2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Thanas]

And regardless of weather Trump would have campaigned differently had it been based on popular vote, the numbers do show definitively that more individual voters did choose Clinton than Trump.

Which I take as a small silver lining, because it shows that Trump is not the new voice of the American people, and his politics are not the new norm. Disturbingly popular, yes, but still rejected by the electorate as a whole.

Bullshit.

The election was legitimate by the standards of the voting system.

Trump is the legitimate voice of the US people just as Merkel is still the legitimate representative and voice of the German people despite not receiving a majority in elections.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, the thing about Trump is, he'll probably let others dictate policy- unless the whim to do otherwise strikes him, or he sees some profit for himself in doing otherwise.

But even if he lets others handle the day to day running of government...

Well, look who he's surrounding himself with- the likes of Bannon, Sessions, and Giuliani.

Best case scenario, more or less, is that the hardliner fiscal/social conservatives in Congress get a blank cheque.

[The Romulan Republic]

And regardless of weather Trump would have campaigned differently had it been based on popular vote, the numbers do show definitively that more individual voters did choose Clinton than Trump.

Which I take as a small silver lining, because it shows that Trump is not the new voice of the American people, and his politics are not the new norm. Disturbingly popular, yes, but still rejected by the electorate as a whole.

Bullshit.

The election was legitimate by the standards of the voting system.

Trump is the legitimate voice of the US people just as Merkel is still the legitimate representative and voice of the German people despite not receiving a majority in elections.

Question: was their another candidate who got more votes than Merkel?

In any case, you misunderstand me, perhaps.

I am not saying that Trump is not legitimately qualified, that he does not legally qualify to be President under the rules of the system. Unless someone can prove major voter fraud or the EC goes rogue (neither likely), he regrettably does.

What I am stating is a mathematical fact: More voters chose Clinton over Trump. Trump had less support from the American people than Clinton did. Their is really no way you can argue that point, unless you want to try to prove that the numbers are two million-plus votes off.

Not sure why you're up in arms about that, unless its just anti-Americanism making you want to insist that Trump somehow exemplifies the values of the American people.

[ArmorPierce]

I think that this election combined with the republicans dominating the senate, house, and soon the supreme court suggests one major thing.

The side attempting to be or appear reasonable (democrats) will always be on the losing side when pitted against those willing to bend the rules and just plain promote lies (republicans) if the system is set up to allow them to... which it appears that it is.

At the very least, the democrats attempting to assume a compromised position will always permit the political environment to drift to the right due to the republicans refusal to compromise and willingness to block the government's ability to effectively function... and it worked.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Democrats need to show more of a spine at times, but I don't think the lesson to take from this is "Only extremists win, we need to be extremists too." That leads to a very ugly place.

I do think Obama sometimes compromised more than, perhaps, he should have. But I don't think that's why Clinton lost.

Clinton lost because Clinton was a shitty candidate who never could overcome her baggage or get the kind of turnout Obama did, and this was exacerbated by people in the FBI sabotaging her.

The House... well, frankly, we were always going to lose the House, barring a Democratic landslide across the board. Its gerrymandered to hell.

The Senate is in some ways the most concerning loss, because its the only loss at the national level that cannot be explained as due to either gerrymandering, or the weakness of a single candidate.

[Flagg]

And regardless of weather Trump would have campaigned differently had it been based on popular vote, the numbers do show definitively that more individual voters did choose Clinton than Trump.

Which I take as a small silver lining, because it shows that Trump is not the new voice of the American people, and his politics are not the new norm. Disturbingly popular, yes, but still rejected by the electorate as a whole.

Bullshit.

The election was legitimate by the standards of the voting system.

Trump is the legitimate voice of the US people just as Merkel is still the legitimate representative and voice of the German people despite not receiving a majority in elections.

Yeah, he got more votes in the less than half a dozen states where votes matter. If you live in Ohio or Florida your vote counts more than if you live in Texas or California. So it may be legitimate but it sure as hell doesn't mean Donnie Douchebag represents the will of the American people because last I checked he was behind by about 3 million votes nationwide. So legitimate, maybe (Jill Stein has raised roughly $2.5 million to pay for hand recounts of the actual paper ballots in 3 states where the vote was close after several specialists in cyber security raised the possibility of Russian hackers being able to fuck with the machines, so while I doubt that will make a difference, it's not official until the stupid bullshit irrelevant since the invention of the telegraph Electoral college meets), but hardly the will of American voters.

[Flagg]

I think that this election combined with the republicans dominating the senate, house, and soon the supreme court suggests one major thing.

The side attempting to be or appear reasonable (democrats) will always be on the losing side when pitted against those willing to bend the rules and just plain promote lies (republicans) if the system is set up to allow them to... which it appears that it is.

At the very least, the democrats attempting to assume a compromised position will always permit the political environment to drift to the right due to the republicans refusal to compromise and willingness to block the government's ability to effectively function... and it worked.

There's an old joke that has essentially become a truism: Republicans know how to win elections, Democrats know how to govern.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, Trump's win is legitimate, but it would be a stretch to call it democratic.

A really properly democratic election would be a straight nation-wide popular vote, with a run-off between the two leading candidates if no one scores a majority.

But that would require a Constitutional amendment.

[Flagg]

Yeah, Trump's win is legitimate, but it would be a stretch to call it democratic.

A really properly democratic election would be a straight nation-wide popular vote, with a run-off between the two leading candidates if no one scores a majority.

But that would require a Constitutional amendment.

Of course it's Democratic. It's just not a national vote. We don't elect Presidents, we elect electors to elect Presidents. Just because something is archaic and fucking dumb doesn't mean it's not Democratic.

[The Romulan Republic]

It favours some states over others, and has twice in sixteen years lead to an election of a President who lost the popular vote.

If that's democracy, its a pretty shitty democracy.

[Iroscato]

It favours some states over others, and has twice in sixteen years lead to an election of a President who lost the popular vote.

If that's democracy, its a pretty shitty democracy.

You must be new to America.

[Joun_Lord]

Yeah, Trump's win is legitimate, but it would be a stretch to call it democratic.

A really properly democratic election would be a straight nation-wide popular vote, with a run-off between the two leading candidates if no one scores a majority.

Its democratic but it doesn't mean it right anymore then a democratic popular vote is right.

The problem with a the popular vote as I understand it is the fact it gives far to much power to heavily populated urban areas that tend to vote liberal while disregarding the voice of more sparsely populated rural areas with conservative voters. It would only lead to large states like California, Nanny York, and Texas deciding the election, wouldn't have smaller states like Colorado and Maryland or any of the sparsely populated mostly rural states. Now some might be inclined to just say "fuck conservatives, blah blah Trump is aboot hate but we are not but we hate Trump and everyone who voted for him and everyone who didn't vote Hillary" but thats now how democracy works either and I'd say such ideological notions that only the "correct" ideology should get a voice seems stupid and setting up for failure.

The electoral college gives a voice to smaller state, sparsely populated areas and such. Is it perfect? No, its not but neither is the popular. Alot of people think the electoral college could be improved by not having a winner take all approach but actually divide the votes across the states to vote how districts vote rather then each state going solid one way or the other.

Some would argue the election shows the failing of the electoral college, others would argue it did its job exactly as its supposed to. I've heard it explained that Hillary won the popular vote because more people voted for her but Donnie won the electoral college because a greater percentage of "red" voters voted for him. There were less red voters then blue because there are less red but a greater overall portion of red got out and picked the pumpkin compared to a smaller percentage of blue voters who voted for the email printer old lady. Don't know if thats bullshit or not but what little research of done sounds right.

[The Romulan Republic]

It favours some states over others, and has twice in sixteen years lead to an election of a President who lost the popular vote.

If that's democracy, its a pretty shitty democracy.

You must be new to America.

Oh, its nothing new that this is a malfunctioning "democracy".

But this election has really driven the point home, several times over.

[Flagg]

Yeah, Trump's win is legitimate, but it would be a stretch to call it democratic.

A really properly democratic election would be a straight nation-wide popular vote, with a run-off between the two leading candidates if no one scores a majority.

Its democratic but it doesn't mean it right anymore then a democratic popular vote is right.

The problem with a the popular vote as I understand it is the fact it gives far to much power to heavily populated urban areas that tend to vote liberal while disregarding the voice of more sparsely populated rural areas with conservative voters. It would only lead to large states like California, Nanny York, and Texas deciding the election, wouldn't have smaller states like Colorado and Maryland or any of the sparsely populated mostly rural states. Now some might be inclined to just say "fuck conservatives, blah blah Trump is aboot hate but we are not but we hate Trump and everyone who voted for him and everyone who didn't vote Hillary" but thats now how democracy works either and I'd say such ideological notions that only the "correct" ideology should get a voice seems stupid and setting up for failure.

The electoral college gives a voice to smaller state, sparsely populated areas and such. Is it perfect? No, its not but neither is the popular. Alot of people think the electoral college could be improved by not having a winner take all approach but actually divide the votes across the states to vote how districts vote rather then each state going solid one way or the other.

Some would argue the election shows the failing of the electoral college, others would argue it did its job exactly as its supposed to. I've heard it explained that Hillary won the popular vote because more people voted for her but Donnie won the electoral college because a greater percentage of "red" voters voted for him. There were less red voters then blue because there are less red but a greater overall portion of red got out and picked the pumpkin compared to a smaller percentage of blue voters who voted for the email printer old lady. Don't know if thats bullshit or not but what little research of done sounds right.

Yeah, that's total bullshit. What the system we have in place does is let the candidates ignore "red or blue" states and instead focus on half a dozen "swing states". This effectively gives the population of a state like Florida more of a say than someone who lives in California or Texas.

[Flagg]

And I hate to say it, but TRR is right, we have a fucked up democracy.

[Elfdart]

We have NO democracy, and that's by design. Madison, Jefferson, Mason, et al designed the system to make sure the burghers weren't going to be inconvenienced by monarchs, nobles, popes, generalissimos most of all, voters.

[AniThyng]

And regardless of weather Trump would have campaigned differently had it been based on popular vote, the numbers do show definitively that more individual voters did choose Clinton than Trump.

Which I take as a small silver lining, because it shows that Trump is not the new voice of the American people, and his politics are not the new norm. Disturbingly popular, yes, but still rejected by the electorate as a whole.

Bullshit.

The election was legitimate by the standards of the voting system.

Trump is the legitimate voice of the US people just as Merkel is still the legitimate representative and voice of the German people despite not receiving a majority in elections.

It seems painfully obvious that most Parliamentary systems where the PM is decided by who has the most seats in the legislature suffer the exact same issues the EC brings to America. Heck, if we just made the President the choice of the House and Senate you'd *still* get a republican.

[AniThyng]

Yeah, Trump's win is legitimate, but it would be a stretch to call it democratic.

A really properly democratic election would be a straight nation-wide popular vote, with a run-off between the two leading candidates if no one scores a majority.

Its democratic but it doesn't mean it right anymore then a democratic popular vote is right.

The problem with a the popular vote as I understand it is the fact it gives far to much power to heavily populated urban areas that tend to vote liberal while disregarding the voice of more sparsely populated rural areas with conservative voters. It would only lead to large states like California, Nanny York, and Texas deciding the election, wouldn't have smaller states like Colorado and Maryland or any of the sparsely populated mostly rural states. Now some might be inclined to just say "fuck conservatives, blah blah Trump is aboot hate but we are not but we hate Trump and everyone who voted for him and everyone who didn't vote Hillary" but thats now how democracy works either and I'd say such ideological notions that only the "correct" ideology should get a voice seems stupid and setting up for failure.

The electoral college gives a voice to smaller state, sparsely populated areas and such. Is it perfect? No, its not but neither is the popular. Alot of people think the electoral college could be improved by not having a winner take all approach but actually divide the votes across the states to vote how districts vote rather then each state going solid one way or the other.

Some would argue the election shows the failing of the electoral college, others would argue it did its job exactly as its supposed to. I've heard it explained that Hillary won the popular vote because more people voted for her but Donnie won the electoral college because a greater percentage of "red" voters voted for him. There were less red voters then blue because there are less red but a greater overall portion of red got out and picked the pumpkin compared to a smaller percentage of blue voters who voted for the email printer old lady. Don't know if thats bullshit or not but what little research of done sounds right.

Yeah, that's total bullshit. What the system we have in place does is let the candidates ignore "red or blue" states and instead focus on half a dozen "swing states". This effectively gives the population of a state like Florida more of a say than someone who lives in California or Texas.

Question: Isn't this a problem that solves itself by making California more red and texas more blue? It seems precisely correct that candidates should be less concerned with states that are so solidly for/against them entirely because that means those states *already* have picked their side regardless.

IOW it seems to me then if you want california to matter more in the national gimme gimmie tables, California needs to be more republican.

[Gandalf]

No, what he is saying is that campaigning is more than simply policy. Get your head out of your ass. We don't have mandatory voting here (as much as I would like it). Candidates have to not just be preferred to their opposition, but they have to motivate them enough to sacrifice their time to go and actually vote. This requires charisma. It requires even more charisma when there are active measures taken to suppress turnout by local election officials.

Kerry did not have that. Bush for all his faults did.

And? I don't seem to have divined the point of this section.

We tend to re-elect war-time presidents because people are reluctant to change leadership when they are uncertain about the future. It is not a huge numerical bias, but it is big enough to swing an election.

Is this common, or one of those odd American things?

[bilateralrope]

Yeah, Trump's win is legitimate, but it would be a stretch to call it democratic.

A really properly democratic election would be a straight nation-wide popular vote, with a run-off between the two leading candidates if no one scores a majority.

Its democratic but it doesn't mean it right anymore then a democratic popular vote is right.

The problem with a the popular vote as I understand it is the fact it gives far to much power to heavily populated urban areas that tend to vote liberal while disregarding the voice of more sparsely populated rural areas with conservative voters. It would only lead to large states like California, Nanny York, and Texas deciding the election, wouldn't have smaller states like Colorado and Maryland or any of the sparsely populated mostly rural states. Now some might be inclined to just say "fuck conservatives, blah blah Trump is aboot hate but we are not but we hate Trump and everyone who voted for him and everyone who didn't vote Hillary" but thats now how democracy works either and I'd say such ideological notions that only the "correct" ideology should get a voice seems stupid and setting up for failure.

The electoral college gives a voice to smaller state, sparsely populated areas and such. Is it perfect? No, its not but neither is the popular. Alot of people think the electoral college could be improved by not having a winner take all approach but actually divide the votes across the states to vote how districts vote rather then each state going solid one way or the other.

Some would argue the election shows the failing of the electoral college, others would argue it did its job exactly as its supposed to. I've heard it explained that Hillary won the popular vote because more people voted for her but Donnie won the electoral college because a greater percentage of "red" voters voted for him. There were less red voters then blue because there are less red but a greater overall portion of red got out and picked the pumpkin compared to a smaller percentage of blue voters who voted for the email printer old lady. Don't know if thats bullshit or not but what little research of done sounds right.

Why do people in rural areas deserve to have their votes count for more than people in urban areas ?

We are talking about electing a single person for a single position. There is no way to get someone who represents everyone.

[Elheru Aran]

We tend to re-elect war-time presidents because people are reluctant to change leadership when they are uncertain about the future. It is not a huge numerical bias, but it is big enough to swing an election.

Is this common, or one of those odd American things?

Well...

Madison: re-elected in 1812
Lincoln: re-elected (but we know how that went, and Johnson didn't run for re-election IIRC)
McKinley: re-elected AFTER the Spanish American War was concluded
Wilson: unusual case as we weren't actually involved in WWI at the time (we didn't go in until 1917) but he was re-elected in 1916.
FDR: Re-elected twice (1940, 1944).
Lyndon Johnson and Nixon both rode the Vietnam War in 1964 and 1972. Unusually enough, Hubert Humphrey wasn't elected in 1968 despite being Johnson's VP. Of course, Nixon being Nixon, there's a decent chance the election was crooked, and the Democrats were unpopular thanks to the burgeoning neocon isolationist movement and the hippies protesting at the 1968 convention. Johnson could've run, but decided not to.
Finally, W was re-elected in 2004.

Exceptions: Polk declined to run again after the Mexican War; Truman decided not to run again in 1952; as noted above, Johnson in 1968; and H.W. Bush lost a re-election bid despite winning in the Persian Gulf.

So that's 8 to 4, and Truman and Johnson were promoted VP's who had the option of running for a second full term but declined so in theory they could've run again. Polk is far enough back that nobody cares. HW Bush is somewhat of the odd one out, but he got the double whammy of an economy in the toilet (coupled with people remembering the "no new taxes" fiasco) and Ross Perot sucking away a bunch of his votes. McKinley did win an re-election bid... but he was assassinated very shortly afterwards, and Theodore Roosevelt covered most of his term.

[Joun_Lord]

Why do people in rural areas deserve to have their votes count for more than people in urban areas ?

We are talking about electing a single person for a single position. There is no way to get someone who represents everyone.

They shouldn't count for more but urban votes shouldn't be able to automatically win any vote as they would in most popular votes because of their higher numbers.

Why should people in a few physical areas be able to tell the rest of the country, a majority of the physical country, what to do (unless they are the government)? To decide what happens for people in completely different areas with different interests and aims? To completely disregard alot of states and people because they have less people? Because thats how it would be with a majority only vote.

This is especially important because of the rural/urban divide in things like health, wealth, policing, emergency services, jobs and job loss, the environment, and guns. People in urban areas have wildly different views on such things, completely different opinions on the importance of things that might be highly important to Country Joe Cowfucker.

So rural hicks and rednecks and whatever other semi-slurs people call them need a voice too. So they are going to have a disproportionate voice to make themselves heard.

There is no other way that I can think of (admittedly not the sharpest sword in the toolbox) to get something close to fairness, to allow urban and rural locations to have equal standing.

[Flagg]

Its democratic but it doesn't mean it right anymore then a democratic popular vote is right.

The problem with a the popular vote as I understand it is the fact it gives far to much power to heavily populated urban areas that tend to vote liberal while disregarding the voice of more sparsely populated rural areas with conservative voters. It would only lead to large states like California, Nanny York, and Texas deciding the election, wouldn't have smaller states like Colorado and Maryland or any of the sparsely populated mostly rural states. Now some might be inclined to just say "fuck conservatives, blah blah Trump is aboot hate but we are not but we hate Trump and everyone who voted for him and everyone who didn't vote Hillary" but thats now how democracy works either and I'd say such ideological notions that only the "correct" ideology should get a voice seems stupid and setting up for failure.

The electoral college gives a voice to smaller state, sparsely populated areas and such. Is it perfect? No, its not but neither is the popular. Alot of people think the electoral college could be improved by not having a winner take all approach but actually divide the votes across the states to vote how districts vote rather then each state going solid one way or the other.

Some would argue the election shows the failing of the electoral college, others would argue it did its job exactly as its supposed to. I've heard it explained that Hillary won the popular vote because more people voted for her but Donnie won the electoral college because a greater percentage of "red" voters voted for him. There were less red voters then blue because there are less red but a greater overall portion of red got out and picked the pumpkin compared to a smaller percentage of blue voters who voted for the email printer old lady. Don't know if thats bullshit or not but what little research of done sounds right.

Yeah, that's total bullshit. What the system we have in place does is let the candidates ignore "red or blue" states and instead focus on half a dozen "swing states". This effectively gives the population of a state like Florida more of a say than someone who lives in California or Texas.

Question: Isn't this a problem that solves itself by making California more red and texas more blue? It seems precisely correct that candidates should be less concerned with states that are so solidly for/against them entirely because that means those states *already* have picked their side regardless.

IOW it seems to me then if you want california to matter more in the national gimme gimmie tables, California needs to be more republican.

Wat?

[Flagg]

Why do people in rural areas deserve to have their votes count for more than people in urban areas ?

We are talking about electing a single person for a single position. There is no way to get someone who represents everyone.

They shouldn't count for more but urban votes shouldn't be able to automatically win any vote as they would in most popular votes because of their higher numbers.

Why should people in a few physical areas be able to tell the rest of the country, a majority of the physical country, what to do (unless they are the government)? To decide what happens for people in completely different areas with different interests and aims? To completely disregard alot of states and people because they have less people? Because thats how it would be with a majority only vote.

This is especially important because of the rural/urban divide in things like health, wealth, policing, emergency services, jobs and job loss, the environment, and guns. People in urban areas have wildly different views on such things, completely different opinions on the importance of things that might be highly important to Country Joe Cowfucker.

So rural hicks and rednecks and whatever other semi-slurs people call them need a voice too. So they are going to have a disproportionate voice to make themselves heard.

There is no other way that I can think of (admittedly not the sharpest sword in the toolbox) to get something close to fairness, to allow urban and rural locations to have equal standing.

They shouldn't have equal standing you moron. 1 person 1 vote. If the flyover states get a sad, oh well.

[Broomstick]

FDR: Re-elected twice (1940, 1944).

[nitpick] Re-elected THREE times. First elected PotUS in 1932, re-elected in 1936, 1940, and 1944. The only person ever voted into office as PotUS four times and thanks to the 22nd constitutional amendment probably the only person who will ever serve more than two terms in that office. [/nitpick]