Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:19 am

First topic message reminder :

Of course, every American citizen is a real American.

Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin kicked off the debate over whether some Americans are more "real" than others in 2008:

You don't have to live in a small town or vote Republican to love your country and be a "real American." Obviously.

But we see a strain of the same narrative in the most recent election -- "America has spoken." No, it hasn't -- nearly three million more real Americans voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

But if we don't reject the narrative that some Americans are more "real" than others, and instead try to decide based on the available evidence which party is that of "real" Americans, what conclusion might that lead to?

Let's look at some social issues. The Democratic Party is the party of gay rights, racial equality, religious tolerance and government assistance for the poor. Are those values American values?

Gay rights:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Jwowsa1ks020ehlt19i1la

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Jwowsa1ks020ehlt19i1la

Racism's a little harder to calculate, but generally a racist society disapproves of interracial marriages. So:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Iz9s4ieareep_q3xhp2edg

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Iz9s4ieareep_q3xhp2edg

Religious tolerance (in this poll, "tolerant" means taking a live-and-let-live attitude toward other religions, "integrated" means respecting and seeking to learn more about other religions, and "isolated" means being intolerant of and incurious about other religions:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 20030318_1

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 20030318_1

Government assistance for the poor:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Divided-Views-of-Govt-Aid-to-Poor

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Divided-Views-of-Govt-Aid-to-Poor

So we see that on those issues, the Democratic Party reflects the attitude of most Americans. But what about other, perhaps more controversial issues?

What about universal health care, which Democrats favor?

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Chart2

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Chart2

What about stricter gun control, which Democrats favor?

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Guncontrol

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Guncontrol

What about abortion rights, which Democrats favor?

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Lr-ihjzmlkarrrl5ccpy2w

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Lr-ihjzmlkarrrl5ccpy2w

The Democratic Party is easily more in touch with the majority of Americans on all these issues, and more. But is there another way to judge how "American" a person or a party is?

Let's look at what the American people look like:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Us-population-by-race-ethnicity_1394327

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Us-population-by-race-ethnicity_1394327

Now let's look at a Democratic political rally:

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Gettyimages-542155438

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Gettyimages-542155438

That looks about right. How about a Republican rally?

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 38f6ed0742

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 38f6ed0742

Finding a non-white person in that photo is like a Where's Waldo book.

It's time for Democrats to take back the narrative. If you buy into the silly notion that some Americans are more American than other Americans, supporters of the Democratic Party obviously more accurately reflect what America really is than the Republican Party does.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:07 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Don't you realise that the more you run down the winner of the election... you are just telling everyone how much worse the alternative was...!?

She got 3-million more votes. You do the math.

Ukip got 3 million votes... more than the combined total votes of the snp/lib dems/greens and most of plaid cmmry added in too...!!!

Check out how many seats in parliament each party got...

I don't remember any uk lefties or US democrats complaining about how unfair the voting system was here in uk... and arguing that Ukip should have won so much more because of the many more votes they got etc...

Haven't you noticed yet that we don't give a shit what happens in the UK?

by Original Quill Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

She got 3-million more votes. You do the math.

Ukip got 3 million votes... more than the combined total votes of the snp/lib dems/greens and most of plaid cmmry added in too...!!!

Check out how many seats in parliament each party got...

I don't remember any uk lefties or US democrats complaining about how unfair the voting system was here in uk... and arguing that Ukip should have won so much more because of the many more votes they got etc...

Tommy, do I have to walk you to the bathrooms? UKIP won the Brexit popular vote. Pussy-grabber lost the popular vote.

And actually his deficit was around 10-million votes, when you add in the Libertarian and Green Party votes.

by veya_victaous Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:48 pm

@op

I think it's interesting that only 2.4% of Americans identify as Multiracial.

over a 3rd of Aussies identify as Multiracial
http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/demographics_profile.html

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:03 am

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Ukip got 3 million votes... more than the combined total votes of the snp/lib dems/greens and most of plaid cmmry added in too...!!!

Check out how many seats in parliament each party got...

I don't remember any uk lefties or US democrats complaining about how unfair the voting system was here in uk... and arguing that Ukip should have won so much more because of the many more votes they got etc...

Tommy, do I have to walk you to the bathrooms? UKIP won the Brexit popular vote. Pussy-grabber lost the popular vote.

And actually his deficit was around 10-million votes, when you add in the Libertarian and Green Party votes.

I'm talking about 2015 uk parliamentary general election results...

Ukip was not an option to vote for in the eu referendum...

by Original Quill Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:35 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Tommy, do I have to walk you to the bathrooms? UKIP won the Brexit popular vote. Pussy-grabber lost the popular vote.

And actually his deficit was around 10-million votes, when you add in the Libertarian and Green Party votes.

I'm talking about 2015 uk parliamentary general election results...

Ukip was not an option to vote for in the eu referendum...

So, what is your point in the comparison...I mean, since there is no comparison?

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:50 pm

Ukip didn't win anything in the referendum... the people voted to leave the eu... not FOR Ukip...

There were 2 options to vote for... leave or remain...

Now back to my original post about the 2015 general election here in uk... after you were complaining about numbers of actual votes not resulting in a political win...

Ukip got 3 million votes... more than the combined total votes of the snp/lib dems/greens and most of plaid cmmry added in too...!!!

Check out how many seats in parliament each party got...

I don't remember any uk lefties or US democrats complaining about how unfair the voting system was here in uk... and arguing that Ukip should have won so much more because of the many more votes they got etc...

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:56 pm

Snp got 1.45 million votes and 56 seats.

Lib dems got 2.4 million votes and 8 seats.

Plaid cmmry got 180,000 votes and 3 seats.

Ukip got 3.9 million votes but only 1 seat!!!

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:03 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Snp got 1.45 million votes and 56 seats.

Lib dems got 2.4 million votes and 8 seats.

Plaid cmmry got 180,000 votes and 3 seats.

Ukip got 3.9 million votes but only 1 seat!!!

Irrelevant, as it was not an overall popularity vote to elect UKIP
As the Presidency should be.
Areas have different sizes in populations in constituencies
And UKIP finished many as second
By going off overall votes and claiming they deserve more seats based within some they came second. Is going against democracy for those who voted for those to lead their constituency. You would relegate the winner to second in some, based off overall UKIP votes for the country, which is absurd. Those living there then are led by UKIP, even though they came second, because they had votes elsewhere in the country

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:48 pm

Doesn't America have different constituency areas too...?

And I'm led to believe that there are the overwhelming vast majority of them voted Republican...

Also... if you were to remove california from the calculations, who are huge in number and voted in huge numbers for democrats (but one of the very few places that did), Republicans won by millions!

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:00 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Doesn't America have different constituency areas too...?

And I'm led to believe that there are the overwhelming vast majority of them voted Republican...

Also... if you were to remove california from the calculations, who are huge in number and voted in huge numbers for democrats (but one of the very few places that did), Republicans won by millions!

Yes they do have states, of which they vote for senators etc.
So why do you need to choose a President based geographically around states and not the popular vote, when you are electing them to lead the nation?

When you vote for UKIP MP, its within that constituency. Hence why the Presidential vote allows for someone with less votes nationally to lead a nation. Which is absurd

So if we remove England from the Brexit UK referendum, the remain vote would have won by a mile?

Do you see how absurd that view is to make on California, when its the biggest populous state in the US?

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:39 pm

I'm not being absurd at all... I'm just showing how both the democratic systems elect people on constituency basis...

In the usa, overwhelming vast majority of their regions voted for Republican... one region (california) voted democrat and with extremely large population it was an extremely large number adding to overall democrat total of votes, but it was still only one region... the numbers are irrelevant when it is an election based on regional results, and where overwhelming vast majority of regions voted the other way!

It is the American election system and their rules... it's not a new thing for them...

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:51 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not being absurd at all... I'm just showing how both the democratic systems elect people on constituency basis...

In the usa, overwhelming vast majority of their regions voted for Republican... one region (california) voted democrat and with extremely large population it was an extremely large number adding to overall democrat total of votes, but it was still only one region... the numbers are irrelevant when it is an election based on regional results, and where overwhelming vast majority of regions voted the other way!

It is the American election system and their rules... it's not a new thing for them...

It is absurd on every level as I have easily shown, based on voting for a leader to lead the entire country.
He won very marginally in less populated states. You are also discounting 4.5 million people that voted for Trump in California, based off the most absurd reasons. Again you need to take into account population sizes in each state. The numbers should be relevant, when you are voting to elect a leader nationally, as you vote for senators locally to lead for that state.

Yes it is the US system, which as seen allows for someone with less votes, in other words coming second to then lead the nation on a national vote. Making for a very daft election process.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:59 pm

He won by the rules of their system... the rules are the same every time... nothing new.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:He won by the rules of their system... the rules are the same every time... nothing new.

Yes I am well aware that he did, which as stated allows for someone with less national votes and who is second to become President

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:50 pm

No different to what happened here in 1974...

"...The United Kingdom's general election of February 1974 was held on the 28th of that month. ... Labour won the most seats (301, which was 17 seats short of an overall majority) with the Conservatives on 297 seats, although the Conservatives had a larger share of the popular vote..."

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

No different to what happened here in 1974...

"...The United Kingdom's general election of February 1974 was held on the 28th of that month. ... Labour won the most seats (301, which was 17 seats short of an overall majority) with the Conservatives on 297 seats, although the Conservatives had a larger share of the popular vote..."

Again irrelevant and different

They are individual seats which will have some will higher populations than others

Again the Presidential election is to vote for a leader of the entire nation

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:05 pm

Still had conservatives with most votes but a Labour prime minister...

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:09 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Still had conservatives with most votes but a Labour prime minister...

But again people were voting for individuals in their constituencies

You do realise that in reality, a party could win the election and its leader loses his seat?

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:18 pm

You do realise that in America, someone can win the presidential election although another candidate could have more overall votes...?

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:You do realise that in America, someone can win the presidential election although another candidate could have more overall votes...?

Which as I have reasoned, democratically is absurd.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:27 pm

Not under their system... and similar to examples I have shown in our system too.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:28 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Not under their system... and similar to examples I have shown in our system too.

They are not even close to being similar or comparable, as again I have easily reasoned.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

She got 3-million more votes. You do the math.

Ukip got 3 million votes... more than the combined total votes of the snp/lib dems/greens and most of plaid cmmry added in too...!!!

Check out how many seats in parliament each party got...

I don't remember any uk lefties or US democrats complaining about how unfair the voting system was here in uk... and arguing that Ukip should have won so much more because of the many more votes they got etc...

You need to think this through more closely, tommy. UKIP was given the victory on Brexit. Clinton was denied the victory. Totally opposite results. There is absolutely no comparison...

...only there may yet be. Notice the UK government hasn't started article 50 proceedings.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Ukip got 3 million votes... more than the combined total votes of the snp/lib dems/greens and most of plaid cmmry added in too...!!!

Check out how many seats in parliament each party got...

I don't remember any uk lefties or US democrats complaining about how unfair the voting system was here in uk... and arguing that Ukip should have won so much more because of the many more votes they got etc...

You need to think this through more closely, tommy. UKIP was given the victory on Brexit. Clinton was denied the victory. Totally opposite results. There is absolutely no comparison...

...only there may yet be. Notice the UK government hasn't started article 50 proceedings.

Ukip weren't awarded anything in the eu referendum...

Clinton wasn't denied anything... she lost, trump won... simple as that!

The article 50 formal announcement of uk intent to leave the eu will be made before the end of March 2017... as has been said countless times over the last few months.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:08 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You need to think this through more closely, tommy. UKIP was given the victory on Brexit. Clinton was denied the victory. Totally opposite results. There is absolutely no comparison...

...only there may yet be. Notice the UK government hasn't started article 50 proceedings.

Ukip weren't awarded anything in the eu referendum...

Clinton wasn't denied anything... she lost, trump won... simple as that!

You say that UKIP wasn't awarded the victory. So what you are saying is that UKIP lost the referendum?? I had heard differently.

Maybe that is why the UK government hasn't taken any steps to withdraw from the EU.

Tommy Monk wrote:The article 50 formal announcement of uk intent to leave the eu will be made before the end of March 2017... as has been said countless times over the last few months.

I won't hold my breath.

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 2794048296

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Ukip weren't awarded anything in the eu referendum...

Clinton wasn't denied anything... she lost, trump won... simple as that!

You say that UKIP wasn't awarded the victory. So what you are saying is that UKIP lost the referendum?? I had heard differently.

Maybe that is why the UK government hasn't taken any steps to withdraw from the EU.

Tommy Monk wrote:The article 50 formal announcement of uk intent to leave the eu will be made before the end of March 2017... as has been said countless times over the last few months.

I won't hold my breath.

No... what I'm saying is that Ukip are a political party... the eu referendum was about the British people being given the choice in deciding whether to leave the eu or to stay in the eu... it was not about voting for Ukip or not... Ukip weren't even involved in the official leave campaign...!

There are a large number of politicians from every uk political party who are in favour of leaving the eu... and if you look at the referendum result by uk constituency, it is clear that the overwhelming vast majority of uk constituencies voted to leave the eu too!!!

by Original Quill Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:03 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You say that UKIP wasn't awarded the victory. So what you are saying is that UKIP lost the referendum?? I had heard differently.

Maybe that is why the UK government hasn't taken any steps to withdraw from the EU.

I won't hold my breath.

No... what I'm saying is that Ukip are a political party... the eu referendum was about the British people being given the choice in deciding whether to leave the eu or to stay in the eu... it was not about voting for Ukip or not... Ukip weren't even involved in the official leave campaign...!

There are a large number of politicians from every uk political party who are in favour of leaving the eu... and if you look at the referendum result by uk constituency, it is clear that the overwhelming vast majority of uk constituencies voted to leave the eu too!!!

I think you've gotten so caught up in making a comparison of the Brexit win with the Clinton loss, that you've missed the point that they are two opposite results.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:49 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

No... what I'm saying is that Ukip are a political party... the eu referendum was about the British people being given the choice in deciding whether to leave the eu or to stay in the eu... it was not about voting for Ukip or not... Ukip weren't even involved in the official leave campaign...!

There are a large number of politicians from every uk political party who are in favour of leaving the eu... and if you look at the referendum result by uk constituency, it is clear that the overwhelming vast majority of uk constituencies voted to leave the eu too!!!

I think you've gotten so caught up in making a comparison of the Brexit win with the Clinton loss, that you've missed the point that they are two opposite results.

I was never talking about the Brexit win in the eu referendum...

by Original Quill Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:19 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I think you've gotten so caught up in making a comparison of the Brexit win with the Clinton loss, that you've missed the point that they are two opposite results.

I was never talking about the Brexit win in the eu referendum...

Oh, OK. So if you're not talking about Brexit, are you just saying the UKIP as a party is a loser, or what?

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Ukip got 3 million votes... more than the combined total votes of the snp/lib dems/greens and most of plaid cmmry added in too...!!!

Check out how many seats in parliament each party got...

I don't remember any uk lefties or US democrats complaining about how unfair the voting system was here in uk... and arguing that Ukip should have won so much more because of the many more votes they got etc...

Tommy, do I have to walk you to the bathrooms? UKIP won the Brexit popular vote. Pussy-grabber lost the popular vote.

And actually his deficit was around 10-million votes, when you add in the Libertarian and Green Party votes.

ukip didn't win any brexit vote. it was not party political it was for the british people as a whole.
the british people won the brexit vote.

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Snp got 1.45 million votes and 56 seats.

Lib dems got 2.4 million votes and 8 seats.

Plaid cmmry got 180,000 votes and 3 seats.

Ukip got 3.9 million votes but only 1 seat!!!

the snp only stood in 59 seats it averages around 25000 per seat, ukip stood in 632 seats and averaged around 6000 a seat, the tories around 18000, even labour managed about 12000thats why ukip only got one seat. they were not popular across the whole country, and only more popular in one seat.

UK parliamentary votes are not based on the total number of votes but the votes cast in each constituency. much the way presidential votes are based on the electoral collage.

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:43 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Doesn't America have different constituency areas too...?

And I'm led to believe that there are the overwhelming vast majority of them voted Republican...

Also... if you were to remove california from the calculations, who are huge in number and voted in huge numbers for democrats (but one of the very few places that did), Republicans won by millions!

Yes they do have states, of which they vote for senators etc.
So why do you need to choose a President based geographically around states and not the popular vote, when you are electing them to lead the nation?

When you vote for UKIP MP, its within that constituency. Hence why the Presidential vote allows for someone with less votes nationally to lead a nation. Which is absurd

So if we remove England from the Brexit UK referendum, the remain vote would have won by a mile?

Do you see how absurd that view is to make on California, when its the biggest populous state in the US?

your analogy is not in anyway the same. The referendum was a yes no vote, the presidential election was not.
the point being made was that a 4 million lead in the popular vote came from california.
They made up about 1/4 of clintons electoral collage votes.
You have to win in many states to win the presidency, not just a few.

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:45 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:He won by the rules of their system... the rules are the same every time... nothing new.

Yes I am well aware that he did, which as stated allows for someone with less national votes and who is second to become President

he didn't come second becasue he won 304 of teh actual votes

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:47 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

No different to what happened here in 1974...

"...The United Kingdom's general election of February 1974 was held on the 28th of that month. ... Labour won the most seats (301, which was 17 seats short of an overall majority) with the Conservatives on 297 seats, although the Conservatives had a larger share of the popular vote..."

Again irrelevant and different

They are individual seats which will have some will higher populations than others

Again the Presidential election is to vote for a leader of the entire nation

which is exactly the point being made about california, there are only 55 votes available in california, doesn't matter how big the population is, until they increase or decrease the number of electoral collage votes there, which is what you are actually voting for.

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:48 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:You do realise that in America, someone can win the presidential election although another candidate could have more overall votes...?

Which as I have reasoned, democratically is absurd.

just because you think it is absurd, does not make it so, it has worked in america for 200 years or so

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:49 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Ukip weren't awarded anything in the eu referendum...

Clinton wasn't denied anything... she lost, trump won... simple as that!

You say that UKIP wasn't awarded the victory. So what you are saying is that UKIP lost the referendum?? I had heard differently.

Maybe that is why the UK government hasn't taken any steps to withdraw from the EU.

Tommy Monk wrote:The article 50 formal announcement of uk intent to leave the eu will be made before the end of March 2017... as has been said countless times over the last few months.

I won't hold my breath.

ukip was not even on the ballot

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Ukip weren't awarded anything in the eu referendum...

Clinton wasn't denied anything... she lost, trump won... simple as that!

You say that UKIP wasn't awarded the victory. So what you are saying is that UKIP lost the referendum?? I had heard differently.

Maybe that is why the UK government hasn't taken any steps to withdraw from the EU.

Tommy Monk wrote:The article 50 formal announcement of uk intent to leave the eu will be made before the end of March 2017... as has been said countless times over the last few months.

I won't hold my breath.

the bill should be going before parliament tomorrow

by Original Quill Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:26 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Which as I have reasoned, democratically is absurd.
just because you think it is absurd, does not make it so, it has worked in america for 200 years or so

No it hasn't. It has simply been overlooked and shelved because the anomalies happens so infrequently. Out of sight, out of mind.

It's more like a disease, and this century it's getting to epidemic proportions: year 2000, and now 2016, and the last anomaly is massive...some 10-million votes in Trump's deficit. What with the Russians using it to manipulate the vote in three states now, it's likely to get a lot more attention.

We already have investigative agencies looking into it. Now Congress may open an investigation. Trump has started an investigation into voter fraud, but I bet it uncovers a lot more.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:32 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes I am well aware that he did, which as stated allows for someone with less national votes and who is second to become President
he didn't come second becasue he won 304 of teh actual votes

Semantic Dean. We're all beyond 4th-grade.

He lost the majority vote to Democrats by 3-million votes, and to the whole field by 10-million votes. He won the electoral collage vote.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:34 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Tommy, do I have to walk you to the bathrooms? UKIP won the Brexit popular vote. Pussy-grabber lost the popular vote.

And actually his deficit was around 10-million votes, when you add in the Libertarian and Green Party votes.
ukip didn't win any brexit vote. it was not party political it was for the british people as a whole.
the british people won the brexit vote.

But I'll bet UKIP was for it.

by 'Wolfie Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:24 pm

Once again, we see Dean proving that he doesn't support democratic principles...

And that he himself is a proponent of "fake news" and "alternative facts"..

You are becoming more and more irrelevant to these discussions every time you return here to this forum, Deano !

by Original Quill Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:44 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

She got 3-million more votes. You do the math.

Ukip got 3 million votes... more than the combined total votes of the snp/lib dems/greens and most of plaid cmmry added in too...!!!

Check out how many seats in parliament each party got...

I don't remember any uk lefties or US democrats complaining about how unfair the voting system was here in uk... and arguing that Ukip should have won so much more because of the many more votes they got etc...

UKIP didn't win the plurality.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:48 pm

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 Gerry

Gerrymandering involves 'fracturing' an area, and 'packing' some voters into a single district, the result of which is that overall the minority ends up with more representatives than the majority. Very often the 'packed' district representative is as in favor of the arrangement as the other side. After all, his district is more solid.

by 'Wolfie Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:50 pm

What the UKIP needs to do is to convince all of their supporters to move into a handful of seats...

Then they can be guaranteed of having that minimum number of seats in the British parliament..

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 3489511464

Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us - Page 2 3489511464

by Independent Thoughts Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:00 pm

Thorin wrote:You claim the correlation is there but I showed you high levels of crime in Republican run cities.

No, you didn't. Again, your article attempts to contrast gun violence in cities where their Congressman do or do not support gun control. Representatives don't "run cities". Or states. Or any local or Federal municipality. They are Representatives of Congress. They help influence and form federal laws. They don't run anything.
As I said in my previous response, your article touches on an entirely different topic.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:34 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Snp got 1.45 million votes and 56 seats.

Lib dems got 2.4 million votes and 8 seats.

Plaid cmmry got 180,000 votes and 3 seats.

Ukip got 3.9 million votes but only 1 seat!!!
the snp only stood in 59 seats it averages around 25000 per seat, ukip stood in 632 seats and averaged around 6000 a seat, the tories around 18000, even labour managed about 12000thats why ukip only got one seat. they were not popular across the whole country, and only more popular in one seat.

UK parliamentary votes are not based on the total number of votes but the votes cast in each constituency. much the way presidential votes are based on the electoral collage.

Yes... I know... I was just drawing a comparison with Clinton's votes not necessarily meaning a gain of political office/position...

by Guest Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:36 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Which as I have reasoned, democratically is absurd.
just because you think it is absurd, does not make it so, it has worked in america for 200 years or so

It does when It reason why it is absurd, and we have had this debate before, that left you flapping

Happy to go through again and you can then counter all my points made here

by Guest Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:39 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes they do have states, of which they vote for senators etc.
So why do you need to choose a President based geographically around states and not the popular vote, when you are electing them to lead the nation?

When you vote for UKIP MP, its within that constituency. Hence why the Presidential vote allows for someone with less votes nationally to lead a nation. Which is absurd

So if we remove England from the Brexit UK referendum, the remain vote would have won by a mile?

Do you see how absurd that view is to make on California, when its the biggest populous state in the US?
your analogy is not in anyway the same. The referendum was a yes no vote, the presidential election was not.
the point being made was that a 4 million lead in the popular vote came from california.
They made up about 1/4 of clintons electoral collage votes.
You have to win in many states to win the presidency, not just a few.

It is the same when you are trying to render a number of voters redundant.
Hence the absurdity of your view
The point is California is the most populous area of the US. England is the most populous area of the UK
Thus if you are going to make a daft point saying millions do not matter including 4.5 Californian Trumps voters, then the same applies to the Brexit vote, which is based on options. Just as the Presidential election is for a national leader. Why should you have to win in many states to elect a national leader, when people are voting nationally to elect one?
You see your are just talking nonsense

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:40 pm

Dodge... having an overall higher number of actual votes is irrelevant if the election is decided on who wins more regional areas...

by Guest Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge... having an overall higher number of actual votes is irrelevant if the election is decided on who wins more regional areas...

Who is dodge?

It is relevant when you are electing a national leader, because it allows for someone with lesser votes to become that leader.

by Sponsored content