On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 23:22:04 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

>He's been in two elections and lost the popular vote in both of them.
>
>Trump is a loser.

Justin Trudeau was 'won' 3 elections and lost the popular vote in #2
and #3.

On 4/8/24 5:47 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 23:22:04 -0400, Governor Swill
> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He's been in two elections and lost the popular vote in both of them.
>>
>> Trump is a loser.
>
> Justin Trudeau was 'won' 3 elections and lost the popular vote in #2
> and #3.
>

Apples and oranges. We vote for a candidate for President.
Do you?

No, you do not vote for your Prime Minister. Your party chooses him (or
her). Entirely different systems.
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 10:35:45 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/24 5:47 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 23:22:04 -0400, Governor Swill
>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> He's been in two elections and lost the popular vote in both of them.
>>>
>>> Trump is a loser.
>>
>> Justin Trudeau was 'won' 3 elections and lost the popular vote in #2
>> and #3.
>>
>
>Apples and oranges. We vote for a candidate for President.
>Do you?
>
>No, you do not vote for your Prime Minister. Your party chooses him (or
>her). Entirely different systems.

Would you be happier if I said "and his party lost the popular vote in
the last two federal elections"?

After all there are 338 federal electoral districts in Canada and
there will be more after the electoral redistribution commission gets
done and the new districts implemented. I believe the American term is
"redistricting" (obviously this is House only)

On 4/9/24 1:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 10:35:45 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/24 5:47 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 23:22:04 -0400, Governor Swill
>>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He's been in two elections and lost the popular vote in both of them.
>>>>
>>>> Trump is a loser.
>>>
>>> Justin Trudeau was 'won' 3 elections and lost the popular vote in #2
>>> and #3.
>>>
>>
>> Apples and oranges. We vote for a candidate for President.
>> Do you?
>>
>> No, you do not vote for your Prime Minister. Your party chooses him (or
>> her). Entirely different systems.
>
> Would you be happier if I said "and his party lost the popular vote in
> the last two federal elections"?
>
> After all there are 338 federal electoral districts in Canada and
> there will be more after the electoral redistribution commission gets
> done and the new districts implemented. I believe the American term is
> "redistricting" (obviously this is House only)
>

Our system is pretty unique. You can win more votes and still lose.
Show me another Democracy that does that.

Show me any other system of government that awards the office to the one
with less votes.

Or sport... unless we're talking maybe golf. But even there, the
better man wins because the idea is to do something with less attempts.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:07:32 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>Our system is pretty unique. You can win more votes and still lose.
>Show me another Democracy that does that.

Canada for one - 2 of the last 3 elections have put a party in power
without a plurality in the votes. (2019 and 2021)

It's theoretically possible in ANY jurisdiction where you have local
elections for seats and one party wins each district by a differing
number of votes - for instance if one party wins by margins of 50000+
votes in their districts and loses by margins of 1000 in other
districts, if there are more districts they lose they win they can
easily have more votes but less seats.

This can even happen in countries with proportional representation
systems when the seats are proportionally distributed by state. (Or in
Germany where this happened by 'lander' which is effectively the same
thing)

The United States is by no means unique in this respect.

In article <uv8ubk$1o5ae$10@dont-email.me>, fredp1571@gmail.com wrote:

>Our system is pretty unique. You can win more votes and still lose.
>Show me another Democracy that does that.

How strange that you only whine about it when you lose, eh?

Selected outrage noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to
make.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 4/11/24 3:30 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:07:32 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Our system is pretty unique. You can win more votes and still lose.
>> Show me another Democracy that does that.
>
> Canada for one - 2 of the last 3 elections have put a party in power
> without a plurality in the votes. (2019 and 2021)
>
> It's theoretically possible in ANY jurisdiction where you have local
> elections for seats and one party wins each district by a differing
> number of votes - for instance if one party wins by margins of 50000+
> votes in their districts and loses by margins of 1000 in other
> districts, if there are more districts they lose they win they can
> easily have more votes but less seats.
>
> This can even happen in countries with proportional representation
> systems when the seats are proportionally distributed by state. (Or in
> Germany where this happened by 'lander' which is effectively the same
> thing)
>
> The United States is by no means unique in this respect.
>

So did the side that got LESS votes take power? Cuz that's what happens
here, fairly frequently.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 4/11/24 3:30 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:07:32 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Our system is pretty unique. You can win more votes and still lose.
>> Show me another Democracy that does that.
>
> Canada for one - 2 of the last 3 elections have put a party in power
> without a plurality in the votes. (2019 and 2021)
>
> It's theoretically possible in ANY jurisdiction where you have local
> elections for seats and one party wins each district by a differing
> number of votes - for instance if one party wins by margins of 50000+
> votes in their districts and loses by margins of 1000 in other
> districts, if there are more districts they lose they win they can
> easily have more votes but less seats.
>
> This can even happen in countries with proportional representation
> systems when the seats are proportionally distributed by state. (Or in
> Germany where this happened by 'lander' which is effectively the same
> thing)
>
> The United States is by no means unique in this respect.
>

Plurality works here too. That's how Clinton won.

But this isn't that. This is the guy who gets LESS votes than his
opponent taking office.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:52:16 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>> This can even happen in countries with proportional representation
>> systems when the seats are proportionally distributed by state. (Or in
>> Germany where this happened by 'lander' which is effectively the same
>> thing)
>>
>> The United States is by no means unique in this respect.
>>
>
>So did the side that got LESS votes take power? Cuz that's what happens
>here, fairly frequently.
>
It's mathematically possible in ANY system that does not have a
nation-wide vote but rather elects representatives by some
sub-national area like congressional districts. Even as demonstrated
in that German example of proportional representation by state or
province.

And yes - Justin Trudeau has had a plurality of seats three times
(which allegedly is a 'win') but only got a plurality of votes once -
and the last two times didn't get to 35% of the national vote.

Rhino has quoted polls suggesting the winning party in the next
election is likely to get dramatically more than that.

On 4/12/24 7:21 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <uv8ubk$1o5ae$10@dont-email.me>, fredp1571@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Our system is pretty unique. You can win more votes and still lose.
>> Show me another Democracy that does that.
>
> How strange that you only whine about it when you lose, eh?
>
> Selected outrage

You misspelled "selective" you stupid worthless mothefucker. Selective
idiocy noted.

noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to
> make.
>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>

On 4/13/2024 4:33 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 4/12/24 7:21 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <uv8ubk$1o5ae$10@dont-email.me>, fredp1571@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Our system is pretty unique.  You can win more votes and still lose.
>>> Show me another Democracy that does that.
>>
>> How strange that you only whine about it when you lose, eh?
>>
>> Selected outrage
>
>
> You misspelled "selective" you stupid worthless mothefucker.  Selective
> idiocy noted.

Maybe the outrage was epicurean, chosen for its nose and body...