With all of this talk about election fraud, has anyone considered this?

Who do YOU think won?

If it's Biden, what's with all the, if California fell in the ocean, Trump would only have lost by TWO MILLION VOTES (whoo-HOO)!

I thought you were the one saying vote tallies don't matter, anyway. But without California-- which would also deprive the U.S. with, I'm guessing, it's most productive agricultural state, and I wouldn't even call it a guess to say, the biggest-contributing state to U.S. GDP, and the country's tax base; and we can't leave out that, sans California, the U.S. also loses its world edge in technology-- Trump would also, STILL have lost the ELECTORAL COLLEGE vote (even with its Republican stilt). Do you have some point, other than to prove the extent of your partisan bias?

 

I would say he was the worst president ever, though likely the worst in modern history. There were definitely a few people who voted for him illegally, but still not any reason to think that voter fraud is widespread, regardless of on which side.

 

That's a very interesting theory; Trump likely may have anticipated more Russian assistance, from Putin.

If you won't mind my changing the topic, the thing that I find most striking about the Presidential election result was that, despite over 7 million more votes cast for Biden, Trump was shy by a total of only 44,000 votes, in the three states of Georgia, Arizona, & Wisconsin, from achieving an ELECTORAL COLLEGE TIE.

For me, nothing drives home, more succinctly, or with more urgency, the need for change in our electoral college system.

Had their been a tie, btw-- though I'm guessing you are more aware of this than some American posters-- the election would have been decided (or, at least, is supposed to be) by a vote in the country's House of Representatives: so the winner would not have changed.

But if anyone thinks this last transition was rough, or contested, or antagonistic, can you even imagine how that would have gone? And the same, elevated venom-levels would have, also, applied to the aftermath: to the lingering resentment felt by Trump supporters, and its disunifying force.

 

What do we do to stop having FLORIDA be one of the few controlling states, & sometimes the deciding one, in our Presidential elections? Sign me up for that.

(Apologies to any Florida posters who are proud of their state's choices).

 

I'm glad to hear that-- I'd thought you'd been serious! For those not intimately familiar with your posting personality, what was supposed to be the tip-off?

 

Actually a tie vote is decided by state legislature which is majority Republican. Each state would vote thus Trump would win a tie.

 

Florida is becoming a Republican state as Cuban Hispanics are becoming more Republican and the Republican party had a massive newly registered voter gain in the last election there where Democrats hardly added any new voters. If Democrats don't turn things around they may lose Florida for a very long time. Florida also gained electorial votes per 2020 census.

 

Democrats seem to think those 7 million extra votes mean something but all of them came from California and New York, 2 already solid blue states and do nothing for them with the EC.

As you stated Biden barely won in several states. The Democrats need to try and win over more states if they want to win more elections.

You all say those counties don't matter but they sure did help us win alot of house seats. California and New York will only give you all so many seats at the table. Most of the remaining seats you have to earn.

 

People matter which is why we have the EC. So every voice is heard.

Still losing the majority of America and then bragging you (another member) had 7 million extra votes is not even funny. Those 7 million extra votes did nothing for you all. They did nothing for the house, the Senate or the EC because they came from states that are already blue.

There is nothing wrong with trying to win more voters but that won't happen for Democrats as long as they keep hating on white people.

 

You are incorrect: a failure to get a majority in the electoral college leads to a vote in the U.S. H o R.
How would your method even work? Every state legislature would have to take up the measure (& I would imagine some would not even be in session, at the time), & vote, with that state's 1 vote going to whichever candidate gets the most votes in its legislature? Then, person with the most states, wins?

I think you are confusing this with the procedure that any individual state uses, when it cannot validate its own, state vote-count.

 

Actually I heard this from several people and news media who know alot about politics. I used to think it was the speaker of the house.


https://www.270towin.com/content/electoral-college-ties/

If there is a tie it goes to the house of representatives with each state having 1 vote. Republicans have the majority of states.

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog...e-chance-of-a-tied-2020-presidential-election

Here is some history on tie votes...

This site explains it better and calls them state delegations which 26 are Republican 24 are Democratic. The vice president would be decided by the Senate.

I was wrong about the state legislater deciding but that's what other people have said.

 

There is an inconsistency between these two statements, despite their being part of the same post, w/ only one short, intervening sentence.

The TWO things you are actually saying, are: 1) that any people above those needed to provide a majority/winning total of votes for a Democratic candidate, in a, "Blue State," DON'T matter (they yield nothing in additional representation; they are meaningless, as per the DESIGN of the Electoral College system);

2) but the votes of people in sparsely-populated states, count MORE, even, than do those of the Blue-state voters before the cutoff level: they are awarded a higher ratio of representatives to constituents &, since the EC total for each state is determined by their number of representatives, this gives them an over-sized say in the presidential choice, as well. All this is aside from the fact that they are guaranteed parity with all other states, in the Senate.

We have identical understandings of these facts. The difference is in the conclusions we draw from them. You advocate that Democratic politicians should change their views, & shortchange their base supporters, in attempts to pander to these elite-status, non-coastal western, mid-western, & southern voters. Even failing to consider the element of gerrymandering, in those states whose voters you suggest Dems should emphasize chasing-- in which Democrats can and have received a majority of the vote for state legislature & walked away with nothing close to an even sizable minority, in those state bodies-- yours seems, to me, like a losing strategy, not just in regards to winning elections, but in that it would require that politicians go,"all in," with abandoning principles, speaking out of both sides of their mouths, operating in bad faith, lying, & not fighting for the overall best interests of all their constituents, with the already-visible, future result being a great increase in people seeing pols as untrustworthy and giving up their interest in participation in the governing process, which was meant to be the heart of the American democratic experiment.

To me, it seems far more advisable to revisit the rules which have resulted in such an unequal weighting of people's votes & proportional representation. To be clear, I'm not against the principal of small states being given some consideration to prevent their voices being silenced by larger states. But having the same number of Senators as the largest of states, does provide them that way to make their own concerns central, in any national debate. Additionally, since this number of Senators (two) are part of each state's Electoral Vote total, but populous states gain no advantage here, this alone can be thought of as padding the importance of less-populous states, in presidential voting. But what has really supercharged any individual state's EC concessions, has been the way these states, almost to a one, vote the same way in presidential elections, so COMBINE their advantages.

Taken together, this seems to be more than a sufficient degree of favoritism, being shown to rural states, in the interest of, "fairness," in order to avoid a lopsided system. When we add over-representation in the House, as well, which, of course, increases the proportional inequity in the Electoral College, we have gone too far because, in taking precautions against some future injustices, we have created, instead, in our system, the type of unfair lopsidedness, we'd been attempting to prevent.

 

Oh yes, I now remember you are right about that aspect: each state, through the federal House of Reps, gets just a single vote, for its entire delegation of representatives.

So, then, IMAGINE THAT, fellow-posters; the reality that would have been, if not for a paltry 44k (and 1) votes!

So let's get our butts in gear, on this. There actually is, already, a system that's developed and got us nearly 3/4 of the way there to a, de facto, National Popular Vote for President-- and it would need no Congressional approval!

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

 

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

This is how National popular vote works. It is just a compact, between states that sign on to it, to award all their electors to whichever candidate wins the popular vote. At present, the states taking part represent 196 electors. Once states with a total of 74 more electors join
(75 to rule out ties), we will have, for all intents & purposes, a popular election for our President.

Though this was not my first thought, as far as voting reform-- I prefer the truer democracy of proportional allotment in a given state (which could then maintain their, scaled-back but reasonable, small-state,"handicaps"), and I especially like the potential benefits for fostering third party candidates, offered by ranked-choice voting-- but one thing at a time. Let's get the quick fix, to avoid taking the bullet, that we so recently dodged. There's no reason ranked-choice voting couldn't be part of presidential voting. But that would take time, & it's more reasonable to believe that those types of things get going on a local level, first, then percolate up the chain.

So check out the link to see which states are part of the electoral vote agreement. Is yours among them? If not, the site offers an easy way for you to encourage it to join.

If thinking about Trump still running things, in charge for (at least) the next four years doesn't motivate you, what will?

 

I think this thread belongs in the Satire section. I don't think anyone actually believes any of this.

 

And?? What is that supposed to mean. Bush 43 won by only +3 million votes in 2004 and John Kerry came far closer to winning than Trump did in 2020. So, there's that.

So, this sophomoric "well take out this state and that state that I don't like and gee, look how well my loser did" theory is just that: sophomoric.

 

Wrong, wrong and wrong, as usual on your part.

The national popular vote is merely a composite, but gives us an idea of how the ENTIRE nation is feeling.

Second, Biden did not win "by" 80 million votes. "By" refers to margin, and Biden's margin was +7.1 million votes (+4.5%).

Biden also didn't win "with" 80 million votes ("with" refers to total raw votes), but rather, he won with 81.3 million, 1.3 million than you are probably thinking.

Facit: you are really, really bad at this and the more you write, the worse it gets. Education can cure your very severe case of ignorance.

So, let's go through all of this like I would teach a class of small children, because that seems to be more your speed:

There was an election on November 3rd, 2020. Because of a raging pandemic, there was lots more early and absentee balloting than ever before, it took a number of days to count all the votes. When all the votes were correctly counted, verified, certified by the respective Secretaries of States of the various states (plus DC), the following results were sent to congress and officially recorded:

Democratic nominee and now CURRENT President Joe Biden won with 81,285,571 (81.3 million, correctly rounded) out of 158,584,425 total votes casts, which makes for 51.26% of the entire raw vote throughout the 50 states and DC.

FORMER President Donald Trump lost with 74,225,038 (74.2 million, correctly rounded) votes out of the same national sum total of 158,584,425 votes, which makes for 46.80% of the entire raw vote throughout the 50 states and DC.

The remaining 3,073,816 (3.1 million votes, corrently rounded) went to 3rd, 4th, scatter and write-in candidates, accounting for 1.94% of the same national sum total of 158,584,425 votes

This gives President Biden a +7,060,533 (+7.1 million, correctly rounded) raw vote margin over the former guy, which translates to a +4.45% (+4.5%, correctly rounded) winning percentage margin.

Joe Biden fairly won the electors from 25 states plus DC plus NE-02, giving him 306 EV. Trump won 25 states plus ME-02, giving him 232 EV. Therefore, Biden won in the electoral count by +74 electors, 36 more than needed to at least hit 270. Joe Biden is also only the 3rd Democrat since 1948 (the beginning of the nuclear age) to win over 51% of the national popular vote, alongside Lyndon Baynes Johnson and Barack Obama (who won with over 51% twice in a row). A Republican nominee has not won over 51% of the national popular vote since 1984. In fact, since 1988, 32 years time, a Republican has been under 50% for 7 of those 9 cycles: Bush 1992, Dole 1996, Bush 2000, McCain 2008, Romney 2012, Trump 2016 and Trump 2020. That's a pretty sad track record, to say the least.

You can scream and shout and pout like a 1st grader all you want for all I care, but what you cannot do is rewrite history. So, enough of this malarkey. Learn to debate like an adult, is my suggestion to you, because what you write would not even pass in the 2nd grade.

 

It's possible with the Senate picking the VP we could have had Trump and Harris. I'm not sure how that works but that would have been a nightmare for both parties.

 

Well that would depend on when the Senate would vote, which I would assume would have been much closer to the actual election (had the result been a tie) than to the seating of the newly-elected members (not to mention that Dems still only had 48 Senators until the later, Georgia run-offs). So that bizarre scenario, of Pres. Trump & VP Harris, would never had occurred.

Maybe there is even some force of nature, or universal physics-- like the one involved that supposedly allows only forward time-travel, not backward-- that would alter events, in real time, to prevent that combination.

 

Any voter fraud is too much.

In our system the State Legislature sets the rules for national elections in their State. The AZ Senate has conducted a preliminary investigation and determined that a full audit is necessary in order to ensure that they have regulations and procedures in place that will ensure a Free and Fair election in in 2022 and beyond.

Arizona Senate Hires Team to Audit 2020 Presidential Election in Maricopa County.

This is what's needed.

A report will be issued at the conclusion of the audit.

This is all that anyone asked for.

 

It certainly does. Look at Florida. Biden raced to an early lead, then somehow Trump won. Even stranger, he won the voted of latino voters despite attacking them. According to Trumper logic this is compelling proof of fraud. Sure, there are lots of 'fact' explaining all this, but they are no match for cherry picking and assertions. Those things are 'proof', while 'facts' only exist when you agree with them.

 

And yet you remain silent whe nso many right wing threads start that way. What herculean self control.

 

And yet you remain silent when your lefty buddies do it...what herculean hypocrisy.

 

I didn't offer the judgement. That was you. Guess we know what that makes you.