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

Sun Nov 13 18:04:02 PST 2016

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

*"V2020 doesn't handle discourse very well which is pretty much why there
is rarely a healthy debate in this forum if any debate whatsoever."*

And earlier:

*Scott Dredge* scooterd408 at hotmail.com
<vision2020%40moscow.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BVision2020%5D%20Hillary%20Won%20by%202%20Million%20Votes%21%20More%20than%20Gore%2C%0A%20Nixon%2C%20Kennedy&In-Reply-To=%3CCY1PR20MB0426AC739A20ACEFB5CBF9DBE4BD0%40CY1PR20MB0426.namprd20.prod.outlook.com%3E>
*Sat Nov 12 23:55:24 PST 2016*

*"If you want to get rid of the Electoral College to make it easier for
your candidates to win, then follow the process to amend the Constitution."*
-------------------------------
To answer the second point above, eliminating the Electoral Collage is not
to make it easier for a partisan bias to have control, but to avoid the
social political malaise and unrest of a presidential candidate
convincingly winning the popular vote, while losing the presidency.
Outcomes like this are part of the reason eligible voter participation in
the USA is embarrassingly low.  Trump was right about one thing:  the
process is rigged, though in this case not against him!

A constitutional amendment, necessary to eliminate the Electoral College,
as you must know, is nearly impossible.  For one thing, it would make
controlling presidential elections much harder, thus various interests who
wish to manipulate the system would fight the elimination.

*But it is not impossible to argue against a mandate for a president who
lost the popular vote convincingly, via pointing out the flaws in the
Electoral College.  Right?*

As for Vision2020, the responses to some of your assertions in this thread
have been responded to in a "healthy" manner, with reasonable fact based
"discourse," it seems to me, at least so far.   Of course, with an open
un-moderated public forum, some unhealthy "discourse" is to be expected.

But imagine if someone on Vision2020 wrote the following aimed at you, or
me or anyone (change gender if needed) *"such a nasty man," *in a debate on
Vision2020?

I seem to recall a presidential candidate debate recently... I must be
dreaming... where one of the candidates proclaimed the other candidate to
be *"such a nasty women."  *Presidential candidate debates do not sink to
this juvenile name calling level, do they?

*If you think there is rarely "a healthy debate in this forum if any debate
whatsoever."  why did you post to Vision2020?*
----------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

Yes - I am mixing apples (checks) and oranges (balances).  If it's any
> consolation i fully support equal rights and policies to reduce greenhouse
> emissions.  I voted for Hillary Clinton.  I'm likely on your side on all
> issues except maybe gun control which I oppose even as a non-gun owner.
> V2020 doesn't handle discourse very well which is pretty much why there is
> rarely a healthy debate in this forum if any debate whatsoever.   I find it
> quite disingenuous after the fact for some on the left to be complaining
> about an EC system that both parties understand extremely well.  Then
> again, Trump bellowing non-stop that the system is rigged seemed to strike
> a chord with his voters, so I'm all in favor of the Dems adopting that
> similar strategy as well if they feel that will help them win elections.
> -Scott
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> *To:* Ron Force <ronforce at gmail.com>; Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>;
> Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 13, 2016 9:41 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Hillary Won by 2 Million Votes! More than
> Gore, Nixon, Kennedy
>
> Scott,
>
> Surely you know you are mixing apples and oranges here:
>
> 'My answer is that I fully support a system that provides adequate checks
> and balances between the various powers in play.  The EC does an exemplary
> job of that.  As far as the democratic process is concerned, I'm no fan of
> 'Majority Rule' since it results in codified bans on interracial marriages,
> bans on gay marriages, bans on trannies using restrooms, etc.  Thankfully
> our system can nullify the so-called democratic process before it cements
> the Tyranny of the Majority.'
>
> The EC does an exemplary job giving small states disproportionate influence
> over presidential elections. It plays no role in preventing 'codified
> bans on interracial marriages, bans on gay marriages, bans on trannies
> using restrooms, etc.  Thankfully our system can nullify the so-called
> democratic process before it cements the Tyranny of the Majority.' If
> anything, as we will see, it can make these easier to codify. Watch the
> Republican majority and President have a go at these.
>
> Sunil
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <vision2020-bounces at moscow.com> on
> behalf of Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 12, 2016 11:55 PM
> *To:* Ron Force; Ted Moffett
> *Cc:* Moscow Vision 2020
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Hillary Won by 2 Million Votes! More than
> Gore, Nixon, Kennedy
>
> If you want to get rid of the Electoral College to make it easier for your
> candidates to win, then follow the process to amend the Constitution.  Ted
> posits, 'it seems incredible to defend a system that would allow a
> president to be chosen based on winning 21.8% of the vote, and grants votes
> in some states far more weight than in other states, unless not fully
> supporting democratic one person one vote principles.'  My answer is that I
> fully support a system that provides adequate checks and balances between
> the various powers in play.  The EC does an exemplary job of that.  As far
> as the democratic process is concerned, I'm no fan of 'Majority Rule' since
> it results in codified bans on interracial marriages, bans on gay
> marriages, bans on trannies using restrooms, etc.  Thankfully our system
> can nullify the so-called democratic process before it cements the Tyranny
> of the Majority.
>
> Take heart in that in the 2018 mid-term elections, the Democrats will pick
> up 4 Senate seats and 30 House seats as have been the average gain over the
> past 21 midterm elections for the party not occupying the White House.
> Each party gets 8 years controlling the White House and a staggered 8 years
> controlling Congress.  I had fully expected that Democrats to *easily*
> retain the White House this year and was shocked that they had failed their
> normally solid base of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania none of which,
> I believe, had wound up in the Republican's win column in decades.  What
> went wrong with Hillary's messaging and right with Trumps messaging to turn
> all three of these states from blue to red?
>
> -Scott
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ron Force <ronforce at gmail.com>
> *To:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Scott Dredge <
> scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Hillary Won by 2 Million Votes! More than
> Gore, Nixon, Kennedy
>
> And slavery had a lot to do with the EC: https://newrepublic.com/articl
> e/138631/terrible-skewed-anachronistic-electoral-college-gave-us-trump
>
> <https://newrepublic.com/article/138631/terrible-skewed-anachronistic-electoral-college-gave-us-trump>
> How the Terrible, Skewed, Anachronistic Electoral College Gave Us Trump
> <https://newrepublic.com/article/138631/terrible-skewed-anachronistic-electoral-college-gave-us-trump>
> newrepublic.com
> Once again, a Democrat has won the popular vote but lost the election. It
> is time to throw out this badly outdated institution.
>
> On Nov 13, 2016 11:45 AM, "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> This is exactly why the brilliant framers came up with the Electoral
> College as a check / balance of not allowing Congress to select a president
> (except in an Electoral College tie) and not allowing a president to be
> elected solely by popular vote which can be heavily skewed by the more
> populous states.  Hillary and company were well aware of how the system
> elects a president and yet they still shockingly blew Wisconsin, Michigan,
> and Pennsylvania to a hack like Trump who didn't even have the support of
> his own party.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> "... not allowing a president to be elected solely by popular vote which
> can be heavily skewed by the more populous states."
>
> By this logic, perhaps we should elect Idaho's governor in a manner that
> prevents Ada county from a "heavily skewed" impact.  I've never heard any
> complaints that Idaho's governor is elected based on a popular vote, one
> vote one person, regardless of whether they are from a heavily populated
> county, like Ada, or a much smaller populated county like Latah.
>
> Perhaps you are just stirring the pot here, because it seems incredible to
> defend a system that would allow a president to be chosen based on winning
> 21.8% of the vote, and grants votes in some states far more weight than in
> other states, unless not fully supporting democratic one person one vote
> principles.
>
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> ------------------------------ ----------------
> Text below from article at website below:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ tyler-lewis/why-we-should-
> abolish-the_1_b_8961256.html
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyler-lewis/why-we-should-abolish-the_1_b_8961256.html>
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/tyler-lewis>Tyler Lewis
> *3) A Person Can Become President By Winning Only 21.8% of the Popular
> Vote*
>
> As previously stated, the Electoral College is a winner take all system.
> If a candidate wins the popular vote of a state by a just a single vote, he
> generally receives all the electoral votes of that state (excluding Maine
> and Nebraska). Combine this with the fact that smaller states receive more
> electoral votes per person than larger states, and it becomes possible to
> win the presidency by winning just 21.8% of the American public’s vote.
> According to a study
> <https://www.squarefree.com/2004/11/01/winning-an-election-with-22-of-the-popular-vote/>
> done by Jesse Ruderman, “A presidential candidate could be elected with as
> a little as 21.8% of the popular vote by getting just over 50% of the votes
> in DC and each of 39 small states. This is true even when everyone votes
> and there are only two candidates. In other words, a candidate could lose
> with 78.2% of the popular vote by getting just under 50% in small states
> and 100% in large states.”
> ------------------------------ --------------
> Each person's vote should be weighted the same, unless you object somehow
> to fair representative democracy.  The electoral college sometimes dilutes
> the votes of US citizens when we get an outcome like Bush v. Gore 2000, or
> Trump v. Hillary 2016, as this excerpt from the article further explains:
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/tyler-lewis>
> As fairvote.org explains, “For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming
> counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each
> individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral
> votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau
> estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population
> of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can
> see that Wyoming has one “elector” for every 177,556 people and Texas has
> one “elector” for about every 715,499.”
> By giving smaller states more electoral votes per person than larger
> states, disparity was created across the nation in regards to the
> significance of each citizens’ vote. With the Electoral College, the value
> of a vote depends on what state a person lives in.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 11, 2016 11:31 AM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Hillary Won by 2 Million Votes! More than Gore,
> Nixon, Kennedy
>
> NY Times, Nov. 11
>
> Hillary Clinton didn’t just win the popular vote. She won it by a
> substantial margin.
> By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by
> more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according
> to
> <http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=pMJKdIFVI6pehkIEQ5/wRr6MZeaebV9ey6JTj6EssbnkGPFwrHQAyyTmM3EOBy+A6iORXC/pWMs=&campaign_id=69&instance_id=86172&segment_id=98021&user_id=4a205c5a62f3a4293ec5342704c0aac0&regi_id=29749741> my
> Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin
> than not only Al Gore in 2000
> <http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=gTrU3W/9enTENHkvqbCdzZgkiTHF9UbCDD4W0GhG39P5Eyf7TltaK0BpBJHmP9mI6/jeDZp5NGKCpVGSwJxHiepw3hduVzKff3iiQHZx7X4=&campaign_id=69&instance_id=86172&segment_id=98021&user_id=4a205c5a62f3a4293ec5342704c0aac0&regi_id=29749741> but
> also Richard Nixon in 1968
> <http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=gTrU3W/9enTENHkvqbCdzZgkiTHF9UbCDD4W0GhG39P5Eyf7TltaK0BpBJHmP9mI6PkjHcl220G0ujhkK0RiYepw3hduVzKff3iiQHZx7X4=&campaign_id=69&instance_id=86172&segment_id=98021&user_id=4a205c5a62f3a4293ec5342704c0aac0&regi_id=29749741> and
> John F. Kennedy in 1960
> <http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=gTrU3W/9enTENHkvqbCdzZgkiTHF9UbCDD4W0GhG39P5Eyf7TltaK0BpBJHmP9mI6PkjHcl220GCpVGSwJxHiepw3hduVzKff3iiQHZx7X4=&campaign_id=69&instance_id=86172&segment_id=98021&user_id=4a205c5a62f3a4293ec5342704c0aac0&regi_id=29749741>.
>
>
> --
>
> A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they
> shall never sit in.
>
> -Greek proverb
>
> “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.
> Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance
> from another. This immaturity is self- imposed when its cause lies not in
> lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without
> guidance from another. Sapere Aude! ‘Have courage to use your own
> understand-ing!—that is the motto of enlightenment.
>
> --Immanuel Kant
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20161113/29b162d5/attachment-0001.html>