What kind of party does this?

Until republicans have poo pooed the popular vote since they have been consistantly losing it, it was a valued statistic.

If it wasn't, why bother publish it? That fact alone disproves your point.

Furthermore....

Given the fact that in only five times in history has the national popular vote not coincided with the EC, it's an incontrovertible fact that they designers assumed the popular vote would coincide with the EC the vast majority of the time, which has, indeed, been the case, and by that measure, they valued the popular vote. The few times that it might not have, they deemed, would be the price they were willing to pay for the advantages of an EC.

You see, not winning the popular vote is seen as a price, which means they would rather not pay it, most of the time, and by that fact, they valued the popular vote. Any argument to the contrary cannot refute this fact.

This idea that the popular vote is meaningless is only a concept being promulgated by right wingers who, in the last few decades, have failed to win the popular vote.

Moreover, if the popular vote wasn't valued, then why did Trump make up the lie that the 3000 he lost to Clinton were 'illegal aliens' and the 7 million he lost to Biden were 'fraudulent' ?

Make no mistake, ALL politicians except republican losers value the popular vote. The popular vote is used for ALL elections except for that of the president.

Therefore, America values the popular vote.

that is the salient point, which your comment does not refute.

 

Discuss away, I don't care about opinions, on the whole, I care about what you can back up.

 

How can you answer a question with an absurd premise?

By answering it with another question with the flip of that absurd premise, which I did.

And then more explain to the absurdity of your question, which i did.

I noticed that you didn't notice.

 

The tyranny of the majority is only an 'absurd premise' if you expect all the people to change their morals and values to match that of the majority.

They won't, of course.

Thus, the tyranny of the majority is a valid problem with democracy and one that warrants discussion. Is it possible to have such a discussion with you? Or do you reject that people will not alter their values and morals to go along with the whims of the 51%?

...or do you simply not care about the morals and values of the minority?

 

Disprove the following articles, and I will.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/trump-files-donald-sick-infant-medical-care/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...child-medical-bills-family-feud-a6795131.html

https://www.mhpbooks.com/the-time-d...hews-sick-baby-off-the-family-insurance-plan/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dical-care-nephews-severely-disabled-son.html

https://www.salon.com/2020/06/16/tr...ing-dispute-over-inheritances-report_partner/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/what-sort-of-man-is-donald-trump

and there's more, but why bother?

Oh, if you want to argue 'not for greed' but for 'revenge' ( which is just as bad), no, because he got his father's will to exclude his dead brother's estate, because of greed (meaning he was not happy with 1/5th his father's estate, he wanted 1/4), which prompted Mary's (the heiress) lawsuit, which prompted the revenge move on the kid.

Thing is, the prime mover is greed. And, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that any billionaire that would do that, does not care about you, me, or anyone else but Donald Trump

Sorry, it's true. Deal with it.

 

There are many threads on the shenanigans your party has resorted to to get votes. You are certainly right to criticize the reps, but you are not pointing with clean hands.

 

The point being that in my 71 year on this earth, the only time I've been hearing/seeing people on the right declare 'America is not a democracy' is about when they started consistently losing the popular vote.

Of course it is. Why? Because the president's win stats are published two fold: The EC and the popular vote, though the popular vote doesn't effect the EC, if they don't agree. Thing is, they always publish it. Why? Because people want to know.

Why do the want to know? Because it's a valued stat, has been for centuries.

To say that the popular vote is the '50 state popular votes' doesn't change anything.

Why? Because when they publish the popular vote as a singular stat, it's all the states totals added to one tally.

In other words, the popular vote is inclusive of the states tallies. They are not different.

Your point, therefore, indeed, is a meaningless statement, which is what a red herring is.

Additionally, no one is stating that the 'popular vote' is a 'federal vote' (which is what you are implying by using the term 'national').

 

Well, if your mosquitoes bite like crazy, and mine don't, and yours outnumber mine by about 10,000 to 1, I'd say my mosquitoes are better than yours ( if you live in FLA).

 

I cannot speak to your experiences in your 71 years. In my 53 years, I have heard the notion that we are a Democratically elected Constitutional Republic since I was taught as much in college. Most people also call this a Democracy, and the only times in MY 53 years that I have seen someone make that distinction is when they are delineating it from the notion of a direct or pure Democracy (where the public directly votes on everything), which we undeniably are not.

Yeah they publish yards gained in the football box score too, that doesnt however mean that yards gained are somehow a reflection of who is the true winner. To point to it being mentioned is a weak argument to say the very least.

The notion of a popular vote is nothing other than a statistic. As with sports, some people opt to dive into statistics, but make no mistake, the only statistic that matters is who wins, and statistics DO NOT determine who wins.

Nobody sets their campaign strategy to maximize their popular vote. They only strategize to win the electoral college. A great many Republicans in California do no bother to show up to the polls, just as many Democrats in Alabama do not show up as well. If popular vote were the standard, due to differing strategies and whom turns out where, results would undeniably be different. For you to focus upon this meaningless statistic is nonsensical.

I remember vividly prior to 2000 when Bush took a late lead in a few polls a couple days prior to the election, there were a few days where the Democrat talking point was that Gore was going to win Electorally regardless of the popular vote, and I was also told in 16 that Regardless of tightening popular vote polls, Trump had no path to 270. Do you remember that term? I surely do. "He had no path to 270". I say this to mean that it is not written in stone that if the popular vote and electoral vote diverge that it will automatically be Dems winning the popular vote. It could just as easily go the other way, and the fact it has happened twice in recent decades is about as revealing as flipping a coin and it landing on heads twice in a row. Anecdotal evidence that has a sample size of 2 basically means nothing.

With that being said, your claim that Republicans try changing their positions because of losing the popular vote twice recently and winning is silly. They do not care. It is a meaningless statistic. It is truly as meaningless as saying a football team was outgained slightly but still won. Nobody cares, other than the fans of the losing team that seeks to excuse away their loss. Both sides strategized to win, and your side did not succeed.

There is nothing more to be said on the subject.
-

 

Because everyone here paying attention can see straight through your agenda.

 

And you have proof of these millions of illegally cast ballots? I’ll wait.

 

Thats funny. Florida's state bird is the mosquito! The blood sucking politicians I am referring to are no better. California shows your blood suckers to be a bit worse.

 

america is not a democracy, its a 'parliamentary democracy', you elect lawyers to represent you and they do the talking, you get to gripe and bitch about it.

true its not, because of the middleman.

dont blame them, its 2 sides of the same coin, what the right does not do the left does and vice versa

 

Go back and read what I wrote. Then come back and apologize for putting words in my mouth.

 

Then perhaps you can tell me what it is. None of this anything to do with an agenda. Why do you put words in my mouth?

 

Are you suggesting that you don't have right to that opinion?

 

Words have meanings and nuances. Look up "connotation"and "denotation".

 

Except nobody is doing that.

 

When people imply that somehow 2000, and 2016 is somehow less legitimate because Republicans lost the "popular vote", or they pretend this statistic has any actual impact to politics in general, that is precisely what they are doing, and this happens quite frequently. For proof, simply read the conversation of mine in which you just inserted yourself.

 

So you don’t believe millions of illegal votes were cast?

 

Well the fact of the matter is that unless you win the popular vote you cannot truthfully say you have a mandate from the people.

 

LOL. You just got done claiming that "nobody is doing that", now you are a shining example of what you just said nobody is doing.

We have 50 individual state elections where the vote totals in those states determine who wins that state. We do not have one national election where we total up the votes. The mythical popular vote literally means nothing. The only true mandate is whether or not your side has the votes necessary to pass their desired legislation and whether they can cajole enough from the other side to garner the necessary votes. That is what a mandate truly is.

 

Sorry but the popular vote shows who the citizens want to be POTUS, the EC elects the POTUS in spite of the will of the people.

 

So would you agree that you are pushing the notion of a national election and dismissing the notion that there are actually 50 individual state elections?

 

What's your point?