US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Ayato_kanzaki

I don't see why the size of the population would prevent getting rid of the electoral college and relying entirely on the popular vote. For local differences, that's what the governor and mayor elections are for.

That aside, I'm angry at facebook, reddit and other social medias for declaring they had no influence on the election result, when they utter lack of moderation created echo chambers that insulated right-minded people from reality. Case in point, the "The_Donald" subreddit, controlled by fascist moderators who will immediately ban anyone who doesn't agree with their conspiracy theories.

I do not see the problem with this. After all everybody is free to state their own opinion.

Some communities are occupied by pro-Hillary parties, believing that the reason Hillary lost is due to "hackers", "Putin", "Trump hacked PC himself", "Trump bought the media (lol)", "Aliens" etc. and of course there are also pro-Trump communities, where ... everything can happen

[Ithekro]

Uhm no its not - I'll have to find the video again. - but there is a youtube video prettty much explaining why it doesn't work at all. - this is also being mirroed by the 22% thing I already mentined earlier.

Save that that has not happened. It is a theoretical argument that does not follow how the system has worked up to this point, nor how the votes are factually distributed. Especially since regionalism is still a thing, thus also keeping the system necessary. One vote equals one vote always sounds nice, but it simply has not been proven to be practical. From what I recall, no true democracy has been successful for very long, while representative republics manage to survive. The only known way to make a democracy function would be if the public was well educated and informed and had the time to spend on government issues. While the Internet does make some of that possible, it still is not practical and probably won't be for another twenty or thirty years, until such time as the majority of Americans alive will have an understanding of how to use the Internet and have access to it. After that point the Electoral College may be finished serving its purpose, but presently the system is still working at intended. The primary disconnect with the last several major election is not really the electoral college system and that the candidates only visit a few states, it is the media's way of reporting the elections making it even less needed for a candidate to visit more places, since the press conferences and debates get shown nationally anyway.

The interesting think about this election is that the candidates seem to have visited more state and in fact Trump managed to flip some states that were considered to be solidly on Clinton's side. Perhaps that is a sign the video is trying to present, save that the voting population is still less than 50% for both candidates and they are less than 1% difference between them last I checked.

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The interesting think about this election is that the candidates seem to have visited more state and in fact Trump managed to flip some states that were considered to be solidly on Clinton's side. Perhaps that is a sign the video is trying to present, save that the voting population is still less than 50% for both candidates and they are less than 1% difference between them last I checked.

Maybe this election will enter the history books

[Ithekro]

If the oversea's votes do not push Trump over Clinton, it is assured that the election will remain in the history books simply due to the electoral vote win. Even if the Trump presidency amounts to nothing important happening.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

At the county level the amount of blue area shrinks even farther to the major population centers almost exclusively. At which point you would start to get an even worse cultural divide than we have now with the rural republicans viewing the city democrats as elitist noble pricks while the city democrats view the rural republicans as idiot trashy hicks.

Class divide on that scale leads to wars, and we don't want that. That is why the electoral college still exists.

The city/countryside divide is nothing new nor something exclusive to the US. In the end I think your attitude is pretty defeatist with a lack of trust in the acceptance of democratic processes and leadership. And frankly, with such a line of argumentation you can actually argue against having any elections at all. This line of thought isn't all that different from the reasoning I've heard of Chinese people arguing against the application of Western-style democracy in China.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The primary disconnect with the last several major election is not really the electoral college system and that the candidates only visit a few states, it is the media's way of reporting the elections making it even less needed for a candidate to visit more places, since the press conferences and debates get shown nationally anyway.

This is a result of the electoral college though. There is no point appealing to the people in California or Texas since it's already clear how they'll vote. The deciders of the election are the swing states, so it's obvious that the candidates will put their emphasis on them.

[Ithekro]

Okay let us take away the electoral college and consider what will happen once the idea of one's vote not mattering like the general perception is now goes away, and the candidate stump across more of the country within their present budgets (assuming they don't have to spend even more millions of dollars to get across to every possible place in the nation)? The candidates start stumping in California, New York, and Texas, and more of those populations vote now than before.

What is the likely outcome? I think someone said it much earlier in the election based on trends. Single party rule. If I remember correctly, there are more registered Democrats in the country than any other party. The logic there is that without Electoral college and the idea that "my vote doesn't matter" there would only be Democratic Presidents. Is that a bad thing? Depends on point of view. To the minority in that instance, the Republican and other parties, the answer would be yes. Until and unless the party makes a major mistake, than the balance would shift, if the idea does not become generational (as in "they are the ruling power and my parents always voted for them so I should vote for them too" which has happened in many countries in the 20th century were you had generational rule of a single party even when other parties existed).

As it is right now in the United States with the Electoral College, since the establishment of the two term limit for the Presidency, it has been basically 8 years of one party followed by 8 years of the next party, with the only break in the system being Carter/Reagan/Bush I, which is mostly attributed to Carter's failure with dealing with the Iranian Hostage crisis, otherwise he'd have likely gotten a second term and the Reagan/Bush era would have likely just been from 1985-1993. Electing Trump continues this pattern. Now if he manages to take 2020 or if the Republican Party decide to try to run someone else against him will be determined by not only who the Democrats run in 2020, but also what Trump managed to accomplish in the next three or four years....both good and bad. It is possible the Democrats can break this pattern finally in 2020, but the trend will be for a Republican President until the 2024 election, though because the Party does not like Trump, they might try to defeat him in the Primaries rather than run him. Or he could find he doesn't like he job and not run again (or get Impeached which would take him out of the running in 2020).

[Ayato_kanzaki]

Originally Posted by ChuckE

I do not see the problem with this. After all everybody is free to state their own opinion.

Of course. But it should happen in an open environnement where lies will be challenged. The social medias, by their lack of moderation, have let a signifiant part of the population enclose themselves in "safe spaces" to cater to their confirmation bias. Those people aren't interested in the truth anymore. They just want to hear about others who think like them to feel good about their prejudices.

Do you really not see the problem with this?

[Brother Coa]

House Speaker addresses Trump’s immigration policy.

“We gotta know who’s coming and going in the country. We gotta secure the border,” Ryan said. “So, we believe an enforcement bill, a border security enforcement bill is really the first priority, and that’s what we’re focused on.”

Despite passed disagreements between the President-elect and members of the Republican Party, Ryan stressed party unity on the issue.

“We are not planning on erecting a deportation force,” Ryan said. “Donald Trump’s not planning on that.”

Se guys, this is famous Trump wall. But I guess people are really imagining things when someone is telling them. Wall is a term for tighter border and immigration controls, Mexico paying for it was a joke - and this proves it.
Like I said - give him a cahnce to be president and see how well he will do.

Also this:

Trump just announced he will not repeal Obamacare.

Trump said he is willing to keep the provisions of the law that prevent insurers from denying coverage because of a preexisting condition and that allow children to stay on their parents' health plan until they turn 26, according to The Journal.

"I told him I will look at his suggestions, and out of respect, I will do that," Trump told The Journal.

Health policy experts have told Business Insider over the last few days that Republicans do not have the filibuster-proof majority needed to repeal these parts of the law anyway.

[Ithekro]

What many Right Wing supporters have been saying for the last two or so decades is, "Enforce the Laws, rather than make new laws that exist just to make people feel better, without them being enforced either". It seems like we get more laws on the books than having the actual laws followed. This includes immigration, gun control, drugs, crime, any number of things since the 1990s. It is speculated that a lot of the newer laws only help companies make money in preparing for the new laws to be enforced rather than the government enforcing the laws to any benefit of the country.

[Akito Kinomoto]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

In other news, Bernie Sanders promises to oppose Trump should he try to do any racist, sexist, or xenophobic shit; sorry bigots

[MCAL]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...ry?id=43491108

May god help us all.

https://twitter.com/pbondi/status/79...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

A nice comprehensive list...

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

YouTube

https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

In other news, Bernie Sanders promises to oppose Trump should he try to do any racist, sexist, or xenophobic shit; sorry bigots

Seen it many times now including not long after it was originally released. The problem with the argument is that it is focused almost entirely on the math of the situation rather that the historical and regional issues for the electoral college to exist in this nation as it has gotten far larger than the founding fathers even considered.

Start looking back farther and farther into other elections that don't seem anywhere near as close as those in the last 24 years. You will find they are still relatively close but the electoral college shows wider results at times. Lets take the 1960 election as an example. Kennedy wins the election with 303 electoral votes over both Richard Nixon's 219 and Harry Flood Byrd's 15 electoral votes. Seems reasonable, right?

Kennedy wins over Nixon by just under 113,000 votes. Byrd has a total of just over 610,000 votes, with less than half a percent of the popular vote, with his electoral votes coming from taking only half of Alabama, all of Mississippi and a faithless elector in Oklahoma. Kennedy takes 22 states. Nixon takes 25 and a half states. (Side note: California voted Republican back then) The amount of the popular vote Kennedy wins by is far less than the difference at present between Clinton and Trump yet the electoral difference is more or less the same even with Byrd thrown in there.

For something even more interesting, lets look at 1860. There was a run for four major parties that year, the new Republican Party (Lincoln), the Southern Democrats (Breckinridge), the Northern Democrats (Douglas), and the Constitutional Union Party (Bell). At that time their were 303 electoral votes possible with 152 needed to win. The country voted more or less on regional lines. The Republican Party took 180 electoral votes, Lincoln held roughly 40% of the popular vote with over 1.8 million votes carrying 18 out of the 33 states. The Southern Democrats get 72 electoral votes carrying 11 states with just over 18% of the popular vote (just under 850,000 votes). The Northern Democrats take only 12 electoral votes carrying only one state and getting a few from parts of other states. This party takes 29.5% of the popular vote with nearly 1.4 million votes. The last major party in play, the Constructional Union Party takes 39 electoral votes and 3 states with just over 12.5% of the popular vote, with just under 600,000 votes. Lincoln clearly wins this election in all fields, yet we still got a war out of it. Mainly because of the divided Democratic Party allows the new Republicans to win with no support from the South at all. Between the election and the inauguration Dixie succeeds from the Union leaving the new President with a massive problem he was not even allowed to attempt to stop before the only possible solution is a shooting war.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Seen it many times now including not long after it was originally released. The problem with the argument is that it is focused almost entirely on the math of the situation rather that the historical and regional issues for the electoral college to exist in this nation as it has gotten far larger than the founding fathers even considered.

Start looking back farther and farther into other elections that don't seem anywhere near as close as those in the last 24 years. You will find they are still relatively close but the electoral college shows wider results at times. Lets take the 1960 election as an example. Kennedy wins the election with 303 electoral votes over both Richard Nixon's 219 and Harry Flood Byrd's 15 electoral votes. Seems reasonable, right?

Kennedy wins over Nixon by just under 113,000 votes. Byrd has a total of just over 610,000 votes, with less than half a percent of the popular vote, with his electoral votes coming from taking only half of Alabama, all of Mississippi and a faithless elector in Oklahoma. Kennedy takes 22 states. Nixon takes 25 and a half states. (Side note: California voted Republican back then) The amount of the popular vote Kennedy wins by is far less than the difference at present between Clinton and Trump yet the electoral difference is more or less the same even with Byrd thrown in there.

For something even more interesting, lets look at 1860. There was a run for four major parties that year, the new Republican Party (Lincoln), the Southern Democrats (Breckinridge), the Northern Democrats (Douglas), and the Constitutional Union Party (Bell). At that time their were 303 electoral votes possible with 152 needed to win. The country voted more or less on regional lines. The Republican Party took 180 electoral votes, Lincoln held roughly 40% of the popular vote with over 1.8 million votes carrying 18 out of the 33 states. The Southern Democrats get 72 electoral votes carrying 11 states with just over 18% of the popular vote (just under 850,000 votes). The Northern Democrats take only 12 electoral votes carrying only one state and getting a few from parts of other states. This party takes 29.5% of the popular vote with nearly 1.4 million votes. The last major party in play, the Constructional Union Party takes 39 electoral votes and 3 states with just over 12.5% of the popular vote, with just under 600,000 votes. Lincoln clearly wins this election in all fields, yet we still got a war out of it. Mainly because of the divided Democratic Party allows the new Republicans to win with no support from the South at all. Between the election and the inauguration Dixie succeeds from the Union leaving the new President with a massive problem he was not even allowed to attempt to stop before the only possible solution is a shooting war.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, aside from alluding to the possibility of America's executive branch (or maybe government in general) needing a failsafe or overhaul in the event of 3rd party prominence or the dismantling of the current duopoly. You floated the idea earlier there would only be Democratic presidents if only the popular vote mattered, except "registered as" and "identify as" aren't the same thing. Even supposing independents are more democratic leaning, perhaps we'd do well accepting the fact Democratic ideas are more popular than Republican ideas; make strong cases for your ideas and people will be more accepting of them, and we can implement policy in line with those principles unless that policy fails the most basic test

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

What is the likely outcome? I think someone said it much earlier in the election based on trends. Single party rule. If I remember correctly, there are more registered Democrats in the country than any other party. The logic there is that without Electoral college and the idea that "my vote doesn't matter" there would only be Democratic Presidents. Is that a bad thing? Depends on point of view. To the minority in that instance, the Republican and other parties, the answer would be yes.

You are making a reasoning error here by assuming that the parties would be static. It is obvious that in the case you are stating the Republican party would be adjusting it's stance and policies. What a more proportional system leads to is a convergence to the middle and a search for compromise instead of both sides holding onto (and promoting) radical ideas. Some dislike those kind of compromises but the point here is, there will be no single party rule unless the other party screws up.

[coded321]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

Se guys, this is famous Trump wall. But I guess people are really imagining things when someone is telling them. Wall is a term for tighter border and immigration controls, Mexico paying for it was a joke - and this proves it.
Like I said - give him a cahnce to be president and see how well he will do.

Also this:

as someone who was very opposed to trump, if he proves me wrong and turns out to be a good president, that will be great. on the other hand, if he ends up bringing this country to ruin, I and everyone who opposed trump, will at least have the satisfaction in telling trump voters, "we told you so" and "you voted for him"...
so only thing now is to wait and see.

[Reckoner]

Steven Bannon, a racist white nationalist is an office down from the oval office. If that thought doesn't disgust you, you're pretty much turning a blind eye to racism. Yet the media cannot seem to hammer at this storyline because as usual they're dumb as shit.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Steven Bannon, a racist white nationalist is an office down from the oval office. If that thought doesn't disgust you, you're pretty much turning a blind eye to racism. Yet the media cannot seem to hammer at this storyline because as usual they're dumb as shit.

He's a racist, anti-Semitic, and sexist of the worst kind. There has to be a number of people who can shout out loud that we do not want such bastard around.

[Sixth]

Trump Vs Soros parody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfOWZ9IHj4

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Steven Bannon, a racist white nationalist is an office down from the oval office. If that thought doesn't disgust you, you're pretty much turning a blind eye to racism. Yet the media cannot seem to hammer at this storyline because as usual they're dumb as shit.

I don't really mind Breitbart, they wear their ideology on their sleeves and are completely unapologetic about it. So you know what kind of perspective they offer before even reading anything. And at times, they are valuable for breaking stories nobody else dares to.

In the white house though? Don't think that's such a great idea. If they had to have an alt-right media guy, I wish they'd put in Milo. Would at least be funny. But maybe impossible since he's not a US citizen.

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

Se guys, this is famous Trump wall. But I guess people are really imagining things when someone is telling them. Wall is a term for tighter border and immigration controls, Mexico paying for it was a joke - and this proves it.

Of course nobody was going to build a true chinese wall out there due to it being inexpedient. Though there might appear stronger regulations towards mexican miggrants and co.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

What many Right Wing supporters have been saying for the last two or so decades is, "Enforce the Laws, rather than make new laws that exist just to make people feel better, without them being enforced either". It seems like we get more laws on the books than having the actual laws followed. This includes immigration, gun control, drugs, crime, any number of things since the 1990s.

Exactly. Enforcing laws is difficult due to tolerancy and the fear of people' rage.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It is speculated that a lot of the newer laws only help companies make money in preparing for the new laws to be enforced rather than the government enforcing the laws to any benefit of the country.

Companies are certainly stand behind the back of politicians. Though I wonder who is behind republicans