Not a single thread on the US election?

[Corky34]

On what evidential basis are we supposed to decide how many Trump voters were "deceived" by him, especially as opposed to how many are deceived by any other candidates election promises?

We could use the same evidential basis Trump used during his campaign, make something up based on nothing more that what we think.

Even if they did, it's a valid voter electoral strategy in any non-PR direct election. There have been a number of occasions here (UK) where my vote has been determined not by who I want, as "none of the above" was not a ballot option, but rather, how to vote to best prevent whoever I least want getting in.

I didn't say it wasn't, i asked for a guess on what percentage of people voted that way.

EDIT: Now I've had time to fix my unexpected boiler failure this morning i feel i should elaborate on the point i thought i made.

What i was trying to say is that members of the electoral college could probably make a good case for why they changed their mind on who they said they were going to support, that's not to say they will, or that it wouldn't cause an excrement storm, just that there's plenty of reasons an elector could cite for their change of heart, it could be argued the electoral college were doing the job it was created to do.

James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole.

[Saracen]

We could use the same evidential basis Trump used during his campaign, make something up based on nothing more that what we think.



I didn't say it wasn't, i asked for a guess on what percentage of people voted that way.

EDIT: Now I've had time to fix my unexpected boiler failure this morning i feel i should elaborate on the point i thought i made.

What i was trying to say is that members of the electoral college could probably make a good case for why they changed their mind on who they said they were going to support, that's not to say they will, or that it wouldn't cause an excrement storm, just that there's plenty of reasons an elector could cite for their change of heart, it could be argued the electoral college were doing the job it was created to do.

On the first point, I doubt you'd want to use the same evidential base as Trump for an assertion.

On the second, I see your argument, but it undermines any and every election is we start second-guessing people that MIGHT have changed their mind, post-result.

Anyone old enough to vote, with an IQ above that of a house-brick, ought to understand that there's no taking the vote back to the shop for a refund. You vote, then you live with the vote, whatever the result.

The same logic applies to the argument that the 'popular' vote went Clinton even though the electoral college vote elected Trump. Yes, but there's no guarantee that it would have had the election been a direct popular vote election, precisely because people vote according to strategies determined by the voting system in use. That means, for example, Republican voters in California might as well not bother to vote at all, because the state us going Democrat. The converse is true is stauchly Republican states.

But switch to a straight popular vote system and both the strategies for voting, and the motivations to turn out, change.

The fact is, we have the voting systems we have, for better or worse.

We, for instance, have a system where (roughly) 1.5m vote SNP and get 56 seats, whereas 4.5m vote UKIP and get 1.

That same distortion has underrated the LibDems for years, and given both Tory and Labour governments an overall majority with barely more than 33-40% of the vote, meaning 60-7067% voted for some other government.

Our so-called democracies are, IMHO, luttle more than a pre-rigged conjuring trick designed to effectively keep us on a two-party result where the bunch bunch of <insert own choice of expletive> alternate power. It's like a game of musical chairs where only two players are ever allowed to sit down.

So it doesn't matter who might have had buyer's remorse. More fool them for not taking their electoral duty seriously in the first place. Maybe they'll learn something for next time.

And I still can't see any credible basis for assessing who genuinely regrets their vote, not least because we don't and cannot know how, or indeed if, those professing to wish to change actually voted. People lie, you know.

The only way to get even a close approximation would be to rerun the election. And suppose the result is different? Then what, best of three? Scissors, paper, stone?

After a second 'rerun', if it elected Clinton, a load of people would then appear claiming they didn't think she'd actually win, and that they wouldn't have voted for her if they did, and can we have another go around?

Whether it's our GenElection, the US Presidential or the Brexit referendum, the only reasonable course of action is to think about it, cast your vote the best you can then live with the result even if it makes you want to puke.

[Corky34]

We seem to be at cross purposes.

I'm not saying i agree or disagree with what Trump's said, well i do but as what he says comes across as the tantrums of your average 6 year old that's besides the point, I'm also not saying we should over turn the result of this election or any other public vote, and I'm not questioning how fair or unfair particular voting system are.

What I'm saying is that until the electoral collage get to vote on (iirc) the 12th of December the next president is no certain thing, again I'm not saying it won't be Trump or that there wouldn't be uproar if they didn't elect Trump, however it's fully within the rights of the electoral collage not to elect Trump, and for anyone who didn't honor their pledge they'd probably have very strong grounds for arguing why the didn't honer it.

[Saracen]

Well yes, technically the president is elected by the electoral college, the electors of which are the result of the popular vote. Most of those electors are bound, either by party pledgss or state law to vote in accordance with that law, or the pledges that got them selected as electors in the first place.

It is certainly possible, at least in theory, that there could be a few rebels but it'd be utterly unprecedented to have anything remotely resembling close enough to overturn the results as they are, given the size of the win.

[Corky34]

It would certainly set the cat among the pigeons if they did, from what I've been reading although there's been what they call faithless electors in the past they've never changed the result, i guess there's a first time for everything and seeing as the law and those pledges mean very little (iirc they get a $1k fine or a ticking of off) it maybe interesting to see how many, if any, go faithless come voting day.

At least if everything goes pear shaped the people of Trumpton can blame the electoral college for electing Trump.