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.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Does anyone know when votes will officially be counted? CNN currently shows Hillary as having ~800k more voters than Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

There is still something like 1% still being tallied. In the end, it doesn't matter though. The electoral votes are solidified at this point. Still tallying California and Washington's popular vote isn't gonna change that.

Why is there no balance against this? 800K votes is a LOT of people. Should there not be a clause in system that says if a certain percentage of popular votes exceeds the Electoral college votes that the popular votes win instead?

I thought the whole point of the EC was to prevent "certain groups" from having a "tyranny" over others. Isn't that exactly what this election is doing?

-

Right now its a 0.5% difference. Its not that sizable of a margin.

So, 800k people isn't that sizable of a margin? Good to know. Go tell 800k people their vote didn't matter.

Not when there's 120 million voting. Their vote did matter. If you want to implement a system where if candidate wins the popular vote by a significant amount they get the presidency, it should be based proportionally to the number of votes available. I do not consider less than 1% to be a significant amount.

Why is it winner take all for the electoral votes? Seems fairly rigid.

Yea the "Winner Take All" thing for the EC does seem a bit strange, you'd think it would be more like Maine where its awarded depending on % of vote garnered

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Not when there's 120 million voting. Their vote did matter. If you want to implement a system where if candidate wins the popular vote by a significant amount, it should be based proportionally to the number of votes available. I do not consider less than 1% to be a significant amount.

Why is it winner take all for the electoral votes? Seems fairly rigid.

It does matter in the US because it would of decided the election if it was a split system. But it is a winner take all system.

Even if people voted for Hillary and got 49.5% and then trump got 50.5%. Trump wins that state's electoral vote. Its a problematic system and people have had a problem with it for years.

It was designed for way back in the day to deal with a smaller population and less communication. And the assumption that people didn't understand politics as they do today. And it was also designed to give states power. Now it is used for a two party system. And now is one of the oldest systems in the States.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Yea the "Winner Take All" thing for the EC does seem a bit strange, you'd think it would be more like Maine where its awarded depending on % of vote garnered

That has been suggested quite a bit but states, Especially republicans don't want it because that would mean they would have to appeal to more people in their state. This allows them to be more 'lazy'.

Currently people don't want Cities to have more sway in elections. (Even though 21% of the population lives in cities,)

So Tyranny of the Majority or Tyranny of the Minority, neither are good

This site

http://honorthefounders.com/electors.html

Has quite a bit of elector contact information. There is a stock letter on the site as well. They are asking for people to send letters to electors.

Will this work? No clue. But I often think about the Wayne Gretzky quote "I've missed every shot i didn't take."

I'm sure there are plenty of people who will say this will not work. They'll say it isn't practical. My experience is that pragmatism is cover for cynicism and that cynicism is just cover for impotence.

Stop talking and start doing.

ender502

 Frazzled wrote:
A little election tidbit.
Oregon's Democratic Secretary of State went down to defeat, marking the first GOP victory in a statewide election in 14 years.
Note: his office was the one that ran the bakery out of business for not making a lesbian wedding cake. Seems like there was a bit of a...reaction

You mean the bakery that ran itself out of business by doxximg the plaintiffs to encourage vigilante 'justtice'?

Are you trolling? You would have had to purposefully ignore what I actually wrote to respond with that.

You said Congress. Its not my fault you don't understand how the Senate is elected, and therefore couldn't be gerrymandered.

And thank you for proving that you were trolling by inrentionally ignoring the argument I made while trying to insult me.

Ya know, now that it has been mentioned, the "winner takes all" for the EC system is really what I have a beef with.

For example, TX has 38 EC votes. Our 5 largest cities all voted Blue, including (ironically*) most boarder counties. Yet a large majority of the rural counties voted Red.
The last I check, Trump got 53% in TX, whereas Clinton got 43%. So why did Trump get 100% of the EC votes? Shouldn't he instead have received, I don't know, only 53%

So if Trump received 20 EC votes (53%), Clinton 16 (43%) and the other 2 votes go to the major third party (not sure in this example). Would this not be a more idea situation that reforms the EC system to match the popular vote more closely? This might also give more push for 3rd party candidates



* I say "ironically" because I find it funny that voters who ACTUALLY live on the border do not seem to want a Wall.

-

 infinite_array wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Didn't they just say that nepotism laws stop him from giving them security clearance?

No.

They cannot be employed by their father within the Executive Branch. That does not mean they can't be granted security clearances.

You don't need to be part of the government to have security clearance? That seems wrong...?

There are contractors and folks in academia with clearances for various reasons.

Are those contractors and academics in hired positions, acting as employees of the government and being paid for their services?

No, they are not acting as 'employees of the government'. They are acting as contractors and academics. Yes they get paid, by their employers, not Uncle Sam. Yes their employers may have been awarded a contract or grant to develop something/test something/analyze something or in another way work on a gov't project. Does not make them gov't employees at all and there are VERY clear rules ensuring they do not 'act as employees of the gov't'.

 Galef wrote:
That's kinda where I am now. If you don't live in a "swing" state, your vote doesn't matter.
-

Which makes the "if it was popular vote only they would just ignore parts of country" arqument is silly. They are ALREADY ignoring parts of the country. EC doesn't change that.

While there's valid reasons for EC the "without it some states would be just ignored" is not one since that's going to happen already. So in that state different system is at most same. Just different states.

 Frazzled wrote:

Gerrymandering does nothing for the governorships, the Senate and of course El Presidente.

Actually, it does. The gerrymandering allowed Republicans to take control of congress, where they could wage a scorched earth policy. This scorched earth policy resulted in nothing of note being done...Therefore 'proving' that government is ineffective and wasteful. Plus it empowers the extremists due to all the safe districts, which has the result of less cooperation and less being done.

Not the Senate. Senate positions are statewide.

Generally, though, governors, senators, etc. don't just come out of nowhere. Many of them get their start in the lower elected positions. So, if gerrymandering ensures 90% of a state's legislature and it's House reps are from one party, that really reduces the opportunity/talent pool for anyone from the other party to rise up and be noticed.

Wouldn't a popular vote result in a Democrat President all of the time?

it does kinda suck how my vote doesnt matter in the election at all being in the bluest county in the bluest state.
Which is why I voted for Ozzy Osbourne.

One would like to think that a popular vote would encourage a shift in policies of any opposing parties to be more inclusive of a wider range of peoples concerns, as to avoid such a case of one side always winning...

 feeder wrote:
Wouldn't a popular vote result in a Democrat President all of the time?

No. The popular vote and Electoral College vote has only been split 5 times in 58 elections and within the 53 elections where the popular vote and the electoral vote were won by the same candidate there are numerous Republicans and non Democrats. They aren't the only parties we've ever had.

My understanding was with the EC you still can't ignore any states because over long periods of time even the non-swing states shift.

California for example voted Republican as recently as 1988 which was also the last time Michigan voted red, Texas voted blue in 1972. Granted that's over a long period of time, but it shows you can't be complacent. It's not like Reps or Dems can ignore anywhere for long.

I haven't really been following US politics long enough to know but I've heard the suggestion that Hillary lost the rust belt because they've been supporting blue for a long time but also feeling neglected by the Dems so it was inevitable they'd eventually swap to team red, even if just for one election.

It's just in periods where a state is heavily blue or heavily red votes in that state don't count as much as in the swing states which IMO is a flaw in the system.

 Galef wrote:
Ya know, now that it has been mentioned, the "winner takes all" for the EC system is really what I have a beef with.

For example, TX has 38 EC votes. Our 5 largest cities all voted Blue, including (ironically*) most boarder counties. Yet a large majority of the rural counties voted Red.
The last I check, Trump got 53% in TX, whereas Clinton got 43%. So why did Trump get 100% of the EC votes? Shouldn't he instead have received, I don't know, only 53%

So if Trump received 20 EC votes (53%), Clinton 16 (43%) and the other 2 votes go to the major third party (not sure in this example). Would this not be a more idea situation that reforms the EC system to match the popular vote more closely? This might also give more push for 3rd party candidates



* I say "ironically" because I find it funny that voters who ACTUALLY live on the border do not seem to want a Wall.

-

States determine how their electors are chosen and how they are apportioned. Maine and Nebraska aren't winner take all because their state govts chose a different method of apportioning their EC electors. Any state can change their EC laws to whatever they want.

We don't uniformity among the states at any point in the presidential process. Different states hold primaries on different days some are held long after the outcome has been decided. Some states have open primaries some states have closed primaries some states have caucuses. Some states are winner take all for the primaries and some award delegates proportionately. For most of our history we didn't vote in primaries at all. Delegates at the conventions didn't just formally announce a candidate the delegates at the convention were the only ones doing the choosing.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
it does kinda suck how my vote doesnt matter in the election at all being in the bluest county in the bluest state.
Which is why I voted for Ozzy Osbourne.

Indeed its basically pointless in California.

 feeder wrote:
Wouldn't a popular vote result in a Democrat President all of the time?

It's hard to tell since the voting patterns might be very different in such a system. (People in non-swing states would presumably vote in greater numbers than they currently do).

Most republican presidents have won the electors and the popular votes.

 Desubot wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
it does kinda suck how my vote doesnt matter in the election at all being in the bluest county in the bluest state.
Which is why I voted for Ozzy Osbourne.

Indeed its basically pointless in California.

Does California swing so heavily Democratic because there are no republicans, or do republicans simply don't bother voting because it won't matter?

 Zywus wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Wouldn't a popular vote result in a Democrat President all of the time?

It's hard to tell since the voting patterns might be very different in such a system. (People in non-swing states would presumably vote in greater numbers than they currently do).

Most republican presidents have won the electors and the popular votes.

Why would switching to a pure popular vote increase turnout?

There are a lot more candidates and issues on the ballots than just PotUS. On my ballot I voted for president, senator, governor, Lt governor, treasurer, Ed Dept, Ag Dept, Labor Dept, state legislator, county offices, at least a half dozen justices and 2 municipal bond issues. If a person is so apathetic that they don't care about voting for any of those offices why would changing or replacing the EC suddenly make them engage? Is the EC really making people stay home and ignore over a dozen other items on the ballot?

 d-usa wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
it does kinda suck how my vote doesnt matter in the election at all being in the bluest county in the bluest state.
Which is why I voted for Ozzy Osbourne.

Indeed its basically pointless in California.

Does California swing so heavily Democratic because there are no republicans, or do republicans simply don't bother voting because it won't matter?

Yes.

 d-usa wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
it does kinda suck how my vote doesnt matter in the election at all being in the bluest county in the bluest state.
Which is why I voted for Ozzy Osbourne.

Indeed its basically pointless in California.

Does California swing so heavily Democratic because there are no republicans, or do republicans simply don't bother voting because it won't matter?

California has a lot of big cities (San Diego, San Fran, Los Angeles), a lot of the big cities and most costal counties vote Dem, most of the population is in these cities/counties. Other than Nor cal and the farming/ag central cal counties, most of the state is pretty blue
(except Orange County, which is the red headed step child of So Cal)

 feeder wrote:
Wouldn't a popular vote result in a Democrat President all of the time?

It might. Then again there's been republic presidents in the past as well and not always with losing popular votes...Indeed getting into presidency without winning popularity isn't THAT common.

Also it might help republicans if they would smarten up with their policies and give more of what people want.

But even then...Let's see. Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Reagan, Ford, Nixon...

Some republican presidents that have won elections in popular votes as well.

Unless people's voting patterns change a lot to blue then it's still going to be close to 50-50. Of course it's POSSIBLE there's more blues in red states who don't bother to vote because it's useless than other way around which would help democrats but could be other way around as well. Hard to say.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Wouldn't a popular vote result in a Democrat President all of the time?

It's hard to tell since the voting patterns might be very different in such a system. (People in non-swing states would presumably vote in greater numbers than they currently do).

Most republican presidents have won the electors and the popular votes.

Why would switching to a pure popular vote increase turnout?

There are a lot more candidates and issues on the ballots than just PotUS. On my ballot I voted for president, senator, governor, Lt governor, treasurer, Ed Dept, Ag Dept, Labor Dept, state legislator, county offices, at least a half dozen justices and 2 municipal bond issues. If a person is so apathetic that they don't care about voting for any of those offices why would changing or replacing the EC suddenly make them engage? Is the EC really making people stay home and ignore over a dozen other items on the ballot?

Yes, I believe that there's a fair amount of people that don't show up to vote at all if they feel their vote for PotUS is meaningless.

It would be interesting to poll people who didn't vote and inquire why?

So looks like Giuliani is on the short list for SoS, I guess loyalty pays. The alternative seems to be John Bolton, who at least has experience, I guess. But seems a stark contrast to Trump's campaign promise of not bombing everybody everywhere.

 d-usa wrote:
So looks like Giuliani is on the short list for SoS, I guess loyalty pays. The alternative seems to be John Bolton, who at least has experience, I guess. But seems a stark contrast to Trump's campaign promise of not bombing everybody everywhere.

No matter where he would go it would be a terrible plan, the man is just an idiot.

 d-usa wrote:
So looks like Giuliani is on the short list for SoS, I guess loyalty pays. The alternative seems to be John Bolton, who at least has experience, I guess. But seems a stark contrast to Trump's campaign promise of not bombing everybody everywhere.

I forget. Was that before he said he'd bomb the Middle East, take their oil, and order the military to shoot people related to ISIS fighters, or was it after? Or both?

 d-usa wrote:
But seems a stark contrast to Trump's campaign promise of not bombing everybody everywhere.

Oh the Donald "I'm going to bomb ISIS out of existance" Trump? Or Donald "why haven't we already employed nukes" Trump?

Sheesh. Trump is all in for bombing everything that moves. Where anybody got idea he was not going to bomb people up?

 Spinner wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So looks like Giuliani is on the short list for SoS, I guess loyalty pays. The alternative seems to be John Bolton, who at least has experience, I guess. But seems a stark contrast to Trump's campaign promise of not bombing everybody everywhere.

I forget. Was that before he said he'd bomb the Middle East, take their oil, and order the military to shoot people related to ISIS fighters, or was it after? Or both?

Remember, Hillary was the candidate to start WW3.

Without her, I guess Bolton will have to do.

 Frazzled wrote:
A little election tidbit.
Oregon's Democratic Secretary of State went down to defeat, marking the first GOP victory in a statewide election in 14 years.
Note: his office was the one that ran the bakery out of business for not making a lesbian wedding cake. Seems like there was a bit of a...reaction

Selective memory is a great thing isn't it.

The bakery didn't just refuse to bake a cake, they published the lesbians personal information on the web which resulted in them being tormented online by those who undoubtedly found a hero in trump and voted for him..

How exactly does a secretary of state run anyone out of business? It couldn't possibly be that the bakery lost the lawsuit for publishing the personal information and couldn't pay their legal fees now could it.