Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[BigTruck]

The Electoral College exists to prevent the large population centers from running roughshod over the smaller ones.

It allows the votes in every state matter.

There’s no reason to change it just because the leftists are sore losers.

 

[Pogo]

If the Popular Vote would have been the law Slick Willy would have lost...snowflakes LOVED the Electoral College!

. Bwuhahahaha.....

Ummmm actually no. He won the PV, both times he ran.

I dunno, maybe stuff like "Wikipedia" and "libraries" are beyond the reach of some.

he never got 51% of the PV but won the EC. you were fine with it then.

Link?

Nope, didn't think so.

1992 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

In case you cant open this one the results of the PV in 1992 were Clinton 43% Bush 37.4%, Perot 18.9%. 43 is a long way from 51.

Goes to show us that a 3rd party can upset the apple cart for one or the other major party. In 2000 Gore would have been elected had Nader not run.

Not necessarily. That has to assume Nader's votes would have gone to Gore, which is not a safe assumption.

I was one of them. My vote was a simple protest against the fact that my state was going to waddle into Congress and claim that the entire state had voted for George Bush, so what's the point of even going to vote, except to cast a protest against that system?

Wasn't the only time I've done that but isn't very satisfying I must say. So my point is a goodly number of those Nader votes, absent Nader's candidacy, would simply not have bothered to vote at all. We can never assume people show up to an election with the goal being the vote itself.

Oh and that's the same state that Redfish is in, the guy with the magical clairvoyance to declare what posters "were fine with" years before this site even existed. Come a so-called Presidential "election" we all know his state is voting in toto for the Republican, regardless whether any voter actually wants the Republican, wants the Democrat, or wants a third party, so there's no point in that voter even showing up. And for that dynamic we can thank the WTA/EC. Every four years.

Several POTUSes have been elected with easy EC margins while getting far less than 50% of the popular vote. Nixon in '68. Wilson in '12. Most notably Lincoln in 1860 who didn't even score 40%. Usually the result of some third (or in Lincoln's case third and fourth) party/parties siphoning off votes. And it's telling that the strategy of such a third party, indeed the only shot they have at all under the Duopoly-sponsored WTA/EC, is not to win outright but to deny any other candidate from crossing the electoral threshold, thereby sending the decision into the House of Representatives..... or to put it another way, the only shot a third party has at all is to negate the election entirely and appeal to some other entity than we the people. John Quincy Adams got in that way with less than 31% of the PV, a figure Andrew Jackson had beaten by more than ten points.

 

[justoffal]

he never got 51% of the PV but won the EC. you were fine with it then.

Link?

Nope, didn't think so.

1992 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

In case you cant open this one the results of the PV in 1992 were Clinton 43% Bush 37.4%, Perot 18.9%. 43 is a long way from 51.

Yeah that's very cute, and I already knew that, didn't need the link.

I meant a link to your last line. The second pseudo-sentence that begins in lower case. I bolded it so you can't miss it this time.

Once again pulling 'alternative facts' out of your ass with no basis. And yes I know that's redundant.

so you can go back to 1992 and show us some posts where you opposed the EC after Clinton won? Sorry, but simply making the claim proves nothing.

*I* don't *NEED* to, Dumbass. **YOU** need to prove the opposite. It's YOUR claim, not mine, that I was "fine with it". As I JUST POINTED OUT, pulling alternative "facts" out of your ass that you didn't bother to establish first. Oh, the density.....

And you're welcome to do so and then crawl back here and avoid admitting you found it.

What the fuck is it, something in the water??

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

You just don't know how to accept loss.

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

Link?

Nope, didn't think so.

1992 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

In case you cant open this one the results of the PV in 1992 were Clinton 43% Bush 37.4%, Perot 18.9%. 43 is a long way from 51.

Yeah that's very cute, and I already knew that, didn't need the link.

I meant a link to your last line. The second pseudo-sentence that begins in lower case. I bolded it so you can't miss it this time.

Once again pulling 'alternative facts' out of your ass with no basis. And yes I know that's redundant.

so you can go back to 1992 and show us some posts where you opposed the EC after Clinton won? Sorry, but simply making the claim proves nothing.

*I* don't *NEED* to, Dumbass. **YOU** need to prove the opposite. It's YOUR claim, not mine, that I was "fine with it". As I JUST POINTED OUT, pulling alternative "facts" out of your ass that you didn't bother to establish first. Oh, the density.....

And you're welcome to do so and then crawl back here and avoid admitting you found it.

What the fuck is it, something in the water??

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

You just don't know how to accept loss.

There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

 

[Marion Morrison]

1992 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

In case you cant open this one the results of the PV in 1992 were Clinton 43% Bush 37.4%, Perot 18.9%. 43 is a long way from 51.

Yeah that's very cute, and I already knew that, didn't need the link.

I meant a link to your last line. The second pseudo-sentence that begins in lower case. I bolded it so you can't miss it this time.

Once again pulling 'alternative facts' out of your ass with no basis. And yes I know that's redundant.

so you can go back to 1992 and show us some posts where you opposed the EC after Clinton won? Sorry, but simply making the claim proves nothing.

*I* don't *NEED* to, Dumbass. **YOU** need to prove the opposite. It's YOUR claim, not mine, that I was "fine with it". As I JUST POINTED OUT, pulling alternative "facts" out of your ass that you didn't bother to establish first. Oh, the density.....

And you're welcome to do so and then crawl back here and avoid admitting you found it.

What the fuck is it, something in the water??

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

You just don't know how to accept loss.

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

This is why Pogo is advocating for popular vote:

Butthurt since 2016 Pogo.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah that's very cute, and I already knew that, didn't need the link.

I meant a link to your last line. The second pseudo-sentence that begins in lower case. I bolded it so you can't miss it this time.

Once again pulling 'alternative facts' out of your ass with no basis. And yes I know that's redundant.

so you can go back to 1992 and show us some posts where you opposed the EC after Clinton won? Sorry, but simply making the claim proves nothing.

*I* don't *NEED* to, Dumbass. **YOU** need to prove the opposite. It's YOUR claim, not mine, that I was "fine with it". As I JUST POINTED OUT, pulling alternative "facts" out of your ass that you didn't bother to establish first. Oh, the density.....

And you're welcome to do so and then crawl back here and avoid admitting you found it.

What the fuck is it, something in the water??

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

You just don't know how to accept loss.

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

This is why Pogo is advocating for popular vote:

Butthurt since 2016 Pogo.

View attachment 232864

That's pretty funny. I remember Chris Farley doing that bit with Paul McCartney. It was awesome.


But again it bespeaks a side of the argument that can't justify itself, hiding as it does behind some causation fantasy that it can't prove. When one has to come up with something as a reasoning for an empty argument, one gets desperate.

Even as we speak Redfish is still out there combing through six years of my posts looking desperately for evidence of what he ass-sumed, fighting in vain the creeping realization of what happens when one ass-sumes.

Poor guy would have saved hisself a lot of work by just approaching the question honestly in the first place.

 

[iceberg]

1992 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

In case you cant open this one the results of the PV in 1992 were Clinton 43% Bush 37.4%, Perot 18.9%. 43 is a long way from 51.

Yeah that's very cute, and I already knew that, didn't need the link.

I meant a link to your last line. The second pseudo-sentence that begins in lower case. I bolded it so you can't miss it this time.

Once again pulling 'alternative facts' out of your ass with no basis. And yes I know that's redundant.

so you can go back to 1992 and show us some posts where you opposed the EC after Clinton won? Sorry, but simply making the claim proves nothing.

*I* don't *NEED* to, Dumbass. **YOU** need to prove the opposite. It's YOUR claim, not mine, that I was "fine with it". As I JUST POINTED OUT, pulling alternative "facts" out of your ass that you didn't bother to establish first. Oh, the density.....

And you're welcome to do so and then crawl back here and avoid admitting you found it.

What the fuck is it, something in the water??

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

You just don't know how to accept loss.

There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

if no state is demanding this, then maybe it's you just being stupid.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah that's very cute, and I already knew that, didn't need the link.

I meant a link to your last line. The second pseudo-sentence that begins in lower case. I bolded it so you can't miss it this time.

Once again pulling 'alternative facts' out of your ass with no basis. And yes I know that's redundant.

so you can go back to 1992 and show us some posts where you opposed the EC after Clinton won? Sorry, but simply making the claim proves nothing.

*I* don't *NEED* to, Dumbass. **YOU** need to prove the opposite. It's YOUR claim, not mine, that I was "fine with it". As I JUST POINTED OUT, pulling alternative "facts" out of your ass that you didn't bother to establish first. Oh, the density.....

And you're welcome to do so and then crawl back here and avoid admitting you found it.

What the fuck is it, something in the water??

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

You just don't know how to accept loss.

There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

 

[justoffal]

Yeah that's very cute, and I already knew that, didn't need the link.

I meant a link to your last line. The second pseudo-sentence that begins in lower case. I bolded it so you can't miss it this time.

Once again pulling 'alternative facts' out of your ass with no basis. And yes I know that's redundant.

so you can go back to 1992 and show us some posts where you opposed the EC after Clinton won? Sorry, but simply making the claim proves nothing.

*I* don't *NEED* to, Dumbass. **YOU** need to prove the opposite. It's YOUR claim, not mine, that I was "fine with it". As I JUST POINTED OUT, pulling alternative "facts" out of your ass that you didn't bother to establish first. Oh, the density.....

And you're welcome to do so and then crawl back here and avoid admitting you found it.

What the fuck is it, something in the water??

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

You just don't know how to accept loss.

There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

if no state is demanding this, then maybe it's you just being stupid.

Lol....looks like I found your tolerance level Bucky.

You are the one dodging and ankle biting.
I asked you to identify a winner other than a winner takes all type of winner. So far you have not been able to do that. So far you just keep whining about areas that have high population counts not having more say than they already do. And you seem to keep trying to disregard the fact that a state line is a state line.

Additionally a governor is not a Federal officer. If high population count areas are not happy with the result of a federal election perhaps they should form their own federal system and elect a president to that system. Or change the name of the governor to president.

But I must warn you you will still have the same issue. There will be a winner of an election and no matter who he is or how he gets selected there will be a large group of people screaming that it was unfairly done.
These are the people that we usually refer to as ahem, losers.

Jo

 

[Redfish]

so you can go back to 1992 and show us some posts where you opposed the EC after Clinton won? Sorry, but simply making the claim proves nothing.

*I* don't *NEED* to, Dumbass. **YOU** need to prove the opposite. It's YOUR claim, not mine, that I was "fine with it". As I JUST POINTED OUT, pulling alternative "facts" out of your ass that you didn't bother to establish first. Oh, the density.....

And you're welcome to do so and then crawl back here and avoid admitting you found it.

What the fuck is it, something in the water??

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

You just don't know how to accept loss.

There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

 

[iceberg]

so you can go back to 1992 and show us some posts where you opposed the EC after Clinton won? Sorry, but simply making the claim proves nothing.

*I* don't *NEED* to, Dumbass. **YOU** need to prove the opposite. It's YOUR claim, not mine, that I was "fine with it". As I JUST POINTED OUT, pulling alternative "facts" out of your ass that you didn't bother to establish first. Oh, the density.....

And you're welcome to do so and then crawl back here and avoid admitting you found it.

What the fuck is it, something in the water??

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

You just don't know how to accept loss.

There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

if no state is demanding this, then maybe it's you just being stupid.

Lol....looks like I found your tolerance level Bucky.

You are the one dodging and ankle biting.
I asked you to identify a winner other than a winner takes all type of winner. So far you have not been able to do that. So far you just keep whining about areas that have high population counts not having more say than they already do. And you seem to keep trying to disregard the fact that a state line is a state line.

Additionally a governor is not a Federal officer. If high population count areas are not happy with the result of a federal election perhaps they should form their own federal system and elect a president to that system. Or change the name of the governor to president.

But I must warn you you will still have the same issue. There will be a winner of an election and no matter who he is or how he gets selected there will be a large group of people screaming that it was unfairly done.
These are the people that we usually refer to as ahem, losers.

Jo

um...ok.

 

[Pogo]

*I* don't *NEED* to, Dumbass. **YOU** need to prove the opposite. It's YOUR claim, not mine, that I was "fine with it". As I JUST POINTED OUT, pulling alternative "facts" out of your ass that you didn't bother to establish first. Oh, the density.....

And you're welcome to do so and then crawl back here and avoid admitting you found it.

What the fuck is it, something in the water??

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

You just don't know how to accept loss.

There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

 

[CowboyTed]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

The EC has saved us from socialism and eventual communism, it seems to be the one minority voice that the two main parties take opposite positions on[ i.e. normally the left demands minority opinion be given a stage while the right normally points out what is wrong with that approach]...losers always want to change the rules while the winners like to impose them...frankly I couldn't care any less, but I have watched the left defy the majority on many issues and now it is the right that looks like it is about to go down that road.

Spoken like any true dictator...

Hitler thought democracy was nothing more than a preliminary stage of Bolshevism; he was virulently anti-communist. During a Nuremberg speech, he declared that “democracy is the foul and filthy avenue to communism.” Democratic ideals espoused equality for all men; it represented to Hitler and Nazi ideologues the notion of mob rule and the hatred of excellence.

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

The EC has saved us from socialism and eventual communism, it seems to be the one minority voice that the two main parties take opposite positions on[ i.e. normally the left demands minority opinion be given a stage while the right normally points out what is wrong with that approach]...losers always want to change the rules while the winners like to impose them...frankly I couldn't care any less, but I have watched the left defy the majority on many issues and now it is the right that looks like it is about to go down that road.

Spoken like any true dictator...

Hitler thought democracy was nothing more than a preliminary stage of Bolshevism; he was virulently anti-communist. During a Nuremberg speech, he declared that “democracy is the foul and filthy avenue to communism.” Democratic ideals espoused equality for all men; it represented to Hitler and Nazi ideologues the notion of mob rule and the hatred of excellence.

Put another way.... You hate to lose.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

You just don't know how to accept loss.

There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

A state line is a state line. The union was formed with the understanding that each independent territory that joined wood be protected from mob rule. If not for that offer I seriously doubt that you said gave fight number states. Being a loser part of the agreement even for the high population states. For some people it's a career.

Jo

 

[Redfish]

Nope it's not in the water it's in the history books. What's that you ask? Why the winner who takes all.... There are no other kinds of winners and the truth is there really are no other kinds of contests.... At least not those that produce actual winners.

I find it insanely ludicrous that you continue to cling to that fatally flawed concept.

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?

You just don't know how to accept loss.

There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Perhaps those states that have high population counts should consider electing their own president just for their state.

Jo

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

you are beating a dead horse. your logic continues to fail. give it up and move on

 

[justoffal]

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?


There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

you are beating a dead horse. your logic continues to fail. give it up and move on

Loss counseling comes to mind but I'm not even sure that will work. If Trump loses the primary or loses to a Democrat in 20 it will subside. The Jobian skin boils will fade and he will take off the sack cloth and ashes for a shirt and jeans.

 

[Pogo]

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?


There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

you are beating a dead horse. your logic continues to fail. give it up and move on

Apparently not, since I offered argument and you could come up with nothing but gainsaying. You're limping along with a parrot-point you can't defend and leaving me to shred it.

Which, I should point out, I'm happy to do.

 

[Pogo]

Are you deliberately acting stupid to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual issue?

Or is it natural?


There is no "loss" in this topic. The question is about how an election should work.

Are you deliberately acting illiterate to let yourself off the hook of addressing the actual topic?

Or is that natural too?

Actually, they all do that. They're called "Governors". And every last one of them is elected by a popular vote.

Got that? No proxy-body dumping vast glops of county votes unanimously for some candy who took 38% of the PV --- direct counting from the entire state.

ALL states do it that way. ZERO of them use anything resembling the Electrical College.

Why is that, if it's such a come-in-your-pants idea? Why have zero states even proposed it?
Hm?

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

A state line is a state line. The union was formed with the understanding that each independent territory that joined wood be protected from mob rule. If not for that offer I seriously doubt that you said gave fight number states. Being a loser part of the agreement even for the high population states. For some people it's a career.

Jo

Cryptic post, but let's just center on this ---

--- define "mob rule".

 

[justoffal]

cause it's fucking stupid and contrary to what our founding fathers put together for this country.

Indeed it is. And as I've pointed out from the beginning, the FF who championed the EC wanted what we're doing today to be banned.

He was right too.

Thank you for your support. You are quite correct; if it were a valid system at least some of the several states would have been electing Governors via "state electoral colleges". And none ever have. Exactly my point.

States probably should adopt some form of EC. As it is the voters in Atlanta control Georgia, the voters in LA control California, the voters in Miami control florida, the voters in Houston and Dallas control Texas, the voters in NYC control NY, the voters in Detroit control Michigan, etc. The rural voters and small counties in those states have virtually no voice in who runs their state. The founders got it right, its not going to change, so lets move on to something else, this has become a waste of time and typing skills.

That's the idea, yes. If the scheme actually has merit then we would expect the Georgias and the Californias and the Floridas --- and the Texases and the Alabamas and the Utahs --- to have tried it at some point. Yet out of fifty states none ever has. Hasn't even been suggested AFAIK. Until you responded to my analogy we haven't heard Floridians complaining about Miami (and Orlando and Tampa etc etc) or Texans about Houston (and Dallas and San Antone and El Paso). It's where people live. Your bitch appears to me that the population of some city (number X) is greater than the population of the hinterlands (number Y). And that's not a valid issue to bitch about.

We've got a TON of cities in Carolina, and I have yet to hear anyone whining that Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh "control the state". Fatter o' mact -- to get down to what this is really about ----- you know that sore-loser voting fraud that the legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan are dabbling in right now? That started here, two years ago, when a Democrat Governor candidate unseated the Republican. The incumbent threw a fit and wouldn't leave for a while, then when he had to go the leg started trying to redefine what the Governor does. And they were able to do that because Republicans dominate the state leg.

And yet even then nobody, not even the outgoing Gov who wouldn't leave, was whining that "Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, High Point and Raleigh 'control the state'. That's a bullshit red herring.

A state line is a state line. The union was formed with the understanding that each independent territory that joined wood be protected from mob rule. If not for that offer I seriously doubt that you said gave fight number states. Being a loser part of the agreement even for the high population states. For some people it's a career.

Jo

Cryptic post, but let's just center on this ---

--- define "mob rule".

Rereading the post I've come to the conclusion that the talk texting doesn't always print what you speak. I trust you got the gist of it though.

So tell me what is your plan for avoiding the mob rule effect?

I am not asking this is a rhetorical question I am sincerely interested in a conversation.

Jo