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.
Congress functions differently from the President. Representatives represent their district, while in most cases electoral votes represent the entire state in a winner-take-all contest and have no locality to them.
Lets also be real, congressional districts are also hideously gerrymandered and are poorly representative as well
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 17:02:17
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
What age are you allowed to vote?
What are are you allowed to drive a car?
What age are you allowed to go to college?
What age can you get a state ID?
In most states an ID Card or a drivers license can be EASILY attained. Its time consuming because DMV But still easy. It costs very little to purchase an ID card. So why is it so horrible to require one? Because it was hard to get right before an election? Might that have something to do with the THOUSANDS trying to do the same thing at the same time?
Funny how the polls aren't run by a party but are instead non-affiliated, if they closed before they were supposed to you could easily get them to open up again by making a simple phone call.
In stories like these, who are the ones most affected by ID cards? the super old, and the very poor.... The super old, such as the 100 year old dude, and the 85 year old couple listed in the article I posted, more than likely cannot drive anymore. That means that they need to call up the kids, grandkids, great grandkids, or bitch at the nursing home attendants to get them a ride to go anywhere. I'd say that relying on anyone else makes getting a new ID more difficult for those people. It's quite similar to the very poor... if they don't have a car, they have to rely on a bus system that, let's be honest here, in the US sucks. On top of that, due to the opening hours of the DMV or government ID issuing facilities, more than likely they have to take time off of their gak-pay job, but if they miss any hours, they'll likely have to make the choice between paying rent, utilities, and/or eating. Feth that.
It's easy for you and I to sit here and say that something can be easily obtained, but the fact is, it really isn't as easy as that given some people's situations. But hey, we all know that there are people in this country who only want certain people to vote anyway, so feth everyone else, right?
djones520 wrote: So looking at the stocks, in 2 day's they've completely recovered all losses of the previous month.
I'm certainly not an expert, but to my amateur eyes, it looks like the market wasn't fearing a Trump victory.
To my professional eyes, yes it was, hence the limit down S&P futures move during the evening when a Trump victory started manifesting. The reconciliatory acceptance speech and peaceful transition of power post-election is the balm right now that has calmed the fears and money, enormous amounts of which had been heading to the sidelines into the election has begun to seek out investment themes that fit the Trump presidency, i.e. increased defense spending, restaurants...more of a 'thank God it's over' play but still, infrastructure, coal, etc. and produced losers as well, i.e. hospital operators, interest rates, Mexican Peso, etc. A lot of the market being upbeat hinges on getting action on the corporate tax reform front, regulatory easing and infrastructure investment. If he starts going off at the mouth and sabre rattling with China, things could go very badly, very quickly.
jreilly89 wrote: I want to ask an honest question. I keep seeing all these posts from people saying that "Trump is the president, just suck it up" and "We need to work together to support Trump".
Did it seem like those posts never happened with Obama in either term? It seemed totally justified to hate on him, but now people want us to believe in a President half of us didn't vote for just because he won.
People are just upset that their candidate lost. Let 'em vent.
I'm just waiting for the day to say "Trump didn't build that!", especially since during the Obama years, Democrats have been arguing that President Obama should have the power to get a lot done on his own, without going through Congress: executive orders, 'I have a pen and phone', etc...
If President Trump exercises similarly broad powers, remember: Trump didn't build that!
There's an old axiom that I'm sure I'll butcher and I don't know who said it... but, it goes like this: Don't change the rules/power structure that you wouldn't want your opponent to have over you.
jreilly89 wrote: I want to ask an honest question. I keep seeing all these posts from people saying that "Trump is the president, just suck it up" and "We need to work together to support Trump".
Did it seem like those posts never happened with Obama in either term? It seemed totally justified to hate on him, but now people want us to believe in a President half of us didn't vote for just because he won.
Nobody has to believe in the president but people need to accept the outcome of elections. Obama is the one who stated that "elections have consequences" and it's true. I didn't vote for Trump but he's still the president. Every presidential election close to half the people that voted don't succeed in electing their candidate and every presidential election about half the registered voters don't even vote. We had an election and somebody won. We can all move on with our lives now. There would be a lot less angst over who is PotUS if people in both parties would stop their constant attempts to move more power to the executive whenever their team is in charge of the white house. Sooner or later the other side will be in charge and then all the executive power you wanted "your" guy to wield is now in the hands of the opposition. We have a system in place for checks and balances, it makes the federal govt move slowly and deliberately, it impedes the ability to enact major sudden changes and it does all that by design. Politicians and Parties need to stop trying to bastardize the system into something else that is horribly broken and instead work within the intended framework of the system or convince the people to support the creation of a new system.
jreilly89 wrote: I want to ask an honest question. I keep seeing all these posts from people saying that "Trump is the president, just suck it up" and "We need to work together to support Trump".
Did it seem like those posts never happened with Obama in either term? It seemed totally justified to hate on him, but now people want us to believe in a President half of us didn't vote for just because he won.
Nobody has to believe in the president but people need to accept the outcome of elections. Obama is the one who stated that "elections have consequences" and it's true. I didn't vote for Trump but he's still the president. Every presidential election close to half the people that voted don't succeed in electing their candidate and every presidential election about half the registered voters don't even vote. We had an election and somebody won. We can all move on with our lives now. There would be a lot less angst over who is PotUS if people in both parties would stop their constant attempts to move more power to the executive whenever their team is in charge of the white house. Sooner or later the other side will be in charge and then all the executive power you wanted "your" guy to wield is now in the hands of the opposition. We have a system in place for checks and balances, it makes the federal govt move slowly and deliberately, it impedes the ability to enact major sudden changes and it does all that by design. Politicians and Parties need to stop trying to bastardize the system into something else that is horribly broken and instead work within the intended framework of the system or convince the people to support the creation of a new system.
To add onto Prestor's point, we're a nation that lost much of the idea of federalism. If you need nimble changes, do it at the state level and see if it works. No need to try some drastic changes all at once at a national level.
What age are you allowed to vote?
What are are you allowed to drive a car?
What age are you allowed to go to college?
What age can you get a state ID?
In most states an ID Card or a drivers license can be EASILY attained. Its time consuming because DMV But still easy. It costs very little to purchase an ID card. So why is it so horrible to require one? Because it was hard to get right before an election? Might that have something to do with the THOUSANDS trying to do the same thing at the same time?
Funny how the polls aren't run by a party but are instead non-affiliated, if they closed before they were supposed to you could easily get them to open up again by making a simple phone call.
In stories like these, who are the ones most affected by ID cards? the super old, and the very poor.... The super old, such as the 100 year old dude, and the 85 year old couple listed in the article I posted, more than likely cannot drive anymore. That means that they need to call up the kids, grandkids, great grandkids, or bitch at the nursing home attendants to get them a ride to go anywhere. I'd say that relying on anyone else makes getting a new ID more difficult for those people. It's quite similar to the very poor... if they don't have a car, they have to rely on a bus system that, let's be honest here, in the US sucks. On top of that, due to the opening hours of the DMV or government ID issuing facilities, more than likely they have to take time off of their gak-pay job, but if they miss any hours, they'll likely have to make the choice between paying rent, utilities, and/or eating. Feth that.
It's easy for you and I to sit here and say that something can be easily obtained, but the fact is, it really isn't as easy as that given some people's situations. But hey, we all know that there are people in this country who only want certain people to vote anyway, so feth everyone else, right?
Well my Drivers License is valid until 2024, my Veterans ID is good forever, my DOD ID is good for another 4 years. Thats 3 forms of Picture ID I have that are good for multiple years. So no! I don't think it is hard to get an ID for voting. YOU HAVE 4 YEARS TO GET IT!
infinite_array wrote: So, remember how there were claims that Trump was in contact with Russia, which Trump denied and the FBI claimed to find no evidence of?
infinite_array wrote: So, remember how there were claims that Trump was in contact with Russia, which Trump denied and the FBI claimed to find no evidence of?
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
infinite_array wrote: So, remember how there were claims that Trump was in contact with Russia, which Trump denied and the FBI claimed to find no evidence of?
Can you quote that from a more reputable source? HuffPo is the left's InfoWars.
You think alex "9/11 was an inside job" jones crazy is the same as Huffington post? And here I thought the false equivalences would end with the election
Vaktathi wrote: Interesting to see the flip on counties and states. From the popular vote totals it looks like D's just stayed home, Turd Sandwich just couldnt energize them to vote.
Very true. I think the fact that Hillary was "better" than Trump colored some of her supporters' perceptions to the point where they didn't see just how weak of a candidate she was. Simply being better than Trump didn't motivate Democrats to go vote for Hillary and thus we have Trump as our 45th president.
Filmmaker Woody Allen said in 1977: “Showing up is 80 percent of life.”
“The world is run by those who show up” has been a slogan of many political activists, recorded in print since 1987. The author of the slogan is unknown. Variants of the saying include “The government/country/nation is run by those who show up.”
I posted quite some time ago, when HRC was looking to be the foregone winner, that this election wasn't in the bag for exactly this reason. I repeated over and over that Trump's supporters would make sure to come out and vote even in a tornado, with fire and brimstone raining down from the skies and they sure enough they did, sans biblical weather phenomenon.
As to the other part of the equation, it just seems to me that the HRC strategy of steady as she goes and let DT hang himself looked good on paper, and for a while, looked good in the polls. The problem is that her team didn't appreciate the voter apathy from the left and she didn't understand that if you want to pursue a strategy of just pointing out how bad the other guy is then you better not have something that can blowback on you as well as a negator.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 17:26:02
infinite_array wrote: So, remember how there were claims that Trump was in contact with Russia, which Trump denied and the FBI claimed to find no evidence of?
Can you quote that from a more reputable source? HuffPo is the left's InfoWars.
You think alex "9/11 was an inside job" jones crazy is the same as Huffington post? And here I thought the false equivalences would end with the election
infinite_array wrote: So, remember how there were claims that Trump was in contact with Russia, which Trump denied and the FBI claimed to find no evidence of?
Can you quote that from a more reputable source? HuffPo is the left's InfoWars.
You think alex "9/11 was an inside job" jones crazy is the same as Huffington post? And here I thought the false equivalences would end with the election
Bromsy wrote: There are vast swathes of America that don't vote, in no small part due to knowing that their state is going one way or another regardless. If we were running a popular election to decide who was president the number of people getting out to vote would most likely go up significantly and the numbers would be different.
Isn't that a pretty damning allegation of the current system of electorats? That a wast swathe of people don't vote for a office concerning the entire nation, simply because they happen to live in a certain state.
I don't think (I hope) that people claim that Trump should be ousted from his place as president elect this moment, because Clinton got the popular vote. He won this election under the rules that was in place at the start of the election. It would perhaps be nice if next election were run under rules that don't (theoretically) allow someone to become president while getting less than half the votes of his opponent though?
I don't think the data supports blaming the Electoral College for lower voter turnout. In my lifetime California went from being red for Reagan and Bush41 to then being blue from 1992 to 2016 by a growing margin. So the party affiliation of the people voting and the number of people in those parties has changed drastically but the turnout of voters to the polls hasn't changed much at all.
SACRAMENTO - For the first time in a statewide general election the majority of Californians who voted did so by mail, according to the official results of the November 6 General Election. The Statement of Vote, certified today by Secretary of State Debra Bowen, shows 13.2 million people voted in the presidential election – a turnout of 72% of California’s 18.2 million registered voters.
The highest-ever turnout in a California presidential election was 88.38% in 1964 (a close second: 88.32% in 1960). The lowest-ever turnout in a California presidential election was 65.5% in 1996. The average voter turnout for California presidential elections over the previous 100 years has been about 79%.
Why was turnout low this election in California? Who knows but it's unlikely to be attributed to the Electoral College system since the previous 100 years have shown California turnout to be fairly consistent.
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
Zywus wrote: Isn't that a pretty damning allegation of the current system of electorats? That a wast swathe of people don't vote for a office concerning the entire nation, simply because they happen to live in a certain state.
I think it's more a pretty damning allegation of the voters who don't vote, personally.
Truth be told, I almost didn't this year; Virginia was a lock for Hillary, my congressional district was going to give the seat to a Democrat, same as they do every year, and we had no major ballot initiatives, so it seemed pretty pointless. I ultimately went and did it out of a sense of civic responsibility, but plenty of people don't have that.
Now I get to feel good about being part of the unexpectedly narrow margin for Clinton in my state that foretold the upset to come. I'd have preferred Virginia turning red, but alas. I'll save it for the 2017 governor's race.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Trump and Putin don't have to like each other, but a solid working relationship over things like fighting ISIL, would be good for both nations IMO.
But their politics are completely at clashing with each other. Only thing they agree on is that being next best thing to dictator is good and that Religion Rocks(As long as it's own) and you are good if you are white heterosexual.
That's not particularly good things to agree with...And makes for clashesh with foreign policy.
Vaktathi wrote: Congress functions differently from the President. Representatives represent their district, while in most cases electoral votes represent the entire state in a winner-take-all contest and have no locality to them.
Lets also be real, congressional districts are also hideously gerrymandered and are poorly representative as well
The ratio of state residents to representatives in Congress is the same as the ratio of state residents to electors in the Electoral College. If the people of a state are underrepresented in the electoral college then they are also under represented in Congress.
Congressional districts get drawn up by state legislators who are elected by the people so the congressional districts are representative of the will of the people as expressed by the legislators elected to represent the people. Gerrymandering only works because the people electing state legislators don't care if they do it. Blatant instances of gerrymandering have been successfully challenged in court but I haven't seen the issue addressed by candidates or voters in state legislature campaigns.
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
There's the point about not letting the populous portions of the country have too much of an advantage over the less populated portions of the country but mostly its about federalism. Your vote counts in your state[b] it doesn't count in any other state. The constitution makes the states sovereign over the administration of the elections, each state gets a voice in the election of a president because we are a country made up of separate states. We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 17:39:31
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I suspect I know the answer, but I'm going to ask anyway.
Why for Trumps rhetoric are we reading between the lines "build a wall" apparently just means tough on immigration. But when Hilary says "no fly zone over Syria" we take her at her word and we're going to re-enter the cold war?
Why is taking Trump at his word just "you silly lefties, over reacting to hot air" but it's all serious and going to happen for anything Hilary said.
Especially as the Trump's group seems to already have started the plans for the wall...So it was all talk and metaphors? Why make any initial plannings for that if it was only talks?
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We are told all our lives that our vote matters and in this particular election 200,000 MORE voters voted for Blue team, yet some how Red team won because lines are draw in a certain way
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 17:52:39
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
-
Well for one thing, the Iowa voter might depend on farming while the New Yorker depends on other important measures for his lifestyle. If you get rid of one or the other the entire system collapses.
Obviously not entirely to blame... but Wisconsin is mentioned in the article. Food for thought.
Sorry, but I put no faith in any article that says requiring an ID card is "Voter repression".
Especially when you can absentee vote without it. I did.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I suspect I know the answer, but I'm going to ask anyway.
Why for Trumps rhetoric are we reading between the lines "build a wall" apparently just means tough on immigration. But when Hilary says "no fly zone over Syria" we take her at her word and we're going to re-enter the cold war?
Why is taking Trump at his word just "you silly lefties, over reacting to hot air" but it's all serious and going to happen for anything Hilary said.
Especially as the Trump's group seems to already have started the plans for the wall...So it was all talk and metaphors? Why make any initial plannings for that if it was only talks?
I'm reminded of all the times during the campaign where his various spokespeople tried to do damage control with 'no, he didn't mean Obama literally founded ISIS', or 'of course he wouldn't order the US military to commit war crimes', or 'no, obviously he's not going to ban Muslims from the country', and then he'd spend the next two or three rallies going 'yeah, that's what I meant'.
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
You live in a city I take it? Now imagine your vote is completely irrelevant. Thats what it would be like if you didn't live in a city. frankly you vote is not that relevant now.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
But still easy. It costs very little to purchase an 
