(January 4, 2013 at 11:32 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Popular books should demonstrate why popularity is a terrible voting condition to use in important matters.

I suppose this a demonstration of someone confusing the word popular in popular vote with the high school meaning of 'popular'???

They are not the same thing. One is a tallying up of votes, to see who has more, the other is basically some repressive system based on fear of "being left out"

Formally the national popular vote has no value, but informally, it delegitimized bush from the start, and it does TOO matter by HOW MUCH you winning. Obama going above 51 percent TWICE is a big deal. Measured by American standards, it's a huge win, and we're not as divided as the losers make us out to be.

(January 4, 2013 at 10:00 pm)TheSteelGeneral Wrote: meaningless? Well, if Obama had lost it, you wouldn't have heard the end of it, it would've been all over Fokkks news,

This gives Obama huge bragging rights, but more importantly, it's a mandate to keep his foot down on the debt ceiling.
Here's to hoping he does.

If Obama had lost it, he could have still won the Presidency. That is why it is meaningless. You can technically win the Presidency with just 22% of the popular vote.

(January 5, 2013 at 9:58 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(January 4, 2013 at 10:00 pm)TheSteelGeneral Wrote: meaningless? Well, if Obama had lost it, you wouldn't have heard the end of it, it would've been all over Fokkks news,

This gives Obama huge bragging rights, but more importantly, it's a mandate to keep his foot down on the debt ceiling.
Here's to hoping he does.

If Obama had lost it, he could have still won the Presidency. That is why it is meaningless. You can technically win the Presidency with just 22% of the popular vote.

...as was the case with G.W. Bush who lost the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes, but still won the presidency....and to TSG who said, "Well, if Obama had lost it, you wouldn't have heard the end of it,..."....the dems and leftist news outlets screamed bloody murder when Bush lost it, but was still elected POTUS.

I would just like to ad, that from a European point of view this looks crazed.

The popular vote should determin the presidency.

Quote: but was still elected POTUS.

You mean appointed by the 5 nazis on the supreme court. What a fucking mess they made of things by putting that dickhead in charge.

(January 5, 2013 at 7:30 am)TheSteelGeneral Wrote: I suppose this a demonstration of someone confusing the word popular in popular vote with the high school meaning of 'popular'???

I do not understand your supposition... because it is ridiculous There is no specific 'high school' meaning of popular... because the same retarded shit found there may also be found from Hollywood to every public election on the planet ever held. If you're likable, if you aren't fucking hideous: your chances of being elected to a leadership position absolutely explodes. And if you're charismatic on top of it all: you win. Your policies are largely irrelevant... if you're a bimbo speaking 'honestly to other bimbos: you'll get the bimbo vote.

Ain't that right, Sarah?

Quote:They are not the same thing. One is a tallying up of votes, to see who has more, the other is basically some repressive system based on fear of "being left out"

And you don't think this occurs socially? :3 I wonder why it is that churches and social groups tend to vote for the same people. People rub off on people And the world panics from too many penises touching.

Quote:Formally the national popular vote has no value, but informally, it delegitimized bush from the start, and it does TOO matter by HOW MUCH you winning. Obama going above 51 percent TWICE is a big deal. Measured by American standards, it's a huge win, and we're not as divided as the losers make us out to be.

No, a popular vote has value only to those who care what others think... the lesser voters feeling that the majority is stupid, the greater getting a silly sense of superiority.

I find it most telling that the popular vote doesn't even contain all of the votes. I know I certainly didn't vote, even if my opinions are more on one side than another

---

(January 5, 2013 at 10:29 am)A Theist Wrote: ...as was the case with G.W. Bush who lost the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes, but still won the presidency....and to TSG who said, "Well, if Obama had lost it, you wouldn't have heard the end of it,..."....the dems and leftist news outlets screamed bloody murder when Bush lost it, but was still elected POTUS.

Oh come now, people always scream and whine when things don't go their way. Tantrums are loverly events to witness.

---

(January 5, 2013 at 10:32 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: I would just like to ad, that from a European point of view this looks crazed.

The popular vote should determin the presidency.

Because that's never ended poorly before.

(January 5, 2013 at 10:32 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: I would just like to ad, that from a European point of view this looks crazed.

The popular vote should determin the presidency.

No, popular vote should only determine the presidency when there are two candidates. That is the only circumstance when popular vote is a fair method of determining a winner.

With more than two candidates, a person can still win the Presidency with less than 50% of the popular vote. For example, if two candidates got 30% of the vote each, and the third candidate got 40%.

(January 5, 2013 at 11:43 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 7:30 am)TheSteelGeneral Wrote: [quote='A Theist' pid='381643' dateline='1357396191']
...as was the case with G.W. Bush who lost the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes, but still won the presidency....and to TSG who said, "Well, if Obama had lost it, you wouldn't have heard the end of it,..."....the dems and leftist news outlets screamed bloody murder when Bush lost it, but was still elected POTUS.

Oh come now, people always scream and whine when things don't go their way. Tantrums are loverly events to witness.

Yes, that was the gist of my point too when I was responding to TSG's comment regarding the popular vote,...

Quote:"meaningless? Well, if Obama had lost it, you wouldn't have heard the end of it, it would've been all over Fokkks news,..."

...either you weren't paying attention to the entire thread...or you just wanted to cherry pick some quotes out of their context to respond to.

---

(January 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 10:32 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: I would just like to ad, that from a European point of view this looks crazed.

The popular vote should determin the presidency.

No, popular vote should only determine the presidency when there are two candidates. That is the only circumstance when popular vote is a fair method of determining a winner.

With more than two candidates, a person can still win the Presidency with less than 50% of the popular vote. For example, if two candidates got 30% of the vote each, and the third candidate got 40%.

Quote:No, popular vote should only determine the presidency when there are two candidates. That is the only circumstance when popular vote is a fair method of determining a winner.

...that would definitely strip the electoral power away from the big states like New York, California, and Texas to make the governing process more fair to everyone else in the nation.

A theist Wrote:Yes, that was the gist of my point too when I was responding to TSG's comment regarding the popular vote,...

I'm agreeing with you, silly

In a country of children, Santa Claus is elected.