Summations Only

Continuing to mangle the English language, I see. You're restating this falsehood as if it hadn't been thoroughly rebutted several times. You were unable to justify your claim that Clinton wasn't "good enough" except by inventing your own private definition of "good enough." This is not Taq's terminology. Taq objected to your characterization of "not good enough" just like I did. Plus you ignored Taq's correction of your assertion that the electoral college is "even" with respect to not advantaging either party. By "phrase" you mean "good enough"? If so then it has been rebutted nine ways from Sunday. Really? Then how is it that my Message 1282 to you has no reply? How is it that there were no responses to my repeated invitations to you for rebuttal? It's beginning to look like you broke off that subthread merely so that you could repeat your unsubstantiated claims on another subthread. Is the temporary cost of having Trump in office worth it? How bad are we talking here, and what makes you think the cost is temporary? Climate change may be at a tipping point. Nuclear fallout affects the entire world and lasts for centuries. The coal industry has already committed permanent (mountain top removal) and centuries-long (slag pools) insults to the ecology of states like West Virginia, we don't need more. And how long is "temporary?" We still feel the effects of Roosevelt (love him or hate him) nearly 3/4 of a century after he died. Trump is committing egregious insults to our democratic institutions every day - how long can they endure these assaults?Since the gain you propose is that the Democrats would remedy foibles that you made up or that are no more severe than those of any other political party, such as, say, the Republicans, who can't seem to call a knave a knave without having first declared their retirement, who couldn't even keep their party from being taken over and then steadfastly and inexorably dismantled by an outsider), the obvious answer is no, it is not worth it. Trump's fatal defect is seeing himself as President of just some of the people, namely his base, the people who still tell pollsters they approve of his performance in office no matter what he does. And Trump's overt racism tells us that he's purposefully appealing to that part of the makeup of the "white Christian male" that is racist in character, desiring that whatever necessary be done to ensure that the future citizens of this country are white like them and dominate both culture and government. Basing your argument on the proposition that things happen, and that therefore no President can avoid hurting "immediately and badly," is a fatal flaw. The "immediately and badly" part is obviously wildly exaggerated unless you're referring to members of the previous administration losing their jobs. And the huge factor that you're avoiding, the elephant in the room that can't be ignored, is that Trump is relentlessly and savagely malevolent.--Percy

If you think my usage of the term "good enough" is my own private definition... I cannot begin to resolve your misunderstanding of my posts. I've explained it many, many times (and, really, it didn't need an explanation in the first place).I will admit that my definition "irks you" because it doesn't mean "good enough" in the same way you want it to mean.
But to say that it is not a normal definition? To say it's not widely used in this manner? You're just laughable.I mean "not good enough" in the sense that Hillary (and the Democratic team) couldn't do what was required in order to win this past election.
This is historical fact since... they didn't win the election.
This does not indicate one way or the other that Hillary was the best possible choice for them.
This does not indicate that Hillary was incapable of doing the Presidential Duties if she had won.
This does not indicate that Hillary was fatally flawed.It is quite reasonable, normal, and expected to use the phrase "not good enough" to indicate the preceding notion.I fully admit that the term "not good enough" could be used to narrowly reference that Hillary wasn't the best possible choice, or that she wasn't capable of performing the Presidential Duties if she won, or that she was somehow fatally flawed.But I'm not using the term that way.
I'm using it the way I've clarified over and over again that I'm using it.Your insistence that I can't use words the way everyone uses them is becoming laughable. Some of your posts have no reply by me for the reason I gave you - you do not present a reasonable or rational position. I have no interest in discussing things with anyone who refuses to be open to the possibility that their personal view may not be the only valid one.I do, however, sometimes feel bored or like rambling or taking another shot at clarifying what I'm actually saying for anyone with a willingness to attempt to understand... and I'll respond to you, like this post. That's the question, isn't it?Maybe the future will show that voting 3rd party leads to the end of the world.
I still wouldn't admit that voting 3rd party had no point.
It had the point of sending a message to the Democrats. That point may be moot if there are no Democrats because the world ended, but many things exist moot-ly.
Besides, if the alternative is a corrupt world where only the rich Democrats get to do what they want... what's so wrong with taking a stand against such a thing?But maybe you're wrong and the world won't end.
And the Democrats got the message.
And their candidate for the next election will be different than if Hillary won (or even went 2 terms). And maybe that tipping point was years ago.
Or maybe that tipping point is years in the future.Your scare tactics do nothing to change the facts. I see.I can't make up possible negative futures if Hillary was put in and the Democrats didn't have to think about correcting corruption in their ranks or appealing to more people.But you get to make up possible negative futures if Trump is in office? Even if some of those could still very well be possible if Hillary was in office?Again... your scare tactics do nothing for the argument you are trying to make. Again, I agree with you that Trump is not fit for office.What I disagree with, is that this is reason that should be taken as a priority over fixing the future of the US (or, in general, any nation that incorporates 3rd party voting). I understand this is what you're trying to say.
What I don't understand, and what you (and everyone else) has failed to show so far... is why you think it is objectively absolute.You all seem to understand what's being judged:The risk of Trump in office (visible problems) vs. the risk of a corrupt democratic party (invisible - behind the scenes - problems).You can't show that Trump in office is worse by only showing all the horrible things Trump does.
You would also have to show how it's impossible for a corrupt democratic party to do worse things.You seem to be taking the stance that "Trump is sooooo bad... how could any corruption in any party possibly be worse?"Although I admit the argument isn't void, I'm saying I don't find it persuasive.In other words: I fully agree and understand that Trump's a terrible president doing horrible things.
What I don't find persuasive is that the Democrats would be wonderful and not do horrible things. Because every Democratic party that's always been in office prior has done some "horrible things." Perhaps the things they do wouldn't be so transparent or easy to identify (since Trump is a lunatic, and the Democrats are at least sane).But this raises the next question: Must one accept sane-corruption in place of an obvious lunatic?
And the next issue on top of that: How much corruption is "allowed" in the Democratic party until one is unable to vote for them? Must everyone always vote Democratic no matter how much corruption gets into the party as long as they stay off Twitter?I'm not saying those lines are absolutely crossed and everyone must vote 3rd party.
I'm only saying that those lines are not as clear as you're hoping, and a 3rd party vote has just as much validity as a Democratic vote if one votes in an attempt to send a message along the lines of those reasons.

Rrhain and I have different views about the "goal," but you manage to state neither one. I would state the goal of 3rd party voters this way: "Given that Clinton will be elected anyway, I shall register my displeasure with the Democratic party by voting for a 3rd party candidate." I cover what I think is Rrhain's view of the goal further on in this message. Trump's failings are on a pace to exceed the failings of all previous Presidents combined. You cannot seriously compare Trump's obvious failings with some hypothetical Clinton failings when she already has a record in both elected and appointed office as competent, serious, informed and constructive.And you're continuing to harp on this fabricated issue that the Democrats needed to be sent a message. This has been rebutted already. Clinton won the popular vote and only lost the election because of the vagaries of the electoral college in a few closely contested precincts. Respond to the rebuttal to your assertions by all means, but don't ignore the rebuttals and just keep repeating the assertion. You might have a point if your rebuttals consisted of more than just repeating the same disproved statements over and over. You quote so little that it's hard to be sure what Rrhain said that this is a response to, but I feel very safe in saying that Rrhain at no point implied that voting 3rd party to send a message to the Democrats meant you were not a good, loving, caring person. What he is mostly arguing is that you display no comprehension of the degree of damage Trump is committing, and consequently are seriously and gravely underestimating how critically those considering a 3rd party candidate should have treated their vote. I think it would be closer to Rhrain's view of what should have been the goal of 3rd party voters to state it this way: "Clinton is not my preferred candidate, but a Trump victory would be such an obvious and extreme disaster for both the country and the world that I shall not risk contributing to his election and shall therefore vote for Clinton." Risking WW-III and climate change and mutilation of the environment for posterity is far too severe, far too great a price, for some mythical "helping things be better in the future."This isn't a Democrats versus Republicans thing (well, it might be for Rrhain, not so much for me). This is a "Trump is insane and terrifying" thing. If Trump were a Democrat I would still be saying all the same things about him, and I think Rrhain would, too. Remember, Trump wasn't always a Republican. One could even argue that he was never a Republican - the Republican party was only a vehicle of convenience as a means to get elected. I'm going to rebut this as often as you say it. The Trump pain is not temporary, nor is it in any way similar to the pain felt when the party you don't like is in power. I can't keep finding new words to describe him so I'll have to fall back on words I've already used: Trump is malevolent, vicious and vile. That's your point? Well, it's a damn poor one. What if pigs could fly? As was said before, Clinton has a record in both elected and appointed office. She would have been the same person as President as she was before the election.It should also be pointed out that before he was elected Trump also had a record, and it wasn't the one he used on the campaign trail or the one he uses in speeches to his base, because Trump lies. No one knows why he tells obvious lies, that's just the way he is. He'll tell the lies and then he'll argue them. But the important point is that Trump is the same person in office as he was before the election, and his performance is just as bad or worse as his history indicated it would be. People in closely contested states who voted 3rd party just have no excuse. You're stating this in a nonsense way. People have a right to think as they like, but whether there's any validity to what they think is another matter. For example, the validity of your position is measured by the quality of the arguments you're able to muster in their defense, which is pretty poor so far. Arguing that, in effect, "If I think it then it's valid," is about the worst argument you've offered so far. I think Rrhain was venting his frustration at the repetitions of an already failed argument. You're talking nonsense again. This is not a case of, "If Trump is elected then the LGBT community is at greater risk, while if Clinton is elected then some other community is at greater risk." Trump actually encourages violence against groups he does not like. I encourage Rrhain to be specific about why he feels his life is at risk. Such a strong statement should be demonstrated to have objective rather than just emotional support. No, you are not valuing everyone equally. You're drawing a false equivalence between a real threat and some hypothetical undescribed threat. You just said this a few lines before, and repeating it a second time doesn't make it any less false than it was the first time. Unable to make a case? Are you serious? I won't say whether Rrhain has actually made the case or not because I'd have to go back and reread his posts to be sure, and they tend to be lengthy, so I'm not going to do that. But the case has definitely been made, you're just pretending it didn't happen.--Percy

I understand that.The point of my reply to Rrhain was to indicate that his statement of "getting the exact opposite of your goals" is unacceptable was incorrect.
I understand that Rrhain (and you, for slightly different reasons) think voting 3rd party is unacceptable.My point of stating the goal (sending a message to the Democrats) isn't to say that you or Rrhain say that's the goal.
My point is to say that this is a possible goal, and if someone has this goal, then they succeeded 100%.If that's someone's goal, and that goal is met... then they did not get the exact opposite of their goal. They got exactly what they intended with their goal. And therefore, their reason for voting is acceptable.I am not saying that this is the only possible goal to have, but that it is a possible goal to have. And IF someone has this goal... then it was met.Do you see what I'm saying here?
Do you understand that in wanting to say this that it is irrelevant that I state what you or Rrhain or anyone else might think the goal of a 3rd party voter might be? I am seriously comparing the two.
I have been quite open about comparing the two since my first clarification.
All you've done is express personal disgust at the idea. You have yet to provide any actual substance against seriously comparing the two things. The fact that Clinton won the popular vote means nothing to the idea that someone can think the Democrats need to be sent a message about the candidates they put up. I'm pretty sure I've said this before and you're continuing to ignore it. But here's further clarification again:Winning the popular vote doesn't mean no one could possibly want to send your party a message about getting better candidates.
How could it possibly indicate such a thing?People are individual units.
Each with their own thoughts, ideas, dreams, lives...
Even if 1 person was against Hillary in the popular vote... they could easily want to send a message to the Democrats about getting better candidates. At this point, it wouldn't be a very loud message... but it would still be *a* message.
The message only get louder and stronger if more vote 3rd party.. even if the candidate wins the popular vote.This argument only makes sense if Hillary won the popular vote by 100%... which I'm pretty sure didn't happen. I understand that this is close to Rrhain's view.My point is to say that Rrhain doesn't get to say what "should" have been the goal of any voter. Let alone 3rd party voters.
Such a thing is up to any and every individual that votes.Anything less is... disgusting... to what fair voting is all about.I understand that the goal I'm professing for 3rd party voters may not be to the liking of Rrhain or you or many... but if someone deems it worthy... then that's all it takes in a fair voting system. And again, I agree with you that Trump is malevolent, vicious and vile.
I just don't agree with you that it's impossible for someone to think that the problems in the Democratic party could be worse if left unchecked.And, if someone does think such a thing... then I think their choice to vote 3rd party to send a message to the Democratic party is a perfectly valid and acceptable way to use a vote.I am, basically, defending the ability of people to vote the way they want.
You seem to be saying that everyone must vote the way Percy wants or else the system isn't right. I'm not saying I have a reason to personally vote 3rd party. I'm pretty sure I would have voted for Hillary... for all the reasons you state.
I'm saying I think it's possible that someone could.Your insistence that someone can't doesn't persuade me otherwise.
Perhaps if you gave reasons why Clinton is immune to scandal and corruption that would work?Perhaps you can't do that because you understand that Clinton (as a modern politician) is involved in at least some level of corruption?
Perhaps the people affected by that corruption are a small percentage of the population... some small percent that you don't deal with on a daily basis so you don't think it's a big deal. But, to them, it's their entire life and family and kids' future that's being ruined.
Perhaps the people affected by that corruption voted 3rd party in order to send a message to the Democrats.That's all I'm saying.
Anything else is either made up by you (or Rrhain).I'm saying that such a line of thought is reasonable and possible and rational.If you don't think so... I'm waiting on your proof that Clinton is immune to all aspects of corruption and scandal. What do you mean nonsense?
Of course it's exactly the case of LGBT vs. some-unnamed, un-organized group of people.Until you prove that Clinton (and the Democratic party) is immune to corruption or scandal or ruining anyone's life... you have to be open to the possibility that such things can exist.
If such things can exist, you can't be all that surprised if they don't vote for Hillary and the Democratic party.It's not really a difficult idea.
It's simply a not-very-popular one. It's not false.
It's quite true, and valid.A real threat (Trump and antics) vs a not-described threat due to corruption in the Democratic party.If you don't think corruption in Democratic party is worth voting 3rd party... tell me how it's impossible for corruption in the Democratic party to affect anyone's life.If it's possible... then why are you arguing that such people might want to vote 3rd party? Why would anyone vote for a party who's corruption is destroying their life?
If it isn't possible... then it should be easy for you to show such a thing.I'm willing to fully admit that those affected by Democratic corruption may be less in number than those affected by Trump's corruption.
What I'm not willing to admit is that those affected by Democratic corruption should vote Democratic because you don't like Trump's corruption.That just seems silly.Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

Pardon my ignorance: Which precincts?

You said that the message the Democrats should take from the election is that Clinton wasn't "good enough," and then you defined "good enough" as "not good enough to win the election." But she obviously *was* good enough to win the election. She won the popular vote by a substantial margin and only lost due to the vagaries of the electoral college in a small number of closely contested districts. To continue calling Clinton "not good enough" while ignoring what truly happened is to be incredibly misleading and careless with the English language. And it would be the wrong message to take from the election.So you're just wrong. No, I mean you're using the phrase "good enough" in ways that make your statements untrue. But you're not using words the way everyone uses them. You're using words in ways that make you wrong. Boy, you are becoming more and more Faith-like - don't engage the point and explain its errors in logic or judgment, just declare them not "reasonable or rational" and be done with it. You're imitation of Faith is uncanny. Sorry to keep focusing on this Faith comparison, but it really is remarkable and so I can't help, well, remarking. No one asserted that only their view is valid. Pointing out the errors and flaws in other people's arguments is not tantamount to closemindedness. Oh, me, glorious day, Stile is going to deign to reply to me! You're making arguments orthogonal to the main point. The argument is that given the critical nature of a negative outcome (Trump's election), this was the wrong election to be voting to send a message. On this we agree, but the message to the Democrats wasn't about Clinton. It was about issues regarding how to appeal to voters and how to better manage the way votes map onto the electoral college. Is this some kind of weird hypothetical? Not understanding what you're getting at. The names are different in every election, but this is always true. Can't make out if there's a point in there. Well, that's a pretty weird comment to make about climate change. You don't feel any urgency about it? Again, Clinton has a record in both elected and appointed office. That you claim this capacity for making up fictional horror stories is not an argument.This is the second time you've mentioned corruption in the Democratic party. You're starting to sound partisan and decidedly not like a Canadian looking dispassionately at the United States from the outside. What's the story here? Yep, you're definitely sounding partisan now. Nobody's making anything up. If you think I made something up about something Trump did then call me out on it. Describing what Trump is doing is not "scare tactics" - it's reality. If you find my descriptions of what Trump is doing scary then you have Trump to blame, not me. Your syntax is giving me some trouble, but what I think this says is that Trump's unfitness for office should be a lower priority than fixing the future of the US. If I've got that right then I'm having trouble seeing how this point fits into the discussion, but my reaction is that both minimizing Trump's damage and reconciling our polarized politics must be priorities. I've spent a few minutes now trying to divine your meaning, but I'm afraid it escapes me. No one is making claims that something is objectively absolute. Can you clarify what you're talking about? Hmmm, yet another reference to "a corrupt Democratic party." Okay, come on, out with it. You're far too opinionated about US politics for a Canadian. What's going on? And...yet another reference to "a corrupt Democratic party." Interestinger and interestinger. And another corruption reference. I don't actually know what's going on here, but I'm getting a vibe like I'm being played. Like I said, I don't know what's really going on, but if you're aware of Trump's performance in office so far then you're remarkably, uh, blas about it compared to the rest of the world. And as a Canadian you're remarkably informed about the existence of some fairly severe corruption in our Democratic party that has somehow escaped the attention of even Fox News (which is basically the Republican news channel - I just typed "corruption democratic party" into their website's search box and got zero results). Given the other things you've said in your message, this isn't credible. Once more we have harsh criticism of the Democratic party. Yes, the Democrats are sane, so are the Republicans, only Trump is a lunatic, and he's got the nuclear codes and...well, I've said that stuff already. You need to explain your harsh judgment of the Democratic party. And...once more with the corruption. You're again rebutting an argument not made. The argument is that the 2016 election was special because of the nature of the Republican candidate, and the option to vote 3rd party carried with it risks unprecedented in the history of the country.--Percy

If you go to this Wikipedia webpage: On the right side near the top is an electoral college map of the United States.If you click on the map on the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania you'll be taken to webpages with maps broken down into districts, with the intensity of color indicating margin of victory. Unfortunately I couldn't find actual numbers for districts.But the margin of Trump's victory for each of these states was:

• Michigan: 10,704
• Pennsylvania: 44,292
• Wisconsin: 22,748

I know there are websites out there that list precincts where Clinton could have made up the differences, but I couldn't find them today.--Percy

In today's political climate, a D next to your name on a ballot is reason enough not to vote for that candidate. I doubt that Sanders would have received those votes. One of the solutions is to have Republicans in power so they can demonstrate that they are incapable of governing in a way that benefits rural America. It's one thing to be against Obamacare because it starts with Obama, but it is another when you are faced with the prospect of losing your insurance and/or Medicaid because of Republican policies. Vote for Jill Stein to send a message that you want a different type of Democratic candidate. Result: Trump.Vote for Hillary Clinton and voice your opinion in subsequent primaries about the type of candidate you want. Result: Clinton (i.e. not Trump).I guess it comes down to which you prefer. In my opinion, the second option seems a lot better. It's not as if Clinton was appointed by elite Dems in a smoky back room. She won the primary election.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Actually, what Rrhain actually said in his Message 1320 was: So in Rrhain's view the primary alternatives available to the potential 3rd party voter are:

1. Vote 3rd party with the possible result that the exact opposite of your goals are advanced.
2. Vote for Clinton with the possible result that a good many of your goals are advanced.

So you're not addressing what Rrhain actually said. This is something you do a lot, respond to points not made or to points modified to make them obviously wrong. I'm not sure why you dropped into the present tense, but I'll respond to this exactly the way you said it. Neither Rrhain nor I think voting 3rd party is unacceptable. That's stupid.What I believe (and I think Rrhain, too - Rrhain, sorry if I get your views wrong, I'm trying to come as close as I can) is that voting 3rd party in this particular election carried with it unique risks never before seen in our country's history because the Republican candidate was, and is still, a psychopath (this characterization only just occurred to me as more appropriate than any I've tried previously, and not surprisingly, I'm not the first to describe him this way, e.g., Donald Trump Aces Keith Olbermann’s Screening Test For Psychopaths). What rational person risks all to express a preference between two candidates 95% alike? You're saying the same thing in different terms, and the answer is unchanged: What rational person risks all to express a preference between two candidates 95% alike? Oh, yes, I see exactly what you're saying. You're ignoring the special circumstances of the 2016 election in order to argue that positions to which those special circumstances are central are wrong. Your syntax is beyond me again. My best reconstruction of this is, "Neither you nor Rrhain nor anyone else can claim to know the goal of a 3rd party voter." If that's what you're saying then you'll have to take this up with someone who said something like this, which isn't me or Rrhain. Apologies if I've mistaken your meaning, but if not then do you understand that responding to points not made in a manner designed to make it seem as if they had isn't helpful, plus it pisses people off? I'm again straining to understand you. Are you saying you're seriously comparing Trump's performance in office to some Clinton hypothetical performance in office that you're making up in your own mind? Are you nuts? Trump is a psychopathic megalomaniac. There are few people in the history of statecraft who could compare psychologically, and if you think Clinton fits in any category remotely like that then you've got serious problems of judgment.And what does it even mean "to provide any actual substance against seriously comparing the two things"? You might want to give your posts a quick scan before posting them. Further clarification isn't necessary, we understood you the first time, and you're again responding to a point not made. There are two basic points (from my side, not sure how many points Rrhain has):

• The message that the Democrats put up the wrong candidate is the wrong message.
• This election was the wrong one to risk wasting your vote in sending a message.

My guess is that you're misstating what Rrhain actually said. His actually point, I think, is that it would have been irrational for someone inclined to send a message by voting for a 3rd party candidate to actually cast their vote that way because of the nature of the 2016 election. The example of Rrhain's exact point is voting for Sanders but getting Trump. Voting for Sanders but getting any normal human being fine, but Trump, no, that's a special circumstance, one that must be avoided at all costs, including the cost of a message sent. I see the words, but they don't ring true. You view Trump in too nonchalant a fashion. All the arguments about the dangers of a Trump presidency seem to roll off you. You've even argued that somehow surviving a Trump presidency versus sending a message to the Democrats is arguably a worthwhile tradeoff. It's not, not even close. You exist, therefore it's not impossible for someone to think this way, but you're not making any sense, and if you think there's something special about the problems of the Democratic party versus those of the Republican party then you should spell that out. You're coming across as a very weird Canadian. I couldn't even name the major Canadian political parties, nor the prime minister. I can only guess that your arguments only make sense to you because you have some grudge against the Democratic party that you're not telling us about. You are, yet again, arguing against a point not made. No one is arguing against the right of people to cast their vote any way they see fit. Did I already mention how it pisses people off that you continually respond to arguments not made as if they had? Yeah, I think I said that already. Well, if you're going to keep doing it then I'm going to keep calling this very annoying behavior to your attention. I think I'm beginning to understand Rrhain's "fuck you" outburst now. Another argument against a point not made as if it had. You're a hell of a guy. Perhaps if you gave reasons why this request makes any sense and isn't absurd on its face that would work? Well let me help you out, then. Your line of thought is not reasonable or possible or rational. You're making very little sense. You say a lot, especially about proving Clinton pure and about Democratic corruption and scandal, and very little of it making any sense. Perhaps you need to provide some context. Repeating absurd requests doesn't make them any less absurd. What do I mean by nonsense? Well, let's examine what you say next: That's pretty much what I mean by nonsense. You're making absurd demands and unsupported charges of corruption and scandal and ruining lives. Plus you still have to explain all this criticism of the Democratic party. Political parties of most persuasions are made up normal people and are pretty much the same in character. The Democrats are politicians, the Republicans are politicians, and if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you're going to get a politician. If there's something particularly heinous about the Democrats you'd better spell it out. Well, I'd say everything you just said seems pretty silly, not to mention unsubstantiated and biased. You must have charged the Democrats with corruption over ten times now without mentioning a single specific thing. And again, this is pretty strange coming from a Canadian. It's the kind of specific hard feelings that come from living and experiencing a place, not watching it on the news. What's going on here?--Percy

Thanks! So:

State	D votes	R votes	E votes
Wisconsin	1,382,536	1,405,284	10
Michigan	2,268,839	2,279,543	16
Pennsylvania	2,926,441	2,970,733	20

These three states were close races and if they had gone to Hillary instead of Trump then she would've won. She would've been at 273 while he was at 258.The claim is:

quote:

---

Clinton won the popular vote and only lost the election because of the vagaries of the electoral college in a few closely contested precincts.

---

Here's elections results by county in those states: They look pretty damned red to me...Here's the whole country: Isn't the point of the electoral college to prevent those densely populated islands of blue from taking charge of the huge sea of red that is out there?I honestly am not really sure.Here's the state I live in: That's a blue state, by the way ಠ_ಠIt kinda sucks because Chicago takes charge and makes stupid rules for the rest of us.I think I get why the electoral college is there.Here it is by state: Let's also look at the light blue states, since you mentioned: But the margin of Hillary's victory for each of these states was:

• New Mexico: 65,567 - 5 E votes
• Minnesota: 44,765 - 10 E votes
• Nevada: 27,202 - 6 E votes
• Delaware: 44,765 - 3 E votes

Your scenario requires all three states going to Hillary, which would require changing 77,744 votes. There's smaller margin charges than that on the other side that would allow for Trump to still win even if your three states switched.I was gonna say more, but I'm tired. Goodnight.Edited by New Cat's Eye, : No reason given.

"Isn't the point of the electoral college to prevent those densely populated islands of blue from taking charge of the huge sea of red that is out there?"No. The intent was to use the same formula applied to the House and Senate to balance the slave-holding states against the northern states. The reasoning had nothing at all to do with giving folks in Rhode Island more voting punch than a voter in California. In fact, the balance was obtained by partially counting black folks without actually allowing them to vote.Now, I would agree that the modern result is what you suggest, but no, that was not the intent of the framers.

That's because of population density. Let me explain.Assume a square state divided into square counties of equal area. Most of the state is rural, something that is true of most states. This means that most of the counties are rural, and that most of the area of the map of the state is rural. Urban areas will represent a very tiny proportion of the total area of the map.If rural counties go red while urban counties go blue, then the map can't help but be mostly red, but all the red is a result of a small number of votes spread over a great area. All the red rural districts each with, say, 10,000 votes dominate the map, while the several urban districts each with, say, a million votes look lonely and surrounded.So when you look at the map of Pennsylvania: All that red represents only a tiny proportion more votes than the small number of blue regions. And when you look at a map of the entire US: All that red represents less votes than the blue, and that's because a huge rural area with a small number of votes gets to color in a huge proportion of the map, while a small urban area with a huge number of votes gets to color in only a tiny proportion of the map. Here's a cartogram where the size of counties has been adjusted to be proportional to population. Looks a lot different, doesn't it: This map appears at Maps of the 2016 US presidential election results. This stuff has already been broken down for us, giving the particulars of states that were vulnerable to being flipped, but I can't find those websites now. I think they must still be out there, but I can't seem to find the right Google search string. Oh, wait, here's a Washington Post article. It's not very useful because the images have been blurred for non-subscribers, but it's a start if this is really something you want to pursue: The counties that flipped parties to swing the 2016 election--Percy

I beg to differ.I know how to settle this, let's see how the election turned out.
Oh, look... she lost.The facts are against you, Percy. Hillary was not good enough to win the election. The only support required to have this statement be valid is the fact that Hillary lost the election.You're arguing against factual history for some narrow-definition game that only you are playing. And I'm saying that this isn't true for all people. I'm saying it's quite possible, for some people, that this is exactly the election they should vote to send a message in. The message sent could be about pretty much any disagreement with the Democrats.
The message received may be this, or may not... I'm not one of the Democrats who received the message, so I can't say for sure. What I mean here is that if Hillary won, the next Democratic candidate (after Hillary) would be person X... because they would continue in their direction of "people like Hillary" who seem to win.But, now that Hillary lost, they will not choose person X, they will now choose person Y as their candidate (or, at least, heavily consider altering their course)... because "people like Hillary" lost. Almost.My point is that it is a valid position to hold if one so deems that Trump's unfitness for office should be a lower priority than fixing the future of the US.This fits in the argument, because (if it's true) then it's a perfectly valid reason to vote 3rd party.That's my argument... that there are perfectly valid reasons to vote 3rd party. In this election, likely in any and all elections. What?That isn't a rebuttal.
That's my argument.You've been rebutting me against that in every single post of yours.
Or, really, you've been claiming that I'm not saying this, and that I'm saying something else, and then insisting that I defend the position you've made up about me in your head.Every single post of mine has been clarifying that my only argument is:There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this pas election, even if it helped Trump win.What I've been doing is repeating myself that this is my only argument.
I've been repeating myself that all the side-issues you've brought up are irrelevant to this point, and not something I'm trying to say.Now you've moved on from that deeper down your rabbit hole. You used to insist that I'm saying something-I-constantly-deny-I'm-saying... Now you've moved into saying that the original point I'm trying to make is actually a rebuttal for something else... and it's not required??I understand that my original (and only) point is not a rebuttal for the imaginary positions you've created for me in your head.This is the only point I'm making:

quote:

---

There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election, even if it helped Trump win.

---

You've actually agreed with it 3 times now.Yet you continue to hammer on and on about how I'm not debating in good faith with you about a bunch of political issues you've brought up that have nothing to do with this point... that you agree with (?)... that is the only point I'm actually trying to make. I only bring up corruption because it helps me make my point.Again, my point is this:

quote:

---

There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election, even if it helped Trump win.

---

Corruption in politics can be valid reason why someone votes 3rd party even if it helped Trump win.I do not actually know much at all about corruption in the US Democratic party.
However, simply the fact that the US is a large country with a large population with a deep (enough) history is enough to know that corruption exists within it's largest political parties.Even in Canada we have corruption in our major political parties.
Money is misappropriated and deals are made behind the scenes all the time.
We recently spent billions on a power plant (and other related aspects)... then spent more billions on shutting down the same power plant (and other related aspects)... all part of corruption within a major political party.There will be families that were affected by such money-exchanges. Some of those families will be devastated. Their lives will be forever changed for the worse. Some will definitely vote 3rd party due to that corruption.I'm basically assuming that since such things happen in Canada, then they definitely also happen in the US.. probably on a larger scale.Such things are all the motivation that's required for:

quote:

---

There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election, even if it helped Trump win.

---

Look at this subtitle of our posts, Percy:"People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it"That's, basically, what got me started posting in this thread.
That this statement isn't absolutely true.I will admit that some people could have been tricked.
But this sense that "all 3rd party votes were duped" or "all 3rd party votes are invalid because they helped Trump win" or anything like that at all is silly... and that's all I'm arguing against.Perhaps I worded a few things in a non-optimal way (sorry, I'm only human).
Perhaps you've taken those non-optimal wordings to think I'm trying to say something else.
Then I've been attempting to clarify, and re-focus myself on my single, original point ever since:

quote:

---

There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election, even if it helped Trump win.

---

...and you seem to want to refuse that I'm saying what I want to say?
You want to insist that I'm actually saying something that you've interpreted incorrectly? (Perhaps due to my poor communication skills, perhaps due to your own poor communication skills).No.
Debate doesn't work like that.I get to say what I'm talking about.
I get to clarify what I mean.
I get correct errors on my communication, or errors on your reception of that communication.Again, this is why I entered this thread:

quote:

---

People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it

---

...the sentiment that "all 3rd party votes" are for some bogus reason.My point is:

quote:

---

There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election, even if it helped Trump win.

---

If you want to say I'm saying something more... you're wrong.
If you want to say I'm missing "the bigger picture" then you're right... but I'm missing it completely on purpose because it's not why I entered the thread.Try again.

Maybe, maybe not.
But, I wouldn't try to argue that Sanders would have received those votes.Of course, this doesn't change the fact that "Clinton wasn't good enough to stand for her Democratic values and also appeal to enough of rural America to win the election." Or, to shorten that up a bit... that "Clinton wasn't good enough."(I fully understand that this shortened phrase can easily be mis-interpreted to imply things about Clinton that are not true... I only say it again to show how I meant it originally and that the issue is only that... a mis-interpretation based on poor communication from me and poor reception of communication from others.) I completely agree, even with personally preferring the second option.
The only point I was trying to make is that it "comes down to which you prefer."Which tells us that even 3rd party votes can be just as valid as Hillary votes, regardless of how much anyone may or may not despise the idea of helping Trump win.

Since there's only one part of this longwinded post that actually responds to what I'm trying to say, I'll only respond to that part: Thanks again, Percy, for agreeing with the only point I've been trying to make this entire time.
Pretty sure you've agreed with me 4 times now, so hopefully we're good.I'm sorry that I allowed myself to get pulled into tangents which, in itself, perhaps validated those tangents in your mind as being my actual arguments.