So what do you have to back up your opinion that losing the popular vote hamper the president from pursuing his agenda?
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
So what do you have to back up your opinion that losing the popular vote hamper the president from pursuing his agenda?
Well I'd say the only real difference is whether you can reasonably round it up to 2% or not. But it's not gonna be the difference between the public thinking he has a mandate and not, no. Still, 2 is nicer than 1 and a bit.
Just a general recognition of the current situation in the country. Trump ran on a divisive platform and is already moderating his entire agenda to be more inclusive and is considering cabinet members who can work with establishment Republicans and Dems. When you overlay this on top of his deal making agenda, he is likely to get a few things done, especially if he is regarded as having lost the popular vote. That only adds pressure on him to perform and create tangible results in terms of job creation, GDP growth, and overall economic empowerment.
To what extent is the "popular vote" relevant in the American syatem ? Isn't it a first past the post sytem in which unity is guaranteed because certain states make sacrifices with regard to their population ? I undersand that California's population should give it more than it has if things were done in absolute terms, but maybe I've got that wrong.
It's a system explicitly created to empower the slave states (when blacks were counted as 3/5th of a person, thus giving them disproportionate electoral power). All subsequent arguments in favour of ever since are just rationalisation of that inconvenient fact.
You can also dig up Federalist #68 to read Hamilton's opinion on the matter.
Each state is apportioned a certain amount of electoral votes relative to their population. This changes as the years go by and actual state populations fluctuate. You can see this here if you click on the past few elections and look at changes in EVs for states like Florida, Ohio, Texas etc.
http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
Both first past the post and electoral college are flawed systems (but to be honest, all voting systems will have some flaws or another).
I think an instant-runoff voting system would work much better than the above 2.
I don't think it does, not in the American system.The winner is in for 4 years and if his party also control Congress, they can pretty well do what they like. It is not like Canada or the UK where a narrow win leaves you in a minority situation where you have to take other parties oppinions into account.
It is kind of like winning the league on goal differential, you still end up being champions, no matter who claim you don't deserve it.
So if the number of votes cast in favour of a particular candidate is not relevant, why all the discussion about the popular vote, unless the aim is to change the system ? I mean his victory is still legitimate despite losing the popular vote ?
Last edited:
Seems like the thawing of relations with Cuba will be short-lived following his Castro comments.
Stein is an actual embarrassment.
can't she go away for another four years already?
It will also really piss him off they the majority of Americans voted for Clinton. If this was Celebrity Apprentice he would be fired.
spot on.The funny thing is that was the election that Nixon was so paranoid about.That link was pretty interesting! 1972
Btw, Reagan in '84 was a bigger margin of victory... But '36 is the biggest ever.
FFS!
If the results were reversed the repubs would be using the popular vote as an excuse to block everything. Hopefully the dems just use it to block the more loopy stuff that this administration cooks up.
Nothing of any substance or meaningful difference is going to change under Trump.
Somebody remind me I posted this in four years time.
Somebody remind me I posted this in four years time.
Recount seems a bit insane. If it were one or two states where Clinton lost, and it was very close (Florida '00 close), it would make sense. But Clinton was destroyed in the electoral college map. You could give her a couple of states that she didn't win and she'd still have lost overall.
Watching Drumpf moan on Twitter is worth the price of the recount alone.
You give her 3 states which she lost by 100k total and she would win
Yeah, but in the petition for the recount they even acknowledge that the closest of these states (roughly 10k in the difference) represents a larger total difference than the biggest result overturned in US election history via recount.
Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.
For clarity, that's not from the people filing the petition, that's Clinton's camp saying they'd rather not be doing this. Stein is just trying to get publicity after failing in the election, and pretending she didn't get the overall outcome she wanted.
Yeah, I just realised it came from Elias, rather than the Greens. Standard statement I guess, and I'd agree on your last statement. I can't think of any other reason.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/u...l-join-push-for-wisconsin-ballot-recount.html
Hillary's camp is joining the recount for WI
Hillary's camp is joining the recount for WI
I'm sure i'm missing bits here, but still, he's not making any sense and there is about 10 minutes between each Tweet
Surely he has more important things to be doing?Unbelievable.
Last edited:
I'm sure i'm missing bits here, but still, he's not making any sense and there is about 10 minutes between each Tweet
Unbelievable.
Is it?
And there's more.................
Such a feckwit.
On the bright side, he's clearly squirming in insecurity to be tweeting about something so allegedly futile. Probably a result of growing media coverage.
I'm sure i'm missing bits here, but still, he's not making any sense and there is about 10 minutes between each Tweet
Unbelievable.
I don't think that's him. He usually makes more errors than that and his formatting was never that good.
Has someone writing his tweets now, most likely. And, as incoherent as it is, it reads like a prepared statement in Trump terms.
Yeah, I suppose so. The reports that over 5000 votes were discounted from 4 boroughs of Wisconsin must surely be a worry for him. Apparently they all had more votes than actual voters. Also, he's clearly worrying when he shouldn't be, which begs the question, does he know something we all don't?
Maybe, but he does still write a fair few Tweets, and even if that isn't him, it's either been dictated to the poster OR they are trying to make it seem like him with the SAD! at the end, which ironically makes it even all the more SAD!
What if all the "the election is rigged" was true after all and he was saying it so loud and so often because he was the one rigging it.why was there not an automatic recount?
The vote difference between the main candidates was less than 28,000.
The vote difference between the main candidates was less than 28,000.
Rigception
- Status