|
0 members (),
23
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,587
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,005 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,005 Likes: 133 |
Are you kidding? A Wikipedia poll of our Presidents? No. There's not a single Wikipedia poll included in the link. It's a table of polls by respectable firms published in a Wikipedia article.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
Nuance is not the forte of The Conservative. 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
There is too much in this post to "correct", so I will concentrate on just one glaring error: You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College. This is a repetitive error used in support of the EC that is demonstrably, empirically, and logically wrong. As emotionally resonant as it seems, it is just that - an appeal to emotion. Here's where the error comes from: Nearly every State uses the "winner take all" strategy to entice candidates to "win" their State by campaigning there. That is, inherently, an anti-democratic stance as it essentially negates the votes of the minority - whatever their political bent. It skews the outcome of elections and - is almost entirely ineffective. There are currently about 10-12 EC relevant "swing" States. They get a disproportionate share of attention in every election. The other States, representing over 100 electoral votes for each side, are "non competitive". We know where their votes are going to go even before the first vote is cast. So the argument that the EC improves the standing of Wyoming or North Dakota during elections just isn't true. Do you know the last time a presidential candidate campaigned there? They don't either. With a popular vote, however, every State counts, because all the voters in those States count. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Out of 130 million votes cast. That is a small margin. The margins in previous elections have been closer. If every vote counted, rather than just those of "swing" States all candidates have an incentive to campaign everywhere. Republicans would go to California and New York to campaign, not just fundraise, and Democrats would hit Texas, Kansas, and Wyoming to get out the Democratic vote. The voters would actually matter more in small States than they ever have. Twice now in your rush to lecture me you have ignored a link I posted. A link that would show that your assertion is wrong. I have not ignored the links, I read them. Nor do I believe they support your arguments. I'm disagreeing with the substance of your arguments, which does not require that I refute every element of every link to a source one provides. I can do so, but I already have a tendency to pedantry, a bad habit of mine. Let me show an example: in a previous post you asserted No, the majority of states do not have rural populations. In all states the majority of the population lives in urban areas. In support of that assertion, you cited https://www.statista.com/statistics/985183/size-urban-rural-population-us/. I went to the source, but it does not support the claim, or even address it. It shows that the majority of Americans live in (undefined) urban areas, but does not differentiate by States. This statistic illustrates the size of the urban and rural population of the United States from 1960 to 2018. In 2018, there were approximately 58.22 million people living in rural areas in the United States, compared to about 269.9 million people living in urban areas. There is considerable academic and popular discussion of this issue. Examples: The Divides Within, and Between, Urban and Rural America (CityLab) [I highly recommend the series.]; The deep roots of America’s rural-urban political divide (CS Monitor); How America’s urban-rural divide shapes elections (Economist). From that last: IN NINE OF America’s 13 congressional elections between 1994 and 2018, the Republican Party won a greater share of seats than votes. In 2012, Democrats failed to garner a majority of seats while winning a broad popular vote victory. Even in the 2018 mid-terms, which were described as a “wave” election, The Economist predicted that the Democrats had to win the popular vote in the House of Representatives by 5-6 percentage points to obtain a bare majority of seats. In the Senate, the situation is worse because of the way states magnify the pro-rural bias of America’s electoral institutions. This divide is illustrated here: How the Rural-Urban Divide Became America’s Political Fault Line (NYT, the Upshot). [I've tried to post a graphic that demonstrates the point, but software won't cooperate] It has taken several paragraphs to refute, in detail, a claim in one sentence of your post. I could do this every time, but is it worth the effort? Or would that just demonstrate my "arrogance"? That's a sincere question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
Truth be told if they had lost two elections in recent memory to the vagueries of the EC and looked to possibly losing more in the future then I think you'd see the shoe on the other foot. We'd have that puppy throwed out in the snow pronto. I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written. I might not not be happy with the results of a Presidential election because I know that my side will never win every election and I'm damn glad that it won't. As a three time candidate for political office I respect the decision made by the voters. (I never was elected but I'm not a three time loser.) If in the 2020 election Bernie Sanders, for example, won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote do you know what I called him? President Sanders.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
Are you kidding? A Wikipedia poll of our Presidents? No. There's not a single Wikipedia poll included in the link. It's a table of polls by respectable firms published in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are not credible sources. If you had posted links to the polls that supported what you said that would have been better than citing the Wikipedia article.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
This is just like a Conservative: ...Contesting it makes those who are doing so to be sore losers. Dems contesting an election that Republicans stole, makes Dems sore losers. Did you get that everybody?  If the shoe fits... It's good that a Conservative validates that stealing an election is way better than whining about having an election stolen. You're so patriotic sir. Are there more Americans just like you?  That's a great job of taking my comment out of context. I do not condone the stealing of elections by either political party. Unfortunately both of them have done so. However, the Democrats record of stealing elections and of whining about losing elections far exceeds the number of times the Republicans have done it.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
However, the Democrats record of stealing elections and of whining about losing elections far exceeds the number of times the Republicans have done it. Do you have any evidence, any at all, that proves this assertion? I give you, in refutation, The GOP Election Plan Is Simple: Even When You Don’t Win, Cheat (Rolling Stone); The voter disenfranchisement on display in these three states is an extension of broader Republican efforts to reject the will of those citizens who vote in ways they don’t like, the same people who are most likely to block their path to power in future elections. The devil takes many forms, as does voter suppression.
Mark Harris, a Baptist preacher who considers Islam to be “Satanic,” won May’s GOP primary for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District. After the November 6th general election, the Associated Press prematurely called the race in his favor. Leading by a mere 905 votes over his Democratic opponent, Dan McCready, Harris’ win seemed close but certain. However, the state’s Board of Elections has twice refused to certify the victory, citing irregularities with absentee ballots. The board may order a new election on December 21st when it meets to review the mounting evidence that Harris and his campaign engaged in illegal activity that disproportionately affected voters of color. We see it in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Kansas, Georgia, Florida. It is blatant, it is brazen, and it is pervasive. Please defend these tactics as "conservative" or "democratic". Please justify the Supreme Court's brazen partisanship as "equitable" and "fair". Don't give me history, let's talk about here and now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
There is too much in this post to "correct", so I will concentrate on just one glaring error: You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College. This is a repetitive error used in support of the EC that is demonstrably, empirically, and logically wrong. As emotionally resonant as it seems, it is just that - an appeal to emotion. Here's where the error comes from: Nearly every State uses the "winner take all" strategy to entice candidates to "win" their State by campaigning there. That is, inherently, an anti-democratic stance as it essentially negates the votes of the minority - whatever their political bent. It skews the outcome of elections and - is almost entirely ineffective. There are currently about 10-12 EC relevant "swing" States. They get a disproportionate share of attention in every election. The other States, representing over 100 electoral votes for each side, are "non competitive". We know where their votes are going to go even before the first vote is cast. So the argument that the EC improves the standing of Wyoming or North Dakota during elections just isn't true. Do you know the last time a presidential candidate campaigned there? They don't either. With a popular vote, however, every State counts, because all the voters in those States count. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Out of 130 million votes cast. That is a small margin. The margins in previous elections have been closer. If every vote counted, rather than just those of "swing" States all candidates have an incentive to campaign everywhere. Republicans would go to California and New York to campaign, not just fundraise, and Democrats would hit Texas, Kansas, and Wyoming to get out the Democratic vote. The voters would actually matter more in small States than they ever have. Twice now in your rush to lecture me you have ignored a link I posted. A link that would show that your assertion is wrong. I have not ignored the links, I read them. Nor do I believe they support your arguments. I'm disagreeing with the substance of your arguments, which does not require that I refute every element of every link to a source one provides. I can do so, but I already have a tendency to pedantry, a bad habit of mine. Let me show an example: in a previous post you asserted No, the majority of states do not have rural populations. In all states the majority of the population lives in urban areas. In support of that assertion, you cited https://www.statista.com/statistics/985183/size-urban-rural-population-us/. I went to the source, but it does not support the claim, or even address it. It shows that the majority of Americans live in (undefined) urban areas, but does not differentiate by States. This statistic illustrates the size of the urban and rural population of the United States from 1960 to 2018. In 2018, there were approximately 58.22 million people living in rural areas in the United States, compared to about 269.9 million people living in urban areas. There is considerable academic and popular discussion of this issue. Examples: The Divides Within, and Between, Urban and Rural America (CityLab) [I highly recommend the series.]; The deep roots of America’s rural-urban political divide (CS Monitor); How America’s urban-rural divide shapes elections (Economist). From that last: IN NINE OF America’s 13 congressional elections between 1994 and 2018, the Republican Party won a greater share of seats than votes. In 2012, Democrats failed to garner a majority of seats while winning a broad popular vote victory. Even in the 2018 mid-terms, which were described as a “wave” election, The Economist predicted that the Democrats had to win the popular vote in the House of Representatives by 5-6 percentage points to obtain a bare majority of seats. In the Senate, the situation is worse because of the way states magnify the pro-rural bias of America’s electoral institutions. This divide is illustrated here: How the Rural-Urban Divide Became America’s Political Fault Line (NYT, the Upshot). [I've tried to post a graphic that demonstrates the point, but software won't cooperate] It has taken several paragraphs to refute, in detail, a claim in one sentence of your post. I could do this every time, but is it worth the effort? Or would that just demonstrate my "arrogance"? That's a sincere question. Another lecture. One that misses what my comments say. The purpose of the Electoral College was and is to balance the voting power of the states with a small population to those with a large population. The Electoral College serves as the Senate in a Presidential election. The Electoral College was not meant to force presidential candidates to campaign in every state. What it does is make it necessary for presidential campaigns have organizations in all states. But if you want to go off on another long winded reply to something I did not don't let me stop you. In a way NW you remind me of Hubert H. Humphrey, a good man who I had the privilege to know, but one who could not say something in 100 words if he could so in 1,000 words.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
...the Democrats record of stealing elections and of whining about losing elections far exceeds the number of times the Republicans have done it. I'm sure you have a link to that assertion. Not even Kris Korbach could make this true.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written. I'm sure you wouldn't have that opinion if the Dems benefited from it like the GOP has for the past 28 years. Clinton 1992 Won Popular vote Won EC Clinton 1996 Won Popular vote Won EC W Bush 2000 Lost Popular Vote Won EC via Supreme Court W Bush 2004 Won Popular Vote Won EC Obama 2008 Won Popular vote Won EC Obama 2012 Won Popular vote Won EC Trump 2016 Lost Popular vote Won EC
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
