Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Unless the winner wins by a more sizable margin, just human error and voting machine irregularities can skew the numbers enough that your assertion could be entirely wrong. Add to that the number of people voting in more than one state (Could be 2.7 million people this time!), dead people, and people without voting rights, I suspect that the winner really needs a few million more votes to make that claim. 

In the study, participants were told to vote for particular candidates in mock elections. The researchers then compared the results recorded on the machines with the voters’ intentions. Bederson says that even for the simplest task–voting in one presidential race on a single screen–participants had an error rate of around 3 percent. When the task became more complicated, such as when voters were asked to change their selection from one candidate to another, the error rate increased to between 7 and 15 percent, depending on the system. Bederson notes that, although the error rate that occurred in the study may not necessarily mean that there is the same error rate in terms of actual votes on actual machines, the study does raise concern, considering how close some recent elections have been. Bederson’s group recorded one test vote in which the errors caused different candidates to win a race depending on which machine was used. “As to whether errors are biased, the answer in general is that it depends on the specific usability problem,” Bederson says.

https://www.technologyreview.c...h-little-confidence/

 

 

Hand counting of votes in postelection audit or recount procedures can result in error rates of up to 2 percent, according to a new study from Rice University and Clemson University.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r.../02/120202151713.htm

 

Last edited by Stanky
1130 posted:

a majority of the states voted for Trump, why should 6 states decide for 50 states? then break that down to a few cities deciding for those states. 

Absolutely correct, the founders were exceptionally wise and intelligent as they thought out and created this nation and the Constitution.  Their vision was  astounding and no other nation since has equaled ours.  If you went by just the number of voters then you would have the case where a very few large population centers would be deciding for the majority of the nation who its leaders would be.  The Electoral College is not perfect but it has worked. 

In the case of this nation you would have cities like New York, Chicago, LA, having far more influence in the determination of who leads us and runs the nation.  Another thing would be that the ability to cheat would also be much easier in that one section or one area could be infiltrated or corrupted and thus have much more influence than as it is now.  As I said it's not perfect but it's as good as it gets.  The main reason Democrats are wanting to go to total vote count is that it favors them but as soon as that changed then it would be a different story.

Case in point when Harry Reid changed the rules of the Senate to do away with the necessity for 60 votes to be had in order to approve some governmental positions and pass some legislation but Reid changed it to where a simple 51 vote majority would be required and the same.  The Democrats also passed or forced Obamacare or Democratic healthcare bill by reconciliation rather than do it as they should have requiring a 60 vote majority but their sure 60th vote had disappeared when Scott Brown was elected to occupy Ted Kennedy's seat due to Kennedy's death.  They knew the bill would not pass then so they made a way for it to pass and forced it through using reconciliation, deeming it to have passed the Senate even when it hadn't,  to avoid the 60 vote majority needed and thus allow the Democratically controlled House to send it to the President.

The Democrats would moan, groan, and complain if the Republicans did the exact same thing.  Another example revealing the hypocrisy of the Democrats is their complaining about the Republicans not voting on Obama's Supreme Court pick and waiting for the next President to allow him/her to have their choice.  This is exactly what the Democrats did years ago but it was okay when they did it but not Republicans did it.   

The constitution is a masterwork of checks and balances, plus compromises so a great majority would agree to accept it.  The electoral college is one such.  Just as we have in a bi-cameral congress.  The senate represents the states with two senators.  The house represents the states by population.  Both ensure that a few large states can't bully the rest into submission.  The title is The United States (united states, not united provinces) of America.  If one desires to live in a majoritarian nation, please go there.  Even a couple with the title of Democratic People's Republic.

Jack Flash posted:
With liberals/socialist it always boils down to the same thing,
they can't win without cheating and if they can't win on an
equal playing field they want their own rules in play.
 
And the proof of stupidity of liberalism is they never see the
perpetual failure of communism.

Some liberals might have noticed that socialism that morphs into communism will always fail, but their cure is as bad. Bernie Sanders and other socialists are pushing a bottom-up form of communism known as Syndicalism that was popular early last century. It was a major factor in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s.

Stanky posted:
Jack Flash posted:
With liberals/socialist it always boils down to the same thing,
they can't win without cheating and if they can't win on an
equal playing field they want their own rules in play.
 
And the proof of stupidity of liberalism is they never see the
perpetual failure of communism.

Some liberals might have noticed that socialism that morphs into communism will always fail, but their cure is as bad. Bernie Sanders and other socialists are pushing a bottom-up form of communism known as Syndicalism that was popular early last century. It was a major factor in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s.

It wasn't called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for naught.

you'll see it, one day, maybe it won't be too late...  i said this YEARS AGO...

The Bumble posted:
mark my words... the "hate" groups will be the ones to gain from the "tea party".
i don't think the "tea party" is based in racism or hatred, but those hate groups are skilled at giving people an outlet for their anger....
i see this going very bad, very quick!

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×