|
||||||||
American Politics Discussion Thread |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307
|
Quote:
Given the 'experts' who have run the government for the last few decades have got the US into 20 trillion of debt perhaps a different approach might be worth trying.
Like Gary Cohn, one of the chief architects of the 2008 global meltdown |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,277
|
Quote:
The electoral college decides who is President just as in the UK our government is decided by which party wins a majority of 650 local seats on a plurality in those seats - not a popular vote. Cos when I saw the graphics on election night all the networks had the road to 270 - not the popular vote. Of course only when Clinton started losing on the night did MSNBC start talking about the latter. ![]() As anyone who understands how the process works knows if it was a different system you might get a different result in some states and because states all use different systems for voting so voting totals are not necessarily comparable eg some have early voting some just on the day, some require voter ID and others do not, some close polls at 6pm others at 9pm which prevents some working people from voting. Until you have consistent voting arrangements in all states the popular vote isn't a consistent measure whereas it is within states as everyone locally votes on the same basis. Who knows for example what the result in California might have been if nationally created standards on voter registration and at least some sort of voter ID applied. Trump won the popular vote easily in the other 49 states. |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 14,277
|
The electoral college decides who is president. The popular vote is one of the factors which decides how effective they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307
|
Quote:
Not really good grief more it's irrelevant so why would most people know or care.
The electoral college decides who is President just as in the UK our government is decided by which party wins a majority of 650 local seats on a plurality in those seats - not a popular vote. Cos when I saw the graphics on election night all the networks had the road to 270 - not the popular vote. Of course only when Clinton started losing on the night did MSNBC start talking about the latter. ![]() As anyone who understands how the process works knows if it was a different system you might get a different result in some states and because states all use different systems for voting so voting totals are not necessarily comparable eg some have early voting some just on the day, some require voter ID and others do not, some close polls at 6pm others at 9pm which prevents some working people from voting. Until you have consistent voting arrangements in all states the popular vote isn't a consistent measure whereas it is within states as everyone locally votes on the same basis. Who knows for example what the result in California might have been if nationally created standards on voter registration and at least some sort of voter ID applied. Trump won the popular vote easily in the other 49 states. No wonder trump loves people like you. |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
Not really good grief more it's irrelevant so why would most people know or care.
The electoral college decides who is President just as in the UK our government is decided by which party wins a majority of 650 local seats on a plurality in those seats - not a popular vote. Cos when I saw the graphics on election night all the networks had the road to 270 - not the popular vote. Of course only when Clinton started losing on the night did MSNBC start talking about the latter. ![]() As anyone who understands how the process works knows if it was a different system you might get a different result in some states and because states all use different systems for voting so voting totals are not necessarily comparable eg some have early voting some just on the day, some require voter ID and others do not, some close polls at 6pm others at 9pm which prevents some working people from voting. Until you have consistent voting arrangements in all states the popular vote isn't a consistent measure whereas it is within states as everyone locally votes on the same basis. Who knows for example what the result in California might have been if nationally created standards on voter registration and at least some sort of voter ID applied. Trump won the popular vote easily in the other 49 states. |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307
|
Quote:
Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states? Where are you getting that information?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
Trump tweeted it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,277
|
Quote:
So disbelieving simple and provable facts is OK as long as you can come up with a conspiracy theory as to why it's wrong.
No wonder trump loves people like you. There is only one fact that matters in deciding who is President - Trump won 306 votes and Clinton 232. Just accept that FACT and move on cos it's just getting a bit boring now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
Nothing in my post wasn't factual. It's not me that's taking about something that is not relevant to deciding who is President under the constitution but you.
There is only one fact that matters in deciding who is President - Trump won 306 votes and Clinton 232. Just accept that FACT and move on cos it's just getting a bit boring now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,747
|
wonder how many, if any, "faithless electors" we will see today
afaik there has never been more than one in an electoral college since 1832 |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,930
|
Quote:
Not really good grief more it's irrelevant so why would most people know or care.
The electoral college decides who is President just as in the UK our government is decided by which party wins a majority of 650 local seats on a plurality in those seats - not a popular vote. Cos when I saw the graphics on election night all the networks had the road to 270 - not the popular vote. Of course only when Clinton started losing on the night did MSNBC start talking about the latter. ![]() As anyone who understands how the process works knows if it was a different system you might get a different result in some states and because states all use different systems for voting so voting totals are not necessarily comparable eg some have early voting some just on the day, some require voter ID and others do not, some close polls at 6pm others at 9pm which prevents some working people from voting. Until you have consistent voting arrangements in all states the popular vote isn't a consistent measure whereas it is within states as everyone locally votes on the same basis. Who knows for example what the result in California might have been if nationally created standards on voter registration and at least some sort of voter ID applied. Trump won the popular vote easily in the other 49 states. However, I do agree with you about having consistent voting rules and arrangements. A federal election system for a federal president ought to have a federalised election process, and states shouldn't get to 'tweak' the rules from district to district. They can do what they like for statewide elections, but as soon as you start talking about feeding into a single elected position for the country, there should be one way only. I suspect that would focus the pro- and anti-ID law proponents' minds pretty sharpish! BTW, the National Popular Vote movement, prior to this election, had the support of approx 72% of the population - i.e. a rather large majority of the country supporting the idea that the EC system was replaced by a direct popular vote. Immediately after this election, surprise, surprise, that number has dropped to 49% - I wonder why that is?!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
wonder how many, if any, "faithless electors" we will see today
afaik there has never been more than one in an electoral college since 1832 http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/...sketch-w456631 |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
You do know he didn't win 49 states surely?! Clinton did win quite a few states! With the final maths of the electoral college votes, Trump won 57% of the EC votes, and Clinton won 43% of them. I lost track of the final number of states he actually won but, given that the numerical states is less important given their variable individual amount of EC votes per state, it's surely far easier to state the percentage of EC votes won. Nationwide, Trump won the EC by 14%, Clinton won the popular vote by 2%. That's the disparity that is very difficult to reconcile, no matter whether you advocate a 'first past post', 'proportional representation' or 'electoral college' system.
However, I do agree with you about having consistent voting rules and arrangements. A federal election system for a federal president ought to have a federalised election process, and states shouldn't get to 'tweak' the rules from district to district. They can do what they like for statewide elections, but as soon as you start talking about feeding into a single elected position for the country, there should be one way only. I suspect that would focus the pro- and anti-ID law proponents' minds pretty sharpish! BTW, the National Popular Vote movement, prior to this election, had the support of approx 72% of the population - i.e. a rather large majority of the country supporting the idea that the EC system was replaced by a direct popular vote. Immediately after this election, surprise, surprise, that number has dropped to 49% - I wonder why that is?!!! ![]() The U.S. has been a very state's rights country, but that's changing. States don't get to make just any old laws and keep them, due to the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21,747
|
Quote:
John Goodman was funny as Rex Tillerson as well in the cold open |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,507
|
Quote:
Clinton won the popular vote by 2%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 214
|
Changes nothing. Trump will be sworn in next year and that is that.
Better to take the fight to him politically once he takes office than it is to continue crying over the result. Sadly I have seen nothing from the DNC since the election that gives me hope. I'm almost certain that Trump will serve two terms. |
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,641
|
Quote:
Not the brightest, are they? And of course Trump himself is so infuriated at having comprehensively lost the popular vote that he is busily inventing new conspiracy theories to explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,728
|
Quote:
Changes nothing. Trump will be sworn in next year and that is that.
Better to take the fight to him politically once he takes office than it is to continue crying over the result. Sadly I have seen nothing from the DNC since the election that gives me hope. I'm almost certain that Trump will serve two terms. When you look at the votes that actually won him the election it amounts to 0.03% of all votes cast so it would not take much to swing it to the Democrats. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69,133
|
Quote:
It is not outside the bounds of possibility that Trump will be impeached even before the next election - he has the same tendency to lie that Richard Nixon did, that is before we mention his penchant for ignoring the advice of experts.
When you look at the votes that actually won him the election it amounts to 0.03% of all votes cast so it would not take much to swing it to the Democrats. ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,728
|
Quote:
The thing is, if, and it is still an IF, he is impeached, then it would be Pence, who would get into power, not Hillary, does anyone really, REALLY, want to see him in charge??
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() I was actually referring to the possibility of Trump making it to a second term - that I'm not so sure. Difficult to be certain when the Simpson's not only predicted a Trump win, but also the states he would win to get to that position. |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 214
|
Pence is a "true believer" which terrifies me more than a thin skinned, prat like Trump.
My best hope is that Trump implodes and the DNC gets its act together. Problem is they will probably put another corporate crony up for election. Of course it's also possible that Trump will cut and run after one term. In that case all bets are off. |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,277
|
Quote:
wonder how many, if any, "faithless electors" we will see toda
afaik there has never been more than one in an electoral college since 1832 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...gon-FALSE.html I would be amazed if it's any more than that - cos the electors are party appointees! Even MItt Romney is being nice about Trump now - the Republican never trumpers are now supporting him. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,277
|
Quote:
The thing is, if, and it is still an IF, he is impeached, then it would be Pence, who would get into power, not Hillary, does anyone really, REALLY, want to see him in charge??
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Given the Senate and the House will almost certainly be Republican controlled for the next 4 years the chance of an impeachment is close to zero. Of the 33 senate seats up in 2018 25 are held by Democrats and those who caucus with them. They are far more likely to lose seats than gain them even if they had a good night. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...lections,_2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69,133
|
All this talk of switching sides etc, could anyone imagine the Tory party voting for Corbyn?
That is what is kind if being asked here, such outrageous a thing, that it just simply will not happen. Republicans will not switch to Hillary, or vote for anyone else, so anyone thinking or hoping for such a thing, is just living in a fantasy world of entirely their own making. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24.





