The popular vote isn't a thing

Raoul_Luke said:

Yeah, why spend two seconds wondering about the down side of the radical agenda, right? If we do that, it might slow down the crazy train to Bernieville.

To preserve some modicum of sanity? Nah, why would we want to do that?

Not directly, nor immediately, anyway - so I guess that means we can't even consider its inevitability in wherever it is your "middle" view stems from.

Click to expand...

Oh no....can't surrender to the leftist mob!!!

Dude, your bizarre rant that somehow rural republicans are saving the nation from communism is simply material for a comedy routine.

Do you actually think 51% of voting Americans want to vote some kind of communist dictator into the White House?

While you think I'm not in the middle, have you cosidered how far to the right you are?

Raoul_Luke said:

Yeah, why spend two seconds wondering about the down side of the radical agenda, right? If we do that, it might slow down the crazy train to Bernieville.

To preserve some modicum of sanity? Nah, why would we want to do that?

Not directly, nor immediately, anyway - so I guess that means we can't even consider its inevitability in wherever it is your "middle" view stems from.

Click to expand...

By the way...you realize that your claim to a modicum of sanity is what brought us George W Bush with a popular vote loss of -500,000 and Donald Trump with a loss of -3 million and you think these morons somehow have saved the republic? Good luck selling that load of manure.

Raoul_Luke said:

So people are leaving because the places are getting more affluent and taxes are coming down? What are they, nuts?

Sheesh, it's becoming clearer with every left winger post I read that the left is completely insane. You guys don't even have to pay lip service to the truth and logic. Facts don't matter. The prospect of one thing leading to another can't even be contemplated. Perception is reality. Seriously, who in their right mind is voting democrat these days???

Click to expand...

About 3 million more voters than voted for Trump.

Raoul_Luke said:

Gee, that sounds precisely like what I suggested would be the outcome. And @middleview thinks it's about nothing but the POTUS...

Click to expand...

He is talking about the contest for the White House....

The fact is that people who live in all the one party states would be more prone to participate. It makes absolutely no sense that a state with 40% turnout gets to award 100% of it's electors based on a margin of 1% or 2% of the votes cast, but somehow it does to you.

\

middleview said:

He is talking about the contest for the White House....

The fact is that people who live in all the one party states would be more prone to participate. It makes absolutely no sense that a state with 40% turnout gets to award 100% of it's electors based on a margin of 1% or 2% of the votes cast, but somehow it does to you.

Click to expand...

He's talking about the formation of a Labor Party in America that will enhance the power of the urban working class. On what planet is that strictly about "the contest for the White House?"

The fact is that it will push the Federal Governance in America toward what we see in the big cities (and bluest of blue states). Which is precisely what you like about it.

It makes absolutely no sense that we knowingly adopt practices that will make the Federal Government more like that of New York and California.

middleview said:

Oh no....can't surrender to the leftist mob!!!

Dude, your bizarre rant that somehow rural republicans are saving the nation from communism is simply material for a comedy routine.

Do you actually think 51% of voting Americans want to vote some kind of communist dictator into the White House?

While you think I'm not in the middle, have you cosidered how far to the right you are?

Click to expand...

You are getting rating high fives all over this thread from the most openly communist poster on this forum, and yet in your view it is "bizarre" for me to stake out an opposing position. Maybe you know something @EatTheRich doesn't, but the fact is that he thinks it will put control of the Federal Government in the hands of the "leftist mob."

middleview said:

By the way...you realize that your claim to a modicum of sanity is what brought us George W Bush with a popular vote loss of -500,000 and Donald Trump with a loss of -3 million and you think these morons somehow have saved the republic? Good luck selling that load of manure.

Click to expand...

It's not like the opposing party in those cases had super duper candidates (maybe they should have found someone more amenable to a broader swath of the population).

I think balancing political power is what is "saving the republic." I think as long as the parties believe they can lose the Presidency despite running up the vote in a few geographic/demographic strongholds, it tends to moderate their platform. I think either you know this and are dissembling in order to keep from admitting that you are supporting the radical leftist agenda, or you are just not very smart. Which is it?

Raoul_Luke said:

You are getting rating high fives all over this thread from the most openly communist poster on this forum, and yet in your view it is "bizarre" for me to stake out an opposing position. Maybe you know something @EatTheRich doesn't, but the fact is that he thinks it will put control of the Federal Government in the hands of the "leftist mob."

Click to expand...

You think I'm not allowed to disagree with him at the same time? Bush lost by 500,000 votes out of 120 million. Trump lost by 3 million out of 120 million cast. Your wacky sky is falling bullshit is just that. So much hyperbolic nonsense. If the president has been elected in all but four elections by both the EC and popular vote...where is the f*cking mob?

The real point is that the EC discourages voters in the one party states. There is no reason for a republican in California or New York to bother to vote for president. Then there is the fact that we are pretending that the 50% + 1 vote actually are speaking for 100% of the population of the state in awarding all electors....yeah, that's right....we allocate electors based on illegal immigrants, children, criminals and non-voters. Perfectly ridiculous.

Raoul_Luke said:

It's not like the opposing party in those cases had super duper candidates (maybe they should have found someone more amenable to a broader swath of the population).

I think balancing political power is what is "saving the republic." I think as long as the parties believe they can lose the Presidency despite running up the vote in a few geographic/demographic strongholds, it tends to moderate their platform. I think either you know this and are dissembling in order to keep from admitting that you are supporting the radical leftist agenda, or you are just not very smart. Which is it?

Click to expand...

Awarding the vote to Trump, who lost, is not balancing the political power. It is making a mockery of elections.

So Trump is less amenable to more voters but won anyway....

middleview said:

About 3 million more voters than voted for Trump.

Click to expand...

And God forbid anyone suggest it might be wise to limit their power over the rest of us who don't want to live in a country that is run with all the fiscal probity of, say, Chicago.

middleview said:

You think I'm not allowed to disagree with him at the same time? Bush lost by 500,000 votes out of 120 million. Trump lost by 3 million out of 120 million cast. Your wacky sky is falling bullshit is just that. So much hyperbolic nonsense. If the president has been elected in all but four elections by both the EC and popular vote...where is the f*cking mob?

The real point is that the EC discourages voters in the one party states. There is no reason for a republican in California or New York to bother to vote for president. Then there is the fact that we are pretending that the 50% + 1 vote actually are speaking for 100% of the population of the state in awarding all electors....yeah, that's right....we allocate electors based on illegal immigrants, children, criminals and non-voters. Perfectly ridiculous.

Click to expand...

It's sitting home on election day because they are confident the electors are going to their preferred candidate regardless of how many of them show up to vote.

The real point is that you are either carelessly or purposefully obfuscating the almost certain effects of doing away with the EC - a nation with governance that looks more and more like Chicago's.

middleview said:

Awarding the vote to Trump, who lost, is not balancing the political power. It is making a mockery of elections.

So Trump is less amenable to more voters but won anyway....

Click to expand...

Yes, it is! The opposing party has to look at what policies he ran on that helped him succeed, compare them to theirs that depressed turnout, and at least consider moving their platform in that direction.

Raoul_Luke said:

Yes, it is! The opposing party has to look at what policies he ran on that helped him succeed, compare them to theirs that depressed turnout, and at least consider moving their platform in that direction.

Click to expand...

He didn't get to be president because of policies...he won the EC because it was Hillary. Biden would have kicked his ass.

middleview said:

The real point is that the EC discourages voters in the one party states.

Click to expand...

So States party trends are Static ?

California was once a huge republican stronghold. Democrats lost that state in every presidential election from 1952 - 1988

I imagine when it swings that way again you will be against the popular vote ?

Raoul_Luke said:

And God forbid anyone suggest it might be wise to limit their power over the rest of us who don't want to live in a country that is run with all the fiscal probity of, say, Chicago.

Click to expand...

To claim that we're infringing on their freedom because a simple majority want to rob us and a minority can possibly stop them ... only out of the mouth of a leftist. Pathetic

Nutty Cortez said:

So States party trends are Static ?

California was once a huge republican stronghold. Democrats lost that state in every presidential election from 1952 - 1988

I imagine when it swings that way again you will be against the popular vote ?

Click to expand...

Democrats were for the EC before they were against it. Just six years ago, they poo pooed the popular vote and trumpeted (pun intended) Obama's electoral college margin.

Democrats change their positions more than a model changes clothes

Raoul_Luke said:

You are getting rating high fives all over this thread from the most openly communist poster on this forum, and yet in your view it is "bizarre" for me to stake out an opposing position. Maybe you know something @EatTheRich doesn't, but the fact is that he thinks it will put control of the Federal Government in the hands of the "leftist mob."

Click to expand...

I think it will be a mild reform that increases the formal power of the masses (what you call the “leftist mob”), thus creating openings for further reforms while putting an end to a purely formal contest over electoral rules.

EatTheRich said:

I think it will be a mild reform that increases the formal power of the masses (what you call the “leftist mob”), thus creating openings for further reforms while putting an end to a purely formal contest over electoral rules.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course, because nothing screams "mild reformist" like "eat the rich…"

Raoul_Luke said:

It's not like the opposing party in those cases had super duper candidates (maybe they should have found someone more amenable to a broader swath of the population).

I think balancing political power is what is "saving the republic." I think as long as the parties believe they can lose the Presidency despite running up the vote in a few geographic/demographic strongholds, it tends to moderate their platform. I think either you know this and are dissembling in order to keep from admitting that you are supporting the radical leftist agenda, or you are just not very smart. Which is it?

Click to expand...

“Moderate” government is what has gotten us to the point of unchecked climate change, Nazis marching in the streets to presidential approbation, permanent war, the imperial presidency, long-term economic crisis, the surveillance state, and the pornographication of politics.

Raoul_Luke said:

And God forbid anyone suggest it might be wise to limit their power over the rest of us who don't want to live in a country that is run with all the fiscal probity of, say, Chicago.

Click to expand...

So the 2 biggest borrow and spend presidents ever can be elected with a minority of the vote?