History Main / ThatOneRule

23rd Apr '17 4:33:20 PM Adeon
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

* ''Brass'' has the Liverpool-Birkenhead virtual link. It allows a player who has a presence in either Liverpool or Birkenhead to build in the other location using industry cards instead of city cards. While the intent was to make it harder to lock players out of the Port spaces in Liverpool or the Shipyard spaces in both cities it ended up confusing a lot of players. The game's creator later changed the rule so that the virtual link could only be used to build a Shipyard in Birkenhead and in the latest reprint the virtual link was removed entirely since it was generally considered superfluous.
21st Apr '17 5:02:55 AM KayEss
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** However, in major league games, there are two line referees, who move along the side lines of the field, always at a position where they can accurately detect an offside. Communication with the main referee is performed via wireless headset nowadays. (They are also responsible for reporting when the ball leaves the field, and they can also report fouls.)
14th Apr '17 1:51:16 PM Narsil
Is there an issue? Send a Message



%% Per Trope Repair Shop discussion, don't add examples from politics; it'd be a pretty rare political
%% system that only had *one* rule people argued about!



[[folder:Politics: America]]
Politics, like games, generally operates under a system of rules, and in many countries--especially liberal representative democracies--most of the rules are simple enough to be taught to children. However, even the simplest systems can get into a snarl now and then.
* Every amendment after the tenth[[note]]the first ten form the Bill of Rights[[/note]] can be seen as either this trope or an ObviousRulePatch. Many who turn to the Constitution for guidance may find themselves confused by the fact that the Articles as initially written do not align with current practice, with the most famous example being the "three-fifths compromise," which remains in the text despite being later nullified (by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery). Amendments have been passed out of philosophical harmony (e.g., the decision to have Senators directly elected by the people rather than chosen by a state's congress), necessity, as an "undo" function[[note]]Prohibition and its repeal are 18 and 21, respectively[[/note]], and, sometimes, because someone realized that there was no set procedure for a specific issue. The last amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1992 (and first proposed over 200 years prior) and addresses congressional salaries.
** This last amendment has caused a surprising amount of trouble in times of partisan gridlock in the legislature--while it was initially intended to discourage Congress from raising its salary too much (by allowing voters the chance to vote out legislators who did so before the change took effect), it also had the effect of preventing Congress from keeping itself in line by ''cutting'' its own pay.
* The Twenty-fifth Amendment, specifically Section 4 (the part that gives the Cabinet the power to declare the President incapacitated), whose complexities are so interesting for writers, [[TwentyFifthAmendment we gave it a trope]]. Somewhat ironically, the amendment was drafted because there was no explicit procedure for transfer of power in the event of inability to serve and the subsequent presidency of someone who had never been elected to ''any'' office.
* The Electoral College. This one is relatively simple to explain and extremely easy to adjudicate[[note]]At least in the abstract, but election law itself is an incoherent mess, often designed to keep the current party in power, and there are no uniform federal election procedures[[/note]], but it still gets Americans in a tizzy every time it becomes relevant. The Constitution stipulates that the President and Vice President are elected by an absolute majority of a special body called the Electoral College, composed of electors chosen in each state in a manner of the state legislature's choosing. Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in both houses of Congress, i.e., the size of its House of Representatives delegation plus two (for its Senators); this gives us 535 electors for today's Congress. The Twenty-third Amendment grants UsefulNotes/WashingtonDC three electoral votes, [[note]]Indirectly, since the Amendment stipulates that DC gets as many votes as its population entitles it to, but also no more than the smallest state. Conveniently, DC's population has never been big enough to warrant more than three electoral votes, anyway.[[/note]] giving us 538 electors. To win an absolute majority and thus the presidency, you thus need 270 electoral votes. \\
Simple enough, right? But of course, the states have all chosen to choose their electors by popular election--i.e., the electors are chosen as slates of individuals honor-bound (and in some states, legally-bound) to vote for the candidate of the people of that state's choosing. In most states, except Maine and Nebraska, the slates are chosen on a winner-take-all basis: whoever gets the most votes wins ''all'' of that state's electoral votes, even if it's not a majority. Even if you win a plurality in, oh I dunno...[[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWBush Florida by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast]], you come home with ''all'' of Florida's 25 (at the time) votes, and your opponent, none. Most of the time, the person who wins the "popular vote" (i.e. a plurality of the nationwide total) also wins the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency, but there are rare occasions when these do not line up, as with the famous 2000 election, above; along with the recent 2016 election. Americans get extremely confused by this, the news has to spend hours explaining the process, an explanation that often only makes people angrier.
** More commonly, a president gets elected without a ''majority'' (more than 50%) of the vote. In the 1992, '96, 2000, and 2016 elections, no candidate got a majority; in 1976 and 2004, the winner was just a hair over 50%. But it's less contentious when the electoral coillege winner at least got more votes than all the other candidates, even if (as in the case of Bill Clinton) he never made it to 50%. Even if the electoral college and popular vote are in harmony, expect quite a bit of discussion over what constitutes a "mandate." Since an enormous number of ballots of haven't even been counted by the time the election winner is announced, the percentages announced on election night are often wrong. Moreover, you don't actually need to wait for a recount unless a state is decisive (Missouri held a recount in 2008, though it received little attention, as Barack Obama had won far more than the necessary 270 votes). And now that America has adjusted, somewhat, to the electoral college -- the 2000, 2004, and 2012 elections were a prolonged lecture on the topic -- there's considerable debate over the need for an ObviousRulePatch. Electoral college votes go to the winner of the state, but selecting electors by ''county,'' as Ohio's Secretary of State suggested, would have given the majority of Ohio's votes to Mitt Romney, despite the fact that President Obama received more than 50 percent of the total vote share. And then some partisans simply hate the electoral college for failing to return their desired result, even when doing away with it would not benefit their party. Eventually, any debate will devolve into a modern remix of the initial federalist vs. anti-federalist debates.
** In addition, due to the fact that some states are significantly more densely populated than others, and thus have far more representatives, as of 2016, the eleven most populated states control exactly 270 electoral college votes, which means that in theory, those states could decide the presidency even if the other 39 unanimously vote for the other candidate.
** If no one gets the votes, it gets worse. The House picks the President, and the Senate picks the Vice President. Thomas Jefferson (1800) and John Quincy Adams (1824) were both elected this messy way; fortunately, both had the most popular vote, though Adams was second place in the electoral college. This system is one way it's possible for us to return to the days in which the President and Vice President are from different parties if differing parties control each chamber.
** And there's the other weird rule that no one understands: An elector from any specific state can either vote for a presidential candidate that resides in their state, or a vice-presidential candidate that resides in their state, but ''not'' both. This is usually misunderstood to mean that both candidates can't be from the same state, but that's not actually what it says at all. All it controls is each individual elector's vote. This means no one would lose any electoral votes if the state was going to vote the other way anyway.
*** OTOH, candidates are usually expected to carry their own state, and that probably would be doubly true if they both were from the same state.
*** And to throw in more confusion, this obviously doesn't require the electors to vote for 'the other guy'...they can just vote for some random schlub. And of course they can do some strategic voting...if the state had six electoral votes, and in the end the totals were close enough that the winner of that state need three more electoral votes to win, three of the electors could vote for their guy for prez, and some random guy as VP, and the other three could do the same for their party's choice of VP and some random guy as prez. OTOH, if he needed four votes, we might end up in the same silly situation as 'Congress deciding', where we have 'non-compatible' prez and VP, where they vote for their party's choice of Prez so he wins, but have to vote for someone else as VP so the other guy's VP wins.
*** However, this rule obviously has the potential to become incredibly confusing and stupid, so basically all parties have just decided to pick candidates from different states to avoid it. (There was actually a minor flap about this in 2000, as George W. Bush was of course resident in Texas, but it wasn't clear whether Dick Cheney, who had lived in Texas for some time by that point while he was running Halliburton, had effectively changed his residency back to Wyoming.)
** And let's not even get into the whole idea of 'faithless electors', where electors pick someone beside their parties' candidates. States have attempted to outlaw this, but it's generally accepted that such laws, while they might, or might not, allow for punishment after the fact, cannot change the actual vote itself. (And one wonders if they include some sort of exemption from the problem above with both candidates being from the that state, where electors are literally barred from voting how their party wishes. Or the unwritten 'George Washington is the only president ever elected unanimously by the electors, so if anyone else ever gets all the electors, one of them should defect' rule.)
** And then there's party delegates in the Presidential nomination process. One of the reasons UsefulNotes/BarackObama won in 2008 was that his campaign understood the Democratic delegate system and Hillary Clinton's did not. This conflict was repeated during the 2012 nomination process by the Republican candidates, complete with compromises and negotiations regarding delegate votes.
** The 2012 Republican Party primaries had a lot of states giving electorates by percentage (i.e. if you win 75% of a state, you get 75% of the delegates). This is being seen as problematic because it has contributed to the dragged-out nature of the primary and Republicans are worried about how much the candidates are needling each other. Other people are just bored with how much news coverage it's getting.
** After those primaries, GOP leaders pushed through a party rule change just before the national convention in a transparent attempt to keep libertarian insurgent Ron Paul from being entered into nomination (even though Mitt Romney had long since clinched the party's nod). Previously, a candidate had to receive a ''plurality'' of the delegates in at least five states to be entered into nomination. It was changed to require a ''majority'' in eight states, a criterion that only Romney met in 2012. However, that rule created the potential for a complete meltdown in 2016—with no fewer than ''16'' officially declared Republican candidates, it's at least theoretically possible that ''nobody'' would be eligible for the Republican nomination! (Of course, the rule would almost certainly be changed, but the possibilities for chaos at the convention are endless. Unless the field thins out considerably by then, which is extremely likely.)
** In an episode of ''Alf'' the titular alien muppet stated that the thing he found most ''insane'' about Earth was the Electoral College.
* The United States Constitution can be changed in two ways: by Congress, or by an "Article V" Convention. An Article V Convention has never happened, partially because the laws that govern it are so vague and untested that a convention for an amendment to change the voting age might produce a completely new Constitution instead.
** Some states have similar rules regarding ''their'' Constitutions or require a meeting of the people ''or'' for the people to vote to have the current state government appoint a committee to review the state's laws. In the modern era, this guarantees that the Constitution will never be evaluated by the people, who want to change the state Constitution because it's horrifically inefficient and outdated and requires them to form an assembly to review the Constitution, and repeat.
* In 2012, Ohio was targeted as the state most likely to be decisive (i.e., produce an unbreakable margin of victory and to exert considerable pull on other swing states) and the world was introduced to two laws that fall under this trope: the prohibition on counting absentee and provisional ballots until November 17th and a recent law mandating that voters (or advocacy organizations) must challenge federal election procedure in federal court[[note]]This raised considerable curiosity as to whether or not the issue of a state's law regarding internal conduct of federal elections could be challenged in federal court, but that was quickly dismissed when groups that did clearly have standing repeatedly filed suit against Ohio's Secretary of State citing federal law violations, but an individual voter likely would be unable to seek legal relief through the legal system if forced to file in federal court[[/note]]. In a worst-case scenario (or perhaps just in 2016), neither presidential candidate has 270 electoral votes and the number of uncounted absentee and provisional ballots is sufficient to eliminate one candidate's lead, but counting won't begin for at least ten days after the election, leaving the winner unknown well into December. The latter law, meanwhile, has turned into ThatOneLaw for those who ''passed'' it, as it was widely seen as an attempt by the current party in office to circumvent challenges to procedure and to provide the 2012 administration with a great deal of power in determining "valid" ballots. This became a case of HoistByHisOwnPetard for the Secretary of State, who had served in the statehouse when the bill was drafted. In the end, neither of these rules has had game-breaking effect, but if you enjoy election news at Christmas, it's entirely possible that 2016 or 2020's winner won't be declared until then.

to:

[[folder:Politics: America]]
Politics, like games, generally operates under a system of rules, and in many countries--especially liberal representative democracies--most of the rules are simple enough to be taught to children. However, even the simplest systems can get into a snarl now and then.
[[folder:Other]]
* Every amendment In Euclid's Elements, after the tenth[[note]]the first ten form the Bill of Rights[[/note]] can be seen as either this trope or an ObviousRulePatch. Many who turn to the Constitution for guidance may find themselves confused by the fact that the Articles as initially written do not align with current practice, with the most famous example being the "three-fifths compromise," which remains in the text despite being later nullified (by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery). Amendments have been passed out of philosophical harmony (e.g., the decision to have Senators directly elected by the people rather than chosen by a state's congress), necessity, as an "undo" function[[note]]Prohibition and its repeal are 18 and 21, respectively[[/note]], and, sometimes, because someone realized that there was no set procedure for a specific issue. The last amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1992 (and first proposed over 200 years prior) and addresses congressional salaries.
** This last amendment has caused a surprising amount of trouble in times of partisan gridlock in the legislature--while it was initially intended to discourage Congress from raising its salary too much (by allowing voters the chance to vote out legislators who did so before the change took effect), it also had the effect of preventing Congress from keeping itself in line by ''cutting'' its own pay.
* The Twenty-fifth Amendment, specifically Section 4 (the part that gives the Cabinet the power to declare the President incapacitated), whose complexities are so interesting for writers, [[TwentyFifthAmendment we gave it a trope]]. Somewhat ironically, the amendment was drafted because there was no explicit procedure for transfer of power in the event of inability to serve and the subsequent presidency of someone who had never been elected to ''any'' office.
* The Electoral College. This one is relatively simple to explain and extremely easy to adjudicate[[note]]At least in the abstract, but election law itself is an incoherent mess, often designed to keep the current party in power, and there are no uniform federal election procedures[[/note]], but it still gets Americans in a tizzy every time it becomes relevant. The Constitution stipulates that the President and Vice President are elected by an absolute majority of a special body called the Electoral College, composed of electors chosen in each state in a manner of the state legislature's choosing. Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in both houses of Congress, i.e., the size of its House of Representatives delegation plus two (for its Senators); this gives us 535 electors for today's Congress. The Twenty-third Amendment grants UsefulNotes/WashingtonDC three electoral votes, [[note]]Indirectly, since the Amendment stipulates that DC gets as many votes as its population entitles it to, but also no more than the smallest state. Conveniently, DC's population has never been big enough to warrant more than three electoral votes, anyway.[[/note]] giving us 538 electors. To win an absolute majority and thus the presidency, you thus need 270 electoral votes. \\
Simple enough, right? But of course, the states have all chosen to choose their electors by popular election--i.e., the electors are chosen as slates of individuals honor-bound (and in some states, legally-bound) to vote
describing his definitions for the candidate basis of the people of that state's choosing. In most states, except Maine and Nebraska, the slates are chosen on a winner-take-all basis: whoever gets the most votes wins ''all'' of that state's electoral votes, even if it's not a majority. Even if you win a plurality in, oh I dunno...[[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWBush Florida by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast]], you come home with ''all'' of Florida's 25 (at the time) votes, and your opponent, none. Most of the time, the person who wins the "popular vote" (i.e. a plurality of the nationwide total) also wins the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency, but there are rare occasions when these do not line up, as with the famous 2000 election, above; along with the recent 2016 election. Americans get extremely confused by this, the news has to spend hours explaining the process, an explanation that often only makes people angrier.
** More commonly, a president gets elected without a ''majority'' (more than 50%) of the vote. In the 1992, '96, 2000, and 2016 elections, no candidate got a majority; in 1976 and 2004, the winner was just a hair over 50%. But it's less contentious when the electoral coillege winner at least got more votes than all the other candidates, even if (as in the case of Bill Clinton)
Geometry, he never made it to 50%. Even if the electoral college and popular vote are in harmony, expect quite a bit of discussion over what constitutes a "mandate." Since an enormous number of ballots of haven't even been counted by the time the election winner is announced, the percentages announced on election night are often wrong. Moreover, you don't actually need to wait for a recount unless a state is decisive (Missouri held a recount in 2008, though it received little attention, as Barack Obama had won far more than the necessary 270 votes). And now that America has adjusted, somewhat, to the electoral college -- the 2000, 2004, and 2012 elections were a prolonged lecture on the topic -- there's considerable debate over the need for an ObviousRulePatch. Electoral college votes go to the winner of the state, but selecting electors by ''county,'' as Ohio's Secretary of State suggested, would have given the majority of Ohio's votes to Mitt Romney, despite the fact that President Obama received more than 50 percent of the total vote share. And then some partisans simply hate the electoral college for failing to return their desired result, even when doing away with it would not benefit their party. Eventually, any debate will devolve into a modern remix of the initial federalist vs. anti-federalist debates.
** In addition, due to the fact that some states are significantly more densely populated than others, and thus have far more representatives, as of 2016, the eleven most populated states control exactly 270 electoral college votes, which means that in theory, those states could decide the presidency even if the other 39 unanimously vote for the other candidate.
** If no one gets the votes, it gets worse. The House picks the President, and the Senate picks the Vice President. Thomas Jefferson (1800) and John Quincy Adams (1824) were both elected this messy way; fortunately, both had the most popular vote, though Adams was second place in the electoral college. This system is one way it's possible for us to return to the days in which the President and Vice President are from different parties if differing parties control each chamber.
** And there's the other weird rule that no one understands: An elector from any specific state can either vote for a presidential candidate that resides in their state, or a vice-presidential candidate that resides in their state, but ''not'' both. This is usually misunderstood to mean that both candidates can't be from the same state, but that's not actually what it says at all. All it controls is each individual elector's vote. This means no one would lose any electoral votes if the state was going to vote the other way anyway.
*** OTOH, candidates are usually expected to carry their own state, and that probably would be doubly true if they both were from the same state.
*** And to throw in more confusion, this obviously doesn't require the electors to vote for 'the other guy'...they can just vote for some random schlub. And of course they can do some strategic voting...if the state had six electoral votes, and in the end the totals were close enough that the winner of that state need three more electoral votes to win, three of the electors could vote for their guy for prez, and some random guy as VP, and the other three could do the same for their party's choice of VP and some random guy as prez. OTOH, if he needed four votes, we might end up in the same silly situation as 'Congress deciding', where we have 'non-compatible' prez and VP, where they vote for their party's choice of Prez so he wins, but have to vote for someone else as VP so the other guy's VP wins.
*** However, this rule obviously has the potential to become incredibly confusing and stupid, so basically all parties have just decided to pick candidates from different states to avoid it. (There was actually a minor flap
describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about this in 2000, as George W. Bush was of course resident in Texas, but it wasn't clear whether Dick Cheney, who had lived in Texas for some time by that point while he was running Halliburton, had effectively changed his residency back to Wyoming.)
** And let's not even get into
the whole idea of 'faithless electors', where electors pick someone beside their parties' candidates. States have attempted to outlaw this, but it's generally accepted that such laws, while they might, or might not, allow for punishment after the fact, cannot change the actual vote itself. (And one wonders if they include some sort of exemption from the problem above with both candidates being from the that state, where electors are literally barred from voting how their party wishes. Or the unwritten 'George Washington is the only president ever elected unanimously by the electors, so if anyone else ever gets all the electors, one of them should defect' rule.)
** And then there's party delegates in the Presidential nomination process. One of the reasons UsefulNotes/BarackObama won in 2008 was that his campaign understood the Democratic delegate system and Hillary Clinton's did not. This conflict was repeated during the 2012 nomination process by the Republican candidates, complete with compromises and negotiations regarding delegate votes.
** The 2012 Republican Party primaries had a lot of states giving electorates by percentage (i.e. if you win 75% of a state, you get 75% of the delegates). This is being seen as problematic because it has contributed to the dragged-out
nature of the primary and Republicans geometry he was trying to describe. They are worried about how much the candidates things that you can do or things that are needling each other. Other people true no matter what. They are just bored with how much news coverage it's getting.
** After those primaries, GOP leaders pushed through
1. To draw a party rule change just before the national convention in a transparent attempt to keep libertarian insurgent Ron Paul straight line from being entered into nomination (even though Mitt Romney had long since clinched the party's nod). Previously, a candidate had any point to receive a ''plurality'' of the delegates in at least five states to be entered into nomination. It was changed to require a ''majority'' in eight states, a criterion that only Romney met in 2012. However, that rule created the potential for a complete meltdown in 2016—with no fewer than ''16'' officially declared Republican candidates, it's at least theoretically possible that ''nobody'' would be eligible for the Republican nomination! (Of course, the rule would almost certainly be changed, but the possibilities for chaos at the convention are endless. Unless the field thins out considerably by then, which is extremely likely.)
** In an episode of ''Alf'' the titular alien muppet stated that the thing he found most ''insane'' about Earth was the Electoral College.
* The United States Constitution
any point [[note]]You can be changed in draw a straight line between any two ways: by Congress, or by an "Article V" Convention. An Article V Convention has never happened, partially because the laws that govern it are so vague and untested that a convention for an amendment to change the voting age might points[[/note]]. 2. To produce a completely new Constitution instead.
** Some states have similar rules regarding ''their'' Constitutions or require
finite straight line continuously in a meeting of the people ''or'' for the people straight line [[note]]you can extend a straight line in a straight line. This, and Postulate 1, describe how to vote to have the current state government appoint use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]. 3. To describe a committee to review the state's laws. In the modern era, this guarantees circle with any center and radius. [[note]]You can draw a circle using a compass[[/note]] 4. That all right angles equal one another [[note]]Right angles, which are when a line is split so that the Constitution will never be evaluated by the people, who want two formed angles are equal, are always equal to change the state Constitution because it's horrifically inefficient and outdated and requires them to form an assembly to review the Constitution, and repeat.
* In 2012, Ohio was targeted as the state most likely to be decisive (i.e., produce an unbreakable margin of victory and to exert considerable pull
other right angles formed on other swing states) and lines[[/note]]. 5. That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the world was introduced to interior angles on the same side less than two laws right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that fall under this trope: side on which are the prohibition on counting absentee and provisional ballots until November 17th and a recent law mandating angles less than the two right angles. Called the Parallel Postulate, it says that voters (or advocacy organizations) must challenge federal election procedure in federal court[[note]]This raised considerable curiosity as to whether or not if two lines intersect a third and make less than 180° (two "right angles") on one side, then the issue of a state's law regarding internal conduct of federal elections could be challenged in federal court, but two lines will, if extended, eventually intersect on that was quickly dismissed when groups that did clearly have standing repeatedly filed suit against Ohio's Secretary of State citing federal law violations, side, to form a triangle. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove the Parallel postulate from the first four and their consequences, but an individual voter likely would be unable to seek legal relief through the legal system if forced to file in federal court[[/note]]. In a worst-case scenario (or perhaps just in 2016), neither presidential candidate has 270 electoral votes and the number of uncounted absentee and provisional ballots is sufficient to eliminate one candidate's lead, but counting won't begin for at least ten days after the election, leaving the winner unknown well into December. The latter law, meanwhile, has turned into ThatOneLaw for those who ''passed'' it, as eventually it was widely seen as an attempt by the current party in office to circumvent challenges to procedure and to provide the 2012 administration with a great deal of power in determining "valid" ballots. This became a case of HoistByHisOwnPetard for the Secretary of State, who had served in the statehouse when the bill was drafted. In the end, neither of these rules has had game-breaking effect, but if you enjoy election news at Christmas, it's entirely possible shown that 2016 or 2020's winner won't be declared until then.there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.





[[folder:Politics: Canada]]
* The Westminster System of electing a Premier or Prime Minister in Canada is often misunderstood by large portions of the electorate, who will sometimes confuse elements of it with the Presidential System used in the US. One of the significant differences is that under the Westminster System voters do not directly elect the leader of their province or country; instead they elect their local representatives ([=MLAs=] or [=MPPs=] at the provincial level, [=MPs=] at the federal level) and those representatives choose a leader to govern. The leader can also be changed or removed at any time should the representatives decide to support someone else and this will not trigger a new election. The leader need not be an elected official and occasionally isn't if there's a change of leadership between elections (though, for various reasons, the leader typically seeks election as soon as possible after they are chosen if they do not already hold a seat). The whole system tends to cause much grumbling if a leader retires or is forced out in the middle of a term and a new one is selected (leading to cries of "We're being governed by someone who we didn't even elect!", ignoring the case that that is always technically true).
** Another caveat of this system which seldom comes into play, but is similarly poorly understood, is that the leader need not come from the party with the most seats in Parliament/the Legislature. This was most recently displayed in 2008, when the federal Conservative Party held the most seats in parliament, but not an outright majority. The Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was nearly forced out of his job when the opposition parties - representing a majority of the seats in parliament - agreed to form a coalition government, supporting the Liberal leader for the Prime Ministerial post. Since the majority of parliament would have expressed confidence in the Liberal Leader over the Conservative one, this was technically legal, and the coalition members represented a majority of Canadians, giving it democratic mandate--at the end of the day, more Canadians had voted for the Liberals, NDP, and BQ together than had voted for the Conservatives (and considering the typical leanings of NDP and BQ voters, would probably prefer to have a generic Liberal PM over a generic Tory one if they had to pick between the two, although the personalities ''actually'' involved complicate matters considerably). However, the attempt to seize government generated significant protest from the electorate and ultimately the coalition collapsed before the vote could be held. The furor over this was a significant factor in Conservative Stephen Harper's gaining a majority in the next election despite his lack of personal popularity.
** The Governor General of Canada has the sole authority to inaugurate a prime minister yet the decision-making role the governor general can or should play in arbitrating situations where the prime ministership is contested is vague, unwritten, and lacks much helpful precedent. In ordinary times, the governor general is supposed to be an obedient rubber-stamp and always obey the prime minister, but in situations where the prime minister's hold on power is being contested, such as in the coalition situation described above, it's hardly clear what he or she should do, and can actually create a sort of paradox. Since there is always an incumbent PM, and the incumbent PM was always installed through some sort of democratic process, it will always be possible for an incumbent PM to argue it would be a violation of Canada's democratic norms for the governor general to disobey him, and install a different prime minister — even when the would-be alternate prime minister has a persuasive alternative argument regarding why the incumbent PM should be fired. Things get even more complicated when we consider the incumbent PM technically has the power to fire the governor general, a structural flaw some have described as "mutually assured dismissal." Technically the Queen could overrule the governor general ''and'' prime minister, but then we'd be in an entirely different can of worms.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Politics: Australia]]
* The voting system for the Australian senate. For each state, six senators are elected at each election (or twelve, in the case of a Double Dissolution), under a preferential voting system, where if a candidate makes the quota needed to secure a seat, their excess votes are redistributed to other candidates. To make things worse, the number of candidates standing often means the physical ballot paper is ''huge''. No wonder many Australians' brains bleed at election time.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Other]]
* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions for the basis of Geometry, he describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about the nature of the geometry he was trying to describe. They are things that you can do or things that are true no matter what. They are 1. To draw a straight line from any point to any point [[note]]You can draw a straight line between any two points[[/note]]. 2. To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line [[note]]you can extend a straight line in a straight line. This, and Postulate 1, describe how to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]. 3. To describe a circle with any center and radius. [[note]]You can draw a circle using a compass[[/note]] 4. That all right angles equal one another [[note]]Right angles, which are when a line is split so that the two formed angles are equal, are always equal to other right angles formed on other lines[[/note]]. 5. That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles. Called the Parallel Postulate, it says that if two lines intersect a third and make less than 180° (two "right angles") on one side, then the two lines will, if extended, eventually intersect on that side, to form a triangle. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove the Parallel postulate from the first four and their consequences, but eventually it was shown that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.
[[/folder]]
12th Apr '17 11:53:04 AM Madrugada
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castling Castling]] and ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant en passant]]'' capture are confusing to many TabletopGame/{{Chess}} players. The latter move is an ObviousRulePatch that allows a pawn to be captured by another pawn on a square which it has ''just moved past'', while the former is the only way in the game to have two pieces of the same color move at once and has highly unusual restrictions on when it can be used. {{Tournament Play}}ers will certainly be familiar with both of those moves; what frustrates them instead are the long-evolving rules about when they are allowed to claim a position as drawn. However, sometimes even chess grandmasters have demonstrated a lack of understanding about castling (namely, thinking that the rook is not allowed to pass through a threat, when that only applies to the king).

to:

* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castling Castling]] and ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant en passant]]'' capture are confusing to many TabletopGame/{{Chess}} players. The latter move
** Castling
is an ObviousRulePatch that allows a pawn to be captured by another pawn on a square which it has ''just moved past'', while moving both the former is king and one of his rooks, the only way move allowed in the game to have chess where two pieces of are moved in the same color move. The list of circumstances that must be met is rather long, but the simple version is: Neither the king nor the rook can have been moved at all, at any point earlier in the game. All the intervening squares in the home row must be vacant. The king cannot move at once and has highly unusual restrictions on through a square where he would be under attack if he were to stop there. You cannot castle to escape check. You cannot castle into check. You cannot capture in the course of castling. You cannot un-castle or re-castle.
** The en passant ("in passing") capture is -- Well, it's this: "It can only occur
when it a player exercises his option to move his pawn two squares on its initial movement and that move places his pawn next to the opponent's pawn. When this happens, the opposing player has the option to use his pawn to take the moved pawn "en passant" or "in passing" as if the pawn had only moved one square. This option, though, only stays open for one move." The biggest point of confusion for lower and mid-level players is that it's not the player who moves forward two squares which can be used. capture en passant, it's the opponent, on their next move.
**
{{Tournament Play}}ers will certainly be familiar with both of those moves; what frustrates probably dont' have any confusion about castling or en passant; for them instead are ''That One Rule'' is the long-evolving set of rules about when they are allowed to claim a position as drawn. However, sometimes even chess grandmasters have demonstrated a lack of understanding about castling (namely, thinking that the rook is not allowed to pass through a threat, when that only applies to the king).



* Japanese TabletopGame/{{Mahjong}}: The rule that a hand with no value [[YourHeadASplode has some value]]. [[labelnote:Explanation]]''Yaku'' give "multiplier" (''han'') points which are applied to the "basic" (''fu'') points of the hand. A hand with the absolute minimum of ''fu'' counts as a ''yaku'' as this is actually quite tricky to do, and is therefore a valid hand to win with.[[/labelnote]]. And ''then'' you add that, under some circumstances, you need more than one ''yaku'' to win.

to:

* Japanese TabletopGame/{{Mahjong}}: The rule that a hand with no value [[YourHeadASplode has some value]]. [[labelnote:Explanation]]''Yaku'' Explanation:''Yaku'' give "multiplier" (''han'') points which are applied to the "basic" (''fu'') points of the hand. A hand with the absolute minimum of ''fu'' counts as a ''yaku'' as this is actually quite tricky to do, and is therefore a valid hand to win with.[[/labelnote]]. And ''then'' then you add that, under some circumstances, you need more than one ''yaku'' to win.



** The [[http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Missing_the_Timing missing the timing rule]]. There are four types of effects that activate when a certain condition is met (they take the form of "If X, Y", "If X, you can Y", "When X, Y", and "When X, you can Y"). An "If" effect occurs as long as its condition is met, and is incapable of missing the timing. A "When X, Y" effect must occurs right after its condition is met, but can't miss the timing because it's mandatory. "When... you can" effects, however, MUST happen immediately after their condition occurs; since it's not mandatory, and thus doesn't HAVE to happen, it won't happen if anything else happens in between when its condition is met and you're allowed to activate new effects. This means that if its condition is met during any link of a chain other than the first link, or if its condition is met during any part other than the last one of the resolution of a multiple-part effect, it'll miss the timing because the rest of the chain/the effect it was met during happens before you have a chance to activate it, and thus the condition is no longer correct by the time you're able to activate it. For example, if an effect can activate when a monster (let's call it monster A) is summoned by another monster's effect, but that monster is summoned during chain link 2, then you won't be able to activate it after the chain ends because link 1 happened during the small window of opportunity when you were allowed to activate the effect, forcing you to skip it. Similarly, if you activate a monster's effect that allows you to summon monster A, then do something else (such as tributing another monster), then the second half of the effect will cause you to skip past the window of opportunity, again forcing you to skip the activation of monster A's effect. Confused yet? The fact that such a rule doesn't exist in the anime doesn't help.

to:

** The [[http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Missing_the_Timing missing the timing rule]]. There are four types of effects that activate when a certain condition is met (they take the form of "If X, Y", "If X, you can Y", "When X, Y", and "When X, you can Y"). An "If" effect occurs as long as its condition is met, and is incapable of missing the timing. A "When X, Y" effect must occurs right after its condition is met, but can't miss the timing because it's mandatory. "When... you can" effects, however, MUST happen immediately after their condition occurs; since it's not mandatory, and thus doesn't HAVE to happen, it won't happen if anything else happens in between when its condition is met and you're allowed to activate new effects. This means that if its condition is met during any link of a chain other than the first link, or if its condition is met during any part other than the last one of the resolution of a multiple-part effect, it'll miss the timing because the rest of the chain/the effect it was met during happens before you have a chance to activate it, and thus the condition is no longer correct by the time you're able to activate it. For example, if an effect can activate when a monster (let's call it monster A) is summoned by another monster's effect, but that monster is summoned during chain link 2, then you won't be able to activate it after the chain ends because link 1 happened during the small window of opportunity when you were allowed to activate the effect, forcing you to skip it. Similarly, if you activate a monster's effect that allows you to summon monster A, then do something else (such as tributing another monster), then the second half of the effect will cause you to skip past the window of opportunity, again forcing you to skip the activation of monster A's effect. Confused yet? The fact that such a rule doesn't exist in the anime doesn't help.



** Wounds, since they cover any unwanted effect ranging from being shot to being turned into a cat, can be very confusing for quite some time.



** The Calvin Johnson rule, which states a ball cannot be considered a catch if the receiver loses control of the ball going to the ground. It's one situation where IfItLooksLikeADuck does not apply. Since the 2014-2015 playoffs, it became unclear among the general public on what a catch is, which led to fans saying, "What is a catch?"

to:

** * The Calvin Johnson rule, which states a ball cannot be considered a catch if the receiver loses control of the ball going to the ground. It's one situation where IfItLooksLikeADuck does not apply. Since the 2014-2015 playoffs, it became unclear among the general public on what a catch is, which led to fans saying, "What is a catch?"



** You can't score if you're behind all the defenders ''but one,'' with the goalkeeper counting as a defender. This only matters when the play has gone past the defending goalie, but there's another defender between the player who got the ball and the goal. Which is to say, hardly ever.

to:

** You can't score if you're behind all the defenders ''but one,'' but one, with the goalkeeper counting as a defender. This only matters when the play has gone past the defending goalie, but there's another defender between the player who got the ball and the goal. Which is to say, hardly ever.



* The balk rule. Balks are relatively simple to understand, but hard to actually call. Balks are when the pitcher makes a motion towards a base, but throws to a different base. So a pitcher can't act like he's throwing a pitch and then throw to first base to pick off a runner, which is why when trying to pick off a runner, the pitcher will ''almost'' always move their front leg towards the base. The problem is, how do you classify a "motion"? Is it when the pitcher starts his windup? When he lifts his leg? When he moves his arm? Balks are almost always controversial at the Major League level. Balks can also be called for similarly deceptive moves by the catcher.
* The Posting System. Basically if a Japanese player wants to play in America, teams must first commit millions of dollars in collateral in a sealed-envelope silent auction. In addition only the winner of the auction is allowed to negotiate with the player. They get 30 days to negotiate a contract (at which point, the auction fee is delivered) or the player must return to Japan (in which case the posting fee is refunded). The system actually would allow a team to promise a higher fee than a rival who could really use the player, with no intention of signing him, just to delay said team from getting him -- and pay nothing (as was claimed when Daisuke Matsuzaka entered negotiations with the Red Sox, when the Yankees seemed much more interested, though Matsuzaka was indeed signed by Boston).\\
\\
Thankfully, this one's been [[ObviousRulePatch patched]]. The silent auction aspect has been replaced with a flat fee for posting (set by the Japanese team, but capped at $20 million), and every MLB team gets a chance to negotiate with the player, with the fee only paid if a team signs the player.

to:

* The balk rule. Balks are relatively sound simple to understand, explain, but they're hard to actually call. Balks are when the A pitcher has balked when he makes a motion towards a base, but throws to a different base. So a pitcher can't act like he's throwing a pitch and then throw to first base to pick off a runner, which is why when trying to pick off a runner, the pitcher will ''almost'' almost always move their front leg towards the base. The problem is, how do you classify a "motion"? Is it when the pitcher starts his windup? When he lifts his leg? When he moves his arm? Balks are almost always controversial at the Major League level. Balks can also be called for similarly deceptive moves by the catcher.
* The Posting System. Basically if a Japanese player wants to play in America, teams must first commit millions of dollars in collateral in a sealed-envelope silent auction. In addition only the winner of the auction is allowed to negotiate with the player. They get 30 days to negotiate a contract (at which point, the auction fee is delivered) or the player must return to Japan (in which case the posting fee is refunded). The system actually would allow a team to promise a higher fee than a rival who could really use the player, with no intention of signing him, just to delay said team from getting him -- and pay nothing (as was claimed when Daisuke Matsuzaka entered negotiations with the Red Sox, when the Yankees seemed much more interested, though Matsuzaka was indeed signed by Boston).\\
\\
Thankfully, this one's been [[ObviousRulePatch patched]]. The silent auction aspect has been replaced with a flat fee for posting (set by the Japanese team, but capped at $20 million), and every MLB team gets a chance to negotiate with the player, with the fee only paid if a team signs the player.



* The LBW (Leg Before Wicket) rule is well-known for being one of those cases where the judgement call is generally in favour of whichever cricketer is the best boxer.
** A batsman is out if he is hit by a legal delivery, which is not pitched outside the line of leg-stump, has not hit the bat and is going on to hit the stumps. If it strikes the batsman outside the line of off-stump he is not-out PROVIDED he was playing a shot at the time. Recent use of infrared and computerised video replays to follow the line and trajectory of the ball has made it much easier for spectators to see if the decision is in fact out.

to:

* The LBW (Leg Before Wicket) rule is well-known for being one of those cases where the judgement call is generally in favour of whichever cricketer is the best boxer.
** A
rule: "A batsman is out if he is hit by a legal delivery, which is not pitched outside the line of leg-stump, has not hit the bat and is going on to hit the stumps. If it strikes the batsman outside the line of off-stump he is not-out PROVIDED he was playing a shot at the time." Simple, no? ...No, not in practice. Recent use of infrared and computerised video replays to follow the line and trajectory of the ball has made it much easier for spectators to see if the decision is in fact out.



* Stop hits and time hits in fencing are in theory incredibly simple, as they are counterattacks which retain priority over the initial attack because the initial attack is too "long-winded" and so it was interrupted. For example, if A's attack is legal, but consists of four movements, B can stop hit A by counterattacking during that fancy, silly wind-up. Good luck with getting fencers and judges to agree on what is a stop-hit and what doesn't count in the heat of swift-moving competition.

to:

* "Right-Of-Way" Another of those rules that are simple to explain, but complex to deal with. Simply put, you cannot attack into an existing attack, at least, not if you want the point. You must stop the incoming attack or remove the threat, then you can counter-attack. It's far, far more complicated, involving as it does questions like "what constitutes an existing attack?", "What constitutes "stopping the existing attack"?" "What qualifies as "removing the threat"?" and "What the hell just happened, it was all so fast..."
* Stop hits and time hits in fencing are in theory incredibly simple, as they are counterattacks which retain obtain priority over the initial attack (Thus escaping falling afoul of right-of-way) because the initial attack is too "long-winded" and so it was interrupted. For example, if A's attack is legal, but consists of four movements, B can stop hit A by counterattacking during that fancy, silly wind-up. Good luck with getting fencers and judges to agree on what is a stop-hit and what doesn't count in the heat of swift-moving competition.



%% Per discussion at http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1491953265035195600 , removing the
%% politics examples which don't really fit the trope and are naturally contentious.

[[folder:Other]]
* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions for the basis of Geometry, he describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about the nature of the geometry he was trying to describe. They are things that you can do or things that are true no matter what. They are 1. To draw a straight line from any point to any point [[note]]You can draw a straight line between any two points[[/note]]. 2. To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line [[note]]you can extend a straight line in a straight line. This, and Postulate 1, describe how to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]. 3. To describe a circle with any center and radius. [[note]]You can draw a circle using a compass[[/note]] 4. That all right angles equal one another [[note]]Right angles, which are when a line is split so that the two formed angles are equal, are always equal to other right angles formed on other lines[[/note]]. 5. That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles. Called the Parallel Postulate, it says that if two lines intersect a third and make less than 180° (two "right angles") on one side, then the two lines will, if extended, eventually intersect on that side, to form a triangle. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove the Parallel postulate from the first four and their consequences, but eventually it was shown that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.

to:

%% Per [[folder:Politics: America]]
Politics, like games, generally operates under a system of rules, and in many countries--especially liberal representative democracies--most of the rules are simple enough to be taught to children. However, even the simplest systems can get into a snarl now and then.
* Every amendment after the tenth[[note]]the first ten form the Bill of Rights[[/note]] can be seen as either this trope or an ObviousRulePatch. Many who turn to the Constitution for guidance may find themselves confused by the fact that the Articles as initially written do not align with current practice, with the most famous example being the "three-fifths compromise," which remains in the text despite being later nullified (by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery). Amendments have been passed out of philosophical harmony (e.g., the decision to have Senators directly elected by the people rather than chosen by a state's congress), necessity, as an "undo" function[[note]]Prohibition and its repeal are 18 and 21, respectively[[/note]], and, sometimes, because someone realized that there was no set procedure for a specific issue. The last amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1992 (and first proposed over 200 years prior) and addresses congressional salaries.
** This last amendment has caused a surprising amount of trouble in times of partisan gridlock in the legislature--while it was initially intended to discourage Congress from raising its salary too much (by allowing voters the chance to vote out legislators who did so before the change took effect), it also had the effect of preventing Congress from keeping itself in line by ''cutting'' its own pay.
* The Twenty-fifth Amendment, specifically Section 4 (the part that gives the Cabinet the power to declare the President incapacitated), whose complexities are so interesting for writers, [[TwentyFifthAmendment we gave it a trope]]. Somewhat ironically, the amendment was drafted because there was no explicit procedure for transfer of power in the event of inability to serve and the subsequent presidency of someone who had never been elected to ''any'' office.
* The Electoral College. This one is relatively simple to explain and extremely easy to adjudicate[[note]]At least in the abstract, but election law itself is an incoherent mess, often designed to keep the current party in power, and there are no uniform federal election procedures[[/note]], but it still gets Americans in a tizzy every time it becomes relevant. The Constitution stipulates that the President and Vice President are elected by an absolute majority of a special body called the Electoral College, composed of electors chosen in each state in a manner of the state legislature's choosing. Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in both houses of Congress, i.e., the size of its House of Representatives delegation plus two (for its Senators); this gives us 535 electors for today's Congress. The Twenty-third Amendment grants UsefulNotes/WashingtonDC three electoral votes, [[note]]Indirectly, since the Amendment stipulates that DC gets as many votes as its population entitles it to, but also no more than the smallest state. Conveniently, DC's population has never been big enough to warrant more than three electoral votes, anyway.[[/note]] giving us 538 electors. To win an absolute majority and thus the presidency, you thus need 270 electoral votes. \\
Simple enough, right? But of course, the states have all chosen to choose their electors by popular election--i.e., the electors are chosen as slates of individuals honor-bound (and in some states, legally-bound) to vote for the candidate of the people of that state's choosing. In most states, except Maine and Nebraska, the slates are chosen on a winner-take-all basis: whoever gets the most votes wins ''all'' of that state's electoral votes, even if it's not a majority. Even if you win a plurality in, oh I dunno...[[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWBush Florida by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast]], you come home with ''all'' of Florida's 25 (at the time) votes, and your opponent, none. Most of the time, the person who wins the "popular vote" (i.e. a plurality of the nationwide total) also wins the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency, but there are rare occasions when these do not line up, as with the famous 2000 election, above; along with the recent 2016 election. Americans get extremely confused by this, the news has to spend hours explaining the process, an explanation that often only makes people angrier.
** More commonly, a president gets elected without a ''majority'' (more than 50%) of the vote. In the 1992, '96, 2000, and 2016 elections, no candidate got a majority; in 1976 and 2004, the winner was just a hair over 50%. But it's less contentious when the electoral coillege winner at least got more votes than all the other candidates, even if (as in the case of Bill Clinton) he never made it to 50%. Even if the electoral college and popular vote are in harmony, expect quite a bit of
discussion at http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1491953265035195600 , removing the
%% politics examples which
over what constitutes a "mandate." Since an enormous number of ballots of haven't even been counted by the time the election winner is announced, the percentages announced on election night are often wrong. Moreover, you don't really fit actually need to wait for a recount unless a state is decisive (Missouri held a recount in 2008, though it received little attention, as Barack Obama had won far more than the trope necessary 270 votes). And now that America has adjusted, somewhat, to the electoral college -- the 2000, 2004, and 2012 elections were a prolonged lecture on the topic -- there's considerable debate over the need for an ObviousRulePatch. Electoral college votes go to the winner of the state, but selecting electors by ''county,'' as Ohio's Secretary of State suggested, would have given the majority of Ohio's votes to Mitt Romney, despite the fact that President Obama received more than 50 percent of the total vote share. And then some partisans simply hate the electoral college for failing to return their desired result, even when doing away with it would not benefit their party. Eventually, any debate will devolve into a modern remix of the initial federalist vs. anti-federalist debates.
** In addition, due to the fact that some states
are naturally contentious.

[[folder:Other]]
* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions
significantly more densely populated than others, and thus have far more representatives, as of 2016, the eleven most populated states control exactly 270 electoral college votes, which means that in theory, those states could decide the presidency even if the other 39 unanimously vote for the basis other candidate.
** If no one gets the votes, it gets worse. The House picks the President, and the Senate picks the Vice President. Thomas Jefferson (1800) and John Quincy Adams (1824) were both elected this messy way; fortunately, both had the most popular vote, though Adams was second place in the electoral college. This system is one way it's possible for us to return to the days in which the President and Vice President are from different parties if differing parties control each chamber.
** And there's the other weird rule that no one understands: An elector from any specific state can either vote for a presidential candidate that resides in their state, or a vice-presidential candidate that resides in their state, but ''not'' both. This is usually misunderstood to mean that both candidates can't be from the same state, but that's not actually what it says at all. All it controls is each individual elector's vote. This means no one would lose any electoral votes if the state was going to vote the other way anyway.
*** OTOH, candidates are usually expected to carry their own state, and that probably would be doubly true if they both were from the same state.
*** And to throw in more confusion, this obviously doesn't require the electors to vote for 'the other guy'...they can just vote for some random schlub. And
of Geometry, course they can do some strategic voting...if the state had six electoral votes, and in the end the totals were close enough that the winner of that state need three more electoral votes to win, three of the electors could vote for their guy for prez, and some random guy as VP, and the other three could do the same for their party's choice of VP and some random guy as prez. OTOH, if he describes five Postulates, fundamental truths needed four votes, we might end up in the same silly situation as 'Congress deciding', where we have 'non-compatible' prez and VP, where they vote for their party's choice of Prez so he wins, but have to vote for someone else as VP so the other guy's VP wins.
*** However, this rule obviously has the potential to become incredibly confusing and stupid, so basically all parties have just decided to pick candidates from different states to avoid it. (There was actually a minor flap
about this in 2000, as George W. Bush was of course resident in Texas, but it wasn't clear whether Dick Cheney, who had lived in Texas for some time by that point while he was running Halliburton, had effectively changed his residency back to Wyoming.)
** And let's not even get into
the whole idea of 'faithless electors', where electors pick someone beside their parties' candidates. States have attempted to outlaw this, but it's generally accepted that such laws, while they might, or might not, allow for punishment after the fact, cannot change the actual vote itself. (And one wonders if they include some sort of exemption from the problem above with both candidates being from the that state, where electors are literally barred from voting how their party wishes. Or the unwritten 'George Washington is the only president ever elected unanimously by the electors, so if anyone else ever gets all the electors, one of them should defect' rule.)
** And then there's party delegates in the Presidential nomination process. One of the reasons UsefulNotes/BarackObama won in 2008 was that his campaign understood the Democratic delegate system and Hillary Clinton's did not. This conflict was repeated during the 2012 nomination process by the Republican candidates, complete with compromises and negotiations regarding delegate votes.
** The 2012 Republican Party primaries had a lot of states giving electorates by percentage (i.e. if you win 75% of a state, you get 75% of the delegates). This is being seen as problematic because it has contributed to the dragged-out
nature of the geometry he primary and Republicans are worried about how much the candidates are needling each other. Other people are just bored with how much news coverage it's getting.
** After those primaries, GOP leaders pushed through a party rule change just before the national convention in a transparent attempt to keep libertarian insurgent Ron Paul from being entered into nomination (even though Mitt Romney had long since clinched the party's nod). Previously, a candidate had to receive a ''plurality'' of the delegates in at least five states to be entered into nomination. It
was trying changed to describe. They are things require a ''majority'' in eight states, a criterion that you can do or things only Romney met in 2012. However, that rule created the potential for a complete meltdown in 2016—with no fewer than ''16'' officially declared Republican candidates, it's at least theoretically possible that ''nobody'' would be eligible for the Republican nomination! (Of course, the rule would almost certainly be changed, but the possibilities for chaos at the convention are true no matter what. They endless. Unless the field thins out considerably by then, which is extremely likely.)
** In an episode of ''Alf'' the titular alien muppet stated that the thing he found most ''insane'' about Earth was the Electoral College.
* The United States Constitution can be changed in two ways: by Congress, or by an "Article V" Convention. An Article V Convention has never happened, partially because the laws that govern it
are 1. To draw so vague and untested that a straight line from any point convention for an amendment to any point [[note]]You can draw a straight line between any two points[[/note]]. 2. To change the voting age might produce a finite straight line continuously in completely new Constitution instead.
** Some states have similar rules regarding ''their'' Constitutions or require
a straight line [[note]]you can extend a straight line in a straight line. This, and Postulate 1, describe how meeting of the people ''or'' for the people to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]. 3. To describe vote to have the current state government appoint a circle with any center and radius. [[note]]You can draw a circle using a compass[[/note]] 4. That all right angles equal one another [[note]]Right angles, which are when a line is split so committee to review the state's laws. In the modern era, this guarantees that the two formed angles are equal, are always equal Constitution will never be evaluated by the people, who want to other right angles formed change the state Constitution because it's horrifically inefficient and outdated and requires them to form an assembly to review the Constitution, and repeat.
* In 2012, Ohio was targeted as the state most likely to be decisive (i.e., produce an unbreakable margin of victory and to exert considerable pull
on other lines[[/note]]. 5. That, if a straight line falling on swing states) and the world was introduced to two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on laws that side on which are fall under this trope: the angles less than the two right angles. Called the Parallel Postulate, it says prohibition on counting absentee and provisional ballots until November 17th and a recent law mandating that if two lines intersect a third and make less than 180° (two "right angles") on one side, then voters (or advocacy organizations) must challenge federal election procedure in federal court[[note]]This raised considerable curiosity as to whether or not the two lines will, if extended, eventually intersect on issue of a state's law regarding internal conduct of federal elections could be challenged in federal court, but that side, was quickly dismissed when groups that did clearly have standing repeatedly filed suit against Ohio's Secretary of State citing federal law violations, but an individual voter likely would be unable to form seek legal relief through the legal system if forced to file in federal court[[/note]]. In a triangle. Euclid, worst-case scenario (or perhaps just in 2016), neither presidential candidate has 270 electoral votes and other mathematicians, tried the number of uncounted absentee and provisional ballots is sufficient to eliminate one candidate's lead, but counting won't begin for several thousand years to prove at least ten days after the Parallel postulate from election, leaving the first four and their consequences, but eventually winner unknown well into December. The latter law, meanwhile, has turned into ThatOneLaw for those who ''passed'' it, as it was shown widely seen as an attempt by the current party in office to circumvent challenges to procedure and to provide the 2012 administration with a great deal of power in determining "valid" ballots. This became a case of HoistByHisOwnPetard for the Secretary of State, who had served in the statehouse when the bill was drafted. In the end, neither of these rules has had game-breaking effect, but if you enjoy election news at Christmas, it's entirely possible that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.2016 or 2020's winner won't be declared until then.


Added DiffLines:



[[folder:Politics: Canada]]
* The Westminster System of electing a Premier or Prime Minister in Canada is often misunderstood by large portions of the electorate, who will sometimes confuse elements of it with the Presidential System used in the US. One of the significant differences is that under the Westminster System voters do not directly elect the leader of their province or country; instead they elect their local representatives ([=MLAs=] or [=MPPs=] at the provincial level, [=MPs=] at the federal level) and those representatives choose a leader to govern. The leader can also be changed or removed at any time should the representatives decide to support someone else and this will not trigger a new election. The leader need not be an elected official and occasionally isn't if there's a change of leadership between elections (though, for various reasons, the leader typically seeks election as soon as possible after they are chosen if they do not already hold a seat). The whole system tends to cause much grumbling if a leader retires or is forced out in the middle of a term and a new one is selected (leading to cries of "We're being governed by someone who we didn't even elect!", ignoring the case that that is always technically true).
** Another caveat of this system which seldom comes into play, but is similarly poorly understood, is that the leader need not come from the party with the most seats in Parliament/the Legislature. This was most recently displayed in 2008, when the federal Conservative Party held the most seats in parliament, but not an outright majority. The Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was nearly forced out of his job when the opposition parties - representing a majority of the seats in parliament - agreed to form a coalition government, supporting the Liberal leader for the Prime Ministerial post. Since the majority of parliament would have expressed confidence in the Liberal Leader over the Conservative one, this was technically legal, and the coalition members represented a majority of Canadians, giving it democratic mandate--at the end of the day, more Canadians had voted for the Liberals, NDP, and BQ together than had voted for the Conservatives (and considering the typical leanings of NDP and BQ voters, would probably prefer to have a generic Liberal PM over a generic Tory one if they had to pick between the two, although the personalities ''actually'' involved complicate matters considerably). However, the attempt to seize government generated significant protest from the electorate and ultimately the coalition collapsed before the vote could be held. The furor over this was a significant factor in Conservative Stephen Harper's gaining a majority in the next election despite his lack of personal popularity.
** The Governor General of Canada has the sole authority to inaugurate a prime minister yet the decision-making role the governor general can or should play in arbitrating situations where the prime ministership is contested is vague, unwritten, and lacks much helpful precedent. In ordinary times, the governor general is supposed to be an obedient rubber-stamp and always obey the prime minister, but in situations where the prime minister's hold on power is being contested, such as in the coalition situation described above, it's hardly clear what he or she should do, and can actually create a sort of paradox. Since there is always an incumbent PM, and the incumbent PM was always installed through some sort of democratic process, it will always be possible for an incumbent PM to argue it would be a violation of Canada's democratic norms for the governor general to disobey him, and install a different prime minister — even when the would-be alternate prime minister has a persuasive alternative argument regarding why the incumbent PM should be fired. Things get even more complicated when we consider the incumbent PM technically has the power to fire the governor general, a structural flaw some have described as "mutually assured dismissal." Technically the Queen could overrule the governor general ''and'' prime minister, but then we'd be in an entirely different can of worms.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Politics: Australia]]
* The voting system for the Australian senate. For each state, six senators are elected at each election (or twelve, in the case of a Double Dissolution), under a preferential voting system, where if a candidate makes the quota needed to secure a seat, their excess votes are redistributed to other candidates. To make things worse, the number of candidates standing often means the physical ballot paper is ''huge''. No wonder many Australians' brains bleed at election time.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Other]]
* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions for the basis of Geometry, he describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about the nature of the geometry he was trying to describe. They are things that you can do or things that are true no matter what. They are 1. To draw a straight line from any point to any point [[note]]You can draw a straight line between any two points[[/note]]. 2. To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line [[note]]you can extend a straight line in a straight line. This, and Postulate 1, describe how to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]. 3. To describe a circle with any center and radius. [[note]]You can draw a circle using a compass[[/note]] 4. That all right angles equal one another [[note]]Right angles, which are when a line is split so that the two formed angles are equal, are always equal to other right angles formed on other lines[[/note]]. 5. That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles. Called the Parallel Postulate, it says that if two lines intersect a third and make less than 180° (two "right angles") on one side, then the two lines will, if extended, eventually intersect on that side, to form a triangle. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove the Parallel postulate from the first four and their consequences, but eventually it was shown that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.
[[/folder]]
12th Apr '17 11:39:12 AM Narsil
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[folder:Politics: America]]
Politics, like games, generally operates under a system of rules, and in many countries--especially liberal representative democracies--most of the rules are simple enough to be taught to children. However, even the simplest systems can get into a snarl now and then.
* Every amendment after the tenth[[note]]the first ten form the Bill of Rights[[/note]] can be seen as either this trope or an ObviousRulePatch. Many who turn to the Constitution for guidance may find themselves confused by the fact that the Articles as initially written do not align with current practice, with the most famous example being the "three-fifths compromise," which remains in the text despite being later nullified (by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery). Amendments have been passed out of philosophical harmony (e.g., the decision to have Senators directly elected by the people rather than chosen by a state's congress), necessity, as an "undo" function[[note]]Prohibition and its repeal are 18 and 21, respectively[[/note]], and, sometimes, because someone realized that there was no set procedure for a specific issue. The last amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1992 (and first proposed over 200 years prior) and addresses congressional salaries.
** This last amendment has caused a surprising amount of trouble in times of partisan gridlock in the legislature--while it was initially intended to discourage Congress from raising its salary too much (by allowing voters the chance to vote out legislators who did so before the change took effect), it also had the effect of preventing Congress from keeping itself in line by ''cutting'' its own pay.
* The Twenty-fifth Amendment, specifically Section 4 (the part that gives the Cabinet the power to declare the President incapacitated), whose complexities are so interesting for writers, [[TwentyFifthAmendment we gave it a trope]]. Somewhat ironically, the amendment was drafted because there was no explicit procedure for transfer of power in the event of inability to serve and the subsequent presidency of someone who had never been elected to ''any'' office.
* The Electoral College. This one is relatively simple to explain and extremely easy to adjudicate[[note]]At least in the abstract, but election law itself is an incoherent mess, often designed to keep the current party in power, and there are no uniform federal election procedures[[/note]], but it still gets Americans in a tizzy every time it becomes relevant. The Constitution stipulates that the President and Vice President are elected by an absolute majority of a special body called the Electoral College, composed of electors chosen in each state in a manner of the state legislature's choosing. Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in both houses of Congress, i.e., the size of its House of Representatives delegation plus two (for its Senators); this gives us 535 electors for today's Congress. The Twenty-third Amendment grants UsefulNotes/WashingtonDC three electoral votes, [[note]]Indirectly, since the Amendment stipulates that DC gets as many votes as its population entitles it to, but also no more than the smallest state. Conveniently, DC's population has never been big enough to warrant more than three electoral votes, anyway.[[/note]] giving us 538 electors. To win an absolute majority and thus the presidency, you thus need 270 electoral votes. \\
Simple enough, right? But of course, the states have all chosen to choose their electors by popular election--i.e., the electors are chosen as slates of individuals honor-bound (and in some states, legally-bound) to vote for the candidate of the people of that state's choosing. In most states, except Maine and Nebraska, the slates are chosen on a winner-take-all basis: whoever gets the most votes wins ''all'' of that state's electoral votes, even if it's not a majority. Even if you win a plurality in, oh I dunno...[[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWBush Florida by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast]], you come home with ''all'' of Florida's 25 (at the time) votes, and your opponent, none. Most of the time, the person who wins the "popular vote" (i.e. a plurality of the nationwide total) also wins the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency, but there are rare occasions when these do not line up, as with the famous 2000 election, above; along with the recent 2016 election. Americans get extremely confused by this, the news has to spend hours explaining the process, an explanation that often only makes people angrier.
** More commonly, a president gets elected without a ''majority'' (more than 50%) of the vote. In the 1992, '96, 2000, and 2016 elections, no candidate got a majority; in 1976 and 2004, the winner was just a hair over 50%. But it's less contentious when the electoral coillege winner at least got more votes than all the other candidates, even if (as in the case of Bill Clinton) he never made it to 50%. Even if the electoral college and popular vote are in harmony, expect quite a bit of discussion over what constitutes a "mandate." Since an enormous number of ballots of haven't even been counted by the time the election winner is announced, the percentages announced on election night are often wrong. Moreover, you don't actually need to wait for a recount unless a state is decisive (Missouri held a recount in 2008, though it received little attention, as Barack Obama had won far more than the necessary 270 votes). And now that America has adjusted, somewhat, to the electoral college -- the 2000, 2004, and 2012 elections were a prolonged lecture on the topic -- there's considerable debate over the need for an ObviousRulePatch. Electoral college votes go to the winner of the state, but selecting electors by ''county,'' as Ohio's Secretary of State suggested, would have given the majority of Ohio's votes to Mitt Romney, despite the fact that President Obama received more than 50 percent of the total vote share. And then some partisans simply hate the electoral college for failing to return their desired result, even when doing away with it would not benefit their party. Eventually, any debate will devolve into a modern remix of the initial federalist vs. anti-federalist debates.
** In addition, due to the fact that some states are significantly more densely populated than others, and thus have far more representatives, as of 2016, the eleven most populated states control exactly 270 electoral college votes, which means that in theory, those states could decide the presidency even if the other 39 unanimously vote for the other candidate.
** If no one gets the votes, it gets worse. The House picks the President, and the Senate picks the Vice President. Thomas Jefferson (1800) and John Quincy Adams (1824) were both elected this messy way; fortunately, both had the most popular vote, though Adams was second place in the electoral college. This system is one way it's possible for us to return to the days in which the President and Vice President are from different parties if differing parties control each chamber.
** And there's the other weird rule that no one understands: An elector from any specific state can either vote for a presidential candidate that resides in their state, or a vice-presidential candidate that resides in their state, but ''not'' both. This is usually misunderstood to mean that both candidates can't be from the same state, but that's not actually what it says at all. All it controls is each individual elector's vote. This means no one would lose any electoral votes if the state was going to vote the other way anyway.
*** OTOH, candidates are usually expected to carry their own state, and that probably would be doubly true if they both were from the same state.
*** And to throw in more confusion, this obviously doesn't require the electors to vote for 'the other guy'...they can just vote for some random schlub. And of course they can do some strategic voting...if the state had six electoral votes, and in the end the totals were close enough that the winner of that state need three more electoral votes to win, three of the electors could vote for their guy for prez, and some random guy as VP, and the other three could do the same for their party's choice of VP and some random guy as prez. OTOH, if he needed four votes, we might end up in the same silly situation as 'Congress deciding', where we have 'non-compatible' prez and VP, where they vote for their party's choice of Prez so he wins, but have to vote for someone else as VP so the other guy's VP wins.
*** However, this rule obviously has the potential to become incredibly confusing and stupid, so basically all parties have just decided to pick candidates from different states to avoid it. (There was actually a minor flap about this in 2000, as George W. Bush was of course resident in Texas, but it wasn't clear whether Dick Cheney, who had lived in Texas for some time by that point while he was running Halliburton, had effectively changed his residency back to Wyoming.)
** And let's not even get into the whole idea of 'faithless electors', where electors pick someone beside their parties' candidates. States have attempted to outlaw this, but it's generally accepted that such laws, while they might, or might not, allow for punishment after the fact, cannot change the actual vote itself. (And one wonders if they include some sort of exemption from the problem above with both candidates being from the that state, where electors are literally barred from voting how their party wishes. Or the unwritten 'George Washington is the only president ever elected unanimously by the electors, so if anyone else ever gets all the electors, one of them should defect' rule.)
** And then there's party delegates in the Presidential nomination process. One of the reasons UsefulNotes/BarackObama won in 2008 was that his campaign understood the Democratic delegate system and Hillary Clinton's did not. This conflict was repeated during the 2012 nomination process by the Republican candidates, complete with compromises and negotiations regarding delegate votes.
** The 2012 Republican Party primaries had a lot of states giving electorates by percentage (i.e. if you win 75% of a state, you get 75% of the delegates). This is being seen as problematic because it has contributed to the dragged-out nature of the primary and Republicans are worried about how much the candidates are needling each other. Other people are just bored with how much news coverage it's getting.
** After those primaries, GOP leaders pushed through a party rule change just before the national convention in a transparent attempt to keep libertarian insurgent Ron Paul from being entered into nomination (even though Mitt Romney had long since clinched the party's nod). Previously, a candidate had to receive a ''plurality'' of the delegates in at least five states to be entered into nomination. It was changed to require a ''majority'' in eight states, a criterion that only Romney met in 2012. However, that rule created the potential for a complete meltdown in 2016—with no fewer than ''16'' officially declared Republican candidates, it's at least theoretically possible that ''nobody'' would be eligible for the Republican nomination! (Of course, the rule would almost certainly be changed, but the possibilities for chaos at the convention are endless. Unless the field thins out considerably by then, which is extremely likely.)
** In an episode of ''Alf'' the titular alien muppet stated that the thing he found most ''insane'' about Earth was the Electoral College.
* The United States Constitution can be changed in two ways: by Congress, or by an "Article V" Convention. An Article V Convention has never happened, partially because the laws that govern it are so vague and untested that a convention for an amendment to change the voting age might produce a completely new Constitution instead.
** Some states have similar rules regarding ''their'' Constitutions or require a meeting of the people ''or'' for the people to vote to have the current state government appoint a committee to review the state's laws. In the modern era, this guarantees that the Constitution will never be evaluated by the people, who want to change the state Constitution because it's horrifically inefficient and outdated and requires them to form an assembly to review the Constitution, and repeat.
* In 2012, Ohio was targeted as the state most likely to be decisive (i.e., produce an unbreakable margin of victory and to exert considerable pull on other swing states) and the world was introduced to two laws that fall under this trope: the prohibition on counting absentee and provisional ballots until November 17th and a recent law mandating that voters (or advocacy organizations) must challenge federal election procedure in federal court[[note]]This raised considerable curiosity as to whether or not the issue of a state's law regarding internal conduct of federal elections could be challenged in federal court, but that was quickly dismissed when groups that did clearly have standing repeatedly filed suit against Ohio's Secretary of State citing federal law violations, but an individual voter likely would be unable to seek legal relief through the legal system if forced to file in federal court[[/note]]. In a worst-case scenario (or perhaps just in 2016), neither presidential candidate has 270 electoral votes and the number of uncounted absentee and provisional ballots is sufficient to eliminate one candidate's lead, but counting won't begin for at least ten days after the election, leaving the winner unknown well into December. The latter law, meanwhile, has turned into ThatOneLaw for those who ''passed'' it, as it was widely seen as an attempt by the current party in office to circumvent challenges to procedure and to provide the 2012 administration with a great deal of power in determining "valid" ballots. This became a case of HoistByHisOwnPetard for the Secretary of State, who had served in the statehouse when the bill was drafted. In the end, neither of these rules has had game-breaking effect, but if you enjoy election news at Christmas, it's entirely possible that 2016 or 2020's winner won't be declared until then.

to:

[[folder:Politics: America]]
Politics, like games, generally operates under a system of rules, and in many countries--especially liberal representative democracies--most of the rules are simple enough to be taught to children. However, even the simplest systems can get into a snarl now and then.
* Every amendment after the tenth[[note]]the first ten form the Bill of Rights[[/note]] can be seen as either this trope or an ObviousRulePatch. Many who turn to the Constitution for guidance may find themselves confused by the fact that the Articles as initially written do not align with current practice, with the most famous example being the "three-fifths compromise," which remains in the text despite being later nullified (by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery). Amendments have been passed out of philosophical harmony (e.g., the decision to have Senators directly elected by the people rather than chosen by a state's congress), necessity, as an "undo" function[[note]]Prohibition and its repeal are 18 and 21, respectively[[/note]], and, sometimes, because someone realized that there was no set procedure for a specific issue. The last amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1992 (and first proposed over 200 years prior) and addresses congressional salaries.
** This last amendment has caused a surprising amount of trouble in times of partisan gridlock in the legislature--while it was initially intended to discourage Congress from raising its salary too much (by allowing voters the chance to vote out legislators who did so before the change took effect), it also had the effect of preventing Congress from keeping itself in line by ''cutting'' its own pay.
* The Twenty-fifth Amendment, specifically Section 4 (the part that gives the Cabinet the power to declare the President incapacitated), whose complexities are so interesting for writers, [[TwentyFifthAmendment we gave it a trope]]. Somewhat ironically, the amendment was drafted because there was no explicit procedure for transfer of power in the event of inability to serve and the subsequent presidency of someone who had never been elected to ''any'' office.
* The Electoral College. This one is relatively simple to explain and extremely easy to adjudicate[[note]]At least in the abstract, but election law itself is an incoherent mess, often designed to keep the current party in power, and there are no uniform federal election procedures[[/note]], but it still gets Americans in a tizzy every time it becomes relevant. The Constitution stipulates that the President and Vice President are elected by an absolute majority of a special body called the Electoral College, composed of electors chosen in each state in a manner of the state legislature's choosing. Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in both houses of Congress, i.e., the size of its House of Representatives delegation plus two (for its Senators); this gives us 535 electors for today's Congress. The Twenty-third Amendment grants UsefulNotes/WashingtonDC three electoral votes, [[note]]Indirectly, since the Amendment stipulates that DC gets as many votes as its population entitles it to, but also no more than the smallest state. Conveniently, DC's population has never been big enough to warrant more than three electoral votes, anyway.[[/note]] giving us 538 electors. To win an absolute majority and thus the presidency, you thus need 270 electoral votes. \\
Simple enough, right? But of course, the states have all chosen to choose their electors by popular election--i.e., the electors are chosen as slates of individuals honor-bound (and in some states, legally-bound) to vote for the candidate of the people of that state's choosing. In most states, except Maine and Nebraska, the slates are chosen on a winner-take-all basis: whoever gets the most votes wins ''all'' of that state's electoral votes, even if it's not a majority. Even if you win a plurality in, oh I dunno...[[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWBush Florida by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast]], you come home with ''all'' of Florida's 25 (at the time) votes, and your opponent, none. Most of the time, the person who wins the "popular vote" (i.e. a plurality of the nationwide total) also wins the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency, but there are rare occasions when these do not line up, as with the famous 2000 election, above; along with the recent 2016 election. Americans get extremely confused by this, the news has to spend hours explaining the process, an explanation that often only makes people angrier.
** More commonly, a president gets elected without a ''majority'' (more than 50%) of the vote. In the 1992, '96, 2000, and 2016 elections, no candidate got a majority; in 1976 and 2004, the winner was just a hair over 50%. But it's less contentious when the electoral coillege winner at least got more votes than all the other candidates, even if (as in the case of Bill Clinton) he never made it to 50%. Even if the electoral college and popular vote are in harmony, expect quite a bit of
%% Per discussion over what constitutes a "mandate." Since an enormous number of ballots of haven't even been counted by the time the election winner is announced, the percentages announced on election night are often wrong. Moreover, you at http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1491953265035195600 , removing the
%% politics examples which
don't actually need to wait for a recount unless a state is decisive (Missouri held a recount in 2008, though it received little attention, as Barack Obama had won far more than really fit the necessary 270 votes). And now that America has adjusted, somewhat, to the electoral college -- the 2000, 2004, trope and 2012 elections were a prolonged lecture on the topic -- there's considerable debate over the need for an ObviousRulePatch. Electoral college votes go to the winner of the state, but selecting electors by ''county,'' as Ohio's Secretary of State suggested, would have given the majority of Ohio's votes to Mitt Romney, despite the fact that President Obama received more than 50 percent of the total vote share. And then some partisans simply hate the electoral college for failing to return their desired result, even when doing away with it would not benefit their party. Eventually, any debate will devolve into a modern remix of the initial federalist vs. anti-federalist debates.
** In addition, due to the fact that some states
are significantly more densely populated than others, and thus have far more representatives, as of 2016, the eleven most populated states control exactly 270 electoral college votes, which means that in theory, those states could decide the presidency even if the other 39 unanimously vote naturally contentious.

[[folder:Other]]
* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions
for the other candidate.
** If no one gets the votes, it gets worse. The House picks the President, and the Senate picks the Vice President. Thomas Jefferson (1800) and John Quincy Adams (1824) were both elected this messy way; fortunately, both had the most popular vote, though Adams was second place in the electoral college. This system is one way it's possible for us to return to the days in which the President and Vice President are from different parties if differing parties control each chamber.
** And there's the other weird rule that no one understands: An elector from any specific state can either vote for a presidential candidate that resides in their state, or a vice-presidential candidate that resides in their state, but ''not'' both. This is usually misunderstood to mean that both candidates can't be from the same state, but that's not actually what it says at all. All it controls is each individual elector's vote. This means no one would lose any electoral votes if the state was going to vote the other way anyway.
*** OTOH, candidates are usually expected to carry their own state, and that probably would be doubly true if they both were from the same state.
*** And to throw in more confusion, this obviously doesn't require the electors to vote for 'the other guy'...they can just vote for some random schlub. And
basis of course they can do some strategic voting...if the state had six electoral votes, and in the end the totals were close enough that the winner of that state need three more electoral votes to win, three of the electors could vote for their guy for prez, and some random guy as VP, and the other three could do the same for their party's choice of VP and some random guy as prez. OTOH, if Geometry, he needed four votes, we might end up in the same silly situation as 'Congress deciding', where we have 'non-compatible' prez and VP, where they vote for their party's choice of Prez so he wins, but have to vote for someone else as VP so the other guy's VP wins.
*** However, this rule obviously has the potential to become incredibly confusing and stupid, so basically all parties have just decided to pick candidates from different states to avoid it. (There was actually a minor flap
describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about this in 2000, as George W. Bush was of course resident in Texas, but it wasn't clear whether Dick Cheney, who had lived in Texas for some time by that point while he was running Halliburton, had effectively changed his residency back to Wyoming.)
** And let's not even get into
the whole idea of 'faithless electors', where electors pick someone beside their parties' candidates. States have attempted to outlaw this, but it's generally accepted that such laws, while they might, or might not, allow for punishment after the fact, cannot change the actual vote itself. (And one wonders if they include some sort of exemption from the problem above with both candidates being from the that state, where electors are literally barred from voting how their party wishes. Or the unwritten 'George Washington is the only president ever elected unanimously by the electors, so if anyone else ever gets all the electors, one of them should defect' rule.)
** And then there's party delegates in the Presidential nomination process. One of the reasons UsefulNotes/BarackObama won in 2008 was that his campaign understood the Democratic delegate system and Hillary Clinton's did not. This conflict was repeated during the 2012 nomination process by the Republican candidates, complete with compromises and negotiations regarding delegate votes.
** The 2012 Republican Party primaries had a lot of states giving electorates by percentage (i.e. if you win 75% of a state, you get 75% of the delegates). This is being seen as problematic because it has contributed to the dragged-out
nature of the primary and Republicans geometry he was trying to describe. They are worried about how much the candidates things that you can do or things that are needling each other. Other people true no matter what. They are just bored with how much news coverage it's getting.
** After those primaries, GOP leaders pushed through
1. To draw a party rule change just before the national convention in a transparent attempt to keep libertarian insurgent Ron Paul straight line from being entered into nomination (even though Mitt Romney had long since clinched the party's nod). Previously, a candidate had any point to receive a ''plurality'' of the delegates in at least five states to be entered into nomination. It was changed to require a ''majority'' in eight states, a criterion that only Romney met in 2012. However, that rule created the potential for a complete meltdown in 2016—with no fewer than ''16'' officially declared Republican candidates, it's at least theoretically possible that ''nobody'' would be eligible for the Republican nomination! (Of course, the rule would almost certainly be changed, but the possibilities for chaos at the convention are endless. Unless the field thins out considerably by then, which is extremely likely.)
** In an episode of ''Alf'' the titular alien muppet stated that the thing he found most ''insane'' about Earth was the Electoral College.
* The United States Constitution
any point [[note]]You can be changed in draw a straight line between any two ways: by Congress, or by an "Article V" Convention. An Article V Convention has never happened, partially because the laws that govern it are so vague and untested that a convention for an amendment to change the voting age might points[[/note]]. 2. To produce a completely new Constitution instead.
** Some states have similar rules regarding ''their'' Constitutions or require
finite straight line continuously in a meeting of the people ''or'' for the people straight line [[note]]you can extend a straight line in a straight line. This, and Postulate 1, describe how to vote to have the current state government appoint use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]. 3. To describe a committee to review the state's laws. In the modern era, this guarantees circle with any center and radius. [[note]]You can draw a circle using a compass[[/note]] 4. That all right angles equal one another [[note]]Right angles, which are when a line is split so that the Constitution will never be evaluated by the people, who want two formed angles are equal, are always equal to change the state Constitution because it's horrifically inefficient and outdated and requires them to form an assembly to review the Constitution, and repeat.
* In 2012, Ohio was targeted as the state most likely to be decisive (i.e., produce an unbreakable margin of victory and to exert considerable pull
other right angles formed on other swing states) and lines[[/note]]. 5. That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the world was introduced to interior angles on the same side less than two laws right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that fall under this trope: side on which are the prohibition on counting absentee and provisional ballots until November 17th and a recent law mandating angles less than the two right angles. Called the Parallel Postulate, it says that voters (or advocacy organizations) must challenge federal election procedure in federal court[[note]]This raised considerable curiosity as to whether or not if two lines intersect a third and make less than 180° (two "right angles") on one side, then the issue of a state's law regarding internal conduct of federal elections could be challenged in federal court, but two lines will, if extended, eventually intersect on that was quickly dismissed when groups that did clearly have standing repeatedly filed suit against Ohio's Secretary of State citing federal law violations, side, to form a triangle. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove the Parallel postulate from the first four and their consequences, but an individual voter likely would be unable to seek legal relief through the legal system if forced to file in federal court[[/note]]. In a worst-case scenario (or perhaps just in 2016), neither presidential candidate has 270 electoral votes and the number of uncounted absentee and provisional ballots is sufficient to eliminate one candidate's lead, but counting won't begin for at least ten days after the election, leaving the winner unknown well into December. The latter law, meanwhile, has turned into ThatOneLaw for those who ''passed'' it, as eventually it was widely seen as an attempt by the current party in office to circumvent challenges to procedure and to provide the 2012 administration with a great deal of power in determining "valid" ballots. This became a case of HoistByHisOwnPetard for the Secretary of State, who had served in the statehouse when the bill was drafted. In the end, neither of these rules has had game-breaking effect, but if you enjoy election news at Christmas, it's entirely possible shown that 2016 or 2020's winner won't be declared until then.there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.





[[folder:Politics: Canada]]
* The Westminster System of electing a Premier or Prime Minister in Canada is often misunderstood by large portions of the electorate, who will sometimes confuse elements of it with the Presidential System used in the US. One of the significant differences is that under the Westminster System voters do not directly elect the leader of their province or country; instead they elect their local representatives ([=MLAs=] or [=MPPs=] at the provincial level, [=MPs=] at the federal level) and those representatives choose a leader to govern. The leader can also be changed or removed at any time should the representatives decide to support someone else and this will not trigger a new election. The leader need not be an elected official and occasionally isn't if there's a change of leadership between elections (though, for various reasons, the leader typically seeks election as soon as possible after they are chosen if they do not already hold a seat). The whole system tends to cause much grumbling if a leader retires or is forced out in the middle of a term and a new one is selected (leading to cries of "We're being governed by someone who we didn't even elect!", ignoring the case that that is always technically true).
** Another caveat of this system which seldom comes into play, but is similarly poorly understood, is that the leader need not come from the party with the most seats in Parliament/the Legislature. This was most recently displayed in 2008, when the federal Conservative Party held the most seats in parliament, but not an outright majority. The Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was nearly forced out of his job when the opposition parties - representing a majority of the seats in parliament - agreed to form a coalition government, supporting the Liberal leader for the Prime Ministerial post. Since the majority of parliament would have expressed confidence in the Liberal Leader over the Conservative one, this was technically legal, and the coalition members represented a majority of Canadians, giving it democratic mandate--at the end of the day, more Canadians had voted for the Liberals, NDP, and BQ together than had voted for the Conservatives (and considering the typical leanings of NDP and BQ voters, would probably prefer to have a generic Liberal PM over a generic Tory one if they had to pick between the two, although the personalities ''actually'' involved complicate matters considerably). However, the attempt to seize government generated significant protest from the electorate and ultimately the coalition collapsed before the vote could be held. The furor over this was a significant factor in Conservative Stephen Harper's gaining a majority in the next election despite his lack of personal popularity.
** The Governor General of Canada has the sole authority to inaugurate a prime minister yet the decision-making role the governor general can or should play in arbitrating situations where the prime ministership is contested is vague, unwritten, and lacks much helpful precedent. In ordinary times, the governor general is supposed to be an obedient rubber-stamp and always obey the prime minister, but in situations where the prime minister's hold on power is being contested, such as in the coalition situation described above, it's hardly clear what he or she should do, and can actually create a sort of paradox. Since there is always an incumbent PM, and the incumbent PM was always installed through some sort of democratic process, it will always be possible for an incumbent PM to argue it would be a violation of Canada's democratic norms for the governor general to disobey him, and install a different prime minister — even when the would-be alternate prime minister has a persuasive alternative argument regarding why the incumbent PM should be fired. Things get even more complicated when we consider the incumbent PM technically has the power to fire the governor general, a structural flaw some have described as "mutually assured dismissal." Technically the Queen could overrule the governor general ''and'' prime minister, but then we'd be in an entirely different can of worms.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Politics: Australia]]
* The voting system for the Australian senate. For each state, six senators are elected at each election (or twelve, in the case of a Double Dissolution), under a preferential voting system, where if a candidate makes the quota needed to secure a seat, their excess votes are redistributed to other candidates. To make things worse, the number of candidates standing often means the physical ballot paper is ''huge''. No wonder many Australians' brains bleed at election time.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Other]]
* In Euclid's Elements, after describing his definitions for the basis of Geometry, he describes five Postulates, fundamental truths about the nature of the geometry he was trying to describe. They are things that you can do or things that are true no matter what. They are 1. To draw a straight line from any point to any point [[note]]You can draw a straight line between any two points[[/note]]. 2. To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line [[note]]you can extend a straight line in a straight line. This, and Postulate 1, describe how to use an unmarked straightedge[[/note]]. 3. To describe a circle with any center and radius. [[note]]You can draw a circle using a compass[[/note]] 4. That all right angles equal one another [[note]]Right angles, which are when a line is split so that the two formed angles are equal, are always equal to other right angles formed on other lines[[/note]]. 5. That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles. Called the Parallel Postulate, it says that if two lines intersect a third and make less than 180° (two "right angles") on one side, then the two lines will, if extended, eventually intersect on that side, to form a triangle. Euclid, and other mathematicians, tried for several thousand years to prove the Parallel postulate from the first four and their consequences, but eventually it was shown that there are geometries where the first four are true, but the fifth is not.
[[/folder]]
12th Apr '17 8:24:20 AM Madrugada
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The offside rule. The rule is of course very straightforward (basically, if you were behind all the defenders[[note]] except for the goalie -- or, well, see below[[/note]] when the ball was passed to you, the move is ruled illegal and the defending team gets a free kick); it's just tediously worded and has a ''reputation'' for being so complicated that newcomers declare themselves confused without even trying to understand, and those who understand it feel the need to explain it in as complicated and detailed a way as possible. This in turn gets people annoyed and, well, it merits ThatOneRule status, anyway.
** There is one ''slight'' complication. You can't score if you're behind all the defenders ''but one,'' with the goalkeeper counting as a defender. This only matters when the play has gone past the defending goalie, but there's another defender between the player who got the ball and the goal. Which is to say, hardly ever.
** Actually, there are a few more complications:
*** If you were behind the ball when it was passed to you, you're onside regardless of where any defender was.
*** The same is true if you were in your own half of the field when it was passed to you.
*** A more common complication is that every offensive player is onside during a corner kick, goal kick, or throw-in until the ball is first touched by a player.
*** Another rare complication is that, sometimes, an offside player doesn't even need to touch the ball in order to be offside, which happens if he is interpretated as being involved in the play in some way (like letting the ball pass through his legs or blocking the field of vision of the goalie).
** The inability of anyone to explain the offside rule is gloriously parodied in ''[[Radio/ImSorryIHaventAClue The Little Book of Mornington Crescent]]''. The explanation of Mornington Crescent's offside rule is half a page of dense, jargon-filled gobbledegook. Which concludes "''This should not be confused with the offside rule''".

to:

* The offside rule. The rule is of course very straightforward (basically, if you were behind all the defenders[[note]] except for the goalie -- or, well, see below[[/note]] when the ball was passed to you, the move is ruled illegal and the defending team gets a free kick); it's just tediously worded and has a ''reputation'' for being so complicated that newcomers declare themselves confused without even trying to understand, and those who understand it feel the need to explain it in as complicated and detailed a way as possible. This in turn gets people annoyed and, well, annoyed. The complications and special circumstances that move it merits ThatOneRule status, anyway.
into The One Rule territory are:
** There is one ''slight'' complication. You can't score if you're behind all the defenders ''but one,'' with the goalkeeper counting as a defender. This only matters when the play has gone past the defending goalie, but there's another defender between the player who got the ball and the goal. Which is to say, hardly ever.
** Actually, there are a few more complications:
***
If you were behind the ball when it was passed to you, you're onside regardless of where any defender was.
*** ** The same is true if you were in your own half of the field when it was passed to you.
*** A more common complication is that every ** Every offensive player is onside during a corner kick, goal kick, or throw-in until the ball is first touched by a player.
*** Another rare complication is that, sometimes, ** Sometimes, an offside player doesn't even need to touch the ball in order to be offside, which happens if he is interpretated interpreted as being involved in the play in some way (like letting the ball pass through his legs or blocking the field of vision of the goalie).
** The inability of anyone to explain the offside rule is gloriously parodied in ''[[Radio/ImSorryIHaventAClue The Little Book of Mornington Crescent]]''. The explanation of Mornington Crescent's offside rule is half a page of dense, jargon-filled gobbledegook. Which concludes "''This should not be confused with the offside rule''".
goalie).



** It's most ludicrous when compared with the numerous sports that use a "zone" system for offside rules which have nice thick lines on the playing surface and linesmen with the sole job to observe when and how the line is crossed.
* The lack of goal line technology could perhaps be called That One Lack Of A Rule. Every fan knows the pain of having a good goal disqualified (or a bad goal by the opponent let through) thanks to a ref's poor vision. FIFA's refusal to consider change hit its nadir during the 2010 World Cup -- after news that fans in the stadiums were upset after watching ref screw-ups on big-screen monitors, FIFA's initial solution was a ban on in-stadium goal replays. Further controversies at the 2012 European Cup led them to finally accept goal-line technology starting with the 2014 World Cup.
* Similarly, the Brazilian championship of soccer had the tradition of always changing the formula. Sometimes yearly (and if a big team was meant to be relegated, there would be an ObviousRulePatch to keep it in the top level). In 1999, the relegation was similar to an Argentine rule, based on the average points between 1998 and 1999. But it got worse when a team who suffered a last-minute downgrade [[http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/tablesae/br2000.htm started a lawsuit...]]

to:

** It's most ludicrous when compared The inability of anyone to explain the offside rule is parodied in ''[[Radio/ImSorryIHaventAClue The Little Book of Mornington Crescent]]''. The explanation of Mornington Crescent's offside rule is half a page of dense, jargon-filled gobbledegook. Which concludes "''This should not be confused with the numerous sports that use a "zone" system for offside rules which have nice thick lines on the playing surface and linesmen with the sole job to observe when and how the line is crossed.
rule''".
* The lack of goal line technology could perhaps be called That One Lack Of A Rule. Every fan knows the pain of having a good goal disqualified (or a bad goal by the opponent let through) thanks to a ref's poor vision. FIFA's refusal to consider change hit its nadir during the 2010 World Cup -- after news that fans in the stadiums were upset after watching ref screw-ups on big-screen monitors, FIFA's initial solution was a ban on in-stadium goal replays. Further controversies at the 2012 European Cup led them to finally accept goal-line technology starting with the 2014 World Cup.
* Similarly, the
Brazilian championship of soccer had the tradition of always changing the formula. Sometimes yearly (and if a big team was meant to be relegated, there would be an ObviousRulePatch to keep it in the top level). In 1999, the relegation was similar to an Argentine rule, based on the average points between 1998 and 1999. But it got worse when a team who suffered a last-minute downgrade [[http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/tablesae/br2000.htm started a lawsuit...]]
12th Apr '17 8:17:14 AM Madrugada
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Differs from LoadsAndLoadsOfRules in that this is a localized case of the problem. See also GrapplingWithGrapplingRules, an example from tabletop {{RPG}}s. Not to be confused with ScrappyMechanic, which is not about a game rule or mechanic being complex or confusing, but about it being outright hated. Note that a rule can be both (for example, the draw rule in chess, below).

to:

Differs from LoadsAndLoadsOfRules in that this is a localized case of the problem. See also GrapplingWithGrapplingRules, an example from tabletop {{RPG}}s. Not to be confused with ScrappyMechanic, which is not about a game rule or mechanic being complex or confusing, but about it being outright hated. Note that hated - a rule can be both (for example, the draw rule in chess, below).overly-complicated and hated.



** The only cards that are completely banned in the Vintage format (as opposed to restricted to one copy) can be said to involve this trope.
*** Ante cards are banned because the ante rules are no longer supported due to falling afoul of gambling laws (and was kinda silly anyway, as the ante was randomly chosen from each player's deck).
*** [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=980 Shahrazad]] is banned because it was mostly used to prolong games beyond tournament time limits, forcing a draw, rather than for strategic advantage.
*** [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=603 Chaos Orb]] and [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=1571 Falling Star]] are banned because the physical dexterity mechanic was in stark contrast with the mechanics of the rest of the game, the "at least one foot and flipping at least once" bit was difficult to enforce, and it forced players to play with the habit of spreading out their cards, which interfered with tournament space constraints.
** The so-called "infinity rule" is also responsible for plenty of headaches. For example, if one player can do an arbitrarily large amount of damage, and another player can prevent an arbitrarily large amount of damage, things get ugly. (Would you believe that the outcome depends on ''whose turn it is''?)

to:

** The only cards that are completely banned in the Vintage format (as opposed to restricted to one copy) can be said to involve this trope.
*** Ante cards are banned because the ante rules are no longer supported due to falling afoul of gambling laws (and was kinda silly anyway, as the ante was randomly chosen from each player's deck).
*** [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=980 Shahrazad]] is banned because it was mostly used to prolong games beyond tournament time limits, forcing a draw, rather than for strategic advantage.
*** [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=603 Chaos Orb]] and [[http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=1571 Falling Star]] are banned because the physical dexterity mechanic was in stark contrast with the mechanics of the rest of the game, the "at least one foot and flipping at least once" bit was difficult to enforce, and it forced players to play with the habit of spreading out their cards, which interfered with tournament space constraints.
** The so-called "infinity rule" is also responsible for plenty of headaches. For example, if one player can do an arbitrarily large amount of damage, and another player can prevent an arbitrarily large amount of damage, things get ugly. (Would you believe that the outcome depends on ''whose turn it is''?)



** Similarly, there are cards (such as [[http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Thunder_King_Rai-Oh Thunder King Rai-Oh]] that specify that they can negate the special summon (any summon that isn't a normal summon or flip summon) of a monster. Despite what they say, they can only negate certain special summon; they can negate anything where a monster special summons itself without starting a chain (synchro summon, xyz summon, Cyber Dragon, [[GameBreaker Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning]], etc.), but they can't negate a special summon performed during the resolution of another card's effect (fusion summon, ritual summon, Monster Reborn, etc.). This is because you aren't allowed to activate effects during the resolution of other effects. Cards that can negate any special summon have to explicitly say that they can negate a special summon or an effect that would summon a monster.

to:

** Similarly, there There are cards (such as [[http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Thunder_King_Rai-Oh Thunder King Rai-Oh]] that specify that they can negate the special summon (any summon that isn't a normal summon or flip summon) of a monster. Despite what they say, they can only negate certain special summon; they can negate anything where a monster special summons itself without starting a chain (synchro summon, xyz summon, Cyber Dragon, [[GameBreaker Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning]], etc.), but they can't negate a special summon performed during the resolution of another card's effect (fusion summon, ritual summon, Monster Reborn, etc.). This is because you aren't allowed to activate effects during the resolution of other effects. Cards that can negate any special summon have to explicitly say that they can negate a special summon or an effect that would summon a monster.



* Before 4th edition TabletopGame/DungeonsAndDragons, initiating a grappling attack was usually cause for your entire gaming group to throw large, heavy objects at you. There's a reason the trope is called GrapplingWithGrapplingRules.

to:

* TabletopGame/DungeonsAndDragons:
**
Before 4th edition TabletopGame/DungeonsAndDragons, edition, initiating a grappling attack was usually cause for your entire gaming group to throw large, heavy objects at you. There's a reason the trope is called GrapplingWithGrapplingRules.



* TabletopGame/{{Bridge}} - In tournament and club play, there are procedures for dealing with a board that cannot be scored for any reason at one or more tables. These are mathematically complex, and can result in a pair not involved having its score reduced - for example, a pair that might otherwise have gotten 10 out of 10 on that board will now get only 9.9. This is disliked both by new players (who don't understand the calculations involved) and by experts (for whom that small adjustment can have an impact on their placement).

to:

* TabletopGame/{{Bridge}} - TabletopGame/{{Bridge}}
**
In tournament and club play, there are procedures for dealing with a board that cannot be scored for any reason at one or more tables. These are mathematically complex, and can result in a pair not involved having its score reduced - for example, a pair that might otherwise have gotten 10 out of 10 on that board will now get only 9.9. This is disliked both by new players (who don't understand the calculations involved) and by experts (for whom that small adjustment can have an impact on their placement).



!! General
* The Salary Cap, in virtually any sport that employs one... and those without it have the That One Unofficial Rule that says teams in the biggest markets can just outspend everyone. Certain cap schemes are more complicated than others, at least in American sports:
** The NFL's scheme is pretty simple: teams can't go over the cap for any reason; if they do, they're forced to start cutting players until they're below it. A player's signing bonus counts against the cap equally across every year of his deal, e.g. a $5 million bonus on a 5-year deal would count $1 million against the cap each year even if it was all paid in the first year. The player's yearly salary counts at full value. If a player is cut before the contract ends (and before the regular season starts), then the rest of the contract's regular salary doesn't count, but the remaining signing bonus cap hit applies for that year. Incentives are the trickiest part: if an incentive is deemed Likely to be Earned[[note]]The player would have earned the incentive the previous year[[/note]], it counts against the cap, but if it isn't earned, the team gets extra cap money next year. If it's not Likely to be Earned, it doesn't count against the cap, but if it is earned it counts against next year's cap.
** The NHL's scheme is a bit more complicated. Regular salaries can't go over the cap, but performance bonuses can go a set amount over without a team being punished. The yearly cap hit of a contract is the average of that contract's yearly salary. No individual contract can be more than 20% of the total cap. Players sent to the minors don't have their contracts count against the cap. Injured players' contracts do count, but a team can sign any number of players whose cap hit is at most the injured player's hit without penalty. A player can't be outright cut; they can be bought out for 1/3 of their remaining salary if they're under 28, 2/3 if they're between 28 and 35, or not at all if they're over 35, and the buyout is spread over twice the remaining years on the contract.
*** And it's not quite that simple, either. Players over 35 count for their cap hit minus $100,000 if they're sent to the minors in the second or later year of a multi-year contract. The cap is re-calculated per day, so if you're under at the beginning of the year, you can spend more later. Contracts also have limits on how much they can change year-to-year (half of the lesser value of the first two years salaries is how much a contract can change value by each year). According to the CBA (the governing document for this stuff), players who are suspended don't count against the cap, but the Players' Association and the league agreed that was unintentional, so they ignore that rule (and didn't explicitly tell anyone else they were ignoring it until 2011). There are reasons teams keep messing up when they write contracts - it's complicated.
** MLB has a luxury tax system; any team that spends over a certain amount has to pay an additional percentage of the overage to the league which gets redistributed to player benefits, growing the sport in developing nations, and the Industry Growth fund. A first-time violator in a 5-year period pays 22.5% of how much they exceeded the cap, a second-time violator 30%, and a third- or more-time violator 40%.
** The NBA has the craziest cap rules. There are several exceptions that a team can use to get over the cap, including:
*** The mid-level exception, which is used for signing a player (or players) for up to the average NBA salary (combined salaries if used on more than one player).
*** Rookie scale exceptions for signing 1st-round picks.
*** Various exceptions for a team re-signing their own players; these vary based on how long the player has been in the league.
*** The minimum player exception, where anyone can be signed to a league-minimum contract regardless a team's cap situation.
*** The traded player exception. Ordinarily, a team over the cap cannot take on more than 125% of the salaries it's trading away. If a team makes a trade where the player(s) they get back count less against the cap than the ones being traded away, the salary difference "X" can be used in a future trade or trades up to one year later to acquire player(s) whose salaries are up to "X" more than they should normally be allowed to trade for. The exception can only be used in single-player trades.
*** The disabled player exception, which allows a team to replace an injured player with one whose salary is up to 50% of the disabled player's.
*** And in addition to all these exceptions, the NBA also has a luxury tax for teams that go a good deal beyond the soft cap, and the cost for exceeding the tax level is complicated. The NBA salary cap rules are so byzantine [[http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm that there is an FAQ which attempts to explain it by answering over 120 questions.]]



%% * The computer formulas used to rank the BCS teams.
* Most such rules are either buried in the rulebook until a controversy uncovers it (e.g., [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule the Tuck rule]], the "ineligible receiver" rule), or through subjective over-enforcement (e.g., "Defenseless Player" rulings).

to:

%% * The computer formulas used to rank the BCS teams.
* Most such rules are either buried in the rulebook until a controversy uncovers it (e.g., [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule the Tuck rule]], the "ineligible receiver" rule), or through subjective over-enforcement (e.g., "Defenseless Player" rulings).



*** Before the Calvin Johnson Rule, there was the Bert Emanuel Rule.
12th Apr '17 7:55:35 AM Madrugada
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** [[http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/21 Banding]] is a particularly bad example, though it is not too complicated, just occasionally creating counterintuitive situations because a group of creatures behaved in an unusual manner for blocking purposes, damage assignment (spells and combat damage were assigned to banded creatures in different ways, which confused players), and sometimes led to odd situations that confused newbies (such as assigning damage to a creature which ordinarily could not even be blocked by the creature it is taking damage from, and in some cases, this would also prevent the creature from dealing any damage to the band at all). Bands With X, however, was completely baffling as originally written. X was a creature type or a description, such as "green Legends" or "Wolves of the Hunt". Why is this confusing? Because, despite its name, this did not allow these creatures to form a band with, say, Wolves of the Hunt, but with other creatures with banding or "Bands with Wolves of the Hunt". So, if a Wolves of the Hunt did not have Bands with Wolves of the Hunt somehow (possible in [[CombinatorialExplosion many ways]]), it would actually be impossible for another creature with "Bands with Wolves of the Hunt" to band with it! Both abilities were quickly dropped from the game.



** The fine print on spell/trap/effect monster cards can also lead to some unusual circumstances and headaches. Legendary Fisherman on the Field while "Umi" is active? If no other monsters are on the field, opponent can attack your life points directly. Trap Card negating the effects of all monsters on the field? Monsters can still be special-summoned by their own effect, ignoring any change to ATK and DEF as a result[[note]]A monster effect that allows you to special summon that monster isn't considered to activate on the field.[[/note]]. Both of these are official rulings. Also, flip effects of monsters ONLY activate after damage calculation. A face-down defense-position monster that is attacked is NOT flip-summoned, it is merely "flipped". A handful of cards have the exact text "When this card is '''''flip summoned'''''..."

to:

** The fine print on spell/trap/effect monster cards can also lead to some unusual circumstances and headaches. Legendary Fisherman on the Field while "Umi" is active? If no other monsters are on the field, opponent can attack your life points directly. Trap Card negating the effects of all monsters on the field? Monsters can still be special-summoned by their own effect, ignoring any change to ATK and DEF as a result[[note]]A monster effect that allows you to special summon that monster isn't considered to activate on the field.[[/note]]. Both of these are official rulings. Also, flip effects of monsters ONLY activate after damage calculation. A face-down defense-position monster that is attacked is NOT flip-summoned, it is merely "flipped". A handful of cards have the exact text "When this card is '''''flip summoned'''''...flip summoned..."



** The most hated rule is easily the [[http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Missing_the_Timing missing the timing rule]]. For those of you who don't want to click the link... there are four types of effects that activate when a certain condition is met (they take the form of "If X, Y", "If X, you can Y", "When X, Y", and "When X, you can Y"). An "If" effect occurs as long as its condition is met, and is incapable of missing the timing. A "When X, Y" effect must occurs right after its condition is met, but can't miss the timing because it's mandatory. "When... you can" effects, however, MUST happen immediately after their condition occurs; since it's not mandatory, and thus doesn't HAVE to happen, it won't happen if anything else happens in between when its condition is met and you're allowed to activate new effects. This means that if its condition is met during any link of a chain other than the first link, or ifs its condition is met during any part other than the last one of the resolution of a multiple-part effect, it'll miss the timing because the rest of the chain/the effect it was met during happens before you have a chance to activate it, and thus the condition is no longer correct by the time you're able to activate it. For example, if an effect can activate when a monster (let's call it monster A) is summoned by another monster's effect, but that monster is summoned during chain link 2, then you won't be able to activate it after the chain ends because link 1 happened during the small window of opportunity when you were allowed to activate the effect, forcing you to skip it. Similarly, if you activate a monster's effect that allows you to summon monster A, then do something else (such as tributing another monster), then the second half of the effect will cause you to skip past the window of opportunity, again forcing you to skip the activation of monster A's effect. Confused yet? The fact that such a rule doesn't exist in the anime doesn't help.
* ''TabletopGame/StarWarsCustomizableCardGame'': '''''Attrition'''''. For a vastly simplified explanation, at the end of most larger battles, ''both'' sides are assessed a penalty, in addition to the penalty paid for losing a battle, which can only be paid by discarding combatants (as opposed to discarding from one's hand or deck), which counts simultaneously toward the penalties paid by the loser; this penalty or its remainder is often waived if the characters remaining have sufficient PlotArmor, but how much plot armor is needed depends on the ''whole'' penalty, regardless of how many has to be paid by {{Red Shirt}}s, and the loser's penalty remains if it's not paid by the time remaining attrition is waived, and ''can'', if the player wishes, be paid by discarding these characters. Even in a game notorious for LoadsAndLoadsOfRules, the complications that would crop up around this one in particular are ''legendary''.
* Before 4th edition TabletopGame/DungeonsAndDragons, initiating a grappling attack is usually cause for your entire gaming group to throw large, heavy objects at you. There's a reason the trope is called GrapplingWithGrapplingRules.
** Subduing dragons in early editions required the GM to recalculate what percentage of the dragon's HP you had burned through with non-lethal damage and then make percentile rolls. Worse, it basically amounted to giving a rampaging, roaring engine of death a blanket party and hoping it decided to cry. Bad rules are bad; violating the RuleOfCool and RuleOfFun at the same time is unforgivable.

to:

** The most hated rule is easily the [[http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Missing_the_Timing missing the timing rule]]. For those of you who don't want to click the link... there There are four types of effects that activate when a certain condition is met (they take the form of "If X, Y", "If X, you can Y", "When X, Y", and "When X, you can Y"). An "If" effect occurs as long as its condition is met, and is incapable of missing the timing. A "When X, Y" effect must occurs right after its condition is met, but can't miss the timing because it's mandatory. "When... you can" effects, however, MUST happen immediately after their condition occurs; since it's not mandatory, and thus doesn't HAVE to happen, it won't happen if anything else happens in between when its condition is met and you're allowed to activate new effects. This means that if its condition is met during any link of a chain other than the first link, or ifs if its condition is met during any part other than the last one of the resolution of a multiple-part effect, it'll miss the timing because the rest of the chain/the effect it was met during happens before you have a chance to activate it, and thus the condition is no longer correct by the time you're able to activate it. For example, if an effect can activate when a monster (let's call it monster A) is summoned by another monster's effect, but that monster is summoned during chain link 2, then you won't be able to activate it after the chain ends because link 1 happened during the small window of opportunity when you were allowed to activate the effect, forcing you to skip it. Similarly, if you activate a monster's effect that allows you to summon monster A, then do something else (such as tributing another monster), then the second half of the effect will cause you to skip past the window of opportunity, again forcing you to skip the activation of monster A's effect. Confused yet? The fact that such a rule doesn't exist in the anime doesn't help.
* ''TabletopGame/StarWarsCustomizableCardGame'': '''''Attrition'''''. "Attrition". For a vastly simplified explanation, at the end of most larger battles, ''both'' both sides are assessed a penalty, in addition to the penalty paid for losing a battle, which can only be paid by discarding combatants (as opposed to discarding from one's hand or deck), which counts simultaneously toward the penalties paid by the loser; this penalty or its remainder is often waived if the characters remaining have sufficient PlotArmor, but how much plot armor is needed depends on the ''whole'' penalty, regardless of how many has to be paid by {{Red Shirt}}s, and the loser's penalty remains if it's not paid by the time remaining attrition is waived, and ''can'', if the player wishes, be paid by discarding these characters. Even in a game notorious for LoadsAndLoadsOfRules, the complications that would crop up around this one in particular are ''legendary''.
* Before 4th edition TabletopGame/DungeonsAndDragons, initiating a grappling attack is was usually cause for your entire gaming group to throw large, heavy objects at you. There's a reason the trope is called GrapplingWithGrapplingRules.
** Subduing dragons in early editions required the GM to recalculate what percentage of the dragon's HP you had burned through with non-lethal damage and then make percentile rolls. Worse, it basically amounted to giving a rampaging, roaring engine of death a blanket party and hoping it decided to cry. Bad rules are bad; violating the RuleOfCool and RuleOfFun at the same time is unforgivable.



*** Taken UpToEleven in ''TabletopGame/ChuubosMarvelousWishGrantingEngine'': the author had to clarify that you can take a Wound to prevent someone from healing one of your previous Wounds -- and might even want to, if playing as Nightmares' Angel or other Wounded Angel characters.
** The Treasure attribute's upper echelons were so confusing that a free minibook, [[http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=115109 The Story Of Treasure]], had to be released to clarify.
12th Apr '17 7:45:06 AM Madrugada
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''TabletopGame/{{Monopoly}}'':
** The mortgage interest rules seem simple enough. Mortgage a property, get cash from bank, can't collect rent. Pay 110% cash back to bank, collect rent again. But transferring a mortgaged property requires the recipient to pay that extra 10% immediately, whether they pay back the entire mortgage or not. (And if they don't, they have to pay it again later when they do.) The most common reason for mortgaging property is a lack of cash, a lack of cash causes players to go bankrupt, bankrupt players give all their possessions to their creditor... you can see where this is going. (In especially unusual cases, this could cause TakingYouWithMe between a pair of weak players.[[note]]Player A lands on Player B's property, the cost of the rent causes Player A to be eliminated by Player B, Player B receives Player A's mortgaged properties, the bank charges 10% on them, Player B cannot afford the charges and is eliminated by the bank[[/note]])
** The auction rule is ''forgotten entirely'' by a surprising number of players. When a player lands on a property and chooses not to buy, it's supposed to go up for auction to the highest bidder, introducing an added level of strategy into what would otherwise be a simple question of "can I spare the cash or not?"
** Landing on Free Parking does absolutely nothing. This seems awfully boring at first glance, but the common {{House Rule|s}} of getting money for landing on that spot (whether a flat bonus or a jackpot of various fees normally paid to the bank) tends to prolong the game -- when one of the most common criticisms of the game is that it's too long, this is probably the wrong move.
** Income Tax ''was'' this, as until recently there was an option to pay 10% of your total wealth rather than accept a flat tax of $200. Doing so in the mid-to-late game meant busting out a calculator and adding up your cash, buildings, and all your properties while everyone else used it as a chance to use the restroom.[[note]]Generally, this was only viable in the early game anyway, as a player starts with $1500 and gains an average of $170 per circuit of the board--if the calculated tax ''was'' viable for a player in the late game, they were likely nearing elimination anyway.[[/note]] Newer versions of the game eliminate the 10% option entirely.
** Jail - This is house ruled so often that many don't even realize that in the default rules the only penalty for being in jail is being unable to move, which makes it a good thing in the late game as a player can just sit in jail and collect rent without having to worry about landing on someone else's property.
** Trade - Technically, things like immunity from rent or selling buildings (on the trading partner's turn so they can buy the buildings you put back into stock) are not part of the game. They can be promised, but the promise isn't actually a part of the game. Money cannot be loaned to another player, but AintNoRule that says it can't be gifted.
* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castling Castling]] and ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant en passant]]'' capture are confusing to many TabletopGame/{{Chess}} players. The latter move is an ObviousRulePatch that allows a pawn to be captured by another pawn on a square which it has ''just moved past'', while the former is the only way in the game to have two pieces of the same color move at once and has highly unusual restrictions on when it can be used. {{Tournament Play}}ers will certainly be familiar with both of those moves; what frustrates them instead are the long-evolving rules about when they are allowed to claim a position as drawn.
** Once or twice, chess grandmasters have demonstrated a lack of understanding about castling (namely, thinking that the rook is not allowed to pass through a threat, when that only applies to the king).
*** However, there is only one scenario where this is the case. Queenside Castle with a threat to B-1 or B-8 squares.

to:

* ''TabletopGame/{{Monopoly}}'':
** The mortgage interest rules seem simple enough. Mortgage a property, get cash from bank, can't collect rent. Pay 110% cash back to bank, collect rent again. But transferring a mortgaged property requires the recipient to pay that extra 10% immediately, whether they pay back the entire mortgage or not. (And if they don't, they have to pay it again later when they do.) The most common reason for mortgaging property is a lack of cash, a lack of cash causes players to go bankrupt, bankrupt players give all their possessions to their creditor... you can see where this is going. (In especially unusual cases, this could cause TakingYouWithMe between a pair of weak players.[[note]]Player A lands on Player B's property, the cost of the rent causes Player A to be eliminated by Player B, Player B receives Player A's mortgaged properties, the bank charges 10% on them, Player B cannot afford the charges and is eliminated by the bank[[/note]])
** The auction rule is ''forgotten entirely'' by a surprising number of players. When a player lands on a property and chooses not to buy, it's supposed to go up for auction to the highest bidder, introducing an added level of strategy into what would otherwise be a simple question of "can I spare the cash or not?"
** Landing on Free Parking does absolutely nothing. This seems awfully boring at first glance, but the common {{House Rule|s}} of getting money for landing on that spot (whether a flat bonus or a jackpot of various fees normally paid to the bank) tends to prolong the game -- when one of the most common criticisms of the game is that it's too long, this is probably the wrong move.
** Income Tax ''was'' this, as until recently there was an option to pay 10% of your total wealth rather than accept a flat tax of $200. Doing so in the mid-to-late game meant busting out a calculator and adding up your cash, buildings, and all your properties while everyone else used it as a chance to use the restroom.[[note]]Generally, this was only viable in the early game anyway, as a player starts with $1500 and gains an average of $170 per circuit of the board--if the calculated tax ''was'' viable for a player in the late game, they were likely nearing elimination anyway.[[/note]] Newer versions of the game eliminate the 10% option entirely.
** Jail - This is house ruled so often that many don't even realize that in the default rules the only penalty for being in jail is being unable to move, which makes it a good thing in the late game as a player can just sit in jail and collect rent without having to worry about landing on someone else's property.
** Trade - Technically, things like immunity from rent or selling buildings (on the trading partner's turn so they can buy the buildings you put back into stock) are not part of the game. They can be promised, but the promise isn't actually a part of the game. Money cannot be loaned to another player, but AintNoRule that says it can't be gifted.
* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castling Castling]] and ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant en passant]]'' capture are confusing to many TabletopGame/{{Chess}} players. The latter move is an ObviousRulePatch that allows a pawn to be captured by another pawn on a square which it has ''just moved past'', while the former is the only way in the game to have two pieces of the same color move at once and has highly unusual restrictions on when it can be used. {{Tournament Play}}ers will certainly be familiar with both of those moves; what frustrates them instead are the long-evolving rules about when they are allowed to claim a position as drawn.
** Once or twice,
drawn. However, sometimes even chess grandmasters have demonstrated a lack of understanding about castling (namely, thinking that the rook is not allowed to pass through a threat, when that only applies to the king).
*** However, there is only one scenario where this is the case. Queenside Castle with a threat to B-1 or B-8 squares.
king).



** except for the "ko rule" which is designed to prevent repeating positions. In the simplest form it just disallows one specific position which is sufficient for 99.9% of all games. The Ing Ko Rule resolves the other .1%, at the expense of pages and pages of explication.

to:

** except Except for the "ko rule" which is designed to prevent repeating positions. In the simplest form it just disallows one specific position which is sufficient for 99.9% of all games. The Ing Ko Rule resolves the other .1%, at the expense of pages and pages of explication.



* The "one-''Yaku''-minimum" rule in Japanese TabletopGame/{{Mahjong}} can be incredibly frustrating for new players, as just getting a legal hand can be difficult enough without then being told you can't win because your hand has no "value".
** And then you throw in the rule that a hand with no value [[YourHeadASplode has some value]].[[labelnote:Explanation]]''Yaku'' give "multiplier" (''han'') points which are applied to the "basic" (''fu'') points of the hand. A hand with the absolute minimum of ''fu'' counts as a ''yaku'' as this is actually quite tricky to do, and is therefore a valid hand to win with.[[/labelnote]]
** And ''then'' you add that, under some circumstances, you need more than one ''yaku'' to win.

to:

* The "one-''Yaku''-minimum" rule in Japanese TabletopGame/{{Mahjong}} can be incredibly frustrating for new players, as just getting a legal hand can be difficult enough without then being told you can't win because your hand has no "value".
** And then you throw in the
TabletopGame/{{Mahjong}}: The rule that a hand with no value [[YourHeadASplode has some value]].value]]. [[labelnote:Explanation]]''Yaku'' give "multiplier" (''han'') points which are applied to the "basic" (''fu'') points of the hand. A hand with the absolute minimum of ''fu'' counts as a ''yaku'' as this is actually quite tricky to do, and is therefore a valid hand to win with.[[/labelnote]]
**
[[/labelnote]]. And ''then'' you add that, under some circumstances, you need more than one ''yaku'' to win.
11th Apr '17 4:21:24 PM Narsil
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Simple enough, right? But of course, the states have all chosen to choose their electors by popular election--i.e., the electors are chosen as slates of individuals honor-bound (and in some states, legally-bound) to vote for the candidate of the people of that state's choosing. In most states, except Maine and Nebraska, the slates are chosen on a winner-take-all basis: whoever gets the most votes wins ''all'' of that state's electoral votes, even if it's not a majority. Even if you win a plurality in, oh I dunno...[[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWBush Florida by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast]], you come home with ''all'' of Florida's 25 (at the time) votes, and your opponent, none. Most of the time, the person who wins the "popular vote" (i.e. the majority of the nationwide total) also wins the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency, but there are rare occasions when these do not line up, as with the famous 2000 election, above; along with the recent 2016 election. Americans get extremely confused by this, the news has to spend hours explaining the process, an explanation that often only makes people angrier.
** An important note: ''majority'' does not mean ''50 percent or more of the total popular vote.'' UsefulNotes/BarackObama and UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan are the last two presidents to win two terms with a popular vote total above 50 percent in both elections. Even if the electoral college and popular vote are in harmony, expect quite a bit of discussion over what constitutes a "mandate." Since an enormous number of ballots of haven't even been counted by the time the election winner is announced, the percentages announced on election night are often wrong. Moreover, you don't actually need to wait for a recount unless a state is decisive (Missouri held a recount in 2008, though it received little attention, as Barack Obama had won far more than the necessary 270 votes). And now that America has adjusted, somewhat, to the electoral college -- the 2000, 2004, and 2012 elections were a prolonged lecture on the topic -- there's considerable debate over the need for an ObviousRulePatch. Electoral college votes go to the winner of the state, but selecting electors by ''county,'' as Ohio's Secretary of State suggested, would have given the majority of Ohio's votes to Mitt Romney, despite the fact that President Obama received more than 50 percent of the total vote share. And then some partisans simply hate the electoral college for failing to return their desired result, even when doing away with it would not benefit their party. Eventually, any debate will devolve into a modern remix of the initial federalist vs. anti-federalist debates.

to:

Simple enough, right? But of course, the states have all chosen to choose their electors by popular election--i.e., the electors are chosen as slates of individuals honor-bound (and in some states, legally-bound) to vote for the candidate of the people of that state's choosing. In most states, except Maine and Nebraska, the slates are chosen on a winner-take-all basis: whoever gets the most votes wins ''all'' of that state's electoral votes, even if it's not a majority. Even if you win a plurality in, oh I dunno...[[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWBush Florida by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast]], you come home with ''all'' of Florida's 25 (at the time) votes, and your opponent, none. Most of the time, the person who wins the "popular vote" (i.e. the majority a plurality of the nationwide total) also wins the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency, but there are rare occasions when these do not line up, as with the famous 2000 election, above; along with the recent 2016 election. Americans get extremely confused by this, the news has to spend hours explaining the process, an explanation that often only makes people angrier.
** An important note: More commonly, a president gets elected without a ''majority'' does not mean ''50 percent or more (more than 50%) of the total popular vote.'' UsefulNotes/BarackObama vote. In the 1992, '96, 2000, and UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan are 2016 elections, no candidate got a majority; in 1976 and 2004, the last two presidents winner was just a hair over 50%. But it's less contentious when the electoral coillege winner at least got more votes than all the other candidates, even if (as in the case of Bill Clinton) he never made it to win two terms with a popular vote total above 50 percent in both elections.50%. Even if the electoral college and popular vote are in harmony, expect quite a bit of discussion over what constitutes a "mandate." Since an enormous number of ballots of haven't even been counted by the time the election winner is announced, the percentages announced on election night are often wrong. Moreover, you don't actually need to wait for a recount unless a state is decisive (Missouri held a recount in 2008, though it received little attention, as Barack Obama had won far more than the necessary 270 votes). And now that America has adjusted, somewhat, to the electoral college -- the 2000, 2004, and 2012 elections were a prolonged lecture on the topic -- there's considerable debate over the need for an ObviousRulePatch. Electoral college votes go to the winner of the state, but selecting electors by ''county,'' as Ohio's Secretary of State suggested, would have given the majority of Ohio's votes to Mitt Romney, despite the fact that President Obama received more than 50 percent of the total vote share. And then some partisans simply hate the electoral college for failing to return their desired result, even when doing away with it would not benefit their party. Eventually, any debate will devolve into a modern remix of the initial federalist vs. anti-federalist debates.



*** Actually, in 1824, there were four candidates, and Andrew Jackson had both more electoral votes (99 to 84, or 38% to 32% of the 231 total) '''and''' more popular votes (151,271 to 113,122, or 41% to 31% of the total) than John Quincy Adams. But, since the subsequent House of Representatives "run-off" election was restricted to the top ''three'' contenders, the fourth-place Henry Clay, who just ''happened'' to be the current Speaker of the House, was able to convince his supporters to back Adams.
This list shows the last 10 events of 257. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ThatOneRule