Clinton Urged to Call For Recount After Suspected Vote Tampering And/Or Hacking

[Deleted]

This 100%. This is why we have the electoral college. College kids don't understand this because honestly....they don't care...they just know they didn't get their way.

College kids understand it because they read the reasons behind the electoral college built by the founding fathers. If you had read it and truly read it, it was a back-port for them to overturn popular vote and switch to the candidate they desired. Why you think they put legislation in most states to scare electors to become a faithless elector in the first place? Because it could legitimately undermine the election the same way the electoral system undermines the popular vote, the truest measurement of democracy.

Not to mention in most places of the world the richest and most populated states/provinces have more to say than those that don't based on popularity vote (in terms of who becomes the country leader, albeit not guaranteed), however in the parliament/senate/chambres it's all equally and fairly distributed similar to the electoral system. That's the only thing I'd personally change in the USA, keep everything the same but presidency would be decided on who gets the most people behind them.

If you do not think this makes any sense, then you just don't know how democracy works and should work.

[Deleted]

Didn't Wisconsin already have a recount?

ah well at least Florida won't be alone anymore as the 'Blame it all on that state'

[Tijuana]

Well, my experience does not date back 200 years, but in the decades I have, I have seen the disparities not necessarily grow, but become much more pronounced. The two party system really seems to split American society, especially when it is mostly focused upon itself. The common voter, nay, citizen, is ironically more involved in politics than a few decades ago - not necessarily actively, but passively. The system should be updated to reflect this.
The EC, along with many other facets of American democracy, fosters a division among the people, as you really can only be a democrat or republican if you want to affect anything. That is why this time you ended up with Trump vs Hillary, who both had their negatives and positives - but that does not even really matter. You hear it a lot in this forum too: "sure, candidate M has this and that problem, but at least they are not as bad as candidate N". There are always only two choices - and you have other negative effects.
For example, winner-takes-all in the individual states can lead to discouragement in those states that always vote one way or the other. If your state is 80% party M and 20% party N, many people who like party N more have no real incentive to vote. Their votes simply do not count and are ignored. That is why there is such a low voter turnout.
Changing such things could help create a less antagonistic system with more options for everyone - and more compromise. I mean right now, who do Republicans have to compromise with, anyway? And don't even get me started on the whole 'executive order back and forth'.

Well, we don't have a two party system now, and we never have. I don't know why people say that. I have voted for 14 different parties in my lifetime. (I collect oddball party votes for meaningless positions.)

However, I do agree that the EC hugely diminishes voting turn out.

[Mormolyce]

That's the version of Democracy that America has chosen to live with. Districts getting X number of electorates.
If they don't like it, then they can change it.

They've made their bed, they should now lay in it.

They haven't had a choice in the matter in over 200 years. To change it you need a constitutional amendment which requires a two-thirds majority in both houses. Good luck with that, when one of the parties (currently the Republicans) will always benefit from the current system and fight tooth and nail to keep it.

Americans have wanted the EC replaced for generations, but they've never been given an opportunity to do so.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/150245/am...ular-vote.aspx


https://lonestarpolitics.wordpress.c...toral-college/

[Tijuana]

All elections should have random ballots audited anyways. I'd be surprised if that didn't already happen to some degree.

I assure you there is over sight.

[Slant]

Considering you didn't get infracted for trying to fit mod dicks in your mouth like they were billiard balls while insulting people, I think I have my evidence.

Naturally, you have your evidence. Heck, the moon phase could be your evidence. Just because you say something doesn't make it fact. I don't mind some mod bashing, god knows they deserve it sometimes. But all this bickering about one mod in particular is just pathetic.

[Mormolyce]

Six EC electors so far have pledged to vote Hillary. Mostly as a protest against the EC.

At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.

The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.

Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they're unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump — the number they'd likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.

But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...s-trump-231731

[Slant]

Gladly! Lets start with an illustration that shows why the massive disparity between republican vs democrat votes causes concern for republican voters:



Somehow, Clinton won the popular vote even though the vast majority of counties in the US seemed to have voted republican. This is noteworthy because there is a correlation between population density, and % of population utilizing government services. Now, let me give you a slightly more indepth reasonwhy we need the electoral college for fairness in a national election. I would like to show you some numbers.. and why they matter:

Nebraska:1.9m (5ev)
Kansas: 2.9m (6ev)
Oklahoma: 3.9m (7ev)
Arkansas: 3m (6ev)
Miss: 3m (6ev)
Alabama: 5m (9ev)
N. Dakota: 750k (3ev)
S. Dakota: 855k (3ev)
Montana: 1.1m (3ev)
Alaska: 750k (3ev)
Pennsylvania: 13m (20ev)
Texas: 28m (38ev)
(Total pop: 64.15m) (total ev: 109)

These are 12 states who, in this year's election voted Republican. The TOTAL population for ALL TWELVE of these states is 64million.. give or take a few hundred thousand. All but 2 basically represent the heartland. Why am I making this important, you might ask? let me give you another list.. its a little shorter, Clinton didn't win that many states, you know.

California: 39m (55ev)
New York (state): 20m (29ev)
Virginia: 8.5m (13ev)
Washington State: 7m (12ev)
(total pop:74.5m) (total ev:109)

These are just 4 states that voted Democrat. I point this out because if it were left ONLY to popular vote, the first state on this list would have nullified THE ENTIRE MIDWEST of this country. And while you might not care about it because they didn't vote Democrat, they are still a part of the U.S.A. and deserving of a voice. It takes the combined population of all 12 states listed to still come up short against the first 3 listed.

The population of those 4 states should not have, in total, more voice then TWELVE other states, in total. republican don't even complain about the MASSIVE disparity between the largest consistent blue state (Cali@55) vs the largest consistent red state (Tex@38). It's important because people in the mid-west, for example, have much different needs/desires from their president than high density metropolis, or coastal cities. Allowing the country to move toward popular vote has a much greater chance of disenfranchising the people of this country. In short, we need the Electoral College because it is the equalizer that ensures ALL states have a voice, all states play a part in the direction of our government. It worked just fine as it always did when Obama, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter won, and it worked just fine as it always did when Bush (jr/sr), and Reagan won. If you want a system that speaks for the majority of this country, and not just a majority of cities.. this is the fairest system that could have been produced. Our founders had the wisdom to see the expansive potential of our nation, and indeed have we expanded. they also wanted to ensure that elections could not be controlled simply by monopolizing areas that have a high density population from having more sway than less populated, but equally American ones.

Did you just actually try to argue that people in Nebraska deserve to have more say in the election than people in California? Like, is that actually what you said? I think it is. What you describe isn't fair by any measure in western democracy. Now, I'm not arguing against the EC in general. I think it's stupid, but it's what the US has and it sure made a lot of sense in the olden times. But don't pretend that it's fair. It's not. The truth is that Nebraska, as a state, as so many fewer voters than California that it really shouldn't be as important as California. If you want to represent the people and not the geographical landmass then you should give everyone equal weight for their vote.

And this also means that you don't discount every vote that lost in a state. You count them all together and then look who got more votes total. That's how you have an actual election that's fair and equal.

[Tijuana]

Did you just actually try to argue that people in Nebraska deserve to have more say in the election than people in California? Like, is that actually what you said? I think it is. What you describe isn't fair by any measure in western democracy. Now, I'm not arguing against the EC in general. I think it's stupid, but it's what the US has and it sure made a lot of sense in the olden times. But don't pretend that it's fair. It's not. The truth is that Nebraska, as a state, as so many fewer voters than California that it really shouldn't be as important as California. If you want to represent the people and not the geographical landmass then you should give everyone equal weight for their vote.

And this also means that you don't discount every vote that lost in a state. You count them all together and then look who got more votes total. That's how you have an actual election that's fair and equal.

Well, since the US is in fact not a Democracy, I feel it's still pretty ok to do things like a Republic would, since that is what we actually are.

Also, what you guys are arguing for, is literally a civil war or some sort of split. You do know that's where it would lead, right? If we can't have checks and balances to ensure all voices are represented, those voices will just leave. California gets a ton more electoral votes than Nebraska. But, it sounds like you don't want Nebraska to have any, because they don't breed as much. Seems unfair either way but, you make it sound as if only one way is unfair.

[Adolecent]

I'm perfectly aware where the bias lies on these forums you don't make over 10k post with out figuring that out
I like to keep reminding the establishment that the bias once again is on full display

Are you talking about an "MMO-C OT establishment"?

OnTopic: The questions these experts raise are serious so why not investigate them? If it was true that the upcomming president of a country illegaly becomes president then woudn't anyone in his right mind needs to stop that fraud?

You don't want a criminal in your presidential residence and call yourself a democracy people, you're not living in Russia...

[Deleted]

Six EC electors so far have pledged to vote Hillary. Mostly as a protest against the EC.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...s-trump-231731

Electors whom he didn't win are not going to vote for him!!

[Slant]

Well, since the US is in fact not a Democracy, I feel it's still pretty ok to do things like a Republic would, since that is what we actually are.

Democracy and Republic aren't mutually exclusive. Nor is the US not a democracy. It's a bad one, but it's still democratic. And a republic doesn't have a "specific way of doing things" either. Hell, nothing you said made any sense... Except that you're a republic. Although, since most of your stuff seems to happen behind closed doors (lobbying and big money making decisions), I'd seriously doubt it's a republic now, too.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, since the US is in fact not a Democracy, I feel it's still pretty ok to do things like a Republic would, since that is what we actually are.

Also, what you guys are arguing for, is literally a civil war or some sort of split. You do know that's where it would lead, right? If we can't have checks and balances to ensure all voices are represented, those voices will just leave. California gets a ton more electoral votes than Nebraska. But, it sounds like you don't want Nebraska to have any, because they don't breed as much. Seems unfair either way but, you make it sound as if only one way is unfair.

Since you did edit it, I'll add another thought... how is this leading to civil war? Almost every other western democracy functions like I explained. They don't go up in flames, why would the US? Checks and balances have nothing to do with the election system. California deserves more votes than Nebraska, because they have a much higher population of people, you know, the guys that this system is meant to represent.

This has nothing to do with breeding or deserving. Nebraska should get as many votes per person that count as any other state. Exactly 1. And each vote should be valid for the same weight. That means that areas with more people get to have more votes. How is this an exotic concept for you? Do you not learn about democracy in school?

[Tijuana]

Democracy and Republic aren't mutually exclusive. Nor is the US not a democracy. It's a bad one, but it's still democratic. And a republic doesn't have a "specific way of doing things" either. Hell, nothing you said made any sense... Except that you're a republic. Although, since most of your stuff seems to happen behind closed doors (lobbying and big money making decisions), I'd seriously doubt it's a republic now, too.

- - - Updated - - -



Since you did edit it, I'll add another thought... how is this leading to civil war? Almost every other western democracy functions like I explained. They don't go up in flames, why would the US? Checks and balances have nothing to do with the election system. California deserves more votes than Nebraska, because they have a much higher population of people, you know, the guys that this system is meant to represent.

This has nothing to do with breeding or deserving. Nebraska should get as many votes per person that count as any other state. Exactly 1. And each vote should be valid for the same weight. That means that areas with more people get to have more votes. How is this an exotic concept for you? Do you not learn about democracy in school?

Shots fired! ROFL

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. This is a complex issue. You will need to bring more than memes if you want to sway anyone to your side.

The United States is not a democracy. No matter how many times you say different, it will never become true. My point, that may have been worded poorly, is that we have a lot of complexity in the ways we distribute power. Simply handing it all over via mob rule, is not a more elegant, nor a more fair, solution.

As for round two:

We do a lot of things the same as they do in other nations. But, we have 50 nations. There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding among non-Americans, about how and why America does things differently. And that is fine, you have your own things to worry about. What gets tiring though, is constantly being told by people who fundamentally don't understand why we do things how we do, that we should do them differently. At least educate yourself on why we do them like we do, before you start in on saying do them different.

I'll say it again: We are not a democracy. We think our complex system is much more elegant than simple mob rule.

[Slant]

Shots fired! ROFL

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. This is a complex issue. You will need to bring more than memes if you want to sway anyone to your side.

The United States is not a democracy. No matter how many times you say different, it will never become true. My point, that may have been worded poorly, is that we have a lot of complexity in the ways we distribute power. Simply handing it all over via mob rule, is not a more elegant, nor a more fair, solution.

As for round two:

We do a lot of things the same as they do in other nations. But, we have 50 nations. There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding among non-Americans, about how and why America does things differently. And that is fine, you have your own things to worry about. What gets tiring though, is constantly being told by people who fundamentally don't understand why we do things how we do, that we should do them differently. At least educate yourself on why we do them like we do, before you start in on saying do them different.

I'll say it again: We are not a democracy. We think our complex system is much more elegant than simple mob rule.

I understand what you're saying perfectly right. I'm telling you, you're using the words wrong. They do not mean what you think they mean. Grab yourself a dictionairy and learn the meaning of the words.

[Tijuana]

I understand what you're saying perfectly right. I'm telling you, you're using the words wrong. They do not mean what you think they mean. Grab yourself a dictionairy and learn the meaning of the words.

Which words?

I mean if that is all you have, to refute an American on what kind of government they have, I don't know what to say actually. The hubris is amazing though. Did I use that one right? I'm kind of not sure.

[Slant]

Which words?

I mean if that is all you have, to refute an American on what kind of government they have, I don't know what to say actually. The hubris is amazing though. Did I use that one right? I'm kind of not sure.

Like... all of them practically. You use words because they sound like they may fit, but they don't actually fit the context you try to bring across. The US is a democracy, like it or not. It's a bad one, but it's democratic. See, this is what you call stuff when people get to vote shit and other people get to vote more shit and the voted shit becomes law. And Germany, a more direct version of democracy, is actually a republic. So you being a republic doesn't mean you can't do it like we do. See, republic is a rather empty phrase, it just means it's a matter of the public. Governance, that is. The public enables the Government to act. As long as you have that condition set, you're a republic. See, this is why England is not a republic. Because it's essentially, technically, the queen enabling the Government to act. I know, technicalities and you are already thinking "how can a foreigner teach me about my own country?" But trust me, that's how these words work.

Was was the other thing... Oh right. You don't have 50 nations. You have 50 states. Why am I being a anally pedantic about this? Because, while I do realise the states have a lot of authority in the US, the US isn't exclusive to that kind of shit. Here's a kicker for you, Germany, a federal republic (see, now you're learning that there is more than one type of republic, too!) has states, too! And guess what? Just about 75% of legislation authority falls to the states, not the federal Government. It's almost like... in the US! *gasps*

Wait, did you think you were a unique special snowflake and god's chosen nation is the only one that had states that worked like that? Oh, I'm sorry. We do it in Europe too. Some of us have been doing it for almost as long as you have (France). And some of us actually stopped doing it before you were even a thing! (Greece and Rome - and they started and stopped doing it in some places several times before the US existed!)

[Tijuana]

Like... all of them practically. You use words because they sound like they may fit, but they don't actually fit the context you try to bring across. The US is a democracy, like it or not. It's a bad one, but it's democratic. See, this is what you call stuff when people get to vote shit and other people get to vote more shit and the voted shit becomes law. And Germany, a more direct version of democracy, is actually a republic. So you being a republic doesn't mean you can't do it like we do. See, republic is a rather empty phrase, it just means it's a matter of the public. Governance, that is. The public enables the Government to act. As long as you have that condition set, you're a republic. See, this is why England is not a republic. Because it's essentially, technically, the queen enabling the Government to act. I know, technicalities and you are already thinking "how can a foreigner teach me about my own country?" But trust me, that's how these words work.

Was was the other thing... Oh right. You don't have 50 nations. You have 50 states. Why am I being a anally pedantic about this? Because, while I do realise the states have a lot of authority in the US, the US isn't exclusive to that kind of shit. Here's a kicker for you, Germany, a federal republic (see, now you're learning that there is more than one type of republic, too!) has states, too! And guess what? Just about 75% of legislation authority falls to the states, not the federal Government. It's almost like... in the US! *gasps*

Wait, did you think you were a unique special snowflake and god's chosen nation is the only one that had states that worked like that? Oh, I'm sorry. We do it in Europe too. Some of us have been doing it for almost as long as you have (France). And some of us actually stopped doing it before you were even a thing! (Greece and Rome)

Having a conversation about how I should accept your version of reality, isn't actually that enticing. Not only do you not understand how our government is fundamentally set up, you clearly have no education on why we set it up the way we did. I can't teach you a lifetime of education in one forum post.

I know nothing about your (French?) government. Yet, I am not running my mouth about your government, now am I? In addition, I have not resorted to the nation bashing that seems to have been your main objective all along.

You can think I am wrong and that is fine. I concede the debate to you, and you can consider yourself the "winner". I think any third party who read this exchange is clearly the loser, however.

[Slant]

Having a conversation about how I should accept your version of reality, isn't actually that enticing. Not only do you not understand how our government is fundamentally set up, you clearly have no education on why we set it up the way we did. I can't teach you a lifetime of education in one forum post.

I know nothing about your (French?) government. Yet, I am not running my mouth about your government, now am I? In addition, I have not resorted to the nation bashing that seems to have been your main objective all along.

You can think I am wrong and that is fine. I concede the debate to you, and you can consider yourself the "winner". I think any third party who read this exchange is clearly the loser, however.

It's not "my version of reality". It's how the words work! It's how the world works! God, you crazy deniers make conversation so difficult. You're actually redefining language to fit the twisted fantasy you have in your head.

You know nothing. That is the point. I'm not even from France, ffs. I'm not nation bashing, I'm bashing your posts. I mean, I did say you have a bad democratic system, but that's hardly nation bashing when literally every American agrees with how fucked up the political system in the US is. On both sides of the aisle.

[Slant]

$1.7 million
https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

I guess we're going to get us some recounts unless SCOTUS intervenes again.

Who has the right to force a recount? Only the candidates? The president? Do the people in anyway have the ability to force a recount?

[Omega10]

According to left wing propaganda sites:

Jill Stein can call for a recount because she was a candidate (presumably this means was on the ballot? Not sure exactly what that means).

Jill Stein already has enough money raised to get the Wisconsin recount started. Wisconsin officials are already getting started to do the recount.
The expectation is that she will have more than enough to get all three states recounted.

Numbers that matter:

Trump leads by these amounts:

Wisconsin - < 12,000
Michigan - < 28,000
Pennsylvania - < 69,000

From what I can tell, if Trump wins any one of these three contested states, he is President.
If Clinton takes all three, she is President.

- - - Updated - - -

One more number: If Trump keeps Wisconsin but loses the other two, then if my math is correct Trump wins 270 to 268. In this case it would take 2 Trump electors to vote for Clinton to make Clinton the President (or more accurately, 2 more Trump defectors than Clinton defectors since both sides could end up with elector defectors). If 1 Trump elector switched to Hillary, then if I understand the situation correctly the House would vote, state by state, and they could only vote for Trump or Clinton (no one else has any electoral votes). This would pretty much be a guaranteed Trump victory.