solo,

How is it possible to conclude that whatever the majority decides could be seen as "damage", in a democracy??? In other words, how can it not be the case that whatever the minority favors is less important than what the majority favors??


FIU,

- You won't agree that the idea is a fair compromise unless I go tabulate the EC votes for every state? I don't think I am going to invest the time, because I suspect if the result would've given the election to Hillary you will conclude that it is invalid.

- It's not a whim. A national popular vote of 300M people never could be mistaken as a "whim".

(11-11-2016 06:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  solo,

How is it possible to conclude that whatever the majority decides could be seen as "damage", in a democracy??? In other words, how can it not be the case that whatever the minority favors is less important than what the majority favors??


FIU,

- You won't agree that the idea is a fair compromise unless I go tabulate the EC votes for every state? I don't think I am going to invest the time, because I suspect if the result would've given the election to Hillary you will conclude that it is invalid.

- It's not a whim. A national popular vote of 300M people never could be mistaken as a "whim".

whim: a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained

Nope, nothing about the number of people involved there...

Right, and the more mass you have, the more impossible it is to make sudden changes.

That's how the universe works.

Funny thing is that neither candidate would have won a majority vote if done by the strictly popular vote. What do you do then?

(11-11-2016 06:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  solo,

How is it possible to conclude that whatever the majority decides could be seen as "damage", in a democracy??? In other words, how can it not be the case that whatever the minority favors is less important than what the majority favors??


FIU,

- You won't agree that the idea is a fair compromise unless I go tabulate the EC votes for every state? I don't think I am going to invest the time, because I suspect if the result would've given the election to Hillary you will conclude that it is invalid.

- It's not a whim. A national popular vote of 300M people never could be mistaken as a "whim".

Let's say me you and ham are the only 3 posters on this board and thus we make the rules although tons of people read it to get political opinions. Ham and I vote to ban you because we don't like you. Majority rules so you are band. Is that fair? Does banning you help the greater good?

And, if electoral votes were proportionally distributed, there would likely be 5-10 electoral votes landed by non-mainstream candidates, such that neither mainstream candidate would have the requisite 270 electoral votes. What do you do then?

Wouldn't the House then decide the Presidency?

YNot,

I think it's safe to say we all understand "majority" to mean the candidate that receives the most votes. Need not be a candidate receiving more than 50% of total votes.

In that context, obviously the candidate with the most EC votes wins. 270 doesn't have context outside "winner take all" states.



solo,

A better analogy would be if you, me, and ham were voting between GTS and LS to be "President of CSNBBS". If you and ham voted for GTS, then he should win.

It should not be possible for LS to win, based on only me voting for him.

(11-11-2016 06:38 PM)YNot Wrote:  Funny thing is that neither candidate would have won a majority vote if done by the strictly popular vote. What do you do then?

The numbers in this election are so close that they are WAY inside the margin of error. You could recount it 20 times and get different numbers.

Without the Electoral Vote system we would be recounting every single precinct in this country right now.

(11-11-2016 06:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  YNot,

I think it's safe to say we all understand "majority" to mean the candidate that receives the most votes. Need not be a candidate receiving more than 50% of total votes.

In that context, obviously the candidate with the most EC votes wins. 270 doesn't have context outside "winner take all" states.

No...

In elections, a majority happens when more than half of the electorate votes for one candidate. A Plurality is a system in which a candidate who polls more votes than any other candidate is elected.

Keep on showing us that ignorance...

(11-11-2016 06:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 06:38 PM)YNot Wrote:  Funny thing is that neither candidate would have won a majority vote if done by the strictly popular vote. What do you do then?

The numbers in this election are so close that they are WAY inside the margin of error. You could recount it 20 times and get different numbers.

Without the Electoral Vote system we would be recounting every single precinct in this country right now.

This is another angle that nobody ever considers.

I was always referring to the candidate that got the most votes. Should be easy enough to get that from the context.

(11-11-2016 06:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  YNot,

I think it's safe to say we all understand "majority" to mean the candidate that receives the most votes. Need not be a candidate receiving more than 50% of total votes.

In that context, obviously the candidate with the most EC votes wins. 270 doesn't have context outside "winner take all" states.



solo,

A better analogy would be if you, me, and ham were voting between GTS and LS to be "President of CSNBBS". If you and ham voted for GTS, then he should win.

It should not be possible for LS to win, based on only me voting for him.

Not really a good analogy. With 3 People you wouldn't need An electoral college.

Nonetheless, we're talking about fewer votes winning over more votes ...

(11-11-2016 06:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  And, if electoral votes were proportionally distributed, there would likely be 5-10 electoral votes landed by non-mainstream candidates, such that neither mainstream candidate would have the requisite 270 electoral votes. What do you do then?

Wouldn't the House then decide the Presidency?

And remember, in the US House, the Dems need to win 57-43% or better to get a 1 seat majority in the US house. But its actually more complicated than that. Only 1 vote per state.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WILL REMAIN AS IT IS. .. THAT'S THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE AND IT WILL STAND.

GET OVER IT.

(11-11-2016 02:17 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'd like to ditch it just because it kinda makes the elections boil down to a few select states and that's it. The GOP doesn't even try in places like California and New York, and the Dems don't even try in Texas etc. A lot of the most populated states in the union essentially mean nothing to deciding the President because it's winner takes all and it's viewed as a lost cause to even try to win hearts and minds in certain states. Either go by the popular vote or do proportional delegation of the electoral votes.

Techrocks shakes head.

Ditch it and ALL the campaigning will done in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and perhaps Michigan, the traditional battleground states.

I say leave it the **** alone. It's served us well.

YOU GOT IT RIGHT! !

(11-11-2016 07:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 06:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  And, if electoral votes were proportionally distributed, there would likely be 5-10 electoral votes landed by non-mainstream candidates, such that neither mainstream candidate would have the requisite 270 electoral votes. What do you do then?

Wouldn't the House then decide the Presidency?

And remember, in the US House, the Dems need to win 57-43% or better to get a 1 seat majority in the US house. But its actually more complicated than that. Only 1 vote per state.

Get all the Californians you have stockpiled to spread out

(11-11-2016 07:26 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 07:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 06:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  And, if electoral votes were proportionally distributed, there would likely be 5-10 electoral votes landed by non-mainstream candidates, such that neither mainstream candidate would have the requisite 270 electoral votes. What do you do then?

Wouldn't the House then decide the Presidency?

And remember, in the US House, the Dems need to win 57-43% or better to get a 1 seat majority in the US house. But its actually more complicated than that. Only 1 vote per state.

Get all the Californians you have stockpiled to spread out

For God's sake don't californicate any other state. Keep the sorry bastards where they are and beat them where they exist.

The Founding Fathers always settled the issue.

Unfortunately, the elite are upset that the common man made a stand, so they want to scrap the election on earth.

The Electoral College needs to get into a better conference. They don't play anybody.