Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

So it is possibly just a 'rumor' then from a entity that does provide news?

Todd Kincannon doesn't provide news. He's a wingnut clown in the controversy business.

ligerdub

Amerika wrote: »

Reports are circulating that up to 3 million illegal aliens may have voted in the presidential election. If the rumors are true then Hillary might not have won the popular vote, either.

Can you register if you are illegal?

I'd imagine it would be a bit of an unnecessary risk.

Amerika

ligerdub wrote: »

Can you register if you are illegal?

I'd imagine it would be a bit of an unnecessary risk.

Sure, all you would need is a fake or stolen ID used to get employment. And what risk do they take voting illegally? It's not like Obama would deport them or anything for doing it. They mostly vote Democrat, you know.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Am I always required to provide sources for everything I comment on? I thought it was only expected when asked or challenged on it. And when have I ever ‘copped-out’ on providing sources when asked?

http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

Yes, when you make absurd claims based on rumors and innuendo from conspiracy theorists and not empirical fact it certainly helps if you want to be taken seriously.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Sure, all you would need is a fake or stolen ID used to get employment. And what risk do they take voting illegally? It's not like Obama would deport them or anything for doing it. They mostly vote Democrat, you know.

[Deported more people than any other president]

Overheal

demfad wrote: »

Same website claims Hilary physically attacked her own campaign staff after the result. Do you believe this also?

I'm shocked they didn't claim she attacked them psychically

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Yes, when you make absurd claims based on rumors and innuendo from conspiracy theorists and not empirical fact it certainly helps if you want to be taken seriously.

Who died and made you moderator?

Listen, the US Politics section is filled with people making a wide variety of claims based on rumors and innuendo on both sides of the political aisle, but I don't you demanding the same from those who post from the Left.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Who died and made you moderator?

Listen, the US Politics section is filled with people making a wide variety of claims based on rumors and innuendo on both sides of the political aisle, but I don't you demanding the same from those who post from the Left.

Perhaps you're not looking then.

BTW suggesting you provide links to incredible claims is a suggestion and you've been resident long enough to know what isn't backseat modding.

Rainman16

Hillary Clinton urged to call for election vote recount in battleground states

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin

nhunter100

Rainman16 wrote:

Hillary Clinton urged to call for election vote recount in battleground states

It's over, Thrump is the new Prezzie elect. Move on. All hail the 'Donald'

FatherTed

Counting is still going on and the difference is now over 2 million:
Clinton: 64,223,958 (48.1%)
Trump: 62,206,395 (46.6%)
Others: 7,143,347 (5.3%)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true

murphaph

Does anyone know the largest majority candidate according to the popular vote who did not get elected by the electoral college?

ancapailldorcha

Nonsense posts deleted.

nhunter100

murphaph wrote:

Does anyone know the largest majority candidate according to the popular vote who did not get elected by the electoral college?

Don't know the % but Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the college vote.

ligerdub

murphaph wrote: »

Does anyone know the largest majority candidate according to the popular vote who did not get elected by the electoral college?

I've taken the liberty of doing so through the process of my work. Have a gander.


https://public.tableau.com/profile/eoghan.lyons#!/vizhome/USPresidentialElectionData/Storyboard

Andrew Jackson won 40% of the popular vote in 1824 but lost out as he didn't win enough to claim a majority. It eventually went to Adams, who had only a 31% share of the popular vote. He did win the next one though in 1828....against Adams.

Outside of that it would be Hillary Clinton.

ligerdub

I tell a lie. Samuel Tilden won 3% more of the popular vote in 1876 against Rutherford Hayes, but Hayes won the electoral college.

Count Dooku

Rainman16 wrote: »

Hillary Clinton urged to call for election vote recount in battleground states

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin

Even Nate Silver disagree with those claims

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/801229361386921984

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/801229000366575616

Rainman16

There will be a Recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Green party candidate Jill has raised the 2.5 million to pay for the recounts.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13J18X

nhunter100

Rainman16 wrote:

There is currently a petition on Change.org with close to 3 million signatures of people urging the members of the Electoral College to do the right thing. On December 19th, they can save Americans from themselves.

Do the right thing? So because they didn't get their way they want the electoral college to turn American democracy on its head.

BorneTobyWilde

Where are these 2 million plus votes more she got. We know where they were not, so they must be from California and New York maybe.
It's the ''United States'' If it was based on popular vote then California and New York would elect president every time and it would be a Democrat.
I think electoral vote works but that it could be fine tuned. Lots of rural places in California that are swept along in the ocean of blue. I think California could be spit when it comes to voting. Give the republicans there a voice. Republicans in California have no voice, and Democrats in Texas are same . Should be split voting in these states.
4 sets of Electoral votes , not two .

BorneTobyWilde

Rainman16 wrote: »

There will be a Recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Green party candidate Jill has raised the 2.5 million to pay for the recounts.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13J18X

Now everyone knows her name, not just the tiny % that voted for her.
Mission accomplished for her, it's very clever.
Maybe a bet on her being the first female president would be clever.

murphaph

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Where are these 2 million plus votes more she got. We know where they were not, so they must be from California and New York maybe.
It's the ''United States'' If it was based on popular vote then California and New York would elect president every time and it would be a Democrat.
I think electoral vote works but that it could be fine tuned. Lots of rural places in California that are swept along in the ocean of blue. I think California could be spit when it comes to voting. Give the republicans there a voice. Republicans in California have no voice, and Democrats in Texas are same . Should be split voting in these states.
4 sets of Electoral votes , not two .

Or just make it an actual popular vote so it doesn't matter where you live, your vote always counts. The electoral college exists to scrutinise the candidates and determine of they are fit to hold the office of POTUS. They are not just a proxy. It is their duty not to elect someone they consider unfit, even if they have won the vote in the state the elector represents. That's why the electoral college exists, even if some states compel their electors to act as a proxy. If they are simply going to blindly follow the will of the electorate then they can be abolished and replaced with a popular vote.

Laois_Man

Rainman16 wrote: »

There will be a Recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Green party candidate Jill has raised the 2.5 million to pay for the recounts.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13J18X

A complete waste of time.

Michigan doesn't do any Electronic voting and Pennsylvania doesn't keep a paper trail of its partial electronic voting

I don't know what there statisticians were up to!

By the way, who has only paid for Wisconsin so far.

FatherTed

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Where are these 2 million plus votes more she got. We know where they were not, so they must be from California and New York maybe.
It's the ''United States'' If it was based on popular vote then California and New York would elect president every time and it would be a Democrat.
I think electoral vote works but that it could be fine tuned. Lots of rural places in California that are swept along in the ocean of blue. I think California could be spit when it comes to voting. Give the republicans there a voice. Republicans in California have no voice, and Democrats in Texas are same . Should be split voting in these states.
4 sets of Electoral votes , not two .

So whats the difference of having CA+NY elect the pres every time and the Rust Belt/Swing states elect the pres? Why should the candidates only have to battle it out in the 10 or so swing states while the rest are ignored?

Rainman16

FatherTed wrote: »

So whats the difference of having CA+NY elect the pres every time and the Rust Belt/Swing states elect the pres? Why should the candidates only have to battle it out in the 10 or so swing states while the rest are ignored?

Or they could actually be a true democracy and make it one man, one vote

Laois_Man

The problem with the Electoral College system is not the electoral college system itself. It's the fact that 48 of the 50 states (Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions) award all of their electoral college votes to whoever wins the popular vote within their state. It should be done proportionally i.e if Trump beats Clinton in North Dakota by a margin of 2:1 (which he did), the Trump should get 2 EC votes and Clinton should get 1. But instead, Trump gets all 3. I find it crazy that Trump wins Florida by 1% but gets all 29 EC votes from that state. That's madness! These states are not obliged to divide their EC votes as winner of popular votes takes all....they choose to....and it's daft.

Incidentally, 2 or 3 of the 306 electors obliged to vote for Trump on Dec 19th have indicated they are not going to do so. There'd be some craic if 27 of them came in and voted for Hillary in the end. Not going to happen though!

InTheTrees

For some background;

The Federalist Papers, are the collection of articles written by the original framers of the constitution setting out their ideas.

Federalist 68, are Hamiltons thoughts on the Electoral College:

"This is reflected in his later fears about the types of people who could potentially become president. He worries that corrupted individuals could, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country. The former is covered by Article II, Section 1, v of the United States Constitution, while the latter is covered by Hamilton in Federalist 68, where he notes that the person who will become president will have to be a person who possesses the faculties necessary to be a president, stating that,

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68

ligerdub

Hilarious, which stage of the Kubler-Ross model are they at now?

We've had denial (the night of), anger (about 2 weeks of that), depression, now we appear to be at the bargaining stage!

Forget it lads, as much as some sources have led you to believe, Donald Trump is a straight forward victor here. He isn't some rogue to win an election in an underhand manner or is a threat to the union, his victory is no less of an issue in terms of procedure than if Clinton had won. This is the basis of the election method, he won, he'll be in office bar a catastrophic act of electors to throw democracy off course. They'll do the standard thing because they recognise how the process works, they aren't like the idiots in the main cities in the US who are 20 years old, with a placard and a chant, who have tears in their eyes but couldn't be arsed to vote on the day itself.

Yup. Quicker we get on to the Democrats (and indeed some Republicans) beginning to start to build defences against his more batty policies (legally of course) and onto bargaining the better.

Trump is the President-Elect. He will be the President.

purpleisafruit

Is there any merit in assigning electoral college votes for a state proportional to the overall vote for the candidate in that state? Hilary currently gets 55 electoral college votes from California.
Under this system, with 62% of the votes, she gets 34 electoral college votes and Trump gets the remaining 21.
I'm sure this system has flaws too but it gives a much fairer reflection of the votes of the population of California. I haven't checked but I'm fairly confident that proportional electoral college votes would give a more accurate reflection of voter sentiment in a given state

ligerdub

purpleisafruit wrote: »

Is there any merit in assigning electoral college votes for a state proportional to the overall vote for the candidate in that state? Hilary currently gets 55 electoral college votes from California.
Under this system, with 62% of the votes, she gets 34 electoral college votes and Trump gets the remaining 21.
I'm sure this system has flaws too but it gives a much fairer reflection of the votes of the population of California. I haven't checked but I'm fairly confident that proportional electoral college votes would give a more accurate reflection of voter sentiment in a given state

It would also effectively convert it to a popular vote. Classic bargaining stage suggestion.

purpleisafruit

ligerdub wrote: »

It would also effectively convert it to a popular vote. Classic bargaining stage suggestion.

Believe me, I have no preference in who runs a country 3000 miles away. It's the classic 'Douche vs Turd' from South Park.
I do have an interest in equitable voting systems. Electoral college is FPTP and something I intensely disagree with. In the UK, you have a similar issue where a large percentage of voters in a constituency are effectively not having their views represented.

Amerika

purpleisafruit wrote: »

Is there any merit in assigning electoral college votes for a state proportional to the overall vote for the candidate in that state? Hilary currently gets 55 electoral college votes from California.
Under this system, with 62% of the votes, she gets 34 electoral college votes and Trump gets the remaining 21.
I'm sure this system has flaws too but it gives a much fairer reflection of the votes of the population of California. I haven't checked but I'm fairly confident that proportional electoral college votes would give a more accurate reflection of voter sentiment in a given state

I believe states can assign their electoral votes as they wish, as long as it is approved by the voters of the state. But it is a state by state basis.

Maine and Nebraska have a different method of assigning electoral votes than the other states. These states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote.

ligerdub

purpleisafruit wrote: »

Believe me, I have no preference in who runs a country 3000 miles away. It's the classic 'Douche vs Turd' from South Park.
I do have an interest in equitable voting systems. Electoral college is FPTP and something I intensely disagree with. In the UK, you have a similar issue where a large percentage of voters in a constituency are effectively not having their views represented.

Fair enough. I can see the point, in the UK for example, 4.5 million votes for UKIP = 1 seat in parliament. Having said that, in what amounts to a 2 party system I think they have it spot on in the states in terms of how they arrive at their totals.

This is a very unusual circumstance where there is a clear winner in both the popular and electoral vote, except for the fact that they are both different. It is an exception but in my opinion they still have the best candidate in terms of the national representation of the US.

BorneTobyWilde

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802269834146762752

Rainman16

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802269834146762752

Stein has raised 5 million dollars and forced a Wisconsin recount in time,
She is getting the vote in Michigan and Pennsylvania recounted too.

If all 3 states were turned over for Clinton. She would have enough Electoral College votes to become President elect.

osmiumartist

Rainman16 wrote: »

If all 3 states were turned over for Clinton. She would have enough Electoral College votes to become President elect.

Which hasn't a hope in hell and isn't even why the recount has been applied for.
Not to mention Stein could have given the election to Hillary in the first place quite easily by not running.

ligerdub

Rainman16 wrote: »

Stein has raised 5 million dollars and forced a Wisconsin recount in time,
She is getting the vote in Michigan and Pennsylvania recounted too.

If all 3 states were turned over for Clinton. She would have enough Electoral College votes to become President elect.

Mr.Micro

Rainman16 wrote: »

Stein has raised 5 million dollars and forced a Wisconsin recount in time,
She is getting the vote in Michigan and Pennsylvania recounted too.

If all 3 states were turned over for Clinton. She would have enough Electoral College votes to become President elect.

5 million plus dollars wasted, IMO. No chance. Is it to enhance her own profile or her party? Try Facebook, it's cheaper.

Manic Moran

ligerdub wrote: »

purpleisafruit wrote: »

Is there any merit in assigning electoral college votes for a state proportional to the overall vote for the candidate in that state? Hilary currently gets 55 electoral college votes from California.
Under this system, with 62% of the votes, she gets 34 electoral college votes and Trump gets the remaining 21.
I'm sure this system has flaws too but it gives a much fairer reflection of the votes of the population of California. I haven't checked but I'm fairly confident that proportional electoral college votes would give a more accurate reflection of voter sentiment in a given state

It would also effectively convert it to a popular vote. Classic bargaining stage suggestion.

Not quite. The smaller States would still have slightly more proportional weight. Which is fine with me.
In any case, it's a non-starter. I can't see any circumstances where the Democrats of California will voluntarily give up a third of their EC votes to the opposition.

FreudianSlippers

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not quite. The smaller States would still have slightly more proportional weight. Which is fine with me.
In any case, it's a non-starter. I can't see any circumstances where the Democrats of California will voluntarily give up a third of their EC votes to the opposition.

This.

There has to be some sort of weighing, but IMHO the current system is not working and even Trump has said it!

oscarBravo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

...even Trump has said it!

You do realise that "things that are true" and "things Trump says" are completely orthogonal concepts?

Amerika

Oh the irony!

Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, Marc Elias, who is joining and charging ahead on Clinton's behalf in the three-state recount, if fighting to have Republican Governor Pat McCrory drop his calls for a North Carolina recount. Democrat Roy Cooper won by a mere 9,133 votes. The recount measure is happening in NC because of widespread concerns of foul play in Durham County, where 90,000 early votes suddenly appeared late on Election Night to give Cooper the victory.

Just like our lovely Democrats... Do as I say, not as I do. But ignore all this... and instead continue the only noble battle, which is to delegitimize the win of Donald Trump over her highness Hillary Clinton who currently resides in exile.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

You do realise that "things that are true" and "things Trump says" are completely orthogonal concepts?

I believe my tongue was firmly in the cheek for that one

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

...to delegitimize the win of Donald Trump...

I'll agree with you on this much: it's futile to attempt to de-legitimise his win. He won the election, albeit with a pretty significant deficit in the popular vote.

I think the best strategy now for the Democrats is to let him continue to de-legitimise his own presidency, which he has been doing at a pretty astonishing pace long before he's even inaugurated.

FreudianSlippers

If his election results in a logical change to the electoral college, it'll be at least one good thing to come out of his Presidency! IMO - the only thing being "delegitimized" in this situation is the current electoral college.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think the best strategy now for the Democrats is to let him continue to de-legitimise his own presidency, which he has been doing at a pretty astonishing pace long before he's even inaugurated.

Ah, but they won’t. Take a look at Elizabeth Warren's recent speech. She is the current front runner for the 2020 presidential election and has already started campaigning. She has pretty much vowed not to work with Trump and the Republicans, even before he even takes office. But she still fails to realize that Trump is not your average Republican. Trump will take his case, ad nauseum, to the people and make Democrats look bad in the eyes of the voters.

ligerdub

Christ what a dope! Helen Lovejoy in human form.

"On womens".......womens haha! I love the way she threw black people and gay people into the mix of bigotry, neither of which were targets of Donald.

Forget about her, she has no chance.

Edit: To her credit, she at least seems to offer a reach out message to voters rather than Hillary's "do it for me" style.

oscarBravo

ligerdub wrote: »

I love the way she threw black people and gay people into the mix of bigotry, neither of which were targets of Donald.

Given how he was still loudly proclaiming the guilt of five young black men years after they had been unequivocally cleared, and given also his VP pick, I don't think too many black people and gays consider the Donald a champion of their rights.

ligerdub

Quite a reach.

Also a very convenient ignorance of the counter argument.