Could we just skip ahead over however many posts you plan on dragging this out?
Just tell me what the point is that you’re trying to make. I’ll either agree with it or I’ll disagree with it. But I really don’t feel like putting any more effort into convincing you to say it.
Eh. Your theses have been thoroughly disproven, so I think I’ll leave the horse at the water hole.
Yeah, but they’re people, with rights, including the right to vote.
What’s your point?
[/QUOTE]
Exactly the same point as those gun enthusiasts decrying the perception abroad that American gun deaths are uncommonly high ( when unfairly only compared with rich western countries ) * when if only one took out those inner-city black people it would allegedly be the same or less than any other such nation.
Yep. Donald Bobblehead Trump will be the 45th president of the USA for the rest of eternity. If the faithless elector mechanism wasn’t meant to prevent that then wtf was it meant to prevent?
You also go to other places to raise money and to make sure that your safe states don’t become battle ground states and that the other guys safe states become battleground states. The list of battleground states have shifted over the years.
Wisconsin is a battleground state, perhaps because we didn’t pay attention to the 40% that is guaranteed.
Virginia is a battleground state, perhaps because we paid attention to 40% that we won’t get.
No its not. The parliamentary system frequently results in leadership that drew less support than some other party. IIRC the liberal party has gotten more votes than the conservative party in several parliaments where the prime minister was from the conservative party.
It certainly doesn’t rise to the level of constitutional amendment concern. Some people are thrilled that things worked out this way. And one of the major parties has no interst whatsoever in eliminating the EC because it helps them and the other wants tog et rid of it because it hurts them. Sounds like politics to me.
How but this one:
Trump won 230 congressional districts and Hillary won 205. So even if very state allocated their electoral votes by congressional district like Maine does (with 2 at large electoral votes going to the statwide popular vote winner) Trump wins.
Now a lot of that is due to gerrymandering but you know what you can’t gerrymander? State borders, if we reduced everys state electoral vote by two so that population is the only driver of who gets the electoral votes of a state Trump still wins with 244 electoral votes (take his 304 minus 60 for the 30 states he carried) to Hillary’s 185 (reduce he total electoral votes from 227 by 42 for winning 20 states plus DC).
Basically, you want a direct popular vote an we have already covered all the problems that go along with that.
There are several points, actually.
One is that the idea that most of the country’s voters are divided into two groups, one consisting of wonderful, urbane, sophisticated, intelligent and college-educated liberals who currently hold the majority and would have elected Hillary Clinton had the Electoral College not cheated her out of it, and the other consists of dumb, racist, ill-educated rural rubes, when in reality the majority of Hillary’s support in the handful of areas that voted overwhelmingly for her came from poor, ill-educated and under-employed recipients of government benefits and funds. Such voters didn’t vote for Hillary because they support the Democratic platform in the main, nor because they think she’d be the candidate most able to handle the responsibilities and duties of the presidency, they voted for her solely to keep the government money tap turned on and more than likely increased.
The second point is that the Electoral College is working exactly as it should, in this case serving to keep the heavy concentration of such people in urban areas from endlessly voting in candidates who will pander to them by promising to take money from the rest of the country and spend it on them.
Another point is that contrary to the portrayal of Trump’s voters as dumb, racist rubes, the majority of the country’s votership went for Trump when those the voters described above are removed from the equation. This is also evident in the fact that Republicans now hold both houses of Congress, most of the country’s governorships, and perhaps most importantly of all, given that most of what liberals have been able to accomplish over the years has come about through rulings made by liberal and often activist judges, control of the Supreme Court for probably the next couple of decades at least, not to mention at least four to eight years of lesser judicial appointments.
In other words, most of the country outside the recipients of government benefit spending has rejected liberalism pretty decisively, and a large part of that rejection has come from voters who are likewise smart, sophisticated, college-educated, and believe it or not, even female.
To prevent asshole Hillary from becoming the 45th President of the U.S.A., of course.
Both of these posts are off the mark in that while more rural voters may be on food stamps, etc., and rural states may receive proportionately more in federal aid, neither outweigh the huge number of voters receiving federal aid in the Democratic urban axis consisting of LA/San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, the Pacific northwest, etc.
I’m afraid this analogy fails, because more white people are the recipients of benefits than are black people. This is not a racial issue but one of whether relatively small but densely populated pockets of the country should be allowed to dictate to the rest of the country how it should spend its money, which coincidentally would be on them.
My theses is that Hillary Clinton got more votes than Donald Trump. Was that disproven at some point?
Showing a map of the United States and saying that the part of country that voted for Trump is bigger than the part of the country that voted for Hillary Clinton didn’t disprove it.
Saying that Hillary Clinton got a plurality of votes and not a majority of votes didn’t disprove it.
Saying that voting is different from choosing and maps are different from cartograms didn’t disprove it.
You just don’t get it. There is no such thing as getting more votes than Donald Trump. It’s a figment. It doesn’t exist, because she cheated.
Some people just drop this cheating thing. Droo it, dude. The election is over. Nobody cares anymore even if she did probably cheat.
This is not your thesis. You claim this is true, and you are correct. But your thesis is that this plurality of votes on that day equates to some further statement that can be made. In the OP, this further statement was that, because she received that plurality of votes, she did not run a bad campaign. At other times in the thread, the further thesis appears to be that this indicates she had some sort of widespread popularity.
The points I, and others, have been trying to make is that her plurality does not equate to effective campaigning, nor does it equate to any widespread popularity. And in this regard, I’ve seen very little that you have offered to suggest that either point is inaccurate. Her campaign might not have been as bad as that run by Alf Landon in '36, and she might not be as unpopular as, say, George McGovern was. But that doesn’t negate the points made.
So, basically, you are saying that if we eliminated all the poor, uneducated people receiving government aid in the cities from the vote, then all the poor, uneducated people receiving government assistance outside the cities would have guaranteed Trump a popular vote victory. :rolleyes: (And, by the way, let’s not confuse the discussion with facts which are that both the percentages and raw numbers of government assistance fail to support your claim.)
Do you have an actual citation that more voters (not merely residents) of cities are receiving government assistance than is true of rural voters?
There probably is one group of people who actually believe “country’s voters are divided into two groups, one consisting of wonderful, urbane, sophisticated, intelligent and college-educated liberals. . . and the other consists of dumb, racist, ill-educated rural rubes.” However, there seem to be far more people, (such as yourself), who project that belief onto others (who do not actually share it), while themselves believing that the country’s voters are divided between a small clique of snobby liberals supported by uneducated, immoral poor people vs the wholesome majority who are not misled by mere education. (Which explains why divorce and infidelity are higher in red states than in blue states, of course.) When some on the Right accuse those on the Left of promoting class warfare, your posts tend to remind me that such accusations can be equally leveled against the Right.
Then we disagree on this issue. I agree that the Democratic candidate getting more votes than the Republican candidate doesn’t guarantee the Democratic candidate will win the election. But I think it’s a good base to build from. Getting more votes than any of the other candidates is generally regarded as a good thing in elections. The fact that the Democrats are doing it on a consistent basis in presidential elections is a sign of strength, not a sign of weakness.
And yet, in the last five presidential elections, although more people voted for a Democrat to win their state’s votes than voted for a Republican four times, they only won twice. That’s a .500 batting average. Not exactly a sign of probable success.
I didn’t say it was a racial issue. Just that it’s the same false argument:
They think subtracting Hillary’s Super Predators from gun results makes a difference to American statistics, when these urban shootists are as American as they are.
You say taking the benefit takers ( or any other group ) from the election result means Donnie won more bigly. They are still voters, as are most discrete groups in America, with votes equal to any other.
It might be better to not get so many votes for president, and concentrate on getting all the votes in for Congress and all the States’ authorities.
Damuri Ajashi wrote: “Now a lot of that is due to gerrymandering but you know what you can’t gerrymander? State borders, if we reduced everys state electoral vote by two so that population is the only driver of who gets the electoral votes of a state Trump still wins with 244 electoral votes (take his 304 minus 60 for the 30 states he carried) to Hillary’s 185 (reduce he total electoral votes from 227 by 42 for winning 20 states plus DC).”
Except that population wouldn’t be the only driver under the circumstance you describe. California has 67 times the population of Wyoming but only 54 House members to Wyoming’s 1. (if memory and my mathematical abilities serve)
FWIW, the scenario you describe would have produced a Gore presidency in 2000 and odds are that a Hillary/trump election would not have happened in 2016.