Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
OK you go change the law… LOLAnd neither do you but you suggested that Hillary would have won, based on the PV in this election. Once again, you still don't get it.You still don't get it. Listen carefully and put your partisan guard down for a minute. Clinton got more PVs than Trump because of California being so heavily populated, and being a welfare nanny state, she got far more votes. Trump could have spent more time in Texas and racked up many more votes (which is what he would have done if the EC didn't exist). He also would have spent more time in California and rack up many more votes. You still don't grasp this.That is a fool statement by you. If it had been a winner take all victory by majority vote, she would have won easily.
I have to defend S.J. here at least in part. Had we a direct PV system rather than our states voting on our behalf, then obviously every candidate's campaign strategy would be different. They'd be concentrating on plaes where they had the best chance of generating new votes, not in states that were closely contested because the winner takes all. Hillary for example might have gone to Alaska. Or Utah. Places where she's little known on a direct basis. So he is correct that Rump would have used a different strategy. Everybody would.
What the outcome would have been is far more a reach though. The PV doesn't support his conclusion. That would have had to be turned around.
In any event this is yet another argument for abolishing the antiquated EC -- it would expose vast swaths of the electorate to candidates they have little experience with, because the EC dictates that their state is already a "lock" and they don't need to. That would change.
As I just said above --- changing how the process works WOULD (not would not) change how campaigning works. But as I also pointed out, you don't know what the results of that would have been.
Go ahead -- prove me wrong.
Bullshit. I said no such thing.
And again, this isn't about the most recent election; it's about ALL elections and why the EC is a stupid idea. Rump was right about that. The only reason it's on the table now is because it's ALWAYS on the table around a Presidential election, because that's when it's in play. Ain't rocket surgery.