Unreal...so who is to protect the majority from the minority? Who says the smaller number of voters is smarter than the majority or that they need any kind of protection?Protected from a coalition of larger, more heavily populated states.
Unreal...so who is to protect the majority from the minority? Who says the smaller number of voters is smarter than the majority or that they need any kind of protection?Protected from a coalition of larger, more heavily populated states.
It was 80,000 voters who handed the EC to Trump....in the face of 3 million more voters for Hillary and you think that makes sense.Who said anything about a small minority? I'm talking most of the state being effectively ignored in favor of one city, simply because that city has a large population. That's why the EC was created -- to keep Virginia and New York from being the only states that matter in the original presidential elections.
Most states are ignored now in favor of 4 battleground states...and no, there is no one city that can deliver the popular vote.Who said anything about a small minority? I'm talking most of the state being effectively ignored in favor of one city, simply because that city has a large population. That's why the EC was created -- to keep Virginia and New York from being the only states that matter in the original presidential elections.
The majority is already protected because of its majority status. The founding fathers were worried about a "tyranny of the majority," because under a republic, the tyranny of a minority is unlikely.Unreal...so who is to protect the majority from the minority? Who says the smaller number of voters is smarter than the majority or that they need any kind of protection?
Really? California is anything but a battleground state, and yet I'm confident you'll see every single presidential hopeful there over the next 18 or so months.Most states are ignored now in favor of 4 battleground states...and no, there is no one city that can deliver the popular vote.
No, it was three or four states. We don't elect by a national popular vote, but by a federated system, by states, using the college of electors.It was 80,000 voters who handed the EC to Trump....in the face of 3 million more voters for Hillary and you think that makes sense.
Is there a relevant point you are trying in vain to make?Trump won the election.
More Americans voted for Hillary.
Those are facts.
I wish you were right.Voter impersonation is about as rare as the same person being struck by lightning three times. A state is within its constitutional rights to allow felons or “illegals” to vote. Their doing so without authorization is so rare as to be nearly unheard of. Ballot box stuffing is overwhelmingly the province of the Republican Party and the Electoral College increases the incentive for it since it needs to be done only on a small scale in order to alter a close state’s electoral vote winner.
If “the rest of the state” is more than a smallWho said anything about a small minority? I'm talking most of the state being effectively ignored in favor of one city, simply because that city has a large population. That's why the EC was created -- to keep Virginia and New York from being the only states that matter in the original presidential elections.
Yet successive minorities ... first merchants, then planters, then industrialists, and then bankers ... have tyrannized this country for its entire history.The majority is already protected because of its majority status. The founding fathers were worried about a "tyranny of the majority," because under a republic, the tyranny of a minority is unlikely.
Studies and polling show they are more numerous than statistics show? That doesn’t even make sense. You know that statistics aren’t just arbitrary, meaningless numbers and that any function of a sample (such as a poll or any credible study) is a statistic?I wish you were right.
Studies and polling prove these events are FAR more numerous than statistics show. The law doesn’t catch up to the number of incidents occurring which is the most unfortunate thing.
Another fact is that Democrats oppose new laws to prevent fraud and are also very active in combatting enforcement of the voting laws which this nation should be upholding already.
Just stating facts. There seems to be some confusion. What I said was true. Period.Is there a relevant point you are trying in vain to make?
facts with out a point is ........... odd.......Just stating facts. There seems to be some confusion. What I said was true. Period.
80,000 fewer votes for Trump in those three states and Clinton wins...those were battleground states and it was a few swing voters who made the difference. so what would Trump do to earn that for PA, Wisconsin and Michigan? Should the millions of voters who voted for the person who won the national popular vote feel screwed?No, it was three or four states. We don't elect by a national popular vote, but by a federated system, by states, using the college of electors.
It’s in response to the.......original post......facts with out a point is ........... odd.......
Wrong. Polls are not statistics, certainly not in an official sense. Exit polling is data, but the statistics generated are in no way binding or necessarily accurate. Phone polling is data generated that may have intrinsic biases based on the questioners, the bias of the questions and/or a hesitancy for the responders to be honest. That doesn’t make the outcome reliable statistics.Studies and polling show they are more numerous than statistics show? That doesn’t even make sense. You know that statistics aren’t just arbitrary, meaningless numbers and that any function of a sample (such as a poll or any credible study) is a statistic?
You just don’t know what a statistic is. A statistic is any mathematical function of a sample. It doesn’t matter how efficient or biased the statistic is as an estimator of something else you want, which is a different matter entirely.Wrong. Polls are not statistics, certainly not in an official sense. Exit polling is data, but the statistics generated are in no way binding or necessarily accurate. Phone polling is data generated that may have intrinsic biases based on the questioners, the bias of the questions and/or a hesitancy for the responders to be honest. That doesn’t make the outcome reliable statistics.
In the case of voter abnormalities, the left chooses to look at the number of people prosecuted for crimes. That’s a wholly biased though reasonable method of assessing the problem. However it is biased on the basis that it negates any other known abnormality as seemingly non-existent. The reality is completely different as enforcement in voting standards is almost zero. As I said, if you discourage laws being enforced and stop new ones you create an illusion there is no problem.
I’ll restate an absolute gem of an analogy- if you remove troopers and their radar guns from highways you didn’t stop people from speeding because no one’s getting caught. People will admit they speed in studies and polls even if the statistics show zero people doing it.
How about the majority in Michigan vs the minority....didn't the minority in those few states need protection?The majority is already protected because of its majority status. The founding fathers were worried about a "tyranny of the majority," because under a republic, the tyranny of a minority is unlikely.
stupid and outdated,good to see more and more Americans oppose this idiotic non senseNo, it was three or four states. We don't elect by a national popular vote, but by a federated system, by states, using the college of electors.
Statistically you’d be wrong since a majority of legal voters aren’t even showing up to vote at all. The odds you’ll be caught impersonating another voter would be ridiculously low.You just don’t know what a statistic is. A statistic is any mathematical function of a sample. It doesn’t matter how efficient or biased the statistic is as an estimator of something else you want, which is a different matter entirely.
My claims that in-person voter impersonation and fraudulent voting are rare are not, as you claim, supported only by prosecution rates, but also by basic logic. If what you claimed were happening, voters who were impersonated would routinely be going to the polls and told they had already voted; the Trump voters who deliberately voted twice probably wouldn’t have been caught, as they were; and the bipartisan poll watchers at every polling place would be loudly objecting.