• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bears 2, libertarians 0

Glitch said:
As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the popular vote in presidential elections doesn't mean diddly-squat. Only the Electoral College counts in presidential elections and Perot got zero EC votes. There was not a single State where Perot held the majority of the popular vote. If he had, then he would have received at the very minimum one EC vote if it were Maine or Nebraska, or a minimum of three EC votes if it was any other State or DC. Which means that Perot lost in every State, and DC.
Click to expand...
But are you sure he didn't cost Bush enough votes to win? I voted for Clinton so no real horse in this race, but I thought that was debatable?
 
skeptic llc said:
But are you sure he didn't cost Bush enough votes to win? I voted for Clinton so no real horse in this race, but I thought that was debatable?
Click to expand...
What part of "zero EC votes" did you not understand? If he received zero EC votes he could not have possibly cost anyone anything because he won absolutely nothing. Perot had absolutely no effect on the outcome of either the 1992 or 1996 elections.
 
Glitch said:
What part of "zero EC votes" did you not understand? If he received zero EC votes he could not have possibly cost anyone anything because he won absolutely nothing. Perot had absolutely no effect on the outcome of either the 1992 or 1996 elections.
Click to expand...
Are you being dense on purpose? The question is whether he siphoned off enough popular votes to cost Bush EC votes.
 
skeptic llc said:
Are you being dense on purpose? The question is whether he siphoned off enough popular votes to cost Bush EC votes.
Click to expand...
In order to cost Bush, or Clinton, any EC votes Perot would have to win the popular vote of at least one State. Since that never happened the obvious answer is: No. If that simple answer is beyond your ability to comprehend then you are obviously trolling.
 
Glitch said:
In order to cost Bush, or Clinton, any EC votes Perot would have to win the popular vote of at least one State. Since that never happened the obvious answer is: No. If that simple answer is beyond your ability to comprehend then you are obviously trolling.
Click to expand...
I think (?) you are being dumb deliberately. if Clinton = 41, Bush = 39, and Perot = 20, then Perot could well have cost Bush enough votes to win instead of lose. Why are you trying to translate this into false absolutism? I don't get your purpose. You can't actually not see it, can you?
 
Glitch said:
As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the popular vote in presidential elections doesn't mean diddly-squat. Only the Electoral College counts in presidential elections and Perot got zero EC votes. There was not a single State where Perot held the majority of the popular vote. If he had, then he would have received at the very minimum one EC vote if it were Maine or Nebraska, or a minimum of three EC votes if it was any other State or DC. Which means that Perot lost in every State, and DC.
Click to expand...

I think what he is saying is that Perot got enough votes in some states to change how that state voted and thus indirectly change the EC vote.
 
Luce said:
"Almost' and $2.00 gets you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.
Click to expand...
True, but "almost" means it's also not implausible that it could actually happen some time ... which I think was how this started (IDFK)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom