of them however was not the elimination of their voice on matters. Whereas territories were formed somewhat like instant mashed potatoes the union was not, it was cobbled together a piece at a time.

Jo

Once AGAIN you can't answer the question. If your proxy clusterfuck system is so genius within a national election --- then why is it used by ZERO of the fifty states?

Because the premise is false, that's why ---------- it isn't genius. If it were some states would be using it.

Because each State is it's own country dumbass


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Member the last time your state held a vote for governor, or a Senator, or both? Member how each county counted up its votes and then went to the state capital with its alloted electors and lied to your state legislator telling it EVERYBODY in county (Q) voted for Smith for Governor and Jones for Senator?

What? They didn't do that?

Whaddaya mean they counted up the total state votes? Why didn't they go with the "winner take all" wet dream, if it's how stuff works?

Having it both ways?

yes, that's they way state elections work, and as a result, NYC has more influence that Rochester, and New Orleans has more influence than Monroe, and Miami has more influence than panama city, and Atlanta has more influence than Dalton. That is why the recent elections in Florida and Georgia were close. the big cities choose governors and senators, the rest of the states might as well stay home.

That kinda makes the legacy string of (in this case) Georgia Republican Governors and Senators hard to explain, doesn't it.

You can take ANY bloc of however-defined statistics that is a larger number than the remainder, and that bloc has more influence. This isn't news. It's how numbers work.

The point above being avoided is that, if this proxy-elector system is the way to elect a head of state ---- then why isn't it valid to elect the head of A state? Same dynamics going on, same reasoning should apply. Why then doesn't it?

I can see why that question would be avoided, since it has no answer.

it doesn't have just one answer....it has as many answers as there are opinions on the subject.

Think back and try to recall your history.
There were a lot of good things for an independent territory to be attracted to in the Union. One of them however was not the elimination of their voice on matters. Whereas territories were formed somewhat like instant mashed potatoes the union was not, it was cobbled together a piece at a time.

Jo

Once AGAIN you can't answer the question. If your proxy clusterfuck system is so genius within a national election --- then why is it used by ZERO of the fifty states?

Because the premise is false, that's why ---------- it isn't genius. If it were some states would be using it.

Because each State is it's own country dumbass


.

Illinois national gaurd, Minnesota national gaurd...




.