If Elections Were Not Winner-Take-All For Each State

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Sunday, June 23, 2019 01:27
VIEWED: 1904
PAGE 1 of 1

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, June 15, 2019 2:35 AM

In another thread, somebody became easily confused about how the Electoral College worked, and could work.

I also became intrigued about how the numbers would shake out in various versions of Elector apportionment, so here I will detail how different systems might work.

I will start off by using 2016 Election results as a model to compare to. If time, I might do more, back to 1992 (Perot). Or 1980 (Anderson).

Copied from another thread:

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Any State admitted into the Union is granted the same voice as every other State, whether it be Puerto Rico, Ontario/Quebec, Eastern Alaska, or Northern California. I cannot disagree with any of that, because that is how the Constitution is written, everybody understands those rules, every other Nation can read them, they are not secret or arbitrary, and everybody knows what must be done or not done to accomplish those goals.

The Great Compromise was a part of the original Constitution. If we switch to a more fully Representative Elector, then WI and theoretical Puerto Rico each get one Elector, just as CA and RI would each get one Elector - because each of those would be one State, one member of the Union of States. I'm not really sure if you are seeing the whole picture regarding the States in the compact.

Even a State as lopsided as CA only gave 61% to Hilliary. Compare that to an actual Electoral Landslide, like Reagan winning every State except 1. If you haven't followed, most States are really fairly close to the 50-50 mark, and are more easily flipped than some folk imagine - especially if given a decade or so to shift.

Plus, some people seem to be confused about some nation in North America which supposedly is believed to be a Democracy. On The Other Hand, any reasonable educated person knows that between Mexico and Canada is a Republic called The United States of America.
I forgot to mention that this might be one reason Liberals get so feverish about banning the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, because with the Pledge, each child learns by heart that America is a Republic. There is no word of Democracy in the Pledge.

However, if you are interested in spurring the disenfranchised citizen of these Liberal bastions to come out and vote, there is one solution for you to consider.

Partial Elector Allocation version 1:
Maine and Nebraska seem to be doing it. The 2 Electors allotted to the Senate Seats are selected from the winner of the whole Statewide vote tally. But each of the Electors representing the individual Congressional Districts are selected based upon which candidate/Party won the majority within that CD. Assuming I understand that correctly.
Not only would that spur voters to get out and show their strength (CA has 14 GOP Representatives, and could presumably vote in that many Electors, plus perhaps more if Citizens thought their Vote might matter, not being Disenfranchised by all of the Illegal Alien Voters, Fraudulent Voters, and other Democrat cheating practices from LA and San Fran), but this could spur more enthusiastic 3rd Party challenges.
In the past 30 years, I do believe other Parties have won entire Congressional Districts in various States, and would have affected the Electoral College if they had those Electors.

Also, Candidates would be far more interested to visit these locales. Trump might wish to visit a strong GOP place like Orange County CA for donation cash, but he might then detour to hotly contested Congressional Districts which he has a chance of swinging his way, if it meant another EV. As it is now, there is no reason for anybody of the Dems or GOP to visit these places - they won't change the Elector count from that State, and those places don't really generate as much campaign funding as Hollywood or Orange County. Candidates from other Parties do have ample reason to visit such locations which are ignored by the 2 major Parties.

Partial Elector Allocation version 2:
I think I have heard of another system. This one allo

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, June 15, 2019 2:48 AM

Details of Version 2:

ST #R/Cum Trump Liary John Ste McM Total | DTrump Hiliar Joh Ste McM W-I
CA 53/053 31.49 61.48 3.36 2.0 0.3 98.57 | 17/017 33/033 2/2 1/1 0/0
TX 38/089 52.10 43.12 3.15 0.8 0.5 99.66 | 17/034 16/049 1/3 0/1 0/0 2/2
NY 27/116 36.51 59.00 2.29 1.4 n/a 99.20 | 10/044 16/065 1/4 0/1 0/0 0/2
FL 27/143 48.60 47.41 2.18 0.7 n/a 98.87 | 13/057 13/078 1/5 0/1 0/0 0/2
IL 18/161 38.36 55.24 3.75 1.4 n/a 97.72 | 07/064 10/088 1/6 0/1 0/0 0/2

PA 18/179 48.17 47.46 2.38 0.8 0.1 98.89 | 09/073 09/097 0/6 0/1 0/0 0/2
OH 16/195 51.31 43.24 3.15 0.8 n/a 98.54 | 08/081 07/104 1/7 0/1 0/0 0/2
MI 14/209 47.25 47.03 3.57 1.1 n/a 98.92 | 07/088 06/110 1/8 0/1 0/0 0/2
GA 14/223 50.44 45.35 3.03 n/a 0.3 99.13 | 07/095 07/117 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/2
NC 13/236 49.83 46.17 2.74 0.3 n/a 99.00 | 07/102 06/123 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/2

NJ 12/248 41.00 54.99 1.86 1.0 n/a 98.81 | 05/107 07/130 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/2
VA 11/259 44.43 49.75 2.97 0.7 1.4 99.20 | 05/112 06/136 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/2
WA 10/269 36.83 52.54 4.85 1.8 n/a 99.17 | 04/116 02/138 0/8 0/1 0/0 4/6
MA 09/278 32.81 60.01 4.15 1.4 n/a 98.40 | 03/119 06/144 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
IN 09/287 56.47 37.46 4.86 0.3 n/a 99.06 | 05/124 04/148 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6

AZ 09/296 48.08 44.58 4.08 1.3 0.7 98.73 | 05/129 04/152 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
TN 09/305 60.72 34.72 2.81 0.6 0.5 99.36 | 06/135 03/155 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
MO 08/313 56.38 37.87 3.44 0.9 0.3 98.84 | 05/140 03/158 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
MD 08/321 33.91 60.33 2.86 1.3 0.4 98.73 | 03/143 05/163 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
WI 08/329 47.22 46.45 3.58 1.0 0.4 98.69 | 04/147 04/167 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6

MN 08/337 44.93 46.44 3.84 1.8 1.8 98.27 | 04/151 04/171 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
CO 07/344 43.25 48.16 5.18 1.4 1.0 99.01 | 03/154 04/175 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
AL 07/351 62.08 34.36 2.09 0.4 n/a 98.98 | 04/158 03/178 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
SC 07/358 54.94 40.67 2.34 0.6 1.0 99.58 | 04/162 03/181 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
LA 06/364 58.09 38.45 1.87 0.7 0.4 99.52 | 04/166 02/183 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6

KY 06/370 62.52 32.68 2.79 0.7 1.2 99.90 | 04/170 02/185 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
OR 05/375 39.09 50.07 4.71 2.5 n/a 96.37 | 02/172 03/188 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
OK 05/380 65.32 28.93 5.75 0.0 0.0 100.0 | 03/175 02/190 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
CT 05/385 40.93 54.57 2.96 1.4 n/a 99.84 | 02/177 03/193 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
IA 04/389 51.15 41.74 3.78 0.7 0.8 98.19 | 02/179 02/195 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6

MS 04/393 57.86 40.06 1.19 0.3 n/a 99.41 | 02/181 02/197 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
AR 04/397 60.57 33.65 2.64 0.8 1.2 98.87 | 03/184 01/198 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
KS 04/401 56.16 35.74 4.64 2.0 0.6 99.05 | 02/186 02/200 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
UT 04/405 45.05 27.17 3.46 0.8 21. 97.82 | 02/188 01/201 0/8 0/1 1/1 0/6
NV 04/409 45.50 47.92 3.32 n/a n/a 96.74 | 02/190 02/203 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6

NM 03/412 40.04 48.26 9.34 1.2 0.7 99.60 | 01/191 02/205 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
WV 03/415 67.85 26.18 3.19 1.1 n/a 98.33 | 02/193 01/206 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
NE 03/418 58.75 33.70 4.61 1.0 n/a 98.10 | 02/195 01/207 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
ID 02/420 59.25 27.48 4.10 1.2 6.7 98.80 | 02/197 01/208 0/8 0/1 0/0 0/6
HI 02/422 30.04 62.22 3.72 3.0 0.0 98.95 | 00/197 01/209 0/8 0/1 0/1 1/7

ME 02/424 44.87 47.83 5.09 1.9 0.3 99.95 | 01/198 01/210 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7
NH 02/426 46.46 46.83 4.14 0.9 n/a 98.30 | 01/199 01/211 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7
RI 02/428 38.90 54.41 3.18 1.3 n/a 97.83 | 01/200 01/212 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7
MT 01/429 55.65 35.41 5.59 1.6 0.5 98.70 | 01/201 00/212 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7
DE 01/430 41.71 53.09 3.33 1.4 n/a 99.50 | 00/201 01/213 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7

SD 01/431 61.53 31.74 5.63 0.0 0.0 98.90 | 01/202 00/213 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7
AK 01/432 51.28 36.55 5.88 1.8 n/a 95.51 | 01/203 00/213 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7
ND 01/433 62.96 27.23 6.22 1.1 n/a 97.50 | 01/204 00/213 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7
VT 01/434 30.27 56.68 3.20 2.1 n/a 92.29 | 00/204 01/214 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7
WY 01/435 68.17 22.88 5.19 1.0 n/a 96.22 | 01/205 00/214 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7

DC 03/438 04.09 90.86 1.58 1.4 n/a 97.90 | 00/205 03/217 0/8 0/1 0/1 0/7

T 438/438 |

That is for the House representative Electors.
For the Senate representative Electors, Trump won 30 States for 60 Electors, Hilliary was gra

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 15, 2019 4:42 AM

Who are you referring to?

Also, I don't see any reason that another thread needed to be made about the topic.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, June 16, 2019 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Also, I don't see any reason that another thread needed to be made about the topic.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I did foresee a reason. Therefore I started this one, to limit confusion.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, June 18, 2019 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Version 1, copying how Nebraska and Maine do it.
The House members Elected in 2016 were 194 Dem, 241 GOP. If we were to assume these Congressional Districts also voted for Hilliary and Trump along the same lines (which are assuredly not the actual case in every instance), then this would be the Electoral tally from the State Representative portion. Add 3 from DC to Hilliary, and 60 to Trump for the 30 States he won, 40 to Hilliary for the 20 States she won, and the Electoral Vote total would have been 301 Trump, and 237 Hilliary.

Known exceptions to Congressional Districts which voted for Rep and President of the same Party:

Voted for Dem Rep, but also Trump:
PA-17,
MN-1, -8,
NH-1,
NV-3.

Voted for GOP Rep, but also Hilliary:
WA-8,
VA-10,
TX-7, -32,
PA-1
NJ-7,
MN-3,
KS-3,
IL-6,
FL-26, -27,
CA-10, -25, -39, -45, -48, -49,
AZ-2,
CO-6.

Confirmed all CDs voted the same Party:
UT - All.
NV-4,
IA-1, -3,
KS-2,
KY-6,
MI-8, -11,
MN-2,
NC-9,
NJ-3, -11,
NM - ALL 3,
NY-19, -22,
OH-1,
VA-2, -7.

So far, that adds up to Trump 287, Hilliary 251. 2 of Trump's Electors did not vote for him, and same for 5 of Hilliary's Electors, making it 285 Trump, 246 Hilliary.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:33 AM

So, summary:

Version 3, Allocation of Population representative Electors based upon nationwide popular Vote: Trump would get a total of 261 Electoral Votes, Hilliary would get a total of 250 Electoral Votes, Johnson would get 14 Electors, Stein would get 5 Electors, and McMullen would get 2 Electors. Even if the 2 Trump-pledged Electors who went wayward were added, Trump still gets 263. Write-Ins were Sanders, Paul, Kasich, Faith Spotted Eagle, Colin Powell.
With nobody achieving 270 Electoral Votes, the Next President would be decided by the existing Elected House, with each State getting 1 Vote. If each State Delegation followed the results from their State, Trump would get 30 Votes to Hilliary's 20 Votes.

Version 2: Allocation of each State's population representative Electors based upon that State's popular Vote: Totals would be 265 Trump, 257 Hilliary, 8 Johnson, 1 Stein, 1 McMullin, and Write-Ins were 1 Ron Paul, 1 Kasich, 1 Bernie Sanders, 1 Faith Spotted Eagle, 3 Colin Powell.
Since nobody gained 270 Electoral Votes, the Election of President would fall to the House, with 1 Vote per State, and only among those who had received at least 1 Electoral Vote.

Version 1: Allocation of each Congressional District's representative Elector based upon the winner of that CD's Vote: Trump 285, Hilliary 246, Colin Powell 3, Paul 1, Kasich 1, Sanders 1, Faith Spotted Eagle 1.

As we can see, no 2 versions have the same results. Claiming that one version is the same as a different version of "Popular Vote" would be incorrect, even if the Constitution did not strictly forbid such "popular Vote" Election.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:20 PM

I do not like the idea of the House getting to decide after the election at all.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, June 21, 2019 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I do not like the idea of the House getting to decide after the election at all.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Yeah.
That darn pesky Constitution nuisance. You liberals have despised and hated that Constitution since, like, forever. It's not like it is the Founding Document of the greatest government in human history - if that were the case, then folk from every other Nation on earth would be trying, struggling to immigrate to America, whether legally or Illegally......
Oh, wait.

The closer you get to your wet dream popular Vote, the more it gets shunted to the House Electing the next President - that would be the existing House at the time of the Election.
Looks like 1992 and 1996 would also have been decided by the House. Explaining to the liberals that Newt Gingrich could have saved America from Clinton's 2nd term could be funny to watch.

Plus, remember, each State only gets 1 Vote for President in the House. We could have had Perot.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 21, 2019 5:41 AM

I think there are a few people here who would argue with you about my status as a liberal.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, June 21, 2019 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I think there are a few people here who would argue with you about my status as a liberal.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

You may have heard of the Axiom: Stupid is as Stupid does.

If you are spouting the Libtard mantra, you are fair game to be assumed to be of that ilk.

If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, don't complain if folk call you a duck.

If you post sensible and reasonable thoughts, folk won't be able to confuse you with a Liberal.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 21, 2019 6:18 AM

There are quite a few liberal talking points that I do agree with, sure.

They just don't get much airplay at all these days anymore.

I'm not going to shove myself into a box when there are only two of them. Even if it means I'm going to take insults from either side for not doing so.

Feel free to do so yourself if it makes you feel better though. It's a free country.

While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, June 21, 2019 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Not sure what you mean. Did you read what I've already posted?

What part of the makeup of the House are you referring to?

For instance, CA has about 12 GOP Reps and 40ish Dem Reps. So it would be reasonable to assume that the one Vote in the House that CA gets would be for Hilliary. So what? 30 States were for Trump. 20 States were granted to Hilliary. Which 6 States do you conjure would have Reps agree to Vote for Hilliary if their State Voted for Trump?

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 21, 2019 10:22 AM

Good idea. Republican Presidential candidates would finally get some of that giant number of those now-impossible Ca. and NY electors.

Proportionality! Proportionality! Proportionality!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 21, 2019 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Not sure what you mean. Did you read what I've already posted?

What part of the makeup of the House are you referring to?

For instance, CA has about 12 GOP Reps and 40ish Dem Reps. So it would be reasonable to assume that the one Vote in the House that CA gets would be for Hilliary. So what? 30 States were for Trump. 20 States were granted to Hilliary. Which 6 States do you conjure would have Reps agrtee to Vote for Hilliary is their State

That's today. What about tomorrow?

I mean, the Democrats of 2019 seem to think it's a great idea to take in refugees from all over the goddamned world and plant them in every city in every state in the country and give them free education, healthcare and universal basic income that none of it's tax paying citizens are entitled to so they all vote Democrat in return.

I'd also like to point out that you insulting me by calling me a Liberal is the exact reason why I thought you starting a new topic on the same issue that I had already started was a bad idea. It strips away all context of what I had previously said about anything and when I don't jump right on board with one of you're ideas you can insult me because of it.

But the insult doesn't stick when you put context back into it and see that the original topic of my thread on the exact same topic was "Boo Hoo, No Popular Vote For You", and that I'm obviously not on board at all with the idea of a popular vote.

Rather disingenuous of you to ignore that fact.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, June 22, 2019 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Not sure what you mean. Did you read what I've already posted?

What part of the makeup of the House are you referring to?

For instance, CA has about 12 GOP Reps and 40ish Dem Reps. So it would be reasonable to assume that the one Vote in the House that CA gets would be for Hilliary. So what? 30 States were for Trump. 20 States were granted to Hilliary. Which 6 States do you conjure would have Reps agrtee to Vote for Hilliary is their State
That's today. What about tomorrow?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

What or how do you envision the situation will change in the future?

In what scenario will the State Delegation in The House decide to vote opposite what the Voters of their State voted?
Or, in what scenario will the State Delegation in The House decide to Vote for the Liberal candidates when the State Voters voted for the Conservative candidate?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, June 22, 2019 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Not sure what you mean. Did you read what I've already posted?

What part of the makeup of the House are you referring to?

For instance, CA has about 12 GOP Reps and 40ish Dem Reps. So it would be reasonable to assume that the one Vote in the House that CA gets would be for Hilliary. So what? 30 States were for Trump. 20 States were granted to Hilliary. Which 6 States do you conjure would have Reps agree to Vote for Hilliary if their State Voted for Trump?

Although, this did give me an idea of something further to look into.

Which States would be most likely to have the State Delegation in The House vote opposite of the way their State awarded their Electors?

Let's look at the States which had no candidate win a majority of Votes.

We might think of this as an "anti-" sentiment tally: who voted against Hilliary vs. who voted against Trump.
It seems reasonable to consider the Liberal Green Party to be more akin to Hilliary than Trump. And we might consider that former Republican Johnson could be more conservative than Hilliary, and could be grouped with Trump, as well a McMullin and Constitution Party.

ST Cnsrv Librl

Hilliary States:
NH 51.50 47.70
MA 50.30 49.70
NM 50.10 49.50
NV 48.84 47.92 (1D, 3R)
CO 49.89 49.54 (3D, 4R)
MN 50.60 48.20

Trump States:
FL 50.80 48.10
PA 50.70 48.30
MI 50.82 48.10
NC 52.57 46.50
AZ 52.90 45.90
WI 51.20 47.50

So, of the 6 States that Trump won without a majority Vote, there was a clear majority voting for more Conservative candidates (or Anti-Hilliary) compared to those voting for more Liberal candidates (or Anti-Trump), in every State. Seems unlikely Trump would have lost any of these States in a House Election of President.

But, of the 6 States that were granted to Hilliary, every one of them had more Votes for more Conservative candidates (Anti-Hilliary) than Votes for more Liberal candidates (Anti-Trump). And 4 of them scored a clear majority.
Seems that it could be more likely that Hilliary loses some or all of these 6 States if the House were to have Elected the President in 2016.
So the House Election of the President could have been Trump 36, Hilliary 14 instead of Trump 30, Hilliary 20.

Any of those States you think would not conform in this way?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, June 22, 2019 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
While you're mulling that one over, maybe take some time to contemplate how the House voting for president in 2 of your scenarios could go terribly wrong because of the bias of whatever the current makeup of the House is at the time of the vote.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Not sure what you mean. Did you read what I've already posted?

What part of the makeup of the House are you referring to?

For instance, CA has about 12 GOP Reps and 40ish Dem Reps. So it would be reasonable to assume that the one Vote in the House that CA gets would be for Hilliary. So what? 30 States were for Trump. 20 States were granted to Hilliary. Which 6 States do you conjure would have Reps agrtee to Vote for Hilliary is their State
That's today. What about tomorrow?

Do Right, Be Right. :)
What or how do you envision the situation will change in the future?

Read the rest of the post that you dropped off when you quoted it for that answer.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, June 23, 2019 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'd also like to point out that you insulting me by calling me a Liberal is the exact reason why I thought you starting a new topic on the same issue that I had already started was a bad idea. It strips away all context of what I had previously said about anything and when I don't jump right on board with one of you're ideas you can insult me because of it.

But the insult doesn't stick when you put context back into it and see that the original topic of my thread on the exact same topic was "Boo Hoo, No Popular Vote For You", and that I'm obviously not on board at all with the idea of a popular vote.

Rather disingenuous of you to ignore that fact.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Yesterday you seemed to be ticked off due to your work, so I delayed a cooling off period to respond.

I did not start a new thread to call you a liberal. It was 6 days after I started this thread before you posted the standard Libtard claim that The Constitution is a terrible Document and should be shredded because they don't agree with it.

I started this thread so I could "run the numbers" to see how the different systems would result in different outcomes, instead of relying upon your silly assertions that they would all be the same. Due to my inability to readily login, it took me 5 days of constructing the posts before I had some coherent results. I did not want random tangential posts to interrupt the points I wanted to make, as would have continued to happen in that other thread, where you kept saying that every possible application of potential laws would result in the same outcome as any other possibility.

Sorry to get your panties in a bind that this isn't all about you.