Snoslinger Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, Edmo said: Which one wins the election, and which one doesn't? I'd say that's what's relevant, not butthurt from the left. Just my opinion of course. neither..... electoral votes win elections. one state could have 20 red counties, 2 blue, and blue could still win the state because the blue counties have more population. christ i hope you realize that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry ginger Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 6 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: neither..... electoral votes win elections. one state could have 20 red counties, 2 blue, and blue could still win the state because the blue counties have more population. christ i hope you realize that. they need to have an EC in a state like NY where the liberals of NYC control the government strictly because of population at the expense of all those upstate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEMAN! Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 51 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: They'd be pitching a fit. Obviously. And the dems would be saying that is how the system works, and quit whining. Which is why no one complains about it until it hurts them. Unless you are arguing that Dems would be different and vowing to abolish it if it worked in their favor? Which is why this worn out rhetoric is stupid... He won, move on. This popular vote complaining is for the weak minded. The second I hear someone bring it up like it matters, I automatically assume that person is brain dead.. I understand how your system works and I'm not saying that Hillary should be President. The Democratic Party isn't complaining either as far as I've seen. Hillary conceded and that was that. I post the numbers because it's interesting and unprecedented. You do realize that once it's all said and done, the loser of the election will have actually garnered 2.5+ million more votes than the winner? Something about that seems very wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry ginger Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said: I understand how your system works and I'm not saying that Hillary should be President. The Democratic Party isn't complaining either as far as I've seen. Hillary conceded and that was that. I post the numbers because it's interesting and unprecedented. You do realize that once it's all said and done, the loser of the election will have actually garnered 2.5+ million more votes than the winner? Something about that seems very wrong. take out the 3 million illegal dem votes and trumps still the winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said: I understand how your system works and I'm not saying that Hillary should be President. The Democratic Party isn't complaining either as far as I've seen. Hillary conceded and that was that. I post the numbers because it's interesting and unprecedented. You do realize that once it's all said and done, the loser of the election will have actually garnered 2.5+ million more votes than the winner? Something about that seems very wrong. That's a democratic republic. It was set up to avoid tyranny of the majority. We can avoid most of this, and skip trying to pass a constitutional amendment by going to ranked choice voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Angry ginger said: take out the 3 million illegal dem votes and trumps still the winner. That pink elephant always gets missed by the dems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bussman Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 1 minute ago, motonoggin said: That's a democratic republic. It was set up to avoid tyranny of the majority. We can avoid most of this, and skip trying to pass a constitutional amendment by going to ranked choice voting. Didn't Bernie have more votes in the primaries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Danger Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, Angry ginger said: they need to have an EC in a state like NY where the liberals of NYC control the government strictly because of population at the expense of all those upstate. You have just described Massachusetts. I doubt most in Boston realize there are people beyond the 495. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 22 hours ago, ICEMAN! said: What do you think would be going on right now if Hillary had squeaked out a win but Donald won the popular vote by 2+ million votes? Well, I'm going to assume this yeast infection of yours would be of a much lesser variety. 8 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said: I understand how your system works and I'm not saying that Hillary should be President. The Democratic Party isn't complaining either as far as I've seen. Hillary conceded and that was that. I post the numbers because it's interesting and unprecedented. You do realize that once it's all said and done, the loser of the election will have actually garnered 2.5+ million more votes than the winner? Something about that seems very wrong. That's like saying a 100m sprinter coming in 24th in a 1000m race makes them some kind of winner. You have to win the game that is being played. Do you think Trump would have campaigned so hard in Ohio and not California were he after the popular vote? It is neither novel nor unprecedented. Unless you can see the results of a popular vote election that never took place, you are simply letting American liberals piss all over your head, while you lather up a shit shampoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEMAN! Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, motonoggin said: That's a democratic republic. It was set up to avoid tyranny of the majority. We can avoid most of this, and skip trying to pass a constitutional amendment by going to ranked choice voting. So now you have the tyranny of the minority. Makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriftBusta Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 22 hours ago, Momorider said: He won 84% of the counties in the country Thrillery won 16% That really puts it in perspective, and why the electoral college is so important. 20 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said: I understand how your system works and I'm not saying that Hillary should be President. The Democratic Party isn't complaining either as far as I've seen. Hillary conceded and that was that. I post the numbers because it's interesting and unprecedented. You do realize that once it's all said and done, the loser of the election will have actually garnered 2.5+ million more votes than the winner? Something about that seems very wrong. Actually, Podesta conceded for her. She was too busy going on a drunken rampage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, Snake said: Well, I'm going to assume this yeast infection of yours would be of a much lesser variety. That's like saying a 100m sprinter coming in 24th in a 1000m race makes them some kind of winner. You have to win the game that is being played. Do you think Trump would have campaigned so hard in Ohio and not California were he after the popular vote? It is neither novel nor unprecedented. Unless you can see the results of a popular vote election that never took place, you are simply letting American liberals piss all over your head, while you lather up a shit shampoo. It's the only way that the current crop of elite liberals can keep their minions from questioning the "agenda". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 11 minutes ago, bussman said: Didn't Bernie have more votes in the primaries? The Hillary campaign claimed they had more votes, but they got them through dishonest and anti-democratic tactics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said: So now you have the tyranny of the minority. Makes sense. That's always a risk. Our Senate is set up that way, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry ginger Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said: You have just described Massachusetts. I doubt most in Boston realize there are people beyond the 495. not really, MA is strongly dem from east to west, take a look at a an election map llike this one from 12 where it was strong dem support end to end vs NY, PA, WA, OR and Cali where the populated area typically overrides the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said: So now you have the tyranny of the minority. Makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEMAN! Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, motonoggin said: That's always a risk. Our Senate is set up that way, too. No system is perfect. You mentioned ranked balloting in your last post. There has been a lot of discussion implementing a system like that here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said: No system is perfect. You mentioned ranked balloting in your last post. There has been a lot of discussion implementing a system like that here. I think it's a great solution to a lot of problems. It fixes the duopoly, eliminates the spoiler effect, and gives more power to the voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rw06GT Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Snoslinger said: what's more relevant in this topic, the popular vote or...... counties Brain-dead example #1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 The counties argument is specious. Land doesn't vote, people do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriftBusta Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, motonoggin said: The counties argument is specious. Land doesn't vote, people do. Specious. FFS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Just now, DriftBusta said: Specious. FFS. I just baked your noodle, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 6 minutes ago, motonoggin said: The counties argument is specious. Land doesn't vote, people do. Yah no shit we have similar issues if you want pure representation by population then NYC and LA and going to control everything and that is never going to be acceptable. Here a province like PEI has 4 federal parliamentary seats if it was purely representative they would have 1 seat for the entire province good luck having any say about anything in a body of 338 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Danger Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Just now, motonoggin said: The counties argument is specious. Land doesn't vote, people do. That is an over simplification No? Take your pipeline problem. the populated areas want the pipeline and are willing to go against the minority in the sticks to get it done. without some weighting towards the less populated areas the fly over country would just be covered in projects that only serve the populated areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Danger Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Just now, Angry ginger said: not really, MA is strongly dem from east to west, take a look at a an election map llike this one from 12 where it was strong dem support end to end vs NY, PA, WA, OR and Cali where the populated area typically overrides the rest. Yes but like Detriot and Chicago Dems have little trouble screwing other Dems. It is not a case of Blue vs Red more a case of Elite vs Blue collar rank and file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.