2016 US Presidential election thread

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by eddie

Trump will be the president Markus, we will get to see how Corporate America runs the country now. Can hardly wait!

Well as a fellow Minnesota man familiar with the 'Jessie Ventura Effect', Trump ain't a real stretch! http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-ventura-effect-trump-clinton-perspec-zorn-0731-md-20160729-column.html Trump loves to Hamm it up too ....

Minnesotans chose a former professional wrestler to lead them not "because they're stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of statesman or political intellectual," Moore wrote. "They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system."
On the bright side, Minnesota survived this little caper (though it might not have if governors had access to nuclear launch codes), and Ventura was so bored and frustrated by the actual job that he didn't bother to run for re-election after four years.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-america-minnesota-jesse-ventura.html?_r=0

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The funny thing is, the people who are pushing for this give their reason as Clinton won the popular vote, so she is who the people really wanted and the Electoral College system is mocking the election. I don't agree, but some of those folks really believe that, so they think they are in the right.

Reality is the system to determine the winner is based on the electoral college. It is not mocking the system but it is looking to change the agreed upon system in their favor after the fact. These folks can feel right about it all day but it is meaningless as the electoral college is the system used. State recounts(Jill Stein). The Russians are at fault(sure). Maybe just maybe their candidate sucked? So, she wins the popular vote. Sadly, the system is electoral college and campaigned as such. Trumps campaign would have been very different if the popular vote determined the victor. Time to move on much like many did 8 and 4 years ago. The misdirected energy, resources and money is astonishing. It is time to move on. The citizens have had 12 months of nonsense. Maybe Jill Stein can raise millions for people who need it instead of going on hunt for something the Democrats said does not exist(voter fraud) before election day.

[eddie]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Well as a fellow Minnesota man familiar with the 'Jessie Ventura Effect', Trump ain't a real stretch! http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-ventura-effect-trump-clinton-perspec-zorn-0731-md-20160729-column.html Trump loves to Hamm it up too .... http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-america-minnesota-jesse-ventura.html?_r=0

Just had to bring that up, didn't you!

[Platapus]

To quote my favourite line from the musical 1776 "America came in to existence like a bastard child - Half improvised, half compromised". And there is much truth there, especially the compromised part. The forming of our governmental system was a system of compromises.

The electoral college was one of them. It was the best system that pissed off everyone equally as any good compromise is.

The issue was representation and we had two distinct levels of representation to address.

1. States
2. People

States with larger populations wanted elections to be determined by popular vote (The Virginia System). Smaller populated states objected claiming that their representation is being marginalized as we are supposed to be a union of equal states.

States with smaller populations wanted elections to be determined by equal representation (The Connecticut System). Larger population states objected by claiming that since they, as a state, pay more in taxes, their representation is being marginalized.

This is very similar to the issue with federal representation in congress.

Wadda ya goin' to do? Well you do what you have to do which means compromise.

What was desired was that the President be elected by a majority of the citizens in the majority of the states. How are ya goin' to do that? The compromise was the Electoral College as it gives representation by population and by state. Warts and all, it works out pretty well. No one has come up with a better system to ensure that the President is elected by both the majority of people and the majority of states. In the US context majority is represented by a plurality, but that's another rant. t

The electoral college is here to stay. There is no reasonable expectation that a constitutional amendment could pass not only through congress but through the individual state legislation. The solution is not to abolish the electoral college but to fix it.

Currently the states with the exception of Maine and Nebraska choose to use "winner take all". And it is their choice. There is nothing in the constitution nor any federal law that mandates winner take all. Maine and Nebraska us a hybrid of winner take all and proportional voting.

Each of the states, on their own, could easily their type of electoral voting to either completely proportional or a hybrid system. This is where the change should take place -- at the state level just like our founding dudes intended.

If enough citizens make it very clear that they will not elect/re-elect any state legislator that does not agree to change the electoral voting process in that state, things will change.

But this takes effort on the part of the citizens. Sadly, that is lacking in the US. Bitchin' and whining on the Internets Tubes, even on video game website forums, is as much effort as the citizens wish to do.

The system does not change for the simple reason the citizens simply don't care enough. Every four years, people get spun up over the electoral college and than after the election, it gets forgotten until the next four years. Equally sad is the call by citizens for the federal government to "do something" about the electoral college when that something is entirely under the control of the citizens.

[Mr Quatro]

Take the EC out of this election and this is what you would have ...

Hillary won New York City, (City, not State) by 1,508,755 votes. (1,969,920 to Trump's 461,175) NYC consists of Manhattan, The Bronx, Staten Island, Queens and Brooklyn.

She won the City of Chicago by 757,967 votes. ( 890,705 to 132,738).

She won Los Angeles County by 694,621 votes. (2,464,364 to 769,743)

She won these 3 areas by a total of 2,961,343 votes.

She won the nationwide popular vote by 2,654,600 votes.

Just those three areas alone would've been enough to elect Hillary Clinton as the next POTUS.

Is that fair? I don't think so, but then again I am a little prejudice against that woman being in charge of us all. I love women don't get me wrong, but her dirty laundry stinks.

One more point ... I don't think the east coast wants the west coast to decide the next POTUS and without the EC that's exactly what would've happened.

(by a landslide).

California Presidential Race Results: Hillary Clinton Wins
Candidate Party Votes
Hillary Clinton Democrat Dem. 8,753,788
Donald J. Trump Republican Rep. 4,483,810
Gary Johnson Libertarian Lib. 478,499
Jill Stein Green Green 278,657

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Reality is the system to determine the winner is based on the electoral college. It is not mocking the system but it is looking to change the agreed upon system in their favor after the fact.

I agree. I was addressing the comment by Mapuc that the EC would be mocking the system by giving the election to the candidate who came second. I was merely pointing out that technically they would be giving it to the candidate who came first.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The issue was representation and we had two distinct levels of representation to address.

1. States
2. People

States with larger populations wanted elections to be determined by popular vote (The Virginia System). Smaller populated states objected claiming that their representation is being marginalized as we are supposed to be a union of equal states.

That argument pertained strictly to representation in the Congress, not the President.

What was desired was that the President be elected by a majority of the citizens in the majority of the states.

Actually the President was to be elected by the States, period. How the States chose their Electors was their business. The purpose of the EC was to keep the Presidential election out of the hands of the people. The reason for that was that the representation of Congress is from the people to the Government. The representation of the President is from the country as a whole to the rest of the world. The people didn't need to be involved in that.

[mapuc]

Most of you American have a lot more knowledge about the American election system than I do and it's only you that have the right to either criticize it and work for a change.

Each state have a certain amount of Electoral and they have been, depending on the outcome of this state's final voting, given a task to put their vote on the candidate that won in this state.

If some of these Electoral suddenly feel obligated to change their task as it has been given upon them by the people in this state-I see it as these Electoral has mocked the people, who put their vote on this candidate.

That was little more in deep explanation about my thoughts on this oncoming second election.

Second.
I have no imagination of what could or would happen politically or in the society if Trump should loose in the Second election.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I have no imagination of what could or would happen politically or in the society if Trump should loose in the Second election.

Markus

War! First social media would explode, riots in the states that have right to carry laws. Forget black against white or white against blacks ... it would be brother against brother and sister against sister. Whole families would get involved ... mayhem.

Youtube would be full of the violence and here it is the season to be jolly.

Not a pretty sight Markus, but I also think something big is going to happen, but then again I thought my football team was going to win.

Just two more days anyway ...

[Catfish]

Well a re-counting would not change much, the US people are almost evenly divided. And those who are tired of 'political correctness' won, this time.

And Facebook as well as YouTube are already full of hate and racism.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

War! First social media would explode, riots in the states that have right to carry laws. Forget black against white or white against blacks ... it would be brother against brother and sister against sister. Whole families would get involved ... mayhem.

Youtube would be full of the violence and here it is the season to be jolly.

Not a pretty sight Markus, but I also think something big is going to happen, but then again I thought my football team was going to win.

Just two more days anyway ...

Going off topic, ´cause I got this imagination

We jump 40-50 year into the future

In a History book following can be read

"In the second election to the Presidential election 2016, 55 of the states electoral changed their vote and voted for Clinton. This outcome created one of USA's most violent period of riots a.s.o(forgot all the words I was thinking of using) as a result of this 13 state sent a common letter to Washington saying that they felt no obligation to the Government in Washington anymore and as from this day(may 26 2018) they are not a part of USA anymore. In 2021 these 13 states plus 2 more created their own little country. The Government refuse this and....."

End of my off topic story

Markus

[vienna]

The Electoral College most likely will vote Trump into office, but the damage to his administration has been done; he will still be seen, particularly by the governments of other nations, as a president who does not have the confidence of the majority of the voting citizens; getting only about 46% of the total votes, coming in at second place, and, top it off, a swirl of allegations of Russian efforts to swing the election Trump's way do not inspire confidence in his coming presidency. Yes, yes, I know: the election is really up to the Electoral College, but the College votes are more the result of a sort of political 'chess game' than an actual expression of the direct will and intent of the voting citizens of the United States; Trump's election is more the result of 'gaming' the Electoral system than it is what the actual voters decided; no matter what Trump tweets or boasts, he will never be "the People's Choice"...

Speaking of Trump's tweets and boasts, I got a good laugh a few days ago when he boasted his election gave the DEMs the worst defeat in political history. Aside from the fact he lost the popular vote and about 54% of the voters voted for someone else, his Electoral College win isn't even impressive by any standards; compare his win to the results since 2000:

2000 — Bush 271, Gore 266
2004 — Bush 286, Kerry 251
2008 — Obama 365, McCain 173
2012 — Obama 332, Romney 206
2016 — Trump 306, Clinton 232

Obama, as much as he is maligned and criticized, in his reelection in 2012 got 26 more Electoral votes than Trump in 2016; not bad for a "disasterous" Presidential candidate; since Obama, the "disaster", was so much better in his run, what does the 2016 result make Trump? As a further comparative metric, in 1972 Nixon got 520 Electoral votes, a whopping 95% of the Electoral vote, and we all know how well Nixon worked out as President. In fact, in terms of all-time US Electoral College results, Trump stands at #46 of the 58 elections in the history of the US:

http://www.epicjourney2008.com/2016/...-of-58-in.html

While the Electoral college may have the final say, there are an awful lot of US voters who can say "Trump? Not my choice."; in fact it is a clear majority...

As far as the history of the rationale for the existence of the Electoral College is concerned, the popular notion of the College being a means to protect smaller states' voices in the election process, the genesis has a much more inhumane aspect; the issue of slavery was a far more impelling factor than the simple population of the founding states. As far back as my years in high school in the late 60s, I recall having the need for an Electoral College as an issue and, in fact, it was a proposed topic for our debate tournaments. This is where I first heard of the issue of slavery in connection with the College. This past election has brought it up again; here is an essay in Time Magazine on the subject:

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-co...story-slavery/

The Electoral College was, in essence, part and parcel of the infamous "Three-Fifths Compromise" reached as a means of ensuring the Southern states would remain in the fledgling nation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

There really is no rationale for the continued existence of the Electoral College; all the arguments for its creation are moot or pretty much so: the ability of the average citizen to be informed on the matters and issues facing the country have vastly improved obviating the fear of the 'great unwashed' having a voice; the statuses of the various small agrarian versus large industrial states has homogenized to the point of irrelevance; Civil War and basic common sense and humanity have also obviated any need to assuage the feelings of the South. There really isn't any real good reason to keep the Electoral College other than historical sentimentality or the preservation of a system that can be 'gamed' for political purpose, often at the expense and in contravention of the expressed will of the voters...

At any rate, I didn't vote for Trump, and, even if Hillary had won the Electoral College, I could still say "Not my President."...


<O>

[Skybird]

The only worrying question currently, in these coming hours, is what will happen to or in American civil society if the Electoral College tomorrow does not vote Trump as president?

That is a certain, small though real possibility.

And it would be more than throwing just a spark into the powder magazine that polarised, deeply entrenched civil society seems to have turned into. Would be more like throwing in a bright burning magnesium torch.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The only worrying question currently, in these coming hours, is what will happen to or in American civil society if the Electoral College tomorrow does not vote Trump as president?

That is a certain, small though real possibility.

Not going to happen. Period.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by u crank

Not going to happen. Period.

The big game is coming up tomorrow.

The Electoral College Bowl ... GOP vs DNC the score so far is GOP 306 to DNC 232

The GOP could go all the way unless they fumble the ball causing the game to go into overtime.

All replays will be reviewed by the US Congress and the Senate.

This game could last till January 20th making it better than the Super Bowl