Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

Elections Third Party Candidate wins with 34%-49% of Electoral/Popular vote, should they be President?

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by GiTGuD, Sep 13, 2020 at 9:39 PM.

  1. Cirris Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,630
    Likes Received:
    38
    The precedent has already been set.

    Yes.

    We made Slick Willy President in 1992 with just 43%.

    Perot had 14% of the vote.
     
  2. Makani Ain't Nobody Ever Been Free

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    16,191
    Likes Received:
    388
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  3. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,142
    Huh? The size of the House was just capped in 1929. No one at the time made that argument either (that it's good to give some voters extra weight through the cap). It's a very recent argument, and you're making it now.

    The EC isn't in place to give different weights to different citizens. I've explained several times why it's in place, and how it accidentally came to give different weights to different voters. You made the argument that it's good that some people's vote counts less than other people's because you said it would be unfair for some voters to get their way more just because there are more of them (i.e., that democracy is bad).

    You don't overrepresent anyone if all votes are counted equally. Counting all votes equally would give all voters equal say. I can't believe I'm having to even explain that, but here we are.

    So having a democratic system is undemocratic and having a system that lines up with what the founders intended is an attack on the Constitution. Is today opposite day?
     
  4. MMAisGod Ya keep pushing or ya quit. That simple.

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,854
    Likes Received:
    830
    Location:
    Apollo Beach, Florida
    I wasn't talking about the "size of the House", but nice way to misdirect. 1929 isn't "very recent" either, as it is actually almost 100 years ago man. Who was President in 1929, Hoover? Coolridge? One of those ancient dudes. This is recent to you? lol.

    You have yet to take into account what I have actually said about population density, and continue to simplify it with "if all voters can be counted as 1 each, you are saying democracy is bad". Not repeating it again.

    So having a democratic system is undemocratic and having a system that lines up with what the founders intended is an attack on the Constitution. Is today opposite day?[/QUOTE]

    So you're saying that the EC needs to be eliminated, since according to you, the EC is undemocratic, right? For all the "come out and say it" you throw around, why don't' you come out and say it? What should happen with the constitutional protections around the EC, and the EC itself? Say it.
     
  5. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,142
    Huh? The size of the House being capped is the reason the EC gives unequal weight to different voters. You didn't know that, fine, but you were talking about it without knowing it. And you said that people were making your illogical argument for hundreds of years, when in fact, it wouldn't have even applied more than 90 years ago, and it took a long time after that for people to really appreciate the issue (and then still more time for people to come up with some crazy argument for why the mistake was actually good).

    Try to understand the point enough to not misrepresent it. Your argument is that it's not fair that 115 million voters get a weighting in line with the numbers in the population, right? In other words that democracy is unfair because it leads to all votes being equal.

    Why not read what I'm saying instead of playing this kind of game?

    "My argument here is more pro-Constitution. As I said, the idea behind the EC was A) voters wouldn't know as much about the candidates as they would about the electors; B) the EC would be a way to narrow the list down; C) the House would usually decide the election; D) the EC and representatives would be proportionate to the population. ~30K people=1 vote in both the EC and the House. There was no intention to give disproportionate weight to the voters in different states. That's an unintended consequence of the decision to cap the size of the House of Representatives and the decision of states to make electors winner-take-all. I think if we want to make the EC work, we should try to restore it to the original purpose. That is, you vote for electors, who then use their own judgment, each district elects their own elector, and all the districts are the same size. Or, failing that, we should just use a national PV (and amend the Constitution, which has a built-in system for rectifying this kind of flaw)."
     
  6. Hungry Joe Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,842
    Likes Received:
    272
    I think you’ll be hearing about it a lot if Trump is reelected without getting the popular vote. Nobody wants to hear that the vote of a guy who owns a bunch of land in SD is worth more than a bunch of city dwellers in CA.
     
  7. matheuss92 Orange Belt

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    116
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    My personal opinion makes me believe the best "way" would be doing a second round of votes, with just the top 2 candidates. Them, if the second round is between a dem and a rep, people who voted in a third party candidate in the first round might decide now between those 2 options.
     
  8. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,142
    Also, imagine if Trump won the popular vote and lost the EC. The outrage would be off the charts.

    Some related reading on that: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21...n-plotted-to-reject-election-results-in-2000/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-electoral-college-from-disaster-to-genius/
     
  9. UFCUCF Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Agree 100%. The right wingers rioted in FL during the 2000 recount to stop the vote counting.

    We aren’t that far off from this happening. Texas will add a few electoral votes after the 2020 census and will continue to trend blue. A republican could win the popular vote and lose the EC by failing to capture Texas in the next few elections.
     
    Hungry Joe and Jack V Savage like this.
  10. GiTGuD Is she gonna turn in powerful people?

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2020
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    3,862
    Yes Ted Nugent should be president if he clearly won the election.


    Sure the argument is gonna be.."well 70% of the people didn't want him", that is true but more than 70% of the people didn't want Buttigieg/gabbard/oprah either, so why should congress bypass the American people and pick whoever they want even tho Ted Nugent would suck....It's just the elitist choosing whats "best", it's the "fail safe" for them....If Ted Nugent or Oprah were third party and got 34% of the electorate, the two parties in the house(democrats/republicans) should Honor the decision of America.


    Also in the current elections it's usually a 51/49 split, around there....Half of the country is never happy, so I don't see a huge deal with 66%-70% of the country to not be happy with the result....Elections are "tough shit", if you lose you lose, if you win, you win...This is how most elections are in other things (State/local races, it's a simple who gets the most votes), there is no built in "well if you don't get around half the votes/EC, it's elitist choice" like when candidates run for president.


    But lets say it's BS for a person to get 34% of the vote and become president....Alright, if that is the case, then I feel the next step, if somebody weren't to get 270 EC, is to hold elections again in around 2 weeks where the "finalist" face eachother, so in your example Ted Nugent vs Buttigieg, thus we can have the good old 51/49 voting that we have come accustomed to and people will choose instead of the house....way better solution than to have the house bypass the American people.


    Disagree with this as well...If there was more parties with a good percentage of people backing them, the differences would be very highlighted and there would be an obvious difference...Sure some things might overlap but specific issues might get a way bigger push if they got enough support...It will be easier for messages/ideas to be spread to people instead of being diluted because of other bullshit from the Democrats/Republicans...For example Identity Politics, Democrats(BLM/Cops) /Republican(immigration) Identity politics complete take over, and other issues to the back seat....That complete hurts the "other issue" people, so "big" third parties will address this IMO.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020 at 11:08 AM
  11. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,142
    Couple of points here.

    1. What you describe at the end is exactly what the EC was designed for. The founders didn't anticipate that there would be parties so they figured you'd usually have a bunch of candidates, and the EC would narrow it down like how we think of a primary, and then the House would be sort of the general election (with the top three EC vote-getters as the candidates). So in the example I gave, it would be the House deciding (on a state-by-state basis) among Buttigieg, Gabbard, and Nugent. That's our current system. Also doesn't have "elitists" choosing what's best for people; it has elected representatives of the people making a decision that they ran for office partly for the power to make.

    2. A system where people take over the Executive Branch with only ~30% support from voters is a broken one that won't last long in the real world, as the president would have very little claim to legitimacy.

    Not seeing the logic here or how it makes a difference if you have a separate fascist party lining up with the GOP or if you have Cotton/Hawley/etc. just be Republicans, or conversely having AOC and Bernie just caucusing with Democrats (Bernie's already technically an Independent, and what difference does that make?).
     
  12. GiTGuD Is she gonna turn in powerful people?

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2020
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    3,862
    1. When you say the House decides, you mean they Honor what their state picked, correct?, I mean they don't have to honor it, that's why I say it's "elitist choosing", because they can do whatever they want and it's within their right....and yes I know people "picked" them but I think most voters would want them to have the "honor" to do what the people in there state says; I believe so far they have honored what the people said, but I just don't like it that it's an "option" for them to not honor what their state says.

    2. 51/49 % we have today isn't that much better IMO but I see the 30% argument, IMO the house should not have the right to decide..we should just adjust our system to a 2-4 week election from the finalist...This way we will get the 51/49 voting that we are use to, and people would actually pick instead of the house.

    The difference would be huge...Right now Identity politics in both Democratic/Republican side take over the whole scene, other more important issues are completely forgotten...if we had third parties with decent backing, suddenly the Identity politics bullshit wouldn't be so focused on, people would actual focus on other issues.
     
  13. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,142
    1. The House votes. The state chose them to vote their conscience. If you run on Nugent being a disaster, win, and then have to vote on the presidency and vote for Nugent, you're betraying your constituents, no?

    2. It's 21 points better, or 70%, depending on how you look at it.

    I don't see why one would expect "identity politics" to be less of a force if you had multiple parties. It's not obvious, and you didn't explain it. Rightist identity politics is far more popular than rightist policy, and leftist identity politics is less popular than leftist policy still, so you have the same incentives (the right to run on identity politics and pretend that the left is; the left to run on policy and ignore identity politics).
     
  14. D Train Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    15,348
    Likes Received:
    280
    Location:
    Alabama
    The Rock and Jocko 2020. It’s not too late.
     
  15. GiTGuD Is she gonna turn in powerful people?

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2020
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    3,862
    The system is the system...yes the house has the right to vote however they want, however I don't think the people actually want that(most people don't know how the system works), most people would want their vote to be honored...instead of the House voting which ever way their state went....In this case, if Utah for example picked Nugent, Utah House Reps should vote for Nugent, doing otherwise is dismissing the will of the people in that state regardless if Nugent sucks...If Utah House Reps go against the will of the people, that's not democracy IMO and most people would be upset because of the principal of democracy isn't being honored.




    2. I was just pointing out that our current system is already very divided, I don't see a 30% winner completely changing everything and people revolting...also like you said there is alot of overlap between parties/canidates, not all those 70% will hate the 30% winner, I think more than 50% of people would be fine with it, but I see your point of a 30% winner being president not looking good on paper......(BTW, Example, in mayor races they can become mayor if they got 30% of the vote in case they ran against 4 other mayors for example, 30% winning elections is normal for all elections except for the presidency)

    Alright lets look at republicans/democrats right now...Republicans are focused on being anti-immigrantion/All Lives matter/a bunch of Identity politics bs; same with democrats right now it's about BLM/Cops........If there was another right wing party, for example they can focus on other crap like cutting spending (there is actual republicans who think about this first), same with Liberals, if there was another liberal party, they can simply focus more on Inequality/Environment way more(many liberals care about this more than Identity).....So there message wouldn't take a back seat to Identity politics BS, it would be much easier for their message to reach the voter....Basically the messaging would be way easier to be accepted by voters since they won't being associated with the baggage republicans/democrats bring IMO.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020 at 12:11 PM

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.