It looks like Hillary won the popular vote. Gore Mark II

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
33,419
No it won't. It is, as expected, underreported in the media.

Before the election there was wall to wall coverage of the hypothetical "danger" posed by Trump supporters.


After the election there more sympathy for, than concern over, violent rioting Hillary mobs.
We must be reading different newspapers then. Or else if it's underreported, that means the country must be in a state of anarchy.
 


sadcitizen

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
4,271
It's lucky the Electoral College exists. It's unfair that dense cities can have such a large effect on the outcome when it's, to some degree, a requirement to vote a certain way to live peacefully in those cities. The high profile witchhunts have been endless during this cycle; I've never seen the like.

What it's like to be a secret Donald Trump supporter in Silicon Valley - Business Insider

The software engineer works for a big tech company, went to a top-tier university, and loves doing innovative work.

But one thing makes him very different: He supports Donald Trump.
In Silicon Valley — which prides itself on open-mindedness, a system of meritocracy, and a thirst for innovation — Jake's support of Trump is more than just outside the mainstream. It's a dangerous liability.

Since he's told people of his support, friends who he thought were close have stopped talking to him. His coworkers shirk the subject. What used to be personal relationships at work are now only professional conversations, he says.

Now Jake tries to keep his Trump support a secret. Despite supporting the candidate both financially and in person, Jake believes his entire career could be at risk if his name were publicly linked to Trump. Business Insider agreed to interview him over email on conditions of anonymity and that we change his first name in the story.

Jake points often to Brendan Eich, a millionaire and creator of the Mozilla browser, who had to step down after his financial support of Prop 8, a California measure aimed at blocking same-sex marriage, came to light a couple of years ago. And unlike Eich, Jake says he doesn't have the millions or the untouchable public stature of Peter Thiel to be out as a Trump supporter.

"Silicon Valley these days is a very intolerant place for people who do not hold so called 'socially liberal' ideas," Jake says.
Peter Thiel Should Be Fired for Donald Trump Support. Or Not.

There have been calls for both Facebook FB -0.09% and YC to dump Thiel (something both have refused to do), and just yesterday we heard venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya (a former FB exec who wanted to help manage a Mike Bloomberg run) say at the Vanity Fair Summit that he’d (hypothetically) kick Thiel off the board of a company he controls.

And I agree with the pitch-forkers. Thiel has to go. Not from his own funds, of course, but from third-party organizations whose continuing embrace of Thiel is a de facto acceptance of his candidate’s racist proposals (banning immigrants based on their religion) and pathological misogyny. Thiel isn’t publicly endorsing those parts of Trump, but picking a president isn’t a trip to the salad bar. You get the whole meal. Thiel’s continuing presence at Facebook and YC is a cocky, counterproductive reminder to female and minority entrepreneurs that they are second-class citizens in the white boys club of Silicon Valley.

Particularly at Facebook, where he plays a very active role (flashback to my Uber/Saudi argument). Had Thiel said many of the things Trump has said, he’d have been fired (as YC’s Sam Altman acknowledges). His escalating support cannot be excused because there is a degree of separation. And if YC once banned certain companies from Demo Day because they supported SOPA, it currently can ban a part-time advisor for this.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,182
Enda Kenny got only 25% of the vote yet he's leading the government. Sort out electoral inequity on your own doorstep first.
These are the vagaries of democracy. Camerons party got about 37% of the vote in the last British election but won more than half the seats to form the Government of which he is no longer a member.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
35,498
I think one of the reasons why the system is as it is goes back to the original13 colonies where the white population of the New England states was greater than that of the southern states but total population was not, a lot of fudges were made to avoid taking a stand against slavery.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
These are the vagaries of democracy. Camerons party got about 37% of the vote in the last British election but won more than half the seats to form the Government of which he is no longer a member.
Britain is a feckin trainwreck in terms of democracy. Yet that referendum on changing the system proves that the majorty of the passengers or on the train voluntarily.

Mad.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
We must be reading different newspapers then. Or else if it's underreported, that means the country must be in a state of anarchy.
Really?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

The closest you get is a single, second line, link "Anti-Trump vigils and protests"


"Protests" and "vigils". Yep, it's just some peaceful protest.


But apparently, Trump heralded a "threat of destruction and mayhem" if he didn't win

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-destruction-and-mayhem-this-chart-shows-how/

You can't deny that in an alternative universe, a modest anti-Hillary protest, attacked by a Democrat mob would have smothered coverage as being a Trump-caused bloodbath threatening the very existence of the USA as a democracy.



Once again, the Libtard left is the lying, violent, fascist tendency in our society. And the media is basically their willing mouthpiece and propaganda tool.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
A system that gives political victory to a 50.55% poll over a 50.45% poll is essentially deeply unsatisfactory and not decisive in a meaningful way.

The USA electoral college avoids this pitfall by turning all the votes won by simple majority in each state into a set number of electors who must then all vote in favour of the majority vote.

This device I believe helps to ensure that whoever wins does so on the basis of what is seen as a decisive result.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
These are the vagaries of democracy. Camerons party got about 37% of the vote in the last British election but won more than half the seats to form the Government of which he is no longer a member.

And some people still think the British PM is directly elected,
instead of being the MP, not necessarily even leader of the largest party, who commands the confidence of the majority of the house.

I blame telly ...
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
I think one of the reasons why the system is as it is goes back to the original13 colonies where the white population of the New England states was greater than that of the southern states but total population was not, a lot of fudges were made to avoid taking a stand against slavery.
Yes. I believe the pre-civil war weighting was that that each southern state would a say proportional to the number of free persons in the state plus half the number of slaves. Of course, that didn't mean slaves could vote.

At some time after the civil war it got even worse in some places: the number of votes was proportional to the population, yet black people effectively had no right to vote in wide areas of many states.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
13,133
A system that gives political victory to a 50.55% poll over a 50.45% poll is essentially deeply unsatisfactory and not decisive in a meaningful way.

The USA electoral college avoids this pitfall by turning all the votes won by simple majority in each state into a set number of electors who must then all vote in favour of the majority vote.

This device I believe helps to ensure that whoever wins does so on the basis of what is seen as a decisive result.
It's fundamentally unsatisfactory, though, when the person with more votes loses. The College just divides this close vote up. It's the same problem as FPTP which I am so glad Ireland does not have.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

I think one of the reasons why the system is as it is goes back to the original13 colonies where the white population of the New England states was greater than that of the southern states but total population was not, a lot of fudges were made to avoid taking a stand against slavery.
Yes. I believe the pre-civil war weighting was that that each southern state would a say proportional to the number of free persons in the state plus half the number of slaves. Of course, that didn't mean slaves could vote.

At some time after the civil war it got even worse in some places: the number of votes was proportional to the population, yet black people effectively had no right to vote in wide areas of many states.
It was called the Three Fifths Compromise. It suited everyone at the time, since they all profited from slavery.

http://constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
The US has a very robust institutional electoral system which has with-stood much greater shocks than one mediocre candidate losing to another.

US elections, bar really dull ones, have always been characterised by rowdiness. Not so long ago the US reeled when a highly popular senator, who had thrown his hat in the ring at a late stage and was drawing massive crowds, was shot dead on a hotel kitchen floor.

This same Senator had been virtually the only white person to go into a black neighbourhood that was torn apart by rioting. They ran beside his car, scrambled on board and hugged him.

Trumps election is nothing compared to some the US has had in the past.

Perspective, people, perspective.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
It's fundamentally unsatisfactory, though, when the person with more votes loses. The College just divides this close vote up. It's the same problem as FPTP which I am so glad Ireland does not have.
On a close call around 50 to 50 I dont think it is fundamentally unsatisfactory.

The other way around is that an election result needs 60% of the popular vote to stand.

Anything less is not truly satisfactory as it leaves around half the voters feeling tricked.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
33,419
Really?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

The closest you get is a single, second line, link "Anti-Trump vigils and protests"
Funny because I've been seeing front page headlines like this :
'Trump is not my President' - Windows smashed, bins on fire as protests against Donald Trump's victory continue in several states - Independent.ie

With large colour photos and/or video clips.

So unless the WP is the entire media, your claim is completely OTT.

EDIT : and you also missed this, also from the WP and also on the front screen, like the one you linked to :
Forget reconciliation for thousands it's #nevermypresident when it comes to Donald Trump/

(I hadn't looked at the WaPo when I replied to you, I was going by what I'd seen myself - but even the WaPO doesn't take as dismissive a view of the events as you try to make out.)
 
Last edited:

sadcitizen

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
4,271
The US has a very robust institutional electoral system which has with-stood much greater shocks than one mediocre candidate losing to another.

US elections, bar really dull ones, have always been characterised by rowdiness. Not so long ago the US reeled when a highly popular senator, who had thrown his hat in the ring at a late stage and was drawing massive crowds, was shot dead on a hotel kitchen floor.

This same Senator had been virtually the only white person to go into a black neighbourhood that was torn apart by rioting. They ran beside his car, scrambled on board and hugged him.

Trumps election is nothing compared to some the US has had in the past.

Perspective, people, perspective.
Sounds like you're in the denial phase. There are grief counsellors available..
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
Sounds like you're in the denial phase. There are grief counsellors available..

Not at all.

I look forward to der Donalds attempts to extricate himself from his promises.

And I am delighted HRC did not win because she was on the war-path at all costs.
 

Glaucon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
8,595
Hillary and Trump both got less than Obama did - twice.

If either had run against him, he would have whupped their ass.

As for the US EC system, there are lots of ways you can look at it, but put very simply the country is the United States of America (not just America). Thats why States decide on the popular vote within each State and not on a brute head count of the entire electorate.
According to Nate Cohn (NYT)

A lot of vote left to count--final tally will be > 2012. And don't forget the third party vote.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796396102450696192?lang=en

They're predicting a final result of Clinton 63.4m, Trump 61.2m.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
Hillary and Trump both got less than Obama did - twice.

If either had run against him, he would have whupped their ass.

As for the US EC system, there are lots of ways you can look at it, but put very simply the country is the United States of America (not just America). Thats why States decide on the popular vote within each State and not on a brute head count of the entire electorate.
Its extremely doubtful the OP would have started this thread had Trump won the popular vote and Clinton the electoral college vote.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom