The Popular Vote... - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15036768
The math is pretty simple.

The USA is currently responsible for about 15% of all GHG emissions each year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _emissions

So, if it were to magically stop, emissions would be cut by about 15%. This would be far more significant than your source claims.

Also, can you quote from your source, or their source, where they calculated the effect on global temperatures?
User avatar
By Drlee
#15036803
I see. You believe (you said "if the US should stop:) that the US should stop using all fossil fuels completely. In fact anything that produces GHF. That is a joke.

Really POD. You are making a fool out of yourself now. And you still haven't answered your allegation that "the US is doing nothing about" GHG.

I think it is reasonable to just ignore your arguments. They are nonsensical.
#15036810
Are you aware of the claim made by Steve to which I am responding? If not, that may explain your confusion about my claims.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15036821
Are you aware of the claim made by Steve to which I am responding? If not, that may explain your confusion about my claims.


I am not confused. Of course if you want to admit that you misspoke or that you are engaging in hyperbole that would be an explanation.
#15036854
@Drlee

If you explain how, I would be happy to concede that.

I think you are operating under the misconception that I am addressing your criticism of my argument that the USA has done nothing meaningful about climate change.

As far as I can tell, you have yet to reply to my evidence about US lack of involvement in any binding treaty to cut emissions.

Do you agree that the USA has not ratified nor is party to any binding treaty on GHG emissions?

Now, @BigSteve made the claim that if the USA stopped all emissions, it would only reduce the temperature increase by 0.13 degrees Celsius. This is already about 4% of the total increase expected, so it is already a decent amount. If 30 other countries made the same impact, there would be no problem.

But his source is an editorial from a “questionable news source”.

His source:
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nico ... ee-celsius

By “questionable”, I mean:

    QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

    A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

    Overall, we rate CNS News Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and numerous failed fact checks.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cns-news/

But the editorial from the questionable news site may be correct. And they provide sources.

None of the sources are scientific studies.

One is a testimony to Congress by a member of the Heritage Foundation:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18 ... 170228.pdf

The other is a blog from the Cato Institute:
https://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-tempe ... fact-sheet

So, instead of science, we have opinion pieces from think tanks funded by fossil fuel companies.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15036855
@Pants-of-dog As far as I can tell, you have yet to reply to my evidence about US lack of involvement in any binding treaty to cut emissions.

Do you agree that the USA has not ratified nor is party to any binding treaty on GHG emissions?


I am not sure what you are asking here. Thankfully the US is not a signatory to the Paris accords. This has nothing to do with its efforts to cut GHG. And those efforts are robust. It has a great deal to do with giving away a bargaining chip to an organization that is not far, is not enough and excludes China, the largest polluter in the world from the same requirements as the EU and USA.

But again. The US is doing a great deal to reduce its production of GHG.
#15036857
I will take that as a qualified agreement.

You did not disagree. You merely repeated your initial claim.

If you are unclear as to what I am saying, feel free to look at my lengthier post that I did earlier about this exact subject.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15036868
Nice try. Your usual proclaiming of yourself the winner without presenting any evidence to support your claims.

How utterly pedestrian. And how in character.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15036869
It's now gone to a judge.

The judge scored it the following:
29 - 28 for @Drlee
29 - 28 for @Pants-of-dog

And the winner, by split decision, 29 -28 for Drlee!!!
Fight's over but you can set up a rematch at a later date.

:D

You guys aren't getting anywhere with this "debate". Start something new. Please! It's really off-topic, too.
#15043256
This thread is another place where it makes sense for me to tell you-all again about how I would reform the Electoral College.

My idea makes it unnecessary to recount every single vote cast for President in a very close election where the popular vote totals differed by {say} 0.5 %. It retains the current bonus votes for all the states. It adds something.

What it adds is about 75 EC votes that are given to the candidate who got the most votes in the popular vote as long as the margin is at least 1% or maybe 0.5%. This averages 1.5 vote per state. These people would be selected by the candidates or Parties and at least 1 must come from each state. They would meet in their home state with the other EC Electors and cast their vote there or they might meet in Kansas City, Kan. in their own group.
. . This number{75} is enough to make the candidates want to win them, so they will go and campaign everywhere and it isn't so many that they would always decide who won. Remember that the other electors are in one or the other, 75 votes represents a 38 EC vote swing. They are 75 out of the new total of 610, or 75/610 = 12.3% of the total.
. . . This would clearly require an amendment.
. . . the only way an Amendment would pass is if first enough states decided to direct their Electors to vote for the candidate which won the popular vote. If this happened, then the small states would want to go to this system, because it gives them more influence. The candidates want to win in every state where it's possible, but still want the most votes as they can get from every state even if they don't win it.

Reforming the House of Reps. just requires a law, but an amendment later would lock it in.
I suggest that the law require that there be fewer Districts with 4 to 7 Reps. in each District. Each voter gets one vote and can split it evenly by voting for more than 1 candidate. The votes are counted by 2 machines, 1 selected by each of the 2 parties. So, they can't mess with the vote counting. In a given state all the districts must have X or X+1 Reps.. Generally, 4 or 5, or, 5 or 6 seem like the best numbers of Reps. per district.
. . . A state with 1 to 7 Reps. would have just 1 district, states with 8 to 12 Reps would have 2 or 3 districts with 4 or 5 Reps per district, states with 12 to 18 Reps would have 2 to 3 districts with 4 to 6 Reps per District, states with 19 to 24 Reps would have 4 districts with 4 to 6 Reps per district, states with 25 to 36 Reps would have 5 to 6 districts with 5 or 6 Reps per district, and so on to Calif which now has 53 Reps would have {say} 55 then; with 55 Reps it could have 11 districts with 5 Reps each or 8 districts with 6 Reps & 1 district with 7 Reps. Or it could have 5 with 5 Reps {=25 Reps} and 5 with 6 Reps {=30 reps} where 25+30 =55.
. . . If a minor Party tells its voters to vote for just 1 person then they have more of a chance to get a seat when the 2 larger parties have to tell their voters to vote for 2, 3, or 4 candidates.

I would also expand the House of Reps. with a law to allow the transition to let all the current Reps from all the states have a good chance of still being there after this goes into effect. This would also allow some more states to get more than 1 Rep. and almost all states to get at least 1 more Rep.. Maybe {?} even require that all states have at least 2 Reps.

This system makes it very hard to gerrymander the districts. It gives minor parties more of a chance. It usually gives every state a Rep. from both major parties. This is a big deal, almost every voter would have voted for a guy/gal who got to Washington. Almost every voter would feel like the House had to listen to what he wants done.

Frankly, I mostly don't want my party to have a lock on victory forever. I want a system where the majority of the people get what they want. To this end "ear marks" and 'logrolling" should be brought back, they helped the minority get some of what they wanted. All these things are good for democracy.
#15045217
BigSteve wrote:This is for all of those non-thinking never-Trumpers who believe that, since Hillary Clinton won the popular vote she should be President. Yes, it's true that more voters voted for Clinton than Trump, but here's something to consider:

Image


I have no clue why you think that statement is relevant in this context, since you arent actually defending something that can be defended with common sense.

This applies if the majority would believe 1+1=3.

Or if the majority believe that the jews should be genocided.

Or stuff like that.

This certainly doesnt apply at all if the majority votes for one guy and another is elected.

The voting system of the USA is completely crazy and the only actual reason for this design is that the elites are able to manipulate the result.

For starters, the guy who should have won the last POTUS elections ? Bernie Sanders.

HE was the most popular candidate.

HE would have easily defeated Trump.

But Bernie Sanders was hindered by the elites to run. He was systematically suppressed by mainstream press, and he was systematically sabotaged by the democratic party so he couldnt run for them.

And what are they doing now ? They fearmonger the US population that Tulsi Gabbard could run as third party candidate. So what the heck would be bad about that that ??!?!?!!?!?

IS HAVING A CHOICE A PROBLEM NOW ?

They really should instead complain that she WONT run as third party so again the voter is merely presented with completely awful choices.
By late
#15045226
The Electoral College doesn't really fit in the modern world. You are going to get an increasing frequency of people losing the vote, but winning the office.

This undermines the legitimacy of the government.

Every other election, from class president in high school, to Congress, gets determined by popular vote. Kinda the way it's supposed to be.

All of which points to a need to do away with the electoral college.

Most of the arguments in favor of it fall into two categories. Wrong and disingenuous...

The favored argument is that it's need to redress political imbalance. That's simply wrong. The Senate was designed to do just that. You can see that in the influence of the Ag Dept, which has enormous power. They shove aside much needed priorities in foreign affairs to benefit agriculture. They have serious power in Congress, which you get to see whenever agricultural reform gets discussed.

If you look at which areas get the most from the federal government, it's rural areas.

If these people lacked political clout, you wouldn't see a bunch of programs that benefit them, or benefit them more than people in urban areas.

The goal the Founding Fathers set for us was to creare a "More Perfect Union".

This one's a no brainer.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15045263
late wrote:The Electoral College doesn't really fit in the modern world. You are going to get an increasing frequency of people losing the vote, but winning the office.

This undermines the legitimacy of the government.

Every other election, from class president in high school, to Congress, gets determined by popular vote. Kinda the way it's supposed to be.

All of which points to a need to do away with the electoral college.

Most of the arguments in favor of it fall into two categories. Wrong and disingenuous...

The favored argument is that it's need to redress political imbalance. That's simply wrong. The Senate was designed to do just that. You can see that in the influence of the Ag Dept, which has enormous power. They shove aside much needed priorities in foreign affairs to benefit agriculture. They have serious power in Congress, which you get to see whenever agricultural reform gets discussed.

If you look at which areas get the most from the federal government, it's rural areas.

If these people lacked political clout, you wouldn't see a bunch of programs that benefit them, or benefit them more than people in urban areas.

The goal the Founding Fathers set for us was to creare a "More Perfect Union".

This one's a no brainer.


I generally agree. Most of the GDP is made in cities and suburbs. I say they should have a stronger vote as they contribute more to the US. Fuck farms, we can continue to automate the shit out of them.

That said, today conservatives benefit the most from the electoral college, which is why they claim is better or fair or whatever.
By BigSteve
#15045336
Negotiator wrote:This certainly doesnt apply at all if the majority votes for one guy and another is elected.


Actually, it certainly does...
#15045369
Negotiator wrote:This certainly doesnt apply at all if the majority votes for one guy and another is elected.

.
Big Steve wrote,
Actually, it certainly does...

OTOH, is there any evidence that the guy who did win will do a better job, than the guy who won the popular vote, but not the Electoral College vote and so wasn't elected President would have done?

A clear majority of the American people think that Gore would have done a lot better job than Bush II.
A clear majority of the American people also think that H.R. Clinton would have done a lot better job than Trump.

On election day it is true that we can't really say who will do a better job because what both would do is unknown, but now we know a lot more about what the winner did do. So, our opinions NOW are much more informed that they were on election day.

I realize that solid Repuds still disagree with those 'solid majorities', and so will still loudly {here & now} say that the guy who won both of those elections actually did a very good job, and so very certainly did a better job in office than the loser would have done {if they had won}.

Most people around the world disagree with those Repuds. As well as the solid majority of the American people. As well as most experts on history, geopolitics, and international relations. But, maybe not Neo-Liberal economists, but then I think they have created a fantasy world that they line in.

For me and a vast number of others, the evidence is clear. The candidate who won the popular vote in those elections would have done a better job than the guy who won the EC did in, fact, do.
#15045373
I am still of the opinion that the system we use MUST NOT RESULT IN A NATION WIDE RECOUNT.

Such a recount would put the nation in limbo and cost a lot that could be better spent in another way {with MMT or with Neo-Liberal economics}.

How about this system?
1] The candidate who got the most votes of the popular vote wins, unless;
2] If the 2 top vote getters are within 0.5% of each other, then we call it a tie and we use the EC system as the tie breaker to decide who becomes President.
By late
#15045374
Steve_American wrote:
I am still of the opinion that the system we use MUST NOT RESULT IN A NATION WIDE RECOUNT.

Such a recount would put the nation in limbo and cost a lot that could be better spent in another way {with MMT or with Neo-Liberal economics}.

How about this system?
1] The candidate who got the most votes of the popular vote wins, unless;
2] If the 2 top vote getters are within 0.5% of each other, then we call it a tie and we use the EC system as the tie breaker to decide who becomes President.



How about we do it the way all other elections work.

You know, the will of the people?
#15045390
late wrote:
How about we do it the way all other elections work.

You know, the will of the people?

So, you see no problem with wasting 20 million dollars doing a recount in the case of a tie vote.
And making the nation wait 2 to 4 weeks to know who won.

Well, I do see a problem with that.

And it was a tie. It was too close to call, without an instant replay.
However, this "replay" will not be instant. It will take at last 2 weeks to recount every single ballot in every single prescient in all 50 states. And, who can say how many of the new votes accepted were case on valid ballots and are actual valid votes and how many of the ballots rejected were not actual valid votes?

The will of the people was taken into account. It was a tie, and there is a tie breaker for the rare case where it is a tie.
By late
#15045418
Steve_American wrote:
So, you see no problem with wasting 20 million dollars doing a recount in the case of a tie vote.
And making the nation wait 2 to 4 weeks to know who won.

Well, I do see a problem with that.

And it was a tie. It was too close to call, without an instant replay.
However, this "replay" will not be instant. It will take at last 2 weeks to recount every single ballot in every single prescient in all 50 states. And, who can say how many of the new votes accepted were case on valid ballots and are actual valid votes and how many of the ballots rejected were not actual valid votes?

The will of the people was taken into account. It was a tie, and there is a tie breaker for the rare case where it is a tie.



Recounts are a normal part of the process. You are implying it's a crisis, it simply is not.

The real answer to your objection are election standards enforced by an independent election authority. Most democracies have one that actually works, like the British Boundaries Commission.

We do not, and it's painfully clear we need one.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 17
i think i might be racist

I'm probably some kind of gay myself but I just do[…]

Ukrainegate

That really does seem to be the case with Democra[…]

@Rancid Tsk, tsk. You shouldn't talk about the p[…]

Trump and the Rule of Law

She had good reason to feel threatened. The most […]