New DNC President Demostrates Democrats Spew Ignorance and Lies (Electoral College)

[mudwhistle]

 

[Papageorgio]

It does, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Virginia Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, all were up for grabs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So less than a third of the states matter. And I would argue out of the 16 you have named Nevada, Maine, Utah, New Hampshire and Arizona are irrelevant. So about 1/5 matter.

If you go by popular vote, only California would matter, that is one of 50, so only 1/50 matter. No, thanks. I prefer our current system, thanks for pretending to care about how we elect our president.

 

[Dr Grump]

If you go by popular vote, only California would matter, that is one of 50, so only 1/50 matter. No, thanks. I prefer our current system, thanks for pretending to care about how we elect our president.

I'm not even talking popular vote.

 

[Papageorgio]

If you go by popular vote, only California would matter, that is one of 50, so only 1/50 matter. No, thanks. I prefer our current system, thanks for pretending to care about how we elect our president.

I'm not even talking popular vote.

Ok.

 

[Pogo]

What you are failing to realize is that both systems will leave people out of the loop. You're trying to claim only one is.

We do have a WTA system. We have it for our Congress person, we have it for our Senators, we have it for our state and local positions. The presidency is the only one with an EC vote, and you have less people voting in those elections than you to the presidential.

No, we absolutely do not.

If we actually had that, and if it made any sense, then your state's governor would be elected by the counties, and not by the populace. If some candidate squeaked by enough counties while losing big in others, and lost the state aggregate vote, THEN you'd have the same kind of dump. No state does that. And none would; it would be stupid.

Governors --- and Senators, and Congresscritters, and Mayors and city councils and even sheriffs and judges --- are elected directly by the vote count. Not by a proxy that does wha they want. There are only two countries in the world that use this bullshit proxy system to elect a head of state. One of them is us. The other is Pakistan.

I must be confused. When you said Winner Take All, I thought you were talking about the popular vote. I'll discontinue using that term.

Yes, we have a popular vote for every other election outside of the presidency. Those elections produce a lower percentage of voters than the presidential election. So it's not the EC system responsible for lower voter turnout. And as I stated, the popular vote has the same problems with disenfranchisement as the EC. So trying to solve a problem by creating a different problem is no solution.

I don't automatically agree that governor/senator etc races produce a lower turnout than POTUS elections (but show your figures) --- but in any case electing a head of state, in any country anywhere, is going to be the most vital and the most voter-interested, far more than electing a local sheriff or judge. So comparing that turnout --- the head of state national election --- would be the apples to apples comparison between countries. And in that, the US ranks abysmally low compared to the rest of the world. In 2016 turnout was 55%, which is fairly typical for us. And that's abysmal.

And my assertion here is that the EC/WTA system is a prime reason for that. One, because it renders irrelevant the votes of everybody who lives in a "locked-red" or "locked-blue" state, and two, because it renders equally irrelevant the votes of the minority in every other state that was considered at all 'close'. That's a net sum of the vast majority of Presidential votes counting for absolutely nothing whatsoever.

And a second prime reason is the existence of the Democratic/Republican Duopoly, where only two realistic choices exist, and again the EC/WTA system ensures that that Duopoly stays that way and that no third alternative may ever exist. The DP, the RP and the EC/WTA all work together to keep us in that trap with no way out.

It's not so much the EC that is the culprit here --- it's the WTA that the vast majority of states have robotically fallen into, for no other reason than that "everybody else is doing it". That snowballed into the morass we're in now. And as long as we do nothing to eliminate that system ----- we're trapped in it. Forever. And as the old saw says, if you keep on doing things the same way, you'll keep on getting the same results.

 

[Pogo]

Clearly, what Perez was referring to was the practice of giving ALL of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state (rather than awarding Electoral votes proportionately). THAT is not in the Constitution, and could be changed rather easily.

I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.

I wonder who would have won in November if the states had awarded Electoral votes proportionately.

Hillary would have had fewer in Ca, NY, Trump fewer in Tx, Florida.

Odds are, Trump would still have had the majority

Actually some wonks have already figured that out.

This page gives several scenarios depending on which method of EC distribution would be used. In all but one scenario (which Clinton wins), no candidate achieves 270 electoral votes, which would have tossed the decision to the House of Representatives.

But as one comment notes the very good point, this is assuming the same popular vote numbers --- but that's not a valid assumption since if the electorate knew their vote would actually count for something, that popular vote would have been vastly different, not to mention a higher turnout. So it's really impossible to answer.

 

[Pogo]

[QUOTE="Pogo, post: 18464000, member: 41527"

Wrong again.

"States deciding the Presidency" is exactly what the EC system already does. And the WTA approach, which 48 of the 50 states use and the other two use WTA-lite --- completely fucks that up. James Madison could see that. That's why he wanted to abolish it.

Think of it this way, if Hillary lost LA Trump would have won the popular vote.

And if the Astros, Dodgers, Angels, Mariners, As, Giants, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Cubs, Brewers, Twins, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Gnats, Phillies, Orioles, Mets, Wankees, Pirates, Indians, Tigers, Reds, Red Sox and Blue Jays hadn't won as many games as they did the Chicago White Sox would be the world champs of baseball right now. I'm sure the CWS would love to nullify those games and shoo themselves in but ---- they can't.

What's your point?

 

[Leo123]

And if the Astros, Dodgers, Angels, Mariners, As, Giants, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Cubs, Brewers, Twins, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Gnats, Phillies, Orioles, Mets, Wankees, Pirates, Indians, Tigers, Reds, Red Sox and Blue Jays hadn't won as many games as they did the Chicago White Sox would be the world champs of baseball right now. I'm sure the CWS would love to nullify those games and shoo themselves in but ---- they can't.

What's your point?

Maybe but alas...They (CWS) are not Hillary and in any case, she LOST trying to nullify the competition. Lefties learned a hard lesson that elections are not coronations nor are they like baseball games.

 

[Leo123]

Actually some wonks have already figured that out.

This page gives several scenarios depending on which method of EC distribution would be used. In all but one scenario (which Clinton wins), no candidate achieves 270 electoral votes, which would have tossed the decision to the House of Representatives.

But as one comment notes the very good point, this is assuming the same popular vote numbers --- but that's not a valid assumption since if the electorate knew their vote would actually count for something, that popular vote would have been vastly different, not to mention a higher turnout. So it's really impossible to answer.

Ahh...The loser's lament....shoulda, woulda, coulda....Poor snowflakies.

 

[Pogo]

And if the Astros, Dodgers, Angels, Mariners, As, Giants, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Cubs, Brewers, Twins, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Gnats, Phillies, Orioles, Mets, Wankees, Pirates, Indians, Tigers, Reds, Red Sox and Blue Jays hadn't won as many games as they did the Chicago White Sox would be the world champs of baseball right now. I'm sure the CWS would love to nullify those games and shoo themselves in but ---- they can't.

What's your point?

Maybe but alas...They (CWS) are not Hillary and in any case, she LOST trying to nullify the competition. Lefties learned a hard lesson that elections are not coronations nor are they like baseball games.

And the point sails way over yet another head...

--- you can't just invent planets where things that happened, didn't happen. Reality is what it is, like it or lump it.

 

[Pogo]

Actually some wonks have already figured that out.

This page gives several scenarios depending on which method of EC distribution would be used. In all but one scenario (which Clinton wins), no candidate achieves 270 electoral votes, which would have tossed the decision to the House of Representatives.

But as one comment notes the very good point, this is assuming the same popular vote numbers --- but that's not a valid assumption since if the electorate knew their vote would actually count for something, that popular vote would have been vastly different, not to mention a higher turnout. So it's really impossible to answer.

Ahh...The loser's lament....shoulda, woulda, coulda....Poor snowflakies.

And the whooooosh just keeps on comin'.

The post had zero to do with "who lost or won". It's about how the system works.
Go learn how to read.

 

[Leo123]

Actually some wonks have already figured that out.

This page gives several scenarios depending on which method of EC distribution would be used. In all but one scenario (which Clinton wins), no candidate achieves 270 electoral votes, which would have tossed the decision to the House of Representatives.

But as one comment notes the very good point, this is assuming the same popular vote numbers --- but that's not a valid assumption since if the electorate knew their vote would actually count for something, that popular vote would have been vastly different, not to mention a higher turnout. So it's really impossible to answer.

Ahh...The loser's lament....shoulda, woulda, coulda....Poor snowflakies.

And the whooooosh just keeps on comin'.

The post had zero to do with "who lost or won". It's about how the system works.
Go learn how to read.

Bullshit. You're melting...admit it.

 

[Leo123]

And if the Astros, Dodgers, Angels, Mariners, As, Giants, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Cubs, Brewers, Twins, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, Braves, Rays, Marlins, Gnats, Phillies, Orioles, Mets, Wankees, Pirates, Indians, Tigers, Reds, Red Sox and Blue Jays hadn't won as many games as they did the Chicago White Sox would be the world champs of baseball right now. I'm sure the CWS would love to nullify those games and shoo themselves in but ---- they can't.

What's your point?

Maybe but alas...They (CWS) are not Hillary and in any case, she LOST trying to nullify the competition. Lefties learned a hard lesson that elections are not coronations nor are they like baseball games.

And the point sails way over yet another head...

--- you can't just invent planets where things that happened, didn't happen. Reality is what it is, like it or lump it.

The point was never made you idiot.

 

[GreenBean]

They truely live in the land of fairy tales & pixie dust.

Bring back the Monkey !