Jump to content

2016 US Election.

CRAZY CHRIS
in News and Politics

Featured Replies

I do understand the disappointment of Hillary supporters here in regards to the Electoral college vs the popular vote argument but popular vote is not what the election was fought on. If it was one person one vote from day 1 there is no reason to think the result on the popular result would be the same. For example I live in a very safe Labour seat and if I am a Conservative voter my vote is pretty much worthless at a general election. I have spoken to people before who don't bother voting because its a "safe seat" (goes both ways of course) But in reality Clinton is only ahead in the PV (at the moment by 0.4%) because of 1 state, California, which she won by a huge margin. A very large majority of the country pretty much voted against her, in the end it will be 31 states to 21 states in Trump's favour. He's going to end up with 306 electoral votes. This is no Bush/Gore.

 

The EU referendum shows more people come out to vote in a one person one vote system because every vote counts. There's no reason to think it would change the result here if that was the deal from the outset. Looking at the data. More women than expected and also more Hispanics voted for Trump, almost 30% despite every thing was said about "The Wall" Is not a given Hillary would win.

 

I'm just not sure that if Trump had won the popular vote by winning Texas by a huge margin and lost the presidency on EV Hillary supporters would be dissing the system. In the end if you are passionate about something and you lose, you are always going to feel hard done by.

The electoral college is what matters, but it's still depressing that she won the popular vote, but not the presidency. The electoral college gives more power to rural white states than to diverse Democratic strongholds. For example, blood-red Wyoming (least-populated state in the Union) gets 3 electoral votes and deep-blue California (most-populated state in the Union) gets 55. If California received the same number of electoral votes based on population in proportion to Wyoming, California would have ~195 electoral votes.

 

This is why it's wildly improbable for a Democratic candidate to win the electoral college, but lose the popular vote.

Edited by bluesunstorm

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Views 89k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

I do understand the disappointment of Hillary supporters here in regards to the Electoral college vs the popular vote argument but popular vote is not what the election was fought on. If it was one person one vote from day 1 there is no reason to think the result on the popular result would be the same. For example I live in a very safe Labour seat and if I am a Conservative voter my vote is pretty much worthless at a general election. I have spoken to people before who don't bother voting because its a "safe seat" (goes both ways of course) But in reality Clinton is only ahead in the PV (at the moment by 0.4%) because of 1 state, California, which she won by a huge margin. A very large majority of the country pretty much voted against her, in the end it will be 31 states to 21 states in Trump's favour. He's going to end up with 306 electoral votes. This is no Bush/Gore.

 

The EU referendum shows more people come out to vote in a one person one vote system because every vote counts. There's no reason to think it would change the result here if that was the deal from the outset. Looking at the data. More women than expected and also more Hispanics voted for Trump, almost 30% despite every thing was said about "The Wall" Is not a given Hillary would win.

 

I'm just not sure that if Trump had won the popular vote by winning Texas by a huge margin and lost the presidency on EV Hillary supporters would be dissing the system. In the end if you are passionate about something and you lose, you are always going to feel hard done by.

It's not 'a very large majority of the country' was against her. By the time the votes are all in from Washington, California and New York, she will likely be ahead by a few million votes and 2% of the vote. That's undemocratic full stop. You pose the question the other way around - there is no way in *hell* Trump would've stayed silent had he won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote.

 

It is, and always has been, a complete irrelevant anachronism which makes no sense whatsoever in a presidential system - at least in a parliamentary system you have the local representative angle for first past the post, but at a presidential level there is no argument for why it shouldn't be a one-person-one-vote system. It's something that should have been changed after Bush/Gore, but the sheer difficulty of changing the constitution (you have to get three quarters of the states to agree - which will never happen so long as the Republicans control at least a quarter of them, and they know the current system favours them) makes it an impossibility. But we're now in the ludicrous position of both the presidency *and* Congress being controlled by the party that won several million fewer votes in the elections for both. It is anti-democratic.

I'm not against a proportional system in principle, my main point was that you can't assume the outcome based on the Populate vote in this election as the vote would play out differently if the rules were different from the outset.

 

I'm sure we all remember UKIP complaining after getting over 3m votes and just 1 MP! Which didn't seem fair.

 

I'm just not sure you can get to a system that everyone would agree was fair but in the end the Electoral College is winner takes all in each state (with a couple of exceptions) The democrat strongholds are more densely populated yes but if you look at the Electoral Map outside of those urban areas its a sea of Red, which is what I meant by the majority of the country.

Larger land area has nothing to do with democratic representation whatsoever. We kind of got over that affectation when we got rid of rotten borough some time in the 1830s.
Just looking at this map which shows changes from 2012.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

 

Very telling and worrying for Democrats.

It's not that worrying to be honest, since so many states ended up so close. The Democratic Party will just have to concentrate on states they have to win next election and forget about states like Iowa, Arizona, and Georgia.

And field a stronger candidate along the lines of Bernie who will get the youth to rock the vote. And if there is a bruising primary, to PUT THEM BOTH ON THE SAME TICKET!!

Edited by HRC

And field a stronger candidate along the lines of Bernie who will get the youth to rock the vote. And if there is a bruising primary, to PUT THEM BOTH ON THE SAME TICKET!!

 

I think Bernie would have done worse than Clinton personally. America is not a socialist country by nature and he (or a candidate like him) will lose everyone in the middle. Would be a massive mistake imo

 

Anyone who thinks Bernie would've done better needs to have a really good answer for how he'd have sold across the board tax rises of 10 cents in the dollar to an America where two thirds of the population already thinks it is taxed too much.

 

Also, Bernie vs. Trump would've meant Bloomberg would have run and had Trump win anyway.

It's not that worrying to be honest, since so many states ended up so close. The Democratic Party will just have to concentrate on states they have to win next election and forget about states like Iowa, Arizona, and Georgia.

If the Democrats want a real long term change then appealing to the youth in these states needs to be quite high on the agenda. Wait a few years and get the results when the older generation starts to die out. It's really not THAT complicated as long as you execute it all properly of course.

  • Author
Quite a coup for Farage, being the first foreign politician to meet the President-Elect and have an hour's chat.

Eeeewwwwww!!

 

Racist fascists uniting.

 

This is really gross.

 

What next, UKIp getying into power or becoming main opposition?!

he's not Pres yet, there's the small matter of the 75 lawsuits currently filed to sort through, including unfair dismissal, use of charity monies, sexual assault, Trump Uni claims of fraud, former campaign managers suing for being called useless and many more. Plus his tax affairs being made public.

 

He may get NATO countries to cough up more cash by the look of it, but they are reminding him that only once in NATO history has the all-for-one attack situation been invoked - 9/11, when NATO invaded Afghanistan, led by the USA. Not a small issue.

 

 

I'm thinking about leaving this thread open for a few more days, and then I will lock it, allowing new threads to open in this sub-forum relating to the issues going forward. I'd like to thank everyone for contributing to this topic over the past 4(!) years, from all sides of the aisles, as we move forward into the great unknown.

 

I think it's too soon to say exactly why Trump won, although that definitely hasn't stopped many people doing just that. There may be one overarching factor, possibly several happening at the same time, but I wouldn't have the confidence myself to say "X is definitely why Trump won".

 

What I will do however, is offer you two books that I would invite you to read that may help to explain why Trump won, which if you read and take in their messages, and if it is your wont, will help you to ensure that a Trump-esque figure doesn't win again -

 

Jonathan Haidt - The Righteous Mind

Robert Cialdini - Pre-Suasion

The SNL video from last night is one of the saddest things I've ever watched. So perfect and poignant and Kate tearing up at the end but going out on a HIGH just like HRC herself. Couldn't have asked for more.
The SNL video from last night is one of the saddest things I've ever watched. So perfect and poignant and Kate tearing up at the end but going out on a HIGH just like HRC herself. Couldn't have asked for more.

Ditto. The Dave Chappelle opening sketch was superb as well.

whos lives are being threatened? nobody is being murdered here. nobody is getting deported lol even tho the senate & house has gop majority but it's not enough to get the 2/3 vote necessary to pass those type of bills

Trump to deport three million as his first action. The initial signs of Trump's presidency are horrifying, to say the least.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.