ClimateSanity
New member
They admit to voting in phone surveys
There is no "Popular Vote" winner.
- Thread starter fool
- Start date
They admit to voting in phone surveys
Evidence?
No 50 counties in the US could pick the President. I think you may mean 500.
We don't vote by county, and President isn't a county-level job. You're just rationalizing giving your vote greater weight than another person's. That isn't democracy.
Good thing there aren't any lopsided GOP states...
Where did you even get that?
No, it's not. A democracy is just a system of government where the whole population controls the government.
Nonsense.
You don't think there are common interests shared by most Americans? How do you reach that conclusion?
There isn't a single other representative republic in the history of the world with a similar structure.
For wanting our votes to count? Maybe we should make your vote worth less than ours, and watch you whine.
That's one of the things you liberals are currently brainwashing yourself with :chuckle:
-France has a system just like ours, so it's not the truth
-Most of the world isn't democratic, so it's an big overstatement
-Russia is democratic with a system that discourages socialism all the same, but not through their electoral system.
So you can go on with your nonsense, hombre.
And
The Founding Fathers did indeed define democracy as 'all parties present in a committee to discuss and vote'- that is what a democracy is, and is insufficient for a nation where it is given to the common people. That is why they committed to representation and the electoral college in the first place- it may escape your mind, but democracy didn't exist in their time. It wasn't some puffed up, undeservedly venerated thing as it is now.
No they don't. The President of France is directly elected by the voters.
I didn't say it was, and my comment was regarding representative republics.
Russia is a fake democracy, like Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It holds elections, but the elections are rigged, the media is controlled, and other political parties aren't really afforded a genuine chance to run. Putin exerts complete control, and if he doesn't like what you're doing, you disappear.
Just reiterating doesn't make your case. Where did you get that idea? That isn't 1. What democracy is, or 2. an idea that I have ever read in any of the founding documents. So, you need to explain yourself if you want me to consider your argument.
I'm not arguing against representative democracy. I'm arguing against forms of it where a person can win while getting fewer votes than their opponent.
France has an electoral system similar to ours, the popular vote wins the presidency because it was approved by a super majority. It's subject to change and they otherwise have our system. France's government is America's twin.
Yeah, that's called 'propaganda'. You've been brainwashed to see Russia as insidious and corrupted.
There you go with that 'explain yourself' nonsense.
The fact that you basically just admitted that you don't know anything beyond the 'founding documents' of the Founding Fathers means that you don't really have a stake here
The Founding Fathers lived in a time when 'democracy' didn't exist. The whole reason they came to such a definition is because the concept of a democratic nation was only relevant to ancient Greece- that's what they assigned 'democracy' to being.
Maybe you'll notice the classical imagery and language that pretty much brims on everything in our government, from currency to court buildings to historical architecture- it was all in due recognition to the brand of government they formed.
So, you fail rex :rotfl:
You liberals prove once again just how unAmerican yall really are.
ClimateSanity
New member
There was a study done on the 2008 election.
In 2014, a study released by three professors at Old Dominion University and George Mason University, based on survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, estimated that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election and that 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm congressional elections.
National Review.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bc.mar...non-citizens-do-too?client=ms-android-verizon
The article doesn't include a usable citation to the study, but even taken at face value, that doesn't give Trump the popular vote. If 6.4% of people here illegally voted, it would amount to would amount to about 720,000 votes. Since Hillary's lead in the popular vote was approaching 3 million, that's not even within the right order of magnitude.
Something like 1/3 of all people here illegally would need to vote to make that kind of difference. It's just not a credible possibility. It is the President-elect's ego that drives that narrative, and his sycophantic followers who enable him to make it.
Last edited:
The French system is a two-step election, not unlike a universal primary followed by a final contest. To become the President, you need an absolute majority (but not a supermajority). So they have a first round, which eliminates all but two candidates, and then if none of those in the first round won a majority, they have a second round to select the final winner. Both rounds are held among the people of France, and are thus democratic. If one candidate wins an outright majority (as opposed to a plurality) in the first round, the second round is skipped. This common process is used by many countries, and it guarantees that the President rules with a meaningful democratic mandate, and in that sense, it stands in contrast to the American system, where a President can rule in contradiction of the popular vote.
This does not bear an even passing resemblance to the US system. There is no possibility of someone getting to be President with a minority of the votes, although it is possible to become president having not had the plurality of the first round vote.
No, I've paid attention to recent events and actions. Putin has people assassinated in the capitals of other countries. He has journalists disappeared. He holds sham elections. He has people shot in his own capital. He's an evil man, and you are blinded by your own Fuhrer's adoration of him.
Yeah, how dare I ask you to make yourself clear when you're muddling history.
The fact that you basically just admitted that you don't know anything beyond the 'founding documents' of the Founding Fathers means that you don't really have a stake here
I didn't "admit" any such thing, and you didn't answer the question.
There was more democracy than there were republics. The colonists largely voted for their own leaders. Sure, they existed within a British colonial system, which wasn't at the time democratic, but they had their own little fledgling democracies, and their really revolutionary idea was that people could rule themselves. In fact, many of the charges levied against King James in the Declaration of Independence were more a reference to democracy than anything else.
You still haven't said where you got that definition at all, so it's really impossible to have any meaningful discussion of the historical basis of your claims. I'm of the opinion that you made it up, and you now refuse to admit it, until you prove otherwise, especially give how muddled and inaccurate your understanding of French law turned out to be.
The Neoclassical architecture of the US Capital is a reference to Greek and Roman governing ideas, both republicanism and democracy. Frankly, the Founders didn't agree with each other on the proper balance of powers, or who could wield authority or how. I can't imagine that we'll reach a consensus on the subject looking to them as the sole guide.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I can give you dozens of references for what I say. Do you think you'll believe any of them?
I guess "decimated" to you means finishing in the bottom 10 percent of electoral victories.
Ronald Reagan had historic victories, not Trump. Both of Obama's victories were larger. So no, you don't have a wave and you lost the popular vote.
I think you want to turn the USA into a totalitarian state like Russia. Why don't you move there?
And no I have no interest in Britain, Canada maybe but not Britain. My ancestors left for a reason (and only some of them came from Britain).
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I guess "decimated" to you means finishing in the bottom 10 percent of electoral victories.
both adams, tommy jefferson and jfk
he's in good company! :banana:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Yes it does.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...cords-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/
The Title of the Article is; Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts
Nope, that's the Detroit News.
"Too many votes" doesn't imply vote stuffing. It doesn't even suggest which total is wrong. What it does say is that something went wrong. What's unclear us what that something was.
Both parties had observers at the voting precincts. How do you think the stuffing occurred under their noses?
When you have more votes than people who voted that's called stuffing the ballot box.
Read the article.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ncts/95363314/
I didn't see an observer at my polling precinct, there's not always one every where all the time. And if they were there then they'd be some good people to ask now wouldn't they. Why are there more votes than voters? It's a simple question. Only one answer.
ClimateSanity
New member
California is not the only state with illegals voting or non citizens period. As far as a usable citation. It refers to a government provided data set. There was an article that was an actual peer reviewed paper based on phone calls to non citizens after the 2008 election. When I find it, I will post it.
That's a broken link, but I read the article you posted from the Detroit Free Press the first time you posted it. It doesn't support what you're saying. So, unless there's another link...
There are two tallies. A tally of the number of votes, and the number of ballots actually collected. Either of those tallies could be wrong. There needs to be a thorough investigation of how the discrepancy occurred, not a declaration that fraud has occurred without any specific evidence. Which side sued to prevent that from happening
Apparently, the Trump campaign didn't do a very good job getting poll watchers out. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/03/trump-poll-watchers/93250798/
They at least had the option of putting poll watchers on site.
No one knows for sure, but there's definitely more than one possible answer. How do you know that the voter total is right? And if there are questions about the outcome, we should have a full investigation. If you're right, and there was widespread fraud, there's really no other way to protect against it, or punish people who commit it.
Right?
I based that on the official number of likely undocumented people in the entire country, which is about 12 million, not those in one state. Even if you think that number is understated, you could triple it and it wouldn't change the outcome.
Which one? I saw a reference to a study at Old Dominion University.
Anyway, I'll wait for your post on that subject.