All Things Trump: the story continues...

[Cunt]

I understand you see it as a flaw.

We have different conclusions again, unsurprisingly.

[pErvinalia]

What's your conclusion? How would we know? You don't present any arguments. It's all just JAQing off.

[Cunt]

My conclusion is that it was not a flaw.

Democracy doesn't sound good to small populations. At least the ones that I know. Wasn't there something about 4 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner?

[Cunt]

[pErvinalia]

My conclusion is that it was not a flaw.

Democracy doesn't sound good to small populations. At least the ones that I know. Wasn't there something about 4 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner?

Sounds like 2 rednecks and 4 educated people voting on the leader of the free world.

[Cunt]

Right, but the rednecks were deliberately given more value, as voters, than the city-folk who produce...differently.

It's not a flaw, it was the plan.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, and it's anti-democratic. As Jim said.

[Cunt]

That IS correct.

The states can be democratic, and get along via the republic.

Democratic sounds good, but wasn't was was made there.

[Joe]

Right, but the rednecks were deliberately given more value, as voters, than the city-folk who produce...differently.

It's not a flaw, it was the plan.

Nonsense. The smaller states in 1787 were no more "redneck" than the large states, they just had less population and the US was a primarily agrarian confederacy of former colonies. The industrial revolution was in it's infancy in the new world and the elites were mostly plantation owners, bankers, and shipping magnates. The census of 1790 recorded just shy of 4 million people in the states and territories, and only 6 cities had over 10,000 people, The largest was New York with a little over 33,000. Most people lived in the country.

Moreover, the Constitutional convention wasn't creating a country from scratch, but remaking a federal government that was ineffective. The small states already had equal voting power with the large states under the government at the time. They weren't given an equal vote in the Senate as part of any plan - it was a compromise to get them to agree to the new arrangement. They horse-traded proportional representation in the House to keep their power in the Senate.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but you should kick that BS to the curb and crack one of the many excellent history books that are out there and form an educated opinion.

And BTW, if you think red state people are all "rednecks" and "hillbillies," you might want to consider the fact the most county seats in red state counties are bigger than Yellowknife. What kind of yokel does that make you.

[Seabass]

Right, but the rednecks were deliberately given more value, as voters, than the city-folk who produce...differently.

It's not a flaw, it was the plan.

Wrong, Cunt. You're always wrong, Cunt. That's not why the EC was created.

Would it kill to just do a bare minimum amount of research? It really isn't that difficult.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral- ... convention
https://time.com/4558510/electoral-coll ... y-slavery/

[Seabass]

than the city-folk who produce...differently.

What does this mean by the way?

[JimC]

My conclusion is that it was not a flaw.

Democracy doesn't sound good to small populations. At least the ones that I know. Wasn't there something about 4 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner?

Is that meant to be a rational argument against a voting system where there are major discrepancies between the vote value of different people? Particularly a system skewed towards conservative and whiter voters, and away from black people?

[Hermit]

Right, but by the numbers, one hillbilly opinion is worth about 5.8 New York City opinions.

Roughly, I mean.

Roughly true, yes. The following figures are somewhat out of date, but the proportions would not be much different to the present.

In New York it takes 620,229 voters for each of its 31 Electors it sends to Washington. I don't know which states you regard as hillbilly states, but in Alaska it takes 218,478 voters for each of its 3 Electors it sends to Washington. That means each Alaskan vote is worth 2.8 New Yorker votes. The uneven weighting is almost entirely due to every state having had two Electoral College votes allocated before Electoral College votes are added in proportion to each state's population. The weighting is significant because states with smaller populations tend to be more rural and conservative.

Without the flagfall Electoral College votes it would take somewhere between 6.3 and 7.7 thousand votes for each elector, which is much closer to 'one vote, one value' than the present system. The systematic advantage of conservative voters would be all but wiped out.

My conclusion is that it was not a flaw.

Democracy doesn't sound good to small populations. At least the ones that I know. Wasn't there something about 4 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner?

The present system is akin to 1 wolf telling 4 sheep what's for dinner. I know which metaphor illustrates a greater flaw.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Funny how, after smashing Hillary, he gained millions of votes over the next four years.

Still lost to Biden and his charming 'diversity hire' program, but he DID gain a lot of votes while presidenting.

Best to ignore the fact that much of the country agreed with him though. Much more sensible to ban him from all social media, and pretend everyone always hated him.

The dishonesty in that post is pathetically transparent. As usual.

Hint and innuendo. Great tools!

I did more than hint. I stated outright that your post was dishonest. As for innuendo, you flatter me. I had no subtle subtext in mind--I called it as I saw it.

However, I will apologise. I assumed dishonesty, disregarding a significant alternative provenance. It's completely possible that the post was ignorant and delusional instead.

The voting turnout for the 2020 US presidential election was notably higher than previous presidential elections. The voters were more motivated, and I do give Trump the primary credit for that. He convinced a larger number of regressive knuckleheads to get off their arses and go to the polls in the 2020 election to support him. He also convinced an even greater number of relatively sensible people to get off their arses and go to the polls to kick him out of the White House.

There was no 'smashing' Clinton in the 2016 election. Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million. He squeaked by in some crucial swing states--approximately 80,000 votes going the other way, and he would have lost. 80,000 votes is a razor thin margin in an election in which approximately 129 million voters participated.

Biden, despite thoroughly trouncing Trump in the popular vote, won the 2020 election by a fairly thin margin as well. A swing of 276,000 votes in vital swing states would have given it to Trump.

Speaking of 'innuendo,' the sneering blather about 'diversity hire' denotes nothing but desperation to find something to try to detract from Biden's victory. As I noted in February of last year when the 'smart money' was discounting Biden's chances, he did strongly in polls through the primaries, and later in the run-up to the general election. Choosing Harris as his VP didn't hurt Biden's prospects, but he was doing well enough on his own and his was the name at the top of the ticket--a clear alternative to four more years of Trump.

The claim that anybody is 'pretending' that 'everyone always hated' Trump is, again, either blatantly dishonest or thoroughly delusional. Nobody here has ever claimed that, because nobody here is that out of touch with reality. I think you would be hard put to find anybody elsewhere making that claim either.

I will endeavour to be more generous in future and acknowledge the possibility that what I perceive as dishonesty may be something else, albeit something more or less as ignominious as dishonesty.

[Cunt]

Oooh - the 'popular vote'. That one that doesn't count in the US.

I knew you must have something clouding your outlook.