Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's HBO Interview

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • c.d.
    replied
    One last try since I am probably doing a piss poor job explaining it. If Trump wins the popular vote in say California by even just one vote he wins all of California's 55 electoral votes. When the electoral college convenes, California's representative in the Electoral College is required by law to cast all of California's electoral votes for Trump. He can not change the election results in California. The same goes for all the other members of the electoral college. They have to cast their votes for the candidate who won the popular vote in their state not the candidate who got the most popular votes overall in the country.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Thankyou c.d.

    Now I get it, and it doesn't seem all that Democratic to me.

    Also, thankyou RJ.
    But Wick England has a similar System, parts A can win 51%of the seats by a handful of votes each, lose the others by a landslide and still form government.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Hello Wick,

    Not sure where your confusion lies. Trump won the election because he got more electoral votes than Clinton. I think you have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win. The states have a different number of electoral votes to cast and they all go to the winner of that state which is decided by the popular vote. So if Trump won a particular state even by just a handful of votes then that state's electoral college representative is required to cast their electoral votes for Trump. They can't change the results of the vote in their state.

    Again it is the electoral votes that decide the overall winner not the popular vote. So you can win the battle (nationwide popular vote) but still lose the war (electoral votes).

    Hope that helps.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Hi c.d.

    Not to put you on the spot here, but in an earlier post you reminded us what happened to Clinton in 2016.

    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    ....In fact, more people voted for Hillary Clinton than they did for Trump but Trump was elected President as a result of winning the Electoral College vote.
    Yet, later you wrote:

    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    If a presidential candidate wins the popular vote in a state then the state's representative in the Electoral College is REQUIRED to cast the number of electoral votes that that state has for that candidate. The electoral college votes after the election but it is a mere formality since they cannot change the results of the vote.
    So, what happened?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    The electoral college was originally a concession to the slave states. In the Southern slave states, each slave was worth 2/5 citizenship when determining the amount of electoral votes that state received...even though the slaves weren't allowed to vote. So the slaves were the 'equalizers' between the North and the South voting populace, even though they were disenfranchised.

    James Wilson proposed a straight democratic vote, but the plantation owners knew that if Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York controlled the national elections through a popular vote, slavery would have been abolished early on.

    James Madison (President #4) shot the idea down, and prevailed. That's where we now are. It wasn't the 'wisdom' of our founding fathers; it is a remnant of slavery that is still with us.


    Wow!

    I have never thought of it in these terms before.

    Not much shocks me, but that genuinely caused a sharp intake of breath!

    I'd like to say that we now live in far more enlightened times, but I'm not convinced that's true!

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Thankyou c.d.

    Now I get it, and it doesn't seem all that Democratic to me.

    Also, thankyou RJ.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    P.S. to Post #41. My apologies. I underestimated the worth of a black male under the system. He was worth 3/5th of a white man when determining the state's electoral voting power. As for women...

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Hello Wick,

    Let me see if I can make it a little clearer. Let's say it is late in the evening and 48 states along with the District of Columbia have reported their results. At this point both candidates are exactly tied in both the number of popular votes and electoral votes. The country looks to the West Coast states (different time zone than the East and Midwest states). Oregon has seven electoral votes and California has fifty five. Candidate A wins Oregon by 100,000 votes in the popular vote in that state and therefore wins Oregon's seven electoral votes. Candidate B wins the popular vote in California by 5,000 votes putting him behind Candidate A by 95,000 votes in the general popular vote. But by winning California he gets California's fifty five electoral votes and thus wins the election even though more people voted for Candidate B.

    The key is that you have to win the Electoral College Vote to get elected.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    The electoral college was originally a concession to the slave states. In the Southern slave states, each slave was worth 2/5 citizenship when determining the amount of electoral votes that state received...even though the slaves weren't allowed to vote. So the slaves were the 'equalizers' between the North and the South voting populace, even though they were disenfranchised.

    James Wilson proposed a straight democratic vote, but the plantation owners knew that if Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York controlled the national elections through a popular vote, slavery would have been abolished early on.

    James Madison (President #4) shot the idea down, and prevailed. That's where we now are. It wasn't the 'wisdom' of our founding fathers; it is a remnant of slavery that is still with us.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by jason_c View Post

    You can cite all the studies you wish. A recent NJ all in mail election has been rife with irregularities and fraud. 1 in 5 votes rejected.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...on_143551.html

    Our ruling: Missing context

    We rate the claim that mail-in ballot fraud in New Jersey is a sign of bigger issues as MISSING CONTEXT, based on our research. It’s true that charges of corruption have been made in a local New Jersey election conducted by mail. But assertions by Judicial Watch about how that case shows a systematic problem with voting by mail are not supported by their evidence. The article fails to note that several states have voted entirely by mail for as many as 20 years with fraud cases being an extreme rarity, and that states have protections in place to ward against election fraud.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...le/5493078002/

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Hello Wick,

    Because there are 50 states and each state has a different number of electoral votes based on population.

    So let's say a candidate wins small states (population wise) like Rhode Island, Delaware and Montana by a huge margin in the popular vote and along with other small states this gives him a huge overall lead in the nationwide popular vote. But those small states (population wise) only deliver a small number of electoral college votes. So if a candidate wins the popular vote in big states (population wise) he gets all the electoral votes from those big states even if he only wins those big states by just a handful of popular votes.

    Yes, confusing I know.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Here ya go, Wickie,

    Click image for larger version

Name:	ELECTORAL MAP.JPG
Views:	93
Size:	97.5 KB
ID:	740573

    I'm English, living in America, and still trying to wrap my mind around the voting process.

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • jason_c
    replied
    Originally posted by Svensson View Post

    well the problem though is that he does on this occasion as he does pretty much all the time. Of course, there is no evidence that mail-in voting is ripe with fraud. There is no logic in this (several states have been doing this for years but only now does the Russian Ambassador in the White House suggest that this is all fraud). So am I talking out of my hat on this subject? No I'm not because I have facts to back me up:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53353404:
    But the rate of voting fraud overall in the US is between 0.00004% and 0.0009%, according to a 2017 study by the Brennan Center for Justice.

    A Washington Post review of the 2016 election found one proven case of postal voting fraud.

    And a voter fraud database collated by Arizona State University between 2000 and 2012, found 491 cases of postal ballot fraud out of hundreds of millions of votes.

    Oregon has held postal elections since 2000 and has only reported 14 fraudulent votes attempted by mail.


    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...ter-fraud-myth:
    "The president has continued to claim voter fraud was a problem in the 2016 election. A look at the facts makes clear fraud is rare, and does not happen on a scale even close to necessary to “rig” an election."

    If Trump really thinks that there is fraud in mail-in voting then he should provide the evidence that this is happening and then work with the states to implement processes that would fix these issues. But he does not provide such evidence because that's not really his goal, is it? His goal is to stop people from voting which is his only path to re-election.

    Back on subject, the interview with the Aussie was just another car-crash and complete humiliation by any objective standard like so many of his interviews that show that he is without a doubt the dumbest person on the planet ever to have put on a tie and jacket. And we don;t even have to go back that far. The Chris Wallace interview was a horror-show where he suggested that the Montreal Cognitive Assessment so difficult that Even Chris Wallace would not be able to pass it. He then follows it up and demonstrates his awesome powers that he can remember Man, Woman, TV, Camera and one other word that I can;t remember one month later. He basically grouped the words so he could repeat them on live TV. A third-grader would have realised that the words were not random.

    And all this non-sense just repeats every day, every week, every month. Day in day out.

    Does he talk out of his hat whenever he opens his mouth? I mean, is this even up for serious discussion?

    Cheers.
    You can cite all the studies you wish. A recent NJ all in mail election has been rife with irregularities and fraud. 1 in 5 votes rejected.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...on_143551.html

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    When one party controls any house, nothing can get done by a President of the opposing party.

    Not exactly so, Simon. Bipartisan legislation can be passed it is simply more difficult to do so and the president has the power to veto any legislation passed by congress. That veto can only be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post

    Hello Wick,

    The names of the presidential candidates are on the ballot. Not the names of the Electoral College. If a presidential candidate wins the popular vote in a state then the state's representative in the Electoral College is REQUIRED to cast the number of electoral votes that that state has for that candidate. The electoral college votes after the election but it is a mere formality since they cannot change the results of the vote. The Federal Election Commission certifies the vote before congress in January.

    Hope that helps.

    c.d.
    Ah, thankyou c.d.
    So, how can the Electoral vote end up different to the Popular vote, when the first is the result of the second?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X