[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[Kyriakos]

This makes me think that a not-entirely-crazy scenario is a 270-268 Trump win (with NC, Florida, Nevada, NH & 1 from Maine), followed by some new Trump revelation, resulting in a couple of faithless electors going for, say, Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney, before it's thrown to the House who undertake a coup in the name of compromise/wound-healing. That seems the type of fan-fic that, this year, is semi-plausible. The key is for something 'disqualifying' to occur post-election, upon which some justification (however unconvincing) could be grounded.

I don't think this is possible. Cause the degree of polarization AND outright contempt of voters for outside intervention would make this a nightmare choice, and won't secure a more stable outcome.

Anyway, it is even tiresome for me to look at this election, and i am not even voting or living in the US... Difficult times.

 

[metalhead]

I honestly think he could lose the defamation torts if some of those women pushed them

Oh no doubt. Alicia Machado should sue for defamation and I think she would win easily.

Ever since the 2000 US election, I've always wondered why is the Electoral College a thing...The popular vote is the will of the people...The person getting the most votes should be elected...

It's basically a vestigial institution from before we directly elected our presidents. It's also a way to transfer political power to smaller, more rural, less populated states, like much of the power distribution in our constitution, which is why it was never done away with.

It made sense up until cable news and the Internet allowed people unlimited access to candidates. De-emphasizing the voting power of population centers has helped spread the need for candidates to campaign in less populated areas. But now that you can talk directly to all voters without having to be physically present, there is no good argument for keeping it.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, turns out this is the election that keeps on giving re laugh, cause now there are wilikeans of some Podesta guy (Hill's advisor?) taking part in satanic rituals. It is already a horror movie, but if this was posted via wikileaks now, what will be there by Monday night? That both Hill and Trump are reptilian familiars?

In most parliament systems it is usually said as a joke that the other party will be shown or argued to be devil worshiping pedophiles (well, sometimes it happens to be true, eg with Belgium in the 90s ), but this is more surreal i think.

 

[onejayhawk]

But wasn't the whole thing set up PRECISELY for an election with a selection of candidates like this? Isn't the Big Idea underlying something like that precisely that it… should… decide Jeb Bush, or someone, would make the best president, and chuck out this popular-vote-gone-wrong?

The whole process had more to do with travel times than other considerations. Travel from New England or Georgia took several days.

Not sure if Republicans are bad at Maths and Law but Gore actually won

No fair and informed person believes that Gore should have won. All the ballots were painstakingly recounted. It took five months. Bush's margin widened.

J

 

[Takhisis]

He has a point. Florida 2000 established that you cannot recount just problem areas. It was a relief to find out, in May 2001, that a thorough recount upheld the original result. That election also established a deadline, though it would have to be seen if that carries over when there is no Electoral College.

Did they have a recount in all 50 states and other districts?

Anyway, it is even tiresome for me to look at this election, and i am not even voting or living in the US... Difficult times.

I must point out that ve are all living in Amerika, und it's wunderbar.

 

[Kyriakos]

Coca cola, wonder-bra, Germany sucks

 

[onejayhawk]

Did they have a recount in all 50 states and other districts?

In Florida 2000, they recounted every ballot from anywhere in the state. It took several months. When it was all done, the margin favoring Bush increased.

If there is a popular vote recount, you would have to recount every legal ballot cast--from anywhere.

J

 

[Archbob]

I think HRC will win Florida and Nevada actually due to the increased Hispanic turnout and Clinton's Ground game is miles ahead of Trump's.

 

[Zelig]

Ever since the 2000 US election, I've always wondered why is the Electoral College a thing...The popular vote is the will of the people...The person getting the most votes should be elected...

It hardly really matters, since they're both bottom of the barrel as far as electoral systems go.

 

[schlaufuchs]

relevant:

 

[Takhisis]

Owen, you're quoting people who know what they're talking about. You're being downright countercultural at this point.

In Florida 2000, they recounted every ballot from anywhere in the state. It took several months. When it was all done, the margin favoring Bush increased.

If there is a popular vote recount, you would have to recount every legal ballot cast--from anywhere.

No, you wouldn't. That's what you have electoral districts for.

 

[onejayhawk]

No, you wouldn't. That's what you have electoral districts for.

Are you saying that every district recounts it's own ballots? Most likely. The point is that you still recount every ballot from everywhere.

J

 

[Commodore]

It made sense up until cable news and the Internet allowed people unlimited access to candidates. De-emphasizing the voting power of population centers has helped spread the need for candidates to campaign in less populated areas. But now that you can talk directly to all voters without having to be physically present, there is no good argument for keeping it.

Because there is still a fundamental difference in the interests of rural communities and urban populations. Doing away with the Electoral College now ensures that only urban interests would be represented in presidential elections. Rural communities already feel alienated and marginalized in our current system, and doing away with the Electoral College now would only increase those feelings. Democracy only works when everyone is buying into it and we are reaching a point where the rural communities aren't really buying into our democracy at the federal level anymore because they feel like it doesn't give them a voice (or, at least, not a very loud one).

 

[Archbob]

Our demographic Spread in the United States says different, the biggest urban centers make up less than 20% of our population. You can't win the election with 20% of the vote.

 

[Thedrin]

Because there is still a fundamental difference in the interests of rural communities and urban populations. Doing away with the Electoral College now ensures that only urban interests would be represented in presidential elections. Rural communities already feel alienated and marginalized in our current system, and doing away with the Electoral College now would only increase those feelings. Democracy only works when everyone is buying into it and we are reaching a point where the rural communities aren't really buying into our democracy at the federal level anymore because they feel like it doesn't give them a voice (or, at least, not a very loud one).

Image pulled from the very good CGPGrey video that Owen linked:

A 2012 map, I believe.

And here's a map of us states' population density:

Looks to me like the electoral college is not solving the problem you describe.

 

[Commodore]

Our demographic Spread in the United States says different, the biggest urban centers make up less than 20% of our population. You can't win the election with 20% of the vote.

Sure, if you only count the biggest urban centers then it's only 20% of our population. If you count every place that's considered an "urban center" then that percentage jumps up to 80.7%. Just take a few seconds to Google "percentage of Americans that live in cities". Getting rid of the Electoral College would essentially take away the political voice of almost 20% of our population.

EDIT: That's not to say the Electoral College doesn't need reform though. If I had my way, I would simplify the system greatly. Every state would get the exact same number of electoral votes and I would do away with the winner-take-all system. That way each state is just as important to the candidates as any other. I would also add run-off elections to account for third-party candidates getting enough votes to prevent one of the major candidates from getting a true majority of the electoral votes.

For example: Let's say each state had 100 electoral votes (just to keep numbers easy to work with). That would make 5,000 total electoral votes for the entire country and the first candidate to hit 2,501 would be the winner. And if candidate A gets 60% of the vote and candidate B gets gets 40% of the vote in, say, Kentucky, then candidate A gets 60 electoral votes from Kentucky and candidate B gets 40 electoral votes from Kentucky. That way, each state has an equal say in the election, regardless of population, so no one can legitimately complain about being marginalized.

 

[Sommerswerd]

relevant:

This rabbithole'd me so hard. Thanks Owen for making me stay up all night watching CPGrey videos

 

[Arakhor]

That way, each state has an equal say in the election, regardless of population, so no one can legitimately complain about being marginalized.

Then of course the population haven't had an equal say, as people in Hawaii and DC would have much greater influence (through far fewer numbers) on the Electoral College than say, people in New York or Illinois.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If I had my way, I would simplify the system greatly. Every state would get the exact same number of electoral votes and I would do away with the winner-take-all system. That way each state is just as important to the candidates as any other. I would also add run-off elections to account for third-party candidates getting enough votes to prevent one of the major candidates from getting a true majority of the electoral votes.

For example: Let's say each state had 100 electoral votes (just to keep numbers easy to work with). That would make 5,000 total electoral votes for the entire country and the first candidate to hit 2,501 would be the winner. And if candidate A gets 60% of the vote and candidate B gets gets 40% of the vote in, say, Kentucky, then candidate A gets 60 electoral votes from Kentucky and candidate B gets 40 electoral votes from Kentucky. That way, each state has an equal say in the election, regardless of population, so no one can legitimately complain about being marginalized.

Then of course the population haven't had an equal say, as people in Hawaii and DC would have much greater influence (through far fewer numbers) on the Electoral College than say, people in New York or Illinois.

This argument has already been had and resolved in 1787 with the Connecticut Compromise named after my birthstate (also known as the "Great Compromise" and the reason Connecticut is nicknamed "The Constitution State"). The argument that you guys are having is exactly why we have two Houses of Congress, one with equal representation for every state, and one with Representation apportioned by population. Its not perfect, but all the arguments for each approach have been made already, and that's what they came up with.

 

[Commodore]

This argument has already been had and resolved in 1787 with the Connecticut Compromise named after my birthstate (also known as the "Great Compromise" and the reason Connecticut is nicknamed "The Constitution State"). The argument that you guys are having is exactly why we have two Houses of Congress, one with equal representation for every state, and one with Representation apportioned by population. Its not perfect, but all the arguments for each approach have been made already, and that's what they came up with.

Sure, but Congress doesnt elect the president, which is the context in which we are having this argument. As it is now, rural communities don't have that much of a say in presidential elections and would have zero say if we did away with the Electoral College. That's why I think each state should have an equal number of Electoral votes.