General US Politics

[Water Mage]

Voting is mandatory yet we still have a lot of abstencion. Last regional election we had a 33% abstencion + spoiled ballot rate, with abstencion being the majority of those.

Then there's the fact many consider mandatory voting not democratic. I think that it's not a nice thing. The problem is that it's relatively hard to vote in the us, and then there's the fact voting takes place in a week day, and you also have alleged voters supression.

I don't disagree with you on the fact that mandatory is not exactly a good thing.

When I asked about mandatory votes, I was asking how elections in the US would turn out with mandatory votes.

For example, would Trump still be elected this year? Or was he elected because of absence of voters?

[Lord Raven]

Whoops, I must've missed it. Sorry about that!

(I-I didn't mind too much, senpai~)

I kind of understand mail-in voting? But at the same time I don't understand actually getting the ballot mailed to you.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Lord Raven

[UNLEASH IT]

Low black voter turnout is the only theory I can entertain for Michigan and PA. Those two and New Hampshire would've tied it.

So, despite going out of her way to reach out to minorities (possibly at the expense of working class whites), black turnout for Hillary was still low and white votes that she thought she didn't need ended up costing her the states.

[Crysta]

I'm pretty sure it was a combination of people not showing up because of a lack of enthusiasm for their candidate/lazy and thought she had it in the bag and underestimating how many fervent Trump supporters would come out of the woodwork to vote (possibly for the first time).

In this sense Bernie would have had an easier time getting Democrats out and excited, but I also think there's an often-overlooked fact that Jews and socialists have been maligned in far right circles for a long time. The DNC fucked up and threw chairs in his way in favor of their preferred candidate, but they were far kinder to him than I think the Trump faction would have been.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Crysta

[Just call me AL]

here is something to be hopeful about. an anti-establisment moron won. americans are very obviously completely fed up with politicians. there's hope for a populist progressive movement yet.

Provided that Republicans don't get in the way of said movement, that is.

[UNLEASH IT]

I'm pretty sure it was a combination of people not showing up because of a lack of enthusiasm for their candidate/lazy and thought she had it in the bag and underestimating how many fervent Trump supporters would come out of the woodwork to vote (possibly for the first time).

So liberal complacency. As I thought. We deserve everything that's coming to us.

Edited November 10, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Irysa]

Possibly compacency, but also might have something to do with the Trump campaign's voter suppression objectives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-voter-suppression.html

[Phoenix Wright]

I still don't understand how she lost Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and even Iowa, states that Obama won by a very large margin in both 2008 and 2012. These states are what cost her the election in the end.

because as a candidate clinton sucked. read michael moore's pretty excellent reasoning from july. http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

Provided that Republicans don't get in the way of said movement, that is.

democrats will lose if they continue to be corrupt and fight themselves from the inside. progressivism is pretty tantalizing if you can get another sanders out there, or a kucinich. a "real" progressive, so to speak.

the gop is stronger than the democratic party, of that im sure. but i feel at this point, and if the republican run goes a fraction as badly as i think it will, america will be more than willing for a progressive president and a left-leaning congress.

[RedRob]

Possibly compacency, but also might have something to do with the Trump campaign's voter suppression objectives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-voter-suppression.html

Christ, that's just underhanded, and kind of hypocritical considering his attitude towards Hillary and the whole email scandal.

And on the topic of voter turnout, to the person who brought it up, I busted out my Government AP book since I'm taking that class this year, this is what it had on voter turnout.

The main problem is that many who are eligible to vote aren't registered, which the book says might be to due how it's all on the person to get registered and go through the process. In comparison, in most European nations, it's done for you by the government. Though, we had a motor-voter law passed in 1993 which allowed to get registered when they applied for driver's licenses, and the turnout didn't increase much. It also brought up how voting is only one form of participating in politics, and that there are other forms, like supporting social movements and writing to legislators, and that if one judged by these measures, Americans might actually participate more in politics than Europeans or other countries.

So the turnout isn't fully representative of the American attitude towards politics. That said, the book was the 8th edition of American Government by James Q. Wilson and John J. DiLulio Jr., if anyone wants to know.

Edited November 10, 2016 by RedRob

[Rezzy]

It looks like Clinton is winning the popular vote over Trump 47.7% to 47.5%, but the fact remains that neither candidate captured 50%, so either way more people didn't want eitehr in office than did. So replacing the Electoral College for a straight First past the post is by no means an ideal system.

Here's a CGP Grey video explaining the flaws with the system.

Winning by plurality where a majority doesn't want whoever wins is a big problem with the First past the post system.

[UNLEASH IT]

the gop is stronger than the democratic party, of that im sure. but i feel at this point, and if the republican run goes a fraction as badly as i think it will, america will be more than willing for a progressive president and a left-leaning congress.

I just hope the Democratic Party doesn't lose their minds and chose Clinton again. What a colossal fuck-up of a candidate she was.

[eclipse]

I just hope the Democratic Party doesn't lose their minds and chose Clinton again. What a colossal fuck-up of a candidate she was.

After EVERYTHING that's aired, I doubt that'll be the case. I suspect their next candidate will be someone ridiculously "safe".

[Crysta]

I don't think she's going to run again after this.

But I am confident in our ability to pick someone else horrible lol

Edited November 10, 2016 by Crysta

[Nobody]

I legitimatelly like Hillary, but I think her political career is done. If she decided to run again, which would be dumb and selfish (and she'd be too old), I doubt she'd win a primary.

Who do you guys think could be the democratic nominee in 2020? They really need a new Obama.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Rezzy]

I legitimatelly like Hillary, but I think her political carrer is done. If she decided to run again, I doubt she'd win a primary.

Who do you guys think could be the democratic nominee in 2020? They really need a new Obama.

Maybe Elizabeth Warren or somebody young who hasn't reached national prominence yet. Hard to say 4 years out.

[-Cynthia-]

I just hope the Democratic Party doesn't lose their minds and chose Clinton again. What a colossal fuck-up of a candidate she was.

Most candidates don't seem to run again after they've lost in a presidential election(Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole...)

[RedRob]

Apparently, in some random store, Hillary is President. It's weirdly amusing if anyone needs a laugh. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/5c3h9a/my_brother_works_at_a_grocery_store_these_were/

Fixed the link.

Edited November 10, 2016 by RedRob

[Lord Raven]

^ 404

So, despite going out of her way to reach out to minorities (possibly at the expense of working class whites), black turnout for Hillary was still low and white votes that she thought she didn't need ended up costing her the states.

Yeah, but many weren't feeling it. One of my best friends (thankfully he lives in Mass - that's probably why he didn't vote) didn't vote, among others, because he didn't feel enthusiastic about Hillary. Many millennial minorities feel this way and see past her.

EDIT: said friend is black and an immigrant by the way.

I'm pretty sure it was a combination of people not showing up because of a lack of enthusiasm for their candidate/lazy and thought she had it in the bag and underestimating how many fervent Trump supporters would come out of the woodwork to vote (possibly for the first time).

In this sense Bernie would have had an easier time getting Democrats out and excited, but I also think there's an often-overlooked fact that Jews and socialists have been maligned in far right circles for a long time. The DNC fucked up and threw chairs in his way in favor of their preferred candidate, but they were far kinder to him than I think the Trump faction would have been.

Not only that, but he posted a teenage rape fantasy somewhere to explain gender roles. I got his point, but the public isn't going to look up the information or context. There's a few skeletons in his closet as a result of him being old as fuck.

(This is why I don't think we should have old candidates, because they've all got skeletons that turn everything into a smear campaign, and many just aren't in tune with the times.)

@Phoenix - too lazy to quote, I'm reading that article and it's actually interesting to read, because you can pretty much say the exact same with Gore, although Gore wasn't going against Trump.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Res]

Yeah, none of my trans friends and most of my activist friends did not vote. Neither party was giving them any reassurances. My cis female friends, though, overwhelming did vote, although for many it was a 'guess I'm with her' stance, largely out of fear; Trump seems to remind a lot of women of their rapists and abusers in how he acts and what he says. (My husband did not vote, but after today I think he'll finally get politically active, which is pretty huge). Basically, few people seemed to be wholeheartedly for Clinton.

[Just call me AL]

In relation to the Electoral College thing, my dad was watching an episode of Homework Hotline, about the election process. According to a professor that appeared on that episode, electoral votes are determined by the House of Representatives, and in some fashion, the majority does determine which candidate becomes President.

I guess, with that in consideration, Gerrymandering might also have some blame for last night's disaster?

Edited November 10, 2016 by Just call me AL

[Naughx]

Winning by plurality where a majority doesn't want whoever wins is a big problem with the First past the post system.

I really dislike the FPtP system... It crazy here how governments here in Canada can get a majority with less than 40% of the vote.

[Nobody]

In relation to the Electoral College thing, my dad was watching an episode of Homework Hotline, about the election process. According to a professor that appeared on that episode, electoral votes are determined by the House of Representatives, and in some fashion, the majority does determine which candidate becomes President, I guess, with that in consideration, Gerrymandering might also have some blame for last night's disaster?

No, it had nothing to do with it.

Like, electoral votes are determined by the house of representatives because the amount of electoral votes a state gets is the number of seats they have in the house of representatives + 2. The distribution of the districts in the states does not matter, even if they're extremely gerrymandered.

What happened was that Hillary had a lot of close loses (FL, WI, PA and MI), and she also did relatively well in republican states with many minorities like Texas, Arizona and Georgia as well as solid (by that I mean, really solid, not "I thought they were solid") Democratic states like California.

That is, Clinton lost despite winning popular vote because she lost important states by a low margin. It has nothing do with Gerrymandering, just with how electoral college is.

To put this in perspective, the gap between her and Trump was basically the same in Ohio and Texas, which is insane considering how these states went in 2012.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Life]

No, it had nothing to do with it.

Like, electoral votes are determined by the house of representatives because the amount of electoral votes a state gets is the number of seats they have in the house of representatives + 2. The distribution of the districts in the states does not matter, even if they're extremely gerrymandered.

What happened was that Hillary had a lot of close loses (FL, WI, PA and MI), and she also did relatively well in republican states with many minorities like Texas, Arizona and Georgia as well as solid (by that I mean, really solid, not "I thought they were solid") Democratic states like California.

That is, Clinton lost despite winning popular vote because she lost important states by a low margin. It has nothing do with Gerrymandering, just with how electoral college is.

To put this in perspective, the gap between her and Trump was basically the same in Ohio and Texas, which is insane considering how these states went in 2012.

She also lost 10 million Democrat voters since 2008.

Clinton should only blame herself for this one.

[Rezzy]

In relation to the Electoral College thing, my dad was watching an episode of Homework Hotline, about the election process. According to a professor that appeared on that episode, electoral votes are determined by the House of Representatives, and in some fashion, the majority does determine which candidate becomes President.

I guess, with that in consideration, Gerrymandering might also have some blame for last night's disaster?

As Nobody said, the Electoral College just districbutes the votes to the states by Representative+Senator population, which gives a slight advantage to smaller states.

One way is to look at the electoral college like a baseball or football season where each state is its own game. Scoring the most runs or points in the season will definitely give you an advantage to winning the season overall, but it's each game that counts. So it's better to win a lot of close games, than to have a few blowout wins, but then lose the close games. Winning by 70% in California would do a lot to help in gaining the popular vote overall, but is no better than winning at 51% for the electoral college.

[Nobody]

She also lost 10 million Democrat voters since 2008.

Clinton should only blame herself for this one.

I never said she did not. I think she lost because of mistakes she made.

I just explained how she won popular vote while losing the electoral college and why it had nothing to do with gerrymandering

Edited November 10, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody