Don't want Trump in 2020? Here is what you do...

[Slavister]

It is an absurd system and should be opposed by any rational adult.

:roll:

You are the one who keeps bringing up the EC because you clearly did not understand, which has already been pointed out. So you "try again".

You were the first one to bring up ...

Your vote counts at your state level. That is fair.

All I've been saying is that equal.vote and similar systems do not contradict this, but whatever...

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

1-I highly doubt Trump runs in 2020.
2-If Trump runs and wins the GOP nomination, if you want to defeat him...the answer is simple. Dont run another piece of **** candidate like Hillary Clinton. Dont cheat half the democrat voting base by rigging the system against them. Dont have members of the DNC collude with members of the media to pass debate questions to their preferred candidates. Hey...try not to send a bunch of emails to each other exposing your bull**** tactics and if you insist on doing it anyway, then dont send your server email access codes and passwords out in group texts and make sure your most senior DNC party members are at least as smart as a 7 year old when it comes to phishing emails. In other words...dont **** yourselves, like you did the last time.

Somewhere in there is an admission that Trump is an awful candidate who only won because he ran against an unlikeable dragon lady

 

[VanceMack]

Somewhere in there is an admission that Trump is an awful candidate who only won because he ran against an unlikeable dragon lady

You need to be honest. Trump beat 16 other GOP candidates. That wasnt an accident. Trumps rallies were massively attended. He wasnt an 'awful' candidate. He was actually a pretty successful candidate. He is a douchebag...but he also has very popular positions. Even with a full court press of anti-Trump hatred he sits at 47%, equaling Obamas approval rating at the juncture.

But yes..Clinton was a piece of **** candidate.

 

[Excon]

You were the first one to bring up ...

That is a lie.
You are the first person to bring it up in post #17.

All I've been saying is that equal.vote and similar systems do not contradict this, but whatever...

They certainly do when the person who gets the most votes isn't elected because you/they want a plurality tabulation of other choices factored in. That is in and of itself an unfair system.

 

[Slavister]

That is a lie.
You are the first person to bring it up in post #17.

I quoted your post #13 where you brought it up.

 

[Excon]

I quoted your post #13 where you brought it up.

:doh

And as already pointed out, I did not bring it up there.

 

[Slavister]

And as already pointed out, I did not bring it up there.

Ok, you are right that I assumed you were talking about EC in my post #13, when you were talking about something similar, i.e. about your point that people do not directly elect the President. In your own words ...

While we accomplish that by means of the EC, the point was that it is not a National election by the People. The People elect their local and State Reps and the States elect the President.

Ok, fine. So I was referring to EC as a shorthand for your point above of indirect voting for President via State Reps. That's not very important though. What's important is that you go on to say this:

In contrast, they want direct election of the President by the Star system, or didn't you know what you were promoting?

to which I replied ...

The star voting system is proposed for choosing candidates at all levels, local, state and national. At national level, winner of the star voting system in each state could just as well be EC representative voting for the winner in that state on behalf of that state.

That's the point... the system I promote would work just as well with EC, or if you like, with indirect election of the President. In fact a similar system is already being practiced for President election and I gave you a couple of states that use it as examples. But you had no good response to that other than to say that I am bringing up EC.

 

[Excon]

to which I replied ...



That's the point... the system I promote would work just as well with EC, or if you like, with indirect election of the President. In fact a similar system is already being practiced for President election and I gave you a couple of states that use it as examples. But you had no good response to that other than to say that I am bringing up EC.

Did I dispute that such a system could work under the EC? Or did I perhaps say the following?



... when the person who gets the most votes isn't elected because you/they want a plurality tabulation of other choices factored in, that is in and of itself an unfair system.

Star Voting = trying to **** up this country even more.

 

[Slavister]

Did I dispute that such a system could work under the EC?

That's what it sounded like when you said this

In contrast, they want direct election of the President by the Star system, or didn't you know what you were promoting?

I simply pointed out that this is NOT what they are promoting with this system, as far as I can tell.

Or did I perhaps say the following?

... when the person who gets the most votes isn't elected because you/they want a plurality tabulation of other choices factored in, that is in and of itself an unfair system.

Yes, you also DID say this. IMO it does not make much sense. When you say "the person who gets the most votes", I assume you mean most EC votes under current system where voting is done by CURRENT system in the States that do NOT practice Star-like system (e.g. you think Maine is LESS fair than Vermont). I want another system that much better represents peoples votes than the current system. Therefore it WOULD in fact be more fair as it would better represent the will of the people (while keeping EC in place as well, if you like).

 

[Excon]

That's what it sounded like when you said this

iLOL
No.
That would not say the process could not also work under the EC.

I simply pointed out that this is NOT what they are promoting with this system, as far as I can tell.

As far as I can tell it can be an option.

I want another system that much better represents peoples votes than the current system.

Yes. I understand you want a more unfair system that tabulates a plurality with other choices factored in, that is in and of itself an unfair system.

Therefore it WOULD in fact be more fair as it would better represent the will of the people (while keeping EC in place as well, if you like).

No. It is more unfair.

 

[Slavister]

As far as I can tell it can be an option.

An option? You claimed they are promoting elections based on getting rid of State Reps. Now, it's down to "it's an option" to use the Star system either way? Huh? Do you see anything on the site at all that supports what you claimed? I.e. any discussion at all about getting rid of State Reps / EC? If not, you just assumed something that you wanted to see there and accuse them of.

Yes. I understand you want a more unfair system that tabulates a plurality with other choices factored in, that is in and of itself an unfair system.

Well you want to claim it's an unfair system but you never explain WHY you think it's unfair. Why is it unfair to capture people's desire to for candidate X, but if they are nowhere close to top 2 spots, then to chose Y? It's clearly a better system than what we have today where instead of voting for who you really want, people are forced to vote for who they think has a better chance of winning among 2 candidates in 2-party system, making the 2 parties much more powerful than they should be and much less representative of the people's voices than they should be.

 

[Excon]

Well you want to claim it's an unfair system but you never explain WHY you think it's unfair.

Clearly you are not paying attention to what has been said.

... when the person who gets the most votes isn't elected because you/they want a plurality tabulation of other choices factored in, that is in and of itself an unfair system.

The reason came before the the underlined.

Good luck with your nonsensical bs.