Level Extreme platform
Subscription
Corporate profile
Products & Services
Support
Legal
Français
This sure helped Hillary, didn't it?
Message
From
13/12/2016 19:29:37
 
 
To
13/12/2016 19:02:40
John Ryan
Captain-Cooker Appreciation Society
Taumata Whakatangi ..., New Zealand
General information
Forum:
Politics
Category:
Elections
Miscellaneous
Thread ID:
01644975
Message ID:
01645074
Views:
36
>>>Is there any value at which you would say that, whether it's our historical system or not, the difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote is so large that it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the outcome?
>
>This focus on popular vote is a sophist invention to twist HRC's description of Trump undermining the republic, into a noble act when her own supporters do it. In Flyover country nobody is fooled- because there's no precedent for the latest definition of "popular vote" actually meaning "national tally." People should say what they mean: if people want president to be selected by national tally, they should say so. Until then, each state conducts a "popular vote" to elect representatives whose own "popular vote" then determines presidents and governments.
>
>Focusing on the newfound fascination with national tally instead of popular vote: there's no national tally for Republican vs Democrat in House or Senate. You get to vote for your state's representatives/senators. Popular vote prevails in your state or county: the candidate/s with most votes, wins. The same equation operates in House and Senate: popular vote (meaning the majority of elected candidates) prevails, controlling House or Senate. National tally is irrelevant.
>
>This is a direct parallel to voting for president. There's no national tally and you're not even voting for president. You're voting for your state's electoral college members. Popular vote prevails in your state: the majority wins. The college members then vote for president. Again, the majority prevails = popular vote.
>
>Sorry but agonizing over national tally for a system that doesn't work that way, seems a transparent device to legitimize protest about a winner because another competitor had a longer stride or took more breaths or any other measured statistic that has nothing to do with the rules to win that everybody had agreed in advance.

Excellent analysis!

* "We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. " -- Hillary Clinton (before she changed her mind)

.
Previous
Next
Reply
Map
View

Click here to load this message in the networking platform