How many of the HILLARY VOTES are from illegal immigrants? Does Trump win Pop Vote?

[Rambunctious]

Eat it

You are sick...

 

[oldsoul]

Clinton's plurality has now passed the one million mark according to this ongoing spreadsheet, by far the largest PV margin ever for a candy not (presumably) winning the EC.


Hilarity......61,964,263
Rump........60,961,967

Still counting of course.

Who cares? The PV doesn't matter.

 

[Pogo]

Clinton's plurality has now passed the one million mark according to this ongoing spreadsheet, by far the largest PV margin ever for a candy not (presumably) winning the EC.


Hilarity......61,964,263
Rump........60,961,967

Still counting of course.

Who cares? The PV doesn't matter.

It's (a) part of the question in this thread's title, and (b) the exposure of the bullshit fake-news link that was brought in by the asshat who posted just before you did. He got played by an echobabble that told him what he wanted to hear, and now he can't admit he got played.

Facts do matter. But you might also ask him the same question.

That PV count doesn't matter for the purpose of determining a President. But it does count as a poll on which candy the electorate preferred. Sort of a poll, except in this case there's zero margin for error. It's direct.

Next point to ponder of course is ---- how many eligible voters didn't bother to vote because the EC already decides their state for them, versus how many would have voted were that not the case?

Aye, there's the rub.

 

[oldsoul]

You cannot be serious. We are a divided country because of the EC?

Serious as a heart attack, and just as deadly.

Or are you simply out of touch with the reality of things?

Not "out of touch", the characterization would be "well versed".

Sure the EC does little, if anything to unite us, but it was never intended to unite us.

Damn straight. And it's done a helluva job at not-doing-that.

It was intended to ensure high population areas do not have "mob rule". It was intended to aid in "leveling" the playing field. If you have a better idea on how to avoid the pitfalls of "mob rule" let's hear it.

Sure. Again.
If a PV amounted to "mob rule" then how do the several states ---- which have diverse and urban and rural populations just as the country does ---- elect their governors and Senators -- or even their own state Legisltures? Do they construct a bizarre filter of "county electors" that cast their own vote on behalf of their residents, which may or may not match those residents' wishes?

No, they do not. Not a single one. Because it isn't an argument. A popular vote is in no way 'mob rule', no matter how many times you keep parroting the same tired meme.

There are a total of two countries on earth who elect their head of state via an indirect vote. One is us. The other is Pakistan. Go ahead and make the case that the Norways and Ecuadors and Israels are employing "mob rule". That meme cannot be justified or even explained. We've been inviting that in the EC thread for five hundred posts --- no one has done it.

As for the ways -- plural -- that the EC has created and perpetuated division, see the next segment.

PV would only PERPETUATE "mob rule" and thus division between high and low population density areas. Do you really not understand that? Are you really that blind to the truth? Do you really not understand that our framers, and statesmen that followed, studied and LEARNED from the failures of history?

I understand the history too well and I've been posting it to the unlistening, so I guess why not go through it again....

The EC was created in small part out of a regional concern, that a candidate from New Hamster might not be known at all in Georgia. But that was the 18th century when such a trek was a major undertaking and the sum of one's info, if one could get it, would be from a newspaper or handbill. Technology over two centuries has rendered that argument completely moot.

But the other concern was the balance of power, and the influential Southerners at the creation of the Constitution got the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" that mandated their populations, for the purpose of determining how much representation they would get (and therefore how many Electoral Votes) would count their slaves as three-fifths of a person. Of course those slaves themselves had no representation; they could not vote. So in effect the South stacked the deck, taking the benefits of an artificially-enlarged population number while skipping out on the responsibilities (voting for slaves) that should have come with it. As a result of that biased Electoral College, six of our first seven Presidents were slaveholders from the South. Consequently the nagging elephant-in-the-room moral question of Slavery was left to fester.

That finally came to a head of course in the Civil War, which arguably could have been avoided had the country dealt with it sooner. But the EC certainly did its part to ensure that we did not.

But wait -- there's more.

We no longer have Slave Power of course (which was the name given to that three-fifths malarkey), or slave states. That all went away with the aftermath of the Civil War and the Constitutional Amendments --- one of the most important of which was the Fourteenth. 14 guaranteed that ex-slaves were now citizens and that no male citizen could be deprived of his rights.

Did you catch the gender? No male citizen. Meaning females could still be so deprived.... yet they were still counted in a state's population for the purpose of determining representation. Here was another constituency being counted for the benefit of the state, yet itself deprived of a say in the matter. Again, the state takes the benefit while skipping out on the responsibilities. Sure, any state could have enfranchised women at any time before 1920 and had twice as many votes........ but with the Electoral College system, there was no point ---- they already HAD the population-based representation so that wouldn't change, and the popular vote didn't elect the President anyway. So the incentive for women voting was in effect made nonexistent because the EC *did* exist.

Today women can vote, and we pat ourselves on the collective back thinking we enfranchise everybody --- and yet everybody in California and New York who voted for Trump, their votes didn't even count -- over six million -- because their state's Electors will vote unanimously, as if every single person in California and New York voted for Hillary Clinton. They didn't.

So it's still dividing, creating a bizarre concept of a "red state" and "blue state" checkerboard country as if we're one giant city of Berlin that might as well have state-line fences and signs reading "You are entering the Democratic Sector". "Blue walls" and "flyover country" and "battleground state" ----- NONE of these terms should even exist. They're walls. And the Electoral College pays for that wall.

And it also makes us all dependent on polls, since that's the only way residents of a given state know whether their vote is going to count or not. I got a vote in the recent election, because I'm in what the polls designated as "in play". But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Washington and California --- did not. Their vote meant nothing. No matter what they did, voted this way or that way or stayed home --- their state was already decided for them and it will so vote unanimously.

So aside from its division, the EC dicourages voting at all unless one happens to be in a "battleground state". And it perpetuates that division, and the Duopoly, and it makes us dependent on polls, which are --- this just in ---- not always accurate anyway. No one should have to consult polls to determine whether they have a meaningful vote or whether they should just stay home.

So ----- yeah I imagine I do understand something about the "failures of history", thanks for asking.

You make a strong argument, I'll give you that. However, unless, and until, the EC is dissolved (good luck getting that to happen) this is all merely academic. It's no more than a straw-man to help losers save face. No one, and I mean no one, was saying anything about the EC when things went the other way. Whether or not it would have mattered is moot. If the EC is no longer the best way, it is no longer the best way. It's really just that simple. So keep making your argument, maybe you'll convince enough people to exact the change you so desire. Until then, I am done with this discussion as we surely will never agree.

 

[Pogo]

You cannot be serious. We are a divided country because of the EC?

Serious as a heart attack, and just as deadly.

Or are you simply out of touch with the reality of things?

Not "out of touch", the characterization would be "well versed".

Sure the EC does little, if anything to unite us, but it was never intended to unite us.

Damn straight. And it's done a helluva job at not-doing-that.

It was intended to ensure high population areas do not have "mob rule". It was intended to aid in "leveling" the playing field. If you have a better idea on how to avoid the pitfalls of "mob rule" let's hear it.

Sure. Again.
If a PV amounted to "mob rule" then how do the several states ---- which have diverse and urban and rural populations just as the country does ---- elect their governors and Senators -- or even their own state Legisltures? Do they construct a bizarre filter of "county electors" that cast their own vote on behalf of their residents, which may or may not match those residents' wishes?

No, they do not. Not a single one. Because it isn't an argument. A popular vote is in no way 'mob rule', no matter how many times you keep parroting the same tired meme.

There are a total of two countries on earth who elect their head of state via an indirect vote. One is us. The other is Pakistan. Go ahead and make the case that the Norways and Ecuadors and Israels are employing "mob rule". That meme cannot be justified or even explained. We've been inviting that in the EC thread for five hundred posts --- no one has done it.

As for the ways -- plural -- that the EC has created and perpetuated division, see the next segment.

PV would only PERPETUATE "mob rule" and thus division between high and low population density areas. Do you really not understand that? Are you really that blind to the truth? Do you really not understand that our framers, and statesmen that followed, studied and LEARNED from the failures of history?

I understand the history too well and I've been posting it to the unlistening, so I guess why not go through it again....

The EC was created in small part out of a regional concern, that a candidate from New Hamster might not be known at all in Georgia. But that was the 18th century when such a trek was a major undertaking and the sum of one's info, if one could get it, would be from a newspaper or handbill. Technology over two centuries has rendered that argument completely moot.

But the other concern was the balance of power, and the influential Southerners at the creation of the Constitution got the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" that mandated their populations, for the purpose of determining how much representation they would get (and therefore how many Electoral Votes) would count their slaves as three-fifths of a person. Of course those slaves themselves had no representation; they could not vote. So in effect the South stacked the deck, taking the benefits of an artificially-enlarged population number while skipping out on the responsibilities (voting for slaves) that should have come with it. As a result of that biased Electoral College, six of our first seven Presidents were slaveholders from the South. Consequently the nagging elephant-in-the-room moral question of Slavery was left to fester.

That finally came to a head of course in the Civil War, which arguably could have been avoided had the country dealt with it sooner. But the EC certainly did its part to ensure that we did not.

But wait -- there's more.

We no longer have Slave Power of course (which was the name given to that three-fifths malarkey), or slave states. That all went away with the aftermath of the Civil War and the Constitutional Amendments --- one of the most important of which was the Fourteenth. 14 guaranteed that ex-slaves were now citizens and that no male citizen could be deprived of his rights.

Did you catch the gender? No male citizen. Meaning females could still be so deprived.... yet they were still counted in a state's population for the purpose of determining representation. Here was another constituency being counted for the benefit of the state, yet itself deprived of a say in the matter. Again, the state takes the benefit while skipping out on the responsibilities. Sure, any state could have enfranchised women at any time before 1920 and had twice as many votes........ but with the Electoral College system, there was no point ---- they already HAD the population-based representation so that wouldn't change, and the popular vote didn't elect the President anyway. So the incentive for women voting was in effect made nonexistent because the EC *did* exist.

Today women can vote, and we pat ourselves on the collective back thinking we enfranchise everybody --- and yet everybody in California and New York who voted for Trump, their votes didn't even count -- over six million -- because their state's Electors will vote unanimously, as if every single person in California and New York voted for Hillary Clinton. They didn't.

So it's still dividing, creating a bizarre concept of a "red state" and "blue state" checkerboard country as if we're one giant city of Berlin that might as well have state-line fences and signs reading "You are entering the Democratic Sector". "Blue walls" and "flyover country" and "battleground state" ----- NONE of these terms should even exist. They're walls. And the Electoral College pays for that wall.

And it also makes us all dependent on polls, since that's the only way residents of a given state know whether their vote is going to count or not. I got a vote in the recent election, because I'm in what the polls designated as "in play". But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Washington and California --- did not. Their vote meant nothing. No matter what they did, voted this way or that way or stayed home --- their state was already decided for them and it will so vote unanimously.

So aside from its division, the EC dicourages voting at all unless one happens to be in a "battleground state". And it perpetuates that division, and the Duopoly, and it makes us dependent on polls, which are --- this just in ---- not always accurate anyway. No one should have to consult polls to determine whether they have a meaningful vote or whether they should just stay home.

So ----- yeah I imagine I do understand something about the "failures of history", thanks for asking.

You make a strong argument, I'll give you that. However, unless, and until, the EC is dissolved (good luck getting that to happen) this is all merely academic. It's no more than a straw-man to help losers save face. No one, and I mean no one, was saying anything about the EC when things went the other way. Whether or not it would have mattered is moot. If the EC is no longer the best way, it is no longer the best way. It's really just that simple. So keep making your argument, maybe you'll convince enough people to exact the change you so desire. Until then, I am done with this discussion as we surely will never agree.

Again, that's all general, not specific to any election. The only reason we're on it right now is that the period between a Presidential election and when the EC votes in December, is the only time it's in play. It comes up every four years and it will be back at this time four years hence. Regardless how that election goes.

And thank you.

 

[oldsoul]

Clinton's plurality has now passed the one million mark according to this ongoing spreadsheet, by far the largest PV margin ever for a candy not (presumably) winning the EC.


Hilarity......61,964,263
Rump........60,961,967

Still counting of course.

Who cares? The PV doesn't matter.

It's (a) part of the question in this thread's title, and (b) the exposure of the bullshit fake-news link that was brought in by the asshat who posted just before you did. He got played by an echobabble that told him what he wanted to hear, and now he can't admit he got played.

Facts do matter. But you might also ask him the same question.

That PV count doesn't matter for the purpose of determining a President. But it does count as a poll on which candy the electorate preferred. Sort of a poll, except in this case there's zero margin for error. It's direct.

Agreed facts do matter, and the fact is Clinton lost, The rules were known and she failed, get over it. As for the PV mattering as to which "candy" was preferred, Explain why so many Governor-ships, and state legislatures are now in Republican control. It is merely a reflection of which candidate won more "hearts and minds" it is not a reflection of what direction the people want our country to take. Face it, the left had their chance and the people rose up and said "not on my watch".

 

[oldsoul]

You cannot be serious. We are a divided country because of the EC?

Serious as a heart attack, and just as deadly.

Or are you simply out of touch with the reality of things?

Not "out of touch", the characterization would be "well versed".

Sure the EC does little, if anything to unite us, but it was never intended to unite us.

Damn straight. And it's done a helluva job at not-doing-that.

It was intended to ensure high population areas do not have "mob rule". It was intended to aid in "leveling" the playing field. If you have a better idea on how to avoid the pitfalls of "mob rule" let's hear it.

Sure. Again.
If a PV amounted to "mob rule" then how do the several states ---- which have diverse and urban and rural populations just as the country does ---- elect their governors and Senators -- or even their own state Legisltures? Do they construct a bizarre filter of "county electors" that cast their own vote on behalf of their residents, which may or may not match those residents' wishes?

No, they do not. Not a single one. Because it isn't an argument. A popular vote is in no way 'mob rule', no matter how many times you keep parroting the same tired meme.

There are a total of two countries on earth who elect their head of state via an indirect vote. One is us. The other is Pakistan. Go ahead and make the case that the Norways and Ecuadors and Israels are employing "mob rule". That meme cannot be justified or even explained. We've been inviting that in the EC thread for five hundred posts --- no one has done it.

As for the ways -- plural -- that the EC has created and perpetuated division, see the next segment.

PV would only PERPETUATE "mob rule" and thus division between high and low population density areas. Do you really not understand that? Are you really that blind to the truth? Do you really not understand that our framers, and statesmen that followed, studied and LEARNED from the failures of history?

I understand the history too well and I've been posting it to the unlistening, so I guess why not go through it again....

The EC was created in small part out of a regional concern, that a candidate from New Hamster might not be known at all in Georgia. But that was the 18th century when such a trek was a major undertaking and the sum of one's info, if one could get it, would be from a newspaper or handbill. Technology over two centuries has rendered that argument completely moot.

But the other concern was the balance of power, and the influential Southerners at the creation of the Constitution got the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" that mandated their populations, for the purpose of determining how much representation they would get (and therefore how many Electoral Votes) would count their slaves as three-fifths of a person. Of course those slaves themselves had no representation; they could not vote. So in effect the South stacked the deck, taking the benefits of an artificially-enlarged population number while skipping out on the responsibilities (voting for slaves) that should have come with it. As a result of that biased Electoral College, six of our first seven Presidents were slaveholders from the South. Consequently the nagging elephant-in-the-room moral question of Slavery was left to fester.

That finally came to a head of course in the Civil War, which arguably could have been avoided had the country dealt with it sooner. But the EC certainly did its part to ensure that we did not.

But wait -- there's more.

We no longer have Slave Power of course (which was the name given to that three-fifths malarkey), or slave states. That all went away with the aftermath of the Civil War and the Constitutional Amendments --- one of the most important of which was the Fourteenth. 14 guaranteed that ex-slaves were now citizens and that no male citizen could be deprived of his rights.

Did you catch the gender? No male citizen. Meaning females could still be so deprived.... yet they were still counted in a state's population for the purpose of determining representation. Here was another constituency being counted for the benefit of the state, yet itself deprived of a say in the matter. Again, the state takes the benefit while skipping out on the responsibilities. Sure, any state could have enfranchised women at any time before 1920 and had twice as many votes........ but with the Electoral College system, there was no point ---- they already HAD the population-based representation so that wouldn't change, and the popular vote didn't elect the President anyway. So the incentive for women voting was in effect made nonexistent because the EC *did* exist.

Today women can vote, and we pat ourselves on the collective back thinking we enfranchise everybody --- and yet everybody in California and New York who voted for Trump, their votes didn't even count -- over six million -- because their state's Electors will vote unanimously, as if every single person in California and New York voted for Hillary Clinton. They didn't.

So it's still dividing, creating a bizarre concept of a "red state" and "blue state" checkerboard country as if we're one giant city of Berlin that might as well have state-line fences and signs reading "You are entering the Democratic Sector". "Blue walls" and "flyover country" and "battleground state" ----- NONE of these terms should even exist. They're walls. And the Electoral College pays for that wall.

And it also makes us all dependent on polls, since that's the only way residents of a given state know whether their vote is going to count or not. I got a vote in the recent election, because I'm in what the polls designated as "in play". But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Washington and California --- did not. Their vote meant nothing. No matter what they did, voted this way or that way or stayed home --- their state was already decided for them and it will so vote unanimously.

So aside from its division, the EC dicourages voting at all unless one happens to be in a "battleground state". And it perpetuates that division, and the Duopoly, and it makes us dependent on polls, which are --- this just in ---- not always accurate anyway. No one should have to consult polls to determine whether they have a meaningful vote or whether they should just stay home.

So ----- yeah I imagine I do understand something about the "failures of history", thanks for asking.

You make a strong argument, I'll give you that. However, unless, and until, the EC is dissolved (good luck getting that to happen) this is all merely academic. It's no more than a straw-man to help losers save face. No one, and I mean no one, was saying anything about the EC when things went the other way. Whether or not it would have mattered is moot. If the EC is no longer the best way, it is no longer the best way. It's really just that simple. So keep making your argument, maybe you'll convince enough people to exact the change you so desire. Until then, I am done with this discussion as we surely will never agree.

Again, that's all general, not specific to any election. The only reason we're on it right now is that the period between a Presidential election and when the EC votes in December, is the only time it's in play. It comes up every four years and it will be back at this time four years hence. Regardless how that election goes.

And thank you.

I doubt it, unless the left loses again.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Does Trump win Pop Vote?

yes he did

Nope.

--LOL

once again we will see

 

[Pogo]

You cannot be serious. We are a divided country because of the EC?

Serious as a heart attack, and just as deadly.

Or are you simply out of touch with the reality of things?

Not "out of touch", the characterization would be "well versed".

Sure the EC does little, if anything to unite us, but it was never intended to unite us.

Damn straight. And it's done a helluva job at not-doing-that.

It was intended to ensure high population areas do not have "mob rule". It was intended to aid in "leveling" the playing field. If you have a better idea on how to avoid the pitfalls of "mob rule" let's hear it.

Sure. Again.
If a PV amounted to "mob rule" then how do the several states ---- which have diverse and urban and rural populations just as the country does ---- elect their governors and Senators -- or even their own state Legisltures? Do they construct a bizarre filter of "county electors" that cast their own vote on behalf of their residents, which may or may not match those residents' wishes?

No, they do not. Not a single one. Because it isn't an argument. A popular vote is in no way 'mob rule', no matter how many times you keep parroting the same tired meme.

There are a total of two countries on earth who elect their head of state via an indirect vote. One is us. The other is Pakistan. Go ahead and make the case that the Norways and Ecuadors and Israels are employing "mob rule". That meme cannot be justified or even explained. We've been inviting that in the EC thread for five hundred posts --- no one has done it.

As for the ways -- plural -- that the EC has created and perpetuated division, see the next segment.

PV would only PERPETUATE "mob rule" and thus division between high and low population density areas. Do you really not understand that? Are you really that blind to the truth? Do you really not understand that our framers, and statesmen that followed, studied and LEARNED from the failures of history?

I understand the history too well and I've been posting it to the unlistening, so I guess why not go through it again....

The EC was created in small part out of a regional concern, that a candidate from New Hamster might not be known at all in Georgia. But that was the 18th century when such a trek was a major undertaking and the sum of one's info, if one could get it, would be from a newspaper or handbill. Technology over two centuries has rendered that argument completely moot.

But the other concern was the balance of power, and the influential Southerners at the creation of the Constitution got the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" that mandated their populations, for the purpose of determining how much representation they would get (and therefore how many Electoral Votes) would count their slaves as three-fifths of a person. Of course those slaves themselves had no representation; they could not vote. So in effect the South stacked the deck, taking the benefits of an artificially-enlarged population number while skipping out on the responsibilities (voting for slaves) that should have come with it. As a result of that biased Electoral College, six of our first seven Presidents were slaveholders from the South. Consequently the nagging elephant-in-the-room moral question of Slavery was left to fester.

That finally came to a head of course in the Civil War, which arguably could have been avoided had the country dealt with it sooner. But the EC certainly did its part to ensure that we did not.

But wait -- there's more.

We no longer have Slave Power of course (which was the name given to that three-fifths malarkey), or slave states. That all went away with the aftermath of the Civil War and the Constitutional Amendments --- one of the most important of which was the Fourteenth. 14 guaranteed that ex-slaves were now citizens and that no male citizen could be deprived of his rights.

Did you catch the gender? No male citizen. Meaning females could still be so deprived.... yet they were still counted in a state's population for the purpose of determining representation. Here was another constituency being counted for the benefit of the state, yet itself deprived of a say in the matter. Again, the state takes the benefit while skipping out on the responsibilities. Sure, any state could have enfranchised women at any time before 1920 and had twice as many votes........ but with the Electoral College system, there was no point ---- they already HAD the population-based representation so that wouldn't change, and the popular vote didn't elect the President anyway. So the incentive for women voting was in effect made nonexistent because the EC *did* exist.

Today women can vote, and we pat ourselves on the collective back thinking we enfranchise everybody --- and yet everybody in California and New York who voted for Trump, their votes didn't even count -- over six million -- because their state's Electors will vote unanimously, as if every single person in California and New York voted for Hillary Clinton. They didn't.

So it's still dividing, creating a bizarre concept of a "red state" and "blue state" checkerboard country as if we're one giant city of Berlin that might as well have state-line fences and signs reading "You are entering the Democratic Sector". "Blue walls" and "flyover country" and "battleground state" ----- NONE of these terms should even exist. They're walls. And the Electoral College pays for that wall.

And it also makes us all dependent on polls, since that's the only way residents of a given state know whether their vote is going to count or not. I got a vote in the recent election, because I'm in what the polls designated as "in play". But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Washington and California --- did not. Their vote meant nothing. No matter what they did, voted this way or that way or stayed home --- their state was already decided for them and it will so vote unanimously.

So aside from its division, the EC dicourages voting at all unless one happens to be in a "battleground state". And it perpetuates that division, and the Duopoly, and it makes us dependent on polls, which are --- this just in ---- not always accurate anyway. No one should have to consult polls to determine whether they have a meaningful vote or whether they should just stay home.

So ----- yeah I imagine I do understand something about the "failures of history", thanks for asking.

You make a strong argument, I'll give you that. However, unless, and until, the EC is dissolved (good luck getting that to happen) this is all merely academic. It's no more than a straw-man to help losers save face. No one, and I mean no one, was saying anything about the EC when things went the other way. Whether or not it would have mattered is moot. If the EC is no longer the best way, it is no longer the best way. It's really just that simple. So keep making your argument, maybe you'll convince enough people to exact the change you so desire. Until then, I am done with this discussion as we surely will never agree.

Again, that's all general, not specific to any election. The only reason we're on it right now is that the period between a Presidential election and when the EC votes in December, is the only time it's in play. It comes up every four years and it will be back at this time four years hence. Regardless how that election goes.

And thank you.

I doubt it, unless the left loses again.

You must be new at this It comes up every four years because that's when it's relevant. I can tell you right now that it came up in 2012. And 2008. And 2004. Etc etc etc. Hell, the thread on the EC that's been going on takes its title directly from a Donald Rump tweet from 2012. He actually wanted "revolution in the streets" if the popular vote winner didn't get the EC vote. Four years ago.

 

[Pogo]

Does Trump win Pop Vote?

yes he did

Nope.

--LOL

once again we will see

yyyyyeahhh ummmmm.... we already are seeing. This page is continually updated. Note that Rump is well over a million votes behind, and note that that gap keeps growing.

Yeah I just posted "Rump is behind". Hyuk hyuk.

 

[oldsoul]

You cannot be serious. We are a divided country because of the EC?

Serious as a heart attack, and just as deadly.

Or are you simply out of touch with the reality of things?

Not "out of touch", the characterization would be "well versed".

Sure the EC does little, if anything to unite us, but it was never intended to unite us.

Damn straight. And it's done a helluva job at not-doing-that.

It was intended to ensure high population areas do not have "mob rule". It was intended to aid in "leveling" the playing field. If you have a better idea on how to avoid the pitfalls of "mob rule" let's hear it.

Sure. Again.
If a PV amounted to "mob rule" then how do the several states ---- which have diverse and urban and rural populations just as the country does ---- elect their governors and Senators -- or even their own state Legisltures? Do they construct a bizarre filter of "county electors" that cast their own vote on behalf of their residents, which may or may not match those residents' wishes?

No, they do not. Not a single one. Because it isn't an argument. A popular vote is in no way 'mob rule', no matter how many times you keep parroting the same tired meme.

There are a total of two countries on earth who elect their head of state via an indirect vote. One is us. The other is Pakistan. Go ahead and make the case that the Norways and Ecuadors and Israels are employing "mob rule". That meme cannot be justified or even explained. We've been inviting that in the EC thread for five hundred posts --- no one has done it.

As for the ways -- plural -- that the EC has created and perpetuated division, see the next segment.

PV would only PERPETUATE "mob rule" and thus division between high and low population density areas. Do you really not understand that? Are you really that blind to the truth? Do you really not understand that our framers, and statesmen that followed, studied and LEARNED from the failures of history?

I understand the history too well and I've been posting it to the unlistening, so I guess why not go through it again....

The EC was created in small part out of a regional concern, that a candidate from New Hamster might not be known at all in Georgia. But that was the 18th century when such a trek was a major undertaking and the sum of one's info, if one could get it, would be from a newspaper or handbill. Technology over two centuries has rendered that argument completely moot.

But the other concern was the balance of power, and the influential Southerners at the creation of the Constitution got the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" that mandated their populations, for the purpose of determining how much representation they would get (and therefore how many Electoral Votes) would count their slaves as three-fifths of a person. Of course those slaves themselves had no representation; they could not vote. So in effect the South stacked the deck, taking the benefits of an artificially-enlarged population number while skipping out on the responsibilities (voting for slaves) that should have come with it. As a result of that biased Electoral College, six of our first seven Presidents were slaveholders from the South. Consequently the nagging elephant-in-the-room moral question of Slavery was left to fester.

That finally came to a head of course in the Civil War, which arguably could have been avoided had the country dealt with it sooner. But the EC certainly did its part to ensure that we did not.

But wait -- there's more.

We no longer have Slave Power of course (which was the name given to that three-fifths malarkey), or slave states. That all went away with the aftermath of the Civil War and the Constitutional Amendments --- one of the most important of which was the Fourteenth. 14 guaranteed that ex-slaves were now citizens and that no male citizen could be deprived of his rights.

Did you catch the gender? No male citizen. Meaning females could still be so deprived.... yet they were still counted in a state's population for the purpose of determining representation. Here was another constituency being counted for the benefit of the state, yet itself deprived of a say in the matter. Again, the state takes the benefit while skipping out on the responsibilities. Sure, any state could have enfranchised women at any time before 1920 and had twice as many votes........ but with the Electoral College system, there was no point ---- they already HAD the population-based representation so that wouldn't change, and the popular vote didn't elect the President anyway. So the incentive for women voting was in effect made nonexistent because the EC *did* exist.

Today women can vote, and we pat ourselves on the collective back thinking we enfranchise everybody --- and yet everybody in California and New York who voted for Trump, their votes didn't even count -- over six million -- because their state's Electors will vote unanimously, as if every single person in California and New York voted for Hillary Clinton. They didn't.

So it's still dividing, creating a bizarre concept of a "red state" and "blue state" checkerboard country as if we're one giant city of Berlin that might as well have state-line fences and signs reading "You are entering the Democratic Sector". "Blue walls" and "flyover country" and "battleground state" ----- NONE of these terms should even exist. They're walls. And the Electoral College pays for that wall.

And it also makes us all dependent on polls, since that's the only way residents of a given state know whether their vote is going to count or not. I got a vote in the recent election, because I'm in what the polls designated as "in play". But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Washington and California --- did not. Their vote meant nothing. No matter what they did, voted this way or that way or stayed home --- their state was already decided for them and it will so vote unanimously.

So aside from its division, the EC dicourages voting at all unless one happens to be in a "battleground state". And it perpetuates that division, and the Duopoly, and it makes us dependent on polls, which are --- this just in ---- not always accurate anyway. No one should have to consult polls to determine whether they have a meaningful vote or whether they should just stay home.

So ----- yeah I imagine I do understand something about the "failures of history", thanks for asking.

You make a strong argument, I'll give you that. However, unless, and until, the EC is dissolved (good luck getting that to happen) this is all merely academic. It's no more than a straw-man to help losers save face. No one, and I mean no one, was saying anything about the EC when things went the other way. Whether or not it would have mattered is moot. If the EC is no longer the best way, it is no longer the best way. It's really just that simple. So keep making your argument, maybe you'll convince enough people to exact the change you so desire. Until then, I am done with this discussion as we surely will never agree.

Again, that's all general, not specific to any election. The only reason we're on it right now is that the period between a Presidential election and when the EC votes in December, is the only time it's in play. It comes up every four years and it will be back at this time four years hence. Regardless how that election goes.

And thank you.

I doubt it, unless the left loses again.

You must be new at this It comes up every four years because that's when it's relevant. I can tell you right now that it came up in 2012. And 2008. And 2004. Etc etc etc. Hell, the thread on the EC that's been going on takes its title directly from a Donald Rump tweet from 2012. He actually wanted "revolution in the streets" if the popular vote winner didn't get the EC vote. Four years ago.

Well, I guess I stand corrected then. That does not change the fact that talking about something for a few weeks every four years is conducive to effecting the change one wants. There must be a continuing discussion about it for change to happen. Unfortunately, like so many other things, this too shall fall into the abyss shortly after the EC officially names Mr. Trump "President-elect".

 

[jon_berzerk]

Does Trump win Pop Vote?

yes he did

Nope.

--LOL

once again we will see

yyyyyeahhh ummmmm.... we already are seeing. This page is continually updated. Note that Rump is well over a million votes behind, and note that that gap keeps growing.

Yeah I just posted "Rump is behind". Hyuk hyuk.

--LOL "this page" --LOL

grow up you loser

 

[Pogo]

Does Trump win Pop Vote?

yes he did

Nope.

--LOL

once again we will see

yyyyyeahhh ummmmm.... we already are seeing. This page is continually updated. Note that Rump is well over a million votes behind, and note that that gap keeps growing.

Yeah I just posted "Rump is behind". Hyuk hyuk.

--LOL "this page" --LOL

grow up you loser

It's what we adults call a "link". Oh look the gap is even wider now:
62,568,373 Clinton ..............61,336,159 Rump

And yet..... here you are:

Does Trump win Pop Vote?

yes he did

--LOL

FINAL ELECTION 2016 NUMBERS: TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES ( 306-232)…HEY CHANGE.ORG, SCRAP YOUR LOONY PETITION NOW!

---- getting played like a banjo by the same fake-news crapola that's been shitting on the electoral process the whole time, and too stupid to wiggle your way out of it.

 

[Pogo]

Serious as a heart attack, and just as deadly.


Not "out of touch", the characterization would be "well versed".


Damn straight. And it's done a helluva job at not-doing-that.


Sure. Again.
If a PV amounted to "mob rule" then how do the several states ---- which have diverse and urban and rural populations just as the country does ---- elect their governors and Senators -- or even their own state Legisltures? Do they construct a bizarre filter of "county electors" that cast their own vote on behalf of their residents, which may or may not match those residents' wishes?

No, they do not. Not a single one. Because it isn't an argument. A popular vote is in no way 'mob rule', no matter how many times you keep parroting the same tired meme.

There are a total of two countries on earth who elect their head of state via an indirect vote. One is us. The other is Pakistan. Go ahead and make the case that the Norways and Ecuadors and Israels are employing "mob rule". That meme cannot be justified or even explained. We've been inviting that in the EC thread for five hundred posts --- no one has done it.

As for the ways -- plural -- that the EC has created and perpetuated division, see the next segment.


I understand the history too well and I've been posting it to the unlistening, so I guess why not go through it again....

The EC was created in small part out of a regional concern, that a candidate from New Hamster might not be known at all in Georgia. But that was the 18th century when such a trek was a major undertaking and the sum of one's info, if one could get it, would be from a newspaper or handbill. Technology over two centuries has rendered that argument completely moot.

But the other concern was the balance of power, and the influential Southerners at the creation of the Constitution got the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" that mandated their populations, for the purpose of determining how much representation they would get (and therefore how many Electoral Votes) would count their slaves as three-fifths of a person. Of course those slaves themselves had no representation; they could not vote. So in effect the South stacked the deck, taking the benefits of an artificially-enlarged population number while skipping out on the responsibilities (voting for slaves) that should have come with it. As a result of that biased Electoral College, six of our first seven Presidents were slaveholders from the South. Consequently the nagging elephant-in-the-room moral question of Slavery was left to fester.

That finally came to a head of course in the Civil War, which arguably could have been avoided had the country dealt with it sooner. But the EC certainly did its part to ensure that we did not.

But wait -- there's more.

We no longer have Slave Power of course (which was the name given to that three-fifths malarkey), or slave states. That all went away with the aftermath of the Civil War and the Constitutional Amendments --- one of the most important of which was the Fourteenth. 14 guaranteed that ex-slaves were now citizens and that no male citizen could be deprived of his rights.

Did you catch the gender? No male citizen. Meaning females could still be so deprived.... yet they were still counted in a state's population for the purpose of determining representation. Here was another constituency being counted for the benefit of the state, yet itself deprived of a say in the matter. Again, the state takes the benefit while skipping out on the responsibilities. Sure, any state could have enfranchised women at any time before 1920 and had twice as many votes........ but with the Electoral College system, there was no point ---- they already HAD the population-based representation so that wouldn't change, and the popular vote didn't elect the President anyway. So the incentive for women voting was in effect made nonexistent because the EC *did* exist.

Today women can vote, and we pat ourselves on the collective back thinking we enfranchise everybody --- and yet everybody in California and New York who voted for Trump, their votes didn't even count -- over six million -- because their state's Electors will vote unanimously, as if every single person in California and New York voted for Hillary Clinton. They didn't.

So it's still dividing, creating a bizarre concept of a "red state" and "blue state" checkerboard country as if we're one giant city of Berlin that might as well have state-line fences and signs reading "You are entering the Democratic Sector". "Blue walls" and "flyover country" and "battleground state" ----- NONE of these terms should even exist. They're walls. And the Electoral College pays for that wall.

And it also makes us all dependent on polls, since that's the only way residents of a given state know whether their vote is going to count or not. I got a vote in the recent election, because I'm in what the polls designated as "in play". But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Washington and California --- did not. Their vote meant nothing. No matter what they did, voted this way or that way or stayed home --- their state was already decided for them and it will so vote unanimously.

So aside from its division, the EC dicourages voting at all unless one happens to be in a "battleground state". And it perpetuates that division, and the Duopoly, and it makes us dependent on polls, which are --- this just in ---- not always accurate anyway. No one should have to consult polls to determine whether they have a meaningful vote or whether they should just stay home.

So ----- yeah I imagine I do understand something about the "failures of history", thanks for asking.

You make a strong argument, I'll give you that. However, unless, and until, the EC is dissolved (good luck getting that to happen) this is all merely academic. It's no more than a straw-man to help losers save face. No one, and I mean no one, was saying anything about the EC when things went the other way. Whether or not it would have mattered is moot. If the EC is no longer the best way, it is no longer the best way. It's really just that simple. So keep making your argument, maybe you'll convince enough people to exact the change you so desire. Until then, I am done with this discussion as we surely will never agree.

Again, that's all general, not specific to any election. The only reason we're on it right now is that the period between a Presidential election and when the EC votes in December, is the only time it's in play. It comes up every four years and it will be back at this time four years hence. Regardless how that election goes.

And thank you.

I doubt it, unless the left loses again.

You must be new at this It comes up every four years because that's when it's relevant. I can tell you right now that it came up in 2012. And 2008. And 2004. Etc etc etc. Hell, the thread on the EC that's been going on takes its title directly from a Donald Rump tweet from 2012. He actually wanted "revolution in the streets" if the popular vote winner didn't get the EC vote. Four years ago.

Well, I guess I stand corrected then. That does not change the fact that talking about something for a few weeks every four years is conducive to effecting the change one wants. There must be a continuing discussion about it for change to happen. Unfortunately, like so many other things, this too shall fall into the abyss shortly after the EC officially names Mr. Trump "President-elect".

If they indeed do that. We'll know in about a month.

But yes, thank you, it does need continuing discussion. I've been posting on it here since at least last Spring. For me it's not new.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Does Trump win Pop Vote?

yes he did

Nope.

--LOL

once again we will see

yyyyyeahhh ummmmm.... we already are seeing. This page is continually updated. Note that Rump is well over a million votes behind, and note that that gap keeps growing.

Yeah I just posted "Rump is behind". Hyuk hyuk.

--LOL "this page" --LOL

grow up you loser

It's what we adults call a "link". Oh look the gap is even wider now:
62,568,373 Clinton ..............61,336,159 Rump

And yet..... here you are:

Does Trump win Pop Vote?

yes he did

--LOL

FINAL ELECTION 2016 NUMBERS: TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES ( 306-232)…HEY CHANGE.ORG, SCRAP YOUR LOONY PETITION NOW!

---- getting played like a banjo by the same fake-news crapola that's been shitting on the electoral process the whole time, and too stupid to wiggle your way out of it.

it is a link too dickhead

face it fuck face she lost the election

 

[oldsoul]

You make a strong argument, I'll give you that. However, unless, and until, the EC is dissolved (good luck getting that to happen) this is all merely academic. It's no more than a straw-man to help losers save face. No one, and I mean no one, was saying anything about the EC when things went the other way. Whether or not it would have mattered is moot. If the EC is no longer the best way, it is no longer the best way. It's really just that simple. So keep making your argument, maybe you'll convince enough people to exact the change you so desire. Until then, I am done with this discussion as we surely will never agree.

Again, that's all general, not specific to any election. The only reason we're on it right now is that the period between a Presidential election and when the EC votes in December, is the only time it's in play. It comes up every four years and it will be back at this time four years hence. Regardless how that election goes.

And thank you.

I doubt it, unless the left loses again.

You must be new at this It comes up every four years because that's when it's relevant. I can tell you right now that it came up in 2012. And 2008. And 2004. Etc etc etc. Hell, the thread on the EC that's been going on takes its title directly from a Donald Rump tweet from 2012. He actually wanted "revolution in the streets" if the popular vote winner didn't get the EC vote. Four years ago.

Well, I guess I stand corrected then. That does not change the fact that talking about something for a few weeks every four years is conducive to effecting the change one wants. There must be a continuing discussion about it for change to happen. Unfortunately, like so many other things, this too shall fall into the abyss shortly after the EC officially names Mr. Trump "President-elect".

If they indeed do that. We'll know in about a month.

But yes, thank you, it does need continuing discussion. I've been posting on it here since at least last Spring. For me it's not new.

Admittedly, I have only been on this forum for a little over a year, and do not follow every single thread. However, this is the first thread so much as mentioning the EC I have seen so far. Also, there is no national discussion going on, so forgive my belief that this is not something that most people even think about outside of our current...situation.

 

[JoeB131]

Show us.

Because with Clinton and Stein and Johnson and McMullin, did Trump even get 42% of the vote?

well, he got 47% of the vote.

which means he doesn't have a mandate.

More worrisome, he doesn't have a clue what to do next because he probably never expected to get this far.

 

[Pogo]

Again, that's all general, not specific to any election. The only reason we're on it right now is that the period between a Presidential election and when the EC votes in December, is the only time it's in play. It comes up every four years and it will be back at this time four years hence. Regardless how that election goes.

And thank you.

I doubt it, unless the left loses again.

You must be new at this It comes up every four years because that's when it's relevant. I can tell you right now that it came up in 2012. And 2008. And 2004. Etc etc etc. Hell, the thread on the EC that's been going on takes its title directly from a Donald Rump tweet from 2012. He actually wanted "revolution in the streets" if the popular vote winner didn't get the EC vote. Four years ago.

Well, I guess I stand corrected then. That does not change the fact that talking about something for a few weeks every four years is conducive to effecting the change one wants. There must be a continuing discussion about it for change to happen. Unfortunately, like so many other things, this too shall fall into the abyss shortly after the EC officially names Mr. Trump "President-elect".

If they indeed do that. We'll know in about a month.

But yes, thank you, it does need continuing discussion. I've been posting on it here since at least last Spring. For me it's not new.

Admittedly, I have only been on this forum for a little over a year, and do not follow every single thread. However, this is the first thread so much as mentioning the EC I have seen so far. Also, there is no national discussion going on, so forgive my belief that this is not something that most people even think about outside of our current...situation.

It's come up -- at least I've been bringing it up --- in the various threads about third party candidates all through this campaign season.

I've made the point in the past by voting third party (for example sixteen years ago) when I resided in a state that was going red regardless how I voted. Since the state's electors were voting for Bush I had no say, even if I wanted to vote for Bush -- so I made what tiny little pithy statement I could with a protest vote. A drop in the bucket. But I've been on this issue a long, long time.

 

[Pogo]

Nope.

--LOL

once again we will see

yyyyyeahhh ummmmm.... we already are seeing. This page is continually updated. Note that Rump is well over a million votes behind, and note that that gap keeps growing.

Yeah I just posted "Rump is behind". Hyuk hyuk.

--LOL "this page" --LOL

grow up you loser

It's what we adults call a "link". Oh look the gap is even wider now:
62,568,373 Clinton ..............61,336,159 Rump

And yet..... here you are:

Does Trump win Pop Vote?

yes he did

--LOL

FINAL ELECTION 2016 NUMBERS: TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES ( 306-232)…HEY CHANGE.ORG, SCRAP YOUR LOONY PETITION NOW!

---- getting played like a banjo by the same fake-news crapola that's been shitting on the electoral process the whole time, and too stupid to wiggle your way out of it.

it is a link too dickhead

face it fuck face she lost the election

Face it fuck face [sic] --- you lied and it's documented you lied, and you continue to dig your own hole.

Interesting factoid -- the "62.9 million" figure in your fake-news link that you were too imbecilic to vet, is only now being approached.... by Clinton (62,829,832 ATM) --- while Rump is not only behind, but he's behind by TWICE the margin your fake-news banjo site tried to sell you (1.4 million rather than 0.7)

Hee hee.

 

[Uncensored2008]

...and if that's the case and Trump actually won the popular vote, then those protesting will stop....right?



Trump never went to Cali to campaign...if it was ONLY about POPULAR VOTE, he would have visited California.

Hillary won the popular vote by a razor thin 170,000. Given the 12 million illegal aliens in the nation, I too wondered if Trump did not indeed have more votes from citizens.