I think Bloomberg as VP would lose the election (also not a chance – way too old and adds nothing to the ticket). So I’d prefer a VP that helps win the election, not settles some score or notion of “deserve”. I think there are VPs that would help win and ones that wouldn’t, and I’d prefer one that helps. YMMV.
Yes, electoral college. The orange terror said the system was rigged and he was right. 45% of Americans control a majority of electoral votes. A candidate could take 23% of the popular vote and win the White House. Convince me that’s good or even workable.
Bernie was not a Dem in 2016, never had been. He was a hostile intruder. Hillary had worked the party for decades. Is it cheating to evict a squatter from your home?
So Californians aren’t Americans? I guess we can stop paying federal taxes, then.
There’s about 700k Californians per EV and under 195k Wyoming residents per EV. The population of California, with 55 EVs, is slightly more than the 21 smallest states (and DC) combined, with 101 EVs. Thus each small-state voter is worth two Californians. Even with rampant voter suppression and disenfranchisement elsewhere, California gets the shitty end of the EV stick.
EVERY election in the US except some state referendum issues and the presidency are decided by simple majority votes. But the people are meaningless nationally so fuck “consent of the governed”, right? Just admit that “We, the People” don’t exist. We’re all animals to be herded by our betters, who anywhere else are losers. Sad.
Biden can win a supermajority and lose. Even sadder for America, but Putin laughs.
This is such a bullshit point. Millions of Trump’s votes came from the states he won, including big states like Texas, OH, and FL. So what? Why is this notable in any way whatsoever?
Because it shows the popular vote is meaningless in an election that run off an electoral system.
Ohio and Florida votes actually matter because those states are sometimes in play. Racking up huge margins in California is about the stupidest electoral strategy a Democrat can pursue and yet, that’s what we ended up with. And popular vote margin of 3 million 5 million of which came from one state. 5 million vote margin in California. The largest margin ever achieved in any election in and state in all of world history. And it meant nothing.
If votes are meaningless then we should meekly submit to our masters. They’ll select for us the bestest leaders in history, you-betcha! So what if major disenfranchisement and suppression are needed? It’s for our own good, like being spayed.
Convince me that a candidate taking an EV win with 23% of the popular vote is good. Try.
So this is just another pointless shot at an irrelevant Democratic politician? Yes, her strategy was flawed. Your obsession with her is just disturbing. She doesn’t matter any more.
Washington was officially called for Biden, if anyone still cares.
It’s worse than that, Trump won with about 100,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
It seems like you are basically asking for a defense of the electoral college.
-
It requires the winning candidate to win in states covering a broad geographic constituency.
-
It was the compromise necessary to get the states to agree to the union and you can change the agreement but you need their approval to do so. We have an amendment process for that. We don’t change it because people in one party no longer likes it.
-
Do you really think it is a healthy democracy where you could become president by appealing only to urban voters and ignoring rural voters? Where you could appeal to the coastal states and ignore the inland states? Where you could pander to white people and ignore the concerns of minorities?
Yes and if her strategy had not been flawed, people wouldn’t be so butthurt about the electoral college.
This is people trying to change the rules to prove that things were unfair to them the last time around.
We’ve been criticizing the EC for 2 decades or more. It’s a shitty system that should be done away with.
I was using bloomberg as an example to make a point (I can’t believe that this has to be explained). Either you want trump out or there is some wiggle room on that for you.
It seems like a lot of Bernie supporters want to hold the Democrats hostage for their vote. We shouldn’t negotiate with hostage takers.
Good luck getting that amendment ratified.
Why is it a shitty system? Because your candidate didn’t win?
The opposition to the electoral college isn’t principled, it is partisan.
Well. If Kerry would have won the EC and lost the popular vote, things might be different.
The problem is that the House of Representatives hasn’t kept up, giving small states even more power. Expanding the size of the House can be done far easier than eliminating the EC.
The British House of Commons has 650 members, that’s more than the USA House and Senate.
It’s an obvious argument, and very simple - because it’s a bullshit system. Voters in certain states shouldn’t have more power than voters in others, just because of where they live. Right now, voters in California and Texas don’t matter at all for presidential campaigns. That’s bullshit.
In a popular vote system, every single voter would have exactly the same influence. A voter in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Dallas, would have exactly the same influence, no more and no less, than a voter in a small town in Ohio, Iowa, Florida, or North Carolina. Every single American would matter exactly the same amount. California would get a lot of attention, sure. It’s a huge state - it should get a lot of attention. So should Texas. So should New York. Big cities should get lots of attention. Right now they mostly get none. That’s bullshit and very obviously unfair.
Also, on the EC, “it’s a partisan argument” is a nothing criticism. Obviously the party that is hurt by the system is less likely to oppose it. That doesn’t make it any less unfair of a system. Any system that gives some individual voters much more influence than others is a bullshit, unfair system.
Nobody has yet tried to convince me that a candidate taking 23% of popular votes to win the White House is a tolerable situation. C’mon, somebody - make the case!
About 78k votes in 3 counties took the EC. Groovy.
Candidates for Governor of Arizona (or Alaska or Alabama or whatever) appeal to voters all over the state. Whoever gains the most votes, wins. It’s called “democracy.”
Sorry, I’m not about to argue the outmoded historical basis here. That’s for elsewhere.
Losers get fewer votes than winners. Installing losers hasn’t worked out well. Tell you what - let’s you and I run for mayor of Smallville. You get 51 votes. I get 41 votes. I win!! Why? Because healthy democracy, no tyranny of the majority, tradition, and a rigged setup. Half of your votes came from the bad side of town so they’re discounted 35%. Don’t cry - that’s the system! Your strategy was insufficient. So sad.
It’s a shitty system because if your state is run so poorly that no one wants to live there giving that state additional electoral votes is a stupid thing to do. Low population states are low population states for a reason. Giving them more juice in the Senate and in Presidential elections doesn’t make any sense.
There are direct democracy arguments to make but this is asinine. You are really going to say Montana is a low population state because it’s so poorly run? Or Maine? “They’re low population because they suck!” is a bullshit thing to say.
You still think Bloomberg would cause a loss? I think he could pick iiandyiiii and still run away with it at this point.
Really? Because it seems to me that noone thought it was bad until they lost the electoral college while winning the popular vote. Bush/Gore comes to mind.
And frankly at the time it seemed like Gore would have won both if the Republican Florida Secretary hadn’t stopped the music as soon as there was a count that put Bush ahead.