2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Dalton]

Ayotte lost her seat, and the US lost its fucking mind.

[Terralthra]

I'm not sure secessionism is actually illegal. It's illegal to secede without the approval of Congress and the legislatures of all concerned states. I think it's actually reasonable to believe that if Cascadia (California, Oregon, Washington) had votes to secede in their respective legislatures and brought the proposal to Congress, the current House and Senate might (hilariously, I think) say good riddance to those hippy states on the Left Coast.

[The Romulan Republic]

Guess I was right about the knock-on effects of pissing off and humiliating Sanders voters.

I'm genuinely shocked my own Michigan swung for Trump. He was smart, courting factory workers and auto workers. It seems to have made a difference.

I don't think you can put this entirely on Sanders supporters, though I don't doubt that some in the Democratic establishment will try.

Their are many causes for this, but since it appears that Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, the foremost one must be the Electoral College.

[aerius]

My feeling about Brexit is much the same as my feeling about Trump winning:

Its the wrong outcome, but if it was done lawfully, it should be accepted. If not (as a court has essentially ruled with Brexit, saying that a referendum is not enough and that Parliament must vote on it), it should not be. However, the laws should be changed to ensure that in future, the will of the people is respected, with the exception of basic civil liberties and democratic principles, which should not be overturned by a simple majority.

There's a procedure for that. I believe it's called a Constitutional Amendment.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed.

The main purpose of having the Constitution is to set a very high bar for altering basic rights, liberties, and democratic institutions.

I'm not sure secessionism is actually illegal. It's illegal to secede without the approval of Congress and the legislatures of all concerned states. I think it's actually reasonable to believe that if Cascadia (California, Oregon, Washington) had votes to secede in their respective legislatures and brought the proposal to Congress, the current House and Senate might (hilariously, I think) say good riddance to those hippy states on the Left Coast.

I doubt it- no Federal government would be likely to want to set that precedent, or take the hit to America's prestige and wealth.

And its just as well. As I said, their are very, very few circumstances where I might support secession, and in the US in particular... well, we saw what happened last time someone opened that Pandora's box.

[Tribble]

Indeed.

The main purpose of having the Constitution is to set a very high bar for altering basic rights, liberties, and democratic institutions.

I'm not sure secessionism is actually illegal. It's illegal to secede without the approval of Congress and the legislatures of all concerned states. I think it's actually reasonable to believe that if Cascadia (California, Oregon, Washington) had votes to secede in their respective legislatures and brought the proposal to Congress, the current House and Senate might (hilariously, I think) say good riddance to those hippy states on the Left Coast.

I doubt it- no Federal government would be likely to want to set that precedent, or take the hit to America's prestige and wealth.

And its just as well. As I said, their are very, very few circumstances where I might support secession, and in the US in particular... well, we saw what happened last time someone opened that Pandora's box.

Well I wish you luck in changing the electoral college - "I want arrange things so your vote doesn't matter!" isn't going to go over well with those states that are only noticed because of the electoral college. Again, I think it would be a bit more realistic to propose getting rid of the "all or nothing" part first.

[The Vortex Empire]

I'm not sure secessionism is actually illegal. It's illegal to secede without the approval of Congress and the legislatures of all concerned states. I think it's actually reasonable to believe that if Cascadia (California, Oregon, Washington) had votes to secede in their respective legislatures and brought the proposal to Congress, the current House and Senate might (hilariously, I think) say good riddance to those hippy states on the Left Coast.

I don't think they'd let California, 6th largest economy in the world, go. Gotta have tax revenue to prop up all the poorer red states.

[Knife]

Indeed.

The main purpose of having the Constitution is to set a very high bar for altering basic rights, liberties, and democratic institutions.

I'm not sure secessionism is actually illegal. It's illegal to secede without the approval of Congress and the legislatures of all concerned states. I think it's actually reasonable to believe that if Cascadia (California, Oregon, Washington) had votes to secede in their respective legislatures and brought the proposal to Congress, the current House and Senate might (hilariously, I think) say good riddance to those hippy states on the Left Coast.

I doubt it- no Federal government would be likely to want to set that precedent, or take the hit to America's prestige and wealth.

And its just as well. As I said, their are very, very few circumstances where I might support secession, and in the US in particular... well, we saw what happened last time someone opened that Pandora's box.

Well I wish you luck in changing the electoral college - "I want arrange things so your vote doesn't matter!" isn't going to go over well with those states that are only noticed because of the electoral college. Again, I think it would be a bit more realistic to propose getting rid of the "all or nothing" part first.

What? People reacting in self interest? Say it isn't so. What do you offer in terms of consolidation to actual small states who get jack shit under the EC.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed.

The main purpose of having the Constitution is to set a very high bar for altering basic rights, liberties, and democratic institutions.

I'm not sure secessionism is actually illegal. It's illegal to secede without the approval of Congress and the legislatures of all concerned states. I think it's actually reasonable to believe that if Cascadia (California, Oregon, Washington) had votes to secede in their respective legislatures and brought the proposal to Congress, the current House and Senate might (hilariously, I think) say good riddance to those hippy states on the Left Coast.

I doubt it- no Federal government would be likely to want to set that precedent, or take the hit to America's prestige and wealth.

And its just as well. As I said, their are very, very few circumstances where I might support secession, and in the US in particular... well, we saw what happened last time someone opened that Pandora's box.

Well I wish you luck in changing the electoral college - "I want arrange things so your vote doesn't matter!" isn't going to go over well with those states that are only noticed because of the electoral college. Again, I think it would be a bit more realistic to propose getting rid of the "all or nothing" part first.

Stop straw manning.

I want to change things so that every vote matters equally, so that the vote of an inner city man is worth as much as that of a farmer, and that of a California or Texas resident matters as much as that of an Ohio or Florida resident. The way its supposed to be in a democracy.

[Tribble]

Indeed.

The main purpose of having the Constitution is to set a very high bar for altering basic rights, liberties, and democratic institutions.



I doubt it- no Federal government would be likely to want to set that precedent, or take the hit to America's prestige and wealth.

And its just as well. As I said, their are very, very few circumstances where I might support secession, and in the US in particular... well, we saw what happened last time someone opened that Pandora's box.

Well I wish you luck in changing the electoral college - "I want arrange things so your vote doesn't matter!" isn't going to go over well with those states that are only noticed because of the electoral college. Again, I think it would be a bit more realistic to propose getting rid of the "all or nothing" part first.

Stop straw manning.

I want to change things so that every vote matters equally, so that the vote of an inner city man is worth as much as that of a farmer, and that of a California or Texas resident matters as much as that of an Ohio or Florida resident. The way its supposed to be in a democracy.

And seeing as the USA is a federal system, good luck at doing that. I disagree with your assessment of the Electoral College but that's besides the point - getting rid of the Electoral College will require a Constitutional Amendment, I and am extremely doubtful that the people who will be negatively impacted by doing so will allow such a measure to go through. The chances of all the states agreeing to essentially abolish state lines and have all the electors being elected proportionately is also very unlikely to work (though it would have a better chance at success than a constitutional amendment abolishing the EC). I think the method of reform that most likely to work would be to get all of the states to have their electors assigned based on the proportion of votes in each state, That would be a lot easier to pass IMO (though still very difficult as its to the states own advantage to be "all or nothing" because they will have more attention paid to them).

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps their is a misunderstanding here.

I do not expect the Electoral College to be abolished any time soon.

I'm putting my support behind the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is more along the lines of what you said: an agreement between states (and DC) to require their electors to pick whoever wins the popular vote in the states and DC. It will take effect if enough states join up to reach 270, and is more than halfway their already.

[Tribble]

Perhaps their is a misunderstanding here.

I do not expect the Electoral College to be abolished any time soon.

I'm putting my support behind the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is more along the lines of what you said: an agreement between states (and DC) to require their electors to pick whoever wins the popular vote in the states and DC. It will take effect if enough states join up to reach 270, and is more than halfway their already.

Under this compact, is the overall vote nation-wide that matters, or state-wide?

If 51% voted for Clinton nation wide, does that mean that the states which agreed to this will base their votes on that? Or is it still on a state-by-state basis (i.e. if 51% of the population voted for Clinton in Texas she would get 51% of the electors in that state, if 60% of voters voted for Clinton in California she'd get 60% of the electors in that state etc). I'm not sure if the states that would be most impacted would agree to the former, though the ladder might work.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nationwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force.

Essentially, as I understand it, it would have states voluntarily require their electors to support the candidate who won the popular vote, effectively side-stepping and neutering the Electoral College without the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

[Flagg]

Ayotte lost her seat, and the US lost its fucking mind.

Kent Brockman: "Would you say it's time for Americans to bash in the skulls of their neighbors and eat the gooey filling within?"
Psychiatrist Guest: "Yes I would, Kent!"

[Tribble]

Nationwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact



The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force.


Essentially, as I understand it, it would have states voluntarily require their electors to support the candidate who won the popular vote, effectively side-stepping and neutering the Electoral College without the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

Ok. So how are they going to convince states which have more power under present system to support such a move, as they are not required to and it would be to their disadvantage to do so? IMO it'd be a lot easier for a state to swallow "you should be proportional within your state" than "your state should submit to the nation wide vote."

[Terralthra]

The main problem with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is that it's unConstitutional without Congressional approval. Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 4: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, ... enter into any agreement or compact with another state..."

Whether Congress would approve such a Compact I leave open for debate. Several political science professors and Constitutional scholars have said variously that Congress may not be permitted to do so, as Congress can not approve by Compact what it can't do legislatively: dictate how electoral college members are chosen and how they vote.

[The Romulan Republic]

Can you post the full context of that quote? How exactly do they define a "compact with another state"?

And clearly, even if states cannot actually force their electors to vote a certain way, they can put penalties on their electors- see the recent discussion over faithless Bernie or Buster electors in Washington State, who would face a 1,000 dollar fine.

Or is that unConstitutional too?

[Elfdart]

For people who are navel gazing and asking 'how did this happen and the pollsters got it so wrong?' I have a no-shitpost question for you guys; how did you see a typical Trump rally turnout versus a typical Clinton rally turnout (you know the ones minus JayZ and Beyonce) and then look at the polls showing Clinton with a 12 point lead and it didn't occur to you that something was off about this?

Like I'm sincere here, she was almost as low energy as Jeb! for crying out loud. Do you not have eyes?

I never put much stock in crowd size unless you have an unusually big crowd showing up in bad weather.

[Tribble]

Can you post the full context of that quote? How exactly do they define a "compact with another state"?

And clearly, even if states cannot actually force their electors to vote a certain way, they can put penalties on their electors- see the recent discussion over faithless Bernie or Buster electors in Washington State, who would face a 1,000 dollar fine.

Or is that unConstitutional too?

Except that the states who will be negatively impacted won't be all that keen on signing up. How would they convince them to do so, if "for the good of the whole country" hasn't worked so far? The other states certainly wouldn't be able to form a compact to punish the states that refuse to join, and I don't there's much the Feds could do either.

[Crazedwraith]

Can you post the full context of that quote? How exactly do they define a "compact with another state"?

And clearly, even if states cannot actually force their electors to vote a certain way, they can put penalties on their electors- see the recent discussion over faithless Bernie or Buster electors in Washington State, who would face a 1,000 dollar fine.

Or is that unConstitutional too?

Except that the states who will be negatively impacted won't be all that keen on signing up. How would they convince them to do so, if "for the good of the whole country" hasn't worked so far? The other states certainly wouldn't be able to form a compact to punish the states that refuse to join, and I don't there's much the Feds could do either.

Can you reach 270 electoral votes without those states? Because then it wouldn't matter.

[The Romulan Republic]

Again, the states that have signed on have brought it more than half (nearly two thirds) of the way to implementation.

I can imagine swinging a few more states to push it over the top, especially solid red or blue state who's voters are tired of mattering less than swing state voters.

The only question, then, is Constitutionality, which I'm not prepared to argue either way at this point. I suppose that's ultimately a question for the courts, if it gets that far.

[Crown]

For people who are navel gazing and asking 'how did this happen and the pollsters got it so wrong?' I have a no-shitpost question for you guys; how did you see a typical Trump rally turnout versus a typical Clinton rally turnout (you know the ones minus JayZ and Beyonce) and then look at the polls showing Clinton with a 12 point lead and it didn't occur to you that something was off about this?

Like I'm sincere here, she was almost as low energy as Jeb! for crying out loud. Do you not have eyes?

I never put much stock in crowd size unless you have an unusually big crowd showing up in bad weather.

Look that's sort of inline with what The Romulan Republic was saying earlier and I accept that it is a good rule of thumb for normal times, but this wasn't normal times;



I mean when you see what he did in the primaries wasn't there a moment when you looked at his crowds and then her crowds and then the polls and thought; somethings not quite right?

[Elfdart]

I mean when you see what he did in the primaries wasn't there a moment when you looked at his crowds and then her crowds and then the polls and thought; somethings not quite right?

Not really, though maybe I should have. Crowd sizes are easy to manipulate, whether it's gross numbers, enthusiasm or how the footage is shot. A small but loud crowd shot from the ground can be made to look like huge baying horde, and a huge crowd of ho-hum attendees shot from the stage (so you can really see how big the crowd is). There is also of course this phenomenon where people bullshit about crowd size.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, going off Wikipedia, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is currently accepted by California, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, DC, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and pending legislative approval in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Presuming it passes in MI and PA, that would bring it to 201 EC votes.

The smallest number of states to get the remaining 69, discounting swing states, would by my count be:

Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Indiana. That would get us to 277.

Granted, those are red states, that are probably pretty happy with the EC right now. And ever state that has thus far signed on is either blue or swing. Funny how its always red states choosing the undemocratic route, and profiting off of it.

[Kingmaker]

Again, the states that have signed on have brought it more than half (nearly two thirds) of the way to implementation.

I can imagine swinging a few more states to push it over the top, especially solid red or blue state who's voters are tired of mattering less than swing state voters.

To elaborate upon this: it's presently at 165. In a dream world, it gets approved in PA and Michigan, where it is currently being considered. That puts it at 201 (until reapportionment, anyway). From there's you're actually pretty close if you can get a few solid red states (say, Texas and Georgia) to sign on. From there, a handful of smaller solid blue states (e.g. Minnesota, Oregon, Connecticut) would get you the rest of the way to 270. And that's not the only route either, just an example one.

Unfortunately, I expect that Republican state legislatures won't go for it, because they're smart enough to know what's up.

edit: the forum ate my post and TRR posted something similar while I was recomposing it.