The Tulsi Disgrace

[Starbuck1975]

Only a fool would think that is meaningless. If presidential elections don’t consistently track what the majority of voters want they will lose legitimacy and the system will collapse.

We are a democracy. What the most people want is at the heart of why our system exists.

That’s not how it’s worked since Day One and everyone knows the rules of the game. Majority does not rule. Building electoral coalitions across sovereign states rules.

This sounds more like sour grapes.

 

[fskimospy]

That’s not how it’s worked since Day One and everyone knows the rules of the game. Majority does not rule. Building electoral coalitions across sovereign states rules.

This sounds more like sour grapes.

Not sure how this relates to my point. If the system starts returning results where the majority doesn’t generally rule you’ll see that system go away, one way or another.

The electoral college is a system Americans generally dislike, designed to protect slavery. The country would not give a shit if it were done away with tomorrow.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It’s not how we elect Presidents. It’s a meaningless metric.

The original quote in regards to the EC in this thread implied the President was elected thru a majority vote.
I was simply pointing out more votes for the losing candidate.

The general public is who's voting for the republicans. Not sure what it is that you want to do about that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Not sure how this relates to my point. If the system starts returning results where the majority doesn’t generally rule you’ll see that system go away, one way or another.

The electoral college is a system Americans generally dislike, designed to protect slavery. The country would not give a shit if it were done away with tomorrow.

And by country you mean Democrats. I don’t recall an outcry to reform our electoral system after Obama won.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The original quote in regards to the EC in this thread implied the President was elected thru a majority vote.
I was simply pointing out more votes for the losing candidate.

I didn’t read @Greenman’s post as asserting a majority.

 

[fskimospy]

And by country you mean Democrats. I don’t recall an outcry to reform our electoral system after Obama won.

No, I mean country as polls consistently show majorities in favor of abolishing it. It’s a dumb system after all, and the reason it exists to begin with was they wanted to protect slavery.

You don’t recall an outcry to reform the system after Obama won because he got the most votes.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn’t read @Greenman’s post as asserting a majority.

The term ‘general public’ usually means something like ‘the average person’. The average person does not vote for Republicans as they consistently get fewer votes than their opponents.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

And by country you mean Democrats. I don’t recall an outcry to reform our electoral system after Obama won.

He got around 10 million more of the popular vote (some 7% more) that that Alaskan tramp did that tagged onto McCain.

Obama won a decisive victory over McCain, winning the Electoral College and the popular vote by a sizable margin, including states that had not voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since 1976 (North Carolina) and 1964 (Indiana and Virginia). Obama received the largest share of the popular vote won by a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. As of the 2016 presidential election Obama's total count of 69.5 million votes still stands as the largest tally ever won by a presidential candidate.

2008 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I didn’t read @Greenman’s post as asserting a majority.

Yeah it could go either way. I was just mentioning a fact.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yeah it could go either way. I was just mentioning a fact.

The statement was certainly presented as the general public overall supporting republican policy, which we know is false. GOP voters elect based on feels, the real irony, as used in it's widely accepted definition....

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And by country you mean Democrats. I don’t recall an outcry to reform our electoral system after Obama won.

Wait wut?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Wait wut?

He forgot about the tea party already.

 

[Greenman]

The term ‘general public’ usually means something like ‘the average person’. The average person does not vote for Republicans as they consistently get fewer votes than their opponents.

Which members of congress were elected with fewer votes than their opponent?

 

[fskimospy]

Which members of congress were elected with fewer votes than their opponent?

Republicans consistently get fewer overall votes than Democrats do but gain advantages due to geography and district boundaries. When you simply look at who the most Americans generally prefer it’s not Republicans.

You said the general public and that means people, not lines on a map. I’m very sure you know Republicans tend to get fewer votes than Democrats so there’s no need to pretend otherwise.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

If voting districts were based on geography and population rather than partisan bias, there would likely be many fewer hateful (R)s in Congress.

 

[Greenman]

Republicans consistently get fewer overall votes than Democrats do but gain advantages due to geography and district boundaries. When you simply look at who the most Americans generally prefer it’s not Republicans.

You said the general public and that means people, not lines on a map. I’m very sure you know Republicans tend to get fewer votes than Democrats so there’s no need to pretend otherwise.

I'm not pretending anything. In every single congressional election the person with the most votes wins. The combined number of votes cast is always way below the number of possible voters in any given race.
You have this odd need to prove that democrats are the "winning" team, it's bazaar to me. Sometimes the dems are driving, sometimes it's the GOP. Right now the gop runs the white house and the senate, that will absolutely change in the future, I'd bet everything on it, and it will almost certainly happen in the next election.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not pretending anything. In every single congressional election the person with the most votes wins. The combined number of votes cast is always way below the number of possible voters in any given race.
You have this odd need to prove that democrats are the "winning" team, it's bazaar to me. Sometimes the dems are driving, sometimes it's the GOP. Right now the gop runs the white house and the senate, that will absolutely change in the future, I'd bet everything on it, and it will almost certainly happen in the next election.

Huh? I am simply stating a fact, it has nothing to do with who is ‘winning’, it’s just reality.

You’re continuing to do this dance where you pretend not to know or understand the central argument being made. I don’t know why, it’s silly and facts don’t care either way, they just are.

 

[brycejones]

Field the team that puts Americas workers first and we'll be rewarded.

LOL, that isn't team GOP or team Trump.

I'm not pretending anything. In every single congressional election the person with the most votes wins. The combined number of votes cast is always way below the number of possible voters in any given race.
You have this odd need to prove that democrats are the "winning" team, it's bazaar to me. Sometimes the dems are driving, sometimes it's the GOP. Right now the gop runs the white house and the senate, that will absolutely change in the future, I'd bet everything on it, and it will almost certainly happen in the next election.

Read up on gerrymandering and packing districts.

 

[JSt0rm]

If voting districts were based on geography and population rather than partisan bias, there would likely be many fewer hateful (R)s in Congress.

Well all politicians would need to moderate their positions. That would be a good thing for most.

 

[Meghan54]

LOL, that isn't team GOP or team Trump.



Read up on gerrymandering and packing districts.

He's a Know-Nothing and there's not a thing Know-Nothings hate worse than reading about facts.

 

[Vic]

I didn’t read @Greenman’s post as asserting a majority.

Once again, the term "general public" implies a majority. Also, it has been a common tactic for decades for Republicans to claim they are the majority of the people even though they can't get the majority of the votes. They do this through phrases like "Silent Majority," "Real Americans," and "Traditional American Values" (meaning only their values). And here, "General Public," even though Republicans are not the general public.
While at the same time they rig the representation in the Electoral College to under-represent blue states much the same way they gerrymander the legislative districts in red states.
I'm just waiting for Republicans to try to make non-Republican votes count as only 5/8th of a vote. It would be in line with actual Republican values.

 

[Vic]

Not sure how this relates to my point. If the system starts returning results where the majority doesn’t generally rule you’ll see that system go away, one way or another.

The electoral college is a system Americans generally dislike, designed to protect slavery. The country would not give a shit if it were done away with tomorrow.

The problem isn't the EC per se, but the unbalanced and politically-manipulated distribution of votes in the EC. Without the EC, candidates would only concern themselves with getting votes in a the most populous states. Which I hope we would not want. But with the current EC distribution, candidates need only concern themselves with winning a few over-represented 'swing states.' Which should IMO be considered just as bad.
It helps IMO to look at the politically-manipulated distribution of votes in the EC (and also the seats in the House) as similar to legislative gerrymandering within the states.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Once again, the term "general public" implies a majority. Also, it has been a common tactic for decades for Republicans to claim they are the majority of the people even though they can't get the majority of the votes.

They don’t need to.

They do this through phrases like "Silent Majority," "Real Americans," and "Traditional American Values" (meaning only their values). And here, "General Public," even though Republicans are not the general public.

They certainly are the general public in red states

While at the same time they rig the representation in the Electoral College to under-represent blue states much the same way they gerrymander the legislative districts in red states.
I'm just waiting for Republicans to try to make non-Republican votes count as only 5/8th of a vote. It would be in line with actual Republican values.

Democrats have also self gerrymandered themselves. Gerrymandering didn’t cause Democrats to lose the Rust Belt.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem isn't the EC per se, but the unbalanced and politically-manipulated distribution of votes in the EC. Without the EC, candidates would only concern themselves with getting votes in a the most populous states. Which I hope we would not want. But with the current EC distribution, candidates need only concern themselves with winning a few over-represented 'swing states.' Which should IMO be considered just as bad.
It helps IMO to look at the politically-manipulated distribution of votes in the EC (and also the seats in the House) as similar to legislative gerrymandering within the states.

I disagree, without the EC candidates would ignore the idea of states altogether and simply try to get the most votes, just like in every other election in the US. To me having all candidates attempt to appeal to the most voters in the country instead of the most voters in a half dozen states would be a big improvement.

 

[fskimospy]

They don’t need to.

They certainly are the general public in red states

Democrats have also self gerrymandered themselves. Gerrymandering didn’t cause Democrats to lose the Rust Belt.

you’re right they don’t need a majority of votes in order to gain power and look where this has gotten us, an ultra right wing extremist party that is contemptuous of science, facts, and is now engaging in rampant, naked corruption on a scale never before seen in the US.

maybe that’s a sign the current system is bad.