Not really. I have a hard time thinking all you popular vote whiners would exclude ALL the candidates from the vote and only allow one from each party. I mean you claim this method to be fair right? Imagine a popular vote with 10 or so candidates. This scenario under the original EC ironically would have yielded Trump Prez and Clinton VP.
there were literally dozens of candidates, way more than 10. and you have it backwards, it would have been a clinton presidency, since she won millions and millions more votes than trump.
EC votes you should-have-been-a-drain-baby dullard. You are simply too stupid for conversation.
why are you so upset?
Youre so dumb.
Yeah, you can tell that by how much I go out, find penis pictures, and post them here as opposed to that same action from other individuals.
Yes, that is true (about the paradox) and is one of the reasons the country's founders chose an electoral college method because:
She DEFINITELY could not have if Bernie had been running concurrently to the end (but he was a good Demo lapdog for this cycle and turned belly up) causing a Condorcet paradox.
Here you are obsessing over me, UB and penis again. You really should stop that.
You should consider reading and comprehending the quote you are providing as backup to your premise. Oh and the year isn't 1776, it's 2016. But really, what does this have to do with BALLON mortgage coming due?
Not sure what this has to do with BALLON mortgage coming due.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?Yeah, you can tell that by how much I go out, find penis pictures, and post them here as opposed to that same action from other individuals.
But other than that you have nothing to say about that or the other hypocrisy of your lie that you didn't completely agree to my previous post?
You had a marginal amount of content that kept you out of the rag drawer, but given enough time it proved not enough as it was marginal in the first place.
Maybe you can play "Who blew?" w/ Buckold and Babaloo.
See ya!
Yes, that is true (about the paradox) and is one of the reasons the country's founders chose an electoral college method because:
"In Condorcet methods, as in most electoral systems, there is also the possibility of an ordinary tie. This occurs when two or more candidates tie with each other but defeat every other candidate. As in other systems this can be resolved by a random method such as the drawing of lots. Ties can also be settled through other methods like seeing which of the tied winners had the most first choice votes, but this and some other non-random methods may re-introduce a degree of tactical voting, especially if voters know the race will be close."
"Some argue that if there were no Electoral College and the country had a "better" voting system, instead of having only two major parties in the United States there might be more parties and, hence, more voter choices. Others say that, as observed above, close votes in the popular vote are often translated into big victories in the Electoral College and that this gives added stability to American democracy."
She DEFINITELY could not have if Bernie had been running concurrently to the end (but he was a good Demo lapdog for this cycle and turned belly up) causing a Condorcet paradox.
"Popular" vote burned Bernie w/i the party to keep that from happening while he was a democrat. Don't you remember the hue and cry for him to run independent as he's "really" a socialist, e.g.
"Sanders is a self-described socialist,[187][188] democratic socialist,[193] and progressive who admires the Nordic model of social democracy and is a proponent of workplace democracy."
Quite simply, the electoral college is like the Senate or House of Representatives in that they are elected officials who, while representing the majority of a faction, may not always vote in a manner that always reflects the majority of that faction. because:
"The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
The electoral college is used because it represents a majority of the STATES instead of the populace, the function of a republic, an institution conceived by Plato in his realization of the "Failure of Democracy" in the book mentioned below:
"In book VIII of The Republic, Plato begins to describe several stages of government that are intolerable, yet unavoidable. Plato predicts a society with an enormous socioeconomic gap, where the poor remain poor and the rich become richer off the blood and sweat of others. In this instance, the people will long for freedom and liberty. They will use it as a battle cry against their oppressors, sparking a revolution."
..............
"Plato’s description of a democracy is rather thought provoking. It gives us pause and forces us to examine our own government. Could it be true that our leaders are the bullies and the political tyrants that Plato describes? Does democracy lead to entangling wars for the benefit of the ruling class? And are the people so subjugated by senseless laws and stiff taxes, that they are unable to resist in any meaningful way? Perhaps. History has shown a consistent pattern of subjugation, revolution and subjugation once again."
.............
Sound familiar?
Since Plato was kicking this around B.C., it's not exactly a new concept as technology may rise and fall but human nature stays pretty consistent.
Is that enough civics to explain it for ya?
I tried to "breadcrumb" it with Condorcet's Paradox so you and See4 wouldn't look as uneducated as you do, but you couldn't pick up on it and caused this educational "meltdown" (which for some seems to mean any post over 50 words).
My word you're fucking dumb.Yeah, you can tell that by how much I go out, find penis pictures, and post them here as opposed to that same action from other individuals.
But other than that you have nothing to say about that or the other hypocrisy of your lie that you didn't completely agree to my previous post?
You had a marginal amount of content that kept you out of the rag drawer, but given enough time it proved not enough as it was marginal in the first place.
Maybe you can play "Who blew?" w/ Buckold and Babaloo.
See ya!
Yes, that is true (about the paradox) and is one of the reasons the country's founders chose an electoral college method because:
"In Condorcet methods, as in most electoral systems, there is also the possibility of an ordinary tie. This occurs when two or more candidates tie with each other but defeat every other candidate. As in other systems this can be resolved by a random method such as the drawing of lots. Ties can also be settled through other methods like seeing which of the tied winners had the most first choice votes, but this and some other non-random methods may re-introduce a degree of tactical voting, especially if voters know the race will be close."
"Some argue that if there were no Electoral College and the country had a "better" voting system, instead of having only two major parties in the United States there might be more parties and, hence, more voter choices. Others say that, as observed above, close votes in the popular vote are often translated into big victories in the Electoral College and that this gives added stability to American democracy."
She DEFINITELY could not have if Bernie had been running concurrently to the end (but he was a good Demo lapdog for this cycle and turned belly up) causing a Condorcet paradox.
"Popular" vote burned Bernie w/i the party to keep that from happening while he was a democrat. Don't you remember the hue and cry for him to run independent as he's "really" a socialist, e.g.
"Sanders is a self-described socialist,[187][188] democratic socialist,[193] and progressive who admires the Nordic model of social democracy and is a proponent of workplace democracy."
Quite simply, the electoral college is like the Senate or House of Representatives in that they are elected officials who, while representing the majority of a faction, may not always vote in a manner that always reflects the majority of that faction. because:
"The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
The electoral college is used because it represents a majority of the STATES instead of the populace, the function of a republic, an institution conceived by Plato in his realization of the "Failure of Democracy" in the book mentioned below:
"In book VIII of The Republic, Plato begins to describe several stages of government that are intolerable, yet unavoidable. Plato predicts a society with an enormous socioeconomic gap, where the poor remain poor and the rich become richer off the blood and sweat of others. In this instance, the people will long for freedom and liberty. They will use it as a battle cry against their oppressors, sparking a revolution."
..............
"Plato’s description of a democracy is rather thought provoking. It gives us pause and forces us to examine our own government. Could it be true that our leaders are the bullies and the political tyrants that Plato describes? Does democracy lead to entangling wars for the benefit of the ruling class? And are the people so subjugated by senseless laws and stiff taxes, that they are unable to resist in any meaningful way? Perhaps. History has shown a consistent pattern of subjugation, revolution and subjugation once again."
.............
Sound familiar?
Since Plato was kicking this around B.C., it's not exactly a new concept as technology may rise and fall but human nature stays pretty consistent.
Is that enough civics to explain it for ya?
I tried to "breadcrumb" it with Condorcet's Paradox so you and See4 wouldn't look as uneducated as you do, but you couldn't pick up on it and caused this educational "meltdown" (which for some seems to mean any post over 50 words).
Hence the reason it's good we (still) live in a democratic republic instead of a democracy.
Because I can source my argument with evidence of the realization of pure democracy being a bad idea from before the birth of Christ and that more people and a different date won't change that, but instead, prove it as it historically has?
<yawn> and this total yet still not the difference in popular vote in California alone. Maybe your statistics major buddy can break this down child style for you.
Then prove WHY it's dumb.
Don't 2nd Amendment yourself.Then prove WHY it's dumb.
Is that too hard for you?
But getting back to all the news that isn't, let's post some recent news articles about the news (the first, quite ironically from the NYT and some going back ~10 years):
A Stunning Failure of the Media and the Polls - The New York ...
Iraq: Why the media failed - Salon.com
Letter: Failure of mass media impacts our democracy - The ...
The Media Consortium » Mass Media Has Failed Us -Once Again
The quandary in this debate is that some have said that they don't trust the media, yet will only take as evidence THAT media and call all others partisan hack reporting when used as source which is why the links above are so few.
Paradoxical, eh?
Don't strain yourself trying to find substance to lend credence to your ad hominem attacks of logical fallacy.
jesus kid, are you gonna cry for several more weeks again because your totally-not-gay eyes glanced upon a penis?
You're so dumb you can't even see your point was already debunked...Don't strain yourself trying to find substance to lend credence to your ad hominem attacks of logical fallacy.
Is it because you think providing evidence of what amounts to your opinion at this point is too hard?
Your next post will prove if you have a cogent way of arguing my assertions or if you're just a tired windbag in league w/ the Blue Cuck Crew.
