Yes. If you had some variant of Condorcet as the voting process, you would have cast a valid first choice for Stein and a second choice for Clinton, and perhaps Clinton would have gotten the same number of votes overall but not more, and Stein would have had a fair chance
The proposition here that I have a problem with, however, is that Trump would have gotten more votes if some people were convinced that those votes did not matter. He would at best have gotten the same amount of votes, and other conservative candidates would have had at least a fair chance against him if they didn't win.
Supression of the Black vote is well documented, and doesn't particularly concern the race of the Black people, but the fact that they tend to vote Democratic and are an easy target for suppression because they are already disenfranchised and poverty-stricken.
If the Republicans suppress someone's vote, they can not shield themselves by saying that anyone who fights it is accusing them of racism. They have to face the well-documented evidence that those votes have been suppressed, and continue to be suppressed.
I guess it's one of the post-truth "facts" of alt-reality that Democrats stir up black hatred toward whites. Doesn't seem to be much evidence of that in the real world, though.
Ahh, yes, The Great Switcheroo of 1964-1969.
A typical propoganda video with facts cherry-picked to make things appear the opposite of what they actually are.
No, I am not being intentionally obtuse. I just don't believe you.
The thing I don't believe is that a non-voter is a rational actor who would have gladly gone to the polls except that somehow they felt their vote didn't matter. Nope. They're apathetic or lazy.
Without electoral weighting, lots of people who don't bother to vote now because it is pointless (like in my state) would be up at the crack of dawn, in line at the polling places, waiting their turn to cancel out the votes of bicoastal pricks or flyover hicks.
You can't really have it both ways. Without the electoral college, the popular majority would be the list of counties here and we know how those counties voted. This would not have biased the election further in Trump's favor.
so I expect things only to get worse.
What, like they're going to ditch the internet provider privacy rules?
Someone doesn't seem to understand the difference between what Google can see and what your internet provider can see. Lots of adds for VPNs and Proxies tonight, I noticed.
No, the founders who raped their slaves were not Democrats. The founders had a "Democratic-Republican" party, which is also referred to as "Jeffersonian Republicans" or "The First Republican Party" and isn't the Democratic party, and the other party at the time was the Federalist party.
Each of the amendments started out with the decision that the intent of the founders wasn't going to matter any longer. Any future amendment must do so as well.
Democrats fought to keep slavery, and they fought to prevent women from voting.
Well, that's really bad. But the Democrats wisely decided to stop doing those things. In the years that the Democrats cut their ties with the segregationist portion of Southern voters, spanning from the Goldwater to the Nixon campaigns, the Republicans took them up. So we're now in the position that the Republicans are the political heirs of the 1964 Democrats. So having taken over the bad stuff the Democrats used to do, you are not in a good position to revile us for our past sins.
We have no idea what would have happened if the election had been done by different rules.
Actually, we do. We counted the votes, and not just the Electoral College votes, but the votes in every district across the entire country.
If you are trying to say that people would have voted differently if the rules for counting votes were different, that might have been true if the rules gave the people a different way to actually influence the vote, for example the Condorcet method or its variants that are commonly called "ranked choice" or "instant run-off".
But you seem to be saying that the popular vote would have been substantially different if there was no electoral college. Which is difficult to buy given the polarity of this election. There wasn't much middle ground.
You cited the 19th amendment.
The originalist reading of the constitution would be a reading of the intent of the founders. Who raped their slaves and kept their women at home.
If you'd like to crow about the achievements of the Republican party, be sure to include this one: The decision in Rowe v. Wade was written by a Republican, Harry Blackmun, appointed by Nixon. He was seated on a Republican panel with appointees going back to Roosevelt who all agreed with him, with the exception of Rhenquist. The two Democrats seated nullified each other.
One could rightfully wonder why the Republican party ever turned from that decision.
What radicalized the Republican party? I think the Southern Strategy was the start. Having been so radicalized, what even gives them the right to call themselves "The party of Lincoln" any longer?
I think you can go on to the article without arguing with me about the summary. The issue at hand is that 12 states challenged FCC because those states did not approve a set of companies to be lifeline broadband providers, and then FCC went ahead and approved them. Unlike Chairman Pal, I believe this is indeed a Federal responsibility due to the Postal Clause of the Constitution and the Communications Act of 1934.
I am at the moment lacking information regarding what other internet providers those states approved, whether they approved any at all, and what the grounds for not approving a company to provide lifeline service (which can't be a profit-maker) could be except to deny access to the potential customers. In other words, I'm really suspicious of the states in question.
The statement I took issue with was about "the people" voting for him. This is a separate issue from the rules of the electoral college and who won the electoral college. The electoral college is used to choose the winner of an election, but is at best a distorted rendering of the will of the people.
What about the people who didn't vote? Are you trying to say that the decision might have been conclusive for Trump except that a lot of presumptive Trump supporters did not vote because they knew their vote would not count? I find it difficult to believe, and can't say I have much sympathy for folks who don't vote anyway.
If you want to be more concrete than "President Cookie Monster", it would be the Bush v. Gore contest of 2000.