Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
254
Views

Re: Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

254 Views
Message 31 of 58

@Moscow45 wrote:

The Democrats have learned nothing. Do you see the candidates running for President? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are **bleep** socialists. They actually brag about supporting wealth taxes and other propoals that we are unable to pay for.

 

According to them, 


Hey Jimmie!  Welcome to the forum.  Good luck to you.

 

You claimed according to "them", "Bernie and Elizabeth" anyone who becomes rich is a crook"  Really?  They both said that?  Maybe you can reference an exact quote and post the reference here.  Otherwise, it sure would be quite lame of someone to falsely make a claim like that without proof.  Ya know?  Maybe we should just leave the lies for the Cult Leader...... Ya think?


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
254
Views
Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
256
Views

Re: Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

256 Views
Message 32 of 58

The Democrats have learned nothing. Do you see the candidates running for President? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are **bleep** socialists. They actually brag about supporting wealth taxes and other propoals that we are unable to pay for.

 

According to them, anyone who becomes rich is a crook and owes a debt to society. 

“If you’re good at something, never do it for free.”
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
256
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
388
Views

Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

388 Views
Message 33 of 58

The following comment is unbelievable.

 

"Apparently they do not understand how we elect out President and why we have the Electoral College...  Without it California alone would decide who the President is for all 50 states."

 

The current archaic system essentially makes voters in every state, except the dozen or so swing states, irrelevant. If you don't live in a swing state, your vote essentially doesn't matter. That's why presidential candidates spend almost all of their time in swing states. 

 

In a true democracy, the president should be elected by the will of the people. If we go to the popular vote, everybody's vote would count, because the state you live in wouldn't matter. 

 

The Swing States

Colorado

Florida

Iowa

Michigan

Minnesota

Ohio

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Wisconsin 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
388
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
366
Views

Re: Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

366 Views
Message 34 of 58

@jimc91 wrote:

Apparently they do not understand how we elect out President and why we have the Electoral College...

 

Without it California alone would decide who the President is for all 50 states.

 

The current process works as it was designed.  

 

As usual, the dimms want to change the rules because they have no message that resonates in most of the states but does in California...

 

How can you folks not understand this and accept it as being a very fair process for all citizens in all states.  One person one vote with persons in all states having a say.

 

The smart dimms know that a voter in Wyoming's vote has far more weight than a voter in California.  Those ignorant of the facts claim they are equal.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
366
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
365
Views

Re: Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

365 Views
Message 35 of 58

Apparently they do not understand how we elect out President and why we have the Electoral College...

 

Without it California alone would decide who the President is for all 50 states.

 

The current process works as it was designed.  

 

As usual, the dimms want to change the rules because they have no message that resonates in most of the states but does in California...

 

How can you folks not understand this and accept it as being a very fair process for all citizens in all states.  One person one vote with persons in all states having a say.

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
365
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
452
Views

Re: Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

452 Views
Message 36 of 58

@KidBoy2 wrote:
williamb39198 posted..

Try this:


One Person, One Vote!

The main objective of a Free People, a Free Electorate, and a Free Society.



Appropriate for every Individual Citizen


================================================================
FYI We have that.

Actually, Trump won the electoral election but lost the popular vote, I guess that means it is NOT one person one vote or he would not be sitting in the White House.  

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
452
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
447
Views

Re: Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

447 Views
Message 37 of 58

@KidBoy2 wrote:
As Richva brought up the EC and JANMB And williamb39198 made their posts about it if they want to learn about the EC this is a good read..if they care.




https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-09/electoral-college-affirmative-action-rural-states

Opinion: No, the electoral college isn’t ‘electoral affirmative action’ for rural states
Electoral college
Andres Ramos collects the ballots cast by the California members of the electoral college at the state Capitol in Sacramento, on Dec. 19, 2016.(Los Angeles Times)
By JOHN W. YORK
OCT. 9, 2019 3 AM
Attacks on the electoral college are nothing new, but there’s no question that it’s been under heavier fire than usual lately. Presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke have all said they want to scrap it. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has repeatedly tweeted against it as well.

“Every vote should be = in America, no matter who you are and where you come from,” she said. Ocasio-Cortez went on to argue that the electoral college allows smaller, rural states outsized influence over the presidential election process, claiming it is akin to “electoral affirmative action.”

But how much does the electoral college really advantage smaller states?

It does overrepresent some states and underrepresent others, relative to their share of the population. Yet the skew is slight and did nothing to tip the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.

Each state is given electoral college delegates equal to the combined number of its U.S. senators and representatives. Thus, every state — no matter its share of the overall population — is guaranteed at least three electoral college delegates. This means a few states with very sparse populations do get overrepresented.

For instance, Wyoming’s three electoral college delegates account for about one-half of 1% of the 538 electoral college votes. However, the state’s 564,000 residents (as of the last census) are only 0.1 percent of the U.S. population.

Meanwhile, the most populous states are somewhat underrepresented. For instance, the nearly 40 million Californians account for approximately 12% of the U.S. population while their state controls a little over 10% of the electoral college votes.

California and Wyoming, as the most and least populous states, illustrate the biggest gaps between electoral college representation and proportion of the population. In every other case, the differences are much smaller. In every state but California, Texas and New York, a state’s share of electoral college delegates and U.S. population is within one-half of 1% of the population, according to my calculations.

Even in the aggregate, these representation gaps would not have been a determining factor in the last presidential election. Indeed, if we eliminated these gaps, giving smaller states no additional representation — and if each state awarded all of its electoral college votes in winner-take-all fashion — Trump would have won in 2016 by 12 percentage points, my analysis showed.

The reason Trump was able to win the presidency while losing the popular vote has nothing to do with “affirmative action” for rural states. It has everything to do with the way states choose to apportion their delegates.

Every state, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine, awards all of its electoral college delegates to the candidate who wins the plurality of the votes — less than 50% but more than any other candidate — in their state. This is sometimes called a winner-take-all or “first past the post” system.

Under the Constitution, states can apportion their delegates as they please. The reason more states do not adopt systems like Nebraska and Maine — which each award one electoral college vote to the winner of each congressional district while giving two bonus electors to the statewide winner — differs for swing states and safe states. Among those likely to be swing states, awarding the maximum number of electoral college votes to the statewide winner ensures outsized attention from presidential candidates. For reliably safe states winner-take-all elections confer maximum advantage to the candidate favored by the clear majority of the state’s population (and, likely, the state’s elected officials).

More sensible liberal critics of the electoral college focus on this system’s tendency to exaggerate the importance of swing states. As Warren and others have pointed out, presidential candidates rarely visit deep-red or deep-blue states. They focus the majority of their time and money on states such as Ohio and Florida, which have a close partisan balance and a fair number of electoral votes. The importance of each individual voter in these states is greatly magnified because a voter’s odds of determining the statewide winner (and, in turn, the winner of all the state’s electoral college votes) is comparatively high.

But every state — whether largely rural or densely populated, coastal or interior, ethnically diverse or homogeneous — has a chance to become a swing state. As populations and attitudes shift, so does the presidential battleground map. Over the last five presidential elections, 34 of the 50 states have been swing states (i.e. won by single digits) at least once.

If the U.S. were to abandon the electoral college in favor of a national popular vote, the same few cities would be the focus of the battle for the White House every cycle. Given that they have limited time and money, presidential candidates of both parties would be foolish to waste their energy anywhere but the most densely populated urban centers. This is where the largest concentration of voters are, so racking up the votes in these areas would be the overwhelming focus of any election.

Under a national popular vote, cities like Los Angeles and New York, which already dominate our country’s economic and cultural life, would thoroughly and perpetually dominate electoral politics as well. Avoiding such an outcome does not translate to affirmative action for rural areas.

It is a nod to a historical reality: When large swaths of a vast country feel they have been forgotten, dark days are likely to be on the horizon.


============================================================

Even in the aggregate, these representation gaps would not have been a determining factor in the last presidential election. Indeed, if we eliminated these gaps, giving smaller states no additional representation — and if each state awarded all of its electoral college votes in winner-take-all fashion — Trump would have won in 2016 by 12 percentage points, my analysis showed.

Each state has two Senators...using the logic (if you want to call it that) states like CA would have many Senators and small states would have one...like it is with our US House.

The E C makes sense in so many ways. We have been through this and no one has been able to give a logical reason why we should do away with the EC...our founding fathers had it right.

I would bet that JANMB and williamb39198 would not be crying if the table was turned and Ms Clinton had fewer votes but had won because of the EC !!!

WOW. Somebody is over compensating.  Facts are facts and Trump won the Electoral College. Just pointing out that he lost the popular vote by several million Americans.  Don't be so sensitive. 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
447
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
442
Views

Re: Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

442 Views
Message 38 of 58
As Richva brought up the EC and JANMB And williamb39198 made their posts about it if they want to learn about the EC this is a good read..if they care.




https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-09/electoral-college-affirmative-action-rural-states

Opinion: No, the electoral college isn’t ‘electoral affirmative action’ for rural states
Electoral college
Andres Ramos collects the ballots cast by the California members of the electoral college at the state Capitol in Sacramento, on Dec. 19, 2016.(Los Angeles Times)
By JOHN W. YORK
OCT. 9, 2019 3 AM
Attacks on the electoral college are nothing new, but there’s no question that it’s been under heavier fire than usual lately. Presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke have all said they want to scrap it. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has repeatedly tweeted against it as well.

“Every vote should be = in America, no matter who you are and where you come from,” she said. Ocasio-Cortez went on to argue that the electoral college allows smaller, rural states outsized influence over the presidential election process, claiming it is akin to “electoral affirmative action.”

But how much does the electoral college really advantage smaller states?

It does overrepresent some states and underrepresent others, relative to their share of the population. Yet the skew is slight and did nothing to tip the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.

Each state is given electoral college delegates equal to the combined number of its U.S. senators and representatives. Thus, every state — no matter its share of the overall population — is guaranteed at least three electoral college delegates. This means a few states with very sparse populations do get overrepresented.

For instance, Wyoming’s three electoral college delegates account for about one-half of 1% of the 538 electoral college votes. However, the state’s 564,000 residents (as of the last census) are only 0.1 percent of the U.S. population.

Meanwhile, the most populous states are somewhat underrepresented. For instance, the nearly 40 million Californians account for approximately 12% of the U.S. population while their state controls a little over 10% of the electoral college votes.

California and Wyoming, as the most and least populous states, illustrate the biggest gaps between electoral college representation and proportion of the population. In every other case, the differences are much smaller. In every state but California, Texas and New York, a state’s share of electoral college delegates and U.S. population is within one-half of 1% of the population, according to my calculations.

Even in the aggregate, these representation gaps would not have been a determining factor in the last presidential election. Indeed, if we eliminated these gaps, giving smaller states no additional representation — and if each state awarded all of its electoral college votes in winner-take-all fashion — Trump would have won in 2016 by 12 percentage points, my analysis showed.

The reason Trump was able to win the presidency while losing the popular vote has nothing to do with “affirmative action” for rural states. It has everything to do with the way states choose to apportion their delegates.

Every state, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine, awards all of its electoral college delegates to the candidate who wins the plurality of the votes — less than 50% but more than any other candidate — in their state. This is sometimes called a winner-take-all or “first past the post” system.

Under the Constitution, states can apportion their delegates as they please. The reason more states do not adopt systems like Nebraska and Maine — which each award one electoral college vote to the winner of each congressional district while giving two bonus electors to the statewide winner — differs for swing states and safe states. Among those likely to be swing states, awarding the maximum number of electoral college votes to the statewide winner ensures outsized attention from presidential candidates. For reliably safe states winner-take-all elections confer maximum advantage to the candidate favored by the clear majority of the state’s population (and, likely, the state’s elected officials).

More sensible liberal critics of the electoral college focus on this system’s tendency to exaggerate the importance of swing states. As Warren and others have pointed out, presidential candidates rarely visit deep-red or deep-blue states. They focus the majority of their time and money on states such as Ohio and Florida, which have a close partisan balance and a fair number of electoral votes. The importance of each individual voter in these states is greatly magnified because a voter’s odds of determining the statewide winner (and, in turn, the winner of all the state’s electoral college votes) is comparatively high.

But every state — whether largely rural or densely populated, coastal or interior, ethnically diverse or homogeneous — has a chance to become a swing state. As populations and attitudes shift, so does the presidential battleground map. Over the last five presidential elections, 34 of the 50 states have been swing states (i.e. won by single digits) at least once.

If the U.S. were to abandon the electoral college in favor of a national popular vote, the same few cities would be the focus of the battle for the White House every cycle. Given that they have limited time and money, presidential candidates of both parties would be foolish to waste their energy anywhere but the most densely populated urban centers. This is where the largest concentration of voters are, so racking up the votes in these areas would be the overwhelming focus of any election.

Under a national popular vote, cities like Los Angeles and New York, which already dominate our country’s economic and cultural life, would thoroughly and perpetually dominate electoral politics as well. Avoiding such an outcome does not translate to affirmative action for rural areas.

It is a nod to a historical reality: When large swaths of a vast country feel they have been forgotten, dark days are likely to be on the horizon.


============================================================

Even in the aggregate, these representation gaps would not have been a determining factor in the last presidential election. Indeed, if we eliminated these gaps, giving smaller states no additional representation — and if each state awarded all of its electoral college votes in winner-take-all fashion — Trump would have won in 2016 by 12 percentage points, my analysis showed.

Each state has two Senators...using the logic (if you want to call it that) states like CA would have many Senators and small states would have one...like it is with our US House.

The E C makes sense in so many ways. We have been through this and no one has been able to give a logical reason why we should do away with the EC...our founding fathers had it right.

I would bet that JANMB and williamb39198 would not be crying if the table was turned and Ms Clinton had fewer votes but had won because of the EC !!!
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
442
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
447
Views

Re: Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

447 Views
Message 39 of 58
JANMB posted...

KidBoy2 I could ask the same of you.....did you learn anything from the 2016 Election ?



Our elections are FIXED and McConnell and Trump are in denial. . All of our Security agencies agree that Russia inteferred with our election and Trump and his kids were part of the scheme.

Trump won the Electoral College with 304 votes compared to 227 votes for Hillary Clinton. Seven electors voted for someone other than their party’s candidate. BUT Hillary won the POPULAR vote by 2.8 million votes. To sum it up Donald Trump lost the general election to Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes and won the Electoral College by 74 votes OUR ELECTIONS ARE FIXED.... it isn't ONE VOTE -ONE COUNT.



Did you learn if Trump is President or do you call His Majesty, Czar Donald ? Trump has flagrantly abused his power. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to constrain or remove him, but we all have learned Republicans mainly support him. For instance, did you learn that he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.?

It's OKAY to admit you were wrong....and let go of early convictions. To start supporting candidates who have shown to be patriotic, have shown intelligence and it will be most likely the DEMOCRATIC PARTY what will make America great again after this fiasco we went through

======================================================

You state as fact " OUR ELECTIONS ARE FIXED.... it isn't ONE VOTE -ONE COUNT" You are so wrong and with the mind set of the left I am not surprised.



What a rant that does not have a thing to do with the EC. You sound like many on the left that just can not get over the fact that your side lost the election.


The E C makes sense in so many ways. We have been through this and no one has been able to give a logical reason why we should do away with the EC...can you? You just showed you can not but thanks for your post...it was very telling.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
447
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
462
Views

Re: Did the Dimms learn anything from the 2016 Election?

462 Views
Message 40 of 58

@KidBoy2 

Not with the EC. Citizens votes are weighted towards smaller population states. As per your statement, we do not have Citizen equality, rather Citizen inequality. 

 

One person, One vote...that does not exist with the EC. 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
462
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Now until February 11, play this classic game online at AARP. Get in the game and play now.


jeopardy for aarp logo

Top Authors