Morax wrote:
Have fun when other countries in Europe leave the EU and the conservative parties gain more power! You think this was a clown show wait until you see what happens over there for you
The arrogance of people like this who think they know anything about the US is hilarious. Have you been here before and worked with anyone? What besides your news and media in EU do you have as a source for this belief?
RocketRooster wrote:I, for one, would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the American people for a very entertaining clown show.
Have fun when other countries in Europe leave the EU and the conservative parties gain more power! You think this was a clown show wait until you see what happens over there for you
The arrogance of people like this who think they know anything about the US is hilarious. Have you been here before and worked with anyone? What besides your news and media in EU do you have as a source for this belief?
Quite apart from the fact that I'm not from the EU to begin with, you're being foolish if you expect me to deliver peer reviewed evidence that the 2016 elections have been a clown show. All you need are eyes to see.
But apparently one can only have a coherent opinion on the USA if one is American, is that it?
I hate to disappoint, but Fox news doesn't broadcast here.
Statistics: Posted by RocketRooster — 11 Nov 2016, 05:34
]]>
]]>
It gives some people's votes more ability to affect the outcome than others, e.g 1 guy in Vermont's vote is worth 3 Texans votes. This is a huge issue, as currently you can win a presidential election with less than 22% of the popular vote.
As we've just seen, 4 times in history (and another, 5th time which sorta doesn't count because house of reps decided on the president) a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election - this time in 2016 by 100 electoral votes, which is crazy. Clinton would have had to win 10 or so small states, or a few of the bigger ones for that to occur, so for her to win she would have had to get about 5 million more votes than trump because of the distribution of people in the states.
The elector's decision is voted by the state. Winner take all when 50%+ votes of a state for one candidate, so that one party wins ALL the votes ... IF the elector doesn't just ignore the people and vote how they like, which like mentioned before, isn't law in some states.
There's more stupid shit, but that's the gist.
I will clarify this is just problems with the system itself.
Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 10 Nov 2016, 21:49
]]>
Not ready to agree there is no corruption, but maybe over the next week some stuff will come to light.
There is a great book "Too Close to Call" that explained all the messed up stuff that happened (what I call corruption) in those events along with a great HBO film that was based off this (if you don't have time to read
)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1000771/
If you read the book and movie you will see why I have this feeling. I promise you I'm not some misinformed psycho that has 0 basis for my beliefs.
Sorry if I got a little challenging here but I've met many politicians and people that work with them in my life around the US; they are all pretty awful in my book.... democrat or republican.
Statistics: Posted by Morax — 10 Nov 2016, 20:45
]]>
That being said, the electoral/popular paradox is not due to lack of control on the electoral college (although here again, wtf, of course, it can only raise suspicions), but to the "winner takes all" principles applied in most states. i.e if you're confident you have the majority in a given state, it is pointless to strive for more. Also, basically, if in your state, the candidate you support has over the majority of popular votes, anyone on your side after the majority point could have staid in bed, they voted for nothing.
The Pew article is quite enligthening on the effect of this throughout US history.
So, yeah, weird, complicated, eyebrow raising, but no evidence of corruptions. Everybody said at times it should be scrapped, (including Trum), but I understand it would require a change in your constitution.
Statistics: Posted by Zoram — 10 Nov 2016, 20:37
]]>
"Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties."
It appears the reason popular vote did not uphold hear and back in 2000 is probably because of states where they are not required to be directed by popular vote.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... #selection
This system is quite complicated, Zoram. Rather cast stones at each other I think it's best to admit the "goal post movement" is because one is sure there is missing information on both ends.
I was under the impression it's law in almost every state that electors use popular vote. I suppose I'm wrong there, but with this rarely happening it's hard to have justified knowing this piece of such a complex machine.
Statistics: Posted by Morax — 10 Nov 2016, 20:15
]]>
object
There is a small select amount of people here that are good and then there are those who take advantage of all the dumb dumbs.
Europe seemed like a nice alternative until "Brexit" happened and it became apparent that extreme conservatives there are going to rise up.
I wish you luck rather want to criticize your findings further. Hopefully you guys can block in your countries and union what happened hear in the states.
Statistics: Posted by Morax — 10 Nov 2016, 20:02
]]>
Morax wrote:
Congratulations, you can post internet articles but can't share direct experience. Please do tell me how you have been part of our system and seen this all for yourself? I'd like to know how you are so sure of yourself just because you read "what it should be" on paper.
Experience is king. Use reason, stories, and logic of your own building to tell me you know how things truly work.
Congratulations, you can post internet articles but can't share direct experience. Please do tell me how you have been part of our system and seen this all for yourself? I'd like to know how you are so sure of yourself just because you read "what it should be" on paper.
Experience is king. Use reason, stories, and logic of your own building to tell me you know how things truly work.
your argue by moving the goal post every time you're proven wrong, way to go.
You asked how there could be a difference between popular vote and electoral college vote in the absence of corruption, I showed how. Indeed, by pointing to a source, as the US voting system, albeit fucke up, is documented, and there's nothing secret about it.
You now move the goal post to "direct experience". Say what ? Have you ? Have you seen anyone switching a ballot ? Have you been behind millions of your fellow americans . I guess not.
Morax wrote:
I'd like to know how you are so sure of yourself just because you read "what it should be" on paper.
Experience is king. Use reason, stories, and logic of your own building to tell me you know how things truly work.
Yet you're using neither experience, nor reason or logic. You're asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. You assess the election is rigged, you bring the evidence.
Until then, it's just another example of how your electoral system works. You'd think if a powerful puppetmaster was at play, he would have lined up both popular vote and electoral vote ...
Statistics: Posted by Zoram — 10 Nov 2016, 20:01
]]>
Experience is king. Use reason, stories, and logic of your own building to tell me you know how things truly work.
Statistics: Posted by Morax — 10 Nov 2016, 19:50
]]>
Morax wrote:
Yeah, and we are still wondering why our "electorates" did not choose Gore when we made the majority vote. There is supposed to be a direct link to popular and electoral vote, so explain to me how it is not corruption?
Zoram wrote:Morax wrote:I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ent=202709
so ? this is not evidence of corruption. This is your system at play, same as Gore Vs Bush earlier.
Yeah, and we are still wondering why our "electorates" did not choose Gore when we made the majority vote. There is supposed to be a direct link to popular and electoral vote, so explain to me how it is not corruption?
you really want a French guy to explain you how your own country works ?
No, there isn't a direct link between popular and electoral vote, no need to corrupt anyone.
You're in a federal union, and your voting system reflects that:
"All but two states use a plurality winner-take-all system to pick their presidential electors – whoever receives the most votes in a state wins all of its electoral votes, even if he or she got less than a majority of the popular vote. "
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... vote-ones/
I do think this is fucked up, but this has f*** all to do with corruption. In fact, Trump himself had pre-emptively declared the system rigged, should he lose ...
Statistics: Posted by Zoram — 10 Nov 2016, 19:04
]]>
RocketRooster wrote:
I, for one, would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the American people for a very entertaining clown show.
I, for one, would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the American people for a very entertaining clown show.
Have fun when other countries in Europe leave the EU and the conservative parties gain more power! You think this was a clown show wait until you see what happens over there for you
The arrogance of people like this who think they know anything about the US is hilarious. Have you been here before and worked with anyone? What besides your news and media in EU do you have as a source for this belief?
Statistics: Posted by Morax — 10 Nov 2016, 18:58
]]>
Zoram wrote:
so ? this is not evidence of corruption. This is your system at play, same as Gore Vs Bush earlier.
Morax wrote:I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ent=202709
so ? this is not evidence of corruption. This is your system at play, same as Gore Vs Bush earlier.
Yeah, and we are still wondering why our "electorates" did not choose Gore when we made the majority vote. There is supposed to be a direct link to popular and electoral vote, so explain to me how it is not corruption?
Statistics: Posted by Morax — 10 Nov 2016, 18:56
]]>
]]>
]]>
Morax wrote:
I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ent=202709
I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ent=202709
so ? this is not evidence of corruption. This is your system at play, same as Gore Vs Bush earlier.
Statistics: Posted by Zoram — 10 Nov 2016, 00:12
]]>