NOT SO FAST: Election results may have been hacked in three swing states

[President Trump 3,508]

1 minute ago, Pierre said:

NOT KELLYANNE, :LMAO: 

The true kween ngl

[Katsuki Bakugo 9,788]

On 11/23/2016 at 0:26 PM, PartySick said:

She's already two million up in the popular vote

how does that one work?

[PartySick 172,444]

9 hours ago, Melisandre said:

how does that one work?

What do you mean? Like, how can she get 2 million more votes and still lose? Or?

[Katsuki Bakugo 9,788]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

What do you mean? Like, how can she get 2 million more votes and still lose? Or?

Yeah that. I am Australian and have different rules.

[PartySick 172,444]

2 minutes ago, Melisandre said:

Yeah that. I am Australian and have different rules.

Well, here we have the electoral college. Basically every state is worth a certain amount of "points" and whoever gets to 270 (out of 538) is the winner. Popular vote isn't what decides the winner. That's why Al Gore lost to Bush even though he got 500,000 more votes and why Hillary lost even though she's got two million more votes (and they're still counting).

It's a system set in place to ensure that rural areas have some say but it basically keeps the power of out the citizens' hands 'cause the founders didn't think we were smart/informed enough to choose the best candidate, so the electoral college was made to choose for us. Though they usually go with what the state's voters decided.

Spoiler

Take Florida for example. We have 27 electoral votes and Trump won here, meaning it's assumed our electors will give him those 27 votes. They don't have to though.

In reality, they can vote for anyone. 3 of the electors that are pledged to Trump have said they're writing in Mitt Romney. He didn't even run  It's a screwed up system and with everyone, even Trump, hating it, I'm hopeful that it'll die soon and the popular vote will be the decider, as it should be.

People say that's an issue 'cause then candidates will only visit big cities and urban areas but I fail to see how that's any different than what we have now. It's just, instead of visiting cities, they visit a hand full of swing states to pander to undecided masses.

Also, under our current system (if I remember this correctly) a vote from Wisconsin is four times as powerful as a vote from California. That's an issue. All votes should be equal meaning there should be a national tally (popular vote) rather than state tallies to win points.

It's dumb.

Update on this though, Jill Stein has already raised two million dollars to help pay for a recount in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania 

[GagaMyBlood95 9,915]

Hm I mean, it's possible, but those numbers are really tight. She "could have" lost up to 30 000  votes. That could mean 1 vote or 30 000 votes so idk...

But lets see what they come up with

[Eighteen 5,430]

40 minutes ago, Melisandre said:

Yeah that. I am Australian and have different rules.

 

24 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Well, here we have the electoral college. Basically every state is worth a certain amount of "points" and whoever gets to 270 (out of 538) is the winner. Popular vote isn't what decides the winner. That's why Al Gore lost to Bush even though he got 500,000 more votes and why Hillary lost even though she's got two million more votes (and they're still counting).

It's a system set in place to ensure that rural areas have some say but it basically keeps the power of out the citizens' hands 'cause the founders didn't think we were smart/informed enough to choose the best candidate, so the electoral college was made to choose for us. Though they usually go with what the state's voters decided.

  Hide contents

Take Florida for example. We have 27 electoral votes and Trump won here, meaning it's assumed our electors will give him those 27 votes. They don't have to though.

In reality, they can vote for anyone. 3 of the electors that are pledged to Trump have said they're writing in Mitt Romney. He didn't even run  It's a screwed up system and with everyone, even Trump, hating it, I'm hopeful that it'll die soon and the popular vote will be the decider, as it should be.

People say that's an issue 'cause then candidates will only visit big cities and urban areas but I fail to see how that's any different than what we have now. It's just, instead of visiting cities, they visit a hand full of swing states to pander to undecided masses.

Also, under our current system (if I remember this correctly) a vote from Wisconsin is four times as powerful as a vote from California. That's an issue. All votes should be equal meaning there should be a national tally (popular vote) rather than state tallies to win points.

It's dumb.

Update on this though, Jill Stein has already raised two million dollars to help pay for a recount in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania 

 

to add on to a vote being "more powerful in one state than another" would be like: california has 55 electoral college votes to represent its very big population, and wyoming has 3 electoral votes to represent its very small population. when you take the population of wyoming (about 584,000 people) and the number of electoral votes it has, it would come out to about 194,000 people per electoral vote. in california, whose population is 38.8 million, 1 electoral vote represents about 700,000 people. so it's not balanced; it gives more favor to states with smaller populations. so hillary can win more of the popular vote and still lose the election because of this (broken af)

 

edit: 

as a side note, the founding fathers apparently set up this system so that electoral college voters could vote against the people if they made a dumb ****ing choice, so, uhm, hello i think this would be the time to use that power, otherwise why is it even there -_-

 

 

[Katsuki Bakugo 9,788]

8 hours ago, PartySick said:

Well, here we have the electoral college. Basically every state is worth a certain amount of "points" and whoever gets to 270 (out of 538) is the winner. Popular vote isn't what decides the winner. That's why Al Gore lost to Bush even though he got 500,000 more votes and why Hillary lost even though she's got two million more votes (and they're still counting).

It's a system set in place to ensure that rural areas have some say but it basically keeps the power of out the citizens' hands 'cause the founders didn't think we were smart/informed enough to choose the best candidate, so the electoral college was made to choose for us. Though they usually go with what the state's voters decided.

  Reveal hidden contents

Take Florida for example. We have 27 electoral votes and Trump won here, meaning it's assumed our electors will give him those 27 votes. They don't have to though.

In reality, they can vote for anyone. 3 of the electors that are pledged to Trump have said they're writing in Mitt Romney. He didn't even run  It's a screwed up system and with everyone, even Trump, hating it, I'm hopeful that it'll die soon and the popular vote will be the decider, as it should be.

People say that's an issue 'cause then candidates will only visit big cities and urban areas but I fail to see how that's any different than what we have now. It's just, instead of visiting cities, they visit a hand full of swing states to pander to undecided masses.

Also, under our current system (if I remember this correctly) a vote from Wisconsin is four times as powerful as a vote from California. That's an issue. All votes should be equal meaning there should be a national tally (popular vote) rather than state tallies to win points.

It's dumb.

Update on this though, Jill Stein has already raised two million dollars to help pay for a recount in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania 

GO JILL.

See you explained it well for me. I find my system a lot better ( still has flaws) when picking the winning team. 

[ShockPop 7,747]

The world is hopeful! Come through first female prez!

[PartySick 172,444]

4 hours ago, Melisandre said:

GO JILL.

See you explained it well for me. I find my system a lot better ( still has flaws) when picking the winning team. 

I tried

What's the Australian system?

Spoiler

That's still kind of on topic I think

 

[socotra 3,357]

18 minutes ago, PartySick said:

I tried

What's the Australian system?

  Reveal hidden contents

That's still kind of on topic I think

 

I'm not Australian, but I'm pretty sure they have a parliamentary system with ranked voting (far and away a much better system than what the U.S. has). Basically with a parliament, you don't vote for a "president," you vote for representatives, and those representatives choose a "president" (prime minister). Thus, there can never be a deadlock like we have in the U.S. (where the president is a Democrat and Congress is Republican, or any other number of possibilities). The downfall of that is you need a threshold number of representatives in your party to hold a majority (idk what it is in Australia, but in Spain it's something like 175). If you don't have 175, you can't form a majority government so you then need to form a coalition government, which is where MULTIPLE parties govern TOGETHER (do u see how this forces cooperation). Typically, parties of similar ideology build coalitions, you're not gonna get liberal and conservative parties uniting, you'll get parties that are closer together on the political spectrum. 

I'm not at all sure about this, but I think representation is proportional in Australia? Not sure.

But they do have ranked voting, and ranked voting is where instead of getting "one vote for one candidate," you can list in order of preference. So, instead of voting like this:

U.S. PRESIDENT

[X] Hillary Clinton 

[ ] Donald Trump

[ ] Jill Stein

[ ] Gary Johnson

It would be something akin to this: 

U.S. PRESIDENT

1. Jill Stein

2. Hillary Clinton

3. Gary Johnson

And what this does is you basically rank your candidates in order of preference and then there are mini elections. It allows third parties to be viable, for one, because your vote is never "wasted." If Jill Stein doesn't get enough votes in the first round, your vote is just moved to whoever your second choice was (in my example, Hillary Clinton). 

Here's a really good video that explains ranked voting far better than I can: 

 

[Katsuki Bakugo 9,788]

10 minutes ago, PartySick said:

I tried

What's the Australian system?

  Reveal hidden contents

That's still kind of on topic I think

 

Well all parties are available to be voted on. We don't pick our Prime Minster, but they are picked within the parties... essentially we are picking them though... anyways they campaign then on election day ( which is mandatory for everyone) we all pick our votes in our seats. they have a certain number of seats to get before the winner is declared ( which makes no sense to me should they wait till all polls are closed then the seats counted anyways) 

So the winning party has the most seats and then the PM is chosen by the party previously to run them through the campaign. 

[Katsuki Bakugo 9,788]

Just now, Indyl said:

I'm not Australian, but I'm pretty sure they have a parliamentary system with ranked voting (far and away a much better system than what the U.S. has). Basically with a parliament, you don't vote for a "president," you vote for representatives, and those representatives choose a "president" (prime minister). Thus, there can never be a deadlock like we have in the U.S. (where the president is a Democrat and Congress is Republican, or any other number of possibilities). The downfall of that is you need a threshold number of representatives in your party to hold a majority (idk what it is in Australia, but in Spain it's something like 175). If you don't have 175, you can't form a majority government so you then need to form a coalition government, which is where MULTIPLE parties govern TOGETHER (do u see how this forces cooperation). Typically, parties of similar ideology build coalitions, you're not gonna get liberal and conservative parties uniting, you'll get parties that are closer together on the political spectrum. 

I'm not at all sure about this, but I think representation is proportional in Australia? Not sure.

But they do have ranked voting, and ranked voting is where instead of getting "one vote for one candidate," you can list in order of preference. So, instead of voting like this:

U.S. PRESIDENT

[X] Hillary Clinton 

[ ] Donald Trump

[ ] Jill Stein

[ ] Gary Johnson

It would be something akin to this: 

U.S. PRESIDENT

1. Jill Stein

2. Hillary Clinton

3. Gary Johnson

And what this does is you basically rank your candidates in order of preference and then there are mini elections. It allows third parties to be viable, for one, because your vote is never "wasted." If Jill Stein doesn't get enough votes in the first round, your vote is just moved to whoever your second choice was (in my example, Hillary Clinton). 

Here's a really good video that explains ranked voting far better than I can: 

 

this.