Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
5 Times
1824 - John Q. Adams won the electoral vote over Pop. vote (which Andrew Jackson won)>
1876 - Rutherford Hayes and Tilden.
1888 - Benjamin Harrison versus Govert Clevelan.
2000 - Bush-Gore
2016 - Clinton-Trump
edited 9th Dec '16 12:32:08 AM by JulianLapostat
What makes Clinton-Trump unusual is just how many more votes HRC won than Trump.
Disgusted, but not surprisedWhat's the normal margin in percentage of population (voting, eligible or total)? Because the population is obviously higher than it used to be.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ CyranWell it was nearly like fifty percent this time, and I think that might somehow be average?
@Julian; Somehow you managed to spectacularly misspell Grover Cleveland.
Govert Clevelan is my presidential OC, do not steal.
Quite frankly, I'm puzzled by how much America seems to be taking the results of the election lying down. The whole thing truly is a mockery of democracy — by any sane democratic procedure, Trump lost by a wide enough marigin to fill a small country, and yet the US seems to just be meekly accepting him being appointed and rubber-stamped into the White House by a bunch of non-elected officials in blatant violation of the popular vote.
I know the Electoral College has been around forever, but it sure seems to me that it's only been tolerated this long because people generally accept that most of the time it will go in favour to the actual frikkin' winner of the election, but this is the second time in less than two decades where the loser "wins" through arbitrary vote distribution and Gerrymandering — and considering that the last time you accepted such a travesty and let a non-elected overgrown trust fund baby who's never had to work a decent job in his life into the White House you got 9/11, the Iraq War and the Great Recession — all events that the world is still reeling from today — I don't quite get why America isn't collectively tearing down the Electoral College as we speak.
Because not many people are actually reporting that Trump lost by such wide a margin.
Oh really when?One reason is because the EC is part of our Constitution, which is by design very hard to change.
edited 9th Dec '16 5:25:50 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedContinuing from there, Nearly a third of Republicans don’t know that Trump lost the popular vote {Washington Post}.
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KVI believe the slogan is "It's Okay If You Are A Republican"
Trump's inauguration committee has had access to the Lincoln Memorial blocked off for the duration of his inauguration. Among other places.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThe last line of the story Krieger linked is true. They're doing a lot of construction in the National Mall right now (or they were when i was last there in late August), so there's at least a passing excuse to bar massive protests.
It would be horrifying if they expanded the Bush Administration's protest doctrine of "free speech zones" and just excluded everything on capitol hill, permanently.
I wouldn't put anything past them. Why even stop at Capitol Hill?
edited 9th Dec '16 6:52:40 AM by iflewaway
somethingHow does one contact their state's electors in the electoral college? I feel like this is the last hope on trying to change a few minds, since they're (like it or not) the "final say" on who gets to be president.
All of their contact information for all of them (or the ones in the important states) was publicly listed a while ago. I think it was all in one big google doc somewhere.
I don't like the idea of browbeating electors to become faithless. It feels like suborning democracy. Now one can argue that the EC itself suborned democracy by handing the win to someone who lost the popular vote, but two wrongs don't make a right, and it opens the door for any future Presidential election to be subverted in a similar way.
One of the primary reasons why Democrats are not tearing up our system to keep Trump out of the White House is that we need that system to work properly in 2018, 2020, etc.
Now, if an EC revolt results in the repeal of the Electoral College system... that is a potentially desirable outcome. But a lot of things would have to happen to make it turn out that way. If we can't get Congress to vote on replacing the water system of Flint, Michigan, do you really think we'll get them to vote on a Constitutional amendment? Especially when the Electoral College benefits Republicans!
edited 9th Dec '16 7:04:32 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It seems unlikely an elector could be convinced unless they were already planning to go faithless. Remember that lady who wrote a letter to an elector and was threatened with a lawsuit?
somethingHere be fascists, ye. Abandon ye suspension of disbelief.
A twist on controversial ‘Professor Watchlist’: Notre Dame academics want their names added
edited 9th Dec '16 7:09:35 AM by FluffyMcChicken
The thing with the popular vote is that, as the Electoral College considers it, Trump didn't lose the popular vote. Clinton has the total popular vote yes, but the college, by design, decides its votes by the state's individual popular vote, not the overall.
x3 No, I don't. Link, please?
Oh, now I remember. The thing is, the voter who wrote to Harper was not violating any laws. Harper responded in a completely out-of-line fashion. This story is an exception, not a rule.
Now, if you think that writing to your electors won't do any good, that's one thing, but we shouldn't start self-censoring ourselves from exercising our free speech out of fear of being sued.
edited 9th Dec '16 7:45:11 AM by speedyboris
Honestly the EC and Popular reform deserve a reform, but instead of getting rid of one or another maybe throwing a second turn if the results don't match should be considered.
I know there are countries that have second voting turns if one candidate doesn't achieve a percentage of the vote majority, maybe this is something the US could look after if you don't want to be hostage of the EC and deal with a president that doesn't have enough popular support.
Inter arma enim silent legesHuh, my work blocks that as "mature content."
I guess you could call it lawsuit-worthy if you're in a state where going faithless is illegal, then lobbying someone to go faithless might also be illegal, but that gets into the constitutional trickiness of anti-faithless-elector laws in the first place. It's another one of those untested rules that holds the system together.
Just wondering how often have we had presidents who lost the popular vote but won via electoral college? Because we may be looking at an Overly Narrow Superlative here.