Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem
 Share

Recommended Posts

I lived in the middle of nowhere in Nevada.

Yes, naturally areas with more people will show up on the map moreso than a small hamlet in the middle of nowhere, because... there's more people there.

What I don't understand is why someone in the middle of nowhere deserves a greater value added to their vote than someone living in Las Vegas because more people happen to live in that area. It feels like a weird irrational fear that all the librul city dwellers will just take everything over because they all happen to live in one cramped up space; if they were capable of doing that it would have already happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wisconsin: Hillary and her campaign didn't make a single stop here; they considered it a safe "blue firewall" state. Meanwhile, major GOP Wisconsinites (Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker) were busing themselves across the state campaigning.

I know Bernie and Chelsea Clinton showed up in October to campaign for Hillary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah? The news I've been reading must've meant that Hillary herself hadn't made any appearances in Wisconsin.

Trump held rallies in Wisconsin. Maybe voters like it better when the candidate himself/herself is there speaking to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah? The news I've been reading must've meant that Hillary herself hadn't made any appearances in Wisconsin.

Trump held rallies in Wisconsin. Maybe voters like it better when the candidate himself/herself is there speaking to them.

Yeah unfortunately I didn't go to any rallies cause I was always busy with something school related. I'm wondering if there was more confidence in Hillary's camp for Wisconsin cause I remember during the primaries people really didn't like Trump and I believe Cruz won our state

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If individual states don't deserve special consideration in the executive branch, why do they deserve it in the legislative?

Not continuing that game, I made my point. If you disagree, that's fine, but if you want to make a point, just fucking make it instead of trying to bait me in some kind of self-contradiction with these context-free questions.

Edited by ping
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do hope that Trump wins the popular vote because if Clinton won it my fellow liberals would just hold on to that, ignore everything else that happened in this election, proclaim the system to be rigged and refuse to change anything about themselves. We need to clearly and without any doubt see the product of our own arrogance shoved in our faces if we are to really change our approach to things.

I feel like the stereotypical millennial liberal has been given everything they've ever wanted, and now that they're in a situation where they lost, they have no idea how to lose with grace.

Just give them their participation medal for trying to ...do whatever they're doing and be on their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm sure the millennial liberal is perfectly content getting things they wanted like massive student loans and an economic crash and shitty job market

Growing up as a millennial liberal Im pretty sure I can call bullshit on the participation trophy thing because that was not a part of my growing up. That kind of thing is definitely overblown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like the stereotypical millennial liberal has been given everything they've ever wanted, and now that they're in a situation where they lost, they have no idea how to lose with grace.

Just give them their participation medal for trying to ...do whatever they're doing and be on their way.

Another broad sweeping generalization. Look, I don't agree with what these people are doing but to think that they are a representative of everyone in their age group is part of the same arrogant mindset that drove voters into Donald Trump's arms and propelled him to the presidency.

Edited by UNLEASH IT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless there are changes, it looks like Clinton wins a plurality of the popular vote, but even if we went by the Popular vote, instead of the Electoral College, she likely would have lost. Because you need a majority, not plurality to win, under the current presidential election rules.

In the electoral college, you have to win 50% +1 of the votes, otherwise the election goes to the House of Representatives. Nobody won an outright majority of the popular vote, so it would have gotten thrown to the House for a vote. Most likely, I could see Trump still winning, since the GOP holds the House. Next most likely, would be Gary Johnson being picked as a compromise candidate, since a lot in the GOP don't like Trump. Here, Hillary winning would be the least likely scenario.

The election has only gone to the House once, and in that case, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of popular votes, but lost to John Quincy Adams, who built a coalition to get more votes than Jackson.

The Electoral College system is flawed, but going strictly by first past the post for a popular vote is also flawed, since it allows for plurality winners quite often in a pool of more than 2 candidates. Preferential voting would be superior to both, since it gives 3rd parties a chance and produces the candidates that the majority of voters is always satisfied with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be wrong, but a more likely regulation for the case of no absolute majority would be a 2nd vote just between the two candidates with the most votes in the first run.

Edited by ping
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be wrong, but a more likely regulation for the case of no absolute majority would be a 2nd vote just between the two candidates with the most votes in the first run.

In preferential voting, that would be unnecessary, since after the first round, if no one got 50%, it throws out the lowest first-place vote getter and adds their second place vote to whoever they selected, and continues this process until someone has 50%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In preferential voting, that would be unnecessary, since after the first round, if no one got 50%, it throws out the lowest first-place vote getter and adds their second place vote to whoever they selected, and continues this process until someone has 50%.

Yes, preferential voting does seem to be the best system. I'd also like to see mandatory voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, preferential voting does seem to be the best system. I'd also like to see mandatory voting.

I don't think mandatory voting is a great idea. If people don't have enough motivation to learn about the issues and candidates, they really shouldn't be voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think mandatory voting is a great idea. If people don't have enough motivation to learn about the issues and candidates, they really shouldn't be voting.

It depends. From what I've seen, mandatory voting gives some people a reason to learn about the issues and candidates while others continue to not care (although your experience might be different). It's also something that I'd like to see, but I acknowledge that America's political climate isn't something that would lend easily to such a thing, seeing how voting is seen as a right rather than a duty. Regardless, in my personal opinion the fact that America regularly sees 60~% voter turnout is ridiculous to me.

Edited by The Blind Idiot God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://time.com/4566304/donald-trump-revenge-of-the-white-man/?xid=homepage

Looks like some people haven't learned from this at all.

The funny thing is, if the media and liberals continue to condemn Trump supporters as racist idiots over the next 4 years, he could very well win the presidency again, whether he fucks up or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This made me chuckle

tumblr_inline_ogg93fsSEG1rilbqj_500.jpg

Funny, but hopefully we have some younger blood next election cycle. It's unsettling when the term exceeds the average life expectancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So ... serious question. Has anyone demanded to see Trump's tax returns and birth certificate yet?

They demanded to see his tax returns months ago, and he basically said no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welp. Time for someone who's a Democrat but not a politician to bug him about it (and his birth certificate) for the next four years, and then run for president against him in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...