The Unofficial Election 2016 Results Thread PLEASE

dudalb said:
Who had no chance of getting a major party nomination.
But, yeah, I think in a couple of years you will see areaction in Rural America like when the good people of River City find out Profesor Harold Hill is fleecing them.
Click to expand...

Damnit you just beat me.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I consider myself a libertarian, and I voted for Gary Johnson. I was rooting for Trump, however. Also, Bill Weld is dead to me.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is a deontological -consequentiist gap but I don't think libertarians can root for someone that says, "only I can fix it."
 
I think they are going to learn that they elected something like a deadbeat landlord. He said he was going to fix the leaky sink but he doesn't do it. He really doesn't care about your stupid sink. But they should have known that he was born as a city millionaire and now he's a billionaire. He doesn't know anything about pain and suffering. He's not from your little town so you can't send your cousin to rough him up to get him to fix the sink. He doesn't have to fix the sink to achieve what he wants because he already got everything he wanted by getting you to sign the dotted line (electing him). So now rural America may get little or nothing out of this guy.
 
The GOP has blocked every attempt at a jobs bill or economic stimulus since taking control of Congress in 2011. But apparently the slow growth of the economy must be the Democrats fault?

Rush Limbaugh said it was Obama's fault so it must be true. :rolleyes:
 
Ive heard many people say to never underestimate the stupidity of Americans. I used to dismiss this view. I don't any longer.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Why not? They're just words.
Click to expand...

Its policy. It's a statement on how they will direct executive power...to affect their will as they know best
But the whole point of libertarianism is it is impossible for an individual to know what is best for another person, let alone 300 million.
 
If whites are now a minority (a majority minority) do we want them to vote like a minority? We talk of the black and Latino vote. Is it time the white vote acts in concert for their own interests? Now that they are a minority, is it even commendable?
 
Argumemnon said:
That sounds impossible, as you note later in your post. Plus, I'm not sure proportional voting is better, given the makeup of the US.
Click to expand...

Proportional voting is much better on every front. At least if the goal of an election is to have a democratic government that reflects the views of the people voting.

The FPTP voting system is archaic and needs to go, we are cursed with it in the UK as well, from what I read the Electoral College you use there is also badly outdated and needs reform.

This first video should be required viewing for every kid who's about to leave school imo.

Why the FPTP system is terrible.


Why the Electoral College needs reform


The system we ought to be using, Single Transferable Vote.
 
dudalb said:
A. The Electorial College needs to go.
B. Don't Hold Your Breath. Too many of the smaller states will never vote for the constitutional Amendment to do so.
One thing that can be done is to has candidates get electors by the percentage of the vote they get rather then winner take all. That would not require an Constional Admendment.
Click to expand...

It would require an amendment to force it on the states. Right now, any state that wants to vote that way, can. If they want to do it some other way, they can. The Constitution says they can elect their electors using their own procedures. If you want to dictate how they choose their electors, that requires a constitutional amendment.

And although Maine and Nebraska have opted for something other than winner take all, there's not much incentive for a state to do so. If they go for a proportional system, then you could pretty much predict that the winning candidate in Michigan would get between 8 and 10 electoral votes, while the loser would get the rest to make up 16. No matter how much effort you put into Michigan, with bribes, promises of pork barrel spending, huge ad dumps to the local media (see: bribes) , you can win or lose no more than 2 votes. Now suppose neighboring Wisconsin is winner take all. You can get plus or minus 10 there.

I don't have strong feelings about the electoral college, but this election shows that it amplifies the votes of rural dwellers above urban dwellers, so it seems rather undemocratic. As I said elsewhere, I think it will go away if the electoral college picks a president who ends up being wildly unpopular. There's a good chance this will be the one. However, he has to be so unpopular that politicians who benefit from the increased influence the system gives them fear the wrath of the voters if they don't support the elimination of the college.
 
The funny thing is that all these poor white rural voters that voted for Donald are going to get screwed hard by him and Paul Ryan. I won't feel bad for them, it will be their fault. Me, I will get a tax cut.

*********** idiots.
 
I've not read all of the thread -- too depressing -- but just saw the results in the local paper. In this liberal little county, for President it was Clinton 10,805; Trump 5019. For Senate, the incubment Dem Patty Murray got 11,905; the Republican Chris Vance got 5222. That's 1100 people who voted for a Dem for Senate but didn't vote for Hillary; and 1200 or so who either didn't vote for a Pres at all or voted 3rd party. The paper didn't list votes for Stein, I'd guess she got quite a few here. No wonder Hillary lost.

ETA: 602 for Stein, 639 for Johnson, 105 for the loonier parties. POTUS was the only election on the ballot with more than two candidates, due to our stupid primary system
 
Last edited:
Ambrosia said:
Proportional voting is much better on every front.
Click to expand...

The states are technically independant and are the constituents of the federal government. Under this idea it's not surprising, nor unjustified, for them to want a say equal to other states with greater populations but entirely different perspectives.
 
Argumemnon said:
The states are technically independant and are the constituents of the federal government. Under this idea it's not surprising, nor unjustified, for them to want a say equal to other states with greater populations but entirely different perspectives.
Click to expand...


This is all well and good. My argument is with the FPTP system of election and how it leaves a party in power that only a minority of the electorate actually support.

Instead of a 2 party system wouldn't a multi party system better represent the people? Or a system where the Republicans and Democrats had more than 1 single candidate.

If the election for POTUS offered people the option to vote for Hilary or Bernie or Trump or Cruz wouldn't that be a better choice to have to make?
 
Ambrosia said:
This is all well and good. My argument is with the FPTP system of election and how it leaves a party in power that only a minority of the electorate actually support.

Instead of a 2 party system wouldn't a multi party system better represent the people? Or a system where the Republicans and Democrats had more than 1 single candidate.

If the election for POTUS offered people the option to vote for Hilary or Bernie or Trump or Cruz wouldn't that be a better choice to have to make?
Click to expand...

That might be an interesting thing to try in the US but I don't know how it would go.

In Canada we have multiple parties and often the party with the most votes has to make coalitions in order to get a majority.
 
Trebuchet said:
I've not read all of the thread -- too depressing -- but just saw the results in the local paper. In this liberal little county, for President it was Clinton 10,805; Trump 5019. For Senate, the incubment Dem Patty Murray got 11,905; the Republican Chris Vance got 5222. That's 1100 people who voted for a Dem for Senate but didn't vote for Hillary; and 1200 or so who either didn't vote for a Pres at all or voted 3rd party. The paper didn't list votes for Stein, I'd guess she got quite a few here. No wonder Hillary lost.

ETA: 602 for Stein, 639 for Johnson, 105 for the loonier parties. POTUS was the only election on the ballot with more than two candidates, due to our stupid primary system
Click to expand...

That would be a very interesting statistic to compile or at least estimate this year. How many people voted for a Senate and/or House candidate, but left the President blank?

I would bet it was bigger than ever this year.
 
Ian Osborne said:
It's been suggested that due to all his legal problems, his presidency will be paralysed and he'll be in jail within a year. How likely do you [no one in particular] think this is?
Click to expand...

It's been suggested that due to all her legal problems, Hillary's campaign will be paralyzed and she'll be in jail within a year. How likely you (Ian Osborne) think this is?
 
Argumemnon said:
You must be deluded. Trump is PART of the political machine. He's not anti-establishment.
Click to expand...

What part of the political machine is he, exactly? Party elite? Washington insider? SuperPAC money man? Revolving-door lobbyist? MIC contractor? Nepotic office-holder? Media shill?

Don't mistake exploiting a corrupt system for authoring and ensuring a corrupt system. Don't imagine that people can't tell the difference between a man who plays the crooked game and the crooks who run that game.
 
If you are following the relentless wikileaks releases, the most ironic across the election was the DNC deciding to put the fix in for the inferior candidate (Hillary) against Trump, and at the same time starting off by promoting Trump.

Long ago I read posters here saying Hillary would do better, despite the polling showing Bernie doing better against Trump. All that wikileaks material brought Hillary down in the end. Bernie would be the president if the establishment insiders hadn't had their way.

They also listed Trump as one of the three Pied Piper candidates. Their strategy was to help him in order to divide and conquer the republicans. A bit of a backfire there.

One detail printed in plain black and white as per wikileaks was reference to an "agreement" between Hillary and Bernie. A non-aggression pact I would just like to see details of. But that and other observations make it pretty plain to me Bernie willingly took a dive early for Hillary. When he came out and said nobody was interested in Hillary's emails - that was absurd.

If you want to take that at face value then he looks awfully damned stupid given what's in them, lol.

I think they bought him off, or some blackmail maybe. But he was the cheapest person in congress so it wouldn't take much.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom