painlord2k at libero.it
Sun Nov 13 13:45:47 UTC 2016
Il 13/11/2016 03:56, John Clark ha scritto:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com
> <mailto:foozler83 at gmail.com>>wrote:
> Unless I have missed something, no one has mentioned the Electoral
> noticed that Hillary won the popular vote but rather badly lost the
> Electoral vote.
> Already Hillary got 1.8 million more votes than Trump did, and that
> figure will almost certainly grow. There are millions of votes that
> still haven't been counted and almost all of all of them are in
> California, Washington State, and New York, all deep blue Clinton
> states. In fact it looks very likely that Clinton will end up getting
> more votes that any president in the history of the USA. But she still
> lost and Trump still won. And that sucks bigly.
What I read is California do not count the absenty ballots immediately
after the election, but wait to see if the number of absenty ballots is
enough to make a difference.
"States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the number of
outstanding absentee ballots is larger than the state margin of
difference. If there is a margin of 1,000 votes counted and there are
1,300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state tabulates those. If
the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t influence the
election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted."
So, if the margin in California in greater than 1 M votes in favor of
the democrats, California absentee ballots are not accounted for.
So, if we suppose there is 1 M absentee ballonts in California, and
these ballots are from mainly repubblican voters ("The historical
breakout for absentee ballots is about 67-33% Republican. " cit.) then
the accounting for the popular vote is skewed in favor of Democrats.
So, if the difference in the popular vote is smaller than the number of
the absentee ballots, stop claiming Hillary won the popular vote.
It is just a statement without any support.
Like the polls made with skewed samples.
> Why not get rid of th Electoral College? I am far far from the
> first to recommend that.
> No doubt there were good reasons at the time to institute it(?).
> It was the only way they agreed on a constitution. The small states
> wanted each state to have a equal voice as in the Senate, and the big
> states wanted it to go with population as in the House, so they
> Besides getting rid of the electoral college I think people should be
> allowed to vote for more than one candidate, that way people could have
> voted for the Libertarian guy to make a point and also voted for Hillary
> to stop a fascist
> from gaining power.
> John K Clark
The only real fascist I can see is Hillary and the people rioting and
beating Trump supporters.
I don't read you complaining about that. Probably you are cool with
that. They surely deserve it for their affront to the party of the
eternally righteous and bigots.
Leftist always want a supreme leader. Unfortunately they got one they
don't like so they riot.
Good reason to reduce the government power.
Because there is always a Trump (or a Hillary) awaiting to take that
power and do what he/she want with it.
If you like a omnipotent government, you can not complain if its power
end in the hands of someone you don't like.
More information about the extropy-chat