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
Oh, look, Russia may sell Iran billions worth of new military equipment
I did misread him a bit.
Either way, until the actual popularity vote is finished, we cannot actually say Hillary won that. She probably did, but it's worthless evidence right now. That fact does not exist. Be patient before trying to use nonfactual stuff for your argument.
And yes, I do think she did win it, but that's not a fact till the numbers are tallied. Assumptions are not strong evidence at this rate for what you're saying. But even then? It's a terrible argument. The problem isn't because your favorite didn't win. it's that many people's votes are effectively worthless. If Hillary won, yes, many wouldn't care about the electoral vote... until it screwed them over. That's the real reason it's heavily being brought up. To me, the important thing is that everyone that wanted to vote voted, and that the winner was gotten from that. For good or bad, at least it's entirely fair as a vote and everybody got their say in a proper manner. Right now, it doesn't matter how many voted for Hillary unless it was an electoral vote. It sends a blatant message that the small guys don't matter. Thankfully we do for many other kind of votes, but it sure isn't the President.
Tobias has another point, as did Philosopher Stones; a huge amount of complaints about the electoral vote is probably just because a Democrat didn't win. Why didn't we push to get rid of it when Obama won? Simple. It's because we won the system at the time. People retaliate when they don't win the system. It's normal. On principle, yes, it should be gone, but I won't pretend that it's mostly being brought up because Hillary lost. It really is being brought up for that reason.
edited 14th Nov '16 3:54:32 PM by Irene
Shadow?Irene, you've misread me again if you think I wasn't saying "people's votes have been rendered worthless." I did say that. Several times. Others have said the same.
I have also said that the states get their representation in Congress based on the principle of the Senate getting equal seats and the House getting seats by population. Why the fuck the Electoral college should exist in this day and age when we don't use it for anything but the presidential election?
And so? Why does it matter the reason it got brought up as long as it's brought up? It doesn't invalidate the argument itself. Hell, the first attempt to get rid of the thing happened after Nixon's very narrow victory in the popular vote. It wasn't exactly sour grapes that brought that up.
edited 14th Nov '16 4:12:28 PM by AceofSpades
Re: Sanders: I think the Dems need Senator Sanders they want any hope of converting the rural vote. I am not an economic leftist but when it comes to fighting Trump we need all the fighters we can get and Sanders knows both how to be a populist and to get voters excited, but also how to work with others. Ignore his unicorn brigade, it's already been established they won't listen to him when he's asking them for something they don't like and they're a minority. Tap into his supporter base, the activists, the network he established on the campaign trail, bring them into the fight. Start them scouting now for people to run against Republicans in 2018. Get them fundraising for organizations that support progressive causes. That sort of thing.
That wasn't the point I was saying, Ace. The point I'm saying is that's the only good reason to remove the Electoral votes. "The guy I wanted to didn't win" isn't a very healthy reason. Fact of the matter is, democracy doesn't always give us what we want. That's why it's based upon popularity. There are a few things that could have a fiat done to ignore a stupid idea, but for the most part, most things are agreed upon democratically.
Also, you clearly ignored my other point; You can't use the "popularity vote" as a good argument until the tallies are done. You don't know the result. Your argument is based entirely on an assumption. We will have the facts soon enough. And regardless of what I think will happen overall(which is Hillary winning that), it's not a strong point to make. When the votes are tallied up, then it becomes a legit argument.
Likewise, I said one more thing; The idea that the electoral vote will go away is unlikely due to what most of the office is. Now, unless enough Republicans there didn't like Trump, they're probably not going to vote the electoral vote away. It's very clear a lot of this is based upon bias as well. People brought up the electoral vote due to bias. Let's not pretend otherwise. And that's okay. We're human beings. We're biased. Big deal. But we have to realize to get rid of it, we either need luck that the Congress goes for it(with Republicans there) or to make sure to get a better turnout for who's in office next time. I think the latter is the far better way to go about it.
Shadow?
x7 so Trump might get the US into a proxy war with Russia by the way of Iran anyways. Great. Not to mention this is starting to sound a lot like Battlefield 3...
Trump wants his children to have top-secret clearance.
Ugh. I was ready for a legislative agenda I fundamentally disagreed with on every possible point, but this? This is just embarrassing to America. Was the man actually born without a sense of shame?
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.![]()
![]()
![]()
I mentioned that yesterday
, but couldn't find where the information for the figures being used in Trump's 'win' was coming from (the figures are always the same, so it was obviously coming from a single source).
At least I finally have an idea of where those figures are coming from.
edited 14th Nov '16 4:58:07 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.![]()
![]()
Even if the numbers are not exactly same pretty much all the counts show Clinton leading Trump in the popular vote by several hundred thousand.
Even if the count is not complete it seems pretty safe to assume that Clinton will take the popular vote by as many as half a million votes or more. Keeping in mind that is only about half a percentage point more, but I think it is important to show that the election was much closer then the EC makes it appear and that the GOP doesn't have as much of a mandate as they want everyone to think.
Current tally. However most of the votes as I understand it are being counted from populous areas like New York and California which are heavily Clinton-leaning, so yes we can't say absolutely who won the popular vote at this moment but unlike during the election itself the result of this will probably be in Clinton's favor.
For fuck's sake, Irene, what part of "It will take time" doesn't acknowledge we won't get rid of it with this Congress? I just want a fucking conversation started, to start putting it forth as a goal. What in fuck is so wrong with that that you want to just take it off the table entirely, seemingly forever? It's not going to pop up in the future if we don't keep discussing it. Nothing that has ever benefited democracy has ever been served by "it's not going to happen with this Congress" bullshit. No Congress lasts forever. There's a future beyond Trump for which this conversation is incredibly useful.
In any case, the bias here does not actually invalidate the argument of "The Electoral College frequently renders many votes worthless and discourages voter participation." If you cannot even address that without reverting to "you're bringing up because of bias" rather than arguing whether or not the end result will benefit people, then you are not actually interested in the argument.
I googled and apparently there's a lot of absentee and mail in ballots still being counted, too, but the article didn't say which states they were for.
edited 14th Nov '16 4:57:45 PM by AceofSpades
Politifact is echoing the Washing Post
in this sentiment and they have some interesting speculation:
That random website claims it got the figures of Trump winning from "twitter posts", so it literally has no credibility whatsoever.
edited 14th Nov '16 5:04:47 PM by Draghinazzo
Frankly, the idea that this is merely sour grapes and the idea should be abandoned for that reason is idiotic. It's incidents like this that show us where something is broken and needs improvement. And you can damn well bet the Republicans would be wailing about the same damn thing if it had happened to their candidate. And as relieved as I'd be, they'd be right to do so. And they would be right to pursue the end of the EC. This system, in the end, is unfair to everybody.
edited 14th Nov '16 5:05:32 PM by AceofSpades
It still wouldn't help. We need to get rid of it altogether.
Which means we need Congress to agree with the idea. And most of them are not Democrats. Now, if most of them dislike Trump, there's a far bigger chance of that working. Since their bias can help swap the final decision of getting rid of it or not.
We can certainly write to Congress about our opinions, but we don't have direct power otherwise. There's still rallies/protests, though.
Shadow?The Latest: Giuliani the favorite for secretary of state: http://bigstory.ap.org/47a9a2746880440093ad542941150dd5&utm_source=android_app&utm_medium=copy_to_clipboard&utm_campaign=share

I'm also not entirely sure you read what I said. Generally, as people get older, they're more likely to vote. If you think the millenials will be an exception to this, that's your opinion, and it might very well be correct.
edited 14th Nov '16 3:50:15 PM by CaptainCapsase