Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:20 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,276
You know who also "saw Russia everywhere"? Multiple US intelligence agencies and the Mueller investigation. Substantially. So while I appreciate the cite from the completely reputable Intercept, your desperate attempt to pretend that Russian interference wasn't real and material is noted.
  #152  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:32 AM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,562
Three years and it's still the non-existent "popular vote" thing. Hillary dind't win the popular vote, there is no such thing. It's like, as has been said countless times. saying you won the world series even though you lost 3-4 because you had more runs.

I'd love for her to run again and screw it up again.
  #153  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:47 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
Three years and it's still the non-existent "popular vote" thing. Hillary dind't win the popular vote, there is no such thing. It's like, as has been said countless times. saying you won the world series even though you lost 3-4 because you had more runs.
There *is* a popular vote. It's not directly relevant in the sense that it doesn't result in the election of the President. However, it is extremely relevant when the conversation is about the popular appeal of the candidate. In that instance, actual vote totals are the best metric of how much overall popular appeal a candidate has, even if it is unevenly geographically distributed.

So we get conversations like this:

Person A: "Candidate X lost because people didn't like her."

Person B: "But Candidate X got more votes than Candidate Y by a wide margin, so clearly a majority of voters did like Candidate X."

Person A: "But the popular vote doesn't elect the President, therefore I'm right and you're stupid!"

...which, as you prefer sporting analogies, are like Person A saying that Person B can't kick a field goal and then, as Person B is kicking, Person A moves the goalposts.
  #154  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:49 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,369
So, those people don't exist? How about the three to five million "illegal votes" she got (according to Il Douche), do they exist? If the popular vote doesn't really matter, howcum he lies about it? Habit, perhaps?

Last edited by elucidator; 12-12-2019 at 11:52 AM.
  #155  
Old 12-12-2019, 11:50 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
There *is* a popular vote. It's not directly relevant in the sense that it doesn't result in the election of the President. However, it is extremely relevant when the conversation is about the popular appeal of the candidate. In that instance, actual vote totals are the best metric of how much overall popular appeal a candidate has, even if it is unevenly geographically distributed.
And the fact that the iDJiT currently in charge didn't win the popular vote pisses him off.
  #156  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:18 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
There *is* a popular vote. It's not directly relevant in the sense that it doesn't result in the election of the President. However, it is extremely relevant when the conversation is about the popular appeal of the candidate. In that instance, actual vote totals are the best metric of how much overall popular appeal a candidate has, even if it is unevenly geographically distributed.

So we get conversations like this:

Person A: "Candidate X lost because people didn't like her."

Person B: "But Candidate X got more votes than Candidate Y by a wide margin, so clearly a majority of voters did like Candidate X."

Person A: "But the popular vote doesn't elect the President, therefore I'm right and you're stupid!"

...which, as you prefer sporting analogies, are like Person A saying that Person B can't kick a field goal and then, as Person B is kicking, Person A moves the goalposts.
If you think the popular vote exists more than "more touchdowns" or "fewer striekouts", you're wrong. Also, the system's a couple of centuries old so it wasn't quite a surprise how it works.
  #157  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:33 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
If you think the popular vote exists more than "more touchdowns" or "fewer striekouts", you're wrong. Also, the system's a couple of centuries old so it wasn't quite a surprise how it works.
Your deliberate evasion of the point is duly noted.
  #158  
Old 12-12-2019, 01:26 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
… it works.
We have some recent evidence that, overall, it does not.
  #159  
Old 12-12-2019, 03:59 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
We have some recent evidence that, overall, it does not.
It should be overhauled, or scrapped.
  #160  
Old 12-13-2019, 10:56 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Perhaps they're arguing for some sort of alternate voting system where a candidate must get over 50% of the vote to win.

Getting such a thing implemented in America is a doomed endeavor, of course - we prefer to stick with existing systems even if they suck. Nay, especially if they suck.
I personally love that system but it is a little confusing and complicated.

Every state has control over their own election process. Noone in power sees any value in adding that complexity especially since it diverts from the two party system. It mostly allows you to voice dissent as you vote for one of the two parties.

Under your system, I am much more likely to vote for some single issue candidate that has no chance of winning and then have the Democrat as my second choice in the event the election is close.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017