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
What Fighter describes (Hillary yielding to Kaine in the event of an Electoral College upset) would probably be the best possible outcome but I'm not 100% sure she's yield. If she did my respect for her would grow immensely.
But unless the final counting flips a state or two, you'd have to convince over 30 electors to go faithless to change the outcome. Cue Hamilton singing: "you don't have the votes..."
Constitutionally though, the EC vote is the final say; it's only state law that binds the electors to the popular vote.
There might be one way she could assuage illegitimacy, and kill two birds with one stone in that scenario. If the EC goes faithless and elects her, and then she used it as a case to disband the EC. It would be a rare case in which both sides would have common ground in despising the system; liberals for originally screwing their candidate over despite winning the popular vote, and conservatives for the EC's "betrayal." Taking down the system that put her into office could also soften some of the resentment and appearance of rigging, though granted that's a long shot when talking about an opposing voter base who are so willing and eager to believe any conspiracy bullshit levied against her.
To be fair, Clinton is set to have a margin of only 200,000 votes above Trump. That is really small when you think of how many people live in our country. Had she had a better campaign, she would have won.
Please allow me to introduce myself, I am a man of wealth and taste. Nice to meet you, hope you can guess my name.This is why the distinction that gets ignored a lot in certain circles is important. The U.S. is a republic. A republic may have elements of democracy in its system - most do - but it isn't a pure democracy.
The Electoral College is not democratic (in the governmental sense), no, but it's not supposed to be.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)No matter how extreme the circumstances, I don't think you can get the right establishment to go along with nuking the EC. It's basically the one thing assuring their competitiveness for the presidency, because everyone damn well knows that they're never going to get a straight-up win from the popular vote based on their platform. The entire party is built off of exploiting technicalities to get a minority of votes weighted in their favor as much as possible.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.![]()
![]()
That's a dangerous assumption. It gets scarier if you look at the county-by-county results map (Wa Po has one.) The only blue spots on the map are urban areas.
edited 15th Nov '16 8:18:54 AM by Elle
This source puts the difference (as of November 13) at just under a million votes
.
Honestly, there really isn't any hope for Democrats. We lost; it's done. The GOP will tear modern America to shreds, and they have a decisive mandate to do so. There are no more legal tricks, we're stuck with Trump, and we will be unless he fails.
Clinton is an old woman, and she deserves to spend the rest of her life in dignified retirement. Suborning the election by an EC revolt will do more than making the Democrats pariahs, and destroying her chance at re-election. It will put her in a deranged assassin's crosshairs. More than one, actually, and on humanitarian grounds alone, it's immoral to prop her up as president after she's already conceded and the Trump crowd is so enraged.
edited 15th Nov '16 8:30:08 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."An EC revolt isn't just a nuclear option in the normal sense of the word, it would require the situation to cross the Godzilla Threshold in the most literal sense. Because the consequences of doing so could be comparable to letting Godzilla run around a major city.
Or in more realistic terms, the prospect of a Trump presidency would have to be definitively worse than a civil war. And while I am no fan of Trump, a civil war is something I'm even less a fan of.
...I would probably vote for Godzilla over Trump though.
Godzilla seems like a good guy in some of his movies. I can't imagine he has any opinions on the skin color of Humans or who they choose to mate with, one way or another. He also would massively increase the strength of the military by himself. Would he be eligible for running, though? His origin varies drastically based on continuity, but at least one puts his first appearance around Hawaii.
Saying "she won the popular vote so she should be president" is like saying the (American) football team that gains the most yards should win the game. Yards gained, while an important indicator of how well a team is doing, isn't how you win the game. You win by scoring points, and everyone agrees that the points, not the yards, are what will determine the winner before they play.
The popular vote isn't how you win the presidency. If it were, then the campaigns would have looked completely different, because both sides played to win the electoral college, not the popular vote. Clinton could have concentrated in California (which is where most of her popular vote win came from) and completely ignored everywhere else. Trump would have spent all of his time in Texas and the South. "Flyover country" - the very places that allowed Trump to win the election - would have been completely ignored.
You can't say the popular vote shows who should have "really" won, because that's not the game that was being played. Trying to change the rules after you know the results is not democratic, it's trying to throw out the rules because you didn't get the result you wanted. It's cheating.
The electoral college isn't supposed to be democratic. What it's supposed to do is protect 49% of the country from being completely overruled by 51% of the country. It ensures that a Presidential candidate can't ignore the issues that are important to 49% of the country and be successful. They have to build a coalition of voters from different parts of the country, and therefore with disparate interests, in order to be elected. It helps ensure diversity in candidates and issues. Not perfectly, of course, but certainly better than a system of "51% wins and I don't care what the rest of you want" would be.

Unless there is an 11th hour reveal about a massive, multi state voting fraud conspiracy that clearly cost Clinton the EC....this is over. Overturning this election is bad for democracy and would be a death blow to the progressive movement.
The GOP would completely sweep the Dems in 2018 and 2020. That would be worse than Trump.
edited 15th Nov '16 8:06:12 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.