Republicans

[Forty Two]

Fair point, but the electorate voted for Trump. They did not vote for "not Trump." They did not vote for "long held conservative values" - Trump is not deviating from what he promised in the campaign. He's fulfilling his promises.

Once again, for the OpEd writer - the anonymous Republican Trump-Thwarting-Protector-of-Democracy - what has Trump done which threatens our Democracy or Democratic institutions? What has this OpEd person "thwarted" or helped thwart which is something other than a policy difference of opinion?

I submit to you that the OpEd writer identified exactly zero examples of those things precisely because there aren't any to give. He's not thwarted Trump from eliminating or destroying some democratic institution and he didn't thwart any impulse or inclination of Trump which posed a danger to democracy.

Or he was smart enough to know giving examples increased the risk of being identified, and there was no need for examples anyway, since a 488 page book full of examples and written by a reputable journalist was coming out today.

Now, those two things couldn't be related, could they?

Woodward's book provides examples of things Trump was inclined or impulsed to do which posed a danger to democracy or democratic institutions, and this op-ed writer (or part of his alleged cohort) thwarted?

Pray tell, what is a prime example or two?

[Forty Two]

3 million of the electorate voted for Hillary over Trump. But what you claim did happen, only the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, an 18th century relic, voted for Trump.

So what?

The system is basically set up that each State has x number of votes based on population, and there is no national election, just 50 state level elections. Win a state, get all that state's votes. The States elect the President, not the individual citizens. That's the system.

If the system were otherwise, the campaigns would run differently, they would campaign differently. The results would be different because the participants would play under different rules.

When you know it's 50 state-level elections, you prioritize which states you need to win. When it's one big election, then you prioritize where you get the most votes.

Example - with an electoral college, if you already have States A, B, and C in the bag, you don't dedicate more resources there to increase the spread of popular vote from say 55% to 70% in those states. You gain nothing by doing so. You would prefer to divert resources to States D, E and F where you may be losing by 3 or 5 points and try to make that ground up and flip the state. If it's a pure national vote, if you have more to gain vote-wise by adding resources to A, B, and C and trying to overwhelm those states, then you'll do that, and not worry about making up a smaller spread in closer states.

It cannot be said that the popular vote would remain the same if we just had a national vote system, becasue the systems are completely different.

The same is true for parliamentary systems where the PM is elected by the Parliament after the MPs are elected. The individual voter might be voting for Labour in district/riding A, but if he had a direct vote for PM instead of just voting for his local MP, he might choose a different person. The election would be different. When Theresa May gets elected by the majority party or coalition in Parliament, it's not the same as saying that she would have won that election if the individuals voted for PM instead of for their local party MP. Her election to PM is a function of party-politics, not electoral politics. Change the system to a direct election of PMs and there is a good chance she would not have become PM.

[Tero]

So you get corruption. All you have to do is turn 3000 black voters away in each major county. Because they were not registerd etc. Win a state by 30 000!

[Forty Two]

So you get corruption. All you have to do is turn 3000 black voters away in each major county. Because they were not registerd etc. Win a state by 30 000!

...or have the dead vote in Chicago and you have a Democrat as President. "There was a cemetery where the names on the tombstones were registered and voted. I remember a house. It was completely gutted. There was nobody there. But there were 56 votes for [John F.] Kennedy in that house." - Earl Mazo, reporter, New York Herald Tribune. Illinois state special prosecutor Morris Wexler indicted 677 election officials for election fraud. In 1962, an election worker for the Democrats confessed to witness tampering.

You can get corruption in a national election too.

[Tero]

Only republicans do it for real. And they can. Voter ID law. You vote for president and dog catcher on the same ballot.

[Tero]

No arguments, or problems issuing, photo ID in EU. It’s your free social security/insurance card.

[Joe]

Fair point, but the electorate voted for Trump. They did not vote for "not Trump." They did not vote for "long held conservative values" - Trump is not deviating from what he promised in the campaign. He's fulfilling his promises.

Once again, for the OpEd writer - the anonymous Republican Trump-Thwarting-Protector-of-Democracy - what has Trump done which threatens our Democracy or Democratic institutions? What has this OpEd person "thwarted" or helped thwart which is something other than a policy difference of opinion?

I submit to you that the OpEd writer identified exactly zero examples of those things precisely because there aren't any to give. He's not thwarted Trump from eliminating or destroying some democratic institution and he didn't thwart any impulse or inclination of Trump which posed a danger to democracy.

Or he was smart enough to know giving examples increased the risk of being identified, and there was no need for examples anyway, since a 488 page book full of examples and written by a reputable journalist was coming out today.

Now, those two things couldn't be related, could they?

Woodward's book provides examples of things Trump was inclined or impulsed to do which posed a danger to democracy or democratic institutions, and this op-ed writer (or part of his alleged cohort) thwarted?

Pray tell, what is a prime example or two?

So the media says, but you know you can't trust them. Pray tell, why don't you read it yourself and answer your own questions?

[Forty Two]

You're the one who said the book was "full of examples." I take it you don't know whether it does or not, correct?

You also said "now those things couldn't be related, could they?" - what makes you think they are related? Anything?

[Joe]

You're the one who said the book was "full of examples." I take it you don't know whether it does or not, correct?

And I also said "So the media says , but you know you can't trust them." I take it English isn't your first language.

You also said "now those things couldn't be related, could they?" - what makes you think they are related? Anything?

Here's another English lesson. Sentences that end in "?" are not statements of opinion.

Now, how about answering my question. Why don't you just read the book?

[Hermit]

3 million of the electorate voted for Hillary over Trump. But what you claim did happen, only the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, an 18th century relic, voted for Trump.

So what?

The system is basically set up [snip]

in such a way that - contrary to what you wrote in your previous post, to wit "the electorate voted for Trump" - the electorate voted for Clinton. The Electoral College, which the electorate did not vote for, voted for Trump. 46.1% of the popular vote resulted in Trump receiving 57.3% of the College vote, while 48.2% of the popular vote resulted in Clinton receiving 42.7% of the College vote.

[Hermit]

3 million of the electorate voted for Hillary over Trump. But what you claim did happen, only the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, an 18th century relic, voted for Trump.

So what?

The system is basically set up [snip]

in such a way that - contrary to what you wrote in your previous post, to wit "the electorate voted for Trump" - the electorate voted for Clinton. The Electoral College, which the electorate did not vote for, voted for Trump. 46.1% of the popular vote resulted in Trump receiving 57.3% of the College vote, while 48.2% of the popular vote resulted in Clinton receiving 42.7% of the College vote.

each State has x number of votes based on population

No, it has not. For example, while California has one electoral vote per 712,000 people, Wyoming has one electoral vote per 195,000 people. If the number of Electoral College votes were based on population the respective states should both have one elector for 712,000 people or one elector for 195,000 people. As it stands, each Wyoming voter is worth 3.65 Californian voter to the candidates.

[Brian Peacock]

Why not just add all the votes up and see who has the most?

[Seabass]

That would be too easy. We Merkins like a good challenge. Builds character...

[Hermit]

Why not just add all the votes up and see who has the most?

NOOOOOOO! It would mean the candidate electorate voted for would win the election! We can't have that!

[Forty Two]

You're the one who said the book was "full of examples." I take it you don't know whether it does or not, correct?

And I also said "So the media says , but you know you can't trust them." I take it English isn't your first language.

You also said "now those things couldn't be related, could they?" - what makes you think they are related? Anything?

Here's another English lesson. Sentences that end in "?" are not statements of opinion.

Now, how about answering my question. Why don't you just read the book?

Well, because I think the media did not, in fact, say that woodward’s book contained examples of what the op ed writer said he and his cohorts were doing. But you can always cite your source. Maybe it’s one I haven’t seen.

I will read the book eventually.

As for your question about “they couldn’t be related, could they?” I took your “question” as a figure of speech - meaning that you believed that they were related. If you really were literally asking me that, then sure they “could be.” But neither you nor I have read the book. So can some other publications coming out around now. They “could be” related. We don’t know.