2 bits - Cottonwood Heights, UTOct. 19, 2017 11:34 a.m.@airnaut,What happened to the "He's only there because of the
gerrymandered electoral college"? Didn't hold water, did
it?No he's only there because "we're not a
Democracy"...Equally false statement.========= I won't explain how the Elector College works -- but it's dorked
up.When a state has 21 delegates, and 11 happen to be
Republican, The Electoral gives all 21 votes as to the Republican.Meaning 10, or 48% of the people of that State account for NOTHING.You tell me again how that is fair?You'll rationalize
as good so long as it's Trump, but bad if it's not your guy.
@airnaut,What happened to the "He's only there because of the
gerrymandered electoral college"? Didn't hold water, did
it?No he's only there because "we're not a
Democracy"...Equally false statement.We're not a
pure-democracy (thank heaven). But our government is a Democratic system.
There are many kinds of Democracy.Google and read "The United
States is both a ‘republic’ and a ‘democracy’ —
because ‘democracy’ is like cash'" (Washington Post)..."I often hear people argue (often quite militantly) that the United
States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A
common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage
Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body
of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives
responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of
“democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either
directly or through elected representatives” — we are that,
too"...So.. we are a Democracy. We are also a Republic. Deal
with it. Trump won the election. It was certified (by both parties). He did
in fact win, and is our President.
Under the rules in effect, the answer is "the most".A
similar argument could be made against the election of Trump (and more so with
Jay Evensen: How many votes do you need to be considered a winner?===== In a Democracy - the winner has the most votes.Trump did not have the most votes, but is POTUS today because America is
not a Democracy.
It's a well known fact that when the primary election is between the top-2
candidates, the majority wins (because the winner has to get 51% of the vote or
more (which is the definition of a majority).When it's not
between the top-2 (CMV signature approach)... nobody gets a majority (unless the
rest of the candidates are super-lame) and an outsider/outlier candidate has the
best chance of winning.The more mainstream-candidates there are on
the ballot... the less chance any of them have of winning, because the
mainstream-population's votes are split and diluted, and the more radical
candidate (who is the only candidate on the ballot who represents the outsiders)
so his voters are consolidated (not split between many similar moderate
candidates)... wins.It's not rocket science. It's a well
known electoral logic. The more candidates that are similar on the ballot...
the less chance they have of wining. Advantage to the outsider/most radical
candidate (who's voters are consolidated instead of being split/diluted
like his opponents). This was Trump last primary election.I
can't explain how Trump won the general election. Over-confidence by his
opponent I'm guessing.
Our liberal friends ought to be careful. The smaller the voting pool, the
easier and cheaper it is to play games with it.If someone like the
Koch Brothers wanted to really have fun with Utah Democrats, they'd recruit
about 3 very liberal candidates to run for a single Democrat seat. They'd
also recruit 1 rather moderate or even conservative (blue dog) to run for the
same seat. The 3 Koch Candidates would split the liberal vote with the Democrat
convention candidate 4 ways, allowing the moderate/conservative candidate to win
the nomination with as little as 21% of the primary vote.Ranked
order voting is a bit better than plurality, but has mathematical problems
allowing those in the know to game the system.The best method to
assure majority winners is the simple runoff election. Several States have this
provision. It is rarely needed. But when it is, it is well worth the cost to
have a majority winner.Plurality winners in single-seat districts
are a terrible idea. It begs for someone to game the system by encouraging lots
of candidates to run so as to split the majority vote all but assuring a win for
a minority-view candidate.
When "King Makers" decide that the people cannot be represented by proxy
in a Democratic Republic, that Democratic Republic has been replaced by a
government where the elite make the decisions which candidates will apear on the
ballot.In the caucus system, EVERY Republican can vote for
delegates who will represent that precinct at the nominating convention. At the
nominating convention, the voting continues until there are only two candidates.
There would never be more than two candidates if we followed the Democratic
Republic method, used by Congress to represent the People and the States.The only fair way to handle the situation that can occur when
Republicans are forced to allow the elite to modify the rules of candidate
selection, is to have as many primary elections as necessary until only two
candidates remain. Then, and only then, can we be assured that one of the
candidates will get a majority of votes cast, even if the majority vote ends up
being a coin toss.Unintended consequences are showing the folly of
letting the elite change the rules. It appears that the elite don't have
the correct answers after all.
@airnaut -11:08RE: "Donald Trump clearly LOST the election, but
managed to get the gerry-mandered Electoral college"...---Are
you serious?Do you know how silly that statement is?#1.
He didn't lose the election. Read the Constitution. Our Presidential
elections are determined by electoral college votes. #2. He
didn't "gerry-mander" the electoral college. That's
impossible (without redrawing State lines).To gerry-mander the
electoral college you would have to redraw State lines. Didn't happen.Did Trump re-draw the boundaries of any State? No.Did Trump
change the number of electoral college votes any State gets? No.So
how did Trump (or anybody) "Gerrymander" the electoral college? Please
explain.Make sure you google the definition of
"Gerrymandering" before answering that question.Gerrymander:"manipulate the boundaries of an electoral constituency
so as to favor one party/class".Trump didn't manipulate any
State boundaries. He didn't lose the election.That whole
statement is just factually false.===If "Bob Bennett
would have hands down beat Mike Lee"...Incumbent coming in #3 at
your own party convention doesn't indicate a hands down win.
This is the main advantage of the old system vs the new system (where if you
get signatures you get on the party primary ballot).Old system
guaranteed top-2 would face off in the party primary (not top-10 or 20).When top-2 face off you need 51% (AKA Majority) to win. In new
signature-system you could get just 10% support and win (if 10 people got
signatures).Recent Republican primary campaigns for President same
problem. Democrats have 2 people pretty early on, so they can focus.
Republicans had 16 having to share the stage in debates early on. They had to
do their debates in 2 shifts. Even late in the Primary there were 8 sharing the
stage, and attacking each other and basically doing the Democrats dirty work for
them (destroying their own candidates).With a split-vote an outsider
with radical supporters has a better chance than a mainstream candidate who has
to share his votes with 7 people with similar mainstream party positions (so we
get Trump)In the new system the winner may only get 10-20% support,
from his own party!Which doesn't build momentum for that
candidate going into the General election (with only sparse support even from
their own party).
@mcclarkRutherford B. Hayes won in 1876 without a popular vote win. His
electoral college win was extremely sketchy where a deal was made to get him 20
electoral votes from southern states in exchange for Republicans withdrawing
troops from the South (the end of Reconstruction). Tilden is the only candidate
to ever get more than 50% of the vote and not become President.Also
1824 and 1888 had the Presidency not go to the popular vote winner, so it
wasn't just Bush and Trump. The 1824 one went to the House.
@mcclark Read the article more closely. Bill won the popular vote but did not
get 50% . . . which is the entire point of the article.@airnaut
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the electoral college. Gerrymandering
only affects individual districts and who gets elected to the house of
Jay Evensen: How many votes do you need to be considered a winner?====== MOST of them.Even it it's split over 9 different
ways - He/She who has the MOST votes wins....Unless you
live in 2016 America, then it doesn't.So much for
Bill Clinton won the popular vote in both his elections, Jay once again uses
alternative facts. Bush 2 and Trump are the only ones in modern history to lose
the popular vote but win the election. Two total disasters for America.
Jay Evensen: How many votes do you need to be considered a winner?======= Donald Trump clearly LOST the election, but managed
to get the gerry-mandered Electoral college.Also, Bob Bennett
would have hands down beat Mike Lee if not for that skewed archaic caucus...I got an idea, How about Count my vote....
I'm 100% behind the ranked choice voting method. It should totally
eliminate the spoiler vote. I'm curious why Jay isn't convinced that
it will help people feel better about voting their minds instead of worrying
about wasting a vote.I think the issue is less about making sure a
candidate has a full majority as it is about making it easier for people to vote
for the candidate they actually like instead of voting against the candidate
they really dislike.Utah should adopt ranked choice voting.
It was amusing and yet scary to read an op-ed a couple of weeks ago suggesting
that Curtis wasn't the people's choice because he didn't win at
the convention, among the delegates. That person thought that Chris Herrod
should have been the choice even though he got far fewer votes than Curtis.
The idea continuously put forth in this state that delegates somehow
are favored over the general population, and we should trust them to make
decisions for us because the rest of us are too ignorant to know how to vote, is
really backwards.I look forward to the resurrection of count my vote
and the abolishment of the caucus system which should lead to less extremism on
both sides of the isle in our great state.