The US Election, Part X

[Drowsy Emperor]

To summarize:

 

I'm practically indifferent about Trump's victory.

 

But Hillary's defeat? Ding Dong! The witch is dead!

 

 

For a more broad commentary: liberal globalism is on its way out. Brexit was already a telling sign that the current system is rotten to the core and crumbling from within. It takes a particular brand of selective blindness not to notice how absurd that narrative has become.

 

Well, for those who were so silly  to think Brexit was a fluke, I raise you one Donald.

 

See you in the French presidential and Dutch parliamentary elections. Get acquainted with Le Pen and Wilders, you'll be seeing a lot of them for a while.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Darkpriest]

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:34 PM, ShadySands said:

You could hypothetically become president by winning something like 11 states by only 1 vote and not getting a single vote anywhere else

 

This is why I find the US system a bit odd, but hey, it's their playfield and they live with their choices and how they occur. Never really was interested in the mechanics, but it seems odd to me, that you can have such huge disparities between direct and indirect election method and for me it'd be logical that the indirect should move towards the direct one in terms of representation of results

[Darkpriest]

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:47 PM, Drowsy Emperor said:

To summarize:

 

I'm practically indifferent about Trump's victory.

 

But Hillary's defeat? Ding Dong! The witch is dead!

 

 

For a more broad commentary: liberal globalism is on its way out. Brexit was already a telling sign that the current system is rotten to the core and crumbling from within. It takes a particular brand of selective blindness not to notice how absurd that narrative has become.

 

Well, for those who were so silly  to think Brexit was a fluke, I raise you one Donald.

 

See you in the French presidential and Dutch parliamentary elections. 

 

you might add to that German elections and Italian ones

[Malcador]

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:41 PM, Wrath of Dagon said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:32 PM, Malcador said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:26 PM, Wrath of Dagon said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:13 PM, Zoraptor said:

Hopefully she'll just be left in quiet, there's nothing to be gained from anything further and any legal attacks would just be vindictive.

No, it wouldn't be just vindictive. She only got off because Obola ordered his corrupt Justice Department to subvert the investigation. There was never a chance they would indict her. This miscarriage of justice must be corrected.

 

 

 

Chris Hagen

‏@chrishagentb

The Clinton Foundation has issued a brief statement: No Refunds. #election2016 #WheresHillary

Ah, justice like so many other principles is just a hammer to beat people with.

Yes, the criminals.

 

 

It's the damn Deplorables I tell you! http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/the-unknown-country

Right, cute and all. It's a very common trait, think those stereotypical Christians that just preach but don't practice. Even more so when you have people that always boast of integrity.

[Guard Dog]

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:15 PM, ShadySands said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:06 PM, Darkpriest said:

Is this correct? It seems that Hillary would win by 0.12% point if the election was a direct election?

Yes, not sure of the exact numbers because it seems they are still counting votes

 

As of 9 AM it was less than 200k votes and trending towards 0. This was a really, really close election.

[Gorgon]

It will be interesting to see what happens when Trump voters get the same sense of abject disappointment democrats did after 4 years of Obama.

 

No great 'Change', no revolution, very little of what was promised. Just business as usual. They don't seem the forgiving sort. 

[Drowsy Emperor]

It was nowhere near close if you take into account how pervasive the anti-trump propaganda was.

 

To win against those odds is akin to winning with a 30 point difference in a game of basketball, a smashing success across the board.

[Meshugger]

Thanks for the laughs, Nate Silver:

 

[majestic]

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:49 PM, Darkpriest said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:34 PM, ShadySands said:

You could hypothetically become president by winning something like 11 states by only 1 vote and not getting a single vote anywhere else

 

This is why I find the US system a bit odd, but hey, it's their playfield and they live with their choices and how they occur. Never really was interested in the mechanics, but it seems odd to me, that you can have such huge disparities between direct and indirect election method and for me it'd be logical that the indirect should move towards the direct one in terms of representation of results

 

 

I think that's the entire point of the electoral college system. To prevent population-rich states from dictating federal policy by virtue of having more voters. For better or worse it's working as intended.

[WDeranged]

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:02 PM, Drowsy Emperor said:

It was nowhere near close if you take into account how pervasive the anti-trump propaganda was.

 

To win against those odds is akin to winning with a 30 point difference in a game of basketball, a smashing success across the board.

 

This is something I'd been pondering.  The sheer, mind boggling level of bias against Trump (he's a Hitler!) makes his victory even more surprising.

[Drowsy Emperor]

How is the electoral system correcting that? The electors are the sum of representatives and senators of which only senators are chosen on an equal basis. Representatives are chosen on the basis of population and they make up the  majority of a state's electors (apart from the 7 smallest states).

 

So barring that small adjustment, it is the population numbers that dictate the results of the election.

[Darkpriest]

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:04 PM, majestic said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:49 PM, Darkpriest said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:34 PM, ShadySands said:

You could hypothetically become president by winning something like 11 states by only 1 vote and not getting a single vote anywhere else

 

This is why I find the US system a bit odd, but hey, it's their playfield and they live with their choices and how they occur. Never really was interested in the mechanics, but it seems odd to me, that you can have such huge disparities between direct and indirect election method and for me it'd be logical that the indirect should move towards the direct one in terms of representation of results

 

 

I think that's the entire point of the electoral college system. To prevent population-rich states from dictating federal policy by virtue of having more voters. For better or worse it's working as intended.

 

 

But wouldn't the proportional mechanics be better in general than simple winner takes it all? I mean there was a lot of near 50/50 splits and the winner just took all votes from that place... I guess I can understand it if you treat each state as a separate entity, so the state declares that their president is that person, but I am not familiar on how the political system works exactly in US of A.

[Drowsy Emperor]

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:10 PM, WDeranged said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:02 PM, Drowsy Emperor said:

It was nowhere near close if you take into account how pervasive the anti-trump propaganda was.

 

To win against those odds is akin to winning with a 30 point difference in a game of basketball, a smashing success across the board.

 

This is something I'd been pondering.  The sheer, mind boggling level of bias against Trump (he's a Hitler!) makes his victory even more surprising.

 

 

It also helped make his voting base dedicated to the bitter end, so well done with that.

 

I also find it hard to take at face value the liberal media's claim that they're on the "right side of history" when this very morning, on the website of the Guardian (a supposedly quality newspaper) was a cartoon which featured two "Trump voters", one of which was wearing a KKK hood and the other had a t-shirt with the words: "journalist. rope. hang" and IIRC holding up a noose.

 

To be "better" means actually behaving according to higher standards, not just having a high opinion of oneself and labeling everyone else as trash.

 

Guess that's something to ponder for the next 4 years.

[Elerond]

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:10 PM, Drowsy Emperor said:

How is the electoral system correcting that? The electors are the sum of representatives and senators of which only senators are chosen on an equal basis. Representatives are chosen on the basis of population and they make up the  majority of a state's electors (apart from the 7 smallest states).

 

So barring that small adjustment, it is the population numbers that dictate the results of the election.

 

Wyoming, which has population bit less than 600k has three electoral votes, so about 1 vote per 200k people

California, which has population of about 39 145 000 has 55 electoral votes, which is about 1 vote per 700k people.

[ShadySands]

I'd be for something like awarding the representative votes by district and giving the two senate votes to who carries the state, if that makes sense

[Longknife]

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:04 PM, majestic said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:49 PM, Darkpriest said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:34 PM, ShadySands said:

You could hypothetically become president by winning something like 11 states by only 1 vote and not getting a single vote anywhere else

 

This is why I find the US system a bit odd, but hey, it's their playfield and they live with their choices and how they occur. Never really was interested in the mechanics, but it seems odd to me, that you can have such huge disparities between direct and indirect election method and for me it'd be logical that the indirect should move towards the direct one in terms of representation of results

 

 

I think that's the entire point of the electoral college system. To prevent population-rich states from dictating federal policy by virtue of having more voters. For better or worse it's working as intended.

 

 

It makes sense, it's just not often significant because the idea is...Let's say you have the EU vote on legislation. Pure population would be unfair and would be to the detriment of smaller states like Denmark and the Netherlands, even if they have drastically different cultures that should be recognized individually. Thus, each country needs some degree of more equal representation to account for their cultural differences.

 

In USA it's less blatantly neccesary since the cultural differences are mild, but I would argue this election is actually one of the first in a while that highlighted the need for the system. I would argue Michigan in particular is a great example of a state with a different outlook on things compared to the average USA state. When our economy is hurting, Michigan feels it first, and as such, Michigan has proven very unpredictable this election cycle because they've experienced issues many other states cannot even imagine. As such, Michigan has a very unique view moving forward that other states probably can't quite relate to.

 

For this issue, Michigan is a decent-sized State, but imagine if those unique problems were Alaska. Imagine if fracking for example largely occured in Alaska, and because the area was so remote and disconnected from middle America, politicians had an easier time downplaying the problems of fracking. If fracking were a major point for the election, then yes, I would like to see Alaska get their 3 electorate representation even if their population is peanuts compared to most states. Or let's say another election climate change is really affecting certain states that are barely above sea level as the sea level actually begins to rise. You might see a spike amongst these states voting for a candidate against climate change whilst landlocked ones that are less affected hardly consider that issue to be important. Cultures may not differ, but experiences regarding policies definitely can.

 

But yeah, the system is good in theory, it's just often a spark for frustration because the effects of it can be exceedingly subtle or seldomly pivotal.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Longknife

[pmp10]

  On 11/9/2016 at 6:24 PM, Elerond said:

It seems that 47% of eligible voters didn't bother to vote.  So at least there is lot of people that people can blame for next 4 years. No need for self-reflection 

 

It also seems that only ethnicity group that matters in US is whites.

This would mean that white men would even elect Trump in California.

I doubt you can explain that with just economy.

Looks like a major cultural backlash.

[Drowsy Emperor]

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:19 PM, Elerond said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:10 PM, Drowsy Emperor said:

How is the electoral system correcting that? The electors are the sum of representatives and senators of which only senators are chosen on an equal basis. Representatives are chosen on the basis of population and they make up the  majority of a state's electors (apart from the 7 smallest states).

 

So barring that small adjustment, it is the population numbers that dictate the results of the election.

 

Wyoming, which has population bit less than 600k has three electoral votes, so about 1 vote per 200k people

California, which has population of about 39 145 000 has 55 electoral votes, which is about 1 vote per 700k people.

 

 

But that's just because they have to have at least one representative and two senators. Yes it does make the system more egalitarian (from the point of view of the state as an entity, less so if you're looking at the value of a persons vote), but it doesn't really affect the overall power ratio all that much. 

Edited November 9, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[majestic]

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:27 PM, Ben No.3 said:

How is it unfair if I take into account only the votes of the entire EU? It doesn't matter how big your homecountry will be, every vote will be just a bite of a EU citizen. No country-tied votes

 

Let's not pollute the US election thread with EU politics, but for that to be fair we'd first have to dismantle all EU members' ruling bodies. I'd rather see the current system fixed by, well, simply removing the requirement for votes to be unanimous and somehow making sure retards like Oettinger aren't allowed on the Commission.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RrEQ8Ovw-Q

 

Yeah. Thanks for contributing that guy, Germany.

[Drowsy Emperor]

That's what happens when you  let google translate your speech into a language you barely speak.

[HoonDing]

"There was a moment in Hillary's concession speech where she sounded like a human being, about when she talked about never giving up in what you believe in. I have to give her that."

 

shes goin to jail

[Nonek]

Trump: A small price to pay for getting rid of so many celebrities.

[Malcador]

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:50 PM, Nonek said:

Trump: A small price to pay for getting rid of so many celebrities.

You'll still see their media. Not as if their residency affects people all that much, looking at it.

[Hurlshort]

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:29 PM, pmp10 said:

This would mean that white men would even elect Trump in California.

 

I doubt you can explain that with just economy.

Looks like a major cultural backlash.

 

 

No, it just means you have a misconception about California being an overwhelmingly liberal state.  In actuality it is a very diverse state that Ronald Reagan came out of.

[Nonek]

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:51 PM, Malcador said:

 

  On 11/9/2016 at 7:50 PM, Nonek said:

Trump: A small price to pay for getting rid of so many celebrities.

You'll still see their media. Not as if their residency affects people all that much, looking at it.

 

Ah nobody will leave, i'm just quoting a meme. Personally I think that in a year or so the most hardened celebrity anti Trump campaigner will be attending White House soirees. They've no bottom or morales whatsoever, they just spout what's fashionable at the moment and remain smug elitists.