Patterico's Pontifications

11/18/2020

Trump Attempts to Reverse Election Results

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



NBC News summarizes the shameful events of the past day:

Consider the last 24 hours:

  • The two Republican members of Wayne County’s canvassing board voted against certifying its election results before reversing course, and Trump praised the action: “Wow! Michigan just refused to certify the election results! Having courage is a beautiful thing. The USA stands proud!”
  • In Nevada — a state Trump lost by 2.4 percentage points — the president’s campaign team filed a lawsuit asking a judge to either declare Trump the winner or to reject the state’s election results.
  • In Pennsylvania — which Biden won by more than 82,000 votes — Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was in court asking a judge to overturn the state’s results. (“At bottom, you’re asking this court to invalidate some 6.8 million votes thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the commonwealth,” the judge said.)
  • And to top it off, the president on Tuesday fired the federal government’s head of cybersecurity, who had debunked many of the conspiracy theories that Trump’s team had been promoting.

Dana highlighted that last bit of outrageous retaliation here.

Meanwhile, Trump superfans — the same people who screamed about a “coup” when law enforcement investigated evidence of numerous weird connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia — seem just fine with these attempts to render meaningless the actual verdict of voters.

It’s simply evidence that Trump is a would-be strongman, and a surprisingly large percentage of his supporters would like him to be dictator — and don’t care in the slightest about the will of the actual voters or our constitutional structure.

It’s not going to work. But the fact that so many people want it to work is frightening and scandalous.

145 Responses to “Trump Attempts to Reverse Election Results”

  1. It’s simply evidence that Trump is a would-be strongman, and a surprisingly large percentage of his supporters would like him to be dictator — and don’t care in the slightest about the will of the actual voters or our constitutional structure.

    Hey, are those windows still boarded up?

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  2. and don’t care in the slightest about the will of the actual voters or our constitutional structure.

    “Trump Russia Collusion”

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  3. I like* how a Trump-heavy county in Georgia found 2,700 new votes, too.

    *In a sardonic, “not-really”, way.

    nk (1d9030)

  4. Living in Washington state I’ve heard often the Republican complaints that ballots are belatedly “discovered” and are always for Democrats, accompanied by dark suspicions that it’s all crooked.

    So let’s see, in heavily Republican counties new ballots are suddenly “discovered” in a tight race to the advantage of the Republicans. Oh, what to think?

    That in elections involving thousands of votes and human beings errors get made and sometimes you find votes you missed in the first go around. So good for the Georgia counties in getting it right. The goal in the end is to make sure every legal voter’s intended vote gets counted.

    As for the Wayne County board. At one point in the deliberations one of the Republicans suggested they count every city except Detroit. Funny how that works.

    Victor (4959fb)

  5. Hey, are those windows still boarded up?

    What’s the relevance of this observation? I agree the specter of left wing violence if Trump had won is troubling, but what does that have to do with the actual leaders of the parties those rioters favor? Surely you do not attribute what the Proud Boys do as reflecting on Trump voters? Additionally, are you suggesting Biden would have endorsed and encouraged such violence had it happened?

    Meanwhile, Trump was literally praising a refusal to certify election results. We know they floated the idea of askimg GOP led state legislatures to override the voters. How is that not a more serious threat than left wing idiots who don’t find the same level of succor among the Democrats’ leaders? (Relatedly, it seems to me a sizable number of those protestors are actual anarchists who don’t really like Democrat rule but find it more palatable than Republican rule.)

    johnnyagreeable (eb50cc)

  6. I like* how a Trump-heavy county in Georgia found 2,700 new votes, too.

    *In a sardonic, “not-really”, way.

    nk (1d9030) — 11/18/2020 @ 8:56 am

    Good point. If you flip that around, it’s simply proof the votes are fake.

    “Trump Russia Collusion”

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

    With your ‘too bad Don Jr wasn’t on the ballot’ response, you have admitted you are well aware this collusion happened. Why would you defend traitors?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  7. If only NeverTrump had known the China plague gift would land in their lap, they could’ve passed on all the Collusion Trutherism, insurance policy, pee dossier, viva le resistance, Logan Act, Schiff Memo, fake whistleblower, impeachment flail, and just have the election handed to them on a silver platter while still maintain a shred of credibility.

    I guess you can’t have everything.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  8. I chuckled the first time I saw someone say ‘Kung Flu’ but after a while I wonder why Proud Boys types are so invested in issuing a race or nationality to thinks like viruses.

    I know you’re mad, BnP, but maybe the reason you’re mad is in your own heart?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  9. “What’s the relevance of this observation?”

    Don’t bother to engage with beer ‘n pretzels. He makes the same comments in every thread.

    Davethulhu (6e0d47)

  10. Beer apparently believes that accurately accusing Trump of attempting to solicit Russian help in 2016 while at the same time he was trying to negotiate a real estate deal in Moscow insulates Trump from all future criticism forever.

    Victor (4959fb)

  11. I’m guessing changing it to Orange Dictator Bad counts as a fresh take around here, Davethulhu.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  12. Don’t bother to engage with beer ‘n pretzels. He makes the same comments in every thread.

    Davethulhu (6e0d47) — 11/18/2020 @ 9:13 am

    Smart.

    It’s a good strategy though. By bizarrely droning every day that we have to reprove collusion, responders aren’t talking about Rudy demanding millions of votes be cancelled yesterday. We aren’t talking about how big a deal that is. Granted, Patterico mentioned collusion in the post anyway, but he also mentioned the proper conclusion: Trump wasn’t joking about being a dictator. He is the worst president we have ever had, with no love for what makes America great, and it is a serious project for patriots to solve that tens of millions are so misguided as to support this man.

    This is why Trump has got to be pursued ruthlessly in court. I don’t think biden should be involved with that, but it must happen. Trump’s voters have to understand they screwed up.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  13. I just want to point out as to one of the GREAT things about the electoral college is that each state manages the election process. So, all these consternations, whether legitimate or not, is relegated to just a few states. Without the electoral college, cries of fraud and such would magnify immensely as ALL major metropolitan areas would be scrutinized…and that’s a path to madness.

    As to this post, I’m 100% against the shenanigans that the Trump campaign is trying to do here. However, what’s concerning to me is all these “new votes” that the recounts are finding. I mean, I can deal with one instance of missing batch of votes. But, now there’s at least three? (if not more)? While it may not be malicious, it’s so damaging to the public’s perception of the validity of the election. What HAVE to be better than this.

    whembly (c30c83)

  14. That is basically the only thing about the EC that I find beneficial, whembly. it’s hard to come up with an alternative that offers as much protection. Though I would still adjust things so that the votes are proportional to the…voters.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  15. @8

    I chuckled the first time I saw someone say ‘Kung Flu’ but after a while I wonder why Proud Boys types are so invested in issuing a race or nationality to thinks like viruses.

    I know you’re mad, BnP, but maybe the reason you’re mad is in your own heart?

    Dustin (4237e0) — 11/18/2020 @ 9:12 am

    To be fair, it’s common to designate a particular disease where it was discovered.

    Ie, see:
    Ebola
    Guinea Worm disease
    Zika virus
    Rift Valley Fever
    Lujo virus
    Japanese Encephalitus
    German measles

    You get the point.

    I think the whole “Kung Flu” is a reactionary response to Chinese-driven narrative to NOT call it the Wuhan Flu or some Chinese connected names.

    whembly (c30c83)

  16. And poor Lou Gehrig, who has a disease all to his own.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  17. I guess an answer to my questions is not forthcoming, which leads me to accept Davethulhu’s advice.

    johnnyagreeable (eb50cc)

  18. @15 – I think the Chinese government, after failing to curb the spread out of Wuhan, prevailed upon WHO to give it a name other than “Wuhan pneumonia.”

    Radegunda (20775b)

  19. To be fair, it’s common to designate a particular disease where it was discovered.

    And it was a funny name at a time when funny is useful.

    But let’s just say after years of hearing that the black prez is secretly from Africa, and Trump’s long and absurd record of racism, and the Proud Boys explaining “We recognize that the West was built by the White Race alone and we owe nothing to any other race.” that I’m very skeptical of this urgent need to make clear this virus has a nationality.

    I get that China’s incredibly poor health standards and incredibly unethical government are big reasons things were so bad. That’s also Trump’s fault of course. He is so racist and stupid he has no credibility when it’s time to discuss that. And I imagine he’s too chicken to engage the Chinese government after offering to cover up their concentration camps.

    I do take your point, but given we’re all calling it COVID, why the urge to rename it after the China? I think we all know why.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  20. I’m not sure I understand the theory that without the electoral college we’d be arguing about vote recounts in every city. Without the EC right now, Biden is ahead by almost six million votes, and all the recounts you want in every major city isn’t going to change six million votes.

    What the EC does is ensure that narrow margins in a few states make all the difference regardless of what the majority of Americans want. Right now, despite having nearly six million votes more than Trump, Biden’s actual margin of victory is approximately 50,000 spread across three states (Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia). The mirage of reversing that small number is what keeps this current crapfest of election wrangling chugging along.

    Victor (4959fb)

  21. @20 Well the premise if you point of view is a bit flawed.

    Every major political group understands the rules of the game to extract the most effective votes. The voting behavior under the EC is vastly different than a popular vote. So, the fact that Biden is ahead by millions under the EC is a bit meaningless in trying to compare the two as we know for a fact that some Blue states, GOP voters aren’t as engaged as their counterparts in Red states. Same with Democrat voters living in strong Red states.

    We really don’t know for sure what the numbers would look like under a popular vote scenario. It *might* be the same as the EC, or it could be different and closer since “red states” and “blue states” would be meaningless.

    whembly (c30c83)

  22. @17: Oh, so sorry johnny.

    Surely you do not attribute what the Proud Boys do as reflecting on Trump voters?

    No, but that ship has sailed, or hadn’t you noticed? See @8. Read a newspaper.

    Additionally, are you suggesting Biden would have endorsed and encouraged such violence had it happened?

    Such violence would’ve been the result of “an idea, not an organization” — Amirite? Biden did the full Arafat by condemning “all violence” in DC, instead of calling out the perpetrators by name. His staffers bailed out rioters and looters. So no, he doesn’t endorse or excuse it or run interference for it — no, not at all.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  23. given we’re all calling it COVID, why the urge to rename it after the China? I think we all know why.

    Agree that it’s ridiculous to go against how it’s commonly known, thought the people doing it might be less interested in saying “China’s fault!” than in saying “Trump was unfairly hit with this pandemic attack and he is totally faultless in anything that’s going wrong!”

    Radegunda (20775b)

  24. Agree that it’s ridiculous to go against how it’s commonly known

    It was ridiculous when it was intentionally changed from what it was commonly known as back in January.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  25. “Trump Russia Collusion”

    So….firing Comey because of “this Russian thing”….following a primary and general election that included unrepentant and fervent fluffing of Putin…..oh never mind…..what’s the point in the absence of good faith. Having unreported Moscow real estate deals is….I guess….just how things are done. Pretending to not understand why any of it matters….is an unflattering look

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  26. No, but that ship has sailed, or hadn’t you noticed? See @8. Read a newspaper.

    From my perspective, the fact other people do dumb things is not a very good reason to do that same dumb thing.

    Such violence would’ve been the result of “an idea, not an organization” — Amirite? Biden did the full Arafat by condemning “all violence” in DC, instead of calling out the perpetrators by name.

    Better to say there are good people on both sides?

    In any event, I’m not sure whether it’d be attributable to ideas or an organization. I don’t think it’s particularly relevant, because my point is I don’t think the rank and file Democrat Biden voter should be blamed / assumed to share those views. You appear to agree that’s a sound proposition in logical terms, you just don’t actually think it because others are hypocritical, or something?

    His staffers bailed out rioters and looters. So no, he doesn’t endorse or excuse it or run interference for it — no, not at all.

    You don’t think some innocent people were swept up in the arrests? Im not sure that collecting money for “protestors” as a uniform bloc was wise in the sense of giving up of control where the money goes, but I have no problems with bailing out people who were arrested for non-violent crimes.

    johnnyagreeable (eb50cc)

  27. “His staffers bailed out rioters and looters. ”

    What is the purpose of bail, bnp?

    Davethulhu (6e0d47)

  28. @25: Someone should definitely investigate your conspiracy theories, AJ.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  29. What is the purpose of bail, bnp?

    For some, to spring violent actors so they can commit more violence and/or flee justice.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  30. “For some, to spring violent actors so they can commit more violence and/or flee justice.”

    If someone is a flight risk or a reoffence danger, they should be held without bail.

    Try again. What’s is the purpose of bail?

    Davethulhu (6e0d47)

  31. @27

    “His staffers bailed out rioters and looters. ”

    What is the purpose of bail, bnp?

    Davethulhu (6e0d47) — 11/18/2020 @ 10:51 am

    The purpose of bail is simply to ensure that defendants will appear for trial and all pretrial hearings for which they must be present.

    Having that bail paid by 3rd party increases the likelihood that defendants do NOT show up for trial and that the 3rd party is on the hook for the full bail amount.

    whembly (c30c83)

  32. “The purpose of bail is simply to ensure that defendants will appear for trial and all pretrial hearings for which they must be present.”

    This much is correct.

    “Having that bail paid by 3rd party increases the likelihood that defendants do NOT show up for trial and that the 3rd party is on the hook for the full bail amount.”

    Show your work.

    Davethulhu (6e0d47)

  33. If someone is a flight risk or a reoffence danger, they should be held without bail.

    I’m sorry to inject reality into your theory exercise, Davethulhu.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  34. OT: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

    This is about surgical masks, not cloth masks or N95 respirators.

    Conclusion: surgical masks provides insignificant impact (~0.3% effective) in preventing spread of COVID.

    In fact, there are other studies that shows increases of infection rates for those not wearing N95 respirators.

    At this point, there’s enough out there that non-N95 masks are nearly pointless and in some cases can increase infection rates (due to improper hiegine/social distancing).

    Next step of the researchers to study: What are the effectiveness of N95 masks in the public?

    Another interesting study – Even in a EXTREME controlled environment such as the military, the quaratine seems ineffective:
    https://www.aier.org/article/even-a-military-enforced-quarantine-cant-stop-the-virus-study-reveals/?fbclid=IwAR38t5P6mPV-T8tphdRlF8ndcmvsr9u_yQfG-hsxrvdyXzJW0dcSd6xuQfA

    Here’s what they did:

    All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating;

    practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet;

    were not allowed to leave campus;

    did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission;

    and routinely washed their hands.

    They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms.

    All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten.

    Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors.

    All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons.

    All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily temperature and symptom screening.

    Six instructors who were assigned to each platoon worked in 8-hour shifts and enforced the quarantine measures. If recruits reported any signs or symptoms consistent with Covid-19, they reported to sick call, underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and were placed in isolation pending the results of testing.

    Instructors were also restricted to campus, were required to wear masks, were provided with preplated meals, and underwent daily temperature checks and symptom screening. (!!!!!!!!!!!)

    Instructors who were assigned to a platoon in which a positive case was diagnosed underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and, if the result was positive, the instructor was removed from duty.

    Recruits and instructors were prohibited from interacting with campus support staff, such as janitorial and food-service personnel.

    After each class completed quarantine, a deep bleach cleaning of surfaces was performed in the bathrooms, showers, bedrooms, and hallways in the dormitories, and the dormitory remained unoccupied for at least 72 hours before reoccupancy.

    Wowzers! Serious draconian lockdown steps!

    Conclusion?
    The end result was that “the nonparticipants actually contracted the virus at a slightly lower rate than those who were under an extreme regime. “

    whembly (c30c83)

  35. “I’m sorry to inject reality into your theory exercise, Davethulhu.”

    There’s no danger of that from you bnp.

    Davethulhu (6e0d47)

  36. From the Bail Project page:

    In 2007, The Bronx Freedom Fund, the first-of-its-kind nonprofit, revolving bail fund in the country, began serving the Bronx community. Data from this pilot program became the proof of concept for The Bail Project® Community Release with Support Model, which we are scaling across the country. The Bronx data showed that with support from our program:

    96% of the people we pay bail for return

    That’s right. The vast majority of people came back to court even when they didn’t have their own money on the line. As it turns out, effective court reminders, support throughout the legal process — like transportation assistance and childcare — and referrals to voluntary social services, are all that is needed. These simple strategies have been proven to significantly improve court appearance rates.

    Our experience in the Bronx also illustrates what happens when guilty pleas can’t be coerced with the threat of pretrial incarceration:

    Held on bail: 90% plead guilty. When we pay bail: 50% cases dismissed, less than 2% received a jail sentence.

    The purpose of bail is to prevent flight, but the effect of bail is to coerce false guilty pleas.

    Davethulhu (6e0d47)

  37. It was ridiculous when it was intentionally changed from what it was commonly known as back in January.

    Back in January, it wasn’t very widely discussed at all. By the time it became widely known, it was already called Covid-19.
    The decision by the WHO to call it Covid-19 may have been unduly deferential to China, but it was not “ridiculous.”
    Insisting on calling it the “China virus” or the “Wuhan virus” while nearly all of the world has been calling it Covid-19 for eight or nine months is a ridiculous form of political posturing.

    Radegunda (20775b)

  38. @36: Maybe this is by the same folks that tell us 99% of asylum seekers show up for their hearings.

    But. the purported 4% that skip out on bail would seem to align with my use of “some”, so thanks for confirming, Davethulhu.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  39. How do you feel about GPS monitors instead of bail, with the provision that law enforcement can freely search GPS location data to cross reference with unsolved crimes? The person wearing them would have to consent. Then you keep the bail system in place for those who refuse to consent.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  40. “But. the purported 4% that skip out on bail would seem to align with my use of “some”, so thanks for confirming, Davethulhu.”

    I figured the point would go over your head. Thanks for confirming, bnp.

    Davethulhu (6e0d47)

  41. “How do you feel about GPS monitors instead of bail, with the provision that law enforcement can freely search GPS location data to cross reference with unsolved crimes? ”

    Yeah, so long as it’s not overly obtrusive.

    Davethulhu (6e0d47)

  42. Trump! Trump! Trump! Three posts in a row about Trump.

    It’s not about what Biden will do; it’s about what Trump has done.

    Ever the showman. Ya’ can’t get it out of your head…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2Cb0sFDuv0

    ELO. 1974.

    Glorious.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  43. DCSCA, I agree it gets exhausting, but Trump is president, fighting the election, and this is interesting news right?

    It’s not about what Biden will do; it’s about what Trump has done.

    biden will desperately try to change that, but he can’t. Not until Trump hears the jury say “GUILTY”.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  44. It’s not about what Biden will do; it’s about what Trump has done.

    Right, because Trump is still the president. What he has done is a matter of fact, and fairly subject to scrutiny. What Biden “will do” is speculative.

    Radegunda (20775b)

  45. @32

    “Having that bail paid by 3rd party increases the likelihood that defendants do NOT show up for trial and that the 3rd party is on the hook for the full bail amount.”

    Show your work.

    Davethulhu (6e0d47) — 11/18/2020 @ 11:04 am

    Common sense. People *do* run from their court obligations.

    Bail bounties is a thing ya know.

    whembly (c30c83)

  46. ‘It’s simply evidence that Trump is a would-be strongman, and a surprisingly large percentage of his supporters would like him to be dictator — and don’t care in the slightest about the will of the actual voters or our constitutional structure.’

    Shorter: a capitalist.

    “So?” – VP Dick Cheney

    In a March 24, 2008, extended interview conducted in Ankara, Turkey, with ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz on the fifth anniversary of the original U.S. military assault on Iraq, Cheney responded to a question about public opinion polls showing that 2/3rds of Americans had lost confidence in the war by simply replying “So?” -source, wikidevilspawnbio

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. @46. Don’t forget: his meeting with Jill to decide who in his family to exclude from a Thanksgiving dinner invitation was especially incisive. Does Hunter get the bird? 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  48. Shorter: a capitalist.

    Trump is literally the opposite. Instead of having capital he has debts no one can collect while he enjoys the protection of a corrupt office.

    But who cares? Political agendas are extremely irrelevant in the context of a crazy president refusing to transition power peacefully. Everything other than Trump conceding is a distraction.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  49. What Biden has done during transitions of power is a matter of public record.

    What Trump is doing as president is also a matter of public record, and right now he’s putting most of his effort into overturning an election.

    Radegunda (20775b)

  50. @49. Except he is– and knows how to use the system to his fullest advantage.

    Capitalist vs. the 47 year gov’t man.

    You bought him; you own him.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. refusing to transition power peacefully

    Shouldn’t be a problem to a guy w/47 years of government experience, Dustin.

    Maybe just a little stressful?

    ‘Ol Joe turn 78 years old in two days.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  52. yawn

    Dustin (4237e0)

  53. @53. Sleepy Joe.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  54. Show man Trump liked to call black contestants the n-word on set.

    Of course most Americans do not find being a showman to be impressive at all, but Trump is definitely more at home on a casting couch than a small business or in a blue collar.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  55. Of course most Americans do not find being a showman to be impressive at all

    ROFLMAPIP

    Reaganoptics: Ronnie was elected CA governor- and U.S. president- twice.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  56. Other than whaabouts and aggressive partisanship, do people think beer n pretzels adds value?

    Unless I hear people I respect saying yes, I’m inclined to bid farewell to this caustic and unpleasant person.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  57. Though I would still adjust [the Electoral College] so that the votes are proportional to the…voters.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 11/18/2020 @ 9:47 am

    I’m not sure if this is a call for removing the influence of 102 votes from the Electoral College, but I’m coming down squarely against this suggestion.

    Yes, in many recent elections, these votes tend to move the margin a few votes in favor of the Republicans. However, that has not always been true, and will not always be true. In fact, in this election, Biden won 52 of those votes to Trump’s 50. (Since Biden won 25 states, plus DC.)

    Yes, Wyoming voters have more relative influence on the Electoral College than California voters…but then again, California voters have so much absolute influence that simply winning their one state gives a candidate over 20% of the electoral votes needed to win. That small scale-tipping in favor of Wyoming, and other lightly-populated states, may help keep their citizens from being subjected to the tender mercies of the whims of Californians.

    Besides, we are a federal republic, are we not? We have eroded a great deal of that federalism, but it is my understanding but the states themselves are supposed to have some influence on the composition and conduct of the national government, over and above that to which the number of their citizens would entitle them. That seems exceedingly wise to me, and I am not in favor of any change that would further diminish the states’ influence.

    Demosthenes (6b5cd2)

  58. ROFLMAPIP

    Reaganoptics: Ronnie was elected CA governor- and U.S. president- twice.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/18/2020 @ 12:30 pm

    That was a very, very long time ago. And Ronald’s whole shtick was to portray someone who loved his country. He’s the opposite of Trump and in a lot of ways Biden and John Mccain carried that torch better.

    I know you really dislike Reagan and capitalism, and associate that with the caricature of all things that’s Trump, but I don’t see Reagan desperately demanding millions of American votes be cancelled. Call me naive but I see Reagan being more like John Mccain in that situation.

    I think that’s why, generally, Reagan seemed happy, and Trump always seems so damn miserable. You can’t be happy and hate everything in the universe at the same time.

    BNP is a troll.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  59. Whembly,

    No doubt that if the U.S. was under a popular vote regime the popular vote totals would differ somewhat, though also as you say it goes both ways – Democrats in Texas, Kentucky, South Carolina are also discouraged from voting. But you can’t just wave your hands and say a six million vote difference is meaningless. LBJ’s success in 1964 is considered crushing because he got 61.1 % of the vote, not just that he did well in the EC.

    And it’s not even clear how much a difference it actually would make given the number of down ballot races that also motivate people to vote. If somebody has statistics showing that swing state voter participation is significantly different that deep red or blue states I’d be interested. I just quickly checked and New York and Wisconsin were nearly the same for 2016, 67% v. 68%.

    And wouldn’t it be better if Republicans in California and New York thought their votes counted too in choosing a president and tried to make their opinions felt? As it is, for presidential purposes, they might as well not exist.

    Finally, the arguments for the electoral college are not usually, well the popular vote is unknown, but instead that the popular vote doesn’t matter. The EC proponents like to claim it wouldn’t matter if a majority of the registered population really did pick one president but the EC picked another. Usually these arguments devolve into a claim, more or less openly asserted, that the votes of Californians are irrelevant or even inimical to choosing a president, but still the arguments are straight ahead for minority rule.

    Victor (4959fb)

  60. With all of Trump’s post-election antics and how he came to be there in the first place, I continue to have less and less confidence in our political system and the dysfunctional pap that they’ve offered the voters.
    But considering how 25 out of Trump’s 26 cases have been thrown out, I’m feeling better about our judicial branch and how they’re dealing with this legal mischief. Evidence and the rule of law matter.
    Trump can bullsh*t his way out of political situations, but not our legal system, so he’ll end up being a one-term loser no matter how big his tantrum and no matter how much he tries to overturn the legitimate result.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  61. I’m not sure if this is a call for removing the influence of 102 votes from the Electoral College, but I’m coming down squarely against this suggestion.

    Can you provide a reason? Your federalism argument makes no sense to me, but your point might be flying over my head. How is the EC more federalist when it is out of proportion to the voters, than if it were in proportion to the voters? Why is federalism that favors slave owning states more federalist than federalism that gives states a voice in proportion to… the voices in the states?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  62. @57 I’d like seeing some of his responses. TBF, there are plenty of other posters who fit that definition, but like always this is your blog. This ain’t a democracy. 😉

    whembly (c30c83)

  63. California voters have so much absolute influence

    Does each Californian or Texan voter have any influence over national matters? As Victor explained, it’s the exact opposite. A few tens of thousands in swing states matter more than every vote I’ve ever cast for president.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  64. @59. That was a very, very long time ago. And Ronald’s whole shtick was to portray someone who loved his country. He’s the opposite of Trump and in a lot of ways Biden and John Mccain carried that torch better.

    ‘Time’ has nothing to do w/it, Dustin. Trump is Reagan Creation, Dustin. And lest you forget, McCain dropped his torch- he suspended his presidential campaign in the middle of the run to the amazement- and amusement- of eventual victor Barack Obama.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  65. Fortunately, there are still enough people who care about the truth, and they still outnumber the sycophants who are buying Trump’s lies of having been cheated of his reelection. For now at least. Trump isn’t the brightest bulb in the room, which fortunately has limited his effectiveness as a strongman and demagogue. I just hope we don’t get a disciplined, more competent demagogue in the future, given how so many people have proven to be sycophantic to an incompetent one like Trump.

    HCI (92ea66)

  66. Apparently Lindsay Graham has also been calling around trying to get Dem county votes thrown out.

    @34 Unfortunately, the AEI article doesn’t really accurately analyze the study. Here’s why:

    Participants who tested positive on the day of enrollment (day 0) or on day 7 or day 14 were separated from their roommates and were placed in isolation. Otherwise, participants and nonparticipants were not treated differently: they followed the same safety protocols, were assigned to rooms and platoons regardless of participation in the study, and received the same formal instruction. (quote is from the study itself)

    So both the control group and the non-control group were in the same conditions except for the testing part including that they were intermixed in both their sleeping and eating quarters, which were both most likely to be the greatest transfer points. Really the groups should have had sleeping and eating quarters segregated from eachother so that there couldn’t be inter-group transfer of the virus.

    Nic (896fdf)

  67. I know you really dislike Reagan and capitalism

    On the contrary, Dustin: Ronnie was stellar in Kings Row – shudda got that OScar for it–and he was pretty good w/Errol Flynn in Desperate Journey as well. With Bonzo, not so much Don’t overlook that communism is the bastard child born of unregulated capitalism run unchecked, Dustin. Regulated capitalism is neat-o. More Glass-Steagall, please.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  68. Conclusion?
    The end result was that “the nonparticipants actually contracted the virus at a slightly lower rate than those who were under an extreme regime. “

    whembly (c30c83) — 11/18/2020 @ 11:19 am

    Some science should be listened to; others, not so much…

    Hoi Polloi (7cefeb)

  69. 67.Apparently Lindsay Graham has also been calling around trying to get Dem county votes thrown out.

    And safe at the plate: re-elected two weeks ago for another six-year term.

    ‘You bought him; you own him.’ Sad.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  70. 15. whembly (c30c83) — 11/18/2020 @ 9:52 am

    o Chinese-driven narrative to NOT call it the Wuhan Flu or some Chinese connected names.

    They didn’t want it to be called SARS2!

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  71. @69 Both the control group and the non-control group were under the extreme regime. The difference was that the non-control group was tested and were quarantined. However the control group was sharing rooms and eating space with the non-control group and they were NOT tested and didn’t have anyone removed, so it’s entirely possible that they were spreading their virus to the non-control people and then getting over it. They should’ve had separate facilities in order to increase the efficacy of the study.

    Nic (896fdf)

  72. beer n pretzels is far more interesting than DCSCA.

    DRJ (aede82)

  73. What Biden “will do” is speculative.

    ROFLMAO! A 78 year old man with 47 year of government experience?

    Suggested viewing: The Empire Strikes Back

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. @73. Oh I agree. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  75. beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 11/18/2020 @ 8:47 am

    Hey, are those windows still boarded up?

    I don’t think so. They only were in midtown Manhattan and several other sensitive places.

    whembly (c30c83) — 11/18/2020 @ 9:43 am

    I mean, I can deal with one instance of missing batch of votes. But, now there’s at least three?

    Amounting to about 1 in a thousand votes in Georgia, half of which they say would have been caught anyway. Things may deped on what system is used.

    There;s an article that tries to argue there’s a statistical anomaly – all 4 of the closest states [two candidate margin < 1%] went for Biden: Georgia (0.2%), Arizona (0.5%), Pennsylvania (0.7%), and Wisconsin (0.7%).

    The fifth most close, North Carolina, went for Trump by by about 1.4%

    I don't know how they reach a conclusion that the chances of that happening by chance are less than 1%. I figure it is 12.5% (one eighth)

    (if not more)? While it may not be malicious, it’s so damaging to the public’s perception of the validity of the election. What HAVE to be better than this.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  76. 34. It;s very hard to maintain a zero Covid rate but the NBA did manage it and the Marines largely did – it also ad the side effect of cutting down on flu and other diseases.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  77. Don’t overlook that communism is the bastard child born of unregulated capitalism run unchecked, Dustin. Regulated capitalism is neat-o. More Glass-Steagall, please.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/18/2020 @ 12:57 pm

    We are probably not too far on this. It’s a shame you follow these distracting tropes when you discuss it. It’s just kinda tedious. I say that fully aware I can be tedious too.

    I keep trying to work out how a Texan vote counting for less than a Pennsylvania vote is federalist. I think I agree more with rural Americans, if you just wipe out Trump’s influence, but I still don’t think this is the right balance.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  78. @78. Lived and worked through Reagan’s gilded go-go 1980s America in Trump’s New York City: I have no shame, Dustin. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. And wouldn’t it be better if Republicans in California and New York thought their votes counted too in choosing a president and tried to make their opinions felt? As it is, for presidential purposes, they might as well not exist.

    Victor (4959fb) — 11/18/2020 @ 12:39 pm

    I’ve never understood this argument. From a mathematical standpoint, all votes count. My one vote is still one vote, whether I cast it in California or Wyoming. But from a practical standpoint (that is to say, having any real effect on the results), do Democrats in California or New York affect the election any more than Republicans? Of course not. All an individual voter does is adjust the margin of victory, from “really big” to “really big plus one.”

    In my state for example, if I had voted for Donald Trump, Donald Trump would’ve won. If I had voted for Joe Biden, Donald Trump would’ve won. So instead I voted for the Libertarian. And guess what? Donald Trump won. I am perfectly comfortable with that, because I cast my vote to express my feelings. If I thought that my vote “counting” — and again, I take you to mean mattering to the outcome — was what was most important, I wouldn’t even bother to vote. Talking about a voter’s vote counting in a national election, regardless of which candidate they vote for, is only slightly less ridiculous than talking about the importance of a single drop of water to the ecosystem of Lake Michigan.

    How is the EC more federalist when it is out of proportion to the voters, than if it were in proportion to the voters? Why is federalism that favors slave owning states more federalist than federalism that gives states a voice in proportion to… the voices in the states?

    Dustin (4237e0) — 11/18/2020 @ 12:41 pm

    First off, I didn’t know we still had slaveowning states. I have to start reading the news more.

    Warping the proportions a little bit is what makes the Electoral College more federalist. It gives the small states a little more relative power against the big ones, which in turn means that they can protect their own interests a bit better. Your type of “federalism” is not federalism at all. It’s just the institution of majoritarian rule. At that point, we might as well simply do away with the EC as an outmoded and vestigial institution, and go straight to a national popular vote.

    Let me put you a counterexample that may make what I’m saying clearer. Why should we allocate seats in the House of Representatives by state? If the votes are what matters, then why not just have the Democrats and Republicans (and others, of course) draw up a list of 435 people, tell people to vote for their preferred party at elections, and then assign seats based on the votes returned? If your party gets 52% of the vote, then you get 52% of the seats. What could be fairer than that? Except, of course, that such a scenario would lead almost immediately to the drastic overrepresentation of big cities (not even big states, just big cities) in Congress, because that’s where the majority of people on those lists would come from.

    And while we’re at it, why not just do away with the Senate, or at least make it proportional too? Because the Senate is obviously much more favorable to the small states than the Electoral College. Any argument against the EC therefore doubles as a much more compelling argument against the Senate. Barely more than a half-million people in Wyoming get precisely the same Senate representation as the nearly 40 million in California. So the votes of a couple hundred thousand people, filtered through their senators, can offset the voices of millions and millions of people elsewhere in the country.

    And that, my friend, is federalism in action. Because if the system weren’t set up that way, then the voters of the San Fernando Valley by itself could potentially have more control over what happens in Wyoming then people who live there.

    Demosthenes (6b5cd2)

  80. @57, no. But I don’t think he should be banned unless he violates the rules of the blog. Being boring, unpleasant and dishonest isn’t against the rules afaik. He used to have intelligent things to add. Maybe he will again in the future.

    Time123 (e81765)

  81. I’d rather not hear “Trump Russia Collusion” or “Trump is you”, because it’s unoriginal substanceless twaddle, but some folks might like. Not me, but some folks.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  82. Why does my vote as a Texan being diluted, relative to someone’s far more important Ohio or Florida vote, limit the federal government? I think it’s interesting because I’ve also associated all the slavery clauses as federalist.

    And while we’re at it, why not just do away with the Senate, or at least make it proportional too?

    Well the Senate represents the states, and indeed my vote as a Texan is severely less valuable than a Oregon voter’s for Senate. It would certainly make more sense for Texas to have ten Senators. But the Senate exists to function differently from the House, so by having such a disproportionate system at least promotes the need for two different bodies to compromise, causing inherent inefficiency in a good way. Compromise is needed, change is slowed, we’re protected. In that way, I think the hobbled federal legislature is kinda federalist in theory (but it’s so damn powerful now, and so many quasi legislative administrative processes have ruined the idea).

    I’m just talking about my choice for president. Why is my choice less important than someone from a small state, or from a swing state? It makes life a lot easier for the politicians, but it also actually seems to allow for more handouts (corn subsidies for example). It is anti-federalist in outcome, right?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  83. Trump’s legal adviser Jenna Ellis in 2016 called him an ‘idiot’ and said his supporters didn’t care about ‘facts or logic’

    Jenna Ellis has been one of President Donald Trump’s most ardent defenders since joining his campaign as a legal adviser and surrogate a year ago, but in early 2016 she was one of his toughest critics and deeply opposed his candidacy, according to a CNN KFile review of statements she made on her official Facebook page and in local Colorado radio appearances.

    Ellis, an attorney and former law professor from Colorado, repeatedly slammed then-candidate Trump as an “idiot,” who was “boorish and arrogant,” and a “bully” whose words could not be trusted as factually accurate. She called comments he made about women “disgusting,” and suggested he was not a “real Christian.”

    In one March 2016 Facebook post, Ellis said Trump’s values were “not American,” linking to a post that called Trump an “American fascist.” She praised Mitt Romney for speaking out against Trump, referring to him as “Drumpf,” — a nickname coined by comedian John Oliver after a biographer revealed Trump’s ancestor changed the family’s surname from Drumpf to Trump.

    “Why should we rest our highest office in America, on a man who fundamentally goes back and forth and really cannot be trusted to be consistent or accurate in anything,” Ellis said in one April 2016 radio appearance.

    In March 2016, Ellis attacked Trump supporters in a Facebook post for not caring that the Republican candidate was “unethical, corrupt, lying, criminal, dirtbag.”
    …….
    “I could spend a full-time job just responding to the ridiculously illogical, inconsistent, and blatantly stupid arguments supporting Trump,” she wrote in March 2016. “But here’s the thing: his supporters DON’T CARE about facts or logic. They aren’t seeking truth. Trump probably could shoot someone in the middle of NYC and not lose support. And this is the cumulative reason why this nation is in such terrible shape: We don’t have truth seekers; we have narcissists.”
    ……
    Ouch! She apparently is now proving her point. Nice picture of her with The Donald, though.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  84. @83

    It is anti-federalist in outcome, right?

    Dustin (4237e0) — 11/18/2020 @ 3:34 pm

    You might want to read up on some of the Federalist papers. Our founders goes into the exact same questions you’re posing.

    In short, our federal system of governance is a mixture of both Democratic and anti-democratic principles. Much of our system today arose to compromises between the small vs. populous states at the times, where the dynamic still exists today.

    Putting it another way, the Presidential election is NOT supposed to be a majoritarian election (ie, 50% +1). But the system does have SOME elements of direct democracy in that each state (and DC) popularly elect their choice for President. Can you at least acknowledge that aspect?

    You *ARE* represented in our government by your vote for your Congressional critter.

    The STATES’ legislature was supposed to vote for the Senators until the 17th amendment (in which I’d be happy if this amendment were appealed). You want to have a “say” in your federal Senator… then, be an active participant in your state elections. Post 17th amendment, the Senators are popularly elected by their state voters. That’s very democratic…doncha think?

    There were a lot of reasons why the Electoral College was devised (and tweaked over the years) to select our President. The fact that it’s anti-Democratic (or as you said, your vote is diluted) was a purposeful design, and that the rationale for this system still applies in our modern times.

    whembly (c30c83)

  85. First off, I didn’t know we still had slaveowning states. I have to start reading the news more.

    These clauses that make no sense from a basic sense of justice, they all seem to disfavor places there weren’t slaves. There’s a lot of material about why, but you probably won’t learn about it in a university. Lesson 24342734 on why we should stop subsidizing higher education. A man with a degree may be more ignorant than someone with mere curiosity and internet access. We’ve got to completely overhaul education, in light of how information works today.

    Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

    At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  86. You might want to read up on some of the Federalist papers.

    I think the EC came a few decades later, after the advent of political parties, when the slavery issue was heating up.

    that the rationale for this system still applies in our modern times.

    No one is explaining this rationale though. Y’all are right that it exists and people are aware it is unfair to voters in my state. That’s not a rationale. The rationale I was able to document is that it helps slave states count slaves (who didn’t vote). That’s an evil and obsolete rationale.

    Why shouldn’t my vote count as much as everyone else’s?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  87. You might want to read up on some of the Federalist papers.

    Read the Articles of Confederation, too. Always fun to recall the Founders can fumble. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  88. Before I respond to Dustin’s comment @ #86, I would like to point out that my sarcastic comment about not knowing we still had slaveowning states was in response to his earlier comment:

    Why is federalism that favors slave owning states more federalist than federalism that gives states a voice in proportion to… the voices in the states?

    The American type of federalism that I have been talking about would, indeed, have favored states with large percentages of slaves in their population. That is because those states, by and large, had smaller populations of free men — obviously as a percentage of their population, but also in absolute terms (Virginia being the obvious exception). My point was that since slavery is now illegal in this country, and has been for a good long while, Dustin’s attempt to tar our electoral system by association was moot. There is a good reason to keep the current electoral system, which is (as I have already both implied and stated) that it makes it harder for states with more people to run roughshod over states with fewer people. Bigger states already have — and rightly so, because of their populations — a greater ability than smaller states to get their way when it comes to federal law. But the equality inherent in the Senate provides a check on the proportional majoritarianism of the house. And the electoral system balances both concerns, by giving smaller states a small (but by no means insurmountable) boost when it comes to picking the president — who is, I would like to point out, President of the United STATES, not the United CITIZENS, of America.

    Now, back to Dustin.

    These clauses that make no sense from a basic sense of justice…

    Really? They make a good deal of sense to me. They seem reasonably just to me. I’m sorry if the compromises reached by a group of men who were smarter than both of us 200-plus years ago don’t accord with your modern sense of “justice.” But you don’t simply get to declare something “unjust” and leave it at that. You have to make a case which has, so far, been unmade.

    …they all seem to disfavor places there weren’t slaves.

    Umm…

    What. In. The. HELL. Are you talking about.

    “Places there weren’t slaves?” In 1787, slavery was legal in every state in America. There were slaves in every single state in America. Hundreds of thousands in the South, yes. The vast majority, yes. But still tens of thousands in the North. Even in Massachusetts, the “Cradle of Liberty.” In fact, Boston’s slave market was one of the busiest in America during its heyday. I mean, seriously…you say something as historically illiterate as this, and then you go on to talk about the need to overhaul education? Well, YOU’RE certainly not the man for the job.

    If you’d done more reading than your Time article by the way, you’d know that Madison (whim you can thank, by the way, for the document you would Sharpie all over) was NOT even close to the only person who was suspicious of popular elections for major offices, and that slavery was not the only motivating factor for those who were likewise suspicious. Wilson was in the decided minority. In fact, if Roger Sherman had his way, both houses of Congress would have been elected by state legislatures, which would thus have functioned as a kind of Electoral College for Congress…diluting the people’s power to an extreme extent. Sherman, by the way, was a non-slaveholder from the state of Connecticut, which was not in the South the last time I checked my maps.

    But enough. I get paid to teach this stuff during the day, and you’ve pissed me off enough that I am unwilling to give you free lessons at night.

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  89. Perpetul war be damned: troop reductions to 2500 in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Go, Donnie, go! Donnie be good!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  90. How many people here wanted electors to not support Trump 4 years ago?

    NJRob (12d7ad)

  91. You know what, let me be Columbo. Just one more thing:

    I think the EC came a few decades later, after the advent of political parties…

    The Electoral College was originally defined in Article II of the United States Constitution (Clauses 2 and 3). It may have been modified by the Twelfth Amendment, but it’s been with us since the beginning.

    You’re right, though — we really gotta overhaul that education. I mean, someone who had Internet access and was merely curious could probably have looked that up…

    Demosthenes (d7fc81)

  92. OK, so I went back and reread my last couple of comments. And I feel like crap. I shouldn’t have taken that tone. I’ve had a pretty bad day, but that’s no excuse for paying it forward to someone else.

    I apologize, Dustin. As penance, I’m going to take a couple days off from this place, and from any non-work Internet usage. Maybe I need to get my mind right.

    Oh, and Patterico? I will let my behavior be my answer to your question about BnP. He gets on my nerves quite a lot, but then again, I’m pretty sure I get on the nerves of at least a few people here too. I won’t be throwing the first stone today.

    Demosthenes (6b5cd2)

  93. beer n pretzels is far more interesting than DCSCA.

    OK, but is he interesting?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  94. How many people here wanted electors to not support Trump 4 years ago?

    If you can find evidence to the contrary, I’ll take it back — but my memory is that I always thought that was a very bad idea. Even at the convention, what Mike Lee was doing, I thought, was ill-advised. At least, that’s my memory of what I thought.

    And having written that, I went back and looked — and it appears my memory was correct. (See also here.)

    Patterico (115b1f)

  95. @57, no. But I don’t think he should be banned unless he violates the rules of the blog. Being boring, unpleasant and dishonest isn’t against the rules afaik. He used to have intelligent things to add. Maybe he will again in the future.

    I don’t apply the same standards here as I do on Twitter (every idiot is at least muted, and aggressive idiots are blocked), but my “block and mute them all!” ethic there probably does influence my feelings when I read comments from an unpleasant troll who never has a single thing of substantive value to add. The rules can change, and if he is going to degrade every thread with patent bullshit, and if it annoys other people the way it annoys me, I can change the rules to improve the experience here.

    But that’s why I’m asking. Unlike my Twitter feed, my actions have consequences that go beyond what I myself can see, and so I like input. I can tell you that bnp and plenty of other folks here would have been muted or blocked by me on Twitter ages ago.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  96. You bought him; you own him

    We have a new annoying and endlessly repeated catch phrase. Hooray?

    At least I don’t have to listen to that horseshit about how Americans just want to be entertained, now that the country has clearly rejected someone who is clearly “entertaining” (even if the “entertainment” is akin to watching live coverage of a violent riot near your home, where it’s all appalling but you’re glued to the set to find out just how screwed you are, and seeing that plenty of other people are already screwed).

    Patterico (115b1f)

  97. I apologize, Dustin.

    No, I apologize. I could have conveyed my view a little better. But this idea that my vote and my franchise as an American is inferior, and the justification is some nonsense (from my perspective) is frustrating. It’s the kind of thing I’ve asked poli-sci professors, folks who probably shouldn’t have a job in my opinion.

    No offense taken and I hope you do not take a break.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  98. Read the Articles of Confederation, too. Always fun to recall the Founders can fumble. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/18/2020 @ 4:51 pm

    Exactly. A president with a senate on his side is unstoppable, even if he actually has mental illness and refuses to honor the results an election. Our 2nd amendment is a verbal mess. the 12th amendment takes a totally different direction on political parties from what our founders wanted. The whole thing is great in theory, but the half-measures led to real problems.

    I’m all for admitting the perfect is the enemy of the good. They did the best they could.

    But the EC continuing because that’s how we’ve been doing it… that’s a mistake. It’s time to completely rethink some of this stuff.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  99. @97. ‘The Joe Show’

    Premieres January 20.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  100. 99. Our 2nd amendment is only a verbal mess to a citizenry who has forgotten the plain-English meaning of the words “…shall not be infringed.”

    Gryph (f63000)

  101. I’ll join DRJ regarding beer ‘n pretzels, Patterico. It’s your site, but beer ‘n pretzels is only distracting to those who allow him to distract them (I don’t even have him on my blocking script), and although I did once accuse him of being a troll and meant it, it could very well be to blave for Trump and who can help true love?

    nk (1d9030)

  102. Do as you wish Patterico. It’s your blog. I comment here with your permission, and I’ve done so in accordance with the commenting rules as I know them. But, ultimately the commenting rules are what you say they are.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  103. … and yes, it’s a comedy: and endlessly entertaining:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNQAbF33gFM

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  104. @57, no. But I don’t think he should be banned unless he violates the rules of the blog. Being boring, unpleasant and dishonest isn’t against the rules afaik. He used to have intelligent things to add. Maybe he will again in the future.

    I don’t apply the same standards here as I do on Twitter (every idiot is at least muted, and aggressive idiots are blocked), but my “block and mute them all!” ethic there probably does influence my feelings when I read comments from an unpleasant troll who never has a single thing of substantive value to add. The rules can change, and if he is going to degrade every thread with patent bullshit, and if it annoys other people the way it annoys me, I can change the rules to improve the experience here.

    But that’s why I’m asking. Unlike my Twitter feed, my actions have consequences that go beyond what I myself can see, and so I like input. I can tell you that bnp and plenty of other folks here would have been muted or blocked by me on Twitter ages ago.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 11/18/2020 @ 5:39 pm

    Previously Beer n Pretzels had intelligent and interesting things to say. Interacting with him helped me better understand current events from an absolute standpoint, and from a standpoint of understanding different points of view. I like him.

    Something changed and now he’s not saying anything I think is intelligent or interesting. He’s annoying and sometimes I try to annoy him back. Usually I ignore him.

    There are 2reasons I think you shouldn’t ban him

    1. He might get better. This doesn’t mean I think he’ll ever agree with me on much but he’s smart and used to make good comments.
    2. Given how much passion there is about politics these days and who get’s to speak I think there’s value in a blog where people can comment and say what they want within clear and understandable boundaries.

    that’s all I’ve got.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  105. But the EC continuing because that’s how we’ve been doing it… that’s a mistake. It’s time to completely rethink some of this stuff.

    That suggests a ‘living Constitution’ ethos. Not a popular line of country w/t so-called righty ‘traditionalists.’ But is entertaining to see small gov’t libertarian/conservative types embracing ol’Do-Less Joe w/a 47 years record in the majors. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  106. 105. If you think the constitution is outdated, “libertarian” and “conservative” are not very apt descriptions for your philosophy.

    Gryph (f63000)

  107. @106. ‘Philosophy’ had little to do with it- this cycle was merely personality contest; just like a high school student council election. And we know who defected from one party to the other.

    “You’re learning that you don’t work with a captain because you like the way he parts his hair. You work with him because he’s got the job or you’re no good! Well, the case is over. You’re all safe. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.” – Barney Greenwald [Jose Ferrer] ‘The Caine Mutiny’ 1954

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. That suggests a ‘living Constitution’ ethos. Not a popular line of country w/t so-called righty ‘traditionalists.’ But is entertaining to see small gov’t libertarian/conservative types embracing ol’Do-Less Joe w/a 47 years record in the majors. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/18/2020 @ 6:25 pm

    I’m glad you’re enjoying it, but it’s not a living constitution I’m talking about. I want the text to be reliable and easily understood, so to change it, I’d rather actually change the words. Words mean things, and I don’t want the Court to be a legislature to solve my problems.

    And I know that the outcome of my idea, that all people’s vote should be the same, would be a larger government. I don’t understand that either. Why are cities more liberal? Is it because universities are there? Is it because successful headquarters often have more liberals working there?

    I’m not really a fan of ‘tradition’ for its own sake. It would be great if our system were so well designed that we could just rest, but don’t you agree our past few presidents have shown some real danger?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  109. 105. If you think the constitution is outdated, “libertarian” and “conservative” are not very apt descriptions for your philosophy.

    Gryph (f63000) — 11/18/2020 @ 6:30 pm

    I think everyone should be equal before the law, not forced into equality in outcome, so classic liberal probably fits me. I think I’d have agreed with our founders on some things, disagreed on others. I also love the idea of treating drug abuse as a mental illness, actually probably more intrusive than the criminal justice system is today, so most libertarians, like most everyone else, would happily say I’m nuts.

    😎

    Dustin (4237e0)

  110. I think I’d have agreed with our founders on some things, disagreed on others.

    20/20 hindsight.

    Consider their world, their society, their norms and values when it as quilled- and exclude all knowledge, experience and awareness accumulated since. Especially if you’re holding ballpoint pen.

    Unless, of course, you still believe horse thieves should be hanged. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  111. Yeah, very fair, and I alluded to that in a previous comment. They did what they could and I’m sure it wasn’t that different from how it is today, herding cats. That’s not a very good rationale for keeping stupid ideas.

    The EC reduces the damage from cheating, at a tremendous cost. Racially protected districts require massive gerrymandering, itself a stupid concept, and at the same time I’m unclear on why we even want South Carolina and San Francisco to try to control how the other lives in the first place.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  112. It’s time for the Republicans in the US Senate to find their balls.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  113. But the EC continuing because that’s how we’ve been doing it… that’s a mistake. It’s time to completely rethink some of this stuff.

    Maine has been choosing electors by congressional district since 1972. They also split their EV in 1828, reason unknown. Nebraska started more recently.

    Any state could do this. They could also assign them pro-rata, although there would need to be some method of dealing with fractional votes, and this would increase the risk of the election going to the House. Still, if it disrupted the two-party system it might be a good thing.

    There is the Constitutionally unclear (I would say “suspect”) idea of states ignoring the EC entirely, with their legislatures attempting to reclaim the power to select electors and ignoring the decision of their state’s citizens. There is great danger that some states would renege, or be forced by their courts to renege, and the entire election be thrown into chaos.

    Dumping the EC completely would take an Amendment, which is unlikely.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  114. It’s time for the Republicans in the US Senate to find their balls.

    January 6 when they certify the votes will be fine.

    — Listen, kid, those crazy assassins are only after my hide.
    — Don’t be noble, sir. I won’t desert you.
    — Desert me? I want you to fight them off while I bug out of here.

    nk (1d9030)

  115. The EC reduces the damage from cheating, at a tremendous cost.

    It does far more than that. If you want to create a straw man, try not to make him so weak.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  116. I really don’t know what else it does. We’ve talked about this before. So the EC protects me from some city adding a ton of fake votes, because it only impacts that state’s total. that’s actually a very weak way to protect me from that issue, so bad I’d say if it deters solving fraud it’s not even a net good for the country.

    It helps some states have more power. This isn’t anything I want, even though cynically it tends to support my political views most of the time.

    I don’t know what else the EC accomplishes at all. Maybe four years ago I’d have said the EC prevents the USA from electing a totally insane president, but we can see it fails to do so.

    I think this man is actually made of straw.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  117. Dumping the EC completely would take an Amendment, which is unlikely.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/18/2020 @ 7:20 pm

    Sure. Most of my stupid ideas would require an amendment or a convention, and the outcome of those efforts could be way worse. Like term limits or a balanced budget amendment (two ideas I love not only because they would make life worse for politicians), there’s always a problem with any proposed alternative.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  118. The Electoral College does many things:

    1. It deals with the problem of different states having different election rules. Without the EC you’d be combining votes from all states with equal weight, when the eligibility to vote on election day (closely coupled with caring about fraud prevention) might differ markedly.

    2. It makes fraud by the dominate state party useless. They can manufacture a billion extra votes and it won’t matter.

    3. It forces candidates to consider the entire country, not just the population (and media) centers. If you don’t understand why this is a problem, ask any resident of WA or OR who doesn’t live in Portland or Seattle. Or rural CA, for that matter.

    4. It gives rural states more clout in a close election, so that they don’t just get strip-mined (or turned into parks) for the benefit of the city-dwellers.

    5. It makes recounts possible.

    6. It nearly always produces a clear winner, as it did this time. The crap that Trump is pulling has nothing to do with the Electoral College. It’s just all he can f*ck with.

    7. It’s apparent fault is that, sometimes, the “winner of the popular vote” (akin to the baseball team with the most hits) doesn’t always win. This is not an accident: IT WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY.

    The election of 2016 was affected by points 1, 3 & 4. Hillary ignored some rural states and piled up votes in the big liberal states instead. Her mistake. When Trump has better tactics than you, you ought to lose.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  119. BTW, I’m opposed to both term limits and a BBA.

    The first because it doesn’t help and makes the parties (and the bureaucrats, and the unions, and the pressure groups, and …) stronger than the office-holders. We have seen this in CA. There is no one who can stand up and pound the table with his own political capital.

    The second because California (and most states) have Balanced Budget rules. They just lie, play shell games with money, put programs off-budget, whatever, then say “Oops” when they go over budget. I doubt that CA has had more than 3 or 4 actually balanced financial years in the last 20.

    What you need is a spending cap, tied to external economic factors. For the US, a rule that, without a super-duper majority, the nation cannot spend more than X% of the average GDP of the prior 4 years. Taxes they can always find once spending is fixed, but it spending is not fixed it doesn’t matter.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  120. Shorter: changing things to avoid what Trump is doing is a bad idea. Trump is an outliar outlier.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  121. The first because it doesn’t help and makes the parties (and the bureaucrats, and the unions, and the pressure groups, and …) stronger than the office-holders. We have seen this in CA. There is no one who can stand up and pound the table with his own political capital.

    Good point. I would want term limits in addition to other measures to further transform our legislatures to actual professionals in real careers, who have taken a break, or do legislation on the side, but are not primarily legislators. These days I’d want them to never go to DC (and I would move all federal agencies from there too). Just do the markups and votes over the internet, expand the legislature by at least a factor of ten, ideally more than that, and make it a part time gig (like Texas).

    But I’m way way off the post about election results, where the EC debate stemmed from. I do appreciate your list of EC benefits. Some of these I literally take for granted. It’s convenient that we can just look at a few swing states, but for the wrong reasons. I think you’re just mistaken on #3, though your #4 makes a lot of sense.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  122. Shorter: changing things to avoid what Trump is doing is a bad idea. Trump is an outliar outlier.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/18/2020 @ 7:51 pm

    Hopefully. Or maybe we really are getting dumber.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  123. Writing or discussion about the Electoral college system at different times:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/27547458?read-now=1&seq=10#page_scan_tab_contents (anyone can join JSTOR for free now for read only 100 articles month till Dec 2020 at least)

    http://archive.fairvote.org/index.php?page=1657&mode=showallbig&offset=5 (after the year 2000)

    https://cooper.edu/events-and-exhibitions/events/270-debating-electoral-college (2019(

    + (bc65ac)

  124. Well from one perspective a majority of the people are riding “roughshod” over a minority. And from another perspective, a minority of the population is riding “roughshod” over the majority by forcing their choice of president, who as noted is supposed to be president of the entire country, on the majority.

    So whose shoes are really rough? There’s a word for when the minority rules the majority and it’s not democratic, more like oligarchal. If Republicans want to pretend they represent the people of the United States then at some point they really have to pretend to care what the majority of the people of the United States want, as opposed to hiding behind the 240 year old fortress of the EC (a method of election notably not copied by any other country in the world).

    Right now America’s method of electing a president is rigged in favor of the party that can appeal to a bare majority of the population of a majority of the states (and what is the origin of our states? Note the historical reason we have two Dakotas). 50,000 votes, more or less, separate Biden and Trump in the EC, despite Biden’s 6 million vote margin otherwise. 538 calculates that when a Democratic candidate has 5% edge in polling, their chances of winning are still only about 50-50.

    The only actual reason Republicans favor a rigged system today is because it’s rigged for them. I am so old I can remember the run up to the 2000 election when it looked for awhile that Gore might win the EC but lose the popular vote. There was a whole bunch of horrified speculation by Republicans about what a constitutional crisis that would portend. Since then crickets.

    There’s really a simple principle against the EC – the majority of a population should pick its leaders. You can build in counter majoritarian restrainsts elsewhere, e.g. in a strong Court, or manipulating your legislature (hello Senate). But the concept that a country should be led by someone who has the support of a majority of the country is pretty basic.

    Victor (4959fb)

  125. Here is a post from my old blog, updated to 2016, about the EC.

    After the 2000 election, many pundits jumped all over the “anachronistic” Electoral College, decrying it as a vestige of the past that needs reform or elimination. Why not just have a national vote for President? After all states don’t mean all that much anymore. Or divvy the electoral votes up by Congressional seat; Maine and Nebraska do just this (although it didn’t matter in 2000). Or perhaps apportion the electoral vote to the percentage each candidate won in the state?

    None of these would work as well as the electoral college.

    The Framer’s reasons for an Electoral College were several. In order to accommodate the small-state/big-state compromise that led to the 2-vote-per-state Senate, they needed a method to allow small states slightly greater weight in selecting a President. There was great fear that, in a strict popular vote election, the urban states would decide all contests, and no candidate would even consider the issues of the smaller and rural states. Yet they wanted the election conducted in the States, not in Congress. The EC solved this, providing a tie-breaker in close elections where the candidate taking the most states (of any size) has an advantage (the two “senate seat” votes). This is precisely what happened in 2000. It’s a feature, not a bug.

    Another reason is what we would today call a “firewall.” Even in 1787, state politics were dicey enough that no one in Virginia wanted to absolutely rely on vote-counting in New Jersey. After all, Elbridge Gerry (inventor of the “gerrymander”) was a delegate. In more recent years, vote-counting in some urban centers has been suspect. In a close popular-vote election for President, there would be great temptation for local officials to pad the vote. Even with the EC it happens (e.g. 1960 Chicago), but the damage cannot extend past the given state’s electors. Note that much of the controversy in Florida in 2000 involved local vote counting practices, state election official’s behavior, and the Florida Supreme Court’s wholesale rewriting of election law. Which brings up the next point…

    A third (and probably more modern) reason is that recounts in a close election are also limited to the state or states in question. Consider the mess in Florida. Then consider the mess of a nationwide recount, with 50 state Supreme Courts, 50 sets of state election officials, and tens of thousands of local election boards. Some of whom are going to cheat to get their man over. There is no natural closure in a close election in this kind of system. We’d still be at it.
    A straight popular-vote election is less stable than what we have now. Now, what about the “fairer” Congressional-district apportionment, or straight state-wide vote apportionment, rather than winner-take all?

    The first will be a non-starter until there is no such thing as a gerrymander. It is easy to “fix” the partisan outcome in a congressional district by careful attention to district line drawing. In 1988, the two major parties polled even for Congress, but the Democrats gained a large majority of seats due to gerrymandering. In several states in 2018, Republicans won most seats even though they polled evenly overall.

    The second option allows significant third-party vote totals (and nearly any such vote total in a close election) to throw the whole thing into the House of Representatives. Nader would have received enough electoral votes in 2000 in this system to throw the election into the House (and therefore to Bush). Historically, this has been a bad thing; there is no good reason to make it more likely.

    Assuming that one accepts Bush’s Florida win, of the suggested alternate choices only a popular vote method elects Gore in 2000. No matter how you apportion electoral votes (winner-takes-all, congressional district or statewide proportional) Bush wins (if only in the House).

    In 2016, Hillary Clinton won about 2% more popular votes but lost the electoral college 306-232. In part this was because Trump won 30 states (plus a vote from Maine) while Hillary won 20 plus DC. But mostly it was because Hillary’s popular vote came from landslide wins in large states (CA, NY, IL) that Trump did not contest, while Trump was winning narrowly in many places.

    Note that the popular vote during an electoral-vote election implies almost nothing about the outcome under different rules. Candidates campaign, and people vote, according to the rules at hand. Example: Trump would have tried to get CA Republicans to the polls and spent far less time in Nevada.

    Looking at alternative counting and allocating the 2016 electoral vote proportionately by state, Hillary would lead slightly (259-256 with 23 votes going to 3rd party candidates). Allocating the 2016 electoral vote the same way, but with the 2 “Senate votes” going to the statewide winner, Trump leads 265-254 with 19 votes going to the others. In both cases, the election goes to the House, where the GOP controlled.

    A detailed breakdown by Congressional district for 2016 isn’t immediately available, but considering the claimed GOP gerrymander of many states, it’s hard to see how this would have helped Hillary Clinton in 2016.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  126. It’s also interesting that in 2012, a CD-based electoral vote system such as Maine’s would have elected Romney (274-264) despite Obama winning an actual majority in the popular total. This was likely due to GOP gerrymanders (not that they are alone in that).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  127. 112.It’s time for the Republicans in the US Senate to find their balls.

    And Lindsey will get right on it. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  128. Your claim that the EC eliminates vote counting messes in states remains mysterious. Right now we have vote counting imbroglios in several swing states because a change of 50,000 votes or so swings the election. There hasn’t been a presidential election with that kind of narrow divide between parties in popular vote and if there were either system would lead to the same extended controversies.

    One local election board in Michigan was able to cause tempers to rise because its decision on a few hundred thousand votes could swing a state. No single election board would have that same power in a popular vote election.

    You also continue to maintain that Trump could really have won the popular vote in 2016 under different rules. But we’ll never know and the only actual evidence we have is that both Clinton and Biden won large popular majorities while narrowly losing and winning the EC (I say narrow because the margin of victory in 2016 and 2020 are again fewer than 80,000 votes or so).

    You haven’t shown that the percentage of people turning out to vote alters significantly between deep color states, red or blue, vs. purple states.

    And even if you could show that really, in some alternate universe, Trump actually was popular, so what? A popular vote system would show this, and thus people would have been more likely to be resigned to him being president. A popular vote system would still be the better system.

    As it was, for his whole term, he was always a minority president and if he had won this time even more so. Only in the U.S. are we left guessing as to whether the majority of the people actually preferred the other guy on the ballot, and not the one “elected”.

    All of this always comes down to the belief that Californians should have little role in choosing the president of the country they belong to. Republicans pretend to fear things being run over roughshod and having things forced down their throat and so feel this makes it perfectly ok to run over other people.

    I predict that the EC will last right up to the point that a Democratic candidate wins the election by clinging to bare majorities in places like Wisconsin and Michigan while losing heavily to the newly conservative Tejanos and Latinos of Florida and Texas, and having perhaps 40% of the national vote, at which point the R’s will suddenly discover the EC is a constitutional monstrosity blocking the will of the people and do away with it.

    Victor (4959fb)

  129. If the EC is anachronistic, then is the Senate too with Rhode Island having as much power as California….and how about that nasty filibuster giving undue power to an obstructionist minority….or that mountainous 3/4 of the states requirement to change the Constitution to what we really want? It almost seems like federalism, dispersing power, and checking the instincts of an emotional majority was part of the design. And that design seeks compromise and broad geographical consensus.

    Now I get that society today is less state centric than the founding era. The modern economy and technology have rolled over the notion of what is purely local and there is a persistent urge to solve tightly-coupled national problems with centralized solutions….health care for all! But I think it all misses the genius of having 50 laboratories….for peoples with different situations and priorities…and possibly philosophies. The EC is an imperfect way of emphasizing that states matter…and the priorities of each state must be weighed into the calculus not just the emotional belch of the majority. I don’t like that our system has recently forgotten about the importance of compromise, but it also slows down bad ideas….the masses are too easily cowed….

    AJ_Liberty (a4ff25)

  130. I think the EC is here to stay because any change would benefit either the Dem’s or the GOP. So there’s no incentive for them to change. Any changed forced will be seen as illegitimate and a power grab, probably rightfully so. It will be interesting to see how the Biden administration deals with GOP obstructionism.

    Based on the lack of support by the GOP for a normal transition is a strong indicator that any hope Biden had of working across the aisle is a likely doomed to fail

    Time123 (441f53)

  131. #131

    I find that my crystal ball is very cloudy. A lot will still depend on Trump. If he makes obstruction of Biden an article of faith with his tribe, obstruction will continue as long as he has the power to drive voters in the GOP. Now, if events, like an arrest and conviction, separate Trump from his phone, things could change quickly.

    I wonder how soon the New York indictments are coming.

    Appalled (602a1d)

  132. @131 Don’t be too quick on the EC, as the National Popular Vote Compact isn’t that far off from becoming a thing. I know it’ll be litigated to the SCOTUS, but I have no idea how they’ll rule.

    As for Biden dealing with GOP obstructionism. Divided Governance™ isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

    Furthermore, if Biden wants any of his agendas to be passed, instead of demonizing the GOP like what the Obama admin did, Biden should be enticing the GOP with good ol’ fashion horse trading and try to compromise.

    whembly (63cfde)

  133. Furthermore, if Biden wants any of his agendas to be passed, instead of demonizing the GOP like what the Obama admin did, Biden should be enticing the GOP with good ol’ fashion horse trading and try to compromise.

    whembly (63cfde) — 11/19/2020 @ 7:41 am

    I agree with this and I’ll be looking for evidence that offers are being made. I just think the lack of pushback on the transition is a bad sign.

    Time123 (cd2ff4)

  134. As for Biden dealing with GOP obstructionism. Divided Governance™ isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

    Truthfully, I agree. To a point. The more angry theories that Trump is lighting fires all over the world to ruin Biden’s foreign policy would be going way too far. But obstructing student loan forgiveness and massive regulation? Yeah Trump fans, more of that please.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  135. 1. It deals with the problem of different states having different election rules. Without the EC you’d be combining votes from all states with equal weight, when the eligibility to vote on election day (closely coupled with caring about fraud prevention) might differ markedly.

    In the present system, there is a (built-in) factor of up to 3.3 disparity in weight between different peoples’ votes, depending on what state they live in.

    The (hypothetical) differences you’re talking about are negligible in comparison.

    Dave (1bb933)

  136. Well yes, California or Texas having the same representation as Wyoming or Vermont is ridiculous, let alone half the Senators of Dakota. And the filibuster is an additional antidemocratic feature invented out of nothing that would have made Madison fume by turning a Senate he thought terrible worse.

    But I don’t see how the existence of various anti majoritarian features is precedent for more antimajoritarian features. Piling one on top of the other on top of the other is not a feature, it’s a bug. It just means the U.S. drifts ever farther into dysfunctional oligarchy.

    If preserving state identity is so damned important, then the Senate without a filibuster is more than sufficient. Inflicting presidents with minority support on a country in addition is a crap cherry on a crap sundae.

    Victor (4959fb)

  137. Kevin M @119 11/18/2020 @ 7:47 pm.

    BTW, I’m opposed to both term limits and a BBA.

    The first because it doesn’t help and makes the parties (and the bureaucrats, and the unions, and the pressure groups, and …) stronger than the office-holders

    In Peru, they instituted a one term limit for the Congress starting as of the last election.

    It didn’t improve things.

    As a matter of fact, it made them more corrupt.

    As for budgets, I’m opposed to having any budget at all.

    It’s a form of central planning. How is this good business practice? Businesses don’t try to pre-plan expenses a year or two out. The idea of having a budget that you stick to is insane. Look everywhere. It can’t be done right. The idea is so bad that it isn’t even done completely. They always leave some room for adjustment. But not enough.

    You need to be able to adjust – to add spending and maybe reduce other things. And maybe it is realized only at some random point in time. You always have to add necessary spending. Or things malfunction, or, more usually, continue to malfunction..

    Budgets only make making necessary ir wise changes more difficult.

    Spending caps? They will ether e too low or too high. And if you get fires, you’re limited in how you can respond?? And can you predict the economy?

    Money should be tied to a source of revenue, which could include borrowing. No money in (including allocated borrowing): no money out. With an ability to change things on the fly. Cut something here, add there, increase taxes here – maybe through a pre-payment discount, a tax amnesty or something.

    Government has got to be run like the proverbial candy store. On a cash basis mostly. Not accrual accounting.

    + (bc65ac)

  138. Sammy, check your sign in.

    nk (1d9030)

  139. Kevin M @119 (the previous one in this thread should have linked to 120)

    1. It deals with the problem of different states having different election rules. Without the EC you’d be combining votes from all states with equal weight, when the eligibility to vote on election day (closely coupled with caring about fraud prevention) might differ markedly.

    That actually could be taken care of, by adjusting the vote of a state to its population in the a last Census, or the number of representatives a state had in Congress. You could also avoid recounts (recounts that mattered) by rounding the votes cast to the nearest 10,000. Ousing the percentage down to 3 decimal points.

    You could do the rounding on a county or district basis too, and make it thousands.

    Now that would not be exactly the same thing as the popular vote, but it would more closely track it. while still giving you an easily ascertainable decision.

    Example:

    Joe Biden 10,950 votes (rounded from 10,950,161) divided by 17,154 = 63.834% x 53 = 34 Electoral votes (rounded from 33.832)

    Donald Trump 5,884 votes (rounded from 5,883,885) divided by 17,154 = 34.301% x 53 = 18 Electoral votes (rounded from 18.18)

    Jo Jorgensen 180 votes (rounded from 183,807) divided by 17,154 = 1.05% x 53 = 1 Electoral vote (rounded from .5565

    Howie Hawkins 80 votes (rounded from 79,268) divided by 17,154 = 0.5% x 53 = 0 Electoral votes (rounded from 18.18)

    Total allocated: 53 – does not need to be further adjusted.

    It would be hard to figure out where you need to stuff the ballot box.

    Roque De La Fuente 60 votes (rounded from 58,456) gets none.

    + (bc65ac)

  140. Yes, + shuld be Sammy Finkelman.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  141. 140. This would be with a total of 436 Electoral votes total. (435 house members plus 1 for DC) The example I gave was for California this year.

    You still have a problem with a runoff. Right now it’s an absolute majority of the Electoral votes.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  142. @132. I wonder how soon the New York indictments are coming.

    History often rhymes; revisit what Maryland did w/Spiro.

    Or he’ll simply die.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  143. What did Maryland do with Spiro?

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  144. NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Wins Emmy Award For Covid-19 Pressers

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-coronavirus-emmy-awards-cuomo-20201120-l4m2ocxn7fcjrhz2qdyn6nd4oq-story.html

    Because… well, you know how it goes w/that ‘horsesh!t': ‘Americans don’t want to be governed; they wish to be entertained.’ 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4725 secs.