OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Right but the different issues that candidates support is what would differentiate them. I imagine the popular vote would be like that. Where a candidate would not get majority vote in say California but he/she would have gotten a lot of votes there and it would be added to other totals from other state where he/she probably had the majority. As it stands now, whoever wins California gets all the votes and the votes that their competitor got is ignored. Also votes from Guam and Puerto Rico would now count too.

Problem with popular vote at federal level is all you have to do is when NYC, Chicago, LA, SF, Seattle, etc.. big cities are filled with millions of idiots and they vote 90% or more for the same party everytime.

Illinois has been ruined, because whoever wins Chicago controls the state, so literally downstate population has no voice

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Nah man. I think if popular vote was the decisive method, they could make inroads.

Well you can't vote for a 3rd party if they aren't on the ballot, and they won't get many votes if they don't get media coverage..

Popular vote doesn't solve those 2 issues

[siablo14]

Problem with popular vote at federal level is all you have to do is when NYC, Chicago, LA, SF, Seattle, etc.. big cities are filled with millions of idiots and they vote 90% or more for the same party everytime.

Illinois has been ruined, because whoever wins Chicago controls the state, so literally downstate population has no voice

Yeah man. We see that. It's to give the smaller states a chance because no campaigning would take place there and they probably would get neglected policy-wise too but

do you agree that the popular vote method would give third parties a better chance than the current winner-takes-all method no matter how close the margin of victory is?

[siablo14]

Well you can't vote for a 3rd party if they aren't on the ballot, and they won't get many votes if they don't get media coverage..

Popular vote doesn't solve those 2 issues

Yes. I believe it would. Most Democrats in states like Georgia don't even bother to vote because they know their votes will not matter. If people knew that their votes would matter in the overall vote tally more people with vote because they know that their voted will matter. Most people don't vote for a third party because they know they won't be able to win the electoral votes and that their votes will not affect the decision in any way.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Yeah man. We see that. It's to give the smaller states a chance because no campaigning would take place there and they probably would get neglected policy-wise too but

do you agree that the popular vote method would give third parties a better chance than the current winner-takes-all method no matter how close the margin of victory is?

Popular vote is not good for federal level..

They have popular vote at state and local levels.. now how many 3rd parties are having success with the popular vote? Hardly any success at state, maybe a few random mayors that are 3rd party.


Ballot requirements and media coverage are the only way for 3rd parties to have a chance

[siablo14]

Popular vote is not good for federal level..

They have popular vote at state and local levels.. now how many 3rd parties are having success with the popular vote? Hardly any success at state, maybe a few random mayors that are 3rd party.


Ballot requirements and media coverage are the only way for 3rd parties to have a chance

So you see it can be done.

[siablo14]

Popular vote is not good for federal level..

They have popular vote at state and local levels.. now how many 3rd parties are having success with the popular vote? Hardly any success at state, maybe a few random mayors that are 3rd party.


Ballot requirements and media coverage are the only way for 3rd parties to have a chance

Have a read, Ali.

The necessity of getting an absolute majority in the Electoral College is the main thing that has made third parties unviable in America. In practice, it is impossible for a third party to ever elect a president, which might be possible if the president was elected by popular vote or by a plurality of the Electoral College. As a practical matter, it’s prohibitively difficult for a third party to be consistently competitive even at the state or local level without the possibility of ever electing a president.

The problem for third parties is compounded by restrictive ballot access laws and other barriers that the major parties have erected to protect their de facto monopoly. Single-member congressional districts and first-past-the-post election rules also tend to favor the two-party system.

https://www.forbes.com/2010/05/13/th...-bartlett.html

[Sugar Adam Ali]

So you see it can be done.

Yeah at about the rate of .0003%

Why can mayors do it? Low barriers to get on the ballot, just really have to be a resident and some signatures.
Plus it's local so the mainstream media isn't controlling the narrative..


Low barriers and media coverage are the answers

[siablo14]

Yeah at about the rate of .0003%

Why can mayors do it? Low barriers to get on the ballot, just really have to be a resident and some signatures.
Plus it's local so the mainstream media isn't controlling the narrative..


Low barriers and media coverage are the answers

Those are minimal problems when compared to the electoral college component.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Those are minimal problems when compared to the electoral college component.

No... electoral college has nothing to do with it..


If popular vote was the answer like you claim, then why isn't the state elections like governors, senators, reps, etc almost exclusively D or R, and little to none 3rd party?

Currently 3rd party has less than 1% of popular vote in elections, which is 99.9% of elections..


Every single election in America is popular vote except presidency..

So if you think popular vote is the key, then why do 3rd parties have less than 1% even though 99.9% of elections are popular vote..



Low barriers and media coverage... those are the keys