2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[The Romulan Republic]

Well considering that police union endorsed Trump and the FBI helped him win the election...

The funny thing is, as much as I hate the EC and wish it didn't exist, it would actually be entirely within its intended role if it shot down the Donald's candidacy- while some states have rules against it, Constitutionally, its my understanding that the Electors are allowed to vote their conscience against a candidate who is unfit for the office. And you couldn't even say it would be undemocratic in this case if they voted for Clinton, because she won the popular vote by a relatively wide margin (about 2% I think).

[K. A. Pital]

God, you are annoying, TRR.

Can't you for once stop flip-flopping? "Sure I hate this mechanism but if it helps Clinton win, then good". What sort of a fucking position is that?

So, anything goes? Why are you so... god damn annoying?

[The Romulan Republic]

God, you are annoying, TRR.

Can't you for once stop flip-flopping? "Sure I hate this mechanism but if it helps Clinton win, then good". What sort of a fucking position is that?

So, anything goes? Why are you so... god damn annoying?

Straw man.

As I stated, I hate it and wish it were gone. I would still wish it were gone if it made Clinton President.

But everything I stated about its role and what it is legally entitled to do is, to my knowledge, accurate.

And if we're going to have a broken, undemocratic system... well, I'd rather it be broken and undemocratic in favour of the will of the people.

So you can fuck right off.

[K. A. Pital]

God, you are annoying, TRR.

Can't you for once stop flip-flopping? "Sure I hate this mechanism but if it helps Clinton win, then good". What sort of a fucking position is that?

So, anything goes? Why are you so... god damn annoying?

Straw man.

As I stated, I hate it and wish it were gone. I would still wish it were gone if it made Clinton President.

But everything I stated about its role and what it is legally entitled to do is, to my knowledge, accurate.

And if we're going to have a broken, undemocratic system... well, I'd rather it be broken and undemocratic in favour of the will of the people.

So you can fuck right off.

Do you even understand that "will of the people" and "undemocratic" kind of represents a contradiction in terms? Why do you wish to advance your cause through fundamentally broken mechanisms? Does it not, well, undermine it?

[The Romulan Republic]

The EC is by definition an undemocratic institution. I don't think you can deny that.

However, if it selected Clinton over Trump, it would be supporting the candidate the people chose.

That is not a contradiction, except insofar as the EC itself is contradictory, however much you try to twist and nitpick my words to suit your argument.

And I don't wish to advance my cause through a broken mechanism. In perfect fantasy land America, I'd rather we'd had a straight popular vote election, with a run-off if no one got a majority of the popular vote, and that Clinton had won in that manner. Or actually, since its fantasy land America, I wish Bernie had won the nomination and then won the general election in that manner.

Its simply that if we're going to be stuck with a broken mechanism, I'd like to see it take the least damaging course of action.

Admittedly, I'm not sure what that is here. While Trump is already proving to be an utter catastrophe before even being sworn in or officially made President elect by the EC, and in this case a fairly strong case could be made for the EC going against Trump in favour of Clinton, all the concerns about setting a precedent of faithless electors deciding the election result still stand, and could easily bite us in the ass in the future.

[jwl]

Former Vice President Al Gore met with President-elect Donald Trump for what he described as "an extremely interesting conversation" at Trump Tower on Monday.

Gore, who campaigned for Hillary Clinton, declined to say what exactly he and Trump spoke about during the meeting. But he said he met with both the president-elect and Ivanka Trump, who reportedly wants to make climate change one of her signature issues.

"I had a lengthy and very productive session with the president-elect. It was a sincere search for areas of common ground... I found it an extremely interesting conversation, and to be continued, and I'm just going to leave it at that," Gore told reporters after the meeting.

Later Monday, Gore spoke to MNSBC's Chris Hayes and reiterated that he felt good about the meeting, adding "we're in this wait and see period, but I was happy to have the opportunity and to have the exchange of views."

Although he was reluctant to go into detail about his conversation with the President-elect, Gore also praised Ivanka Trump's commitment to the issue, saying her passion was "certainly evident" during the brief conversation they had before his meeting with Trump.

Ultimately, Gore said he believes the momentum and international support built up around climate change will continue no matter the policies of the next administration.

"I think the momentum is unstoppable now, we're winning this — we're going to win it — but there is a serious question as to how fast we will win and that's crucial," he said.

Since leaving public life following his unsuccessful 2000 presidential run, Gore has become one of the best known crusaders in the fight against human-caused climate change.

He hit the campaign trail for Clinton in the final months of the presidential contest, calling her both the best candidate to combat global warming and reminding supporters "every single vote counts."

Clinton, like Gore in 2000, won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.

Before running for office, Trump called climate change a hoax "created by and for the Chinese." However, Trump said he has an "open mind" on the issue in an interview with the New York Times last month.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politic ... on-n692196

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure what Gore hopes to accomplish by meeting with Trump, other than to lend Trump political cover for pretending his moderate and reasonable.

Trump might listen to him if Gore strokes his ego enough, but only until he meets with all the corporatists, theocrats, and bigots he's surrounded himself with again, and they sway him back to his usual positions. Trump has no anchor, no real principles, no moral compass. He's driven by ego, self-interest, and his own ugly whims.

[Flagg]

God, you are annoying, TRR.

Can't you for once stop flip-flopping? "Sure I hate this mechanism but if it helps Clinton win, then good". What sort of a fucking position is that?

So, anything goes? Why are you so... god damn annoying?

Don't take this as a vendetta please, but he is goddamned annoying to me because he sounds like a smarter than average 15-19 year old who knows a little about a lot, but only understands human behavior and how our (as in American) government works through the lens of his limited life experience and what he reads on liberal blogs/BBS', meaning he doesn't understand shit. So, me at 16/17.

There's very little if any nuance and even when he says something I largely agree with on principle, he takes those few extra steps into "facepalm land" which makes him hard to take seriously.

But if the EC were to install Clinton I wouldn't exactly be too outraged since it would be looking at a minimum of 4 years at a politician President continuing the late Bush 43 and Obama foreign policy of drones and targeted assassination, with maybe a slightly more to the right than Obama domestic policy and maybe more refinement of the ACA so it works better as opposed to staring into the abyss of the Trump administration. So it's hypocritical, but within the system even though I still would be disgusted since it would represent how undemocratic and broken so much of our republic really can be
But there would be a price to pay for that, and that price would be at the least a Constitutional crisis and at the worst could ignite some violence. But to many that's fine because "I won't be effected" aka the famous last words of the middle class person who ends up getting laid off because of the economic hit.

That said, I would still be for the abolishment of the electoral college as I have been since being taught about it in 6th grade. In fact my greatest fear in the 2012 Presidential election was the possibility that Obama would win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote.

But if you don't already understand (You're a smart guy so I'm sure you do) this is the stage of Presidential election results grief known as bargaining.

[Alyrium Denryle]

God, you are annoying, TRR.

Can't you for once stop flip-flopping? "Sure I hate this mechanism but if it helps Clinton win, then good". What sort of a fucking position is that?

So, anything goes? Why are you so... god damn annoying?

Straw man.

As I stated, I hate it and wish it were gone. I would still wish it were gone if it made Clinton President.

But everything I stated about its role and what it is legally entitled to do is, to my knowledge, accurate.

And if we're going to have a broken, undemocratic system... well, I'd rather it be broken and undemocratic in favour of the will of the people.

So you can fuck right off.

Do you even understand that "will of the people" and "undemocratic" kind of represents a contradiction in terms? Why do you wish to advance your cause through fundamentally broken mechanisms? Does it not, well, undermine it?

Honestly this is not overly difficult.

Say I have two systems, operating in parallel. One a simple up or down majority vote, the other black box that is non-democratic but that gets fed information from the majority vote and spits out a result.

I can wish the black box is gone, while also hoping that its results match the results of the actual election.

[Flagg]

Straw man.

As I stated, I hate it and wish it were gone. I would still wish it were gone if it made Clinton President.

But everything I stated about its role and what it is legally entitled to do is, to my knowledge, accurate.

And if we're going to have a broken, undemocratic system... well, I'd rather it be broken and undemocratic in favour of the will of the people.

So you can fuck right off.

Do you even understand that "will of the people" and "undemocratic" kind of represents a contradiction in terms? Why do you wish to advance your cause through fundamentally broken mechanisms? Does it not, well, undermine it?

Honestly this is not overly difficult.

Say I have two systems, operating in parallel. One a simple up or down majority vote, the other black box that is non-democratic but that gets fed information from the majority vote and spits out a result.

I can wish the black box is gone, while also hoping that its results match the results of the actual election.

Yeah. I was about to say "Is it a failure of democracy? Very much so. Do I want it to fail in a way that hurts the least number of people and/or helps the most number of people? You're damned right."

We can only work with what we have, so if you're given a rough and runny turd, polish it the best you can.

[bilateralrope]

IF the Electoral College hands the presidency to Clinton, will it still exist for the next presidential election ?

[The Romulan Republic]

IF the Electoral College hands the presidency to Clinton, will it still exist for the next presidential election ?

Maybe not.

And good bloody riddance to it.

[Flagg]

IF the Electoral College hands the presidency to Clinton, will it still exist for the next presidential election ?

It may in some form that effectively assigns votes based on land area. Instead of winner take all statewide, each elector would be chosen by the votes in every individual House of Representatives. That would be bad.

[The Romulan Republic]

IF the Electoral College hands the presidency to Clinton, will it still exist for the next presidential election ?

It may in some form that effectively assigns votes based on land area. Instead of winner take all statewide, each elector would be chosen by the votes in every individual House of Representatives. That would be bad.

Given how gerrymandered the House is, at that point, their'd scarcely be a point to running Democratic candidates for President any more.

[K. A. Pital]

Honestly this is not overly difficult.

Say I have two systems, operating in parallel. One a simple up or down majority vote, the other black box that is non-democratic but that gets fed information from the majority vote and spits out a result.

I can wish the black box is gone, while also hoping that its results match the results of the actual election.

Well, it does seem a bit difficult for me. Because if the black box produces a result you need or would like to happen, this kind of reinforces the value of the black box in the eyes of other people who want the same result.

Accepting the black box working as okay when it elects the right outcome is undermining the goal of getting rid of it. At some level it also undermines the criticism of the box, since people notice that the person is only unhappy about the outcome of the black box when it is against his desires.

I mean, I understand that it is not a complete either-or position and one can be unhappy about the EC while also accepting its results, but at this stage it seems like a strange longing for an even more outside the norm action (when have electors shot down a President elect, last time in history?).

I postulate that even if the more abnormal action would produce the "desirable" outcome, it is a dangerous outcome which makes the crazy cuckoo box even more unpredictable.

[bilateralrope]

The abnormal outcome, that of the EC giving the presidency to anyone other than Trump, has two possibly beneficial effects:
- Trump is not president.
- The general public gets to see that the EC can ignore the votes the public cast. Which will help shift public opinion against the EC, maybe by enough to get the EC replaced with something better.

IF the Electoral College hands the presidency to Clinton, will it still exist for the next presidential election ?

It may in some form that effectively assigns votes based on land area. Instead of winner take all statewide, each elector would be chosen by the votes in every individual House of Representatives. That would be bad.

Given how gerrymandered the House is, at that point, their'd scarcely be a point to running Democratic candidates for President any more.

Remember that, in my hypothetical of the EC making Clintion president, she would have veto powers. So any change would either have to be something she agrees with, or somehow bypasses the veto.

[Tribble]

The abnormal outcome, that of the EC giving the presidency to anyone other than Trump, has two possibly beneficial effects:
- Trump is not president.
- The general public gets to see that the EC can ignore the votes the public cast. Which will help shift public opinion against the EC, maybe by enough to get the EC replaced with something better.

The electoral college is almost certainly going to elect Trump because (and I know this may come as a massive surprise to some Democrats) they want to avoid that kind of controversy. Self preservation and all that. Sure you might have a few faithless electors this time around, but IMO it won't be enough to swing the vote over to Clinton.

As for abolishing the electoral college outright, while it might be lovely in theory it's not going to work in practice. Good luck convincing smaller states to switch to a system where their influence will be considerably reduced, if they are not outright ignored. IMO you would have a better chance convincing smaller states to switch to proportionality with their electors rather than the "winner take all" system most have right now.

[The Romulan Republic]

The abnormal outcome, that of the EC giving the presidency to anyone other than Trump, has two possibly beneficial effects:
- Trump is not president.
- The general public gets to see that the EC can ignore the votes the public cast. Which will help shift public opinion against the EC, maybe by enough to get the EC replaced with something better.

The electoral college is almost certainly going to elect Trump because (and I know this may come as a massive surprise to some Democrats) they want to avoid that kind of controversy. Self preservation and all that. Sure you might have a few faithless electors this time around, but IMO it won't be enough to swing the vote over to Clinton.

As for abolishing the electoral college outright, while it might be lovely in theory it's not going to work in practice. Good luck convincing smaller states to switch to a system where their influence will be considerably reduced, if they are not outright ignored. IMO you would have a better chance convincing smaller states to switch to proportionality with their electors rather than the "winner take all" system most have right now.

Well, that would be something, I suppose.

Of course, the counter argument to "small states will have less influence" is that without the EC and its winner take all approach to states, "winning states", big or small, wouldn't really matter. A voter in Iowa would count as much as a voter in California or Texas if we decided elections by a straight popular vote. It wouldn't matter if a candidate won the big states unless they either won them by ridiculous margins, or won enough votes in other states to push them over the top.

The only voters who would lose influence would be swing state voters, who would no longer matter more than everybody else.

Voters in small states that are solidly red or blue would actually gain influence.

[Tribble]

Of course, the counter argument to "small states will have less influence" is that without the EC and its winner take all approach to states,

Note that that the "winner take all" part of the electoral college is the biggest problem.

"winning states", big or small, wouldn't really matter.

Actually, winning big states would become far more important than it is right now. If a candidate wins via nationwide majority they will focus most if not all their efforts on the states with the biggest populations, as they would have the most to gain there. Smaller states would have even less influence on election results than they do right now.

A voter in Iowa would count as much as a voter in California or Texas if we decided elections by a straight popular vote.

Which is precisely why voters in Iowa would be against such a move. You seem to be forgetting that smaller states will almost certainly oppose any attempts to reduce their influence.

It wouldn't matter if a candidate won the big states unless they either won them by ridiculous margins, or won enough votes in other states to push them over the top.

IMO larger states would matter more than under the current system. Why waste time in a state like Iowa, when you could be spending time in California, Texas and New York? You have far more to gain by catering to large urban states than rural states if it were a direct election. Rural states are fully aware of that which is why they would oppose any such move.

The only voters who would lose influence would be swing state voters, who would no longer matter more than everybody else.

A similar thing would happen if the electors were based on proportionality in that state. On a related if voters in other states weren't "locked in" to a particular party this wouldn't be a problem. If anything it's the swing states which are most democratic as voters are willing to change their minds. If their one thing Californians and Texans have in common, it's how much they hate the swing states for refusing to stick to a party.

Voters in small states that are solidly red or blue would actually gain influence.

How? Their vote on an individual basis will be worth less, not more.

Let's take Montana as an example. Montana has a population of ~1 million. The USA has a total population of ~325 million. Under a pure proportional system, Montana would be worth ~1/325 of the total vote*. Under the current electoral college system, Montana get 3/538 electors. How exactly do you plan on convincing Montana voters to give up the electoral college when it means their vote would be worth significantly less than it does atm? IMO it would be a lot easier to convince them to at least make their electors proportionate instead of "winner take all".

*rough estimate, obviously the actual number of eligible voters is what matters, but I'm too lazy to look those up atm.

[Flagg]

The abnormal outcome, that of the EC giving the presidency to anyone other than Trump, has two possibly beneficial effects:
- Trump is not president.
- The general public gets to see that the EC can ignore the votes the public cast. Which will help shift public opinion against the EC, maybe by enough to get the EC replaced with something better.

It may in some form that effectively assigns votes based on land area. Instead of winner take all statewide, each elector would be chosen by the votes in every individual House of Representatives. That would be bad.

Given how gerrymandered the House is, at that point, their'd scarcely be a point to running Democratic candidates for President any more.

Remember that, in my hypothetical of the EC making Clintion president, she would have veto powers. So any change would either have to be something she agrees with, or somehow bypasses the veto.

Yeah, like a Constitutional Amendment. POTUS has absolutely no control over that process except for the bully pulpit.

[Flagg]

Of course, the counter argument to "small states will have less influence" is that without the EC and its winner take all approach to states,

Note that that the "winner take all" part of the electoral college is the biggest problem.

"winning states", big or small, wouldn't really matter.

Actually, winning big states would become far more important than it is right now. If a candidate wins via nationwide majority they will focus most if not all their efforts on the states with the biggest populations, as they would have the most to gain there. Smaller states would have even less influence on election results than they do right now.

A voter in Iowa would count as much as a voter in California or Texas if we decided elections by a straight popular vote.

Which is precisely why voters in Iowa would be against such a move. You seem to be forgetting that smaller states will almost certainly oppose any attempts to reduce their influence.

It wouldn't matter if a candidate won the big states unless they either won them by ridiculous margins, or won enough votes in other states to push them over the top.

IMO larger states would matter more than under the current system. Why waste time in a state like Iowa, when you could be spending time in California, Texas and New York? You have far more to gain by catering to large urban states than rural states if it were a direct election. Rural states are fully aware of that which is why they would oppose any such move.

The only voters who would lose influence would be swing state voters, who would no longer matter more than everybody else.

A similar thing would happen if the electors were based on proportionality in that state. On a related if voters in other states weren't "locked in" to a particular party this wouldn't be a problem. If anything it's the swing states which are most democratic as voters are willing to change their minds. If their one thing Californians and Texans have in common, it's how much they hate the swing states for refusing to stick to a party.

Voters in small states that are solidly red or blue would actually gain influence.

How? Their vote on an individual basis will be worth less, not more.

Let's take Montana as an example. Montana has a population of ~1 million. The USA has a total population of ~325 million. Under a pure proportional system, Montana would be worth ~1/325 of the total vote*. Under the current electoral college system, Montana get 3/538 electors. How exactly do you plan on convincing Montana voters to give up the electoral college when it means their vote would be worth significantly less than it does atm? IMO it would be a lot easier to convince them to at least make their electors proportionate instead of "winner take all".

*rough estimate, obviously the actual number of eligible voters is what matters, but I'm too lazy to look those up atm.

The "they will focus on big states and large urban areas, which is bad" argument has always had 2 problems, IMO.

Big electoral states are coastal and therefore have a much larger population and tend to be solid red or blue so get largely ignored, which seems to only be a bad thing when talking about small or medium sized states, which under the current system makes those votes count more.

Minority voters tend to be located in the large urban areas and states taken for granted now, so if the EC were chucked (which for the reasons you specify won't happen) they would have the same individual voting power that the majority white states' (which just so happen to be the ones where votes matter much more) voters have. So in magic pixie land with lollipops, gumdrops, and no EC, you remove one more instrument of institutionalized racism.

[Tribble]

Big electoral states are coastal and therefore have a much larger population and tend to be solid red or blue so get largely ignored, which seems to only be a bad thing when talking about small or medium sized states, which under the current system makes those votes count more.

Which is a big problem of the "winner take all" aspect of the electoral college. When a candidate feel that some states are "secure" he/she won't pay much attention to them.

Minority voters tend to be located in the large urban areas and states taken for granted now, so if the EC were chucked (which for the reasons you specify won't happen) they would have the same individual voting power that the majority white states' (which just so happen to be the ones where votes matter much more) voters have. So in magic pixie land with lollipops, gumdrops, and no EC, you remove one more instrument of institutionalized racism.

I agree, but again... it won't happen. That's why IMO trying to start a movement to replace the electoral college is a waste of time, and it would be much better to focus on reforming the electoral college to reflect proportionality at the state level.

[Starglider]

Does it actually matter which states candiates 'pay attention to'? The whole ludicrously long and convoluted campaign process is counterproductive anyway. There is little correlation between a candidate making more campaign stops in a state and whether their post-election behaviour actually favours that state; the location of their donor's business interests is far more relevant. The unequal distribution of campaign stops is frankly a minor issue and a distraction from the more serious problems with the US electoral system.

[Flagg]

Big electoral states are coastal and therefore have a much larger population and tend to be solid red or blue so get largely ignored, which seems to only be a bad thing when talking about small or medium sized states, which under the current system makes those votes count more.

Which is a big problem of the "winner take all" aspect of the electoral college. When a candidate feel that some states are "secure" he/she won't pay much attention to them.

Minority voters tend to be located in the large urban areas and states taken for granted now, so if the EC were chucked (which for the reasons you specify won't happen) they would have the same individual voting power that the majority white states' (which just so happen to be the ones where votes matter much more) voters have. So in magic pixie land with lollipops, gumdrops, and no EC, you remove one more instrument of institutionalized racism.

I agree, but again... it won't happen. That's why IMO trying to start a movement to replace the electoral college is a waste of time, and it would be much better to focus on reforming the electoral college to reflect proportionality at the state level.

The problem with doing it on a state level is that they all have to do it at once or one side gets an immediate advantage. Like if California did it and was the only big state to do so at the time, the Democrats won't win the election due to only getting part of the electoral votes, while the Republican gets all of Texas'.

[Flagg]

Does it actually matter which states candiates 'pay attention to'? The whole ludicrously long and convoluted campaign process is counterproductive anyway. There is little correlation between a candidate making more campaign stops in a state and whether their post-election behaviour actually favours that state; the location of their donor's business interests is far more relevant. The unequal distribution of campaign stops is frankly a minor issue and a distraction from the more serious problems with the US electoral system.

This is especially true with the advent of something called "Television".