comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 8 minutes ago
the only thing making me think trump hasn't won is how much he seems to want to stop the voting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't believe that is even possible.

A pipe burst in Georgia, and now they think they won't finish counting votes for another ~two days, CBS reporting. Not a joke.

comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 55 seconds ago
A pipe burst in Georgia, and now they think they won't finish counting votes for another ~two days, CBS reporting. Not a joke.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
i wonder how many ballots will be spoiled?

Make no mistake, Trump wouldn't have made those comments if he thought he'd won this comfortably.

He's worried.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted less than a minute ago
Make no mistake, Trump wouldn't have made those comments if he thought he'd won this comfortably.

He's worried.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t think that’s in any doubt

comment by BATTYWACK (U2254)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 55 seconds ago
A pipe burst in Georgia, and now they think they won't finish counting votes for another ~two days, CBS reporting. Not a joke.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
i wonder how many ballots will be spoiled?
----------------------------------------------------------------------


You laugh but it’s exactly the sort of thing that the Gop would try

comment by Ole-dirty-baztard - Poch In.......................the job centre (U19119)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by BATTYWACK (U2254)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 55 seconds ago
A pipe burst in Georgia, and now they think they won't finish counting votes for another ~two days, CBS reporting. Not a joke.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
i wonder how many ballots will be spoiled?
----------------------------------------------------------------------


You laugh but it’s exactly the sort of thing that the Gop would try
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You down with GOP?

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 3 minutes ago
More people have now voted for Biden than Obama in 2012.

If he loses it looks like once again Den's will win the popular vote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Its mad. The republicans have only won 1 popular vote since the 80s yet could be on course for their 4th presidency. Just goes to show how undemocratic the electoral college system is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way of looking at it it has only happened twice going back to the 19th century that a President has won an election without also winning the popular vote

2000 & 2016 then 1888.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And this year if Trump wins. So potentially half of the elections in this century and always to the benefit of one party. As I said, undemocratic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes if you include a hypothetical and limit it with time.

Out of the last election the president didn’t win the popular vote but still got in due to electoral college. 100% benefit to Republican Party. Undemocratic

Whilst accurate, you’re being selective.

It’s like talking about United’s winning PL tally and acting as though football didn’t exist before 1992.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes because the original occasion took place over 100 years ago in a completely different pitiful landscape when the two main parties today didn't exist in their current form.

Also the hypothetical is not based on an extreme stretching it is based in the current state of the current election so is relevant.

Your analogy doesn't make sense. Talking about United's winning league tally how? Did United have a league tally lower than a rival team that year and still get given the trophy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never heard someone say ‘football existed before 1992/the premier league you know’? The point being that you’re acting like a United fan only talking about premier league win and ignoring the rest of history.

Now you’re coming out with excuses as to why you’re not going back in time.

A hypothetical is still a hypothetical.

The system is in place and has been for a very long time and it’s design is to assure that a successful presidential candidate would have broad support throughout the country, as opposed to simply being the overwhelming choice of only a section/slice of the country.

Is it democratic that hugely populated states get more say than all of the smaller states? Is it fair that a majority of people across the nation vote for a candidate but don’t win?

I went over this yesterday. There are pros and cons of both and I’m torn as to which I’d go for but skewing the numbers and saying that it’s undemocratic is just silly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Except I made a clear distinction that something happening once in the course of a 100 years is not equivalent to it happening twice (maybe 3 times( in the last two years. The point of my comment was clearly that it has become significantly more frequent and is therefore more of a problem than a quirky anomaly from the 19th century.

It isnt akin to your analogy because you take an event that happens every single year and suggest it didn't happen before 1992.

The system has been in place for a long time - that has no bearing on whether it is Democratic or not. Is it Democratic if hugely populated states get more say? Well that depends if you believe that all citizens should have an equal say in a democracy. If you do then of course it is Democratic to give the people in more populated areas an equal say.

Is it Democratic to say that someone's vote counts for less because of where they are born/live?

Last two decades*

Tim Alberta @TimAlberta
Wisconsin's gonna be very, very tight.

Bulk of outstanding ballots coming from Milwaukee Co

Clinton won it by 162k. Biden currently ahead by 53k.

Trump's currently ahead by 110k. Which means if Biden picks up enough to reach parity with Clinton '16... they're virtually tied.

Sophy Ridge is the only good thing about sky's election coverage

Trump now 73% to win according to bookies, from 60% about half hour ago. some good news must have come in for him from swing states

comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 4 minutes ago
Sophy Ridge is the only good thing about sky's election coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She’s fit too

comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 4 minutes ago
Sophy Ridge is the only good thing about sky's election coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She’s fit too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have a few 😁

comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 minutes ago
Trump now 73% to win according to bookies, from 60% about half hour ago. some good news must have come in for him from swing states
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That or a flurry of bets have led them to shorten the odds

comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted less than a minute ago
Last two decades*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortening the chain.
So you don’t see any Democratic benefit in having a broad representation?
Maybe the democrats should concentrate on getting support from a broader base of people?


Is it Democratic to say that someone's vote counts for less because of where they are born/live? You’re making the same point I am. Woke Californians making decisions for hill billies?

The analogy is the same: you’re skewing the stats to suit your case that it’s undemocratic and the United fan is skewing the stats to make it seem that United have won more league titles than Liverpool say. Both are using a deliberate cut-off point in time.

53 out of the 58 elections the winning president has won the electoral college along with the popular vote.
So you’re complaining about a system and describing it as undemocratic when it has happened only 9% of the time and many democrat wins have included the electoral college vote because they appealed broadly to the national. Not just in hugely populated states.

https://twitter.com/lovedsickgirls/status/1323862232657235969?s=21

Unreal prediction from Bernie.

comment by Mike (U1170)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/lovedsickgirls/status/1323862232657235969?s=21

Unreal prediction from Bernie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, he's hardly the only person to have made that prediction.

comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Mike (U1170)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/lovedsickgirls/status/1323862232657235969?s=21

Unreal prediction from Bernie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, he's hardly the only person to have made that prediction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Jass made a similar prediction

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted less than a minute ago
Last two decades*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortening the chain.
So you don’t see any Democratic benefit in having a broad representation?
Maybe the democrats should concentrate on getting support from a broader base of people?


Is it Democratic to say that someone's vote counts for less because of where they are born/live? You’re making the same point I am. Woke Californians making decisions for hill billies?

The analogy is the same: you’re skewing the stats to suit your case that it’s undemocratic and the United fan is skewing the stats to make it seem that United have won more league titles than Liverpool say. Both are using a deliberate cut-off point in time.

53 out of the 58 elections the winning president has won the electoral college along with the popular vote.
So you’re complaining about a system and describing it as undemocratic when it has happened only 9% of the time and many democrat wins have included the electoral college vote because they appealed broadly to the national. Not just in hugely populated states.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Except I'm not making the same point you are at all. You are arguing for a system where peoples votes count more if they live in certain areas. I'm arguing for a system where all people's votes should be equal. I'm not arguing for a californian vote to outweigh an alaskan vote. I'm saying they should be equal. 3 californian votes should outweighs 1 alaskan vote, not the other way around.

The democrats have a broad base because they appeal to more voters than the republicans. Biden is currently 2 million votes ahead of trump in the popular vote. He has appealed to 2 million more voters at time of writing. Clinton appealed to nearly 3 million more voters. To say that the Democrats need to broaden their base is ridiculous when they gave the broadest base already. It is equally valid (if not more so) to say that the Republicans should work at broadening their base in the major populous areas and stop relying on an undemocratic system.

Yes, I'm complaining about the 9% because it isnt an issue if someone wins the presidency with the popular vote. It is an issue when the opposite happens from a democratic point of view.

Why are you so keen for millions of Americans to be effectively told that their vote counts for less than the vote of other Americans?

It is being reported that Kenosha County in WI has cut Trumps lead to about 20,000 votes. Milwaukee might then give him WI if it is enough

if it was done on popular vote republicans would campaign differently and try to win people in California and NY where they don't even bother under electoral college.

Biden now leading in Wisconsin

comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
It is being reported that Kenosha County in WI has cut Trumps lead to about 20,000 votes. Milwaukee might then give him WI if it is enough
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Google now has the democrats slightly ahead there. A chink of light.

comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
It is being reported that Kenosha County in WI has cut Trumps lead to about 20,000 votes. Milwaukee might then give him WI if it is enough
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Biden has taken the lead in WI