779 replies to this topic

[Nate River]

Simply put, some states are much more populated than others. Take Wisconsin and California, I think they're the most and least populated areas. Since California has almost 40 mill people, the votes there has much less value than a vote in a more rural state. One vote in CF is about 3 in WSC. It's an old and outdated custom, for two main reasons; In the old days, politicans didn't trust the people. They were said to be ignorant of politics and this was a way of keeping things at bay. Second reason is since the US has a big population, it is easier to count the votes state by state and not all at once. But now it's easier to count and all so..

 

Btw, this is quite sad and interesting. The statistics say;

46.9% did not vote

25.6% voted for Clinton

25.5% voted for Trump

1.7% voted for Gary Johnson

 

So Obama has fought against a republican senate for 8 years. I have a lot of respect for that man, but now there will be a republican president and a republican senate. Not to mention the worst of the worst, Mike Pence. To those who tried to stop this, I give you all my condolences.

 

He did not fight against a Republican Senate for 8 years.

 

In 2009 Democrats had control over the house and a filibuster proof majority Senate (60 votes).  In 2009 Ted Kennedy dies and Republican Scott Brown is elected in March 2010. For the remainder of the year Democrats had 59 Senate Votes and control of the house.

 

Democrats gets creamed in the 2010 midterms and lose control over the house, but maintain control over the Senate. This remains the case after 2012 Presidential elections. In the 2014, Democrats lose control over the Senate.

 

Upon Obama's election in 2008 Democrats had a unified government far stronger than what Trump is going to get and they pissed it away cramming ObamaCare down an unwilling populace's throat. Moreover, many President's have faced split governments at one time or another. The last two years of Bush...he had to face a Democratic Senate and house like Obama. 

 

In short: Obama had 2 years of unified government, a split congress for 4, and a unified Congress (of the opposing party) for 2. 

 

As for the electoral college:

 

There are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate.

 

2 Senators for each State and Representatives are based on population. The numbers of representatives per state change based on every 10 year census, but the number, as fixed by amendment, will always be 435. Thus, if one state gains a representative it means another state lost one. 

 

The number of electoral votes for a state is equal to the total number of representatives 2 (for each senator) + the number of house seats. For example California had 55 electoral votes (53 house seats + 2 senators).

 

To win the electoral college the winner must have a majority of votes (i.e. at least 270). If no one gets a majority then the President is chosen by the house. This has happened only one time with the election of John Quincy Adams (electoral votes were split between four candidates). 

 

As far as how those electoral votes are awarded...it's up to each state. Virtually all states have a winner take all based on popular vote. The candidate with the most votes in the state gets all the State's electoral votes. Maine is an exception. Nebraska was at one time, but I'm not sure if that is still true.

 

As for why its used: 

 

http://www.history.c...ectoral-college

 

There is a short overview. It really doesn't do it justice as to the reasons why, but it's a general idea. During the constitution convention there was a genuine fear among smaller state's that their interests would be trampled and ignored by the more populous states, these concerns can be seen in things like the construction of the Senate and electoral college, though that is not the only reason why the electoral college. 

 

Finally, there is nothing "sad" about it. It's been in place for more than 200 years and the campaigns build their strategies based on it. There is a reason why candidates spend lots of time and money in say Florida and virtually none in Texas and California. They are known and the candidates act on it. In fact, Democrats were crowing about how the electoral college was why Trump had no chance. He was never going to break the blue wall. They only complained about it when they they lost and with very few exceptions only complain about when they lose this way. I'm open to good faith arguments for alternations, I'm not open to arguments rooted in colossal butt hurt, which seems to be what's driving much of the complaining right now.

[sushi.]

Ops I should've checked how the congress had changed, I thought it had been like that for a long time.

Point is, right now both congress and president is republican, so it's easier to do whT they want and the power is imbalance.

Edited by sushi., 11 November 2016 - 05:39 AM.

[RedFaction]

The democrats have nobody to blame but themselves for this fiasco. The republican voters turned out, while the democrats didn't because they didn't take this election seriously.

 

The fact is the democrats picked the wrong candidate, it should have been Bernie. Trump would have lost in a landslide.

[sushi.]

The democrats have nobody to blame but themselves for this fiasco. The republican voters turned out, while the democrats didn't because they didn't take this election seriously.
 
The fact is the democrats picked the wrong candidate, it should have been Bernie. Trump would have lost in a landslide.

That is true, but didn't Bernie drop out himself because he didn't have enough superdelegates?

Edited by sushi., 11 November 2016 - 05:52 AM.

[rocci]

How is the voting system in India?
If it direct voting, it would be a pain in the ass.

[milan kyuubi]

Hilary vs Trump! You are amazing Japan! xD

 

MANGA

Reading: From left to right.

.Chapter 1 & 2

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

[RedFaction]

That is true, but didn't Bernie drop out himself because he didn't have enough superdelegates?

The DNC tipped the scales to make Bernie lose. Hillary was the establishment's preferred candidate obviously.

[T XD]

Is there any evidence that Iran is making any series efforts to comply with it now? 

I don't know what they're doing, but I think they're complying seeing that they're not fighting anymore over this nuclear thing. Either way, that wasn't my point cause it's not a matter of compliance. It's a matter on what he wants to do with the deal.

 

My point is that Trump said the deal between the two is disastrous and he's willing to cut the deal as far as he said during elections. Whether he'll do it or not remains to be seen. I think he won't and, still, I hope he won't cause we don't need it. Two nuclear countries fighting and dragging other countries to their mess. No. Earth doesn't need more violence, hatred, discrimination, etc.

 

I'm not backing up Hillary in case you thought that way. The difference between her and Trump at least is that she doesn't want to make discrimination.

 

Many electors say this and that, and most don't fulfill half of what they say cause they can't, couldn't or whatever other reason/s. I'm willing to wait and see.

Edited by T XD, 11 November 2016 - 10:37 AM.

[alexander]

I don't know what they're doing, but I think they're complying seeing that they're not fighting anymore over this nuclear thing. Either way, that wasn't my point cause it's not a matter of compliance. It's a matter on what he wants to do with the deal.

 

My point is that Trump said the deal between the two is disastrous and he's willing to cut the deal as far as he said during elections. Whether he'll do it or not remains to be seen. I think he won't and, still, I hope he won't cause we don't need it. Two nuclear countries fighting and dragging other countries to their mess. No. Earth doesn't need more violence, hatred, discrimination, etc.

 

I'm not backing up Hillary in case you thought that way. The difference between her and Trump at least is that she doesn't want to make discrimination.

 

Many electors say this and that, and most don't fulfill half of what they say cause they can't, couldn't or whatever other reason/s. I'm willing to wait and see.

 

I'm certain he won't do quite a few things. Notice how in his victory speech his tone already drastically changed and he no longer has all the sharp remarks. Likely, most of the stuff he said, are really, just to call attention, and saying out loud what people think but are too afraid to speak themselves, as they were emotionally blackmailed too agree with every single thing the left says.

 

And the thing is... Hillary doesn't care a fig for discrimination. The country could burn as far as she cares, since she would live in safety in the white house as the average americans need to deal with her mess. Just look at this:

 

 

And then, for such a staunt feminist, we actually have confirmation that she helped protect a guilty child rapist that attack a little underaged girl, with actual audio recordings of her, gloating on how she beat the system, and allowed a monster to walk away unpunished.

 

 

And if she is so tolerant and anti discrimination, how come her former mentor was a leader of the KKK once, and a evil racist bigot?!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4wo9nqWrwE

 

When I think about it, it's quite appaling that america came this close from electing as their president, a lying, corrupted career criminal. All I can say is, anyone but Hillary.

Edited by alexander, 11 November 2016 - 01:18 PM.

[T XD]

@ alexander : He's elected and whether you take him seriously or not, that the USA's people issue.
 
For your own good, I would have taken all he had said before he got elected as possibilities, take into account that he changed his demeanor after he won especially if we want to think for the benefit of the people in this term, and many things of what he said was a show or something to attract attention and get people into his side.
Remembering now, that's what kinda sushi. said in a previous post of hers before he got elected. 
 
The problems of the country can be dealt with in many ways. It doesn't have to be the president who would save everything and s/he won't save everything. So, I didn't mean by Hillary she cares on not discriminating, but on not pushing discrimination with people.
 
All of of the electors say many things for the sake of winning and apply what their party tell them to do most of the times during elections. Also, many have nasty pasts. We all know this.
As for the KKK thing, news going around that he's part of KKK and has a history with them. Whether it's true or not, I don't know. He's not better than her in any matter and she's not better than him in any matter.
 
My point from all of this, his way of making discrimination on many, as far as taking into account his speeches, could affect many regions. His way of saying them are irritating and antagonizing, and if he continue that way and interfere here, things could escalate between my country and the neighbor.
Your country and my country have other country that aren't on good terms with and we don't need frustration.

Edited by T XD, 11 November 2016 - 02:36 PM.

[Nate River]

The DNC tipped the scales to make Bernie lose. Hillary was the establishment's preferred candidate obviously.

Well, yes.

 

That was obvious even before the primaries. It was not an accident that the number of primary debates were limited and that they were always set at times that made sure nobody watched. 

 

Of course, part of the point of the Super Delegates is to help prevent candidates like Sanders from winning. They were created in response to the McGovern disaster in 1972. In short, it is an explicit attempt by hte party to keep some control over who their nominee is.

 

If Trump had been creamed in the general you might have seen the RNC trying to create a similar system.

 

I don't know that he would have won the primaries anyway, but it would have been much closer than it was and I'm not sure he was your best candidate. Wasn't Bernie losing in the traditional delegate count as well?

 

As the part in power for 8 years it was always going to be tough to run against yourself. Hillary was especially poor suited for that. I think Biden would have been your best bet, but he didn't run.

 

[FireFox]

[sushi.]

I am quite tired of people slandering Hillary for defending a rapist tbh. She's a frickin lawyer, and was told by her boss to take on the case..

She's said numerous times she didnt want it and that it made her uncomfortable, and she didn't want him to go free. If you wanna pick on her about rape, try her husband's cases which she defended personally, not lawfully.

Of course, it can't be much worse than having an actual rapist as a president? Trump is currently facing charges for child rape..😒

Edited by sushi., 11 November 2016 - 07:35 PM.

[Fyuria'sLeo]

 

I can more then accept that people are upset. I can just go on youtube and laugh at all the childish meltdowns. But in here, so called "progressives" are inciting chaos and violence over a lawful democratic vote. They are not just upset, these people spit on the values of their country because the narrative didn't went their way for once. So I won't get off the horse because you don't like me denouncing them for the crap they are trying to pull.

 

 

None of the people doing this would have accepted the other side being upset and would have been fighting each other for the chance to smugly tell Republicans to "get over it."  In addition, they are far more than upset. They are vandalizing property and setting things on fire. One such lovely message said "Die Whites Die" and the lady on CNN said people would have to die. Then there was the group that assaulted a man for voting for trump. 

 

 

 

 

Is there any evidence that Iran is making any series efforts to comply with it now? 

As I said neither side would accept the loss if their candidate didnt win, I aint trying to defend anyone here but both sides are having faults here and both sides are attacking people.

[Dalton.T.R]

All I care about now is the Clinton's are done. She will no longer be able to run for president, and Obama's legacy is coming to an end. What did he accomplish in his eight years? Quite a bit, actually. Dividing the country the most its ever been since the Civil War, made racism worse, made the most ridiculous health care system in history (that cost me two jobs) doubled the national debt, created ISIS, turned the U.S into the laughing stock of the world, severely damaged our military, and embarrassed us as a whole by apologizing to our enemies on his apology tour.  What will he be remembered for? Being the first black president. Nothing else. Good riddance, Obama. You're fired, and you should have been a LONG time ago. 

 

We've broken the back of the globalist elites, and now it's time to push forward. The Republicans control all three houses of the government, which means we can finally get some kitten done in this country. No more political correctness, and no more apologizing to our enemies, and no more rules of engagement. The Democratic party has been destroyed, and it's being exposed for what it really is: a pathway to Communism and Socialism. The media is untrustworthy, and most people know it. It's only a matter of time before the big studios are forced to close their doors.

 

England and America have done their part. Now what country will be next?

 

 

[alexander]

Probally France. Marine Le Pen has been gaining a great deal of popularity as the country falls victim of immigration and terrorism. And her party is pretty much the only one putting the french people first rather then kiss ass to Islamists. And I can tell that if she wins the EU is doomed for good, as she will open vote to jump out of it and there is no way Germany alone will be able to keep holding the block together. And good riddance I say as the european union has been doing incredible harm to the continent in a economic, social and cultural level.

 

And of course the left calls it the return of fascism and xenofobia, while I personally call it a populist spring, were the people are slowly renewing their sense of patriotism and love for their country and customs.

[sushi.]

 
As I said neither side would accept the loss if their candidate didnt win, I aint trying to defend anyone here but both sides are having faults here and both sides are attacking people.

I'd like to say that even though I don't support violence from any side, the nature of the attacks and protests are completely different. There has been a vast increase of hatecrimes ever since Donald's victory, I think a lot of it stems from the lack of fear for the consequences, now that a man with plenty of hate is president. It's been so bad that DT has had to comment on it, and ask them to stop. Violence is inherently wrong, but one side fears for their and their families lives, and the other feels safe enough to carry out hatecrimes. Reducing these situations to both sides have done wrong, prevent us to figure out the root of the problem and thus a solution.

--
I have a few questions for Trump supporters/republicans here. First off, I've never seen republicans as overly religious, so what's your take on Mike Pence? The man basically wants to take us back to the stoneage - he is against the consept of condoms, sex for pleasure, and even science. Lives have been lost in his state because he refused medical research in the name of God. He also put gay couples in jail + gave them a hefty paying ticket for simply applying to get married. He is a republican, but I thought the moderate voters, the majority, would oppose such a fanatic as VP.

Secondly, to my great surprise, DT will cater to democrats to some degree, I think because he don't want to face oppositions. He will keep the equal marriage law, parts of Obama care, etc. I won't complain, but he's been recorded promising the opposite. What'u think? Did you vote for him hoping that he'd repel Obamacare and decleare marriage between man and woman?

Edited by sushi., 14 November 2016 - 05:01 AM.

[alexander]

I'd like to say that even though I don't support violence from any side, the nature of the attacks and protests are completely different. There has been a vast increase of hatecrimes ever since Donald's victory, I think a lot of it stems from the lack of fear for the consequences, now that a man with plenty of hate is president. It's been so bad that DT has had to comment on it, and ask them to stop. Violence is inherently wrong, but one side fears for their and their families lives, and the other feels safe enough to carry out hatecrimes. Reducing these situations to both sides have done wrong, prevent us to figure out the root of the problem and thus a solution.

--
I have a few questions for Trump supporters/republicans here. First off, I've never seen republicans as overly religious, so what's your take on Mike Pence? The man basically wants to take us back to the stoneage - he is against the consept of condoms, sex for pleasure, and even science. Lives have been lost in his state because he refused medical research in the name of God. He also put gay couples in jail + gave them a hefty paying ticket for simply applying to get married. He is a republican, but I thought the moderate voters, the majority, would oppose such a fanatic as VP.

Secondly, to my great surprise, DT will cater to democrats to some degree, I think because he don't want to face oppositions. He will keep the equal marriage law, parts of Obama care, etc. I won't complain, but he's been recorded promising the opposite. What'u think? Did you vote for him hoping that he'd repel Obamacare and decleare marriage between man and woman?

 

The thing is, most people voted Trump not because it will mean they can be openly racist, but they did it because they are tired of be silenced by a extreme opposition that finds every single thing sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. I mean, sure, there are the bigots and racists that indeed will try using Trump victory to their benefit, but hopefully, Trump and his supporters will shut these people down and prove themselves to be the better person. Hopefully.

 

Mike Pence is, well, a bigot, I won't deny that. But, people voted for Trump, not him. And he is the vice President. Unless Trumps needs to step down, I don't think he will have that much of a influence. Not to mention Trump must be quite aware that the democrats are openly against him, so if anything else, it's on his best interest to not further their ire by screwing up health care and undoing gay marriage laws. My personal prediction is: things will likely stay exactly as they are. Trump won't do anything for the sake of the LGTB community, but neither he will try to antagonize it. And as far as I know, a neutral approach is better then a hostile one.

 

And the americans voted Trump for a multitude of reasons. Yes, some for the sake of right winged extreme conservatism. But also, because of the decaying economy, the slow death of the industry, the establishment forsaking the common of american, the utter lack of control of the borders, and also, because people got really sick and tired of this kind of attitude, and they choose to stand against it:

 

[sushi.]

Yea, I admit idk how powerful exactly the VP is, but I thought he'd be the second in hand. The reason I asked about Mike Pence is because I'm already hearing people more scared of him than pres. Trump, and that's saying something. They're mostly people in medical fields that sees the dangers of his health care policies, or LGBT kids that are kittenscared of conversion therapy. My guess is, besides what he can decide himself, Pence will do what Trump lets him? But I imagine his reaction when he heard Trump will keep gay marriage.. lol I never understood why Trump picked him though because they don't have much in common besides bigotry, and maybe capitalist economy.

Edited by sushi., 14 November 2016 - 06:16 PM.

[Nate River]

Yea, I admit idk how powerful exactly the VP is, but I thought he'd be the second in hand. The reason I asked about Mike Pence is because I'm already hearing people more scared of him than pres. Trump, and that's saying something. They're mostly people in medical fields that sees the dangers of his health care policies, or LGBT kids that are kittenscared of conversion therapy. My guess is, besides what he can decide himself, Pence will do what Trump lets him? But I imagine his reaction when he heard Trump will keep gay marriage.. lol I never understood why Trump picked him though because they don't have much in common besides bigotry, and maybe capitalist economy.

 

The VP has little actual power. The VP is there in the event the President is unable to perform his duties. If the President is unable to perform those duties then the VP gets power. The other role is that they are the tie breaker if the Senate votes 50-50 on an issue. 

 

To give you and idea of how the VP office is scene in terms of importance....there was an episode of WB's Wabbit (bugs bunny) where the VP is relegated to picking up the first dog's poop. More than one character comments "we still have one of those" when someone mentions the VP. 

 

Pence was probably a Paul Manafort (his second campaign manager) pick. VP's are often picked as a effort to shore up some weakness for the candidate. In the early days of the US, the concern was often regional. For Trump it was probably to help with the more conservative portions of the Republican base and social conservatives. The other supposed concern was rhetorical. Trump is bomb-thrower, while Pence is not.

 

But alexander is right...virtually no one votes based on who the VP is.