Some of my less learned posters need a primer on impeachable offences.

[Truth Detector]

Why bother? All he and most Democrats show on this board is that they are far from the "learned" ones.

There is nothing "learned" about the Progressive leftist ideology.

 

[domer76]

Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

Just as I thought. You couldn't find my post.

You're a fucking liar.

 

[Flash]

That is a fair argument for why we need the electoral college, but it is not an argument that suggests the Will of the majority of Americans is the result.

Neither is the popular vote.

 

[domer76]

Neither is the popular vote.

The popular vote is one helluva lot closer to the will of the people than the electoral college.

 

[Flash]

The popular vote is one helluva lot closer to the will of the people than the electoral college.

I disagree. The electoral college winner has usually also won the popular vote--so there is no difference. When the electoral college winner lost the popular vote it has been by a very small margin.

2016: 2.09
2000: 0.51
1888: 0.83
1876: 0.2

I don't think a winning margin of 0.2%-2.09% shows a very big difference in the "will of the people."

 

[domer76]

I disagree. The electoral college winner has usually also won the popular vote--so there is no difference. When the electoral college winner lost the popular vote it has been by a very small margin.

2016: 2.09
2000: 0.51
1888: 0.83
1876: 0.2

I don't think a winning margin of 0.2%-2.09% shows a very big difference in the "will of the people."

"Usually"

Pennsylvania – 44,292; 0.62%
Wisconsin – 22,748; 0.7%
Michigan – 10,704; 0.23%
Nation – 2,868,86; 2.09% (Clinton)

 

[Flash]

"Usually"

Pennsylvania – 44,292; 0.62%
Wisconsin – 22,748; 0.7%
Michigan – 10,704; 0.23%
Nation – 2,868,86; 2.09% (Clinton)

Trump could have lost MI and WI and still won the electoral vote; or, both PA and WI and still won.

How is it the "will of the people" when the winner only won 39.65% of the popular vote? Over 60% voted against the winner. But the 59.4% of electoral votes makes the winner more legitimate.

All those presidents who won the electoral college and won the popular vote by less than a majority had a majority of people vote against them but the electoral college majority made their presidency more legitimate since they won a majority of electoral votes.

 

[domer76]

Trump could have lost MI and WI and still won the electoral vote; or, both PA and WI and still won.

How is it the "will of the people" when the winner only won 39.65% of the popular vote? Over 60% voted against the winner. But the 59.4% of electoral votes makes the winner more legitimate.

All those presidents who won the electoral college and won the popular vote by less than a majority had a majority of people vote against them but the electoral college majority made their presidency more legitimate since they won a majority of electoral votes.

It doesn’t change the fact that 78,000 votes decided the presidency. Clinton’s vote total came closer to the will of the people than any other candidate. Certainly Trump.

No amount of rationalization on your part changes that.

 

[Flash]

It doesn’t change the fact that 78,000 votes decided the presidency. Clinton’s vote total came closer to the will of the people than any other candidate. Certainly Trump.

No amount of rationalization on your part changes that.

I'm not rationalizing it. My point is that the "will of the people" stuff is just emotional rhetoric to create sympathy for a cause. If you want to say the person with the most votes should win you've got a much better point. But when a majority vote against the winning candidate (which can happen in almost all elections in the U. S.) that is not the the will of the people. To get that we would have to require a majority to win and that would require a costly run-off.

Actually, in most presidential elections the will of the people does not get expressed since Americans are famous for voting for the "lesser of two evils." That was especially true in 2016 when both candidates had a negative approval rating.

 

[domer76]

I'm not rationalizing it. My point is that the "will of the people" stuff is just emotional rhetoric to create sympathy for a cause. If you want to say the person with the most votes should win you've got a much better point. But when a majority vote against the winning candidate (which can happen in almost all elections in the U. S.) that is not the the will of the people. To get that we would have to require a majority to win and that would require a costly run-off.

Actually, in most presidential elections the will of the people does not get expressed since Americans are famous for voting for the "lesser of two evils." That was especially true in 2016 when both candidates had a negative approval rating.

Better reread my post.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

I'm not rationalizing it. My point is that the "will of the people" stuff is just emotional rhetoric to create sympathy for a cause. If you want to say the person with the most votes should win you've got a much better point. But when a majority vote against the winning candidate (which can happen in almost all elections in the U. S.) that is not the the will of the people. To get that we would have to require a majority to win and that would require a costly run-off.

Actually, in most presidential elections the will of the people does not get expressed since Americans are famous for voting for the "lesser of two evils." That was especially true in 2016 when both candidates had a negative approval rating.

We would never have to vote for the lessor of two evils if we had national instant run off voting. And it would save money too because a run off election would never need to be held. Also called ranked choice voting. You simply vote for as many candidates as you like, just put them in order of preference.

The ballot counting is easy. First count, eliminate the one candidate who got the fewest votes. Then take the next preferred choice from the ballots cast for that candidate and do another tally. And so on until one remains.

 

[Into the Night]

It is fact, not a matter of opinion.

Not a fact. An argument. Learn what 'fact' means. It does not mean 'Universal Truth'. It does not mean 'proof'.

 

[Into the Night]

Only 11 elections closer on electoral votes.

77,000 votes in 3 states.

Loses by 3 million nationwide. Will of the people = Clinton

There are not 3 million people in the electoral college.

 

[Into the Night]

The will of the people is not the same thing as the majority?

Is it the will of the people when a majority vote against the winning candidate?

Irrelevant. The President is not elected by popular vote.

 

[Into the Night]

It doesn’t change the fact that 78,000 votes decided the presidency. Clinton’s vote total came closer to the will of the people than any other candidate. Certainly Trump.

No amount of rationalization on your part changes that.

Irrelevant. The President is not elected by popular vote.

 

[Into the Night]

Just as I thought. You couldn't find my post.

You're a fucking liar.

No, that would be you. People have better things to do than look up posts that you made that you deny later.

 

[Into the Night]

The popular vote is one helluva lot closer to the will of the people than the electoral college.

Irrelevance fallacy. The President is not elected by popular vote.

 

[Into the Night]

It doesn’t change the fact that 78,000 votes decided the presidency. Clinton’s vote total came closer to the will of the people than any other candidate. Certainly Trump.

No amount of rationalization on your part changes that.

There are not 78000 people on the Electoral College.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not rationalizing it. My point is that the "will of the people" stuff is just emotional rhetoric to create sympathy for a cause. If you want to say the person with the most votes should win you've got a much better point. But when a majority vote against the winning candidate (which can happen in almost all elections in the U. S.) that is not the the will of the people. To get that we would have to require a majority to win and that would require a costly run-off.

Actually, in most presidential elections the will of the people does not get expressed since Americans are famous for voting for the "lesser of two evils." That was especially true in 2016 when both candidates had a negative approval rating.

The people do not elect the President of the United States.

 

[domer76]

There are not 3 million people in the electoral college.