[Vision2020] Hillary Won by 2 Million Votes! More than Gore, Nixon, Kennedy

Sun Nov 13 15:23:34 PST 2016

Under an electoral college system, the vote of a Democrat in a predominantly-Republican state is virtually worthless.

That same vote possesses value in an election where the winner is determined strictly by the popular vote.

Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"There's room at the top they are telling you still.
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill."

- John Lennon

> On Nov 13, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes - I am mixing apples (checks) and oranges (balances).  If it's any consolation i fully support equal rights and policies to reduce greenhouse emissions.  I voted for Hillary Clinton.  I'm likely on your side on all issues except maybe gun control which I oppose even as a non-gun owner.  V2020 doesn't handle discourse very well which is pretty much why there is rarely a healthy debate in this forum if any debate whatsoever.   I find it quite disingenuous after the fact for some on the left to be complaining about an EC system that both parties understand extremely well.  Then again, Trump bellowing non-stop that the system is rigged seemed to strike a chord with his voters, so I'm all in favor of the Dems adopting that similar strategy as well if they feel that will help them win elections.
> -Scott
> 
> From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> To: Ron Force <ronforce at gmail.com>; Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>; Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> 
> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 9:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hillary Won by 2 Million Votes! More than Gore, Nixon, Kennedy
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Surely you know you are mixing apples and oranges here:
> 
> 'My answer is that I fully support a system that provides adequate checks and balances between the various powers in play.  The EC does an exemplary job of that.  As far as the democratic process is concerned, I'm no fan of 'Majority Rule' since it results in codified bans on interracial marriages, bans on gay marriages, bans on trannies using restrooms, etc.  Thankfully our system can nullify the so-called democratic process before it cements the Tyranny of the Majority.'
> 
> The EC does an exemplary job giving small states disproportionate influence over presidential elections. It plays no role in preventing 'codified bans on interracial marriages, bans on gay marriages, bans on trannies using restrooms, etc.  Thankfully our system can nullify the so-called democratic process before it cements the Tyranny of the Majority.' If anything, as we will see, it can make these easier to codify. Watch the Republican majority and President have a go at these.
> 
> Sunil
> 
> 
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <vision2020-bounces at moscow.com> on behalf of Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 11:55 PM
> To: Ron Force; Ted Moffett
> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hillary Won by 2 Million Votes! More than Gore, Nixon, Kennedy
>  
> If you want to get rid of the Electoral College to make it easier for your candidates to win, then follow the process to amend the Constitution.  Ted posits, 'it seems incredible to defend a system that would allow a president to be chosen based on winning 21.8% of the vote, and grants votes in some states far more weight than in other states, unless not fully supporting democratic one person one vote principles.'  My answer is that I fully support a system that provides adequate checks and balances between the various powers in play.  The EC does an exemplary job of that.  As far as the democratic process is concerned, I'm no fan of 'Majority Rule' since it results in codified bans on interracial marriages, bans on gay marriages, bans on trannies using restrooms, etc.  Thankfully our system can nullify the so-called democratic process before it cements the Tyranny of the Majority.
> 
> Take heart in that in the 2018 mid-term elections, the Democrats will pick up 4 Senate seats and 30 House seats as have been the average gain over the past 21 midterm elections for the party not occupying the White House.  Each party gets 8 years controlling the White House and a staggered 8 years controlling Congress.  I had fully expected that Democrats to *easily* retain the White House this year and was shocked that they had failed their normally solid base of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania none of which, I believe, had wound up in the Republican's win column in decades.  What went wrong with Hillary's messaging and right with Trumps messaging to turn all three of these states from blue to red?
> 
> -Scott
> 
> 
> From: Ron Force <ronforce at gmail.com>
> To: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> 
> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hillary Won by 2 Million Votes! More than Gore, Nixon, Kennedy
> 
> And slavery had a lot to do with the EC: https://newrepublic.com/article/138631/terrible-skewed-anachronistic-electoral-college-gave-us-trump
> 
> How the Terrible, Skewed, Anachronistic Electoral College Gave Us Trump
> newrepublic.com
> Once again, a Democrat has won the popular vote but lost the election. It is time to throw out this badly outdated institution.
> 
> On Nov 13, 2016 11:45 AM, "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This is exactly why the brilliant framers came up with the Electoral College as a check / balance of not allowing Congress to select a president (except in an Electoral College tie) and not allowing a president to be elected solely by popular vote which can be heavily skewed by the more populous states.  Hillary and company were well aware of how the system elects a president and yet they still shockingly blew Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to a hack like Trump who didn't even have the support of his own party.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> 
> "... not allowing a president to be elected solely by popular vote which can be heavily skewed by the more populous states."
> 
> By this logic, perhaps we should elect Idaho's governor in a manner that prevents Ada county from a "heavily skewed" impact.  I've never heard any complaints that Idaho's governor is elected based on a popular vote, one vote one person, regardless of whether they are from a heavily populated county, like Ada, or a much smaller populated county like Latah.  
> 
> Perhaps you are just stirring the pot here, because it seems incredible to defend a system that would allow a president to be chosen based on winning 21.8% of the vote, and grants votes in some states far more weight than in other states, unless not fully supporting democratic one person one vote principles.
> 
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> ------------------------------ ----------------
> Text below from article at website below:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ tyler-lewis/why-we-should- abolish-the_1_b_8961256.html
> Tyler Lewis
> 3) A Person Can Become President By Winning Only 21.8% of the Popular Vote
> 
> As previously stated, the Electoral College is a winner take all system. If a candidate wins the popular vote of a state by a just a single vote, he generally receives all the electoral votes of that state (excluding Maine and Nebraska). Combine this with the fact that smaller states receive more electoral votes per person than larger states, and it becomes possible to win the presidency by winning just 21.8% of the American public’s vote.
> According to a study done by Jesse Ruderman, “A presidential candidate could be elected with as a little as 21.8% of the popular vote by getting just over 50% of the votes in DC and each of 39 small states. This is true even when everyone votes and there are only two candidates. In other words, a candidate could lose with 78.2% of the popular vote by getting just under 50% in small states and 100% in large states.”
> ------------------------------ --------------
> Each person's vote should be weighted the same, unless you object somehow to fair representative democracy.  The electoral college sometimes dilutes the votes of US citizens when we get an outcome like Bush v. Gore 2000, or Trump v. Hillary 2016, as this excerpt from the article further explains: 
> As fairvote.org explains, “For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one “elector” for every 177,556 people and Texas has one “elector” for about every 715,499.”
> By giving smaller states more electoral votes per person than larger states, disparity was created across the nation in regards to the significance of each citizens’ vote. With the Electoral College, the value of a vote depends on what state a person lives in.
> 
>  
> From: Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com>
> To: vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 11:31 AM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Hillary Won by 2 Million Votes! More than Gore, Nixon, Kennedy
> 
> NY Times, Nov. 11
> 
> Hillary Clinton didn’t just win the popular vote. She won it by a substantial margin.
> By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according to my Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
> 
> -- 
> 
> A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. 
> 
> -Greek proverb
> 
> “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self- imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! ‘Have courage to use your own understand-ing!—that is the motto of enlightenment.
> 
> --Immanuel Kant
> 
> 
> 
> ============================== =========================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ============================== =========================
> 
> 
> ============================== =========================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ============================== =========================
> 
> 
> ============================== =========================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ============================== =========================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20161113/2ef046a7/attachment-0001.html>