Dems Shift Messaging on Voting by Mail
-
If we're taking about accepting results.... has Trump accepted that he lost the popular vote in 2016 yet?
That’s President Trump.
That’s President Trump.
yeah. "RESPECT THE OFFICE" goes both ways -
for honest democrats anyways.... (oxymoron there?)
-
I don't care which side it helps or hurts. It's a fundamentally outdated "winner take all" system where at best some votes count 7+ times more than others and at worst are completely worthless.
I don't care which side it helps or hurts. It's a fundamentally outdated "winner take all" system where at best some votes count 7+ times more than others and at worst are completely worthless.
If you say you don't care whether it benefits the side you prefer, let's say that doesn't quite ring true but I'll let that slide.
The idea of our federal government is that we were 50, well not 50 when it started out, but a bunch of States with at least a degree of autonomy. I realize some people would like to eliminate that facet altogether. There are probably people who would like to see one world government. Oh well.
I personally think we have weakened the autonomy of the states too much as it is.
WSS
-
I don't care which side it helps or hurts. It's a fundamentally outdated "winner take all" system where at best some votes count 7+ times more than others and at worst are completely worthless.
If you say you don't care whether it benefits the side you prefer, let's say that doesn't quite ring true but I'll let that slide.
The idea of our federal government is that we were 50, well not 50 when it started out, but a bunch of States with at least a degree of autonomy. I realize some people would like to eliminate that facet altogether. There are probably people who would like to see one world government. Oh well.
I personally think we have weakened the autonomy of the states too much as it is.
WSS
If you say you don't care whether it benefits the side you prefer, let's say that doesn't quite ring true but I'll let that slide.
The idea of our federal government is that we were 50, well not 50 when it started out, but a bunch of States with at least a degree of autonomy. I realize some people would like to eliminate that facet altogether. There are probably people who would like to see one world government. Oh well.
I personally think we have weakened the autonomy of the states too much as it is.
WSS
Why would that not ring true? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
One person from Vermont has a vote that counts 3x more than a vote in Texas.
Montana is 4x more than Cali.
Candidates have no reason to campaign in states that they can't win, and they don't. That's the issue with a winner take all system.
You can win the electoral college with 22% of the vote.
Etc etc etc
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
If you say you don't care whether it benefits the side you prefer, let's say that doesn't quite ring true but I'll let that slide.
The idea of our federal government is that we were 50, well not 50 when it started out, but a bunch of States with at least a degree of autonomy. I realize some people would like to eliminate that facet altogether. There are probably people who would like to see one world government. Oh well.
I personally think we have weakened the autonomy of the states too much as it is.
WSS
Why would that not ring true? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
One person from Vermont has a vote that counts 3x more than a vote in Texas.
Montana is 4x more than Cali.
Candidates have no reason to campaign in states that they can't win, and they don't. That's the issue with a winner take all system.
You can win the electoral college with 22% of the vote.
Etc etc etc
Why would that not ring true? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
One person from Vermont has a vote that counts 3x more than a vote in Texas.
Montana is 4x more than Cali.
Candidates have no reason to campaign in states that they can't win, and they don't. That's the issue with a winner take all system.
You can win the electoral college with 22% of the vote.
Etc etc etc
-
If you say you don't care whether it benefits the side you prefer, let's say that doesn't quite ring true but I'll let that slide.
The idea of our federal government is that we were 50, well not 50 when it started out, but a bunch of States with at least a degree of autonomy. I realize some people would like to eliminate that facet altogether. There are probably people who would like to see one world government. Oh well.
I personally think we have weakened the autonomy of the states too much as it is.
WSS
Why would that not ring true? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
One person from Vermont has a vote that counts 3x more than a vote in Texas.
Montana is 4x more than Cali.
Candidates have no reason to campaign in states that they can't win, and they don't. That's the issue with a winner take all system.
You can win the electoral college with 22% of the vote.
Etc etc etc
Why would that not ring true? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
One person from Vermont has a vote that counts 3x more than a vote in Texas.
Montana is 4x more than Cali.
Candidates have no reason to campaign in states that they can't win, and they don't. That's the issue with a winner take all system.
You can win the electoral college with 22% of the vote.
Etc etc etc
Are you really an engineer?
-
Ha, Prager U. The right wing think take that likes to pretend it has some ties to the academic world to make it more legitimate... though it'll also tell you Universities don't matter.
You gotta love all of the half truths and uncited info
Ex: "Texas used to vote Dem, so all states matter!" Texas hasn't voted Dem in over 40 years. Safe states exist. They don't get campaigned in.
The last point is that the Electoral College makes it harder to cheat. Without it, stealing a vote anywhere could change the election! That's literally admitting votes would matter more without it...
Vambo, I know you can't actually respond to anything directly since you're some broken bot or foreign agent (at least I hope, otherwise that's pretty sad), but neither of those videos directly addressed the hard numbers I provided. Nothing was refuted.
Math is math and what the EC does is clear.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Ha, Prager U. The right wing think take that likes to pretend it has some ties to the academic world to make it more legitimate... though it'll also tell you Universities don't matter.
You gotta love all of the half truths and uncited info
Ex: "Texas used to vote Dem, so all states matter!" Texas hasn't voted Dem in over 40 years. Safe states exist. They don't get campaigned in.
The last point is that the Electoral College makes it harder to cheat. Without it, stealing a vote anywhere could change the election! That's literally admitting votes would matter more without it...
Vambo, I know you can't actually respond to anything directly since you're some broken bot or foreign agent (at least I hope, otherwise that's pretty sad), but neither of those videos directly addressed the hard numbers I provided. Nothing was refuted.
Math is math and what the EC does is clear.
Ha, Prager U. The right wing think take that likes to pretend it has some ties to the academic world to make it more legitimate... though it'll also tell you Universities don't matter.
You gotta love all of the half truths and uncited info
Ex: "Texas used to vote Dem, so all states matter!" Texas hasn't voted Dem in over 40 years. Safe states exist. They don't get campaigned in.
The last point is that the Electoral College makes it harder to cheat. Without it, stealing a vote anywhere could change the election! That's literally admitting votes would matter more without it...
Vambo, I know you can't actually respond to anything directly since you're some broken bot or foreign agent (at least I hope, otherwise that's pretty sad), but neither of those videos directly addressed the hard numbers I provided. Nothing was refuted.
Math is math and what the EC does is clear.
-
did either of you even watch that last one?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Ha, Prager U. The right wing think take that likes to pretend it has some ties to the academic world to make it more legitimate... though it'll also tell you Universities don't matter.
You gotta love all of the half truths and uncited info
Ex: "Texas used to vote Dem, so all states matter!" Texas hasn't voted Dem in over 40 years. Safe states exist. They don't get campaigned in.
The last point is that the Electoral College makes it harder to cheat. Without it, stealing a vote anywhere could change the election! That's literally admitting votes would matter more without it...
Vambo, I know you can't actually respond to anything directly since you're some broken bot or foreign agent (at least I hope, otherwise that's pretty sad), but neither of those videos directly addressed the hard numbers I provided. Nothing was refuted.
Math is math and what the EC does is clear.
The last point is that the Electoral College makes it harder to cheat. Without it, stealing a vote anywhere could change the election! That's literally admitting votes would matter more without it...
That's ridiculous. If not for the electoral college no votes would matter outside of 5 states.
-
The last point is that the Electoral College makes it harder to cheat. Without it, stealing a vote anywhere could change the election! That's literally admitting votes would matter more without it...
That's ridiculous. If not for the electoral college no votes would matter outside of 5 states.
That's ridiculous. If not for the electoral college no votes would matter outside of 5 states.
And why do you say that?
I've also never said I was for a pure popular vote btw
-
Woody isn't FOR anything, he's just against everything.
and everybody who disagrees with him.
Just peck peck peck in perpetuum
-
did either of you even watch that last one?
Yes did you?
-
did either of you even watch that last one?
Yes did you?
Yes did you?
Yes, and it provided many good reasons why the Electoral College is flawed.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
baloney. all this "flawed" whining is just because Pres Trump won and higgardly lost.
boo hoo forever and 50 decades.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-the-electoral-college-is-vital-not-outdated
-
Yes, and it provided many good reasons why the Electoral College is flawed.
And it provided many good reasons why the Electoral College is good but...
It didn't show anything that would be better and that's the point! And neither have you!
-
Yes, and it provided many good reasons why the Electoral College is flawed.
And it provided many good reasons why the Electoral College is good but...
It didn't show anything that would be better and that's the point! And neither have you!
And it provided many good reasons why the Electoral College is good but...
It didn't show anything that would be better and that's the point! And neither have you!
One of the reasons shown not to change it was "it's hard to change it". That's not a reason.
First of all, we need to give small states less votes. It doesn't necessarily need to be purely population based, but the +2 skews it pretty hard.
Second, the "points" you get from each state shouldn't be winner take all. If Cali is 51% D and 49% R how does it make any sense that R gets 0 points for that? State points should be based around the % of the vote you got in that state.
Both of those changes would help make votes more equal across the country and help make all of the votes matter more.
-
And it provided many good reasons why the Electoral College is good but...
It didn't show anything that would be better and that's the point! And neither have you!
One of the reasons shown not to change it was "it's hard to change it". That's not a reason.
First of all, we need to give small states less votes. It doesn't necessarily need to be purely population based, but the +2 skews it pretty hard.
Second, the "points" you get from each state shouldn't be winner take all. If Cali is 51% D and 49% R how does it make any sense that R gets 0 points for that? State points should be based around the % of the vote you got in that state.
Both of those changes would help make votes more equal across the country and help make all of the votes matter more.
One of the reasons shown not to change it was "it's hard to change it". That's not a reason.
First of all, we need to give small states less votes. It doesn't necessarily need to be purely population based, but the +2 skews it pretty hard.
Second, the "points" you get from each state shouldn't be winner take all. If Cali is 51% D and 49% R how does it make any sense that R gets 0 points for that? State points should be based around the % of the vote you got in that state.
Both of those changes would help make votes more equal across the country and help make all of the votes matter more.
Nope wouldn't work...What about a third or fourth party?
-
woody doesn't understand anything, much less anything that doesn't give the left an advantage.
if Pres Trump had won the popular vote too, they would have attacked something else.
-
One of the reasons shown not to change it was "it's hard to change it". That's not a reason.
First of all, we need to give small states less votes. It doesn't necessarily need to be purely population based, but the +2 skews it pretty hard.
Second, the "points" you get from each state shouldn't be winner take all. If Cali is 51% D and 49% R how does it make any sense that R gets 0 points for that? State points should be based around the % of the vote you got in that state.
Both of those changes would help make votes more equal across the country and help make all of the votes matter more.
Nope wouldn't work...What about a third or fourth party?
Nope wouldn't work...What about a third or fourth party?
What wouldn't work?
I believe we need more political parties
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login