Jump to content


Photo

The Break It Vote


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 10 November 2016 - 12:53 AM

How did a small group of men who were founding a new nation based on the merits of the rights of the individual allow for the possibility that a time would predictably come when many of those very principles upon which said nation was founded are later betrayed by the ruling (read:political) class irrespective of political party affiliation?

 

They did it by writing the United States Constitution and establishing 3 equal but separate branches of government.

 

They did it by insuring freedom of the press under the assumption that the press would not be corrupted.

 

They did it by writing the first 10 amendments to that constitution and setting them apart as being sacrosanct and forever thereafter referred to as The Bill of Rights.

 

They did it by creating the possibility that any of the 3 branches of government could potentially be strong enough when backed by the will of the electorate to right the course of a ship that was on the wrong course.

 

Without our Constitutional safeguards, and specifically the power of the Executive Branch, the interests of the American People are all but lip service when power has corrupted nearly absolutely.

 

Our Declaration of Independence instructs We the People to "break" our own government as a matter of DUTY when it is called for. It takes a very "special" person to be that standard bearer particularly in the political climate of corruption in which we find ourselves. I place quotation marks around the word "special" because that quality has yet to be identified as a net positive or negative in this instance of our President elect, but we shall see.

 

I submit that the American people have chosen someone whom they believe, rightly or wrongly, can possibly "break" the status quo for the good.

 

Britain's vote to exit from the EU has been nick-named the "Brexit Vote."

 

I therefore nick-name the election of Donald J Trump, the "Break It Vote."


  • Mark Jamieson likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#2 Larry Trotter

Larry Trotter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 10 November 2016 - 10:19 AM

It is what it is. But, the will of the people nationwide, by the last count I saw, was over 233,000 more votes for Ms Clinton than Mr Trump. And, it is a nationwide election. It looks as though by completion of vote counting, at least a 200,000, and possibly over a quarter million popular vote win for Ms Clinton. So, I suppose all presidential elections have that possibility, either way.


Larry

Student of Assassination Research


#3 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 10 November 2016 - 10:56 AM

The founding fathers established the Electoral College for several reasons, including the prevention of abuse by the popular majority. Most Americans need a brush up course on the importance of those reasons particularly when their preferred candidate does not prevail. The first president to win the Electoral College, but lose the Popular vote, was John Quincy Adams.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#4 Larry Trotter

Larry Trotter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 10 November 2016 - 11:37 AM

So, does the prevention of abuse by a majority work state by state? No need for a debate Greg, as I do not see it changing either opinion, but I do appreciate the ability for a discussion with knowledgeable persons.


Larry

Student of Assassination Research


#5 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 10 November 2016 - 01:51 PM

I suppose you could lobby the US Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment ending the Electoral College. Good luck with that.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#6 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 10 November 2016 - 02:01 PM

To be clear, I am not endorsing Donald Trump. My commentary simply states what dynamic I believe was in play for this election cycle. Namely, Washington has been broken for a very long time, everyone knows it, and no politicians on either side of the aisle have come close to being able to even put a dent in the widespread corruption. And, more to the point, Hillary Clinton's deep corruption is not even in question for anyone who has had reasonable access to the evidence.

 

When a person breaks a bone, but does not get it properly set prior to the bone beginning to heal, often times an orthopedic will break the bone again in order to properly set it so that it can begin to heal properly. If it is not re-broken it will never truly be fixed.

 

Washington is like that, too. The only problem is that the political class is unwilling to risk their own political careers to address the problem. They benefit from the "broken" system remaining unfixed because it is rigged to support continuation of their political careers.

 

The American People are no longer willing to accept that status quo.

 

Enter Donald Trump. He is widely regarded as being capable of metaphorically "re-breaking" the system. It is consistent with his temperament. The American People have gambled that he will also be capable of "re-setting" the broken system so that it can truly heal properly.

 

We shall see, but I too am not holding my breath.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#7 Mark Jamieson

Mark Jamieson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 10 November 2016 - 06:07 PM

It is what it is. But, the will of the people nationwide, by the last count I saw, was over 233,000 more votes for Ms Clinton than Mr Trump. And, it is a nationwide election. It looks as though by completion of vote counting, at least a 200,000, and possibly over a quarter million popular vote win for Ms Clinton. So, I suppose all presidential elections have that possibility, either way.

 

Larry,

 

In the first census (1790) following the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787, the free white population was 2,897,805.  1,553,682 (54%) lived in just 4 states (MA, NY, PA, and VA).  The founders did not desire for the 4 most populated states to dictate to the remaining 9, therefore, the Electoral College was invented.  It was genius, especially since they had no idea where the territory/population would be in 200+ years.

 

Now in 2016, the US population sits at approximately 321,419,000.  164,000,000 live in just 9 of the 50 states, plus DC (CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, and NC).  Now, consider the incredible forethought of the founders in the Electoral College, in that, 41 states theoretically could be at the mercy of the 9.  

 

It's brilliance is only lost upon those who have never taken the time to consider the numbers.  My 2 cents.


  • Greg Burnham likes this

#8 Larry Trotter

Larry Trotter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 10 November 2016 - 06:37 PM

Larry,

 

In the first census (1790) following the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787, the free white population was 2,897,805.  1,553,682 (54%) lived in just 4 states (MA, NY, PA, and VA).  The founders did not desire for the 4 most populated states to dictate to the remaining 9, therefore, the Electoral College was invented.  It was genius, especially since they had no idea where the territory/population would be in 200+ years.

 

Now in 2016, the US population sits at approximately 321,419,000.  164,000,000 live in just 9 of the 50 states, plus DC (CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, and NC).  Now, consider the incredible forethought of the founders in the Electoral College, in that, 41 states theoretically could be at the mercy of the 9.  

 

It's brilliance is only lost upon those who have never taken the time to consider the numbers.  My 2 cents.

 

Mark,

When I looked it up, those 9 states account for 240 EVs, which leaves a needed 30 EVs to pull from 41 states + DC. So, I tend to believe that under that point of view, about 35 states could be at the mercy of the other 15. Just food for thought. But, thanks for the info.


Larry

Student of Assassination Research


#9 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 10 November 2016 - 07:59 PM

Mark,

When I looked it up, those 9 states account for 240 EVs, which leaves a needed 30 EVs to pull from 41 states + DC. So, I tend to believe that under that point of view, about 35 states could be at the mercy of the other 15. Just food for thought. But, thanks for the info.

 

The Founding Fathers must have been confused.


  • Mark Jamieson likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#10 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 10 November 2016 - 08:08 PM

Just for informational purposes, those who claim that Trump won the election due to "white male rage" that resulted in uneducated white males coming out to vote and "put him over the top," are misinformed or worse.

 

According to the New York Times, whose writers are notoriously anti-Trump:

 

Ninety-four percent of black women voted for Hillary Clinton. Sixty-eight percent of Latina women voted for Hillary Clinton. But 53 percent of the white female voters in this country voted for Donald Trump.

 

Moreover, Trump, beyond anyone's expectations, received a higher percentage of the African American vote than any Republican candidate has received in the last 36 years! The Latino vote for Trump exceeded expectations significantly at nearly 30% according to exit polls. According to census statistics, there are not enough "white males" in the electorate for them alone to have been as consequential to the outcome as Trump's critics would have us believe.

 

The actual numbers suggest that Legal Hispanic Immigrants who have become US Citizens resent the admission of Illegal Immigrants perhaps even more than the average non-Hispanic American resents it.

 

In a border state like California where I live, there are enough legal immigrants competing for jobs as it is without the added competition of illegals. Employers are required to pay legal immigrants (and all other legitimate employees) at least a minimum wage, if not more for performance. But when non-scrupulous employers choose to employ illegal immigrants who will accept lower wages, not only do the legal immigrants suffer more unemployment, but their wages are artificially suppressed, as well. It is no wonder that wages are down for Hispanics in this state when illegal immigration and employment are allowed. It is also no wonder that legal immigrants with voting rights would vote for someone they believe will put an end to unfair competition for jobs and wages in their communities and elsewhere.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#11 Mark Jamieson

Mark Jamieson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 11 November 2016 - 10:48 AM

Mark,

When I looked it up, those 9 states account for 240 EVs, which leaves a needed 30 EVs to pull from 41 states + DC. So, I tend to believe that under that point of view, about 35 states could be at the mercy of the other 15. Just food for thought. But, thanks for the info.

Larry,

 

As of today (11Nov2016), HRC leads the popular vote by 395,595 nationally.  She bested Trump by 2,568,841 votes in CA, the most populous state.  If you just remove them from the mix, Trump won the popular vote by over 2,000,000.  In a "majority rules" election, CA would have overruled the votes of the 49 states + DC.  

 

But, fortunately, the founders established a democratic Republic, not a democracy.  The Electoral College is brilliant.  Period.  This is why even our national leaders would benefit from a basic civics course, which, by the way, was once a staple in our public schools.


  • Greg Burnham likes this

#12 Larry Trotter

Larry Trotter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 11 November 2016 - 08:16 PM


 


 

Larry,

 

As of today (11Nov2016), HRC leads the popular vote by 395,595 nationally.  She bested Trump by 2,568,841 votes in CA, the most populous state.  If you just remove them from the mix, Trump won the popular vote by over 2,000,000.  In a "majority rules" election, CA would have overruled the votes of the 49 states + DC.  

 

But, fortunately, the founders established a democratic Republic, not a democracy.  The Electoral College is brilliant.  Period.  This is why even our national leaders would benefit from a basic civics course, which, by the way, was once a staple in our public schools.

 

Mark,

I appreciate the discussion, but most likely we see from different angles. So, to me, although Greg may not agree, Californians are US citizens, and the popular vote count should not consider from which state said votes originated in a national election, and therefor a vote is a vote to be counted as part of overall voting. But, if we remove Ohio and Texas and their 56 EVs, along with California and their 55 EVs, the DJT PV margin would be about 1.334 million. That is, if I did the numbers correctly. So I suppose it may be possible to pick and chose and adjust, but I see no value in that. And yes, we do live in a Republic, possibly a democratic one. Unfortunately, most of us fail to participate in local and/or regional elections as we all should. Thanks again for the conversation.


Larry

Student of Assassination Research


#13 Mark Jamieson

Mark Jamieson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 12 November 2016 - 11:45 AM

 

 

 

Mark,

I appreciate the discussion, but most likely we see from different angles. So, to me, although Greg may not agree, Californians are US citizens, and the popular vote count should not consider from which state said votes originated in a national election, and therefor a vote is a vote to be counted as part of overall voting. But, if we remove Ohio and Texas and their 56 EVs, along with California and their 55 EVs, the DJT PV margin would be about 1.334 million. That is, if I did the numbers correctly. So I suppose it may be possible to pick and chose and adjust, but I see no value in that. And yes, we do live in a Republic, possibly a democratic one. Unfortunately, most of us fail to participate in local and/or regional elections as we all should. Thanks again for the conversation.

 

Larry,

 

Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with seeing things from different angles, perspectives, opinions, etc.  It has to do with the US Constitution.  Under the Constitution of the United States of America (the document enumerating the laws under which this nation functions), we have NEVER elected a president by popular vote.  NEVER.  The fact that the person elected usually receives the majority vote is irrelevant.

 

All other elected officials (US and state senators and representatives, governors, mayors, etc.) ARE elected by popular vote, because they are only elected by those with the legal right to vote within a sovereign state entity.

 

"The popular vote should not consider from which state said votes originated in a nation election, and therefore a vote is a vote to be counted as part of overall voting."  Read history, my friend…  Like it or not, this is the law.

 

5 elections (2016 included) have resulted in a president who did not received the majority of the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and now Donald J. Trump (2016).  That's 5 of the 57 presidential elections… almost 10%.

 

The fact that you see "no value" in my example of CA, does in no way reduce the validity of the example.  It's not about picking and choosing.  I never said, nor insinuated that Californians weren't US citizens.  It was merely to show that the most populous state does not dictate to the entire nation who our president will be.  Our founders did not want that to happen.  I fail to understand why you are struggling to understand this very basic principle… it's been around since 1787.


  • Greg Burnham likes this

#14 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 12 November 2016 - 12:23 PM

Larry,

 

Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with seeing things from different angles, perspectives, opinions, etc.  It has to do with the US Constitution.  Under the Constitution of the United States of America (the document enumerating the laws under which this nation functions), we have NEVER elected a president by popular vote.  NEVER.  The fact that the person elected usually receives the majority vote is irrelevant.

 

All other elected officials (US and state senators and representatives, governors, mayors, etc.) ARE elected by popular vote, because they are only elected by those with the legal right to vote within a sovereign state entity.

 

"The popular vote should not consider from which state said votes originated in a nation election, and therefore a vote is a vote to be counted as part of overall voting."  Read history, my friend…  Like it or not, this is the law.

 

5 elections (2016 included) have resulted in a president who did not received the majority of the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and now Donald J. Trump (2016).  That's 5 of the 57 presidential elections… almost 10%.

 

The fact that you see "no value" in my example of CA, does in no way reduce the validity of the example.  It's not about picking and choosing.  I never said, nor insinuated that Californians weren't US citizens.  It was merely to show that the most populous state does not dictate to the entire nation who our president will be.  Our founders did not want that to happen.  I fail to understand why you are struggling to understand this very basic principle… it's been around since 1787.

 

Excellent points and summary, Mark. And I believe you are correct to point out that this has nothing to do with "differing perspectives, angles or opinions" -- rather, it is the LAW of the land and has been since the beginning! The Founding Fathers did not arbitrarily include the provisions for the electoral college haphazardly or otherwise nonchalantly. It was a very well thought out exercise in critical thinking, taking into account many factors that are, IMO, quite frankly, obvious in retrospect.

 

 

Larry,

 

I voted for Al Gore in 2000. He won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college. I did not challenge the legitimacy of the outcome--even though it meant my candidate lost--because the electoral college makes sense and is the law. As it turns out, ironically, I'm glad Gore lost. I wasn't a fan of Bush, but Gore turned into a climate alarmist after the election. In any event, the electoral college is one of the most important elements of our election process, as it levels the playing field. The popular vote does count, Larry. It is counted STATE by STATE. Whoever wins the popular vote in a STATE wins the electoral college votes for that state. Most, but not all, states are "winner takes all" electoral college votes.

 

Another way of looking at it is this: If Clinton had won, what if Trump supporters complained that the 55 California electoral college votes should be split up according to congressional district and not be awarded on a winner takes all basis? In such an equation it could be quite possible that Trump would have won when his "portion" of electoral college votes in California and other states he lost, were added to those of the remaining states that he won. The number of electoral college votes assigned to each state is related to the number of congressional seats in that state. That is what makes it fair.


  • Mark Jamieson likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#15 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 12 November 2016 - 01:05 PM

A quick tutorial on the electoral college from John Dinan, professor of political science at Wake Forest University. 

 

“Questions about the origin and operation of the Electoral College make up a regular unit in my classes on parties and elections at Wake Forest and surfaced again this week. Although the popular votes are still being counted, it is almost certain that the 2016 election will join the elections of 2000 and 1888 as clear cases where the candidate winning more of the popular vote does not prevail in the Electoral College.

 

“This is a reminder that what matters in winning the presidency is not the overall popular vote across the country but rather the popular vote in each of the 50 states and D.C. Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to their number of Senators and House members. And all but two states award their entire electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in that state.

 

“North Carolina, which has 13 House members and 2 senators, will award all 15 of its electoral votes to Trump because he won the highest number of popular votes in the state. Maine and Nebraska differ, in that they allocate their electoral votes based in part on which candidate wins the most votes in each of the state’s congressional districts.

 

“For instance, in Maine this year, Clinton won more votes in the state as a whole and therefore will secure 2 electoral votes on that account, and then she also won more votes in one of the state’s two districts and so she will secure a third electoral vote on that account; but Trump won more votes in the state’s other district and so he will win one of the state’s electoral votes, amounting to a 3-1 split in electoral votes from Maine this year.

 

“All of the state electoral votes, adding up to 538, are cast by particular persons in a meeting held in each state in mid-December and then sent to Congress for counting in early January, with 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

 

“In the states, each political party is responsible in the spring or summer of the election year for choosing the electors who would cast the electoral votes if that party’s candidate wins the state’s popular votes. Usually the parties select persons for their service to the party.

 

“For instance, North Carolina’s 15 Republican electors who will assemble in Raleigh to cast their electoral votes on Dec. 19 were selected by the North Carolina Republican Party at a state party convention.

 

The Democratic Party and Libertarian Party also selected a slate of 15 electors through a similar process, and in the event that Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson had won the popular vote in North Carolina, one of these slates of 15 electors would be going to Raleigh next month to cast North Carolina’s electoral votes.”


  • Mark Jamieson likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#16 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 12 November 2016 - 01:18 PM



_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#17 Mark Jamieson

Mark Jamieson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 12 November 2016 - 01:32 PM

For those who struggle with the concept of the Electoral College, perhaps the great American pastime will add clarity.

 

In the 2002 World Series, the Anaheim Angels defeated the San Francisco Giants in seven games, 4-3, despite being outscored in total runs (41-44).  Nobody claimed that the Giants were the World Series champions because they scored more runs.  The object of the WS is not to acquire the highest aggregate score; it is to win 4 games.

 

The Giants fans cannot claim that the system is "unfair" or "antiquated" as is being claimed with regards to the Electoral College.  They knew the rules going in: win 4 games.  

 

The object of the presidential election is not to acquire the majority of votes; it is to win 270 electoral votes.


  • Greg Burnham likes this

#18 Larry Trotter

Larry Trotter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 12 November 2016 - 01:56 PM

Mr Burnham, 

 

The US Citizen comment was an attempt to add a little humor, since I understand that you live there. And, I don't recall ever saying the Electoral College was not legal, but just a reminder that the popular vote indicated a difference in preference for the next US President. But, why would it be correct to remove any state from the equation? I picked two states won by DJT that together represented a similar electoral vote count total as California, to illustrate how the popular vote count could be adjusted by picking certain states. I did not spend a lot of time comparing numbers, but I believe that by picking and choosing, the removal of certain states that together could represent a similar population and/or electoral vote total, can alter the popular vote perspective. It was Mr Jamieson, not I, that wanted to illustrate what changes in popular vote count occurred by removing a large voter state that was won by HRC. Have a great afternoon!

 

Mr Jamieson,

 

Actually sir, I do not need to be chastised about the way that US Presidents are elected. Going back to the first presidential election I voted in, 1968, the candidate I voted for won, with 301 electoral votes, however he did not win in Texas, where I voted. So, although voting for the loser in Texas, my choice became the winner. And, as mentioned, I don't recall indicating the Electoral College was illegal, and was only discussing certain facts that are somewhat relevant. I have other things as well that I had wanted to illustrate and read comments and/or opinions on, but I see now it would be a waste of time. But, I do wonder, as I wander, why so much anger? As mentioned above, it was you who wished to illustrate how the equation was drastically changed by removing California from the mix. Was it simply because of a wide margin for HRC? If so, why not pick smaller states that together had similar margins of victory for DJT, with a similar electoral vote count overall total? No need to answer. Have a great day!


Larry

Student of Assassination Research


#19 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 12 November 2016 - 01:58 PM

For those who struggle with the concept of the Electoral College, perhaps the great American pastime will add clarity.

 

In the 2002 World Series, the Anaheim Angels defeated the San Francisco Giants in seven games, 4-3, despite being outscored in total runs (41-44).  Nobody claimed that the Giants were the World Series champions because they scored more runs.  The object of the WS is not to acquire the highest aggregate score; it is to win 4 games.

 

The Giants fans cannot claim that the system is "unfair" or "antiquated" as is being claimed with regards to the Electoral College.  They knew the rules going in: win 4 games.  

 

The object of the presidential election is not to acquire the majority of votes; it is to win 270 electoral votes.

 

Excellent analogy!

 

Tennis is very similar. If player "A" wins the first set by a margin of 6 games to 1 and then player "B" wins the following two sets by a margin of 6 games to 4 games each, who wins the match? Player "B."

 

Player "A" won a total of 14 games.

 

Player "B" won a total of 13 games.

 

But player "B" won 2 out of 3 SETS. So player "B" won the match even though he won fewer games than did player "A."

 

Imagine Novak Djokovic (as player "A") claiming he beat Roger Federer (as player "B") in such a scenario? Because Novak "won more games" would he argue that he deserved to win?

 

Nope.


  • Mark Jamieson likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#20 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,065 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 12 November 2016 - 02:15 PM

Mr Burnham, 

 

The US Citizen comment was an attempt to add a little humor, since I understand that you live there. And, I don't recall ever saying the Electoral College was not legal, but just a reminder that the popular vote indicated a difference in preference for the next US President. But, why would it be correct to remove any state from the equation? I picked two states won by DJT that together represented a similar electoral vote count total as California, to illustrate how the popular vote count could be adjusted by picking certain states. I did not spend a lot of time comparing numbers, but I believe that by picking and choosing, the removal of certain states that together could represent a similar population and/or electoral vote total, can alter the popular vote perspective. It was Mr Jamieson, not I, that wanted to illustrate what changes in popular vote count occurred by removing a large voter state that was won by HRC. Have a great afternoon!

 

I fail to see your logic. Nobody "removed" California from the election. Clinton's failure is due to her not winning the POPULAR VOTE in enough states...not by a long-shot. Even so, as the analysts kept reminding us, Clinton had a very large advantage this cycle going in and before a singe vote was cast. But, it is what it is.

 

By the way, we are NOT "America," per se. That is short-hand. America is continental, consisting of North, Central and South.

 

However, we are The UNITED STATES of America.

 

Let's do it this way:

 

Imagine an electoral college that assigns only one electoral college vote for each state period. Trump appears to have won 30 states so he gets 30 electoral college votes. Clinton appears to have won 20 states plus the District of Columbia for a total of 21 so she gets 21 electoral college votes.

 

Trump: 30

 

Clinton: 21

 

In such a scenario, he wins because he won the popular vote in the majority of STATES (30 - 21).

 

However, this still would not be fair even though he would have won the majority of POPULAR VOTES in the majority of STATES. So the Founding Fathers decided to "weight" the electoral college according to Congressional Seats, which are based on a state's population. Thus, California gets 55, New York gets 29, etc.

 

In order to "level the playing field" the Founding Fathers determined that a state that has a huge population should have more electoral college votes than a state with a smaller population, yet not be able to wipe out the votes of much smaller states merely by virtue of the smaller state's population disadvantage.

 

However, because those largely populated states do, in fact, have a higher population than do the states with fewer citizens, the states with larger populations do get more "votes" (electoral college) than smaller states get, as they should. Larger states also get more Congressional Seats than smaller states. So the number of electoral college votes is directly tied to the number of Congressional Seats for each state. California gets the highest by far with 55. So our population is definitely well represented. Remember we live in a Republic.

 

Clinton won ALL 55 electoral college votes from California and ALL 29 electoral college votes from New York, the two biggest prizes. And yes, both of those states electoral college votes were counted and awarded to her. She just didn't win the POPULAR VOTE in enough states.

 

Clinton lost the POPULAR VOTE in 59% of the states.

 

Bottom line: States Rights Matter.

 

Election.png


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Web Work by: XmasZen.com