So when Trump wins the popular vote on election day, but then Biden wins ...

Sorry, mistook your response to be Bluesguy's. You had quoted from my response to him, and I responded as if it were him.

 

I have already noted that such significance will be up to individuals since that would be one of subjective value. It would only become of objective value if the popular vote initiative went into effect.

Personally, given that we have had 19 presidents elected without the majority popular vote and 4 of those without winning the popular vote, I would place winning the popular vote over having the majority in terms of significance of the view/opinion of the people as a whole. But as noted, that is my subjective view.

Any particular reason you didn't address the first part of the post, that Trump also failed to have the majority?

 

I've been asking YOU.

Given that a plurality in the popular vote can easily result in a situation where 60-70-80% of the electorate did not vote for the President... why?

Simple: Its irrelevant to my point, as YOU were talking about Hillary "winning" the popular vote, without a majority of same.

 

The Democrats have a history of continuing to "find", and counting, ballots until they win. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Washington_gubernatorial_election#Discovered_ballots for one example.

 

If by some fantastic statistical quirk Trump won the popular vote while losing in the electoral college, Moscow Mitch would push a bill through congress eliminating the electoral college immediately. Luckily there is no chance of Trump winning the popular vote.

 

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's wrong. Even 538 says Trump has an 11% chance of winning the popular vote.

 

Debate minus 75 minutes

 

Nate Silver plays his cards closey

We need a change from this orange bullcrap

 

No you haven't.

That is a generalized question that asks for the overall significance. If you wanted to have me address it for my opinion then you should have asked, "Is the fact she had more votes than Trump more or less significant to you than the fact she did not have a majority?" But regardless I did already give my opinion as well.

It's doesn't matter how many didn't want a given person, especially when there is more than two available to choose from. What matters is who gets the most votes. If there are three people in a close race, then they are going to get 33%, 33%, and 34%, just using round numbers for the examples sake. the person who got 34% wins. From your logic, neither Hillary nor Trump got the majority therefore neither should have won.

Winning something doesn't always require getting the majority of whatever. Sometimes it's just the most, as per the definition of the word.

Hillary did have the majority. 50%+.1 only works if the options are limited to two. Such is not the case in the vast majority of our elections.

 

I gave you a clear example. How about you proving that had there been a national campaign and a single national polular vote in 2016 the results would have been

Clinton 65,844,610
Trump 62,979,636

Me>>
Conflating 51 totally unique and separate state elections and then claiming that that is the same result had we had those national campaigns,

That's exactly what you are saying if not then please explain what you ARE saying.

Why would you have state primaries if there is going to be a national vote, have one big national primary. We wouldn't be voting by states anymore so nominating some one based on state votes is not going to give you a nominee who wins a national popular primary. You still don't grasp that they are two totally different vote patterns.

I am pointing out that a popular vote is nothing but a inconsequential trival number it has nothing to do with winning the Presidency or the legitmacy of a President and is not even an accurate reflection of what a national popular vote would produce so saying someone won a national popular vote or they didn't is folly, we've never had one.

Well first you are going to have to get around the Constitution and the states that have signed on so far are the easy ones, now they've got the get the hard ones to sign on and that is no different than trying to get small states to give up the EC. And I can well imagine that if if was in place now and Trump won a tally of all the state elections some of those states like California and Oregon and New York would suddenly have second thoughts and a change of mind. What would stop them from suddenly pulling out?

Well yeah ya did

 

Thanks for playing.

 

Post #?

Since I have never made this claim, why would I try to prove it? This is your strawman. Show me where I made such a claim.

The national popular vote is a result of all the state popular votes, which results from the voting districts popular votes. Once at the state level, the popular vote is translated into electors for the purpose of then selecting the POTUS and VPOTUS (If I read correctly, an elector is not required to cast their votes for both running mates.) The numbers themselves are still added up to show what the national popular vote was. While it may seem to be a trivial number to you, it obviously holds plenty of significance in many areas, given that we have been tracking such since elections have begun.

YOU are the one who is making the strawman that I claim that we are having a singular national election, and that the national popular vote derives from that. My claim that the national popular vote exists does not come with that claim of origin that YOU keep adding in. You have yet to cite me at any time claiming that we have a singular national election. I cannot help that YOU are the one imposing this origin upon my statement. I have repetedly stated what the popular vote is.

From Wikipedia:

Look, I'll even state it explicitly here and now. There is no single national election where the direct votes of all the nation's citizens are used to directly elect the POTUS and VPOTUS. That doesn't mean that the popular vote, on any level, does not exist. It's existence and it's usage are two separate things.

Once more strawman. None of that is my claim. 'Nuff said.

That (bold only) is still an opinion. I have never denied that the popular vote is not used to determine the winner, and have explicitly stated as much several time. Why you can't grasp that I have outright said the opposite of what you claim I said is beyond me. You have yet to show how a singular national election would results in a different outcome of voting, in comparison to our current system. You just keep claiming it would. Post number please if you think you have. I'm willing to go look it up, and not require you restate it. I'm just not going to try to hunt for something that isn't there.

You would think that if these laws were unconstitutional, lawsuits would have already been filed, and the cases in court.

Depends on how you want to define suddenly. Given that these are law and not a change to the state constitutions, they have all the "revoke-ability" of any other law. Short of a court ruling such a law unconstitutional (either by that state's or the US'), the repeal would have to go through the entire law making process. I am making no claim on the permanency of these laws.

Since both were/would be amendments, would they not have the same level of ease or difficulty, as you prefer, in their passing? My wording did not claim that it would be easy, but that it would be AS easy as any other amendment. Do you not understand comparative statements?

 

It will be better for the USA if Trump loses both personal votes and mail-in ballots by an avalanche.

Donald Trump is well past his use-by date.

 

Can you deny that she had the majority of the popular vote, by definition? Since the popular vote is not used to determine the president, there is no legal restriction to say that such majority has to be 50%+1 or 2/3 majority.

The EC has to reach 50%+1 votes in order to elect a president. That's a defined majority for that result. Twice that majority was just barely reached; Hayes with exactly 50%+1, and George W. Bush with 1 extra spare vote above the 50%+1. John Quincy Adams didn't even get that, and had to be elected in by the House. Amendments require a 2/3 majority, another defined for that result majority. So what defines the popular vote majority to be anything other than what I highlighted in the definition above?

 

Myself and lots of others in my state who did not vote for Trump last election because he was going to win anyway but will now. Close elections bring more voters out, landslides to one side or the other limit.

It IS you claim that adding up all the state votes is A, THE national popular vote. That is a fallacy it is NOT a national popular vote it is 51 unique and separate votes and that tally does NOT tell you what A, THE national popular vote would were there one. It is a meaningless number.

Again political and statistical folly. And see bolded you keep denying you stay that and then you say it.

It is not a strawman it is fact, you keep claiming there is a THE national vote, a THE national election. Those do not exist in our country.

Yes it does mean that, until there is ONE national campaign, ONE big primary, the ONE big general election there is NO ONE popular vote and claiming the result of tallying up those 51 popular votes that do occur would be the same as if we voted in a ONE national popular vote is folly.

See above and your conflict, you claim we don't vote in a national popular vote but one exist anyway.

It hasn't come to fruition yet.

The votes are in and the citizens of California suddenly see all their electoral votes are going to Trump when Biden won their state 70 - 30 and they have second thoughts and say NOPE our votes will go to our winner. What then? What court would enforce it, would even hear it where would they file it. I bet the federal court would say not our problem. Is there even some signed agreement between the states? Well that makes it unconstitutional unless the Congress of the United States approves, Article I, Section 10, Clause 3

And of course as soon as one state has second thoughts the whole thing falls apart. Pass a Constitutional amendment and do it properly instead of finding some technical way to skirt the Constitution and make a HUGE fundamental change to our government.

No it would not be as easy, you'd have to convince the smaller states to give up the balance of representation they have and allow the few larger states determine who will be President. Ain't gonna happen.

We are NOT a Democracy, we are a Federal Republic of STATES and that is why we have been so successful and have existed as we have all these many years.

 

Still a claim. Where is the proof? You saying it is not proof. You said you already proved it. What post did you do that in?

First what does "a the" mean?

It is a strawman because you are assigning a meaning to the term I am using which is not the meaning that I am actually using that I have explained repeatedly. You are trying to say that merely by saying that there is a national popular vote, that it must somehow come from a national election as opposed to 51 separate elections. I have never made that claim, have denied that claim, and you keep insisting that I am claiming that.

PROVE something that is a subjective value, such as is a folly, is somehow a objective fact. You keep using the term as if your OPINION is fact. IF it is fact, then you can prove such is a folly. Where is your proof? I accept that YOU and others find such a folly. But unless you can prove that EVERYONE in the country save me agrees with you, then all you have is a widely agreed upon opinion.

Finally, the 51 separate elections are commonly called the US presidental election. It still doesn't mean that there is a single national election that uses only the votes of the people to determine the winner. You can keep asserting that lie all you want, but your strawman fails each time.

There are multiple popular votes. There are ones for all of the individual voting districts, there are state popular votes, and there is the national popular vote. These are all numbers that we have been tracking since this country started holding elections for POTUS. Your opinion on whether these are folly or not, and my opinion on whether they are significant or not, in no way affects the existence of these popular votes. These numbers show how many people factually cast what vote for which candidate in the given area. These numbers do NOT in any way shape or form indicate how people would have voted instead had the election been of a different type. No claim has been made to that effect.

Fact: Donald Trump received 62,984,828 votes from individual citizens across the country. This number does not reflect how they would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes from individual citizens across the country. This number does not reflect how they would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Gary Johnson received 4,489,341 votes from individual citizens across the country. This number does not reflect how they would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Jill Stein received 1,457,218 votes from individual citizens across the country. This number does not reflect how they would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Evan McMullin received 731,991 votes from individual citizens across the country. This number does not reflect how they would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Darrell Castle received 203,090 votes from individual citizens across the country. This number does not reflect how they would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Gloria La Riva received 74,401 votes from individual citizens across the country. This number does not reflect how they would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Bernie Sanders received 111,850 votes from individual citizens across the country and received 1 EC vote from a faithless elector. This number does not reflect how they would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: John Kasich received 2,684 votes from individual citizens across the country and received 1 EC vote from a faithless elector. This number does not reflect how individual citizens would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Ron Paul received 124 votes from individual citizens across the country and received 1 EC vote from a faithless elector. This number does not reflect how individual citizens would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Colin Powell received 25 votes from individual citizens across the country and received 3 EC vote from faithless electors. This number does not reflect how individual citizens would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Faith Spotted Eagle received 0 votes from individual citizens across the country and received 1 EC vote from a faithless elector. This number does not reflect how individual citizens would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: 760,210 votes from individual citizens across the country were cast for other candidates but received no EC votes. This number does not reflect how they would have voted if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Total 136,669,276 votes from individual citizens across the country. This number does not reflect how they would have voted, nor how many would have turned out if the current Electoral College was not in place.
Fact: Clinton received the majority (per MW definition 1C, not definition 1A, as shown in a previous post) of the popular vote across the country. That in no way shape or form reflects what each individual state's popular resulted in, nor how many individual states she won the popular vote in.

The existence of how many people voted how in the current system in no way shape or form indicates how they would vote under a different system. YOU are the one who keeps trying to put the strawman in of how I am claiming how the factual numbers of the popular vote under the current system somehow indicates how people would have voted in a different system. Show me, with evidence, where any one of my facts are wrong.

The national popular vote is not the same thing as a national election. That is your strawman. I am making no such claim. The national popular vote would be the same thing (not necessarily the same results) regardless of the system. It is the total number of people who voted (not the number eligible to vote), and who they voted for. As simple as that. Why you insist on conflating this with unrelated things is beyond me.

The laws have passed in several states. The simple fact that these law have written in them that should x conditions apply from other states it then goes into effect should be enough to file suit for Constitutional violation of the Compact Clause.

They would be stuck with it for that year. It would certainly be appealed right on up to SCOTUS. That assumes it doesn't get previously struck down under the Compact Clause. I find it highly unlikely that the California legislature could revoke the law once the votes were in, and if the law isn't struck down prior to the election, they'd never get it through the court system in a single day. Less really, since they wouldn't see the potential results prior to Central time zone closing its polls, and probably not even until Mountain zone does.

I'm not supporting the initiative. As I have already noted, a given state could vote 100% for a single candidate, and then have all their votes invalidated because of the law. It would be different if it were based upon the given state's popular vote. I am praying that it never passes, but the potential is there currently, and cannot be ignored.

So how easy are you assuming that it was to pass the other amendments?

I've never claimed otherwise. World record for a democracy is 200 years. We have surpassed that and I personally believe that it is because we are a republic and run on rule of law and not majority rules. The popular vote even serves to reflect that, as we can see when someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC.

 

Please explain why it is a bad idea in Washington and Oregon for the past 20 years.

 

Republicans are way better at cheating.

What you need, and don't have, is evidence of significant levels of cheating in a presidential election. As the director of the FBI said recently, we've never seen that.

 

Yet another statement you chose to make, regardless of the fact you know it is not true.

 

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Why do I "need" that?

 

Are they doing mass ballot mail outs to people who didn't request a mail in ballot?

 

Fox News seems to think the national popular vote is relevent

 

I can speak for Oregon. Oregon mails out ballots to every registered voter. It's automatic. I get one every election.

 

I gave you a perfect example, me. But it is YOUR claim that tallying up the 51 completely different and unique votes produces the same result as if there was one big national campaign and one big national vote. Prove it.

"A" national vote, "The" national vote. Both of which are myths.

The strawman is that there is a national popular vote. There has never been a national popular vote. The strawman is adding up all the 51 separate and unique state elections produces a national popular vote.

There is no objective value to this national popular vote you claim exist.

The 51 separate and unique state elections are merely a step in the process that isn't even required, the EC elects the President

There as popular votes in the winner take all states, there is no national vote and you have never participated in a national vote

It is in place and there are no direct votes let alone in a national election for President and the VP.

I am the calling you on your attempts to conflate 51 separate votes into a different system and calling it that. Prove that the results would be the same.

It's not the same because there is no national election and no national vote in one. We only vote in STATES, why is that so difficult for you?

YES as I said it has NOT come to fruition and in order for it to do so you have to get enough states to sign on and then get Congressional Approval and again one if one pulls out at that last moment because it isn't going their way?

What would be appealed to SCOTUS, it's not a federal law, I would imagine they would point to the Constitution and say the state legislature can do what it wants. I would not be surprised at all if seeing that in spite of an overwhelming vote for a Biden in California but the polls show Trump actually winning, and because of the California electors they renege. What would be the penalty if they did.

Then why are you trying to defend so much?

I'm saying this one.

And there you go again with the mythical national popular vote.

 

So what?