The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Pogo]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

 

[Spare_change]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Unlike some whose pathetic ego demands that they "win an internet argument:", my only goal is to prevent the perversion of the truth that you have spread here. You conveniently take a set of unrelated facts, manipulate them to support your particular canard, and then try to present them as truth, from which you begin extrapolating in order to reach the same position you originally postulated.

Nice try, pardner ... but your argument is "all hat, no cattle" .... but it certainly is a bunch of bullshit.

 

[Pogo]

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Unlike some whose pathetic ego demands that they "win an internet argument:", my only goal is to prevent the perversion of the truth that you have spread here. You conveniently take a set of unrelated facts, manipulate them to support your particular canard, and then try to present them as truth, from which you begin extrapolating in order to reach the same position you originally postulated.

Nice try, pardner ... but your argument is "all hat, no cattle" .... but it certainly is a bunch of bullshit.

So you have no answer.

Why did you excise out the original point? Are you afraid? Or you thought I would forget what it was?

 

[Spare_change]

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Unlike some whose pathetic ego demands that they "win an internet argument:", my only goal is to prevent the perversion of the truth that you have spread here. You conveniently take a set of unrelated facts, manipulate them to support your particular canard, and then try to present them as truth, from which you begin extrapolating in order to reach the same position you originally postulated.

Nice try, pardner ... but your argument is "all hat, no cattle" .... but it certainly is a bunch of bullshit.

So you have no answer.

To what? You were trying to make a point?

(Pssst .... the truth shall set you free!)

 

[Pogo]

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Unlike some whose pathetic ego demands that they "win an internet argument:", my only goal is to prevent the perversion of the truth that you have spread here. You conveniently take a set of unrelated facts, manipulate them to support your particular canard, and then try to present them as truth, from which you begin extrapolating in order to reach the same position you originally postulated.

Nice try, pardner ... but your argument is "all hat, no cattle" .... but it certainly is a bunch of bullshit.

So you have no answer.

To what? You were trying to make a point?

(Pssst .... the truth shall set you free!)

You've made five posts in a row here that make no point at all. Haven't even addressed the issue.
All you have is lame attempts at poisoning the well, with no specifics to the point whatsoever.

The Peter Principle in action.

--- Next...

 

[Spare_change]

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Unlike some whose pathetic ego demands that they "win an internet argument:", my only goal is to prevent the perversion of the truth that you have spread here. You conveniently take a set of unrelated facts, manipulate them to support your particular canard, and then try to present them as truth, from which you begin extrapolating in order to reach the same position you originally postulated.

Nice try, pardner ... but your argument is "all hat, no cattle" .... but it certainly is a bunch of bullshit.

So you have no answer.

To what? You were trying to make a point?

(Pssst .... the truth shall set you free!)

You've made five posts in a row here that make no point at all. Haven't even addressed the issue.
All you have is lame attempts at poisoning the well, with no specifics at all.

The Peter Principle in action.

Well, let me see if I can make my point is much simpler terms .. then, maybe you will understand it.

1) You lied to the other posters.
2) You intentionally misled other posters.
3) You have intentionally misconstrued facts in order to misrepresent the truth.
4) You have used a false paradigm to try to support your distorted perception of truth.
5) You have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Any words you don't understand? (www.dictionary.com)

 

[Pogo]

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Unlike some whose pathetic ego demands that they "win an internet argument:", my only goal is to prevent the perversion of the truth that you have spread here. You conveniently take a set of unrelated facts, manipulate them to support your particular canard, and then try to present them as truth, from which you begin extrapolating in order to reach the same position you originally postulated.

Nice try, pardner ... but your argument is "all hat, no cattle" .... but it certainly is a bunch of bullshit.

So you have no answer.

To what? You were trying to make a point?

(Pssst .... the truth shall set you free!)

You've made five posts in a row here that make no point at all. Haven't even addressed the issue.
All you have is lame attempts at poisoning the well, with no specifics at all.

The Peter Principle in action.

Well, let me see if I can make my point is much simpler terms .. then, maybe you will understand it.

1) You lied to the other posters.
2) You intentionally misled other posters.
3) You have intentionally misconstrued facts in order to misrepresent the truth.
4) You have used a false paradigm to try to support your distorted perception of truth.
5) You have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Any words you don't understand? (www.dictionary.com)

Let's make it six posts in a row. Sorry Hunior, but simple gainsaying and ipse dixit is not arguement. Never has been never will be.

Wassa matta Madge? Did your teevee break down?

 

[kaz]

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Never said they did.
Did reading comprehension class turn you away again? Those meanies.

Since yet another point has deftly eluded you it's once again up to me to explain. You see Grasshopper, in the example above you have one set of states translating into 75 Electoral Votes, which were won by a collective margin of 224k (or if you like an average of 56,000 per state). In the other set you have the same number of EVs, won by a collective margin of over five million (or about 1.3 million avg/state) --- for the same return.

So in set two, a level of 22.7 times more voters chose the winning candidate than chose the winner of set one --- yet both sets won exactly the same number of EVs.

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Are you going to make the case that it's the same dollar and should be worth a dollar everywhere?

Why not?

You talk about reading comprehension, then say you didn't say anyone did run on popular vote, then you go right back to making the popular vote argument you say you aren't making. You actually buy your own crap, don't you?

 

[kaz]

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Pogo the Huffer doesn't care. He wants Hillary in office and will throw a fit until he gets his way. Huffer is a typical leftist.

I've made a total of exactly zero (0) posts about "who I want in office". This is all about the process called the Electoral College, and it always has been, and in fact it will continue to be.

But it's instructive that you can't handle that topic so you try to pervert it into something else. That's so cute.

Please, be honest. You did vote for Hillary

 

[kaz]

Unlike some whose pathetic ego demands that they "win an internet argument:", my only goal is to prevent the perversion of the truth that you have spread here. You conveniently take a set of unrelated facts, manipulate them to support your particular canard, and then try to present them as truth, from which you begin extrapolating in order to reach the same position you originally postulated.

Nice try, pardner ... but your argument is "all hat, no cattle" .... but it certainly is a bunch of bullshit.

So you have no answer.

To what? You were trying to make a point?

(Pssst .... the truth shall set you free!)

You've made five posts in a row here that make no point at all. Haven't even addressed the issue.
All you have is lame attempts at poisoning the well, with no specifics at all.

The Peter Principle in action.

Well, let me see if I can make my point is much simpler terms .. then, maybe you will understand it.

1) You lied to the other posters.
2) You intentionally misled other posters.
3) You have intentionally misconstrued facts in order to misrepresent the truth.
4) You have used a false paradigm to try to support your distorted perception of truth.
5) You have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Any words you don't understand? (www.dictionary.com)

Let's make it six posts in a row. Sorry Hunior, but simple gainsaying and ipse dixit is not arguement. Never has been never will be.

Wassa matta Madge? Did your teevee break down?

WTF are you talking about? What is dogmatic about his post? Do you know what ipse dixit means? This was just a lame excused to throw in a Latin term you don't understand in a lame attempt to impress?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Clinton (D) 64,902,259............48.2%

Trump (R) 62,535,892 .......... 46.4%

 

[Rustic]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

More people in more states voted for trump... 30 as opposed to 20.
This country can't have crazy Cali determining the presidency… and survive through it.

 

[Redfish]

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

More people in more states voted for trump... 30 as opposed to 20.
This country can't have crazy Cali determining the presidency… and survive through it.

true, but if you look at the voting map of Ca by county or congressional district, Trump wins more of them. The libs may be ramming their own petard up their own ass on this.

 

[Flash]

Clinton (D) 64,902,259............48.2%

Trump (R) 62,535,892 .......... 46.4%

That vote don't count dumbass. Go read the Constitution. It is in there, trust me.

The one that does count is:

Trump 306

Crooked Hillary 232

 

[Pogo]

So you have no answer.

To what? You were trying to make a point?

(Pssst .... the truth shall set you free!)

You've made five posts in a row here that make no point at all. Haven't even addressed the issue.
All you have is lame attempts at poisoning the well, with no specifics at all.

The Peter Principle in action.

Well, let me see if I can make my point is much simpler terms .. then, maybe you will understand it.

1) You lied to the other posters.
2) You intentionally misled other posters.
3) You have intentionally misconstrued facts in order to misrepresent the truth.
4) You have used a false paradigm to try to support your distorted perception of truth.
5) You have clearly demonstrated that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Any words you don't understand? (www.dictionary.com)

Let's make it six posts in a row. Sorry Hunior, but simple gainsaying and ipse dixit is not arguement. Never has been never will be.

Wassa matta Madge? Did your teevee break down?

WTF are you talking about? What is dogmatic about his post? Do you know what ipse dixit means? This was just a lame excused to throw in a Latin term you don't understand in a lame attempt to impress?

Trying to micromanage somebody else's trolling now? Really? You're that desperate to chase the topic away?

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Never said they did.
Did reading comprehension class turn you away again? Those meanies.

Since yet another point has deftly eluded you it's once again up to me to explain. You see Grasshopper, in the example above you have one set of states translating into 75 Electoral Votes, which were won by a collective margin of 224k (or if you like an average of 56,000 per state). In the other set you have the same number of EVs, won by a collective margin of over five million (or about 1.3 million avg/state) --- for the same return.

So in set two, a level of 22.7 times more voters chose the winning candidate than chose the winner of set one --- yet both sets won exactly the same number of EVs.

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Are you going to make the case that it's the same dollar and should be worth a dollar everywhere?

Why not?

You talk about reading comprehension, then say you didn't say anyone did run on popular vote, then you go right back to making the popular vote argument you say you aren't making. You actually buy your own crap, don't you?

Exactly what "popular vote argument" would that be, Sprinkles? The one you plug in because you can't handle the one on the table?

Again, once you get through reading comp class, read the first sentence in that post. Voilà, all will be revealed. No plug-ins required.

 

[Pogo]

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.

Your argument is facetious AND fallacious (Now, THAT is a real twosome!).... it IS the same for the presidency as it is for those offices.

There is NO national election for president. It is 51 separate popular vote elections for the president. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded its electoral votes. The case COULD be made that the person who wins the most states gets to be president.

All the rest of your whining is based on your lack of knowledge ... so, it will simply be disregarded.

Actually what you "disregarded" here was the original point I was responding to, which you excised out.
Inconvenient, was it?

The poster (and I remember it even though it was like 2300 posts ago) tried to float the same canard about a popular vote being some kind of "mob rule", a phrase many parrots have parroted yet none can explain.

So I demonstrated that Governors, which are a microcosm of a President, are so elected, and no one cries "mob rule", because it isn't. Ditto Senators, Mayors, and County Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Easy to think you "won" an internet argument when you've removed the context it was addressing, innit.

Obviously it is decidedly *NOT* the same for the presidency as for those offices. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

More people in more states voted for trump... 30 as opposed to 20.
This country can't have crazy Cali determining the presidency… and survive through it.

true, but if you look at the voting map of Ca by county or congressional district, Trump wins more of them. The libs may be ramming their own petard up their own ass on this.

Congressional Districts are bullshit. Purposely engineered to give one party control. But regardless how the distribution was, something like four million Californians voted for Rump, and the EC will see to it that their vote is ignored. Therein lies the point.

 

[easyt65]

"The electoral college is a disaster for DEMOCRATS"

There, I fixed it for you Snowflakes.

 

[Pogo]

"The electoral college is a disaster for DEMOCRATS"

There, I fixed it for you Snowflakes.

You fixed Donald Rump's words.
Lot o' that going around, but in this case he had it right.

You're invited at this point to prove the contrary. No one's done it yet.

 

[easyt65]

You're invited at this point to prove the contrary. No one's done it yet.

Prove it's a disaster to Democrats. Just look at all the gnashing of teeth and crying by snowflakes. Funny how the only time it's a problem is when Libs lose the election by electoral vote and 'possibly' win via popular vote. (Don't forget to subtract all those illegals' votes )

 

[Wyatt earp]

So here's another way to look at the effect of the Electrical College and the disparity therein:

These four states won by Rump, are worth a combined 75 electoral votes:
State - (EVs) - margin of PV victory (rounded off)

• Florida (29) .............113,000
• Pennsylvania (20)..... 68,000
• Wisconsin (10)........... 32,000
• Michigan (16) .............10,500

These four states won by Clinton are also worth a combined 75 Electoral votes:

• California (55)..... 4,000,000
• Hawaìi (4)................ 137,000
• Massachusetts (11) 900,000
• New Mexico (5)......... 65,000

Rump's margin of victory, all four states combined: 224,000 votes; Electoral votes: 75
Clinton's margin of victory, all four states combined: 5,100,000. Electoral votes: 75

Same number of EVs. Twenty times the votes.

You still don't grasp that neither candidate ran for the popular vote, do you?

Never said they did.
Did reading comprehension class turn you away again? Those meanies.

Since yet another point has deftly eluded you it's once again up to me to explain. You see Grasshopper, in the example above you have one set of states translating into 75 Electoral Votes, which were won by a collective margin of 224k (or if you like an average of 56,000 per state). In the other set you have the same number of EVs, won by a collective margin of over five million (or about 1.3 million avg/state) --- for the same return.

So in set two, a level of 22.7 times more voters chose the winning candidate than chose the winner of set one --- yet both sets won exactly the same number of EVs.

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Are you going to make the case that it's the same dollar and should be worth a dollar everywhere?

Why not?

Put that in currency terms, and imagine your dollar is worth one dollar here, but over in that state you need $22.70 to have the same buying power.

Thats how it basicaly is you brain dead moron