Oprah?

Information and ideas that aren't about baseball, but that you think the community would appreciate, go here.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Edgy MD » Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:12 pm

User avatar
Edgy MD
Rube Walker — Pitching Coach, 1968–1981

Posts: 90767
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 2:03 pm
Location: Baltimore
Nymr83 wrote:Its a "flaw" because there ia no runoff or instant runoff where you need 50% to win.

So, under the current system, there is downside to a 3rd party if it takes away from your "2nd choice" who is more viable.

A fairer system would indeed let everyone run, but would re-allocate votes as your preferred candidate was the lowest ranked and keep doing that until someone hit 50%. Of course, this would require the same voters who cant figure out the current ballots to figure out how to rank choices. Many would end up fuckung up.

I don't think deriding the ignorance of the electorate is going to get us to a more just system. I certainly think flawed ballots are a gross minority. And if we can honorably work together on clear balloting procedures, all the better. The better angels of our nature aren't dead, they're just waiting for us to get offline.

By the way, having come of age in a state with levers (New York), and then moving on to the District of Columbia and stylus machines, and then to Maryland where we fill in circles or boxes with pencils like we're taking the SAT, I messed up my ballot in 2016. I went to the supervisor, got a big eyeroll, but she walked me through how to negate my ballot and then gave me another one. Sorry, man, I only do it once every year or two.

My wife is a cynic and hadn't voted in a while. The prospect of a then-prospective President Trump got her motivated and to the polls though.
I'll be your patron saint of heartbreak.

Re: Oprah?

Postby 41Forever » Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:50 pm

User avatar
41Forever
376) Al Moran, SS, 3B, 1963-1964

Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:49 pm
I think a third party candidate siphoning votes from the main party candidates is an indication that voters are unhappy with the choices they've been offered.

Rather than look for more ways to make it more difficult for third party candidates to gain traction, the parties are better off focusing on getting a strong candidate, building a solid platform built on principles and running a good campaign that captures the hearts and minds of voters beyond the base.

If a party is doing those things, then it doesn't matter if there is a third (of fourth or fifth) party candidate. If a Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot or John Anderson is gaining enough steam that the parties are concerned about losing votes, then the parties need to take a hard look at what they are saying and doing.

Re: Oprah?

Postby d'Kong76 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:54 pm

User avatar
d'Kong76
David Arthur Kingman, 1B-OF-3B 1975-1977, 1981-1983

Posts: 19251
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Glutenville, NY
41Forever wrote:Rather than look for more ways to make it more difficult for third party candidates to gain traction, the parties are better off focusing on getting a strong candidate, building a solid platform built on principles and running a good campaign that captures the hearts and minds of voters beyond the base.

*sigh*

Re: Oprah?

Postby Edgy MD » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:11 pm

User avatar
Edgy MD
Rube Walker — Pitching Coach, 1968–1981

Posts: 90767
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 2:03 pm
Location: Baltimore
I think building system that allows votes for those third party candidates not to work ironically against the voters' interest is something that we should do not because the mainstream parties are losing votes, but because it is a more just and representative way to run a democratic republic.

Many countries and localities have done this.

I write as a third-party voter, so yes, I was (and usually am) unhappy with the main parties' choices, but I'm further unhappy with the system rigged to work against voting for non-mainstream-party candidates.
I'll be your patron saint of heartbreak.

Re: Oprah?

Postby d'Kong76 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:36 pm

User avatar
d'Kong76
David Arthur Kingman, 1B-OF-3B 1975-1977, 1981-1983

Posts: 19251
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Glutenville, NY
d'Kong76 wrote:*sigh*

I'm sorry, and maybe I'm way off base, but when I read some of this stuff
it's like you're standing at a podium with your arms outstretched reading off
a teleprompter and not really saying anything. It's like text-book politician-
speak. You're one of them. Well on one hand, and then on the other hand,
bbbyyy... Again, I'm sorry.

Re: Oprah?

Postby cooby » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:40 pm

User avatar
cooby
John Milner, OF, 1971-1977 - The Hammer

Posts: 22325
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:02 am
By the way, having come of age in a state with levers (New York), and then moving on to the District of Columbia and stylus machines, and then to Maryland where we fill in circles or boxes with pencils like we're taking the SAT, I messed up my ballot in 2016. I went to the supervisor, got a big eyeroll, but she walked me through how to negate my ballot and then gave me another one. Sorry, man, I only do it once every year or two.
You had to negate a pencil written ballot? You couldn't just tear it up?

Re: Oprah?

Postby 41Forever » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:03 pm

User avatar
41Forever
376) Al Moran, SS, 3B, 1963-1964

Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:49 pm
d'Kong76 wrote:
d'Kong76 wrote:*sigh*

I'm sorry, and maybe I'm way off base, but when I read some of this stuff
it's like you're standing at a podium with your arms outstretched reading off
a teleprompter and not really saying anything. It's like text-book politician-
speak. You're one of them. Well on one hand, and then on the other hand,
bbbyyy... Again, I'm sorry.


No worries -- but I really was saying something (even if lapsing into politispeak). If you keep your own house in order and do the best job, then the competition -- in this case, a third party -- is worried about you and not the other way around! Do a good job with your candidate, message and campaign, and you don't have to worry about other people siphoning off your votes.

Let them all run. The best ideas, in theory, will float to the top.

TelePrompTers suck, by the way!

Re: Oprah?

Postby Frayed Knot » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:14 pm

User avatar
Frayed Knot
Jeff Torborg. Mets Manager, 1992-93

Posts: 42468
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:05 pm
Location: Out in Leftfield
seawolf17 wrote:
Mets Willets Point wrote:If the Democrats don't focus on Congressional elections in 2018 - and thousands of elections for governors and state legislatures - then it's not really going to matter who they nominate for President in 2020.

The singular focus on the Presidency is what got us into this mess in the first place. Between 1992 and 2016 the Dems lost control of Congress (after 60 years in the majority), went from controlling 30 state legislatures to only 11, and from 30 governors to only 18. They need to make it top priority to reverse that trend. Until they make some headway in that area I don't want to hear shit about 2020.


This.


Even more than the parties, the voters need to start paying more attention to local and congressional elections rather than having their entire agenda hang on the question of who has power in the White House at that particular moment.
This applies to both sides of the aisle, btw, although I've long thought that the left, given their general belief in a stronger and more centralized gov't, have been more guilty of this than has the right - particularly in the recent past.

Afraid of Roe v Wade being overturned? - well all that's going to do is kick the question back to the legislative process (where some argue it should have been all along) so do your best to make sure that if and when that does happen that your state has the votes to keep it legal
ACA gets canceled? -- then have a say in what replaces it
gay marriage / marijuana? -- who gives a fuck what DC thinks, elect folks who'll do it (or not do it) anyway!
education? -- you really think Washington bureaucrats can run your kids' community school better than your community can run your community school? Try instead to have a say in how yours is run as opposed to awaiting instructions or standards from up on high, instructions that will probably involve some one-size-fits-all attempt that you won't like anyway.


Ideally, having power that derived from the local on up is how our system was designed in the first place. But there's now been close to a century long trend -- largely kick-started by the Depression/WWII era -- towards looking to the Potomac for all the answers and particularly to the one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the point where even Congress now seems to view itself as subservient to whatever comes out of the oval office.
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Zvon » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:34 am

User avatar
Zvon
Tommie Lee Agee. Mets Centerfielder, 1968-1972.

Posts: 26452
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: New Joysey
Image

This^. And I'm not a fan of much of MacFarlane's work.

Reading this thread I thought: what about the people who work all their lives in the field of politics and dream of getting to the oval office someday?
I still don't exactly know how to phrase my entire thought dealing with this topic but that tweet is pretty darn close.
Every man in America is an authority on baseball.If you don’t believe that, just ask one.Regrettably, most of the knowledge they have was accumulated by about age 12.Much of it is correct;a lot of it is not.~Bill Shannon

Re: Oprah?

Postby Nymr83 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:48 am

User avatar
Nymr83
Bob Murphy, Voice of the Mets, 1962-2003

Posts: 14456
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:18 pm
Reading this thread I thought: what about the people who work all their lives in the field of politics and dream of getting to the oval office someday?
I still don't exactly know how to phrase my entire thought dealing with this topic but that tweet is pretty darn close.


Everyone's mileage will vary. While I don't want a Trump/Oprah, I also don't want an Obama. I want someone with political experience, but not a career politician who has never done other things.
Well, I've got nothing against the bunt, in its place. But most of the time that place is the bottom of a long-forgotten closet. -Earl Weaver

Re: Oprah?

Postby Zvon » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:32 am

User avatar
Zvon
Tommie Lee Agee. Mets Centerfielder, 1968-1972.

Posts: 26452
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: New Joysey
Nymr83 wrote:
Reading this thread I thought: what about the people who work all their lives in the field of politics and dream of getting to the oval office someday?
I still don't exactly know how to phrase my entire thought dealing with this topic but that tweet is pretty darn close.


Everyone's mileage will vary. While I don't want a Trump/Oprah, I also don't want an Obama. I want someone with political experience, but not a career politician who has never done other things.


I get that. IMO the ones who would be worth supporting are the same ones who steer clear of the bigger spotlight. They concentrate more directly on taking care of their constituents.

Some of those break through from time to time, usually because they are pushed into that bigger spotlight by those same constituents, who know the politician is not just lining his pockets or looking out for himself, because they have seen him in action outside of the big spotlight

The internet is going to have to develop an app just for me:
SenseCheck
Every man in America is an authority on baseball.If you don’t believe that, just ask one.Regrettably, most of the knowledge they have was accumulated by about age 12.Much of it is correct;a lot of it is not.~Bill Shannon

Re: Oprah?

Postby metsmarathon » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:39 am

User avatar
metsmarathon
shea stadium's running met

Posts: 11410
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: miles from the start, and miles from the finish
Nymr83 wrote: I want someone with political experience, but not a career politician who has never done other things.


while i understand the sentiment, what that tells me is that, for some kid who comes out of college thinking, "screw talking about change and whining about the world, i'm going to go out there and make it a better damned place from the inside!" who maybe joins his local board of ed, or maybe town council, full of zeal and idealism and ideas and motivation, that that should be held against him as he moves up the ranks for having chosen politics as his career is silly to me.

if you don't want "career politicians" don't vote for candidates for public office who behave as "career politicians". instead vote for those who will be your best representative, and who will execute the office most faithfully to the benefit of their constituency. even if political office has been their career.
the first step is admitting you're a runner.

running is a mental sport, and we're all insane.

"i think that's why the marathon is so addicting. because you always want more." - shalane flanagan

Re: Oprah?

Postby Ceetar » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:51 am

User avatar
Ceetar
Jane Jarvis, Organist, 1964-1979

Posts: 20779
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Moving target: Check Big Apple Brews
metsmarathon wrote:
if you don't want "career politicians" don't vote for candidates for public office who behave as "career politicians". instead vote for those who will be your best representative, and who will execute the office most faithfully to the benefit of their constituency. even if political office has been their career.


Right, we don't mean we don't want guys who have been in politics their entire careers. Mainly what it means is we don't want double-talking manipulators that spew propaganda at us while making decisions with the 3 biggest lobbyists that give them money.

It's true of Trump, at least going in. you could find a large amount of people that dismissed the racism and idiocy as "locker room talk" and "talking off the cuff". Trump is a horrible evil man, but the deficits in Washington that make that approach appealing are still there. Say what you mean and don't be so afraid of screwing up that every statement is carefully crafted to basically say nothing and commit to nothing. I think that's what made Cory Booker appealing locally, just as a better person.

But hell, there are plenty of politicians that get into it because they like being in charge. They like the control. They say they like to serve the public but what they really mean is they like to _direct_ the public. They like to set the course. They're the guy that always offers to drive because he wants to be in control, even though his car is smaller and more cramped.
"Look, would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?"

-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan

Re: Oprah?

Postby batmagadanleadoff » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:39 am

User avatar
batmagadanleadoff
J.P. Ricciardi. Special Assistant to the GM

Posts: 15101
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:47 pm
Edgy MD wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Edgy MD wrote:Which is a horrible flaw in our system that we should be addressing.


What's the flaw? That a 3P candidate takes votes away from a main party candidate?

That the system is built to ensure only two viable parties. That a strong third party candidate generally ends up working against their own purposes, by siphoning off votes from the candidate ideologically closest to him on her, and so strengthening the likelihood that that her or his ideological opposite wins with a minority of support.

I see that as fundamentally flawed, and a system that delivered us a profoundly damaging outcome that doesn't represent a very strong democratic outcome.


But is that a flaw, or simply an immutable feature of the voting process? Elections are zero sum games, aren't they. A vote for candidate "A" is always gonna be a vote that candidate "B" doesn't ever get. I don't see how that can be fixed. And I don't see how that's simply a symptom of our essentially two-party system.

I think the bigger flaw, especially when you're dreaming of elections with more than two candidates with a realistic chance of winning, is that the House gets to determine the president in the event that no candidate wins a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. It's an un-democratic system because the House, theoretically, can choose the candidate with an infinitesimal number of electoral votes. And I'm surprised that that feature hasn't been exploited. The party in control of the House should be running multiple candidates designed to suction votes away from the House minority party to increase the chances that no candidate wins a majority of the electoral votes.

Either a plurality in the electoral college should be enough to win the presidency, or there should be a run-off to ensure that eventually, there is a candidate with at least 270 electoral votes. But this is just one of many fucked up features in our fucked up and un-democratic electoral college system.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Edgy MD » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:04 pm

User avatar
Edgy MD
Rube Walker — Pitching Coach, 1968–1981

Posts: 90767
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 2:03 pm
Location: Baltimore
batmagadanleadoff wrote:But is that a flaw, or simply an immutable feature of the voting process?

I see it as a deep and fundamental flaw, and the presidential disaster is an outcome. And it's just one.

batmagadanleadoff wrote:I don't see how that can be fixed.

There are localities in America and representative liberal democracies all around the world that have fixed it. A few of the potential fixes have been outlined in this thread.
I'll be your patron saint of heartbreak.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Vic Sage » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:06 pm

User avatar
Vic Sage
Tim Leary, failed blue-chip prospect and LSD enthusiast

Posts: 14720
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Hub City, CA
Ashie62 wrote:It is my personal belief that Oprah truly dislikes white people.


and

Islamophobia? I do see extreme Islam as a threat each and every day.


aren't you ever embarrassed by your own bullshit?
"It's not the answers that matter, it's the questions."

Re: Oprah?

Postby batmagadanleadoff » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:42 pm

User avatar
batmagadanleadoff
J.P. Ricciardi. Special Assistant to the GM

Posts: 15101
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:47 pm
Edgy MD wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:But is that a flaw, or simply an immutable feature of the voting process?

I see it as a deep and fundamental flaw, and the presidential disaster is an outcome. And it's just one.

batmagadanleadoff wrote:I don't see how that can be fixed.

There are localities in America and representative liberal democracies all around the world that have fixed it. A few of the potential fixes have been outlined in this thread.


Maybe you could point me to some of these ideas. I don't see how the thing can be fixed. The more candidates, the likelier it is that some of them have overlapping agendas and believe in some of the same things. Ralph Nader, for example, could not have run without inevitably siphoning off many more votes from Gore than from Bush. This isn't fixable.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Ceetar » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:48 pm

User avatar
Ceetar
Jane Jarvis, Organist, 1964-1979

Posts: 20779
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Moving target: Check Big Apple Brews
it's because you're thinking of it as three candidates instead of like, 7.

Some will take from Gore, others will take from Bush, etc. Stein voters 'took' from Hillary and Johnson 'took' from Trump. etc.

But like, what if the ballot had Bernie, Hillary, Stein, Johnson, Jeb, Ryan AND Trump? What happens to all the Trump voters who only showed up to vote against Hillary?
"Look, would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?"

-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan

Re: Oprah?

Postby batmagadanleadoff » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:52 pm

User avatar
batmagadanleadoff
J.P. Ricciardi. Special Assistant to the GM

Posts: 15101
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:47 pm
Ceetar wrote:it's because you're thinking of it as three candidates instead of like, 7.

Some will take from Gore, others will take from Bush, etc. Stein voters 'took' from Hillary and Johnson 'took' from Trump. etc.

But like, what if the ballot had Bernie, Hillary, Stein, Johnson, Jeb, Ryan AND Trump? What happens to all the Trump voters who only showed up to vote against Hillary?


But you'll always have siphoning off, no matter how many candidates there are. Even with those seven candidates, the Bernie Bros would've ended up complaining that they would've gotten more votes but for Hillary running.

Ceetar wrote:But like, what if the ballot had Bernie, Hillary, Stein, Johnson, Jeb, Ryan AND Trump? What happens to all the Trump voters who only showed up to vote against Hillary?


Maybe those voters split their votes between everybody but Trump, diluting their own bloc and giving Trump the presidency anyways.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Ceetar » Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:06 pm

User avatar
Ceetar
Jane Jarvis, Organist, 1964-1979

Posts: 20779
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Moving target: Check Big Apple Brews
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Maybe those voters split their votes between everybody but Trump, diluting their own bloc and giving Trump the presidency anyways.


Primaries hardly analogous to an election, but Hillary got nearly 17 million votes, Bernie 13, Trump 14.

Hillary got more in the real election too. Trump idiots are a minority, and a large part of the problem is simply party line voting because of one-issue things like abortion. You take so much of that out of it by getting rid of the two-party setup and the electoral college.
"Look, would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?"

-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan

Re: Oprah?

Postby batmagadanleadoff » Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:11 pm

User avatar
batmagadanleadoff
J.P. Ricciardi. Special Assistant to the GM

Posts: 15101
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:47 pm
Ceetar wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Maybe those voters split their votes between everybody but Trump, diluting their own bloc and giving Trump the presidency anyways.


Primaries hardly analogous to an election, but Hillary got nearly 17 million votes, Bernie 13, Trump 14.

Hillary got more in the real election too. Trump idiots are a minority, and a large part of the problem is simply party line voting because of one-issue things like abortion. You take so much of that out of it by getting rid of the two-party setup and the electoral college.


I didn't know we were talking about primaries. As for getting rid of the electoral college, that's, unfortunately, a pipe dream that won't happen without some kind of very violent revolutionary revolt.

Re: Oprah?

Postby batmagadanleadoff » Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:32 pm

User avatar
batmagadanleadoff
J.P. Ricciardi. Special Assistant to the GM

Posts: 15101
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:47 pm
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Ceetar wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Maybe those voters split their votes between everybody but Trump, diluting their own bloc and giving Trump the presidency anyways.


Primaries hardly analogous to an election, but Hillary got nearly 17 million votes, Bernie 13, Trump 14.

Hillary got more in the real election too. Trump idiots are a minority, and a large part of the problem is simply party line voting because of one-issue things like abortion. You take so much of that out of it by getting rid of the two-party setup and the electoral college.


I didn't know we were talking about primaries. As for getting rid of the electoral college, that's, unfortunately, a pipe dream that won't happen without some kind of very violent revolutionary revolt.


And besides, if you had seven viable presidential candidates on the ballot, each with a realistic chance of winning the election, which is what you're hoping for, the House would end up picking the president because no candidate would likely receive the 270 minimum electoral votes required to win the election outright. So the crummy un-democratic system we're stuck with for selecting presidents wins again.

Re: Oprah?

Postby Lefty Specialist » Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:38 pm

User avatar
Lefty Specialist
70) Dave Magadan, 1B, 3B, 1986-1991

Posts: 5662
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Location, Location.
Yes, the Electoral College pretty much locks us into a two-party system, even if that wasn't the founders' intention.
Only in today's America can policy be based on the notion that the rich have too little and the poor have too much.

Resistance is not futile. https://www.indivisibleguide.com/indivisible-action

Re: Oprah?

Postby Nymr83 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:32 pm

User avatar
Nymr83
Bob Murphy, Voice of the Mets, 1962-2003

Posts: 14456
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:18 pm
Lefty Specialist wrote:Yes, the Electoral College pretty much locks us into a two-party system, even if that wasn't the founders' intention.


it would actually be WORSE with a winner-take all popular vote, unless a majority was required with run-offs if a majority wasn't met.

In 2017, for example, none of Johnson/Stein/McMullin won an electoral vote, but their combined vote total was twice Hillarys margin over Trump -

not that that margin means anything since nobody can say they know who would have voted, not voted, or voted differently under a different system. voter turnout for example was down over a million voters from 2012, likely a result of two democrats running against each other in the senate race and most house elections in California being forgone conclusions.
Well, I've got nothing against the bunt, in its place. But most of the time that place is the bottom of a long-forgotten closet. -Earl Weaver

Re: Oprah?

Postby Edgy MD » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:38 pm

User avatar
Edgy MD
Rube Walker — Pitching Coach, 1968–1981

Posts: 90767
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 2:03 pm
Location: Baltimore
batmagadanleadoff wrote:Maybe you could point me to some of these ideas.

Really? Because they're more than ideas. They exist in action all over the place.

1. The runoff. If no candidate receives a majority, voters are asked to return a few weeks later and select from the top two. Minority party voters enshrined their conscience in their candidate, without having undermined what they might see as the second-best option, accept that their candidate lost, but then vote again among the top two options.

2. Ranking the candidates. This produces the same outcome as above without the logistical problems and expense and extended campaigning.

3. Gifting your support. In the event of a no majority winner, candidates who have come in third or worse decide which candidate ahead of them they want to support, and their votes are gifted. It's also kind of a cheaper version of the runoff, but it has the downside of putting a losing candidate in the catbird seat, in a position to hold a Dutch auction, and his or her voters may well feel betrayed.

4. Proportional representation. This is more about electing legislatures than executives, but produces an outcome that is much more reflective of the popular sentiment than winner take all. It might seem alien to us, but the Irish have had it since the 20s and are very attached to it.

    States President Trump Won in 2016 Without Getting a Simple Majority of the Vote:
    Arizona
    Florida
    Michigan
    Nebraska (2nd district)
    North Carolina
    Pennsylvania
    Utah
    Wisconsin

    States Secretary Clinton Won in 2016 Without Getting a Simple Majority of the Vote:
    Colorado
    Maine (at-large)
    Minnesota
    Nevada
    New Hampshire
    New Mexico
    Virginia

Put all those states to a run-off, I would imagine that there would be a good or great chance that we'd have a different outcome. In fact, run the election with any of the above first three systems in place, and President Trump would be getting fabulously wealthy right now launching a terrible cable TV network.
I'll be your patron saint of heartbreak.

PreviousNext

Return to The Non-Baseball Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest