American Politics XIV: The Dawning of the Age of the Pumpkin

[Kazak Yeli]

The vast majority of Kazakh people feel like that.

Is that based on official polls?

Personal experience.

[Ifreann]

"Classified documents"?! Oh my god! Has Trump kept the nuclear launch codes or the secret password to Fort Knox?

Trump probably would have kept the nuclear launch codes if he could have. Not that his codes would be valid any more, one would hope, but he'd totally want that as a souvenir to show off to important visitors to his golf club.

[Big Jim P]

I suppose we all collectively deserved Trump then, because we collectively elected him once.

He lost the popular vote.

Irrelevant.

[Ifreann]

He lost the popular vote.

Irrelevant.

Very clearly relevant to the claim that "we collectively elected him". Collectively, you did not. Insofar as the American electorate had any say, they expressed a preference for Clinton.

[Tarsonis]

I suppose we all collectively deserved Trump then, because we collectively elected him once.

He lost the popular vote.

Technically, so did Clinton. She failed to garner a majority of the vote.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Rockefeller should have been the 1968 nominee and won with George Romney as the VP. I think he was more liberal leaning than his son Mitt.

What about this instead?

Also yes. Although we get Obama 4 years later.

[San Lumen]

If there was a mental test for political candidates in order to run for the US Senate, Herschel Walker would not be the Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia. Period.

Seriously, there needs to be a litmus test to run for office!

What kind of test? The South tried that and it was so confusing or difficult it was nearly impossible to pass.

[San Lumen]

He lost the popular vote.

Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all. he lost the popular vote by 3 million., The electoral college could have done their job and overturned the result but they chose to be partisan hacks. Perhaps it would have caused a constitutional crisis and motivated Congress to finally pass a constitutional amendment to eliminate a system that is a relic of slavery and no longer serves its original purpose.

He lost the popular vote.

Technically, so did Clinton. She failed to garner a majority of the vote.

No she did not. you get the most votes you should win. end of story.

[Kannap]

Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all. he lost the popular vote by 3 million., The electoral college could have done their job and overturned the result but they chose to be partisan hacks.

The electoral college did it's job. It's irrelevant that he lost the popular vote because we don't decide the President based on a popular vote system (whether or not we should is a different conversation). He won the electoral vote and the electoral college did its job by confirming that result and putting him in office. How is you demanding they should have overturned that result in 2016 any different than Trump demanding they should have overturned Biden's win in 2020?

Perhaps it would have caused a constitutional crisis and motivated Congress to finally pass a constitutional amendment to eliminate a system that is a relic of slavery and no longer serves its original purpose.

Have you seen the state of Congress? They can't pass laws by a simple majority, you expect them to get the votes necessary - for something that would deliberately end Republican presidential chances - to pass a constitutional amendment?

No she did not. you get the most votes you should win. end of story.

In a popular vote, certainly. The President is decided by electoral vote via the electoral college though.

He lost the popular vote.

Technically, so did Clinton. She failed to garner a majority of the vote.

Only entertaining this idea because, as Big Jim mentioned, the popular vote for the Presidency is irrelevant to the system in place. But popular votes in the United States are mainly by plurality, look at Senate elections for example. In most Senate races, of course, the plurality is also the majority because most winners win by a majority. But you only need a plurality to win. We don't know what a popular vote system for the Presidency would exactly look like because it doesn't exist, but one could assume it would maintain the standard plurality system meaning whoever wins the most votes wins the election. Hillary won the popular vote, but Trump won the electoral vote. The former one is irrelevant because we determine who wins based on the latter.

[Tarsonis]

Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all. he lost the popular vote by 3 million., The electoral college could have done their job and overturned the result but they chose to be partisan hacks. Perhaps it would have caused a constitutional crisis and motivated Congress to finally pass a constitutional amendment to eliminate a system that is a relic of slavery and no longer serves its original purpose.

Technically, so did Clinton. She failed to garner a majority of the vote.

No she did not. you get the most votes you should win. end of story.

You don't get to day "end of story" just because you don't want to be contested. Clinton only received 48.2% of the vote. That's not a majority. More people voted "against" Clinton than voted for her.

[San Lumen]

Not irrelevant at all. he lost the popular vote by 3 million., The electoral college could have done their job and overturned the result but they chose to be partisan hacks. Perhaps it would have caused a constitutional crisis and motivated Congress to finally pass a constitutional amendment to eliminate a system that is a relic of slavery and no longer serves its original purpose.


No she did not. you get the most votes you should win. end of story.

You don't get to day "end of story" just because you don't want to be contested. Clinton only received 48.2% of the vote. That's not a majority. More people voted "against" Clinton than voted for her.

I guess you have an issue with Beshear being Governor in Kentucky as well. he did not win 50 percent of the vote.

[Tarsonis]

Not irrelevant at all. he lost the popular vote by 3 million., The electoral college could have done their job and overturned the result but they chose to be partisan hacks.

The electoral college did it's job. It's irrelevant that he lost the popular vote because we don't decide the President based on a popular vote system (whether or not we should is a different conversation). He won the electoral vote and the electoral college did its job by confirming that result and putting him in office. How is you demanding they should have overturned that result in 2016 any different than Trump demanding they should have overturned Biden's win in 2020?

Perhaps it would have caused a constitutional crisis and motivated Congress to finally pass a constitutional amendment to eliminate a system that is a relic of slavery and no longer serves its original purpose.

Have you seen the state of Congress? They can't pass laws by a simple majority, you expect them to get the votes necessary - for something that would deliberately end Republican presidential chances - to pass a constitutional amendment?

No she did not. you get the most votes you should win. end of story.

In a popular vote, certainly. The President is decided by electoral vote via the electoral college though.

Technically, so did Clinton. She failed to garner a majority of the vote.

Only entertaining this idea because, as Big Jim mentioned, the popular vote for the Presidency is irrelevant to the system in place. But popular votes in the United States are mainly by plurality, look at Senate elections for example. In most Senate races, of course, the plurality is also the majority because most winners win by a majority. But you only need a plurality to win. We don't know what a popular vote system for the Presidency would exactly look like because it doesn't exist, but one could assume it would maintain the standard plurality system meaning whoever wins the most votes wins the election. Hillary won the popular vote, but Trump won the electoral vote. The former one is irrelevant because we determine who wins based on the latter.

While true the Popular vote isn't as irrelevant as some would say. History has shown, with that if you win a majority of the vote, you'll win the presidency. If a candidate fails to garner a majority of the popular vote, the EC comes much more into play. if a candidate fails to garner a majority of the EC vote, then the House decides.

Checks on check on checks

[Tarsonis]

You don't get to day "end of story" just because you don't want to be contested. Clinton only received 48.2% of the vote. That's not a majority. More people voted "against" Clinton than voted for her.

I guess you have an issue with Beshear being Governor in Kentucky as well. he did not win 50 percent of the vote.

State elections don't have the same rules. But if Kentucky wants to install its own mini EC, more power to them.

[San Lumen]

I guess you have an issue with Beshear being Governor in Kentucky as well. he did not win 50 percent of the vote.

State elections don't have the same rules. But if Kentucky wants to install its own mini EC, more power to them.

That isn't a response. Beshear didn't win a majority of the vote. Why don't you have the same issue with that election as you do with the presidency?

A change of only about 80000 votes or so would have meant Trump wins a second term despite losing the poplar vote by seven million. That would have been neither fair or democratic.

[Tarsonis]

State elections don't have the same rules. But if Kentucky wants to install its own mini EC, more power to them.

That isn't a response.

Yes it is.

Beshear didn't win a majority of the vote. Why don't you have the same issue with that election as you do with the presidency?

Cause Kentucky law doesn't mandate a majority vote winner for governor. The US Constituon does mandate a majority winner for the Presidency. The two are not thr sane and I don't have to feel the same way about both. That requirement exists only in your mind.

A change of only about 80000 votes or so would have meant Trump wins a second term despite losing the poplar vote by seven million. That would have been neither fair or democratic.

But he didn't, now did he.

[San Lumen]

That isn't a response.

Yes it is.

Beshear didn't win a majority of the vote. Why don't you have the same issue with that election as you do with the presidency?

Cause Kentucky law doesn't mandate a majority vote winner for governor. The US Constituon does mandate a majority winner for the Presidency. The two are not thr sane and I don't have to feel the same way about both. That requirement exists only in your mind.

A change of only about 80000 votes or so would have meant Trump wins a second term despite losing the poplar vote by seven million. That would have been neither fair or democratic.

But he didn't, now did he.

The electoral college is a stupid undemocratic system that gives land area more weight than votes and should be abolished. It no longer serves its original purpose. The electors should have overturned the result in 2016 and caused a constitutional crisis.

But he nearly did.

[Kannap]

The electors should have overturned the result in 2016 and caused a constitutional crisis.

You sound exactly like Trump, didn't he want an election overturned too?

[Tarsonis]

Yes it is.


Cause Kentucky law doesn't mandate a majority vote winner for governor. The US Constituon does mandate a majority winner for the Presidency. The two are not thr sane and I don't have to feel the same way about both. That requirement exists only in your mind.



But he didn't, now did he.

The electoral college is a stupid undemocratic system that gives land area more weight than votes and should be abolished. It no longer serves its original purpose.

This has been debunked 9 ways from Sunday in this thread. That you prefer to stamp your feet and cry foul rather than educate yourself on how the US government actually operates doesn't change that.

The electors should have overturned the result in 2016 and caused a constitutional crisis.

We can add this to the growing list of ill advised things you keep saying should happen.

But he nearly did.

horse shoes and handgrenades.

[Ifreann]

Not irrelevant at all. he lost the popular vote by 3 million., The electoral college could have done their job and overturned the result but they chose to be partisan hacks. Perhaps it would have caused a constitutional crisis and motivated Congress to finally pass a constitutional amendment to eliminate a system that is a relic of slavery and no longer serves its original purpose.


No she did not. you get the most votes you should win. end of story.

You don't get to day "end of story" just because you don't want to be contested. Clinton only received 48.2% of the vote. That's not a majority. More people voted "against" Clinton than voted for her.

The claim was that Americans collectively elected Trump. Clearly they did not. That Clinton won under 50% of the vote is immaterial to that claim.

[Tarsonis]

The electors should have overturned the result in 2016 and caused a constitutional crisis.

You sound exactly like Trump, didn't he want an election overturned too?

Contrary to his bloviating, San doesn't actually care about democracy, as has been demonstrated multiple times. He only cares about what helps Democrats stay in power. If the 2016 roles were reversed, he'd be lauding the brilliance of the EC

[San Lumen]

You sound exactly like Trump, didn't he want an election overturned too?

Contrary to his bloviating, San doesn't actually care about democracy, as has been demonstrated multiple times. He only cares about what helps Democrats stay in power. If the 2016 roles were reversed, he'd be lauding the brilliance of the EC

A Democrat has never won the electoral college and lost the popular vote and I doubt one ever will. Its a dumb system that should have been abolished long ago.

[Tarsonis]

Contrary to his bloviating, San doesn't actually care about democracy, as has been demonstrated multiple times. He only cares about what helps Democrats stay in power. If the 2016 roles were reversed, he'd be lauding the brilliance of the EC

A Democrat has never won the electoral college and lost the popular vote and I doubt one ever will. Its a dumb system that should have been abolished long ago.

Exactly. The only reason you attest the 2nd sentence is because the first sentence is true. You don't care about the EC because of some dearly held belief about democracy, you hate it because the Democrats have been the ones on the losing side of it.

You're not an ideologue, San, you're a partisan shill, you always have been, and I doubt that will ever change.

[Prima Scriptura]

A Democrat has never won the electoral college and lost the popular vote and I doubt one ever will. Its a dumb system that should have been abolished long ago.

Exactly. The only reason you attest the 2nd sentence is because the first sentence is true. You don't care about the EC because of some dearly held belief about democracy, you hate it because the Democrats have been the ones on the losing side of it.

You're not an ideologue, San, you're a partisan shill, you always have been, and I doubt that will ever change.

Would you concede that the reason why Republicans defend electoral college is because they lost the popular vote 2 out of 3 times they won a Presidential election?

[San Lumen]

A Democrat has never won the electoral college and lost the popular vote and I doubt one ever will. Its a dumb system that should have been abolished long ago.

Exactly. The only reason you attest the 2nd sentence is because the first sentence is true. You don't care about the EC because of some dearly held belief about democracy, you hate it because the Democrats have been the ones on the losing side of it.

You're not an ideologue, San, you're a partisan shill, you always have been, and I doubt that will ever change.

The electoral college is neither fair nor democratic. You have a different standard when it comes to state elections and im curious to know why.

I doubt you'd think it was a fair or democratic if Beshear lost the election in Kentucky because he did not win a majority of counties or state legislative districts.

[Tarsonis]

Exactly. The only reason you attest the 2nd sentence is because the first sentence is true. You don't care about the EC because of some dearly held belief about democracy, you hate it because the Democrats have been the ones on the losing side of it.

You're not an ideologue, San, you're a partisan shill, you always have been, and I doubt that will ever change.

The electoral college is neither fair nor democratic. You have a different standard when it comes to state elections and im curious to know why.

I doubt you'd think it was a fair or democratic if Beshear lost the election in Kentucky because he did not win a majority of counties or state legislative districts.

I already answered you. Don't spin us in circles because you don't want to admit the truth.