Liberal Forum

Some simple math that even @Blackvegetable  might understand...well I doubt he will, but the rest of you can get it. 

Assume we have three candidates that won the following percentage of votes:

Candidate A: 32%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 38%

So candidate C wins. But 32% + 30% = 62%. So that means 62% of society didn't want candidate C and only 38% did. That doesn't seem much like a majority rules outcome. Though I understand we don't have a pure democracy, we have a republic. Be that as it may, even as a republic and with an electoral college, the mathematical outcome will always be the same. 

I guess no electoral system is perfect. 
 

No limits. Open and fair elections. Bring all commers.

PhiloBeddo » 1 minute ago » wrote: ↑

1 minute ago

No limits. Open and fair elections. Bring all commers.

Did you read the math in the OP as to why it is unfair to the citizens as a whole? 

Democracy is winner take all

usually that crushes a country's ability to thrive

one side takes over, they govern solely in a way that increases it's power to become unchallengeable

America is not a democracy....it's a republic...that why it is so strong and has had legs


Great news.....the UK is now poorer than our poorest state

and the people coming to America for the world cup are finding out that they've been lied to about America

and...they aren't happy about it

Vegas » Yesterday, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:40 am

Some simple math that even @Blackvegetable  might understand...well I doubt he will, but the rest of you can get it. 

Assume we have three candidates that won the following percentage of votes:

Candidate A: 32%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 38%

So candidate C wins. But 32% + 30% = 62%. So that means 62% of society didn't want candidate C and only 38% did. That doesn't seem much like a majority rules outcome. Though I understand we don't have a pure democracy, we have a republic. Be that as it may, even as a republic and with an electoral college, the mathematical outcome will always be the same. 

I guess no electoral system is perfect.

It's for a temp job anyway.
That's why dictators grin at US presidents. They just wait them out...

Xi will die of old age in that conglomeration of mudbrick villages they call China.
He'll be drooling like a pope before they scoot him to the ditch.
Meanwhile we'll have 7 more presidents...

Don't ever stop anybody from running. It's up to the American citizens to decide.

DeezerShoove » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

It's for a temp job anyway.
That's why dictators grin at US presidents. They just wait them out...

Xi will die of old age in that conglomeration of mudbrick villages they call China.
He'll be drooling like a pope before they scoot him to the ditch.
Meanwhile we'll have 7 more presidents...

True. Did you know that back in the 1870s and early 1880s, the government was seriously considering making the presidency a one time 7 year term? That is still temporary, but at least there would be a sense of stability. 4 year terms feels like we work in a workplace with a high turnover rate among the management. 
 
 

nefarious101 » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Democracy is winner take all

usually that crushes a country's ability to thrive

one side takes over, they govern solely in a way that increases it's power to become unchallengeable

America is not a democracy....it's a republic...that why it is so strong and has had legs

Great news.....the UK is now poorer than our poorest state

and the people coming to America for the world cup are finding out that they've been lied to about America

and...they aren't happy about it

Yes, we are Republic. But that doesn't change the math. In any voting system, if you have 3 or more candidates, then the majority of the nation will be in the hands of the minority. It doesn't matter if it's a republic, democracy, or any system that depends on votes from the people. 

Vegas » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

Yes, we are Republic. But that doesn't change the math. In any voting system, if you have 3 or more candidates, then the majority of the nation will be in the hands of the minority. It doesn't matter if it's a republic, democracy, or any system that depends on votes from the people.

Not here...

Clean up the corruption and voter fraud you have an entirely new game..

we are a majority right center nation based on Judeo-Christian beliefs

there is still more that binds us as a nation that not....constant bickering just increases the temp

one party rule in a two party system exists out in the open

restricting candidate numbers is a form of censorship...it automatically destroys a free state

our main problem is the Left by using government and education has taught people they can vote themselves the keys to the treasury...free stuff

you make stuff harder to get....free stuff becomes more attractive

you make education **** we are back in the days of southern plantations...educating your slaves is bad...you need them dumb as a post....stupid is less like to act out or ask questions

there's a lot of work to do....and it's not gonna be pretty....I have a fondness for not pretty ...makes all this exciting

nefarious101 » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Not here...

Clean up the corruption and voter fraud you have an entirely new game..

we are a majority right center nation based on Judeo-Christian beliefs

there is still more that binds us as a nation that not....constant bickering just increases the temp

one party rule in a two party system exists out in the open

restricting candidate numbers is a form of censorship...it automatically destroys a free state

our main problem is the Left by using government and education has taught people they can vote themselves the keys to the treasury...free stuff

you make stuff harder to get....free stuff becomes more attractive

you make education **** we are back in the days of southern plantations...educating your slaves is bad...you need them dumb as a post....stupid is less like to act out or ask questions

there's a lot of work to do....and it's not gonna be pretty....I have a fondness for not pretty ...makes all this exciting

It's just math. It has nothing to do with corruption or any human behavior. 

Assume we have three candidates that won the following percentage of votes:

Candidate A: 32%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 38%

So candidate C wins. But 32% + 30% = 62%. So that means 62% of society didn't want candidate C and only 38% did. That is it. 
 

Vegas » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

It's just math. It has nothing to do with corruption or any human behavior. 

Assume we have three candidates that won the following percentage of votes:

Candidate A: 32%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 38%

So candidate C wins. But 32% + 30% = 62%. So that means 62% of society didn't want candidate C and only 38% did. That is it.

political perfection is a myth...

 

nefarious101 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

political perfection is a myth...

I understand, but math isn't a myth. I am not claiming I know a better system, but there has to be a better way. 

Vegas » Today, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:47 am

I understand, but math isn't a myth. I am not claiming I know a better system, but there has to be a better way.

you can't finesse your way to victory...it's cutthroat....

people could care less about the math or the rules...

they want to win....and it usually doesn't matter to them how they do it

the right has allowed itself to be shamed into not checking or looking into voter fraud for years and years

if they did the would be racist....but now we are all racists....so much for the shame...it's a matter of winning now

The Left has lost it's ability to be a bully now....so they are gearing up to play the victim



A little girl in the ghetto was ask, "what happens when you're bad?"

she replied, "Bitch gets the shoe"

don't know what that has to do with anything but it was funny when I saw it

Vegas » Today, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:09 am

True. Did you know that back in the 1870s and early 1880s, the government was seriously considering making the presidency a one time 7 year term? That is still temporary, but at least there would be a sense of stability. 4 year terms feels like we work in a workplace with a high turnover rate among the management.

We'd still have Biden in office right now.

Vegas » Yesterday, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:40 am

Some simple math that even @Blackvegetable  might understand...well I doubt he will, but the rest of you can get it. 

Assume we have three candidates that won the following percentage of votes:

Candidate A: 32%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 38%

So candidate C wins. But 32% + 30% = 62%. So that means 62% of society didn't want candidate C and only 38% did. That doesn't seem much like a majority rules outcome. Though I understand we don't have a pure democracy, we have a republic. Be that as it may, even as a republic and with an electoral college, the mathematical outcome will always be the same. 

I guess no electoral system is perfect.

We are programmed binary.  China is Uniparty. I guess Russia is too.

Ross Perot assured a Clinton Victory. So perspective on damage is back to a two side thing..

Israel has many parties, rank choice voting, and multiple run offs.. I like the idea, but Bibi has stayed in power for 30 years.. I think California  has this system..



I am guessing  you saw the Verisatium video on mathematically impossible democracies? It is interesting. 

Nothing is perfect.  It's  all reception of perception..

 
 

Vegas » Yesterday, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:40 am

Is it more harmful to have a third party run when it makes democracy mathematically impossible?

The flaw in your question is the assumption that this third party is interrupting a democracy, when what we have is an oligarchy.

Cannonpointer » Yesterday, 9:59 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:59 pm

The flaw in your question is the assumption that this third party is interrupting a democracy, when what we have is an oligarchy.

You should be happy to invent or discover (who cares which one?) that  oligarchies are the only possible MAGAmyhtical solution to the human equation.

I believe this video may have inspired @Vegas   to try and take credit for creating a slogan here.   It's worse than @Blackvegetable  copy and pasting text from a news article..   The intervention continues..  No reply from my comment above.  We might get the No Holds Barred Yeast infection cleaned up someday..  (Hey my dog is really suffering..   Ivermectin?)

https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk?si=UqhZ61Q-jmxP4DZI

 
 

Vegas » Yesterday, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:09 am

True. Did you know that back in the 1870s and early 1880s, the government was seriously considering making the presidency a one time 7 year term? That is still temporary, but at least there would be a sense of stability. 4 year terms feels like we work in a workplace with a high turnover rate among the management.

That 4 year term was MEANT to have a level of "instability" to FORCE CHANGE of leadership so that NO ONE PERSON OR PARTY would become powerful enough to overthrow the entire scheme, *******!!

Same for House seats at 2 years and Senate for 6 year terms. 

But your **** belief that somehow "Democracy" is so **** great and is what the US of A has is WILDLY COMMUNIST IN THOUGHT., cupcake!!

WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN CONFEDERATION OF STATES. PERIOD. NO DEMOCRACY ANYTHING. In a DEMOCRACY, the RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY ARE DISMISSED, REMOVED, and those who disagree are EXTERMINATED. 

Now, SHUT THE **** UP about **** you know ZERO ABOUT, COMMIE ASSHOLE!!