If you distrust election results shouldn't you question all Democrat and republican victories?

Vylo · Nov 26, 2021

Albion said:
wrong

You didn't back up that ascertion...at all.

With an election that's decided on total popular vote regardless of where those voters live, no one living in Wyoming or forty other states would ever see a presidential candidate in the flesh. And what those voters need or care about would similarly not matter to the candidates. So, it wouldn't be just Wyoming (the go-to example that's always used) that would be effectively disenfranchised.

All that the candidate would need to do is hit the handful of states with the biggest populations (and be on their TV channels). Practically speaking, most of America would not be involved in the choice of the president

You realize most states generally don't see the president in the flesh to begin with right?

Map of General-Election Campaign Events and TV Ad Spending by 2020 Presidential Candidates

96% of events were in 12 states, all were within 17 states. 33 state got nothing. No campaign events. Nada, zilch, zero. All because of the EC. No one is going to bother going to anything but a battleground state. Wyoming is not being visited, why would they?

Without the EC, you would actually have a better chance of seeing the president because your state actually wouldn't matter, what would matter is votes, which everyone has. A president might actually visit wyoming to gain votes there, because they would actually mean something. Right now, it means absolutely nothing to gain votes in a state, unless you can flip it. Removing the EC would not disenfranchise folks, it would actually increase their chances of seeing the presidential candidates and campaign events.

The removal of the EC would essentially remove the red/blue state system. Instead every state would be purple, and the shade would matter to the candidates a lot, and in every single state.

Vylo · Nov 26, 2021

Albion said:
The facts are completely opposite to your claim here.

Except the places where they put in the ID requirements it is often not free, and even when it is, they often make the hoops to jump through to get the ID extremely difficult.

As opposed to my area, where they literally just make you sign in to vote, which is a solution so easy, it boggles my mind that it isn't standard everywhere.

rambot · Nov 26, 2021

Albion said:
If there is evidence of vote fraud in the case of a Republican victory, yes! Of course.

But unless there is evidence, then the question is academic. In the case of Biden's election, there is a mountain of evidence, so naturally that is the election that has been at the center of the recent controversy.

How many times do courts have to show them?
How many failures must they encounter before they realize their goal, in itself, is a failure.
0 for 80 in court; a parade of misanthropes supporting the theory; the ringleader grifting his followers (GOP donors) to pay his legal feels.
A Guide to All the Times Mike Lindell and QAnon Promised Trump Would Definitely Be Back in the White House
They have experienced exactly 0 success after an ENTIRE year. They have been proven wrong at EVERY turn. It's funny because sometimes stubbornness is seen as a virtue but this doesn't even seem like stubbornness anymore; more like dellusional thinking.

It feels like my grandma is getting taken by a conman but she won't listen to me when I tell her "Grandma. The government will never ask for your taxes to be paid in itunes gift cards!".
You can lead a horse to water but if that that horse thinks water is a 1998 Camero with a racing red stripe, he's not going to drink it.

There is as much evidence for a flat earth as there is for a rigged election.

rambot · Nov 26, 2021

Vylo said:
You didn't back up that ascertion...at all.

You realize most states generally don't see the president in the flesh to begin with right?

Map of General-Election Campaign Events and TV Ad Spending by 2020 Presidential Candidates

96% of events were in 12 states, all were within 17 states. 33 state got nothing. No campaign events. Nada, zilch, zero. All because of the EC. No one is going to bother going to anything but a battleground state. Wyoming is not being visited, why would they?

Without the EC, you would actually have a better chance of seeing the president because your state actually wouldn't matter, what would matter is votes, which everyone has. A president might actually visit wyoming to gain votes there, because they would actually mean something. Right now, it means absolutely nothing to gain votes in a state, unless you can flip it. Removing the EC would not disenfranchise folks, it would actually increase their chances of seeing the presidential candidates and campaign events.

The removal of the EC would essentially remove the red/blue state system. Instead every state would be purple, and the shade would matter to the candidates a lot, and in every single state.

Fascinating stuff. I would give it a Winner award too if I could!

durangodawood · Nov 26, 2021

Albion said:
Well, I cannot control what you think you're hearing.

It's no doubt whatever you had been led to believe was true before having the error in that line of thought explained to you.

I dont think so. The position you described is this:

As a (rural) minority, my interests wont get as much representation or attention as a (urban-suburban) majority voter. To remedy that, my vote deserves to have more power.

RocksInMyHead · Nov 26, 2021

Albion said:
no one living in Wyoming or forty other states would ever see a presidential candidate in the flesh

Wyoming doesn't ever see presidential candidates in the flesh under the current system. Why bother? The state is guaranteed to go Republican and the population isn't especially wealthy (which is the only real reason California or New York get campaign events).

Vylo · Nov 26, 2021

RocksInMyHead said:
Wyoming doesn't ever see presidential candidates in the flesh under the current system. Why bother? The state is guaranteed to go Republican and the population isn't especially wealthy (which is the only real reason California or New York get campaign events).

Interestingly enough, California and new york saw no events at all this cycle.

durangodawood · Nov 26, 2021

Vylo said:
Interestingly enough, California and new york saw no events at all this cycle.

I wonder how many events poor old WY saw. Why waste your campaigns effort on a state as safe (R) or hopeless (D) as WY?

edit: already noted, I see.

TLK Valentine · Nov 26, 2021

Albion said:
If there is evidence of vote fraud in the case of a Republican victory, yes! Of course.

But unless there is evidence, then the question is academic. In the case of Biden's election, there is a mountain of evidence, so naturally that is the election that has been at the center of the recent controversy.

"A mountain of evidence" that the ~~best~~ most loyal legal minds Donald could find ~~that could stand him~~ that he could afford failed again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again to prove.

How does a man who draws so much reverence and worship from afar attract so much incompetence into his inner circle?

Eftsoon · Nov 26, 2021

Silverback said:
The left if filthy dirty

And the right is squeaky clean? White as driven snow? Surely both sides areequally soiled?

Albion · Nov 26, 2021

Vylo said:
You realize most states generally don't see the president in the flesh to begin with right?

What a weak excuse. I said that (approximately) forty states wouldn't see a candidate under that system. That's a far cry from the way it is under the current system, and it's not just "yours truly" pointing out the defect in your idea of how things would go if your change were instituted.

There has been quite a lot of debate on this subject already, and I was simply passing along info you and others apparently had not thought about.

All because of the EC.

Quite obviously, it's not because of the EC. Even if it were, you are criticizing the current system...and what's your solution? -- make it worse!

Albion · Nov 26, 2021

Vylo said:
Except the places where they put in the ID requirements it is often not free, and even when it is, they often make the hoops to jump through to get the ID extremely difficult.

Naaaah. Whenever this objection has been raised, the Republican negotiators, legislators, or whoever, have been willing to make almost ANY accommodation in order to have unknown people not being allowed to vote. The Democrats said the poor don't have any photo IDs at present, which isn't true. So the proposal was to GIVE them IDs without cost. That was said to be an inconvenience, so the proposal was to go to their own homes or somewhere else at their convenience. No, said the opposition, and so it goes.

Albion · Nov 26, 2021

durangodawood said:
I dont think so. The position you described is this:

As a (rural) minority, my interests wont get as much representation or attention as a (urban-suburban) majority voter. To remedy that, my vote deserves to have more power.

Of course it does! No voter, let along an entire state, "deserves" to be shut out of the national election and the nation's legislative priorities altogether. What a sorry argument that is. :doh:

Albion · Nov 26, 2021

RocksInMyHead said:
Wyoming doesn't ever see presidential candidates in the flesh under the current system. Why bother?

Well, that is the point here. Wyoming was chosen by the other poster, not me, to be the example. It always is.

But it is a well-known reality that the result of making the proposed change would be that the campaign would be waged in only about a half-dozen states, because that is all that would be needed for the win. That is OBVIOUSLY not good for the country.

durangodawood · Nov 26, 2021

Albion said:
Of course it does! No voter, let along an entire state, "deserves" to be shut out of the national election and the nation's legislative priorities altogether. What a sorry argument that is.

Oh dear. Now we have to adjust the power of each vote so that every interest - whether tiny minority or vast majority - gets the same size seat at the table.

Actually I like it. Looking forward to cyclists having the same voice as motor vehicle drivers politically. Thanks Albion!

Albion · Nov 26, 2021

Eftsoon said:
And the right is squeaky clean? White as driven snow? Surely both sides are equally soiled?

You have a point with some of that, but not the final contention. There had not been a presidential election before in our history in which the most basic rules for voting were so extensively set aside as this one, and in which so much fraud was documented.

Albion · Nov 26, 2021

durangodawood said:
Oh dear. Now we have to adjust the power of each vote so that every interest - whether tiny minority or vast majority - gets the same size seat at the table.

If you decide to treat the subject seriously, be sure to get back to me.

durangodawood · Nov 26, 2021

Albion said:
If you decide to treat the subject seriously, be sure to get back to me.

The problem is that the principles you champion are faulty and naturally lead to absurd conclusions.

Vylo · Nov 26, 2021

Albion said:
What a weak excuse. I said that (approximately) forty states wouldn't see a candidate under that system. That's a far cry from the way it is under the current system, and it's not just "yours truly" pointing out the defect in your idea of how things would go if your change were instituted.

There has been quite a lot of debate on this subject already, and I was simply passing along info you and others apparently had not thought about.

Uh, we thought about it, long long ago, and realized it wasn't a factor. 33 vs 40 isn't a far cry at all, and doesn't seem to be based in reality

Quite obviously, it's not because of the EC. Even if it were, you are criticizing the current system...and what's your solution? -- make it worse!

My solution, if you read it makes it vastly better. You would actually have a reason to visit the other states, because it is votes, not swing states that matter. Everywhere you can gain votes, you will go.

Silverback · Nov 26, 2021

Belk said:
Those are not positions of the left so why do you attribute it to them?

I would disagree with you, the left has stated it's desire to eliminate border controls, and is opposed to voter ID.

If you want to influence an election, illegal voting is the answer. Illegals do vote in our elections...Why?

If you distrust election results shouldn't you question all Democrat and republican victories?

Stick with the King!

Stick with the King!

Senior Member

Senior Member

Dis Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Stick with the King!

Dis Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Facilitator

Facilitator

Dis Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Dis Member

Stick with the King!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads