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
When Obama won the electoral vote, he won the popular vote too. Nobody cared then. When Trump won the electoral vote, his popular vote count was greatly outnumbered by Hillary's. And her numbers are climbing faster than his. That's why people are complaining: The electoral result doesn't line up with the popular one.
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youI think to determining whether or not splitting the votes would change the outcome in this case requires more math than any of us have done.
Especially since we don't know how exactly the votes would be split.
But intuitively- one would except her to get roughly half the votes from swing states, and a handful from Red states, most notably Texas and Arizona, at the cost of some votes from blue states- Nevada, Virginia and New Hampshire most prominently, but probably a fair number from NY and the west coast as well.
Which at the very least, sounds more fair to me.
Yes, but then all red states have to do is stay winner-take-all while blue states go proportional and we'd have Republicans in the White House forever and ever. The Federal government cannot mandate how states apportion electors because the Constitution says it's up to them. So an amendment is the only permanent way to fix the system.
edited 14th Nov '16 5:34:07 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Dear members of the Electorial College,
Please note the idiots Trump is willing to hand power to. Please note that he's hoping to rope his family into government by the backdoor, which doubles down on that. Please note the nonsensical flip-flopping and gymnastic routines poor old policy is being whipped into doing.
If you want to justify your existence as the gatekeepers of American democracy (it's hard to type that with a straight face), you might wish to rethink your vote. Because this degree of naked nepotism and patronage would put C18th England to shame.
All my best wishes, (I wouldn't want your jobs if I got paid in lorry loads),
Euo.
edited 14th Nov '16 5:35:16 PM by Euodiachloris
![]()
What I'd suggest: Focus on Texas. Because it's threatening to become a swing state, and the prospect of losing all 38 Texan votes should scare Republicans enough that they'd be willing to consider a compromise. But it's also one of the states where going off winner takes all would have the strongest effect.
Actually, you can effectively remove the electoral college by changing state law as well. As long as you convince enough states to pledge their votes based on the the national vote, instead of the local one. And that is actually easier, because you only need enough states so the sum of votes is 270. Meanwhile, for the proportional vote to work you would need every state to agree, else the election becomes lopsided.
As a matter of fact, this initiative already exist
. There is even a website
dedicated to it.
A split vote It might not be the best solution, but I do believe it would help better represent voters who vote in the minority within their states. They could at least score some electoral votes instead of none, and not worry about having to convert the entire state.
The difference between the EC and PV in this election is something that needs to be seriously examined. When it happened in 2000, the Electoral votes were also extremely close, only a difference of 5. This time though, the difference is much wider. Not only is the amount of popular votes Hillary has over Trump likely going to end up being at least twice as many as Gore had over Bush, but the gap between the Electoral votes is far wider at 58. That's over 11x the number of Electoral votes Bush got over Gore.
Honestly, I didn't think too much of it before, but it's dawning on me how extremely unusual this is. The two results go beyond merely contradicting each other, the EC results severely skew the reality of how people voted. Compromise or not, something needs changing.
edited 14th Nov '16 5:44:15 PM by StarOutlaw
I'm perfectly fine with it being an Amendment. It's far better when it's pure popularity vote.
Everybody has a right to have a fair say in it. It's worthless if the vote doesn't count just because it's an electoral vote.
The system needs to go, period. There's absolutely zero point in making it so it affects the states with the same amount per. The problem is entirely that tons of votes mean nothing, not just that some states get more electoral votes than others. It makes more sense for the entire country to properly choose their own President, not just a select few members. It's also way more fair. Many don't vote just because they know it doesn't count. They'll only vote for stuff they affect. Who can blame 'em? The electoral vote is clearly a bad system.
edited 14th Nov '16 5:44:37 PM by Irene
Shadow?So it looks like the army is considering a temporary halt to the DAPL.
Or at least that's what I'm getting out of the letter.
By the way, how would we achieve point 3 on that above Facebook link (the one about calling out the media)? I don't expect leaving comments on the news articles or writing a social media post about it would do much good as it's too easy to drown in the noise, and I'm not subscribed to any news sites that I can threaten to revoke my membership of as financial punishment. .
edited 14th Nov '16 5:52:41 PM by AlleyOop
Different media outlets are reporting different numbers due to delays in updating and receiving information, but all reputable sources I've seen including CNN, The Associated Press, The Cook Political Report and the Washington Post consistently put Hillary 650,000 - 800,000 votes ahead of Trump.
EDIT: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clintons-popular-vote-lead-will-grow-and-grow/507455/
According to this, Hillary might be ahead of Trump by as much as 2% when all votes are counted.
edited 14th Nov '16 6:12:41 PM by Draghinazzo
Donald Trump flip-flops so much, it's legitimately uncomfortable taking anything he says at face value. Like, if he said, "I am not going to send all brown people to the gas chambers," I would still be nervous about being disappeared.
"Ryan says Trump 'not planning' mass deportations"
Trump goes into more detail about this in his 100-Day Plan. There, he says he's deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records, not just undocumented immigrants in general. He specifically cites a figure of 2 million people to potentially be deported, which was basically made up by an anti-immigration group (true number of criminals is probably around 600,000), which is a far cry from his previous claim of deporting all 12 million undocumented immigrants. Likely we'll just see a slightly stricter version of Obama's policy in regards to illegals.
Next up: "Trump announces that he's not withdrawing from TPP, says free trade isn't so bad".
edited 14th Nov '16 6:09:59 PM by MonsieurThenardier
"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."Well, things just keep getting worse
But what about Hillary's EMAILS!?!
New Survey coming this weekend!
GFD...
Also, I did some googling and found this.
Scroll down to the chart.
So apparently the gap between the EC and PV was actually worse than it is now in 1888, at 65 instead of 58.
Anyone else notice that every time the PV is higher than the EC, the Democrat lost?
![]()
![]()
"Trump announces that he's not withdrawing from TPP, says free trade isn't so bad"
This would be a good way to piss off his base and progressives.
The GOP do usually have more luck with the lower population rural areas than the Democratic Party.
edited 14th Nov '16 6:22:42 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThis would be a good way to piss off his base and progressives.
edited 14th Nov '16 6:23:30 PM by MonsieurThenardier
"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."

On how to stop Bannon's appointment
Basically:
The strongest weapon right now is Self Interest. To paraphrase the Batman "Politicans are a superstitious and cowardly lot.". Anything that looks like it's going to hurt them, they'll throw it away.
And as I said again, the Republicans are under a different set of pressures now that they aren't the Shadow Government/Opposition.
edited 14th Nov '16 5:28:22 PM by PotatoesRock