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
Expressing desire to eject illegal immigrants on the basis that they are in your country illegally and wanting to tighten up border security aren't explicitly racist ideas, though it's likely there is an implicit racist agenda there. Same thing with Muslims since he expressed the desire to deny them entry into the country within the context of protecting LGBTQ people from potentially harmful ideologies. He basically turned the LGBTQ community into his own petting dog that he can stroke in order to feel justified about discriminating against a certain people. Unless of course he is genuinely concerned for national security and the welfare of the LGBTQ community, which remains to be scene.
As for the media rigging the election, well he was kind of right. CNN do lean Democratic and as I said the only ads I saw during the election on CNN were Hillary's smear ads.
Also, the fact that I can remember Trump's campaign slogan and not Hillary's is something.
And yes, the electoral college system is terribly broken, but would you still be saying that if Hillary won? Was that a popular opinion after either or Obama's victories?
GIVE ME YOUR FACE![]()
It's... unclear how much of it was Comey's doing. The trend started before his announcement. Maybe it would've levelled off sooner without him, or maybe he didn't actually make a difference at all. It's one of those things we'll never know for certain.
If you ask me though, a bigger factor was Trump managing to restrain himself and not create any new scandals after the debates finished, and the media deciding it was time to go after Hillary for a little while.
Obama won the popular vote handily both times. The screwed-up-ness of the electoral college didn't matter in those cases. Why should people focus on how fucked up something is when we're in a situation where it's basically irrelevant? I mean, if Trump had won the popular vote and lost the electoral college, then yeah, lots of people would be talking about how it's broken. And they'd be right to.
edited 13th Nov '16 11:23:02 PM by Gilphon
![]()
If we wanted to put out a wholesale ban on immigrants who belong to religions that have adherents who believe that LGBTQ+ people ought to be killed, then we shouldn't allow any Christians to come within 100 miles of our borders.
And I presume you're talking about a scenario where Hillary lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote? Because that is the sort of scenario that reveals the problems in the system, and that specific outcome would have been...very unlikely.
And yes to
. The last time this was an issue was the 2000 election.
edited 13th Nov '16 11:23:16 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Nope, he was explicitly racist in referring to Mexicans as "rapists", claiming that the judge in the civil court case against him (which is still ongoing) is biased against him specifically because he is Mexican and should recuse himself, and threatening to ban ALL MUSLIMS, INCLUDING US CITIZENS purely on the basis of being Muslims real fucking racist. Then there's the fact that when asked, he declined to turn down or distance himself from the endorsement of the actual KKK. He was not hiding this at-fucking-all. Let's not dance around this bullshit of "not explicitly racist."
As for the electoral college: Obama won the popular vote in those cases, so he still would have won. In any case, the fact remains that the system is still wonky as shit and needs to be changed to be fairer to the voting public. (Hell, this could even encourage more people to vote, as apparently half voted in the presidential elections.)
Also, no he wasn't right about the media rigging the election. Because "rigging the election" is a specific thing that the media CAN'T DO. Rigging requires people involved in the actual voting process to do some shit with the votes. What the media can do is create a bias, certainly, and we can talk about that, but vote rigging is a very specific crime.
edited 13th Nov '16 11:26:09 PM by AceofSpades
Also, something I've seen been brought up - D.C. doesn't have Congressional representation.
Of course, considering how the District of Columbia votes, guess who that would benefit...
Oh God! Natural light!And four island territories also don't have representation. Guam and the US Virgin Islands tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat, from what I understand. Although getting all those areas Congressional representation (in the form of people who can actually affect Congressional policy as they do have reps that come and observe, whatever that means.) is a different problem.
To be fair, Obama won the popular vote in both general elections he was in... There has only been five times in American History where the Electoral College did not match the popular vote. John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and of course, George W Bush and Donald Trump. Save for Adams, they are all Republicans as well. Also, Hayes & Harrison and Bush & Trump were both eight years apart from each other.
edited 13th Nov '16 11:37:41 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyBasically what I gathered from all four of your responses is that the broken system is ok so long as it gets the "right" candidate into office but not ok if it gets the "wrong" one in?
That seems rather "undemocratic".
And yes, getting the majority of the votes but not being elected also seems "undemocratic" but as I said none of you would even be complaining about the system that you claim is "broken" if Hillary was elected into office.
The system works if we win but must be broken if we don't. You see what's wrong with that?
Honestly, what the hell happened with Bernie?
I was curious how frequently this thing happened. Apparently not often enough to be considered a major issue.
edited 13th Nov '16 11:39:37 PM by PhilosopherStones
GIVE ME YOUR FACE![]()
It's worth mentioning that not only does Hillary have the best margin of any them, this is also the first time Dems haven't put up a fight about it.
The 'right' candidate is here defined by 'gets the most votes'. So, no, if a system always gets the candidate with the most votes into office, it's not broken. As I said, if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, that would still be system breaking.
edited 13th Nov '16 11:41:42 PM by Gilphon
So not to distract too much from shitstorm 2016 but I have an unrelated US Politics question.
How does the government react to new technologies? But like the FCC for instance predated both TV and the Internet, and while it should be obvious and second nature for any one with half a brain that the Communications Commission would be the one to control them, how does that officially get uhhh ratified? Is that the right word?
![]()
![]()
I mean, when Obama was elected, the system did work - Obama won the popular vote, and he became president. We can safely say that the will of the people was enacted. That has been how it worked a majority of the time.
The Democrats have never had an electoral-only victory, so we can't really say that it's worked in our favor.
I will say with certainty that if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, then the will of the people would have been violated then too
I might have been glad that Trump had lost, but it still would have been a hollow victory for Clinton.
edited 13th Nov '16 11:48:18 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Bernie's supporters didn't turn out in enough numbers to actually get him the candidacy, that's what happened.
And no, that is not what we fucking mean, PS. Most of the time the EC and the popular vote have agreed with each other, but the fact that there have been any instances that it doesn't and we went with the EC instead of the popular vote is a fucking problem. Plus, it's probably a factor in low voter turnout; roughly half of registered voters either didn't vote at all or just didn't vote on the presidential ballot. The general thought expressed, looooong before this election, is "my vote doesn't matter since I'm in a safe state." Hell, Captain Capsase said basically that several times before election night.
And please don't spout something about how the EC lets less populous states balance out against more populous states: That's taken care of by how seats are apportioned in Congress, and the EC basically guarantees that the vote of people in Wyoming matters more than the vote of the people in basically most other states.
@Imca: Slowly, and not very well. SOPA was a disaster that most of the country rebelled against for a reason.
edited 13th Nov '16 11:45:38 PM by AceofSpades
Ok, I can see how the system can be broken in certain circumstances. Clinton did not win where she needed to win.
So, how come a push for the dissolution of the electoral colleges hasn't been a major issue in US politics? It wasn't a problem the night before Trump got elected so why is it a problem now?
edited 13th Nov '16 11:52:37 PM by PhilosopherStones
GIVE ME YOUR FACEBecause a) most of the time it doesn't really matter, b) the party in charge is always going to the one who benefits from it's continued presence, and c) changing it is super difficult.
And it was a problem before Trump was elected. The entire country basically when 'man, that was some serious bullshit' back in 2000. And you get lots of people every election season who go 'my vote doesn't matter because I'm not living in a swing state'- and the electoral college is the reason why they're right.
I mean, it's being talking about more loudly and prominently now, but the reasons for that are obvious- it just proved what a broken system it is.
edited 14th Nov '16 12:00:45 AM by Gilphon
As pointed out, it has been a problem. And also, I already pointed out above another couple reasons it's a problem. And another; the votes in forty eight states are apportioned by the winner take all principle, which means that safe states are really safe. All off the Republican voters in states like California and New York get ignored, while all the Democratic voters in Texas get ignored. It's a problem for EVERYONE.
And it's not like there haven't been attempts to dissolve it before, they've just been unsuccessful to date. I'm not sure how to link directly to the section of the wikipedia article I want, but here's the whole thing on the EC, the part I'm pointing to is in section six.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
Basically, it has always been a problem. It's just been a problem that's been hard to get people to focus on or drum up much populist rage about. Although that may change, but we'll have to wait and see about that.
edited 14th Nov '16 12:00:11 AM by AceofSpades
Well, if I had to guess, it's because it doesn't usually come up. Now, I'm too young to remember what happened when Bush was elected - maybe there were calls to abolish it, but I'm not sure - maybe the Florida controversy overshadowed them? And of course, 9/11 happened the following year.
Edit: Okay, there was controversy over it. Good to know.
Anyway, I'd say it's being discussed now because more people are aware of the problems it can cause thanks to the 2000 election, and this proved how easily it could happen again, and because there has never been a President Elect more hated than Donald Trump.
edited 14th Nov '16 12:01:14 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!If this election cycle has taught us anything, it's that we really, really, shouldn't take "safe" states for granted. The Dem's "Blue Wall" barely switched to Red in PA, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Arizona, Georgia, and even Texas...they didn't switch to Blue but it got closer to switching than in the past.
Heck, that's why I voted a straight Dem ticket even though I live in the heavily liberal Blue State of California.
edited 14th Nov '16 12:02:37 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedRight, but you've known about this flaw for ages. The fact that there isn't a bigger push for a patch kind of shocks me.
There seems to be intelligent people from both parties. Why haven't they included this in any of their political campaigns? Or hell, do the Libertarian party include this in their manifesto?
West 2020
"Your Vote Matters"
GIVE ME YOUR FACEI think it was so close in Texas largely in part because Trump's a jackass and this state is heavily populated by those of Mexican descent, and subsequently those who've directly benefited from the Dream Act. Plus, our heavily populated cities vote as blue as any other city.
In any case, we're probably not going to see that repeated next time unless something so absurd I can't even imagine it happens in the Republican party.
Because, again, the flaw isn't usually a problem. And if you'd look at the wikipedia link I posted, you'd see that there have been efforts. But such efforts have to be continual, have to be in the public, and have to be pushed incredibly hard. And such things as voter intimidation and denying ID to minorities and such have taken up a lot of attention. Deservedly so, as these things are disenfranchisement at its most basic. It's also a lot easier to get photos of and make personal stories out of. Talking about electoral policy doesn't exactly have a lot of gripping drama to it.
Also, things in the American government are kind of deliberately hard to change.
Also I don't think that'd gain the Libertarians the votes they need to get anywhere, although I think it would be nice to hear someone saying it. You'd have to talk to the Libertarian leaders about that.
edited 14th Nov '16 12:08:37 AM by AceofSpades

We can pray that one day the dems get a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and on that day we finally have a chance at getting rid of the EC. A system that is frankly, unfair to all America. I mean my mother's a Republican (save for this election specifically), and should her vote simply be irrelevant because the New York's going to the Democrats regardless?
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.