Serious question to Trump voters

[zipman]

Then every election from now on will be suspect.

That's just stupid. The fact that you don't like the rules doesn't mean that they make the election suspect.

 

[zipman]

trump said it was the most secure election ever -- right up until he lost.

So did his cyber security chief which is why Trump fired him.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Whether you love him or hate him it seems, at this point anyways, he will be the repubican nominee. I would love for the reps to come up with a different choice that is not quite so divisive. If trump is re-elected it will just be 4 more years of the same nonsense of investigation after investigation and more impeachments. UNLESS the reps control both houses too. I believe his time has passed.

I do find myself in a quandary though as I have no respect for biden and cannot and will not support or vote for him. So where does this leave me? Either vote for a third party candidate or don't vote at all. Not very satisfying unless a strong, viable third party candidate emerges.

Too bad you couldn't just vote for a cock in your ass, then you'd be happy.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Thing is Trailer isn't wrong that every election from now on is going to be suspect. It doesn't matter what laws are changed when people of authority have spent almost three years claiming you can't trust the elections. Longer than that poisoning the well on the media at every level. Once trust is lost on the level its been lost and not entirely on the Right its hard to get it back.

 

[schism666]

So did his cyber security chief which is why Trump fired him.

simple facts are like kryptonite to these trump cultists.

 

[dmallord]

I’ve read through this entire rant today. Nothing said here is moving anyone toward a better means of selecting a President. If you are sincere in affecting change, why don’t you stop the name-calling and set forth a dialog on improving the methods? Perhaps begin with a twelfth-grade level refresher course, as some of you seem to think the other side lacks knowledge of how the system works. Ladies and gentlemen, a polite discourse would be acceptable rather than some of the rhetoric stated to this point. This would take a bit of space, so I’m limiting my ‘stump’ speech to just a bit of history.

First, as a footnote, the Electoral College was established during the drafting of the United States Constitution in 1787. It resulted from a compromise between the framers of the Constitution, who had differing views on how the President should be elected. The principal architects of the Electoral College system were James Madison, a proponent of centralized solid governance, and Alexander Hamilton, a proponent of the more popular vote approach of selecting a President and National governance as a whole.

There were two main approaches to electing the President during the Constitutional Convention sessions. Delegates argued for a direct popular vote where citizens would vote for the President directly, and the candidate with the most votes would win. This approach faced criticism because other delegates were concerned that citizens might not have enough information about candidates from other states and regions, potentially leading to a bias in favor of candidates from their state. Others proposed that Congress should elect the President. This approach was criticized for potentially giving too much power to Congress and making the President beholden to them rather than the people.

Thus the delegates devised the Electoral College to arrive at a middle ground, primarily cobbled together by Madison and Jefferson. Since then, the addition of the 12th Amendment (which clarified the process of electing the President and Vice President) and various laws and regulations have been enacted by individual states. Despite its evolution, the fundamental structure of the Electoral College remains intact - since 1776 - as part of the United States' unique system for electing the President.

At the time of the Constitution’s framing, communication among states took months, even years, in some cases. Candidates’ ‘stump’ speeches reached few ears outside a candidate’s home state. Lack of communication and knowledge of candidates led to the creation of the Electoral College. Today, with instantaneous media distribution being so easily viewed, I would suggest that we no longer have those lack of communication or knowledge issues. In recognition, I would offer that we seriously consider fixing that compromised system known as the Electoral College.

Several proposals have been put forth to replace or reform the Electoral College method of electing the President of the United States. These proposals often stem from criticisms of the current system, such as when a candidate wins the presidency despite losing the popular vote. Here are a few of the significant alternatives suggested: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), Direct Popular Vote, Ranked-Choice Voting (Instant Runoff Voting), and Proportional Allocation of Electors. There are others. I’ll expand upon these soon.

Your thoughts?

 

[Sean Renaud]

TLDR: Ranked voting, Ballot Fusion, forced interviews would do miracles. Not gonna happen but that would be a very, very solid plan.

Not that I have been doing any better but it is tough to talk about the EC without talking about Congress. The US Constitution Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3 about halfway down if you want to read the exact text. It states the number of Representatives shall not exceed 1 per 30k citizens but each state get at least 1.

In 1929 https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/ the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the House at 435. Now let me state, I don't disagree with that part per se. 435 people is too many to hold an effective conversation IMO. That said I'm not gonna do the math right now on how many votes each state is supposed to have right now BUT our population is much higher than it was back then. If we look at election maps the Democrats traditionally win the majority vote but live in very few concentrated areas.

If people thought that 435 was the correct number. That number seems entirely arbitrary. I mean any number would be arbitrary but why not 455? 400? Anyway this means even as people in the 70s and 80s voted with their feet to California in large numbers as high as our voting power is, according to the Constitution, we should have much, much more. Now this is where I have to say I'm not a huge fan of the Constitution. This is a clear case of people disagreed with it but instead of amending it we just worked around it and nobody really cares. What is the point of something being "The law of the land" if the law doesn't matter anytime we don't feel like dealing with it. While looking to the Founders for wisdom can be constructive dead men cannot be debated and they lived in a vastly different world.

I won't go into too many examples. I think 1 will suffice. We have a RIGHT to bear arms. Even if we put up a lot of work arounds and a majority of Americans want more restrictions. We have a PRIVILEGE to drive a car. How long was it between the death of the last Founder and the invention of the car? A century? How long between the invention of the car and needing a license? My point here is the Founders left out A LOT of things. I believe they would believe a government that is taking away your horses and wagons has already qualified as something that needs overthrowing. You don't need to put that in writing.

So we are getting screwed even harder than most people want to acknowledge.

The reality is we are never changing how we vote in this country because the Right can simply refuse to negotiate and it ceases to matter. We could switch to Fusion voting though that might get messy. At least its one of two obvious ways to make 3 parties at least somewhat viable. All it means is that Mr.X could run as a socialist AND as a democrat if he won both parties. And Q could run as Libertarian and Republican. Or any fusion their over.

https://ballotpedia.org/Fusion_voting

Ranked Choice is another option. It just means I could have voted for Bernie as my first choice knowing full well he wasn't winning and Hillary as my second choice. Maybe Trump STILL wins but at least we would have hard numbers on if someone cut from Bernie's cloth like a more experienced AOC could win. I mean she's younger than me, I honestly don't even know if she's old enough to run if she wanted to. I looked it up, she can't run until 2028 even if she wanted to. And she'd logically need to at least become a Senator. This century has been bonkers. Obama was the first non Governor/military leader to win in a long time. And he was up against McCain so either way the result is the same. Trump is the only one with zero government or military exp so maybe the rules changed.

The thing is I can't pretend that both of these systems heavily benefit the Left over the Right. While I think that ULTIMATELY the majority should win more often than not. I'm okay with protecting minority opinion. Though when I read various things about the Founding Fathers I wonder if they were all very stoned when they made the government. I mean what the hell did they think would happen when the presidency would be decided by whoever hit 51%? That they wouldn't break primarily into two factions because a 3 player game sucks if you have to crush two people. If you get 49% and the combined get 51% nobody wins and the House chooses.

Though considering only rich white men could vote and I know that's a dead horse but it has to get beaten. I don't think they REALLY meant to set up a Republic except on paper. They assumed (and had the world stayed largely the same they might have been right) that a relatively small group of families would just kinda pass the presidency around. Hell that was my biggest gripe with Hillary and Jeb. Either one winning would have been part of almost thirty uninterupted rule by two families. If you look into the Kennedy family, especially if you count women or whatever who don't share the name but are still fam. They basically inherit political power. I could be wrong I haven't done shit tons of research on that cus I don't think that's a thing you can fix.

There are other political fixes I think could easily be made. Some I think even the Right would agree with. I mean there are 100 Senators, 435 Reps, even factoring in for their like 6 week vacation we could write a law FORCING politicians to go on all 3 big news networks to show up for an hour 3 times a year. At least for the Senators I think the Reps could pull it but at least the Senate. Could easily handle it. I might even form a ranking for independent media and force them out there.

The Media mostly asks soft questions and don't push back because the Senators and Reps are not required to give Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow time at all. So you can't make them look too stupid and you can't just finish an interview and the next day pick it apart and then make them look stupid. With the internet and computers where they are today you could easily fact check people for the audience.

Mr. X: Do you support abortion 5 minutes before birth?
Sub Zero: The overwhelming majority of abortions take place in the third trimester. Late terms are only done if the life of the mother is in danger or the baby will never have any quality of life and probably won't even survive Birth.

6 Months later
Sub Zero: You get an abortion, you get an abortion, everybody gets an abortion! That Gen Z that's still lives with you, YOU get an abortion!
Mr. X: What changed your opinion?

I think it would draw a stark line between the parties though or at least the media. Like Tucker would be asking AOC, you're boyfriend has big feet, is it true what they say? Then screaming she only loves his cock. Rachel would be asking Rand Paul who has famously said that if health care is free makes you a slave, what is military service?

But like I said already these are all dead in the water. There aren't enough genuine tweeners (in Congress) to think the Right would support this. Truth is the Left might not. I mean Bush 2024 was the last time the Right had a majority vote. I'm not knocking Bush I'm totally over most what happened with him. He had a majority because 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan and a RAH RAH that resounded around America. I don't have to like it but when we feel attacked we never ask if we did something, if this was mostly random and we should just lick our wounds. In hindsight this was the right move. We should have put guards on every plane, hardened our ports. My only idea as to why they haven't attacked a port is they really don't care. They rope a doped us. And that's Afghanistan. Iraq was a war of aggression and I'm told we don't have the goal of regime change (this very day) but that is practically all we do.

As an adult I find it harder and harder to pretend I'm not the guy in the Empire who should stand up and say no more but the RRR (Risk/Reward/Ratio) fucking sucks. I'll probably die guilty on that front but still things we aren't most of the last few decades is the good guy unless you only scale us to Russia and even then it gets rough.

Either way rand over. As much as I recognize we ignore the Constitution when its in the way I wish it was actually adhered to HARD so people would be more likely to say "Well those farmers don't matter to computer users."

 

[TrailerHitch]

That's just stupid. The fact that you don't like the rules doesn't mean that they make the election suspect.

Yawn...Like I care what you think.

 

[TrailerHitch]

To you.

Because you don't understand how they process votes and you believe the horseshit that they're telling you.

Why did you trust elections up until recently? You think they did things differently?

Who says I did trust them?

 

[adrina]

Gotta love after the fact'ers.

 

[ll74]

Who says I did trust them?

So why would you say this now?

Then every election from now on will be suspect.

 

[Lazaran]

I’ve read through this entire rant today. Nothing said here is moving anyone toward a better means of selecting a President. If you are sincere in affecting change, why don’t you stop the name-calling and set forth a dialog on improving the methods? Perhaps begin with a twelfth-grade level refresher course, as some of you seem to think the other side lacks knowledge of how the system works. Ladies and gentlemen, a polite discourse would be acceptable rather than some of the rhetoric stated to this point. This would take a bit of space, so I’m limiting my ‘stump’ speech to just a bit of history.

First, as a footnote, the Electoral College was established during the drafting of the United States Constitution in 1787. It resulted from a compromise between the framers of the Constitution, who had differing views on how the President should be elected. The principal architects of the Electoral College system were James Madison, a proponent of centralized solid governance, and Alexander Hamilton, a proponent of the more popular vote approach of selecting a President and National governance as a whole.

There were two main approaches to electing the President during the Constitutional Convention sessions. Delegates argued for a direct popular vote where citizens would vote for the President directly, and the candidate with the most votes would win. This approach faced criticism because other delegates were concerned that citizens might not have enough information about candidates from other states and regions, potentially leading to a bias in favor of candidates from their state. Others proposed that Congress should elect the President. This approach was criticized for potentially giving too much power to Congress and making the President beholden to them rather than the people.

Thus the delegates devised the Electoral College to arrive at a middle ground, primarily cobbled together by Madison and Jefferson. Since then, the addition of the 12th Amendment (which clarified the process of electing the President and Vice President) and various laws and regulations have been enacted by individual states. Despite its evolution, the fundamental structure of the Electoral College remains intact - since 1776 - as part of the United States' unique system for electing the President.

At the time of the Constitution’s framing, communication among states took months, even years, in some cases. Candidates’ ‘stump’ speeches reached few ears outside a candidate’s home state. Lack of communication and knowledge of candidates led to the creation of the Electoral College. Today, with instantaneous media distribution being so easily viewed, I would suggest that we no longer have those lack of communication or knowledge issues. In recognition, I would offer that we seriously consider fixing that compromised system known as the Electoral College.

Several proposals have been put forth to replace or reform the Electoral College method of electing the President of the United States. These proposals often stem from criticisms of the current system, such as when a candidate wins the presidency despite losing the popular vote. Here are a few of the significant alternatives suggested: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), Direct Popular Vote, Ranked-Choice Voting (Instant Runoff Voting), and Proportional Allocation of Electors. There are others. I’ll expand upon these soon.

Your thoughts?

•
My thoughts are that there are a few GLARING omissions in your synopsis about the electoral college.

In your quest for “civil discourse” you have dumbed down / white washed American history.

But at least “some” people won’t feel “uncomfortable”.

 

[TrailerHitch]

So why would you say this now?

Why do you care about everything I post? Do you sit on the computer and just anxiously wait for me to post so you can question everything I say? It sure seems like it. I guess I just fascinate you that much.

 

[ll74]

Why do you care about everything I post? Do you sit on the computer and just anxiously wait for me to post so you can question everything I say? It sure seems like it. I guess I just fascinate you that much.

Deflection

 

[TrailerHitch]

Deflection

No deflection. It's a serious question. You seem to anxiously wait for me to post so you can question everything I say. Why are you so enamored with me?

You asked a question I answered it. But like always a simple answer to your simpleton questions is never enough. You want to beat the dead horse forever and ever. Have fun with that.

 

[ll74]

No deflection. It's a serious question. You seem to anxiously wait for me to post so you can question everything I say. Why are you so enamored with me?

You asked a question I answered it. But like always a simple answer to your simpleton questions is never enough. You want to beat the dead horse forever and ever. Have fun with that.

You never answered the question. You made a suggestion that didn't line up with your previous statement and the deflected when I confronted you about it.

So I ask again - "Why did you trust elections up until recently? You think they did things differently? "

And remind you again of your statement.

Then every election from now on will be suspect.

Which suggests that you did suspect differently in prior elections, since they haven't changed the process much at all.

 

[Chernosoth]

At the time of the Constitution’s framing, communication among states took months, even years, in some cases. Candidates’ ‘stump’ speeches reached few ears outside a candidate’s home state. Lack of communication and knowledge of candidates led to the creation of the Electoral College. Today, with instantaneous media distribution being so easily viewed, I would suggest that we no longer have those lack of communication or knowledge issues. In recognition, I would offer that we seriously consider fixing that compromised system known as the Electoral College.

Communication delays may return as we run out of fossil fuels.

 

[TrailerHitch]

You never answered the question. You made a suggestion that didn't line up with your previous statement and the deflected when I confronted you about it.

So I ask again - "Why did you trust elections up until recently? You think they did things differently? "

And remind you again of your statement.

Which suggests that you did suspect differently in prior elections, since they haven't changed the process much at all.

I am sufficiently cynical about almost everything to do with our system of government. So while I have had my doubts in the past, they are more clear now. Hillary and her supporters whined for 4 years about how trump stole the election because she won the popular vote but he won the electoral college. Then trump and many of his supporters have been whining since the election about election fraud. So both parties have major players that don't trust the process. So why is it a surprise that I have some trust issues?

Clear enough or will you ask yet another inane question?

 

[schism666]

Why do you care about everything I post? Do you sit on the computer and just anxiously wait for me to post so you can question everything I say? It sure seems like it. I guess I just fascinate you that much.

you really don't understand how message boards work. it's weird.

 

[ll74]

I am sufficiently cynical about almost everything to do with our system of government. So while I have had my doubts in the past, they are more clear now. Hillary and her supporters whined for 4 years about how trump stole the election because she won the popular vote but he won the electoral college. Then trump and many of his supporters have been whining since the election about election fraud. So both parties have major players that don't trust the process. So why is it a surprise that I have some trust issues?

Clear enough or will you ask yet another inane question

The process for counting absentee votes hasn't changed. They have always relied on the post date. There is nothing fraudulent about that.

Your distrust has nothing to do with any part of the process, so changing the date is just a random thing that would not do a damn thing to change your mind

 

[TrailerHitch]

Actually I do understand how they work. I also understand stalking.

 

[ll74]

Actually I do understand how they work. I also understand stalking.

Awesome. So you understand why absentee votes are valid up to the postmark date of the election and not just skipped if they arrive later.

 

[TrailerHitch]

The process for counting absentee votes hasn't changed. They have always relied on the post date. There is nothing fraudulent about that.

Your distrust has nothing to do with any part of the process, so changing the date is just a random thing that would not do a damn thing to change your mind

And this is your M.O. you asked me to explain my distrust of the system. I explained it clearly. I explained that both dems and reps have questioned the security of the system. So what do you do...You divert to something I posted several posts ago. You don't give a fuck about anything but playing games.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Awesome. So you understand why absentee votes are valid up to the postmark date of the election and not just skipped if they arrive later.

Once again irrelevant to my response. Nice try. No points awarded in the latest edition of your dumb ass game.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I am sufficiently cynical about almost everything to do with our system of government. So while I have had my doubts in the past, they are more clear now. Hillary and her supporters whined for 4 years about how trump stole the election because she won the popular vote but he won the electoral college. Then trump and many of his supporters have been whining since the election about election fraud. So both parties have major players that don't trust the process. So why is it a surprise that I have some trust issues?

Clear enough or will you ask yet another inane question?

Who the hell was bitching past maybe the end of the week and that's being generous. Yes, who was bitching 4 years later since I guess I get two questions. Cus I don't remember that at all. She was "robbed" but the stupid EC lets us get robbed basically every eight years. Its bullshit but that's how the world works sadly. And you don't mind not appealing to people but winning.