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

Albion said:

Well, that is the point here.

Click to expand...

What is the point? You said that Wyoming wouldn't see any presidential campaigning if we got rid of the EC, but they don't see any with the EC, so nothing would change in that respect - assuming that you're correct.

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

Click to expand...

Wyoming is always used as an example of the imbalance of the EC system because it has the lowest ratio of residents to EC votes - meaning that a single vote in Wyoming is worth more than it would be in any other state. Vermont, Alaska, and North Dakota are all valid alternatives if you want a different state though.

Interestingly, California is the normal counterpoint, but they're actually relatively balanced in terms of their population to EC vote ratio. Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania are the worst off in that respect.

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.

Click to expand...

No, that's not a "well-known reality". While you could, in theory, win an election by popular vote by only getting votes from a half dozen states (actually more like 9-10, given the voting numbers from 2020), that would require getting 100% of the vote in those states, which would never happen. If you look at the popular vote totals from 2020, Biden doesn't pass Trump's total until 32 states worth of votes are counted, and he doesn't hit 50% of the popular votes cast in the election until 39 states are counted.

The actual, objective reality is that under the EC system, only about a dozen states see any campaigning - and over 50% is concentrated in just 2-3 states - because the others are more or less foregone conclusions. It doesn't matter how much effort a Democrat puts into Wyoming, or a Republican puts into Vermont (#2 in the population/representation rankings after Wyoming), they will never get those EC votes, and the popular votes that they might gain are meaningless to the result.

Silverback said:

I would disagree with you, the left has stated it's desire to eliminate border controls,

Click to expand...

Very well, quote them please.

Silverback said:

and is opposed to voter ID.[\quote]

They are opposed to voter ID restricting valid voters, not voter ID itself.

Silverback said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, are you claiming "the left" is trying to get illegals to vote?

Click to expand...

Albion said:

wrong.


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

Click to expand...

We’re you complaining in 2017?

Silverback said:

Illegals do vote in our elections...Why?

Click to expand...

No they don’t.

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.

Click to expand...

Mountain of evidence? yet not a single evidence is admissible in court.

Tiberius Lee said:

Mountain of evidence? yet not a single evidence is admissible in court.

Click to expand...

That's not true, and it's irrelevant anyway. That's because what's admissible under some very stringent court rules doesn't prove one way or the other that there is or isn't evidence. Over 20 state Attorneys General thought there was enough evidence when they took their case to the courts, and they weren't alone in that.

The notion that there was no evidence is little more than a slogan of the Biden people. There's too much evidence for such a categorical denial to be given any credence at all.

Albion said:

That's not true, and it's irrelevant anyway. That's because what's admissible under some very stringent court rules doesn't prove one way or the other that there is or isn't evidence. Over 20 state Attorneys General thought there was enough evidence when they took their case to the courts and so did some independent legal experts! The notion that there was no evidence, which is little more than a slogan of the Biden people, is not worth arguing.

Click to expand...

No evidence of “widespread fraud” . Only a few cases, mostly of Republicans. Biden won handily. Trump Lost.

Albion said:

That's not true, and it's irrelevant anyway. That's because what's admissible under some very stringent court rules doesn't prove one way or the other that there is or isn't evidence. Over 20 state Attorneys General thought there was enough evidence when they took their case to the courts and so did some independent legal experts!

The notion that there was no evidence is little more than a slogan of the Biden people. There too much evidence for such a categorical denial to be given any credence at all.

Click to expand...

Courts have stringent rules on evidence to keep nutcases and frauds from tying up the courts with frivolous suits. Your mountain of evidence isn’t even an ant hill.

Albion said:

That's not true, and it's irrelevant anyway. That's because what's admissible under some very stringent court rules doesn't prove one way or the other that there is or isn't evidence. Over 20 state Attorneys General thought there was enough evidence when they took their case to the courts, and they weren't alone in that.

The notion that there was no evidence is little more than a slogan of the Biden people. There's too much evidence for such a categorical denial to be given any credence at all.

Click to expand...

I am glad you agree with me that in the eyes of the law there is no evidence. Rest of it is just white noise.

Tiberius Lee said:

I am glad you agree with me that in the eyes of the law there is no evidence.

Click to expand...

Please don't try that kind of stuff here if you don't have a meaningful reply to a post.

Albion said:

Please don't try that kind of stuff here if you don't have a meaningful reply to a post.

Click to expand...

Ok then try this way ..

All the mountain of evidence you claim doesn’t qualify as “evidence” under the law ? is that a correct statement?

Tiberius Lee said:

Ok then try this way ..

All the mountain of evidence you claim doesn’t qualify as “evidence” under the law ? is that a correct statement?

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. For one thing, the Court's decision was not decided on the evidence. The appeal was denied without the evidence being considered, and that was done on the basis (a majority of justices said) that the AG of Texas, who brought the suit, did not have "standing" to bring suit involving errors made by other states.

Albion said:

No, it doesn't. For one thing, the Court's decision was not decided on the evidence. The appeal was denied without the evidence being considered, and that was done on the basis (a majority of justices said) that the AG of Texas, who brought the suit, did not have "standing" to bring suit involving errors made by other states.

Click to expand...

Again none of these matter. Bottom line is all the voter fraud claim , no one was convicted of crime, no one went to jail because no one can prove in the “eyes of the law” that a “law has been broken”.

So I am really not interested what Fox news has to say or AG of TX ‘thinks’ it is , because if you can’t prove it in the eyes of the law then you don’t have anything!

But “voter fraud “ topic does make republican angry and that is good enough to win election.

Tiberius Lee said:

Again none of these matter.

Click to expand...

Oh, right. You say that "in the eyes of the court there is no evidence" when the truth is that the court did not rule on the evidence...



Do you mean to say that you don't see your mistake????

Albion said:

Oh, right. You say that "in the eyes of the court there is no evidence" when the truth is that the court did not rule on the evidence...



Do you mean to say that you don't see your mistake????

Click to expand...

What evidence did they not rule on? The evidence Donald's legal team didn't present?

Why oh why did Donald hire them and not you?

perplexed said:

Plenty of people on this board think the US election system is broken and many people are committing fraud but if you think that shouldn't you question all Republican victories as well as the democrat victories? There was a lot of mail in voting before covid.

Click to expand...

If just went back to 2017 Dems really quested that.. now 2020 Rep questioned that. Go back more and.. yeah it always happens. Be wonderful to think there has NEVER been fraud of any kind when it comes to a new president in office. Yet the more you dig.... well anyway

Vylo said:

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

Click to expand...

They did, just not during the final stretch between the RNC convention and Election Day. They're typically earlier stops, when candidates are still in fundraising mode.

Blade said:

If just went back to 2017 Dems really quested that.. now 2020 Rep questioned that. Go back more and.. yeah it always happens. Be wonderful to think there has NEVER been fraud of any kind when it comes to a new president in office. Yet the more you dig.... well anyway

Click to expand...

The difference is democrats questioned it, were shown evidence fraud didn't happened and then accepted that. they didn't wait in dallas for JFK and JFK jr to rise from the dead.

Albion said:

No, it doesn't. For one thing, the Court's decision was not decided on the evidence. The appeal was denied without the evidence being considered, and that was done on the basis (a majority of justices said) that the AG of Texas, who brought the suit, did not have "standing" to bring suit involving errors made by other states.

Click to expand...

80 times courts have not considered the mountain of evidence of widespread fraud? How do you explain that? 80 times. 80.

Albion said:

But unless there is evidence, then the question is academic. In the case of Biden's election, there is a mountain of evidence

Click to expand...

There is no evidence at all of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. None.