• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Weighting electoral votes perfectly equally - Trump would still have won.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Victorian Gray said:
Somehow I don't think that's what we'll end up with. If the govt. follows through on their vote reform plans it will most likely end up being some type of ranked ballot system.
Click to expand...

Ranked ballt is stupid too. I would go with merged districts. Say six electoral district, each person get six votes tp distributes they see fit. Then I can vote for top candidates from all three parties should they put out one good one each.
 
IronWing said:
Smart move. Territory status is the way to go, no income taxes.
Click to expand...

No thanks to that either.

KuNBoFQ.jpg
 
sdifox said:
Ranked ballt is stupid too. I would go with merged districts. Say six electoral district, each person get six votes tp distributes they see fit. Then I can vote for top candidates from all three parties should they put out one good one each.
Click to expand...

I'm a proportional rep guy myself but I figure that it will be too hard for the Liberals not to choose the format that will give them the biggest advantage come election time and that's the ranked ballot. While I think that it would be better than 'first past the post' I think that proportional representation is, obviously, more representative.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
I think you guys are automatically approved for Statehood if you ask. I remember reading that somewhere.
Click to expand...

The Churches and Mosques in my town have been getting prepared to receive American refugees
There has been a little opposition from those who think Americans are too violent to co-exist here though
 
Even the weighted Electorate College votes did not seem accurate to me, just more speculation, but I did not bother commenting on it at the time.

On reality they should have 1 based on population, but that is another problem with the EC, 2 is the minimum.

The EC awards a minimum above what it should be, even if adjusted.

A state could have 2 people living in it and it would technically be eligible for 2 EC votes.

More twisted stats that mean nothing.
 
Last edited:
MongGrel said:
Obama debt ?

Wow, that's a real stretch.

Keep on going with the spam dude.
Click to expand...
Boomerang's huddled within a bubble of alternative facts since long before it became trendy. To quote Saint Ronnie, "The problem with our [ conservative ] friends is not that they're ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
 
boomerang said:
Half of it is 0bama debt and that means it's necessary and good debt. How in the world can people even forget this?
Click to expand...

Constant diversion, huh? Obama's predecessor also doubled the debt in a different way- with military adventurism & tax cuts for people who don't need tax cuts. It's also part of how Repubs managed to overheat & crash the economy, too.

Winning the EC & losing the popular vote is a bullshit way to win the Presidency. It wouldn't be so bad if the winner didn't have a radical right agenda & a Congress to match but that's not the way it is.

OTOH, the perception that the majority isn't the "Real America" must be advanced to make that agenda possible. So we get "fantasy rules where Trump would have won anyway" & "millions of fraudulent votes" which is just covering bullshit with the usual more bullshit.

It's a pyramid of lies & delusions.
 
MongGrel said:
Even the weighted Electorate College votes did not seem accurate to me, just more speculation, but I did not bother commenting on it at the time.

On reality they should have 1 based on population, but that is another problem with the EC, 2 is the minimum.

The EC awards a minimum above what it should be, even if adjusted.

A state could have 2 people living in it and it would technically be eligible for 2 EC votes.

More twisted stats that mean nothing.
Click to expand...

Too complex, I still say popular vote should equal the winner. I've felt this way before this last election too.
I understand the point that there will be pockets that never get attention however with TV, Social Media they'll do fine does anyone care if a Candidate visits their State anyways? The argument that some people will simply never vote isn't any different from now where if you are a hard core conservative in MA or CA your vote doesn't matter, same with a hard core liberal in TX or AL. I don't like how our system encourages extremes, I do feel if your vote is that fringe maybe its time to look at your next best option that has a chance of winning.
Imagine the chaos that would happen if there is an election where nobody makes it to 270 and Congress decides. This alone should cause people to act.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Too complex, I still say popular vote should equal the winner. I've felt this way before this last election too.
I understand the point that there will be pockets that never get attention however with TV, Social Media they'll do fine does anyone care if a Candidate visits their State anyways? The argument that some people will simply never vote isn't any different from now where if you are a hard core conservative in MA or CA your vote doesn't matter, same with a hard core liberal in TX or AL. I don't like how our system encourages extremes, I do feel if your vote is that fringe maybe its time to look at your next best option that has a chance of winning.
Imagine the chaos that would happen if there is an election where nobody makes it to 270 and Congress decides. This alone should cause people to act.
Click to expand...

I agree on the popular vote.

Maybe I should have been more detailed, I was referring more to the OPs original statement about how Trump would have won in an adjusted EC vote.

Even an adjusted EC vote would be weighted wrong in regard to an actual count of votes.

It makes people voting in metro areas votes mean less on an order of magnitude.
 
Last edited:
Jhhnn said:
Constant diversion, huh? Obama's predecessor also doubled the debt in a different way- with military adventurism & tax cuts for people who don't need tax cuts. It's also part of how Repubs managed to overheat & crash the economy, too.
Click to expand...
Gotta give credit where credit is due. You are evidently exponentially brighter than some of your besties because you're not in denial that 0bama nearly doubled our debt.

As for the rest of your post, it's just more expressions of fear based in impotency that we're becoming accustomed to. I'll not comment on any of that because it's something each of you will have to work through on your own.
 
boomerang said:
Gotta give credit where credit is due. You are evidently exponentially brighter than some of your besties because you're not in denial that 0bama nearly doubled our debt.

As for the rest of your post, it's just more expressions of fear based in impotency that we're becoming accustomed to. I'll not comment on any of that because it's something each of you will have to work through on your own.
Click to expand...

Good news, Jhnnn! The mentally ill guy who thinks he's being witty by spelling Obama with a 0 like a 2009 bumper sticker thinks you're a smart guy. hahaha
 
boomerang said:
Gotta give credit where credit is due. You are evidently exponentially brighter than some of your besties because you're not in denial that 0bama nearly doubled our debt.
Click to expand...
Nice little backpedal there, adding the word "nearly". In fact, it is about 40%. (Note that even this 40% includes over $2 trillion due to the continuing expenses of Bush's wars.) In contrast, Bush 43 actually did double the national debt, and Reagan nearly tripled it (~180%).


Edit: Oops, wrong pedal.
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
Gotta give credit where credit is due. You are evidently exponentially brighter than some of your besties because you're not in denial that 0bama nearly doubled our debt.

As for the rest of your post, it's just more expressions of fear based in impotency that we're becoming accustomed to. I'll not comment on any of that because it's something each of you will have to work through on your own.
Click to expand...

The fear bullshit has gotten old a long time ago.

Outrage over incompetency seems to be the order of the day, and way before anyone ever cowered in fear.
 
boomerang said:
Gotta give credit where credit is due. You are evidently exponentially brighter than some of your besties because you're not in denial that 0bama nearly doubled our debt.

As for the rest of your post, it's just more expressions of fear based in impotency that we're becoming accustomed to. I'll not comment on any of that because it's something each of you will have to work through on your own.
Click to expand...

How far is too far when you're on a quest to rule as a minority with a radical agenda? What sort of lies will you believe in to make that a desirable outcome?
 
Bowfinger said:
Nice little backpedal there, adding the word "nearly". In fact, it is about 40%. (Note that even this 40% includes over $2 trillion due to the continuing expenses of Bush's wars.) In contrast, Bush 43 actually did double the national debt, and Reagan nearly tripled it (~180%).

Edit: Oops, wrong pedal.
Click to expand...

At what point are we going to accept the fact that he and others like him don't actually care about debt? Anyone here have much doubt he supported Reagan and Bush 43 in every election they were in?

Debt only matters when democrats are in charge. You will see lip service paid to debt while they pass budget busting tax cuts for the rich and useful idiots like boomerang will cheer them on. Then when Democrats are in charge next time he will immediately return to harping about the debt and how America is going bankrupt. Hell, he will probably be even angrier about the irresponsible democrats because the debt will be that much higher after four years of debt increases from policies he supported.

Either it's a totally cynical lie that people are comfortable with or partisanship is so strong they lie to themselves.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Sorta like those on the left constantly remind everyone that Clinton won the popular vote, guess it's must be so under their skin it's on their bones.
Click to expand...
Not as much as it irks Trump that he lost the popular vote and now wants to delegitimize it. Why do you throw stones while living in a glass house, Lando?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top