Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

alastair · 13-11-2016 12:11AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

yEA?
So all she needed was a few more vote in Michigan and PA to win.
Very slim victory by all accounts for Trump

She needed 13,000 more for MI, and 68,000 for PA.

ligerdub · 13-11-2016 12:37AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

yEA?
So all she needed was a few more vote in Michigan and PA to win.
Very slim victory by all accounts for Trump

It would have been a slim victory for either person. Everyone knows that.

Donald would have to drop 37 EC votes.

Michigan (16) was close enough alright, 13,000 people.
Florida (29) by Donald, circa 120,000.
Pennsylvania (20), circa 70,000.
Wisconsin (10), circa 30,000.

Close enough yeah......but not exactly on the scale of nail biting. You'd also most likely need 3 of them!! Clutching at straws gents.

Clinton won Colorado (9) by 50,000
Clinton won Minnesota (10) by 40,000
Clinton was Nevada (6) by 20,000
Clinton, New Hampshire (4) by 3,000 or so.

These are all in the category of marginal wins too. Fair enough there is a larger potential subtraction from Donald, but he had so much banked that the contentious ones were mainly the turkey for him. There were about 8 close ones and Hillary needed to win all of them, to me that suggests it would have been extremely fortunate for her to win.

What you guys want to do is take all your close wins as banked and bring the close defeats back into the game.

Donald won, and it's pretty clearcut.

You can cling to the popular vote because California gave her about 3 million surplus votes all you want, he was fairly dominant in most other places.

ligerdub · 13-11-2016 12:40AM

alastair wrote: »

In the case of NH, she did.

I'm sure that's something Donald Trump will wake up in a cold sweat over.

alastair · 13-11-2016 01:54AM

ligerdub wrote: »

It would have been a slim victory for either person. Everyone knows that.

Donald would have to drop 37 EC votes.

Michigan (16) was close enough alright, 13,000 people.
Florida (29) by Donald, circa 120,000.
Pennsylvania (20), circa 70,000.
Wisconsin (10), circa 30,000.

Close enough yeah......but not exactly on the scale of nail biting. You'd also most likely need 3 of them!! Clutching at straws gents.

Clinton won Colorado (9) by 50,000
Clinton won Minnesota (10) by 40,000
Clinton was Nevada (6) by 20,000
Clinton, New Hampshire (4) by 3,000 or so.

These are all in the category of marginal wins too. Fair enough there is a larger potential subtraction from Donald, but he had so much banked that the contentious ones were mainly the turkey for him. There were about 8 close ones and Hillary needed to win all of them, to me that suggests it would have been extremely fortunate for her to win.

What you guys want to do is take all your close wins as banked and bring the close defeats back into the game.

Donald won, and it's pretty clearcut.

You can cling to the popular vote because California gave her about 3 million surplus votes all you want, he was fairly dominant in most other places.

No-one (other than yourself earlier regarding Trump 'edging out her lead') disputes that Hillary lost, despite her millions of votes over the winner.

scuba8 · 13-11-2016 02:19AM

While noting the closeness of the count in many states, it should be pointed that many Democrat supporters were hindered in their attempts to vote.
Republicans closed almost 900 polling stations all in predominantly Democrat areas. In NC a judge said that it was carried out with surgical precision in African American areas to suppress voters.

Manic Moran · 13-11-2016 06:12AM

ted1 wrote: »

So because someone lives in Hicksville their vote carrys a higher weight than someone living in a city. In democracy are all people not equal?

Who has signed up for it?

I live in a city area, San Francisco area, My vote weighs the same as a denizen in the mountains on the Nevada border, or who lives in the Mojave Desert. For the purposes of the Presidential Election, California is a pure democracy. Whoever gets the most votes, even if it's only one vote, wins.
Go to Alaska, and someone who lives in Fairbanks has a vote just as weighty as someone who lives a fifty mile dog sled ride from Barrow. Alaska is as much a democracy in the Presidential election as you like. As far as I know, this is the case for every State in the Union.

Where things get uneven is that the fifty states have different weights in the Presidential Election. California has more weight than Alaska has, by virtue of the fact that more people live in it. If only one man votes in California, and all 485,271 voters in Alaska vote for one candidate, California still carries more weight than Alaska in the Presidential election. EC votes do not change on the basis of how many people vote.

The point here is that the States are voting for President, not the people.

ted1 · 13-11-2016 09:00AM

paleoperson wrote: »

"hicksville"... what a racist and despicable thing to say.

You're showing your colours as a narrow-minded bigot.

Are you actually a thinking person?

It's called democracy.

How do translate Hicksville into being racist?

Yes I'm a thinking person.
I know it's democracy, I don't believe that any of the people who voted actually signed up to EC. They wanted to vote but EC was forced up on them s it's what's there I do believe if an alternative was offered that people would sign up to that.

meeeeh · 13-11-2016 09:38AM

ted1 wrote: »

How do translate Hicksville into being racist?

Yes I'm a thinking person.
I know it's democracy, I don't believe that any of the people who voted actually signed up to EC. They wanted to vote but EC was forced up on them s it's what's there I do believe if an alternative was offered that people would sign up to that.

Tell me how would clear majority wins work in EU? Especially after brexit when there will be only a few large countries.

letsseehere14 · 13-11-2016 10:06AM

alastair wrote:

No-one (other than yourself earlier regarding Trump 'edging out her lead') disputes that Hillary lost, despite her millions of votes over the winner.

Are these millions of votes the 600k odd votes over Trump that she has? Millions? Correct me if I'm wrong by my last check showed 60.2m for Trump vs 60.8m for Clinton.

She won the popular vote because she appealed to the liberals and took NY by 1.5m votes and Cali by 2.5m. If you look at the heat maps these votes in NY and cali states mostly came from new York city and San Fran/LA where she was getting over 80% of the vote. Despite this 4m vote lead in basically 3 cities she only won the popular vote by 600k.
People like Michael Moore are out protesting and asking Trump to step aside because they want the way the election was run, and was campaigned for changed after the fact.
If it goes direct vote for vote the campaigns will ignore middle and little America and be focused on the major cities only. This move would further divide the USA as smaller states feeling more ignored will begin to push back.

meeeeh · 13-11-2016 10:15AM

The difference will be probably much bigger because so many votes in California still have to be counted and it's unlikely they will mostly go to Trump. But it really doesn't matter. Campaign strategy is adapted to political system and the aim is to win the most electors not the popular vote. Otherwise it would set up differently.

ted1 · 13-11-2016 10:24AM

meeeeh wrote: »

Tell me how would clear majority wins work in EU? Especially after brexit when there will be only a few large countries.

Who says that they are leaving ? It has to go to parliament and just like EC the populists vote may not be the result that matters

meeeeh · 13-11-2016 10:30AM

ted1 wrote: »

Who says that they are leaving ? It has to go to parliament and just like EC the populists vote may not be the result that matters

That was not my point. Check how many people elect an mep in Ireland or in Germany. Not to mention each country has a commissioner regardlessof the population.

ligerdub · 13-11-2016 10:53AM

Yeah her millions and millions excess, an absolute romp in the popular vote.

I suggested he may, I never spoke in absolutes. At least that was still a possibility, even if it's completely moot, despite your continued focus on it.

The only person contending anything here is you guys clinging to the idea that the electoral issue was down to "a few votes" when most would consider that rather generous to the closeness of the contest.

ligerdub · 13-11-2016 11:04AM

scuba8 wrote:

While noting the closeness of the count in many states, it should be pointed that many Democrat supporters were hindered in their attempts to vote. Republicans closed almost 900 polling stations all in predominantly Democrat areas. In NC a judge said that it was carried out with surgical precision in African American areas to suppress voters.

There are rumours on the other side, such as the rather unusual call in extending polling hours by up to 2 hours in heavily Denocrat counties, coincidentally in States where it turned out to be marginally won by Donald.

El Tarangu · 13-11-2016 12:26PM

I have actually kind of had my mind changed on the whole electoral college thing on the basis of this thread:

Imagine if the EU was ran on the basis of popular vote across the countries as a whole? All you need would be for France, Germany, Poland, Italy and UK to be in favour of something, and the other 20-odd countries would have no choice but to go along with it.

Not saying the Electoral College is perfect by any means, but I can see the rationale for it.

osmiumartist · 13-11-2016 12:52PM

ligerdub wrote: »

There are rumours on the other side, such as the rather unusual call in extending polling hours by up to 2 hours in heavily Denocrat counties, coincidentally in States where it turned out to be marginally won by Donald.

This is real through the look glass stuff. Apparently it's now "anti-democratic" to close polling at the correct time?

alastair · 13-11-2016 01:31PM

letsseehere14 wrote: »

Are these millions of votes the 600k odd votes over Trump that she has? Millions? Correct me if I'm wrong by my last check showed 60.2m for Trump vs 60.8m for Clinton.

She won the popular vote because she appealed to the liberals and took NY by 1.5m votes and Cali by 2.5m. If you look at the heat maps these votes in NY and cali states mostly came from new York city and San Fran/LA where she was getting over 80% of the vote. Despite this 4m vote lead in basically 3 cities she only won the popular vote by 600k.
People like Michael Moore are out protesting and asking Trump to step aside because they want the way the election was run, and was campaigned for changed after the fact.
If it goes direct vote for vote the campaigns will ignore middle and little America and be focused on the major cities only. This move would further divide the USA as smaller states feeling more ignored will begin to push back.

The counting of the vote hasn't finished. Hillary is going to gain literally millions more votes - and they're predominantly from California and Washington, so don't expect any equivalent boost to Trump's vote. So, yeah - 'millions of votes'.

alastair · 13-11-2016 01:37PM

ligerdub wrote: »

There are rumours on the other side, such as the rather unusual call in extending polling hours by up to 2 hours in heavily Denocrat counties, coincidentally in States where it turned out to be marginally won by Donald.

That was for early voting, and isn't unusual at all. It's the normal rule that anyone in the queue before closing is entitled to vote, even if that requires keeping the polling station open late. On Election Day polling extensions require a court order, and the late polled votes are treated as provisional. So the rumours don't really amount to anything.

scuba8 · 13-11-2016 05:53PM

ligerdub wrote: »

There are rumours on the other side, such as the rather unusual call in extending polling hours by up to 2 hours in heavily Denocrat counties, coincidentally in States where it turned out to be marginally won by Donald.

That refers to a case where some Republican Representative went to court to object to a polling station staying open for an extra two hours.
Case was thrown out because all of the people who voted in the extra two hours had already been in the queue at the time of closing. This is legal so the case was thrown out.

smjm · 13-11-2016 06:16PM

Short, informative article on why it would be difficult to change the American EC system:

'Four Theses on the Electoral College' http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/12/four-theses-on-the-electoral-college/

osmiumartist · 13-11-2016 07:24PM

smjm wrote: »

Short, informative article on why it would be difficult to change the American EC system:

'Four Theses on the Electoral College' http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/12/four-theses-on-the-electoral-college/

Some states are starting write into law that they will hand over their electoral college votes to whoever get the majority of votes in the entire union... but only to be invoked when all other states do the same.
So you never know...

FatherTed · 13-11-2016 11:57PM

Well President Trump thinks the EC is a disaster:

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
RETWEETS
124,411
LIKES
85,569

8:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082

ligerdub · 14-11-2016 02:25AM

alastair wrote:

That was for early voting, and isn't unusual at all. It's the normal rule that anyone in the queue before closing is entitled to vote, even if that requires keeping the polling station open late. On Election Day polling extensions require a court order, and the late polled votes are treated as provisional. So the rumours don't really amount to anything.

No it wasn't, it was polling day.

StupidLikeAFox · 14-11-2016 02:39AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

The next generation are fine.

This quote should replace our national anthem, America's pledge of allegiance etc

alastair · 14-11-2016 08:50AM

ligerdub wrote: »

No it wasn't, it was polling day.

There were only two states had extensions on Election Day; firstly in Texas, hardly a swing state, and secondly in North Carolina, where 8 stations had extensions of 25 minutes to 60 minutes on account of the breakdown of electronic register checking. No two hours, no rumours - it was quite open and publicised.

ted1 · 14-11-2016 01:57PM

alastair wrote: »

There were only two states had extensions on Election Day; firstly in Texas, hardly a swing state, and secondly in North Carolina, where 8 stations had extensions of 25 minutes to 60 minutes on account of the breakdown of electronic register checking. No two hours, no rumours - it was quite open and publicised.

As long as each person gets to vote only once then there should be no issue with keeping the polls open. Closing early would be a real issue

Sam Russell · 14-11-2016 06:52PM

paleoperson wrote: »

"hicksville"... what a racist and despicable thing to say.

You're showing your colours as a narrow-minded bigot.

Are you actually a thinking person?

It's called democracy.

Hicksville is actually in New York, so how is it any more racist than Hackensack, New Jersey, which is slightly nearer?

It is no worse than saying 'Ballygobackwards' for a remote place in Ireland (which does not exist, by the way).

Checking facts does not take long these days.

osmiumartist · 14-11-2016 07:50PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Hicksville is actually in New York, so how is it any more racist than Hackensack, New Jersey, which is slightly nearer?

So it's OK to refer to "people from Chinaman Gulch" or "people from Dago Creek" as these are also place names?
You think people will say to themselves "Oh yeah, you're so clever Sam making out he was referring to Hicksville New York. Ha ah. Ha."?

Sam Russell · 14-11-2016 09:12PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

So it's OK to refer to "people from Chinaman Gulch" or "people from Dago Creek" as these are also place names?
You think people will say to themselves "Oh yeah, you're so clever Sam making out he was referring to Hicksville New York. Ha ah. Ha."?

Bill Clinton was from Hope, Arkansas. Do you think making jokes about Hope, Arkansas in relation to Clinton would be appropriate?

Using names, whether real or imaginary is common in normal discourse. It is only racist if it is intended to be so but the use of such names are not racist per se.

osmiumartist · 14-11-2016 09:44PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Using names, whether real or imaginary is common in normal discourse. It is only racist if it is intended to be so but the use of such names are not racist per se.

Er, here is the original post

ted1 wrote: »

So because someone lives in Hicksville their vote carrys a higher weight than someone living in a city. In democracy are all people not equal?

Now, go on then. Tell me he was referring to the town of Hicksville, New York. If I said "people from Idiotville support Clinton" you'd be OK with that? It's a place-name, right?

Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

Comments