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
![]()
It's amazing how this idea that a candidate with some flaws is just as bad as a crypto-fascist talking about how all Mexicans are rapists and how he wants to bomb the crap out of people are somehow equally bad still hasn't died.
Oh wait, amazing is the wrong word.
It's bloody stupid.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on May 25th 2019 at 2:52:27 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyIt wasn't just propaganda that made people dislike Hillary. But it was like being kicked in the shin versus shot in the head.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.We already know that,we don't need a reminder of how the electoral college screwed everyone over big time,as in its existence meant Trump won even if Hilary won the popular vote,it didn't matter how many points Hilary won in the popular vote because she didn't win overall.
![]()
Edited by Ultimatum on May 25th 2019 at 1:06:05 PM
have a listen and have a link to my discord server![]()
![]()
Yeah which has always baffled me a bit (being from Hungary). Let's see if I got it right though.
So. The people vote on electors that the people think will be voting for their preferred candidate. Electors are allotted to the states depending on size/population.
The elector, once they get the votes, can honour that wish and vote as has been suspected before, or they may not and vote however they see fit.
The candidate who gets the aye from most electors wins.
Is this it, more or less, crudely simplified?
Edited by akanesarumara on May 25th 2019 at 3:08:27 PM
It needs to be 270 (a majority of) electors, if nobody gets 270 then the outgoing house of representatives selected the president.
Edited by Silasw on May 25th 2019 at 1:14:55 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe Electoral College exists so that unpopulated urban states cannot be turned into nothing more than service to larger areas abusing them. Its a safeguard against local Empires where Rome would dominate over all other cities by virture of population.
Due to the grossness of the Democratic Party Pre-Nixon (Conservatives) and Post-Nixon Republican (Conservative policy) it has been abused greatly so that the gerrymandered and disenfranchized citizens of those rural states STILL don't get any votes save the "right" sort of people (rich white voters) and they enforce a brutal control by those very same elites.
What was meant as a defense for the people who would normally be serfs to an upper class has become a tool for those upper class.
The Electoral College means that you need all of America supporting you, not just the most in one area.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on May 25th 2019 at 6:19:00 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Yes, but "faithless" electors (read: the ones that vote for someone they shouldn't have) can - and were, in the 2016 election - be promptly removed from their post and someone else assigned to make sure they fall in line.
The discrepancy here, however, is that the States that Clinton won in, she won by a good margin, while the States Trump won were by the skin of his teeth. Pennsylvania, for example, came down to a paltry 44,292 votes
but, because of how the Electoral College works, all of those Electoral votes went to him despite the razor-thin margin of victory.
Oh, and surprise fucking surprise, Trump has declared another National Emergency, this time citing ongoing tensions with Iran in order to complete the $8 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia
, which had previously been blocked because of the government-led murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Charles the electoral college wasn’t about protecting against city state rule (protecting against that was why DC isn’t a state or part of a state).
It was about giving additional influence to states with a high number of residents that could not vote, as it makes elections be decided based on state population not voter population (remember electoral votes are based on total population, not voter population). In a normal system each voter would get a single vote, however under the electoral college each voter gets a single vote an extra partial vote on behalf of the non-voting population of there state.
Now who does that benefit? Right now it’s states with a high non-citizen immigrant population, historically? It was slave states, as a non-slaver in New York got to vote for himself (as a tiny part of his state’s electoral college population), but a slaver in Georgia got to vote for himself and his slaves (as the leave population gave Georgia extra electoral votes).
The horrifying reality is that the 3/5th compromise was to take power away from slave states, as if slaves had been counted as full people slave states would have had more electoral votes and thus been given even more power.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYou're getting into a lot of the craziness of American history there but the matter boils down to the fact the Electoral College is meant so that no one particular part of America can completely dominate the other in terms of votes.
It's why Obama's 50 states strategy was so important.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on May 25th 2019 at 6:36:49 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.To make an example, of my point let’s make the numbers much smaller. South Carolina has 9 electoral votes and Nevada has 6, so that means that South Carolina has more voters than Nevada right?
Nope, it means that it has more people. Let’s say you get one electoral vote for every person in a state. So Nevada has 600 people, women can’t vote so let’s say that’s 300 voters.
300 voters have 6 electoral votes, so 0.02 electoral votes each.
So now we do South Carolina, it has a population of 900 people right, so using the same calculation of half than two thirds South Carolina should have 450 voters, right? But South Carolina is a slave state, with let’s say half the population are slaves, so that’s 450 whites, take away women and we’re at 225 voters.
225 voters have 9 electoral votes, so 0.04 electoral votes each.
A voter in South Carolina has twice the voting power of a voter in Nevada, because he gets a vote not just for himself and his wife, but also for his slaves.
It’s meant so that states where humans were property could punch above their weight and protect their right to keep humans as property. That’s what it was designed for, it was designed that way because slave states wanted special protections for slavery or they wouldn’t be part of the US.
Edited by Silasw on May 25th 2019 at 1:46:11 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHere's what the New York Times had to say on it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html
Southerners didn’t embrace the idea of electors because it might enlarge slavery’s power; they feared, as the North Carolinian Hugh Williamson, who was not a slaveholder, remarked, that the men chosen as electors would be corruptible “persons not occupied in the high offices of government.” Pro-elite concerns were on their minds — just as, ironically, elite supporters of the Electoral College hoped the body would insulate presidential politics from popular passions.
The alternative, and winning, plan, which became known as the Electoral College only some years later, certainly gave the slaveholding states the advantage of the three-fifths clause. But the connection was incidental, and no more of an advantage than if Congress had been named the electors. Most important, once the possibility of direct popular election of the president was defeated, how much did the slaveholding states rush to support the concept of presidential electors? Not at all. In the initial vote over having electors select the president, the only states voting “nay” were North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia — the three most ardently proslavery states in the convention.
The early president most helped by the Constitution’s rejection of direct popular election was John Quincy Adams, later an antislavery hero, who won the White House in 1824-25 despite losing both the popular and electoral votes to Andrew Jackson. (The House decided that election.) As president, the slaveholder Jackson became one of American history’s most prominent critics of the Electoral College, which he blasted for disallowing the people “to express their own will.” The Electoral College system made no difference in deciding the presidency during the 36 years before the Civil War.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on May 25th 2019 at 7:01:53 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Other articles from that first source:
Trans Tyranny: The Nefariousness of Trans Ideology
.
Trump Correctly Cannot Work Productively with People Aiming to Destroy Him
.
The Calming Feeling as Jew-Hate Now Takes Deeper Root in the Democrat Party
.
Are you sure you want to consider these people a credible source on American history?
That's an Opinion piece. It's literally just a thing some dude somewhere thinks.
Edited by TobiasDrake on May 25th 2019 at 8:02:09 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Fair enough it was a poor choice clearly and I regret having anything to do with it and will remove said links.
I thought it was a different publication and clearly have accidentally linked to a hateful source.
I am bitterly disgusted.
Generally, the Electoral College is something that I maintain a defensive position on because I am deeply suspicious of attempting to remove any form of benefit for a large and broad coalition of American states. The government needs to maintain its protections of the multitude of Americans from all of its states having a role in the selection of Presidents rather than a simple majority rule because it effects all people. If 90 people in a town vote for someone then the 10 people in a town nearby still need to have their voices heard.
I confess this issue is in part because I come from a rural state and am anxious regarding exploitation of the poor and working class.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on May 25th 2019 at 7:05:52 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.The assertion seems to be that there wasn’t really such a thing as slave states and non-slave states at the founding of the US, because every state had a similar percentage of their population enslaved. I don’t know enough US history to confirm or refute that point, but I don’t trust the source to be accurate either.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranActually the most damning part of the writing for me is the fact that the electoral college came after the issue determined and was an alternative to Congressional voting to begin with but to keep the votes from the public as a whole.
It also makes the point that direct democracy could well have resulted in slave owners having the votes of their slaves (as ridiculous as that sounds).
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Yes the authoritarian racist manchild flirting with the neo-nazis and groping women vs the Democratic woman you don't like very much and whose policies you disagree with.
Truly a sadistic choice.
Edited by 3of4 on May 25th 2019 at 11:42:19 AM
"You can reply to this Message!"