‘Prepare for war’: A local GOP official goes all-in with election conspiracy theories

[Dashinka 24,736]

11 minutes ago, moxy said:

Same as it is now. As I said, states would still control their own elections, and every state has a threshold and procedures for recounts. If an election is close nationwide,  then by math it's going to be close in some states.

 

It's really pretty easy. In a national vote, everything stays the same except it's "one person one vote," not "one state x electoral votes."

Except that if the difference is less than 1% nationwide, every state should be recounted, not just a few close states in a National Popular vote scenario.  Every vote counts, not just the states that are close.

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Except that if the difference is less than 1% nationwide, every state should be recounted, not just a few close states in a National Popular vote scenario.  Every vote counts, not just the states that are close.

I mean, if that's what it takes to get you on board, sure. 😄

[Dashinka 24,736]

12 minutes ago, moxy said:

I mean, if that's what it takes to get you on board, sure. 😄

I am saying that is what it will be in your scenario where only the sum total matters.   

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I am saying that is what it will be in your scenario where only the sum total matters.   

Historically the national vote doesn't tend to be that close (1%). The separation in this election was about 3%. Which sounds close, but that's about 7 million votes.

 

And again, if the national vote is very close, then math dictates that it's close in at least one state, probably more. And so those states would go through their normal recount process. By the time your electors meet (assigning votes, not electoral votes) the numbers would have already been validated by each state.

[Dashinka 24,736]

Just now, moxy said:

Historically the national vote doesn't tend to be that close (1%). The separation in this election was about 3%. Which sounds close, but that's about 7 million votes.

 

And again, if the national vote is very close, then math dictates that it's close in at least one state, probably more. And so those states would go through their normal recount process. By the time your electors meet (assigning votes, not electoral votes) the numbers would have already been validated by each state.

In your scenario, the individual state totals do not matter, it is just the sum total that matters so if a candidate only needs to change less than 1% of the total popular vote, they are not going to just go after a few close states especially if those states are relatively low counts they are going to go after every potential vote.  

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

In your scenario, the individual state totals do not matter, it is just the sum total that matters so if a candidate only needs to change less than 1% of the total popular vote, they are not going to just go after a few close states especially if those states are relatively low counts they are going to go after every potential vote.  

Not sure I follow.

- Yes, individual states would not matter, except that they would run the election per normal. The individual matters, not the state. Every vote is worth exactly one, whether that's in NYC or Des Moines.

- Total votes by candidate would be certified by the states, not electoral votes.

 

Quote

so if a candidate only needs to change less than 1% of the total popular vote, they are not going to just go after a few close states especially if those states are relatively low counts they are going to go after every potential vote.  

 

YES! If a candidate wants to change 1% of the popular vote then they should appeal to as many voters as they can. If they think the vote will be close, then maybe a visit to a county in Wyoming might make sense if they think they can swing some voters their way. Or Kansas. Or Hawaii. The popular vote completely opens up the whole country, instead of candidates concentrating all their resources in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. (I've forgotten some, I know)
 

[Dashinka 24,736]

2 minutes ago, moxy said:

Not sure I follow.

- Yes, individual states would not matter, except that they would run the election per normal. The individual matters, not the state. Every vote is worth exactly one, whether that's in NYC or Des Moines.

- Total votes by candidate would be certified by the states, not electoral votes.

 

YES! If a candidate wants to change 1% of the popular vote then they should appeal to as many voters as they can. If they think the vote will be close, then maybe a visit to a county in Wyoming might make sense if they think they can swing some voters their way. Or Kansas. Or Hawaii. The popular vote completely opens up the whole country, instead of candidates concentrating all their resources in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. (I've forgotten some, I know)
 

Yes, so if I have a less than 1% difference in a nationwide election, I would want every vote recounted, not just a few states or precincts.  As to a popular vote opening up the entire country, I think that is a pipe dream.  If I was a candidate running in a nationwide popular vote election, I would only go where the votes are the most plentiful.  Of course everything would still be poll driven, and we would still have "safe" areas that would be ignored.

[moxy 1,051]

8 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Yes, so if I have a less than 1% difference in a nationwide election, I would want every vote recounted, not just a few states or precincts.  As to a popular vote opening up the entire country, I think that is a pipe dream.  If I was a candidate running in a nationwide popular vote election, I would only go where the votes are the most plentiful.  Of course everything would still be poll driven, and we would still have "safe" areas that would be ignored.

But why?

 

If the popular vote was close, then mathematically it was close in one or more states. Why recount TX if a candidate won by 10%? Why not focus on the states where the margin was 1%?

 

You're also undermining your own argument. You want states to be in charge of their own elections. (So do I.) Every state has a recount process and trigger. Pushing a national recount would require that the federal government mandate the recount.

 

Think about it this way: If a candidate loses the electoral college by 1%, do we do a national recount? We do not. Same with a national popular vote.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

Burnt, I guess I"m just whiffing on your entire argument. It's not you, it's me I'm sure. I keep trying, but I cannot suss out where I seem to be misunderstanding your position, and it seems to be annoying you and thinking that I'm trying to twist your words. I'm not. So maybe if you could just sum up your objection to a national vote in a couple sentences, that would help.

 

Washington did indeed dislike the notion of parties controlling the government. Again, having a hard time trying to determine how it relates, unless you're saying that a national vote would encourage more parties, and hence more "usurpation" in Washington parlance?

I highlighted in bold and prefaced the quote with its relevance, so, I dunno what to say here. I'm pretty used to people not reading what I post. 😉

 

But, I will say, and I meant to post it in the last post but my ADHD brain got too focused on the point I was arguing, was that I absolutely notice the much more amicable tone even though we clearly don't see eye to eye here and appreciate it.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,736]

37 minutes ago, moxy said:

But why?

 

If the popular vote was close, then mathematically it was close in one or more states. Why recount TX if a candidate won by 10%? Why not focus on the states where the margin was 1%?

 

You're also undermining your own argument. You want states to be in charge of their own elections. (So do I.) Every state has a recount process and trigger. Pushing a national recount would require that the federal government mandate the recount.

 

Think about it this way: If a candidate loses the electoral college by 1%, do we do a national recount? We do not. Same with a national popular vote.

Because TX has a lot more votes, so much more chance of finding votes flipped.  You seem to somehow be mixing a total popular vote election with our current system, if we ever did do a total popular vote election, then the Feds would certainly be involved as the state totals are now irrelevant other than to be added to a grand total (states would just be relegated to conducting the federal election).

 

I don't really think you can equate the EC totals with a national popular vote total, and if the EC count is close, then you would in fact focus only on the states where you could flip those EC votes.

[moxy 1,051]

13 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Because TX has a lot more votes, so much more chance of finding votes flipped.  You seem to somehow be mixing a total popular vote election with our current system, if we ever did do a total popular vote election, then the Feds would certainly be involved as the state totals are now irrelevant other than to be added to a grand total (states would just be relegated to conducting the federal election).

 

I don't really think you can equate the EC totals with a national popular vote total, and if the EC count is close, then you would in fact focus only on the states where you could flip those EC votes.

Yeah I don't know what to say. Every state has a recount threshold and procedures. If a national vote is close, then it will have triggered those recount mechanisms. Literally nothing changes except the state-by-state popular vote is counted instead of electoral votes being awarded. Forcing a national recount would violate state rights.

 

But even if I'm still not getting it, then if your biggest concern is how recounts and close votes will be handled, I'll take that as a win. (not a win for me personally, I don't post to win, just a win for making the case for the popular vote.) Recounts and close votes are in the weeds. The main advantages of a popular vote is really what I'm trying to sell here.

[Dashinka 24,736]

13 minutes ago, moxy said:

Yeah I don't know what to say. Every state has a recount threshold and procedures. If a national vote is close, then it will have triggered those recount mechanisms. Literally nothing changes except the state-by-state popular vote is counted instead of electoral votes being awarded. Forcing a national recount would violate state rights.

 

But even if I'm still not getting it, then if your biggest concern is how recounts and close votes will be handled, I'll take that as a win. (not a win for me personally, I don't post to win, just a win for making the case for the popular vote.) Recounts and close votes are in the weeds. The main advantages of a popular vote is really what I'm trying to sell here.

My point is if only the total matters, the recount trigger has to be based on the grand total and not the totals of the individual states.  If a candidate lost by half a percent overall, the fact that they won or lost Wyoming by a 1000 votes is only relevant in the grand total.  Having a national popular vote will do little to change things other than to turn the focus on other areas that have a lot of votes.

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

My point is if only the total matters, the recount trigger has to be based on the grand total and not the totals of the individual states.  If a candidate lost by half a percent overall, the fact that they won or lost Wyoming by a 1000 votes is only relevant in the grand total.  Having a national popular vote will do little to change things other than to turn the focus on other areas that have a lot of votes.

If a candidate won or lost the election by 1 Electoral Vote, would you want a national recount?

 

It's the same thing. You wouldn't think it's a problem if it was 1 electoral vote, so I don't see why it would be a problem if it was by 1000 votes nationally.

[Dashinka 24,736]

10 minutes ago, moxy said:

If a candidate won or lost the election by 1 Electoral Vote, would you want a national recount?

 

It's the same thing. You wouldn't think it's a problem if it was 1 electoral vote, so I don't see why it would be a problem if it was by 1000 votes nationally.

Already addressed.  If the EC vote was that close you would only look at the one or two very close states if there were any.  If all the states were greater than 1% difference, then I don’t see any need to do any recounts.  Beyond that, if you don’t understand the math when only the grand total of the nation matters, not sure I can help you.  Comparing two completely different systems is a non-starter.

[moxy 1,051]

States run elections, not the federal government so any recounts would have to be at the state level. (if you're a "states rights" person, this is exactly what you want)

 

I guess I'm 0/2 for sussing out the problem today. But again, if recounts are your biggest concerns, then I think they would be worked out. If you're a conservative then the popular vote--where it's literally one person, one vote--is a core conservative value and should appeal to you.