We are in a truth emergency

My point was that the declaration requires qualification, and 'alone' is that qualification, which you did not mention in your first comment.

All of your points were addressed in my long reply, which you choose to ignore.

End of conversation, and, in fact, because your comments continually choose to ignore the case I've presented, you've earned my kill file.

One cannot debate those who ignore the substance provided. Cya.

 

You are nitpicking, because the salient point is that Trump received far less votes than a majority than Hillary did.

I am conceding your point, but it's a technical one which is less important than the above fact.

And, if you really want to get technical, your point fails to accommodate the following fact:

No win vote in history reflects the majority of the electorate, because it's rare that a majority of the electorate even votes. at least that is the case in modern times.

So, your point is rather meaningless, given this truth.

 

You have that exactly backwards.
Correlation can only SUPPORT a claim of causation; by itself - as my statement was - correlation cannot and does not prove causation.

I accept your surrender.

 

Your "important fact" is not very important to me. Elections are conducted according to rules laid out in the Constitution. It the rules were different, the campaigns would have been different and perhaps Trump could have won a plurality of the vote if he allocated his resources differently. We will never know.

 

Of course you're nit-picking. Given the demographics of voter turnout (and pre-election polling) it's likely Hillary's 3M vote margin understates the extent to which she was supported by a majority of Americans.

 

What makes it seem likely to you? I have no way of knowing the preferences of people who didn't vote. My assumption would be that they didn't care.

 

The demographics of voter turnout and pre-election polling. How did you miss that the first time?

 

the 'national' election is a general term for the election of the presidency, otherwise known as the 'general' election. In the end, a tally is given of the total of all states.

Scroll down to 'national election'
https://study.com/academy/lesson/local-state-national-elections-in-the-us.html

Note that the EC was designed to give the smaller states a bigger voice, and that because the forefathers were unable to foresee a state with 40,000,000 people, it wasn't intended to make a state of that size reduced, in terms of voice, to the size of a state with a couple of million people.

If the forefathers had been given advanced notice of a state eventually having 20,000,000 to 40,000,000, it is reasonable to assume they would have created a tiered policy for such states. Because, it's one thing to lift the voice of a state with say, 100k population, comparable to a state with a couple of million, but to reduce a state of 40 million people to a voice of 2 million, just isn't fair.

It isn't, and if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be singing a different tune and you know it.

 

It didn't make any sense, so I ignored it.

 

Montana has something other than a tiny voice. It has a voice louder than it deserves given its population. Not only in terms of the EC but the Senate as well. In an attempt to counter balance the influence of large states we have given small states far too much influence. Do you really imagine the founders meant for a single resident of Wyoming to have a voice as loud as 250 Californians?

 

Imagine my surprise that you ignored inconvenient facts. It's the hallmark of Trumpery.

 

It's important to anyone who has rational sense that if 3 million more people vote for Hillary over Trump, the will of the people, as a whole, was with Hillary, not Trump. A state does not have a 'will' only people do. There will come a day, if dems get to power over three branches, we will create a policy where the majority will decide who the winner is, should the EC and popular vote not agree, count on it.

See, if we go with the popular vote, then every vote counts. If we go with the EC, most of the votes in the big states do not count, and that means the votes of millions of American citizen's do not count and that is not right.

The EC made sense when the states were small, but now they've outgrown the fairness of the EC, and a new policy must be created to give the millions of citizens whose vote does not count, as it is currently, to make so that they do count.

 

What facts? You made an assertion that was fact free.

 

Whatever. Hillary was rejected by a majority of voters. I consider that the will of the people as a whole.

 

Whatever, Trump's vote was rejected by a majority of votes to a greater extent than that of Hillary's, and, using your logic, I will consider that the will of the people, as a whole.

 

Right. There is no will of the people as a whole.

 

You're the one who said it, I was just using your logic.

You wrote:

I consider that the will of the people as a whole.

 

"Registered voters who didn’t vote on Election Day in November were more Democratic-leaning than the registered voters who turned out, according to a post-election poll from SurveyMonkey, shared with FiveThirtyEight. In fact, Donald Trump probably would have lost to Hillary Clinton had Republican- and Democratic-leaning registered voters cast ballots at equal rates."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

 

It was made important because of someone proudly proclaiming that more Americans voted against Clinton than voted for her, as if that made Trump look better somehow? I'm not sure of the relevance; you'd have to ask the Trump worshiper who needed to point that uninteresting fact out to everyone.

 

I don't think it could be equalized any further unless we want to have a Congress with 2,000 members, or something.

They get 3 votes, out of 535. It's not a very loud voice, no matter how you try to spin it.

I get that you want New York and California to decide what's best for the other 48, but the other 48 say, "nah; no thanks."

If we get to the point where 2-3 states decide everything, we are no longer the United States. We wouldn't be a united people. Chaos would ensue.

So, good luck convincing 38 states to vote for an amendment that removes all their power. Have you started working on that yet, or are you just bitchin' on the interwebs?

 

You forgot to mention Texas, which has 29, 000, 000 people.

What you are doing is to look at the vote through the lens of states, but people are the ones voting, states do not vote, a state is not a person.

It always comes down to one person, one vote, and that is not what the system is, currently, and we argue that it should be. 10s of millions of voters are disenfranchised in the large states, and we feel that is not just.

No, if a candidate wants the vote in the smaller votes, he or she will have to campaign there, as well.

One man or woman, one vote. That principle is sound.

The EC would still exist, so we'd always know the importance of states, it's just that, we, democrats, are going to propose legislation to make it so that, when the EC does not agree with the popular vote, the popular vote decides on who the president is. We believe that is in accordance with the principle of 'one man/woman, one vote.".

We are not proposing an amendment, we are proposing legislation.

 

Is he still trying to move the goalpost away from the claim he knew was false?

 

We are the United STATES for a reason. Not a single state would have ratified the constitution if state's couldn't retain autonomy.

I have no desire to diminish the small state's already tiny voice in the process. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

Montana doesn't even have a million people. California had 14 million votes in the election. You are actively wishing to exclude people from having a voice. I can't condone that.

The entire population of Montana is approximately the same number as the amount of votes that were invalidated in California in 2016.

OY.... There would literally not be any reason for citizens of numerous states to go vote, as no matter what, their vote won't matter even a tiny bit. Once three states know they are completely in charge, very few in the other 40+ states would go vote. They'd also start discussing forming a new country at that point.

 

Roughly 55% of eligible voters cast their vote. So.......there is no scenario under which your assertion makes sense.

 

You're just repeating yourself.

Like I said, this is devolving into disenfranchisement of the majority of the people.

Kinda the opposite of why we have elections...