no one ... with / no one ... without

enti

2 F2 S7 b% @1 }- `: p$ T. `1 z
The Electoral College was created by the framers of the United States Constitution as the result of a compromise for the presidential election process. During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election was reckless, as it might lead to the election of each state’s favorite son and no one would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country. Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose. After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature. Shouldn’t they also choose their president? The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
3 Y) w# @" J$ ]+ {9 S; k
no one would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country =  no one would emerge without sufficient popular majority

我能理解为这两句话是相等的么？ “没人能以绝对优势获胜”

ichliebees

你不问我到还明白，你一问我倒糊涂了。
no one would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country   在原文中是在描述一种可能客观存在的情形，即：如果普选，各州都会选自己州的人，结果就是50个候选人，没有一个能以绝对多数胜出。
但no one would emerge without sufficient popular majority to govern the country
! B! T  `* e% h. e4 {& {就是一句纯粹正确的废话了，只有你需要援引法律时才这样说：‘’法律规定：不赢绝对多数，绝对无法当选。‘’

流星冲击

with是伴随有的状态
without是伴随无的状态
9 h& H8 w7 w, B: t2 A( C  r0 y' [也就是说，with是“没人能以绝对优势获胜”，without是“没人能以劣势获胜”。
% P- K& E/ T: S: c+ d两句话意思不同。

enti

对哦，我想岔了。感谢回复

万德熊

这种贴子，好。我百分之百☞顶。

enti

额， popular majority应该是普选票吧，sufficient是足够的，我找不到合适的词就写了个 “绝对优势”，窘