• @jordanlundM
    link
    -143 months ago

    Everyone who supports Democracy… right up until it goes against their interests.

      • @jordanlundM
        link
        -83 months ago

        I think you’re giving average people too much credit.

        “Consider how dumb the average person is and then remember 1/2 of them are dumber than that!” - Carlin

    • @nul9o9
      link
      83 months ago

      So you don’t think it’s ok to do the right thing, because people want it for the wrong reasons?

      • @jordanlundM
        link
        -93 months ago

        I think people want it now because they feel burned by the 2000 and 2016 elections, but the first time it goes the other way they will be like “Wait, not like THAT!”

        I look at the 2000 election like this:

        Gore won. If we had completed counting the ballots in Florida, however they were counted, Gore won.

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa

        (Published 8 days after the Bush inauguration)

        The problem there wasn’t popular vs. electoral college. The problem was Democrats are spineless and refuse to fight. “When they go low, we go high” and all that.

        In the end though, if Gore had also bothered to win his own home state of Tennessee, Florida would not have mattered.

        In 2016, again, less of a problem with popular vs. electoral and more that Clinton utterly failed to campaign in key states like MI and WI, taking them for granted and assuming they were a lock. Surprise! Not a lock.

        Had she done her job correctly, she wouldn’t have lost the EC.

        • Schadrach
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          Gore won. If we had completed counting the ballots in Florida, however they were counted, Gore won.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa

          (Published 8 days after the Bush inauguration)

          The problem there wasn’t popular vs. electoral college. The problem was Democrats are spineless and refuse to fight. “When they go low, we go high” and all that.

          There were recounts beforehand. Didn’t change the result. The last recount, the one that got interrupted by the injunction and killed by SCOTUS was of a handful of specific counties and counted under a different standard for over- and under-votes than the rest of the state.

          If it had been completed, Bush would still have won. According to some media outlets doing research on the topic, had the entire state been recounted under the standard Gore wanted to use for that handful of places, Gore might have won. Some surveys done after the fact also suggested Gore could have won but surveys aren’t votes, it’s why we don’t just let news media do a poll and decide the president that way.

          The SCOTUS decision leaned on two things: Election deadlines are enforceable and using different rules to count votes depending on which district you are in violates Equal Protection. They killed the last recount because it violated equal protection and a version of it that wouldn’t could not possibly have been completed before the deadline (about 2 hours after they released the opinion).

          The logic behind Bush v Gore is why Trump switched from launching lawsuit after lawsuit in 2020 to bloviating and whining and hoping for a coup starting at about mid December. He’ll do the same this year if he loses - he’ll launch any lawsuit he thinks might have a ghost of a chance until we reach election deadlines then incessantly bloviate in a vain attempt to foment rebellion.