|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43907 Posts
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise.
|
On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise.
Or at least the plurality, but yes I agree.
|
It’s so weird to witness the he complete confusion and chaos over the Iran negotiation. Trump says absolutely whatever and the whole thing is a clusterfuck of nonsense with no one having any idea what’s going on.
|
On April 19 2026 19:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise. Or at least the plurality, but yes I agree.
You can have a runoff election.
|
On April 19 2026 20:59 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 19:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise. Or at least the plurality, but yes I agree. You can have a runoff election.
Sure!
|
United States43907 Posts
On April 19 2026 20:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It’s so weird to witness the he complete confusion and chaos over the Iran negotiation. Trump says absolutely whatever and the whole thing is a clusterfuck of nonsense with no one having any idea what’s going on.
They had a deliberate policy of destroying the old regime. Not policy changes, not pressure, not ceasing enrichment, killing these guys so there could be a revolution. They didn’t want them to do anything but die.
And now they can’t seem to find anyone with power and authority in the regime. Strange. They’re searching for the people responsible for all this confusion.
|
On April 19 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 20:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It’s so weird to witness the he complete confusion and chaos over the Iran negotiation. Trump says absolutely whatever and the whole thing is a clusterfuck of nonsense with no one having any idea what’s going on. They had a deliberate policy of destroying the old regime. Not policy changes, not pressure, not ceasing enrichment, killing these guys so there could be a revolution. They didn’t want them to do anything but die. And now they can’t seem to find anyone with power and authority in the regime. Strange. They’re searching for the people responsible for all this confusion.
Listen to Trump tell the press what is supposedly going on and the Iranians having to say, we actually never said that, he is just making shit up is kind of entertaining.
What a shit show.
|
On April 19 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 20:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It’s so weird to witness the he complete confusion and chaos over the Iran negotiation. Trump says absolutely whatever and the whole thing is a clusterfuck of nonsense with no one having any idea what’s going on. They had a deliberate policy of destroying the old regime. Not policy changes, not pressure, not ceasing enrichment, killing these guys so there could be a revolution. They didn’t want them to do anything but die. And now they can’t seem to find anyone with power and authority in the regime. Strange. They’re searching for the people responsible for all this confusion.
Funny stuff. Almost like a pattern.
Destroy Taliban, donate weapons to Taliban, reinstate Taliban.
All Europe had to do was adopt the second amendment, gee golly.
|
Northern Ireland26621 Posts
On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling  . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters.
Which wasn’t your initial point.
Your initial point was to compare two completely different things to try and make an own the libs gotcha.
Don’t bullshit me, you’ve got more earnest responses than merited based on that initial gambit as it was.
Do better. Or don’t, no skin off my back either way
|
Schrödinger's straight.
It's open until somebody fires on cruise ships :D
|
Also Schrödingers ships on Schrödingers strait. They are alive and dead simultaneously, until you look at them to see which is true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
