patrick.net

Electoral college + low voter turnout = America : The Reality Show

We have this thing called the Electoral college...

But poster @curious2 has often cited the desire for the National Popular Vote to replace it.

Poetic Justice. Hillary was able to rig the nomination with 570 superdelegates, disheartening Bernie supporters in advance with a higher wall to climb for their candidate due to insider backing of Hillary.

She had advance votes in states that had yet to vote at all in their primary, and won states because of the Superdelegates while losing the majority of elected delegates.

It's only just and right that the Electoral College did her in.

I agree, Thunderlips. Had she nominated Sanders as VP, she could have won, too.

Quigley is deplorable says

And that was with Johnson siphoning Libertarian votes from Trump! Stein probably took disenchanted Democrats, but not even half of what Johnson took!

Stein took many AfterBerners. Surprised that Johnson actually got votes.

errc says

We have this thing called the Electoral college...

But poster @curious2 has often cited the desire for the National Popular Vote to replace it.

Yes, and Democrats at the state level have been enacting an even worse system called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). If enough states enact it, then the easily hacked, paperless ballot machines in any of more than a dozen Republican states could control national Presidential elections, with no safeguards against fraud and no possibility of recounts.

Democrats accused Republicans of stealing the 2000 election, in which Democrats got more votes both nationally and in Florida but lost the Presidency. (Democrats would have had a strong case, if the Democratic nominee hadn't conceded defeat before the votes had even been counted.) Democrats propose now a "reform" that would computerize and automate the process of stealing elections.

I am learning new vocabulary to parse the language of partisans:

"reform" = worsen
"educate" = indoctrinate
"protect" = ignore

If Democrats had enacted electoral reform in 2009 instead of imposing Obamneycare (which President Obama had campaigned against in 2008, when it was called Hillary's Plan), then Democrats might have done a lot better in 2016 (and 2014, 2012, and 2010).

It was the NSA and the FBI lackeys saved our fucking bacon. Bah-Leeb-Meh!

finehoe says

Donald Trump 47%

59,399,248

Hillary Clinton 48%

59,606,287

Here's the thing with that. Had the Liberals just ran a fair campaign, and had Hillary not pulled the litnay of shit she has pulled.
America might be willing to entertain the Popular vote vs the EC vote. It is a good dilema, but come on the Libs invented more votes than that.
Take the fast tracked Immigrants off and the Felons given the right to vote. Not that I don't agree but voter privlege like that should have a 4 year restriction before they can vote for the first time.

Take the millions of Funny votes that I think if the Conservatives would have been in position to produce, the Libs would have never allowed that. Take those off and Hillary loses the popular vote by at least 2 or 3 million.

207,000 vote difference is practically nothing with these numbers! And the electoral college was put in our Constitution for a reason: states rights and fair representation. After all, how fair is it to completely discount the will of 90% of the nation because a few large cities vote mostly one way?

Quigley is deplorable says

the will of 90% of the nation

Donald Trump 47%

No wonder cons are so bad at economics.

At the rate libbies are fucking over Ms. Webster, by the turn of the decade we'll all be speaking jungle jingo with the occasional primordial grunt...

curious2 says

I am learning new vocabulary to parse the language of partisans:

"reform" = make worse

"educate" = indoctrinate

"protect" = ignore

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

Poetic Justice. Hillary was able to rig the nomination with 570 superdelegates, disheartening Bernie supporters in advance with a higher wall to climb for their candidate due to insider backing of Hillary.

Hillary team hired "disrupters" to go to Trump Rally's. Snowflakes then believed them. Dems then fired those responsible for hiring "disrupters". DNC never even denied this occurred.

Karma?

finehoe says

Quigley is deplorable says

the will of 90% of the nation

Donald Trump 47%

No wonder cons are so bad at economics.

True that.

finehoe says

Donald Trump 47%

No wonder cons are so bad at economics.

I was talking by land area. Democrats tend to be huddled in inner cities.

I've addressed the important of the electoral college in two other threads, so I won't do it again... But basically what PeterP said... Just more verbosely written.

I do have to ask you all on the left.... What do you think about limited federal government powers, now?

If the game were about popular votes, Trump would have played it differently, and he would still likely win.

He barely did anything in California. Many voters outside of SF and LA could be converted if he would spend resources.

turtledove says

What do you think about limited federal government powers, now?

With respect to what?

Quigley is deplorable says

207,000 vote difference is practically nothing with these numbers! And the electoral college was put in our Constitution for a reason: states rights and fair representation. After all, how fair is it to completely discount the will of 90% of the nation because a few large cities vote mostly one way?

Yea! The will of 90% of the land area! How dare they subvert the will of the Land?

errc says

Yea! The will of 90% of the land area! How dare they subvert the will of the Land?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the LAND. ;-)

errc says

Yea! The will of 90% of the land area! How dare they subvert the will of the Land?

lol.

Gary Anderson says

I agree, Thunderlips. Had she nominated Sanders as VP, she could have won, too.

I think everyone agrees with that. Sanders had the youth vote.

With respect to what?
============

Everything. Now that the Republicans have it all it would seem to me you would be feeling our traditional position that smaller federal government is a good thing. Perhaps you can understand why we didn't like the practice of a President circumventing our system through executive orders. I imagine that power looks different to you now. It wasn't a good idea for Obama to have it... and it wouldn't be a good idea for Trump to have it. It's not a good idea, period.

turtledove says

Everything. Now that the Republicans have it all it would seem to me you would be feeling our traditional position that smaller federal government is a good thing. Perhaps you can understand why we didn't like the practice of a President circumventing our system through executive orders. I imagine that power looks different to you now. It wasn't a good idea for Obama to have it... and it wouldn't be a good idea for Trump to have it. It's not a good idea, period.

Good grief! You're on it today! I think you speak for everyone.

Peter P says

Surprised that Johnson actually got votes.

I'm surprised that so many R/Ds assholes voted for their favorite assholes.turtledove says

What do you think about limited federal government powers, now?

I don't have problems as long as Trump make you post pictures of your bodacious Ta-Tas! lol
Just don't get too close to Female Genitalia Grabber.

turtledove says

Everything. Now that the Republicans have it all it would seem to me you would be feeling our traditional position that smaller federal government is a good thing. Perhaps you can understand why we didn't like the practice of a President circumventing our system through executive orders. I imagine that power looks different to you now. It wasn't a good idea for Obama to have it... and it wouldn't be a good idea for Trump to have it. It's not a good idea, period.

I see what you meant. That is the balance of power between the executive and legislative branch. IMO, this started much before Obama. I think it's a problem, which is exacerbated by Congress failing to work together since some point in the 90s. There's a remedy for it in the court.

The issue of limited federal power has to do with the balance between the federal gov and states. This is a talking point that Republicans use to say things like states should have the right to ban abortion.

Many liberals wish that Obama rammed a bunch of shit through when he had both houses. But he took a more measured approach, since he was trying to be a unifier. It will be interesting to see what approach Trump follows.

My political opinions used to align OK with Trump except for his occasional outspoken racists comments. He's been all over the map on many issues, so I'm in a wait and see before judging position. The things I'm most disappointed with (probably in order) are:
1. Environmental issues will take a back seat
2. Science funding will probably suffer
3. Wealth gap will increase due to tax structure
4. The effort for Universal health care is probably gone for a long time
5. There's a higher risk of global financial problems
6. There's a higher risk of us losing our leadership position on trade and status of world reserve currency. China's been waiting for a chance to undermine us there
7. His personality

For the first four, he's in agreement with the Republican establishment, so I don't expect any executive overreach.
For 7, it is what it is, and there is no changing that.
The biggest clash I see coming (between him the establishment) and is on trade and to some degree immigration, but I expect most of the disagreement on immigration is a matter of wording. A while back, I would have expected a clash on deportation, but it seems that Trump's already deemphasizing that. So, from my perspective, the biggest area where he could overstep and fuck things up is in Trade. I hope he gets some input before acting on his gut.

joshuatrio says

turtledove says

Everything. Now that the Republicans have it all it would seem to me you would be feeling our traditional position that smaller federal government is a good thing. Perhaps you can understand why we didn't like the practice of a President circumventing our system through executive orders. I imagine that power looks different to you now. It wasn't a good idea for Obama to have it... and it wouldn't be a good idea for Trump to have it. It's not a good idea, period.

Good grief! You're on it today! I think you speak for everyone.

Yea she uses 'we' instead of I. Maybe there's duplicates

Risk is inherent to Capitalism

We used to be a nation of Capitalists

Now, we just plod along like good little Lemon Socialists, and buy more insurance. If we don't buy it, than the State will compel you to buy it.

Yea she uses 'we' instead of I. Maybe there's duplicates
============

Turtledove is no longer here. Call me Cybil.

HEY YOU says

Just don't get too close to Female Genitalia Grabber.

Eh...you're just jealous he doesn't want to grab yours