Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Very close at the moment in Florida, 115 votes between them.

Currently wishing Stein wasn't there so Clinton could have some of those 50k votes

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Very close at the moment in Florida.

Currently wishing Stein wasn't there so Clinton could have some of those 50k votes

Johnson is taking votes away from her as well. Every 4 way poll done all year has shown him hurting her just as much as Trump.

 d-usa wrote:
Next set of states closing, lots of exit-poll based projections.

Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida are going to be the deciding factor pretty early on tonight.

And it seems that similar to 2000 and other elections, the margin could literally be a thousand votes or so, based on CNN running at about 84% counted. I mean, they are getting to the point where they are comparing the percentage certain counties were lost by in O's last time out, and saying "well, as long as we keep our margin within X, we will win the state because of Y counties"

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The selection process for state legislators is a separate subject to how Senators were appointed to Congress prior to the ratification of the 17th amendment. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the appoint of Senators as not all states requires a vote from the state legislature to appoint a Senator.

It does if we make them appointed by state legislators, which is what was suggested. AFAIAA, the 17th wasn't even explicetly mentioned.

Representatives in the House represent their congressional districts and the people who reside therein. They do not and never have represented the interest of the state as a whole that is the job of Senators in the Senate. We have a bicameral legislature for a reason so that the people are represented in the house and the states are represented in the Senate. What the people want and what is prudent or possible to provide can be competing interests likewise what the federal govt wants and what is best for individual states. It is also to prevent the tyranny of the majority and set all states on equal footing regardless of population and make agreement amongst a majority of the states a prerequisite for federal legislation to be passed.

So if reps can lobby for their districts now, why can't congress lobby for their districts now? Why do they have to be appointed rather than elected?

If you look back through the thread the 17th amendment wa mentioned.

If you're asking why the constitution wanted Senators to be appointed to the Senate rather than elected it's because the Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the state not the people. The people were represented by the House. States have differing interests from the people as the states are constrained by state constitutions, they have to have balanced budgets, they have limitations on how revenue can be collected, states have their own economic interests as well. If both houses of congress are elected than both houses are answering to the same interests and constituents which allows Congress to be corrupted by the tyranny of the majority, the system is set up to prevent 51% of the population from running roughshod over everyone.

The Senate is also designed to put states on equal ground. All 50 states have equal standing regardless of population size to offset the House where representation is based on population. In the House California has more representatives than Wyoming but in the Senate California and Wyoming have equal representation with 2 Senators each. That prevents the larger population states from dominating the less populous states because the states have equal standing. By having Senators appointed by state govts it allows Senators to advocate for the interests of the state without being beholden to the whims of the people. The Senate represents the dispassionate Lin view of the States themselves while the House represents the passionate will of the people and both have to align with each other to get federal legislation passed. The forced compromise between the two different prespectives/interests is supposed to help make legislation better.

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Very close at the moment in Florida.

Currently wishing Stein wasn't there so Clinton could have some of those 50k votes

Johnson is taking votes away from her as well. Every 4 way poll done all year has shown him hurting her just as much as Trump.

Hell, at the moment Trump is ahead by only 28 votes

Dammit, now he got a 14k boost.

Florida has Johnson pulling more votes than Stein. So maybe he is doing more harm to Hillary than Stein. Half a point between Clinton and Trump

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Very close at the moment in Florida.

Currently wishing Stein wasn't there so Clinton could have some of those 50k votes

Johnson is taking votes away from her as well. Every 4 way poll done all year has shown him hurting her just as much as Trump.

Hell, at the moment Trump is ahead by only 28 votes

Dammit, now he got a 14k boost.

Still 3 very red counties that haven't been tallied yet. I'm thinking Florida is his.

Surprised no one has commented on Texas. Hillary is up 2.2%. In Texas. Da fawk.

 LordofHats wrote:
Surprised no one has commented on Texas. Hillary is up 2.2%. In Texas. Da fawk.

Just checked, and Trump is up by 3.

That's what I get for going to Yahoo! XD

EIDT: Oh I see how it is Yahoo! Troll me moar and update yourself again right after I post!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Very close at the moment in Florida.

Currently wishing Stein wasn't there so Clinton could have some of those 50k votes

Johnson is taking votes away from her as well. Every 4 way poll done all year has shown him hurting her just as much as Trump.

Hell, at the moment Trump is ahead by only 28 votes

Dammit, now he got a 14k boost.

Florida, proving why every vote matters. The silent non voters could make a huge difference 1 vote at a time.

 d-usa wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Next set of states closing, lots of exit-poll based projections.

Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida are going to be the deciding factor pretty early on tonight.

Strangely, Clinton could lose all three and still win the election though.

True, but Florida is an even split right now, and Ohio and North Carolina look like they will be going for Clinton. If the results hold up I'm pretty confident in calling the election done.

New Hampshire as well. It needs to flip for nearly any Trump victory that doesn't involve capturing a major Democratic stronghold, even as small as it is.

I have been looking at this map
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maine has one county reporting and the results were 100% Trump but they have many more counties to go before Maine is finished,

West Virginia here they have maybe a dozen at most counted results, and any of the greenish colored counties/states means they are still tallying. can't wait for the 100% tallied results.

Florida amazingly has 60% tallying done

The numbers do not mean much because too many counties are not counted yet. It makes numbers jump like random.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fox says Rubio wins Florida.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Florida amazingly has 60% tallying done

91%

I think Trump is going to take Florida. He's up by 90k votes at this point. That's just my gut feeling.

 Ouze wrote:
I think Trump is going to take Florida. He's up by 90k votes at this point. That's just my gut feeling.

He will, but I'm feeling he's not going to pick up anything else of consequence. Clinton has this.

No, overall I still think she'll win. I was just hoping for a quick end.

Politico has H 3% ahead in Ohio, although only 20% reporting.

 Ouze wrote:
I think Trump is going to take Florida. He's up by 90k votes at this point. That's just my gut feeling.

I think you are right, she'll probably narrow the margin but won't be able to swing it her way.

But even with Florida, I think if Ohio and NC hold up it will be pretty much over.

Looks like the Senate may stay red, so more SCOTUS fun at least. But the people will have spoken and decided who should fill it, so I'm sure they will approve whoever.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Politico has H 3% ahead in Ohio, although only 20% reporting.

They seem behind. I second Ouze's earlier post about using Fox's. They're a real good system.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters

Clinton could still win Florida. Most of the missing 9% are from the southeast which favours Clinton.

Has the panhandle sent in the results?

So my prediction, this won't be a landslide. Clinton wins, but Trump gets around 240 electoral votes.

 Nicktor wrote:
Clinton could still win Florida. Most of the missing 9% are from the southeast which favours Clinton.

This right here... I'm watching CNN (mostly because when I changed channels... there were like 10 solid minutes of commercials. F that) and they are quick to point out that the counties that are low count right now... are between 2 high population counties, and everything else is under 1% of state population


What they were showing a second ago, was Clinton taking NC, making good headway in Ohio... and of course, some other states polls' just closed so it could get more interesting

Looks like OH and NC are tightening a bit right now.

 d-usa wrote:
Looks like OH and NC are tightening a bit right now.

Damnit, I want to stop caring...

Oklahoma went as expected for the national races.

I'm keeping an eye on the State Questions, and I'm hoping some of those results hold up.

 d-usa wrote:
Oklahoma went as expected for the national races.

I'm keeping an eye on the State Questions, and I'm hoping some of those results hold up.

What were they? Michigan had zero this year, threw me off.

 Laemos wrote:
Has the panhandle sent in the results?

A number of counties have... most have sent in numbers, but most people are running the percentage reported at the time, so quite a number of counties are not completely counted as yet