Fortunately, we have the electoral college, so the millions of "popular votes" which come from the fake registrations in blue cities, aren't usually enough to overcome the EC. In 2020, they had to cheat on for weeks to overcome the margin of victory, and even then, they had to stomp on the 1A to keep the lid just partially on their fraud.
As one living (fourth generation) on the Northern California coast, I can assure you that there hasn't been a clean election here in over two decades.
We in Commiefornia are not as stupid and left as the press seems to intone. That Californians have accepted the idiotic democrat narrative bespeaks two problems:
1). A lying press
2.) An ignorant, TV watching, lazy as hell, 'electorate'.
That democratic operatives were buoyed at the idea that "we are going to win, no matter what" prior to the last election (See Project Veritas files) belies the false nature of elections in this state, indeed, in the country.
Government Quislings are all-in, and they have to be, since the other option is to return to a functioning society and judicial system, where they all go to prison, or for some, to the, hopefully, reinstated gallows.
I’m a 3rd generation California native (raised in SF). You are 100% correct. Damn…I remember when Commifornia was red, not that it matters. The Communists wanted CA for the 55 Electoral College votes. The Communist take over was/is very methodical in my humble opinion.
Bingo. There hasn't been a clean election in New York state, basically forever. The election process in New York state is a big 'ol dumpster fire. I haven't voted in over 30 years. I will not prop up the shame election system.
That's actually a common way to select presidents and PMs. It is far worse in Canada whereby Trudeau can become PM with <30% of public support. People seem to think a direct plurality FPTP system is the norm. It isn't. Even in France they use a run-off system.
The French 2-tier system is totally rigged so that the establishment candidate always wins the first round, along with the far-right candidate. And there have been some very suspicious irregularities even in the second round runoff the last two elections, with many millions of paper ballots being disqualified for "rips" (hanging chads, anyone?), which always seem to occur in the exact same place, as if made by machines, and have overwhelmingly been for the opposition candidate. (I live in France.)
Yes it is a dumb way to do a Presidential Election. It would be a whole lot better just to use a Ranked Choice Ballot and do the whole process in one day with all citizens able to vote for their preferred candidate(s). Not the two who FLUKE there way to the top 2 positions in a first ballot.
I assume you're being ironic. It's never a fluke, at least not in recent history. The grand guignol 5-year version of dog-and-pony has been ongoing since before the turn of the millennium--though at least, back then, the establishment candidate was far more acceptable than today. I remember almost with tears Villepin's eloquent antiwar speech at the UN, France's last noble, independent moment on the world stage. Since then it's been plain ignominy, vassalage to the "worst of the worst" stoking the empty engines of a desperate empire while strutting ignobly to the jeers of the global south. They will fall hard, but are by now so small that the thud will not run so deep.
I don't know the details of what has been happening in French elections. I'm just talking about the two ballot system they use is largely a statistical fluke method. You have 8 candidates with various degrees of support, vote splitting everywhere, it is a statistical fluke who comes out on the top 2. Certainly not the 2 most popular candidates.
But, aside from the possible cheating, what I'm saying, in fact, is that the two-tier system is designed to favor the establishment candidate, by sapping votes from potential viable challengers in the first round. They let everyone and their dog who scrape together 50,000 signatures by mayors around the country (and every last backwater village in France has a useless mayor) run for president in the first round. And thus there are always a raft of ridiculous nobodies draining votes away from the most prominent challengers, while the establishment candidate, in the first round, never has to face any similar threat, as there is never anyone from roughly the same political camp attempting to do the same. This system, for example, has prevented the dissident left leader (and NATO and EU skeptic) Jean-Luc Melenchon from surviving the first round in the last several elections, always losing by just 1 or 2 points, which means that without the clown show of leftist losers siphoning off his votes, he would have been a shoo-in to make the second round, AND, if you took all those rinky-dink left-wing votes together with the former Socialist votes and threw them in to his pot, he would have easily won the second round and been president of France, since his proposed policies best represent the largest consensus of the French populace, at least over the past 10-odd years.
Yes, definitely an idiotic system. Pretense of being run-off voting or ranked choice but actually being a version of FPTP. Ranked Choice is the way to go, then you will get the candidate who has broad public support. We have similar problems with the FPTP system, easiest way to win is to finance a candidate to split votes from your main rival. They've even gone so far to get some schlock candidate with the same name as your rival. Just ridiculous.
I dont have a problem with it, just making the point he didn't win on votes, he won because the way the electoral college works out, he was able to beat the cities.
If they had used the Ranked Choice ballot and Trump picked up Libertarians and probably half the Greens, then Trump would have won the popular vote. Is another way to look at it.
Sorry, but I believe DJT won because millions actually voted for him and very few wanted HRC. I only know a handful of people who didn't vote for him.
I'm honestly surprised people are still debating like we have secure elections. They've been rigged for decades.
You do know he lost the popular vote by millions?
Fortunately, we have the electoral college, so the millions of "popular votes" which come from the fake registrations in blue cities, aren't usually enough to overcome the EC. In 2020, they had to cheat on for weeks to overcome the margin of victory, and even then, they had to stomp on the 1A to keep the lid just partially on their fraud.
by the leftist millions on the coasts where most of the population is. not inland.
As one living (fourth generation) on the Northern California coast, I can assure you that there hasn't been a clean election here in over two decades.
We in Commiefornia are not as stupid and left as the press seems to intone. That Californians have accepted the idiotic democrat narrative bespeaks two problems:
1). A lying press
2.) An ignorant, TV watching, lazy as hell, 'electorate'.
That democratic operatives were buoyed at the idea that "we are going to win, no matter what" prior to the last election (See Project Veritas files) belies the false nature of elections in this state, indeed, in the country.
Government Quislings are all-in, and they have to be, since the other option is to return to a functioning society and judicial system, where they all go to prison, or for some, to the, hopefully, reinstated gallows.
I’m a 3rd generation California native (raised in SF). You are 100% correct. Damn…I remember when Commifornia was red, not that it matters. The Communists wanted CA for the 55 Electoral College votes. The Communist take over was/is very methodical in my humble opinion.
I usually insert Satanic in place of communist, and agree with you 100%.
Why not both?
And how many lives has Communism extinguished?
Oh, but this time it will be different, right????
Bingo. There hasn't been a clean election in New York state, basically forever. The election process in New York state is a big 'ol dumpster fire. I haven't voted in over 30 years. I will not prop up the shame election system.
That's actually a common way to select presidents and PMs. It is far worse in Canada whereby Trudeau can become PM with <30% of public support. People seem to think a direct plurality FPTP system is the norm. It isn't. Even in France they use a run-off system.
The French 2-tier system is totally rigged so that the establishment candidate always wins the first round, along with the far-right candidate. And there have been some very suspicious irregularities even in the second round runoff the last two elections, with many millions of paper ballots being disqualified for "rips" (hanging chads, anyone?), which always seem to occur in the exact same place, as if made by machines, and have overwhelmingly been for the opposition candidate. (I live in France.)
Yes it is a dumb way to do a Presidential Election. It would be a whole lot better just to use a Ranked Choice Ballot and do the whole process in one day with all citizens able to vote for their preferred candidate(s). Not the two who FLUKE there way to the top 2 positions in a first ballot.
I assume you're being ironic. It's never a fluke, at least not in recent history. The grand guignol 5-year version of dog-and-pony has been ongoing since before the turn of the millennium--though at least, back then, the establishment candidate was far more acceptable than today. I remember almost with tears Villepin's eloquent antiwar speech at the UN, France's last noble, independent moment on the world stage. Since then it's been plain ignominy, vassalage to the "worst of the worst" stoking the empty engines of a desperate empire while strutting ignobly to the jeers of the global south. They will fall hard, but are by now so small that the thud will not run so deep.
I don't know the details of what has been happening in French elections. I'm just talking about the two ballot system they use is largely a statistical fluke method. You have 8 candidates with various degrees of support, vote splitting everywhere, it is a statistical fluke who comes out on the top 2. Certainly not the 2 most popular candidates.
But, aside from the possible cheating, what I'm saying, in fact, is that the two-tier system is designed to favor the establishment candidate, by sapping votes from potential viable challengers in the first round. They let everyone and their dog who scrape together 50,000 signatures by mayors around the country (and every last backwater village in France has a useless mayor) run for president in the first round. And thus there are always a raft of ridiculous nobodies draining votes away from the most prominent challengers, while the establishment candidate, in the first round, never has to face any similar threat, as there is never anyone from roughly the same political camp attempting to do the same. This system, for example, has prevented the dissident left leader (and NATO and EU skeptic) Jean-Luc Melenchon from surviving the first round in the last several elections, always losing by just 1 or 2 points, which means that without the clown show of leftist losers siphoning off his votes, he would have been a shoo-in to make the second round, AND, if you took all those rinky-dink left-wing votes together with the former Socialist votes and threw them in to his pot, he would have easily won the second round and been president of France, since his proposed policies best represent the largest consensus of the French populace, at least over the past 10-odd years.
Yes, definitely an idiotic system. Pretense of being run-off voting or ranked choice but actually being a version of FPTP. Ranked Choice is the way to go, then you will get the candidate who has broad public support. We have similar problems with the FPTP system, easiest way to win is to finance a candidate to split votes from your main rival. They've even gone so far to get some schlock candidate with the same name as your rival. Just ridiculous.
I dont have a problem with it, just making the point he didn't win on votes, he won because the way the electoral college works out, he was able to beat the cities.
If they had used the Ranked Choice ballot and Trump picked up Libertarians and probably half the Greens, then Trump would have won the popular vote. Is another way to look at it.
Yeah, I agree with that, I haven't made a final decision on ranked choice voting, but I think overall he was more favorable.
I had heard that but I don't believe that.