California strong arm

[Subduction Zone]

No you quoted post #114 and started talking about the initiative. That was your error not mine.

Wrong again. You forgot your blunder that I keep reminding you of. You forgot your quote out of context. You improperly quoted out of context and then rudely dismissed a correction That means that when I asked about my post, which was about the NPVI and asked you how it was unconstitutional you claimed that your post 114 dealt with it. Now you are denying that. How many times did I have to tell you that you were confused? When you quote out of context you have a high probability of confusing yourself. You contradicted yourself since I was always talking about the NPVI. That you did not understand that was your own fault.

 

[Enoch07]

Wrong again.

Nope

 

[Poisonshady313]

Nope

still waiting

 

[Enoch07]

still waiting

On?

 

[Poisonshady313]

On?

enoch, perhaps you might take a stab at my questions.

You said: If we took away the electoral college, and relied solely on the popular vote. CA and NY would have the power to elect every President.

I ask: How?


You said: The electoral college prevents us from being ruled by just these 2 states alone.

I ask: How?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope

Oh my! There goes that projection again. And running away too. Your error was clearly explained to you.

There is a reason that you should not quote out of context. One can get terribly confused in doing so and then end up contradicting oneself. Since I was talking abut the NPVI when I asked you how it was unconstitutional your post 114 did not apply. I told you at that time that you were confused. Now you once again refuse to learn from your mistakes.

 

[Enoch07]

Ok found it. Sorry I totally just didn't see it. My bad.

How?

If the electoral college is taken away. CA and NY have enough popular votes to sway the election their way, which is usually blue.

This is the strength of popular vote without electoral college. CA and NY have the most strength based on that.

With the electoral college it prevents NY and CA from soley controlling the Presidency

 

[Enoch07]

Oh my!

Give it up, you got caught misrepresenting correct yourself or move along.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Ok found it. Sorry I totally just didn't see it. My bad.



If the electoral college is taken away. CA and NY have enough popular votes to sway the election their way, which is usually blue.
View attachment 29852
This is the strength of popular vote without electoral college. CA and NY have the most strength based on that.

With the electoral college it prevents NY and CA from soley controlling the Presidency

Use your big boy words. The cartoon presented above is some awful mix between inaccurate and completely meaningless. At best, it just reasserts your claim without supporting it.

I'm giving you a chance. I ask this question a lot, and nobody seems to want to try to answer it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok found it. Sorry I totally just didn't see it. My bad.



If the electoral college is taken away. CA and NY have enough popular votes to sway the election their way, which is usually blue.
View attachment 29852
This is the strength of popular vote without electoral college. CA and NY have the most strength based on that.

With the electoral college it prevents NY and CA from soley controlling the Presidency

Your map is a bit out of date. New York is currently fourth in population size. California and New York together represent roughly one fifth of the U.S. population. You seemed to think that they could dominate. Yes, they could "sway" it, but then so could Texas and Florida with almost the same percentage of the population. Florida tends to be a bit more red than blue. Your complaint falls flat:

List of U.S. states by population - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Give it up, you got caught misrepresenting correct yourself or move along.

Hardly, I took you literally. And that was after correcting you countless times. Since you insisted that you were correct I could not be guilty of misrepresenting you. You must have known what the conversation was about and that your post 114 was about the NPVI. Or, and this is something that you just might try, you could acknowledge your mistake. You were the one that insisted even after you were corrected that that post answered my question. Even after you were told that you were confused.

Are you saying that people should not trust your posts? In that case you may be right.

 

[Enoch07]

Use your big boy words. The cartoon presented above is some awful mix between inaccurate and completely meaningless. At best, it just reasserts your claim without supporting it.

I'm giving you a chance. I ask this question a lot, and nobody seems to want to try to answer it.

I answered it if you don't accept then that's on you. I may be right, may be wrong debate me on that. But to dismiss it and claim no answer is given is just childish games, and I'm not playing em. Toodles

 

[Enoch07]

Hardly, I took you literally.

No you misrepresented me I have proven it. Take it up with moderators if you feel it is unfair. If you wanted talk about NPVI you should have said so and quoted my post about NPVI. But you didn't, that's your mistake, deny it all you want, but the evidence is there for all to see.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I answered it if you don't accept then that's on you. I may be right, may be wrong debate me on that. But to dismiss it and claim no answer is given is just childish games, and I'm not playing em. Toodles

Actually, I'm asserting that your answer is just a restating of your position, which is no answer at all. I wish you had given me more to work with. Or really anything at all.

So I'll do you a favor by giving you the information and letting you try to respond to it.

In 2016, the blue vote from NY, CA, and IL combined totaled approx 10.4% of the total national popular vote.
NY, CA, and IL combined total 19.3% of the total electoral vote.

Get that? Taking away the electoral college cuts the influence of the biggest blue states almost exactly in half.

How do you account for that?

Even if you saw a significant increase in voter turnout, and if all of those additional voters voted blue, what makes you think it'll get anywhere close to 19.3%? Let alone some other higher number that might dominate the election?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Use your big boy words. The cartoon presented above is some awful mix between inaccurate and completely meaningless. At best, it just reasserts your claim without supporting it.

I'm giving you a chance. I ask this question a lot, and nobody seems to want to try to answer it.

He knows the numbers do not support his assertion. I am going to bed. But what one should point out that the Electoral College does not give a voice to small or big states. It gives an excessive voice to larger swing states. Look at an analysis of where the candidates campaigned in the last election. The states that were solidly red or solidly blue got hardly any visits. The larger states where it was close was where the campaigning was. This is far worse than "small states getting too large of a voice". Even with the boost that they get their votes still don't matter that much. Of course if one deals with the actual issues, of excessive campaigning in toss up states, then the electoral college becomes all but indefensible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you misrepresented me I have proven it. Take it up with moderators if you feel it is unfair. If you wanted talk about NPVI you should have said so and quoted my post about NPVI. But you didn't, that's your mistake, deny it all you want, but the evidence is there for all to see.

Hardly, the only "misrepresentation" was done to drive a point home. One that you still have not understood or acknowledged. Your rudeness and confusion led to you contradicting yourself. You can't demand that others treat you politely when you were extremely rude first.

 

[Enoch07]

In 2016, the blue vote from NY, CA, and IL combined totaled approx 10.4% of the total national popular vote.
NY, CA, and IL combined total 19.3% of the total electoral vote.

Source?

 

[Enoch07]

Hardly, the only "misrepresentation" was done to drive a point home.

Nope you got caught doing a dirty, deal with it.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Source?

138 million Americans voted according to Business Insider (according to Penn State University Libraries)

Election results from NY Times

I used different sources last time I ran the numbers, so the numbers are slightly different. Glad I remembered to say "approximately". The percentage of blue votes from the three states comes out to 11.8%, rather than 10.4%. But it still makes my point exactly the same.

BTW, when I added ALL the votes, and not just the blue votes, from all three states, I got 19% Which is the same as the percentage of the electoral votes of all three states combined.

 

[Poisonshady313]

In order for the 2016 blue votes from those states to be approximately equal to their percentage of the electoral vote, the total national popular vote would have to have been 53 million fewer votes.

Or, at the same number of total votes, we would have needed approximately 26,500,000 votes for Clinton to come from these three states. Which means voter turnout in those states alone would have to rise by 10.1 million Clinton voters, while the rest of the country remained exactly the same.

All this just to get to 19.3ish%

We haven't even gotten close to dominating the election.... we're just trying to get the popular vote to have the same impact as electoral college.