• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More votes equals a loss...revolution!

Utility Man said:
Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before.

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

The phony electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!


:thumbs:
Click to expand...

The popular vote is never fully counted so any attempt to make a point on the outcome of the popular vote once everyone stopped counting is lost.

Absentee ballots in states like NY and CA aren't counted unless they would change the outcome of the state vote.

I get your joke, but the explanation is meant for those who currently take Trump's tweeted position.
 
I think the transfer of power to the state and local would solve most of the issues. This way large metropolis can make laws that are beneficial to an urban area and the rural areas could make laws that are beneficial to rural areas. There are many different people in this country with many different beliefs and ideologies and the idea that 1 law can apply to all is ludicrous. The federal government would be more liked and efficient if it didn't try to micromanage a country this size and diverse.
 
jmotivator said:
The popular vote is never fully counted so any attempt to make a point on the outcome of the popular vote once everyone stopped counting is lost.

Absentee ballots in states like NY and CA aren't counted unless they would change the outcome of the state vote.

I get your joke, but the explanation is meant for those who currently take Trump's tweeted position.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true then this whole discussion is nothing more than crying by sore losers since we do not know the actual outcome of the popular vote.
 
Utility Man said:
Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before.

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

The phony electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!


:thumbs:
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not a democracy, it's a Republic. That aside, Trump won more states, and that's what you need to do. The fact that an extreme state, like California, gave 2.7 million more votes to Hillary doesn't change that. California doesn't speak for the rest of the country.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
If what you say is true then this whole discussion is nothing more than crying by sore losers since we do not know the actual outcome of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

It's true. Also worth pointing out is that if the popular vote were used to decide the president then the entire country would be locked in a recount of all 120+million votes right now. Since the popular vote is not used to determine the presidency there is never a national recount of the popular vote so it is never finalized in the way we think of it on a state-by-state basis.
 
Utility Man said:
Here you go, some quotes are still on twitter and others have been deleted....

“More votes equals a loss...revolution!”
Trump calls for revolution, blasts Electoral College | TheHill

"Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before." https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266037143628038144

"This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!"
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266035509162303492

"Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us."https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034957875544064

"We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!" https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648

"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!"http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election/#rY9R2m4ZqkqE

"He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!"http://gothamist.com/2012/11/07/huge_jerk_donald_trump_had_twitter.php

:lamo Loser nation he says........ :usflag2:



:yt



Distancing myself from Trumps words was more important.

Sorry I couldn't be more entertaining.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

But as we see, "entertaining" = support.

CF President Elect Donald Trump.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I think +1 vote was not used to decide elections because of the error factor. I guess the 51% comes into play because it removes the error factor from the process. 1 vote out of small number is a decisive victory. However when counting 100's of millions of votes 1 vote no where near takes into account the error factor. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I respect and appreciate your thought process here, but unfortunately it is incorrect.

There is no "51" percent required, at all. Anything one vote more than half is, over 50%. It could be 50.000001%, and it's still a majority.

To debunk your theory, only needs to show 1 electoral vote over 270 is *not* 51 percent. And it is not!

271 EC votes is approx 50.3 %!

(1 EV = approx 0.18%, not 1.0%)

There may be other reasons for the EC, but requiring a 51% vote total is not one of them.
 
.....yeah...revolt because a system that has been in place for over 200 years was used correctly but didn't return the result you wanted.

The travesty of the electoral college isn't that it negates the popular vote to a small degree; it is that it negates the ability to entertain a viable multi-party system, forcing us to vote for the two imbeciles nominated by (typically) less than 5% of the total population.
 
Chomsky said:
I respect and appreciate your thought process here, but unfortunately it is incorrect.

There is no "51" percent required, at all. Anything one vote more than half is, over 50%. It could be 50.000001%, and it's still a majority.

To debunk your theory, only needs to show 1 electoral vote over 270 is *not* 51 percent. And it is not!

271 EC votes is approx 50.3 %!

(1 EV = approx 0.18%, not 1.0%)

There may be other reasons for the EC, but requiring a 51% vote total is not one of them.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. I was think more of an actual majority vote for the presidency. It would seem to me with millions of people voting a 1 single vote win could be contested by every district. You would have a nightmare on your hands. As it is we got protesters crying over the election. The fact is the democrats made a bad choice with Hillary. Everyone wants to see a woman president. I know I do but Hillary is not the person.

I think if you went back through all the presidents I wander how many were part Spanish. When you take into account all the intermarriage in Europe and the Mediterranean area it is almost certain I would think. We may have already had a half Hispanic president. Something to research.
 
Utility Man said:
Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before.

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

The phony electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!


:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Grow up - look at the map. It's hard to take you seriously when the map is almost entirely red. The electoral college worked and it worked well. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if Hillary had won the Electoral college.
 
Alright, expressing mathematical terms & concepts on an internet forum can be difficult, but I'll try.

ludin said:
We know you don't understand the terms being used.
Right now if you want to win the president you have to get 51% of the electoral votes. that is why it is at 270. So in order to get the majority of the popular vote you would need 51% of the popular vote.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

You currently need to receive the majority of the EC votes --> 270.

270 is *not* 51%!

It is 50.2%. You seem to be hung-up on the whole integer '51%' thing, and that's where I believe the error lies. You need a majority, which in your EV example is 1 more vote than a 269-269 / 50-50 tie.

--> Majorities are one vote more than 50-50 (50%). <--

Clinton has 48% of the popular vote tell me again how 48% is > 51% again.
Click to expand...
Ah, O.K.

I see the confusion here, and I apologize for not having seen it earlier.

Yes, the way the current system is set-up, a majority of the EVs are required. You are correct in that.

But the discussion topic was concerning dumping the EC for a popular vote, and in popular voting the highest candidate wins - and that could indeed be a plurality rather than a majority.

We were conflating both systems here (direct vote with majority required), which I didn't see.

But the point I was trying to make is: 1 vote over 50-50, whether EV or citizen's vote, is a majority. Nothing more is needed to declare a majority.



anything over 51% why because 50/50 is a tie.
Click to expand...
Again, no, the House does not require 51%!

It requires a majority vote.

Which currently is 218 in the 435 member house. 218 is 1/2 a vote more than a 50-50 tie. It is in effect 50.12%, not 51%

Perhaps you might take out a calculator, crunch the numbers above, and see what you find. But I assure you, majorities are not "51%", but rather anything over 50% - no matter how minuscule, even one vote.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I see what you are saying. I was think more of an actual majority vote for the presidency. It would seem to me with millions of people voting a 1 single vote win could be contested by every district. You would have a nightmare on your hands. As it is we got protesters crying over the election. The fact is the democrats made a bad choice with Hillary. Everyone wants to see a woman president. I know I do but Hillary is not the person.

I think if you went back through all the presidents I wander how many were part Spanish. When you take into account all the intermarriage in Europe and the Mediterranean area it is almost certain I would think. We may have already had a half Hispanic president. Something to research.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.

Yep, I agree with pretty much everything here.

I will admit the EV system isolates the danger of a near-tie causing pandemonium.

But I think doing the winner-takes-all count at the state level is too coarse, where we can currently see one candidate substantially wining the pop vote but sill handily losing the EC.

I recently saw a proposal to implement the EC at the Congressional District level. I wonder if that might be a compromise that would solve both problems? It's an interesting idea.
 
Utility Man said:
Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before.

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

The phony electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!


:thumbs:
Click to expand...



Nicely done!!!!


And notice how the Trumpeters raced to counter it like good little robots
 
Utility Man said:
Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before.

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

The phony electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!


:thumbs:
Click to expand...

We are a Republic, welcome to reality.

There will be no Revolution, yet.
 
Fishking said:
You're right, it's not a democracy, it's a Republic. That aside, Trump won more states, and that's what you need to do. The fact that an extreme state, like California, gave 2.7 million more votes to Hillary doesn't change that. California doesn't speak for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...
"California" doesn't speak for the country - true.

But those American citizens voting in Cali have a right for their vote to be fully heard. And the current system is diminishing the votes of some citizens, and amplifying the votes of others.

This is the problem that results from the EC, and does not set well with those whose votes have been marginalized. Though I suspect the citizens whose votes are super-empowered are quite happy!
 
Utility Man said:
Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before.

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

The phony electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!


:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Well, you got one thing right. We are not a democracy.

We are a Republic. The Constitution sets up the election so that every state votes the preference of its citizens. The constitution even allows the various states to conduct the election as they prefer.

A little learning is a dangerous thing. Despite the danger, though, you should try it.

Wear the proper PPE and you should be good to go.
 
Chomsky said:
Alright, expressing mathematical terms & concepts on an internet forum can be difficult, but I'll try.

Incorrect.

You currently need to receive the majority of the EC votes --> 270.

270 is *not* 51%!

It is 50.2%. You seem to be hung-up on the whole integer '51%' thing, and that's where I believe the error lies. You need a majority, which in your EV example is 1 more vote than a 269-269 / 50-50 tie.

--> Majorities are one vote more than 50-50 (50%). <--

Ah, O.K.

I see the confusion here, and I apologize for not having seen it earlier.

Yes, the way the current system is set-up, a majority of the EVs are required. You are correct in that.

But the discussion topic was concerning dumping the EC for a popular vote, and in popular voting the highest candidate wins - and that could indeed be a plurality rather than a majority.

We were conflating both systems here (direct vote with majority required), which I didn't see.

But the point I was trying to make is: 1 vote over 50-50, whether EV or citizen's vote, is a majority. Nothing more is needed to declare a majority.



Again, no, the House does not require 51%!

It requires a majority vote.

Which currently is 218 in the 435 member house. 218 is 1/2 a vote more than a 50-50 tie. It is in effect 50.12%, not 51%

Perhaps you might take out a calculator, crunch the numbers above, and see what you find. But I assure you, majorities are not "51%", but rather anything over 50% - no matter how minuscule, even one vote.
Click to expand...

Only correction is that 270 is like 50.12%.

It is still a majority as the other people can't get to 50%.
I see no reason for the same not applying to a popular vote heaven forbid we ever have one.

you should still need >50% of the popular vote to win.
not just having more votes.

that is frankly just stupid. you basically put the power to decide the presidency in the hands of 5 states.
 
ludin said:
Only correction is that 270 is like 50.12%.

It is still a majority as the other people can't get to 50%.
I see no reason for the same not applying to a popular vote heaven forbid we ever have one.

you should still need >50% of the popular vote to win.
not just having more votes.

that is frankly just stupid. you basically put the power to decide the presidency in the hands of 5 states.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, in your desire for a majority.

It seems the Founders felt similarly, though I'm not sure if the reasons today still remain.

I think I'd be good with a pop vote requiring a plurality, but the pandemonium that could occur in a very close vote does concern me. So I do have some reservations here. I suppose we could kick it to Congress if the plurality is less than some small percent, like the 1/2 percent used in FL to mandate a recount.

But then I also have reservations about 2 out of 3 elections recently going to the candidate that came in 2nd place in the pop vote. Which isn't exactly following the will of the people.
 
Chomsky said:
Fair enough, in your desire for a majority.

It seems the Founders felt similarly, though I'm not sure if the reasons today still remain.

I think I'd be good with a pop vote requiring a plurality, but the pandemonium that could occur in a very close vote does concern me. So I do have some reservations here. I suppose we could kick it to Congress if the plurality is less than some small percent, like the 1/2 percent used in FL to mandate a recount.

But then I also have reservations about 2 out of 3 elections recently going to the candidate that came in 2nd place in the pop vote. Which isn't exactly following the will of the people.
Click to expand...

so you are good with 5 states determining who is president while ignoring all other states?
not a good idea.
 
More votes equals a loss...revolution!
Click to expand...

like i've said in other threads, everyone knew the rules going in. the electoral college only sucks when your side loses but wins the popular. if it flips the other way, no one says, "well, awe, shucks. we didn't actually win, so we'll just go ahead and step down."

i will admit that i find it pretty unfortunate that it has enabled the most dangerous president in modern history, though. however, i'd put more blame on the two party system itself than on the electoral college.
 
Chomsky said:
"California" doesn't speak for the country - true.

But those American citizens voting in Cali have a right for their vote to be fully heard. And the current system is diminishing the votes of some citizens, and amplifying the votes of others.

This is the problem that results from the EC, and does not set well with those whose votes have been marginalized. Though I suspect the citizens whose votes are super-empowered are quite happy!
Click to expand...

They did have their votes fully heard. They gave their 55 EVs to whoever gets the majority. That's 20%, or 1/5th, of what is needed to win the race. That getting heard plenty enough.

I did a breakdown (by votes 2.7 million in favor of Hillary) of how many other states that an extremely bias, and populous, state like California would negate with those numbers and it's as follows:

Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, Florida, and Arizona would all have their states run over by California. The total electoral votes of those states is 179 vs California's 55. That would be how many states California would overrule, and they are are higher population states. So California gives Hillary 234 EVs, or if there were no EVs then it would simply take those number of states to balance out California, which would end up with the same result.

How many of the little states do you think New York's 1.5 million advantage would clean up? Hell, just winning New York itself would put Hillary hat 263 EVs or the popular vote equivalent. So basically we are saying that California and New York run the entire country and everyone else need not apply?

No thank you.
 
ludin said:
so you are good with 5 states determining who is president while ignoring all other states?
not a good idea.
Click to expand...
It's not the states that are voting.

It's American citizens.
 
Chomsky said:
It's not the states that are voting.

It's American citizens.
Click to expand...

Yea over 50 % of the population live in 5 states.
You really want ca and ny to decide who the president is?


I don't.
 
Chomsky said:
It's not the states that are voting.

It's American citizens.
Click to expand...

We are the "United States of America" not the "United People of America".
 
code1211 said:
Well, you got one thing right. We are not a democracy.

We are a Republic. The Constitution sets up the election so that every state votes the preference of its citizens. The constitution even allows the various states to conduct the election as they prefer.

A little learning is a dangerous thing. Despite the danger, though, you should try it.

Wear the proper PPE and you should be good to go.
Click to expand...

:lamo

EvaPeron said:
Grow up - look at the map. It's hard to take you seriously when the map is almost entirely red. The electoral college worked and it worked well. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if Hillary had won the Electoral college.
Click to expand...

Trump sure is singing a different tune now. :usflag2: Looks like he got what he wanted from the "loser" nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom