Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

mrussel1

Biden

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 

I'm not talking about just the Presidential here. You can get there if you start bottom-up. States need to change the way they vote.

I see.  Yes, it can be used in local elections (Maine?), but I'm cynical on the presidential side

I mean you're doing the same thing - awarding the EC votes to the winner of a state's election. Yes, Maine used it for the Presidential, too.

I don't see the downside in rewarding the candidate with the broadest appeal instead of the one that fans flames.

so you're saying you wouldn't necessarily need a majority to get the EV's.  You could do it at 28% for example.  Yeah that would not be a violation of the Constitution.  There is no requirement today that the EV winner in the state receives a majority, only that the president has a majority of EVs. 

Jearlpam0925

Biden

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 

I'm not talking about just the Presidential here. You can get there if you start bottom-up. States need to change the way they vote.

I see.  Yes, it can be used in local elections (Maine?), but I'm cynical on the presidential side

I mean you're doing the same thing - awarding the EC votes to the winner of a state's election. Yes, Maine used it for the Presidential, too.

I don't see the downside in rewarding the candidate with the broadest appeal instead of the one that fans flames.

so you're saying you wouldn't necessarily need a majority to get the EV's.  You could do it at 28% for example.  Yeah that would not be a violation of the Constitution.  There is no requirement today that the EV winner in the state receives a majority, only that the president has a majority of EVs. 

You would get to a majority. That' the whole point of RCV. Are you conflating majority with plurality?

Jearlpam0925

Biden

And I think the states dictate how their EVs are proportioned out. Usually, winner take all.

mrussel1

Biden

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 

I'm not talking about just the Presidential here. You can get there if you start bottom-up. States need to change the way they vote.

I see.  Yes, it can be used in local elections (Maine?), but I'm cynical on the presidential side

I mean you're doing the same thing - awarding the EC votes to the winner of a state's election. Yes, Maine used it for the Presidential, too.

I don't see the downside in rewarding the candidate with the broadest appeal instead of the one that fans flames.

so you're saying you wouldn't necessarily need a majority to get the EV's.  You could do it at 28% for example.  Yeah that would not be a violation of the Constitution.  There is no requirement today that the EV winner in the state receives a majority, only that the president has a majority of EVs. 

You would get to a majority. That' the whole point of RCV. Are you conflating majority with plurality?

No but is that really a valid definition of majority?  It's like a waterfall majority.

OnWis97

Biden

Jearlpam0925 said:

And I think the states dictate how their EVs are proportioned out. Usually, winner take all.

Yes.  If they wanted to, I think they could just have their state legislatures vote (I think that's how it was originally done), but I'm not 100%.  You don't need to win a majority of a state's votes to take its EVs. States can use the Maine/Nebraska model (two EVs for the statewide winner and one EV for the winner of each district). They could probably distribute the popular vote on proportionality, i.e., 40% of the vote in a state with 10 EVs gets 4 Evs. 

So I think that a state could do rank-choice and say the winner (Plurality) gets the votes. Or they could it like Maine/Nebraska and give two to the statewide winner and one each in the districts.

mickeyrat

Biden

OnWis97 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

And I think the states dictate how their EVs are proportioned out. Usually, winner take all.

Yes.  If they wanted to, I think they could just have their state legislatures vote (I think that's how it was originally done), but I'm not 100%.  You don't need to win a majority of a state's votes to take its EVs. States can use the Maine/Nebraska model (two EVs for the statewide winner and one EV for the winner of each district). They could probably distribute the popular vote on proportionality, i.e., 40% of the vote in a state with 10 EVs gets 4 Evs. 

So I think that a state could do rank-choice and say the winner (Plurality) gets the votes. Or they could it like Maine/Nebraska and give two to the statewide winner and one each in the districts.

EC WAS intended to be proportional until Jefferson browbeat Virginia to award him allbthe votes from there.

Jearlpam0925

Biden

Proportional to me would be awarding the EVs by congressional district, which is what Nebraska and Maine do for half of them and the other going to the popular vote winner.

Jearlpam0925

Biden

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 

I'm not talking about just the Presidential here. You can get there if you start bottom-up. States need to change the way they vote.

I see.  Yes, it can be used in local elections (Maine?), but I'm cynical on the presidential side

I mean you're doing the same thing - awarding the EC votes to the winner of a state's election. Yes, Maine used it for the Presidential, too.

I don't see the downside in rewarding the candidate with the broadest appeal instead of the one that fans flames.

so you're saying you wouldn't necessarily need a majority to get the EV's.  You could do it at 28% for example.  Yeah that would not be a violation of the Constitution.  There is no requirement today that the EV winner in the state receives a majority, only that the president has a majority of EVs. 

You would get to a majority. That' the whole point of RCV. Are you conflating majority with plurality?

No but is that really a valid definition of majority?  It's like a waterfall majority.

 Is it a majority now?

mickeyrat

Biden

Jearlpam0925 said:

Proportional to me would be awarding the EVs by congressional district, which is what Nebraska and Maine do for half of them and the other going to the popular vote winner.

its my understanding its intended to be strictly on a percentage basis. IE, A candidate garners 60% his opponent garners 40% of a states vote. EC votes are split accordingly. 

Maine has a  twist to that given its only 2 districts.

Jearlpam0925

Biden

mickeyrat said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Proportional to me would be awarding the EVs by congressional district, which is what Nebraska and Maine do for half of them and the other going to the popular vote winner.

its my understanding its intended to be strictly on a percentage basis. IE, A candidate garners 60% his opponent garners 40% of a states vote. EC votes are split accordingly. 

Maine has a  twist to that given its only 2 districts.

https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/

mickeyrat

Biden

Jearlpam0925 said:

mickeyrat said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Proportional to me would be awarding the EVs by congressional district, which is what Nebraska and Maine do for half of them and the other going to the popular vote winner.

its my understanding its intended to be strictly on a percentage basis. IE, A candidate garners 60% his opponent garners 40% of a states vote. EC votes are split accordingly. 

Maine has a  twist to that given its only 2 districts.

https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/

thats now. was speaking of original intent.

PJNB

Bernie laying the smackdown right now on CNN on how they failed in 2008-2010 and are going to do better at the start of these next two years. He gets it. 

Smellyman

Biden

PJNB said:

Bernie laying the smackdown right now on CNN on how they failed in 2008-2010 and are going to do better at the start of these next two years. He gets it. 

I hope so.

They need to legislate and prosecute.

tbergs

Biden

Seems there's conflicting reports on whether that officer has died yet. Possibly on life support though.

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

Smellyman said:

PJNB said:

Bernie laying the smackdown right now on CNN on how they failed in 2008-2010 and are going to do better at the start of these next two years. He gets it. 

I hope so.

They need to legislate and prosecute.

100%. don't waste time. fuck the GOP

mickeyrat

Biden

By Amy Gardner and Matt Zapotosky January 12 at 8:06 PM EST The acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, whose predecessor abruptly resigned one week ago after President Trump complained officials were not doing enough to find election fraud in the state, declared on a call with his staff Monday that “there’s just nothing to” the few claims of fraud the office was examining, according to an audio recording obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. On the call, Bobby Christine, who also serves as the top federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Georgia, suggested that he was surprised to learn the office had not found significant election fraud issues. “Quite frankly, just watching television, you would assume that you got election cases stacked from the floor to the ceiling,” Christine said, according to the Atlanta newspaper. “I am so happy to find out that’s not the case, but I didn’t know coming in.” A spokesman for Christine’s office declined to comment Tuesday. The Washington Post reported last week that Christine brought with him from the Southern District two prosecutors, Joshua S. Bearden and Jason Blanchard, who previously had been assigned to investigate election fraud matters. He also brought in former federal prosecutor Matt Hart, a lawyer in Birmingham, Ala., who previously handled public corruption cases, on a contract basis, people familiar with the matter told The Post. [New U.S. attorney in Atlanta brings in assistants who worked on election fraud issues, raising fears of political interference] The additions unnerved current and former officials in both the Southern and Northern districts of Georgia, particularly in light of the abrupt resignation of Christine’s predecessor, Byung J. “BJay” Pak. “Mr. Pak’s forced resignation against the backdrop of White House insistence to prosecute purported election offenses is then followed by the curious appointment of an outsider who immediately brings in election prosecutors from outside the district — it all gives rise to a ready inference that the newcomers are willing to pursue what was troubling enough to cause Mr. Pak to resign,” said John Horn, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. Christine said on the call with the Northern District staff that he brought the two election fraud prosecutors to tackle what he expected would be a “dump truck full” of election files. Instead, he found “very, very few” and dismissed two cases on his first day in office. “We don’t have these huge colossal issues that if you turn on the TV, you’d think it’d be,” he said. A Justice Department official said Tuesday that the two attorneys Christine brought from the Southern District had returned to their home office. Trump had been upset with what he perceived as a lack of Justice Department action on his unfounded claims in Georgia and across the country, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to described the president’s views. Precisely how that played into Pak’s resignation was unclear, but two people familiar with the matter said he received a call from the Office of Deputy Attorney General, run by Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard P. Donoghue, that led him to believe he should resign. The Justice Department has declined to comment on Pak’s departure. His exit came just a day after The Post reported on an call in which Trump urged Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn Trump’s election defeat in the state. In the same conversation, Trump cited a “never-Trumper U.S. attorney” in Georgia — a possible reference to Pak — and hinted vaguely and baselessly that Raffensperger’s refusal to act on his unfounded fraud claims constituted a “criminal offense.” In announcing his departure, Pak released a statement saying that he did “my best to be thoughtful and consistent, and to provide justice for my fellow citizens in a fair, effective and efficient manner.” He has declined to comment further. Christine was then directly installed in the post by Trump — bypassing Kurt Erskine, a longtime federal prosecutor who had been Pak’s top deputy and would have otherwise assumed the role. Officials with the office of the Georgia secretary of state have been saying for weeks that President-elect Joe Biden’s narrow victory in Georgia was free, fair and untainted by widespread fraud. In his Jan. 2 call with Trump, Raffensperger rejected the president’s entreaties to “find the votes” to overturn the results in the state and insisted his assertions about fraud were wrong. [‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’: In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote] “This is what we’ve been saying all along,” Gabriel Sterling, a top Raffensperger aide, said Tuesday after the Christine call leaked. “The facts are the facts. The evidence is the evidence. It has clearly shown through multiple law enforcement agencies at the state and federal level that there is simply not enough evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the election.

mrussel1

Biden

Gym Jordan is currently yelling at me.  Why did I make him so angry?

dignin

mrussel1 said:

Gym Jordan is currently yelling at me.  Why did I make him so angry?

Gym has 2 volume levels, obnoxious and loud obnoxious.

MayDay10

Biden

its amazing that people in congress still delude themselves thinking that they can manage and somehow control Trumpism.  It will wash over them too.

mrussel1

Biden

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

Gym Jordan is currently yelling at me.  Why did I make him so angry?

Gym has 2 volume levels, obnoxious and loud obnoxious.

Did you hear his arguments? They were juvenile and non sequitur.  He was rambling about the Wright Brothers and landing on the moon.  As a native Ohioan and Buckeye die hard,  I'm embarrassed for him.