https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m2valF3s84

Stephen (Colbert) Tries To Make Sense Of All This

Well said summary.

ITT people who don't understand what a representative republic is.

Does it really matter if people get representative republic or not? The fact stands that the us american voting system is a little outdated (no wonder as it is quite old) and unfair in the details. Does not matter for this year's results, the system is what it is, but the constant re-arrangement of districts for manipulation of voting results and a system which invalids literally million of votes is definitely not the best possible system you guys could have.

You can have a representative republic and still make more votes count and especially not have in 2 elections in 16 years having the guy win who has a minority of votes.

You can have a representative republic and still make more votes count and especially not have in 2 elections in 16 years having the guy win who has a minority of votes.

I should clarify: ITT people who don't understand the PURPOSE of a representative republic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m2valF3s84

Stephen (Colbert) Tries To Make Sense Of All This[/size]

Well said summary.[/size]

Well said indeed and surprisingly balanced.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-university-lawsuit

Given the upcoming court cases he may not even it through his first term, his hypocrisy calling hrc corrupt is why I really dislike him they are both bent.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-university-lawsuit

Given the upcoming court cases he may not even it through his first term, his hypocrisy calling hrc corrupt is why I really dislike him they are both bent.

It's not hypocrisy, it's irony.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-university-lawsuit

Given the upcoming court cases he may not even it through his first term, his hypocrisy calling hrc corrupt is why I really dislike him they are both bent.

It's not hypocrisy, it's irony.

It can be both.

It's both.

You're missing 36 electoral votes.

It was quick and dirty math so I may be missing some and I did round stuff up and down. But I don't think I was missing that many votes.

What's most bogus is the whole electoral system.

The president has never been elected by popular vote. It was done this way so one single area of the country can't control who becomes president.

But for the first two years of the Obama administration they controlled the White House, Senate and Congress... They could've tried to change the system then.

Just remember and be grateful you weren't born here:

Personally I'm interested in seeing how Maine's Ranked Voting they just passed works out. Looks promising to me though.

Other then that, it looks like Congress will finally have some legislative laxative applied. For all our sake I just hope it's not a bunch of crap coming out.

Oh, and my state did indeed vote to authorize the sale of wine and liquor. So there's that at least!

Yep, ranked voting is important to Maine. We unfortunately learned a very important lesson when the two strongest candidates for Governor split 60% of the vote and we wound up with the least preferred candidate squeaking in with 39% of the vote.

You're missing 36 electoral votes.

It was quick and dirty math so I may be missing some and I did round stuff up and down. But I don't think I was missing that many votes.

Yeah, there's 538 electoral votes in the US. No judgement on the math, it's just that I'm a big fan of Nate Silver so I knew the number by heart

I was #neverhillary. I supported Bernie. He was cheated by the rigged DNC.

I support free and unbiased media - not bought and paid for propaganda pretending to be news. If Hillary won we'd be heading toward North Korea levels of dictatorship and censorship. Now the country stands a chance.

Hillary's heroes are Henry Kissinger and Byrd the KKK grand wizard. She lies to the public and is owned by Soros, Podesta, and their cult. The wikileaks are scary when pieced together. The protests last night were yet another fabrication by Soros and his clan.

Trump is a social liberal with a horrible (my opinion) VP. The VP doesn't really do anything though so we're safe from him.

I would have preferred Jill Stein as president, but had to vote to keep Hillary out. Thankful that most of the country agreed. Hoping the DNC is disbanded and that Tulsi runs in the future.

The president has never been elected by popular vote. It was done this way so one single area of the country can't control who becomes president.

Swing states say this is a massive failure. The majority of the country has little to no say in who is president, because they live in red state or a blue state which wouldn't vote majority for the other party even if the leader was literally Hitler.

But for the first two years of the Obama administration they controlled the White House, Senate and Congress... They could've tried to change the system then.

As for this, I very much doubt that electoral reform can be as easily accomplished as this. You've basically got to persuade the entire system to change the system that both got them, and allows them to keep, their jobs, at great personal risk to their livelihoods. That's a hugely uphill battle, and one that takes a lot longer than a single presidential term.

Yeah, there's 538 electoral votes in the US.

FWIW... I grabbed one of the electoral maps from google and put the % for both Clinton and Trump for each state into excel, rounding to the nearest whole %. I also put the number of votes that state got, then used simple division to figure out the proportion of votes.

I know I missed two states because I only had 49 entries and one of them was DC. But I don't think I missed any big ones, at least not enough to miss 36 votes... But between rounding things up/down and those two states that might of been it.

I didn't bother to save the excel file so I'm not going to do it again. But what I should've been able to see is that a proportional system would effectively mirror the popular vote.

No judgement on the math

Math is not my strongest suit so my math should often be questioned...

What's most bogus is the whole electoral system. One person, one vote, the most votes win. This would have meant HRC won, but more importantly, Trump would have lost.

Yes, he is President but he didn't win because the majority wanted him. Important to remember.

The electoral system was put in place so that smaller states with less population weren't drowned out. In the very beginning, smaller states were concerned that the more populous states would drown out their concerns. This can easily be shown by such issues as the tariff. The NE wanted a tariff on English goods so the burgeoning American manufacturing could take off. The South didn't want it because it would cause a reactive tariff on American cotton. The less populous southern states didn't want to see their point of view drowned out by the more populous norther states. So, the electoral system was born. It's specifically set up so that it's not just about population.

I'm just... disappointed. Not because I desperately wanted a Clinton presidency, just that I thought the country would reject the message of isolationism, hate, fear, and misogyny. To me this was a referendum on decency, and I honestly and deeply held my countrymen and women in such high regard that I was banking on them saying "no" to divisive and populist rhetoric. Alas, apparently I was only half right.

Myself and many of my friends considered it a referendum on fear, hatred, and isolationism. I don't believe that many Trump supporters viewed it that way, though. Trump is a political outsider that wants to shake things up. He doesn't like the regular Republicans or the Democrats. He is considered his own man. There is a really good article on NPR.com that talks about what Trump has leaked out that he wants to do in his first 100 days.

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

There are some things there that even I like:

• propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress
• a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service
• a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
• a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
• End The Offshoring Act
• Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
• Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics. (OK...it sounds good, but really no details on this. This one is a maybe).

So, with these items, he can be viewed as the guy who is going to go and clean up Washington DC. He's not the enabler of hate, but the guy who is going to clean up corruption. If you view it that way, then Hillary Clinton appears like the exact opposite. She is the avatar of corrupt politics in their eyes.

There are a bunch of other things I don't like in that list, but I have to admit I was surprised to find I liked as much as I did. I think it's about 40-60 stuff that I like vs don't.

Sorry to double post, but I did just see this.

Trump is a social liberal with a horrible (my opinion) VP. The VP doesn't really do anything though so we're safe from him.

Yes, that's what I thought, too. The only problem is that he's made promises to the social conservative crowd to roll back some social liberal stuff. Pence has stated that he and Trump will roll back a lot of LGBT rights in the federal government that are there. That's not really cool. Trump will get to pick a Supreme Court Justice. It will go a long way to show how he will do things on his justice pick. If he picks some GOP conservative tool then Trump will be a social conservative nightmare. There is the chance that he picks a judge that is socially liberal and conservative on all else (including gun rights).

I have a number of LGBT friends that are really freaking out right now. They are wondering if their marriages will be annulled and some of them will be forced to split up (due to different nationalities and such). Children were adopted and people wonder if they might lose their kid. I think it's a real concern. Trump started off being socially liberal, but he's made promises to the hateful crowd and we will see where he stands with his choice of justice.

Swing states say this is a massive failure

I agree the swing states do show the flaw in the system. But I'm not sure if a pure popular vote is the best answer either. That's something I wouldn't mind debating/investigating though. To be honest I think we'd be better off with a more european style parliamentary system where no one party can get all the power and all power is divided between two of them.

As for this, I very much doubt that electoral reform can be as easily accomplished as this.

I don't think there's much chance it will ever change since it would require an amendment to the constitution which also requires 3/4th of the states to ratify it. But my point is when the Democrats controlled the government they didn't even bring it up, not even when they had the super majority.

But you're right that neither side wants to see a real change to the system because it could lead to all of them losing their jobs.

You're missing 36 electoral votes.

It was quick and dirty math so I may be missing some and I did round stuff up and down. But I don't think I was missing that many votes.

What's most bogus is the whole electoral system.

The president has never been elected by popular vote. It was done this way so one single area of the country can't control who becomes president.But for the first two years of the Obama administration they controlled the White House, Senate and Congress... They could've tried to change the system then.

And the idea that California will "decide" for Montana is just retarded, unless EVERY state ends up on one side - not sure if anyone noticed but not EVERYONE in those states votes the same way.

The system is archaic and broken.

One person, one vote.

• propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress

This in particular seems like a good idea to me.

Swing states say this is a massive failure

I agree the swing states do show the flaw in the system. But I'm not sure if a pure popular vote is the best answer either. That's something I wouldn't mind debating/investigating though. To be honest I think we'd be better off with a more european style parliamentary system where no one party can get all the power and all power is divided between two of them.

But you're right that neither side wants to see a real change to the system because it could lead to all of them losing their jobs.

The need is much more for a proportional representative voting system of some kind. We desperately need one here in the UK too. First past the post (i.e. largest vote bloc wins regardless of whether they have an actual majority of support - in the UK governments tend to have a minority of the popular vote because we still have a couple of minor and regional parties who are able to get MPs. In the most recent MP the Conservatives received 36% of the vote, or 24% of the electorate, and in both that and this, 'did not vote' would have won by a landslide, which more than anything is indicative to me that people don't like the system as it stands) is a terrible system that naturally tends to eat smaller parties and result in two massive superparties that trade power every so often whilst holding broadly similar policies and calling each other ever more hyperbolic names about their superficial differences.

Once people can vote on their actual beliefs rather than having to vote defensively for the least-worst option you can start actually getting some proper representation of those views.

It's really tough to pick a president with PR though... You can't have proportional representation of a single person office...

Trump is a political outsider that wants to shake things up. He doesn't like the regular Republicans or the Democrats.

I honestly sorta see Trump as a 3rd party candidate. Sure he ran as a republican but he's no more a republican then Bernie was a democrat... Both joined a party simply because they knew that the best chance they had to actually get elected. But neither one was really part of either party.

She is the avatar of corrupt politics in their eyes

This is exactly it, I would of actually voted for Sanders if doing so would of meant she wasn't in the running. Because to me she is the avatar of everything wrong with US politics.

So what happened to all of Trump's claims before the election that the vote was rigged?

Was he right? And he shut up about it because he won?

You can't have proportional representation of a single person office...

That's actually my point... I think we could be better off without the office of president. I mean in the UK you all seem to do fine with the PM, no loss of a central leader to represent you on the world stage.

I mean the office of president was in some ways a replacement for the King. Plus if you look at the original concept of the US, the president was much less important than who the governor of a given state was. Because the federal government wasn't going to have much impact on the day to day life of the various states.

You can't have proportional representation of a single person office...

That's actually my point... I think we could be better off without the office of president. I mean in the UK you all seem to do fine with the PM, no loss of a central leader to represent you on the world stage.

I mean the office of president was in some ways a replacement for the King. Plus if you look at the original concept of the US, the president was much less important than who the governor of a given state was. Because the federal government wasn't going to have much impact on the day to day life of the various states.

Good luck changing something that fundamental about the constitution though.

Sometimes I'm glad we don't have a formal constitution.

Not often, but sometimes.