North Korea threatens to withdraw from summit with Trump

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2018, 04:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We don't know. There are too many variables to make a good estimate.

I'll ask one question to you:

Which is more relevant to a discussion of popular opinion, the popular vote total or the Electoral College results?

(05-16-2018, 05:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In the real world we give no merit to the electoral college when talking about public opinion.  Instead we only use it for Presidential elections.

Why not step out of the right-wing echo chamber and into our real world for a while.

Neither is relevant when talking about public opinion as that is not the purpose of the Presidential Election. I've already provided a personal example of how the numbers would have been different and who knows how many people in states that were not in question would have actually voted if they thought it mattered.

I have not heard this Point of View mentioned in any "echo chamber", but it does appear I am seeing one here. But, yeah let me step out into the real world and you guys keep bringing up moot points.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2018, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Neither is relevant when talking about public opinion as that is not the purpose of the Presidential Election.

And since we are talking about public opinion then there is no need to bring up the electoral college.

Go back and read this discussion instead of carrying on about how the electoral college determines how popular certain positions are with the general public.

[*Nately120*]

Lucie used the results of the presidential election to infer the social viewpoints of the majority of the population.

This is all getting into "alternate fact" territory here.

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2018, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Neither is relevant when talking about public opinion as that is not the purpose of the Presidential Election. I've already provided a personal example of how the numbers would have been different and who knows how many people in states that were not in question would have actually voted if they thought it mattered.

There are three potentially valid answers to my question: popular, electoral, or they are both equally (ir)relevant. There is one correct answer, though, and that is the popular total.

You see, an election is just a measurement of the public opinion. The rules determining winners and losers are different for the presidential election, but the purpose of an election is for the public to provide their opinion on who will best do the job they are electing them for or for their opinion on a ballot measure. Now, there will never be a +1.0 correlation between an election and the true public opinion, that's impossible. However, the correlation between the public opinion and the popular vote total is a much stronger one than the correlation between public opinion and the EC results. This makes the popular vote results more relevant to the discussion of public opinion.

If the discussion Lucie and I were having about the actual result of the election and the EC numbers, then you would have a sound argument. But our discussion was about public opinion and how it is more liberal than who our elected officials are would have you believe. The fact that the popular vote total has a stronger correlation to public opinion than the EC results is evidence of this and so discussing how Clinton received more individual votes in election is highly relevant to the argument.

This doesn't require extensive knowledge in political science or statistics to understand.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2018, 05:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  But, yeah let me step out into the real world and you guys keep bringing up moot points.

When discussing public opinion the electoral college is a moot point.

[*Nately120*]

I've heard people credit Trump winning the election as a sign that the American public is (insert a number of things here).

So quick math...

325 million Americans, about 60% of people bothered to vote so that's 195 million votes, 63 million of which voted for Trump and 66 million voted for Clinton. So 19% of Americans actively voted for Trump and 20% actively voted for Clinton. If we just use actual votes the it's about 137 million total votes which means about 48% for Clinton and about 46% for Trump.

So, depending on how you look at it, either 19% or 46% of people voted for Trump...either way, those numbers aren't ringing endorsements that America is clearly sick of being PC or sick of immigrants, or sick of democrats, or whatever people like to claim based upon Trump being in the White House.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2018, 05:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When discussing public opinion the electoral college is a moot point.

Agreed 100%

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2018, 05:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I've heard people credit Trump winning the election as a sign that the American public is (insert a number of things here).

So quick math...

325 million Americans, about 60% of people bothered to vote so that's 195 million votes, 63 million of which voted for Trump and 66 million voted for Clinton. So 19% of Americans actively voted for Trump and 20% actively voted for Clinton. If we just use actual votes the it's about 137 million total votes which means about 48% for Clinton and about 46% for Trump.

So, depending on how you look at it, either 19% or 46% of people voted for Trump...either way, those numbers aren't ringing endorsements that America is clearly sick of being PC or sick of immigrants, or sick of democrats, or whatever people like to claim based upon Trump being in the White House.

I could get a lot more into this and discuss how in 2016 voters that tend to vote Democratic were less enthusiastic and so they voted in lower rates than those that tend to vote Republican. But we have gotten far enough of topic in this thread.

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2018, 05:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Agreed 100%

So then why did you start this whole thing to begin with? That was what started us down this path, Lucie trying to say the Electoral College was an indicator of public opinion.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2018, 05:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are three potentially valid answers to my question: popular, electoral, or they are both equally (ir)relevant. There is one correct answer, though, and that is the popular total.

You see, an election is just a measurement of the public opinion. The rules determining winners and losers are different for the presidential election, but the purpose of an election is for the public to provide their opinion on who will best do the job they are electing them for or for their opinion on a ballot measure. Now, there will never be a +1.0 correlation between an election and the true public opinion, that's impossible. However, the correlation between the public opinion and the popular vote total is a much stronger one than the correlation between public opinion and the EC results. This makes the popular vote results more relevant to the discussion of public opinion.

If the discussion Lucie and I were having about the actual result of the election and the EC numbers, then you would have a sound argument. But our discussion was about public opinion and how it is more liberal than who our elected officials are would have you believe. The fact that the popular vote total has a stronger correlation to public opinion than the EC results is evidence of this and so discussing how Clinton received more individual votes in election is highly relevant to the argument.

This doesn't require extensive knowledge in political science or statistics to understand.

And I gave you an answer: equally.

But you go with what you deem is the correct one and assert that a dynamic never intended to be used is more relevant than one that is. You can also further assert that she received her votes because the population that voted with her did so solely because they agreed with her stance on policy.

You are the one that introduced this irrelevant conclusion and it doesn't require extensive knowledge in emotional intelligence to understand. 

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But you go with what you deem is the correct one and assert that a dynamic never intended to be used is more relevant than one that is.

Which "dynamic" was never intended to be used?

And used for what?

[GMDino]

(05-16-2018, 05:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So then why did you start this whole thing to begin with? That was what started us down this path, Lucie trying to say the Electoral College was an indicator of public opinion.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2018, 05:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Which "dynamic" was never intended to be used?

And used for what?

Popular vote was never intended to be used to elect POTUS. Some folks know this and perhaps choose not to vote in a state that they knew was going to be blue or red. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2018, 05:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So then why did you start this whole thing to begin with? That was what started us down this path, Lucie trying to say the Electoral College was an indicator of public opinion.

It was in reply to assertion that the Popular votes in a Presidential Election indicates which policies are wanted more.

Seems one party controlling every branch of government would count for something. 

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2018, 05:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Popular vote was never intended to be used to elect POTUS. Some folks know this and perhaps choose not to vote in a state that they knew was going to be blue or red. 

And we were not talking about electing a President.  We were talking about public opinion.

So what is your point?

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2018, 06:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And we were not talking about electing a President.  We were talking about public opinion.

So what is your point?

The point is the Presidential Election's purpose is not that of a popular opinion poll, so why try to use it as such? 

Sorta like Team A beats Team B in a football game. But team B had more yards and so you look at yards as determining which team was better. 

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2018, 06:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The point is the Presidential Election's purpose is not that of a popular opinion poll, so why try to use it as such? 

Tell that to Lucie.  He was the one trying to make the argument that the electoral college measures public opinion..

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2018, 06:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Tell that to Lucie.  He was the one trying to make the argument that the electoral college measures public opinion..

Hey Lucie, electoral college does not measure public opinion. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I gave you an answer: equally.

I know you did. I'm saying you are wrong.

(05-16-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But you go with what you deem is the correct one and assert that a dynamic never intended to be used is more relevant than one that is. You can also further assert that she received her votes because the population that voted with her did so solely because they agreed with her stance on policy.

It's not what I deem correct. It is the logically sound conclusion.

(05-16-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You are the one that introduced this irrelevant conclusion and it doesn't require extensive knowledge in emotional intelligence to understand. 

Actually, I'm not. Lucie introduced using the presidential election as a measurement of public opinion. He contested that because Trump won running against the policies I discussed, that proved the public did not want them. I was countering his claim that because the popular vote, which has a stronger correlation to public opinion than the EC, did not go to Trump, his claim was not sound.

(05-16-2018, 06:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was in reply to assertion that the Popular votes in a Presidential Election indicates which policies are wanted more.

Seems one party controlling every branch of government would count for something. 

That was not my assertion. My assertion is that the popular vote has a stronger correlation to popular opinion than the winner via the EC. That is a fact.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2018, 06:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know you did. I'm saying you are wrong.


It's not what I deem correct. It is the logically sound conclusion.


Actually, I'm not. Lucie introduced using the presidential election as a measurement of public opinion. He contested that because Trump won running against the policies I discussed, that proved the public did not want them. I was countering his claim that because the popular vote, which has a stronger correlation to public opinion than the EC, did not go to Trump, his claim was not sound.


That was not my assertion. My assertion is that the popular vote has a stronger correlation to popular opinion than the winner via the EC. That is a fact.

Of course you're saying I'm wrong.

I have pointed out numerous times how your conclusion is irrelevant and falls into a common fallacy.

One of you are not "more wrong" than the other; You are both wrong in your conclusions.

Neither has a stronger correlation.

But enough, My apologies to Zona.