You can't be both pro-Electoral College and anti-DEI

[SalinasSpartan]

On 10/30/2024 at 2:18 PM, bornontheblue said:

Hillary won the popular in 2016 . 
 

When support among African Americans , Latinos, and Young people which are vital to the Democrat coalition has slumped off you are going to see margins cut into. 
 

I think it is possible Trump wins the popular, not probable. I’d give it a  10 percent chance . 
 

Of course it’s a 10% chance. High enough where if it happens you can come on here and pretend you “called it”, but low enough where if it doesn’t happen you can say “well I said it probably wouldn’t happen”.

Dumb.

[AztecAlien]

On 10/30/2024 at 3:57 PM, The San Diegan said:

No. Because words have meaning 'n shit.

Think of it as more of a completely legal and constitutionally-authorized work-around that allows the majority to not let a minority of mostly two-toothed cousin-fuckers decide our collective fate. In a word?

You really can't be taken seriously with that type of response. 

[The San Diegan]

On 10/30/2024 at 3:10 PM, AztecAlien said:

You really can't be taken seriously with that type of response. 

You conflated the implementation of a legal adaptation to a flawed system  - which would effectively serve to marginalize the EC - as "eliminating" it.

You're the one who does not understand that "marginalize" and "eliminate" are different words with different meanings, yet I'm the one who can't be taken seriously. Okay. 

[AztecAlien]

On 10/30/2024 at 4:28 PM, The San Diegan said:

You conflated the implementation of a legal adaptation to a flawed system  - which would effectively serve to marginalize the EC - as "eliminating" it.

You're the one who does not understand that "marginalize" and "eliminate" are different words with different meanings, yet I'm the one who can't be take seriously. Okay. 

Yes. 

[Cowboy Up]

On 10/30/2024 at 2:23 PM, The San Diegan said:

I've decided I'm voting D down ballot this year, if for no other reason that to bc @bornontheblue is so afraid of the D. 

I mean, it seems as if he's absolutely terrified of the D's. It's almost as if he has wet dreams nightmares in which he's assailed by a bunch of D's...

Show us on the Trump doll where the D's touched you.

He may be afraid of the D but his mom ain’t!  I can vouch…

[Akkula]

The electoral college would not matter that much if we just allocated electors by congressional district instead of winner take all by state.  But, like the filibuster we just decided to honor this some made up system system of selecting electors that only benefits the two party duopoly and ensures 99% of the country is ignored. 

 

https://fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all/

[masterfrog]

On 10/30/2024 at 6:51 PM, Akkula said:

The electoral college would not matter that much if we just allocated electors by congressional district instead of winner take all by state.  But, like the filibuster we just decided to honor this some made up system system of selecting electors that only benefits the two party duopoly and ensures 99% of the country is ignored. 

 

https://fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all/

The whole US Constitution is a made up system. 

[Buttermaker]

On 10/30/2024 at 12:32 PM, bornontheblue said:

I am saying the reason the Ds have gotten the popular vote is because they have historically had massive margins in heavily populated blue states. They are all excess votes that are not needed to win the election. The Ds will still win those states but I think their margins will have shrunk from prior elections, thus giving the Trump a reasonable (not probable) chance at the popular vote. 

 

It's a football analogy for adding on points when the game is long over. Appropriate when looking at historical voter behavior in heavily populated blue states. 

 

If this is all too complex for you I am sorry , 

The total popular vote isn't a function of what state you live in... it's a total of US registered voters it doesn't matter where someone lives when it comes to summing it up

the total score is the total score and no one is running up the score.  (Or is that too hard for you to wrap your head around? or whatever your comment was)

your candidate, trump, may be running down his dream though.

[bornontheblue]

On 10/30/2024 at 7:31 PM, Buttermaker said:

The total popular vote isn't a function of what state you live in... it's a total of US registered voters it doesn't matter where someone lives when it comes to summing it up

the total score is the total score and no one is running up the score.  (Or is that too hard for you to wrap your head around? or whatever your comment was)

your candidate, trump, may be running down his dream though.

What the hell is this  nonsense. 
 

 

[Buttermaker]

On 10/30/2024 at 6:32 PM, bornontheblue said:

What the hell is this  nonsense. 
 

 

figures that it might be too hard for a cpa to understand the concept.  

go run up some scores

[bornontheblue]

On 10/30/2024 at 7:34 PM, Buttermaker said:

figures that it might be too hard for a cpa to understand the concept.  

go run up some scores

You are not a very smart person and that is being polite. 

[Buttermaker]

On 10/30/2024 at 6:43 PM, bornontheblue said:

You are not a very smart person and that is being polite. 

hahahahahahahahaha... i'm so hurt.  running along now

[AztecAlien]

On 10/30/2024 at 7:31 PM, Buttermaker said:

The total popular vote isn't a function of what state you live in... it's a total of US registered voters it doesn't matter where someone lives when it comes to summing it up

the total score is the total score and no one is running up the score.  (Or is that too hard for you to wrap your head around? or whatever your comment was)

your candidate, trump, may be running down his dream though.

[bornontheblue]

On 10/30/2024 at 7:53 PM, Buttermaker said:

hahahahahahahahaha... i'm so hurt.  running along now

[The San Diegan]

On 10/30/2024 at 3:55 PM, AztecAlien said:

Yes. 

[Spaztecs]

On 10/30/2024 at 3:57 PM, The San Diegan said:

No. Because words have meaning 'n shit.

Think of it as more of a completely legal and constitutionally-authorized work-around that allows the majority to not let a minority of mostly two-toothed cousin-fuckers decide our collective fate. In a word?

Cousin fuckers is generous when they're impregnating their sisters, daughters, and nieces 

[sean327]

On 10/30/2024 at 9:42 AM, The San Diegan said:

While I sincerely doubt it, I found it interesting to see Trump campaign ads airing in our local TV market. MAGA candidates for both House seats and state legislature, sure, but I can't recall seeing Trump ads in San Diego in either 2016 or 2020, and the only reason I could think of they would be spending campaign money on ads in the county is to increase their popular vote count.

The metrics tho - in particular the delta between male and female early voters, which is more than enough to overcome to gender gap for each candidate - seem to indicate it is a Hail Mary at best.

 

ETA: Re: the underlined portion, you don't need to. You just need a critical mass of states to offset the power of the seven swing states that right now decide our presidential elections.

And @sean327, I'm curious to hear your thoughts (as opposed to just see your reaction). Do you think it's okay that just seven. -seven - states decide the fate of all 50? Do you think this is the scenario the Founding Fathers envisioned? I'm open to discussion on this one...

I have no issues with the Electoral College. I think this is exactly what the Founders envisioned when they set the system up. It's just one more check on the tyranny of the majority. It ensures that every state has an equal voice. So here's the great thing about our system and Constitution, there is a mechanism that can be used to amend the Constitution. Instead of whining about it, start a movement for a new amendment that would do away with the Electoral College. 

 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 11/1/2024 at 4:47 PM, sean327 said:

I have no issues with the Electoral College. I think this is exactly what the Founders envisioned when they set the system up. It's just one more check on the tyranny of the majority. It ensures that every state has an equal voice. So here's the great thing about our system and Constitution, there is a mechanism that can be used to amend the Constitution. Instead of whining about it, start a movement for a new amendment that would do away with the Electoral College. 

 

Setting aside the undemocratic nature of the EC (and Senate), what is your opinion on how both of these have allowed the GOP to become more extreme without suffering any real electoral consequences? By that I mean, the structure of the EC and Senate have allowed the GOP to be competitive in both the last 8 years with a Trump-lead MAGA platform. If the EC did not exist (or every state handled their EC votes like ME and NE) and the Senate was structured more democratically the GOP would have had to moderate itself to have a chance at winning either. 

[TSpoke]

Just remove the cap from the house. 

[The San Diegan]

On 11/1/2024 at 4:47 PM, sean327 said:

I have no issues with the Electoral College. I think this is exactly what the Founders envisioned when they set the system up. It's just one more check on the tyranny of the majority. It ensures that every state has an equal voice. So here's the great thing about our system and Constitution, there is a mechanism that can be used to amend the Constitution. Instead of whining about it, start a movement for a new amendment that would do away with the Electoral College. 

 

I appreciate that. However, I'm of two minds with regards to the way it has all shaken out the last few elections cycles...

On one hand, how is tyranny of the minority any better?

On the other hand, the system - in theory - ensures candidates have to appeal to what are mostly purple states, i.e., they have to have an interquartile, middle of the road platform to secure the EC votes in those states. However, this also means that candidates only have to game of the system to a much smaller degree as well (through misinformation campaigns and other modern incarnations of 'yellow journalism').

Curious to hear your answer to the first question, and your input on my other thoughts.

Lastly, I would suggest that partisanship will prevent Congress from ever reaching a threshold of votes necessary to add an amendment to tweak the system, and in the absence of a functioning legislature in this regard, I would argue the NPVIC is every bit as legal and effective. And it does not, in any way, shape, or form, violate the Constitution.