Politics Official recount thread

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Current state of the recounts.

https://www.apnews.com/322db08ce6eb...jects-Green-Party's-Pennsylvania-recount-case

A federal judge on Monday issued a stinging rejection of a Green Party-backed request to recount paper ballots in Pennsylvania's presidential election, won narrowly by Republican Donald Trump, and scan some counties' election systems for signs of hacking.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/michigan-election-recount/

Michigan recount halted

http://www.channel3000.com/news/pol...-recount-is-done-needs-certification/42769224

Wisconsin recount is done, needs certification

Republican Donald Trump's margin of victory had decreased by just 25 votes with nearly all the ballots recounted. The final tally will be revealed once the recount is certified.

The recount began Dec. 1 after Green Party candidate Jill Stein requested and paid for it. Her attempts to get recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania were blocked in court.

Stein suggested without evidence that voting machines in the three states could have been hacked.

With 95 percent of Wisconsin's vote recounted Sunday, Hillary Clinton had picked up 25 votes on Trump, who won the state by more than 22,000 votes.
 
59454-Game-Over.jpg
 
That's quite alright
 
What a waste of money. A political strategist had a brilliant explanation of the Electoral College vs a straight Popular vote. First of all, it's the rules. He pointed out that in a 5-set tennis match, the loser can win as man as 30 games while the winner can garner as few as 21 games yet can still be the winner....because that is how it is scored.

Secondly, if it were a straight popular vote, Trump (in this case) would have campaigned in California and NY to shrink the size of the gap in those states. Take out those two states and Trump won the rest of the country by 2,000,000 votes. The electoral college was set up partially so two states like NY/CA couldn't influence the election in such a dramatic way.

So Trump campaigned in the way the rules were set up. He would have had a different strategy with different rules. I wasn't a fan of either candidate but am surprise by how many people don't understand how elections work and how candidates campaign to those set of rules. As a country, we need to be more informed. Then again, we rank somewhere in the late 20's in education in the world so maybe that is part of the issue.

I can only imagine the flak I might get for this....just a vent after explaining so many times to many people who had no idea how some of this worked.
 
I can't see the electoral college ever changing. Smaller states get more attention. Why would the smaller states want to change it? I think it's a pipe dream to change it. So, it is what it is. I suppose the lack of a popular vote win might suggest that Trump has not earned a mandate. That is to say, most of the people who voted did not vote for him. However, at the end of the day, I'm not sure that affects much. It should give Republicans caution though to blindly follow Trump.
 
TBpup said:
What a waste of money. A political strategist had a brilliant explanation of the Electoral College vs a straight Popular vote. First of all, it's the rules. He pointed out that in a 5-set tennis match, the loser can win as man as 30 games while the winner can garner as few as 21 games yet can still be the winner....because that is how it is scored.

Secondly, if it were a straight popular vote, Trump (in this case) would have campaigned in California and NY to shrink the size of the gap in those states. Take out those two states and Trump won the rest of the country by 2,000,000 votes. The electoral college was set up partially so two states like NY/CA couldn't influence the election in such a dramatic way.

So Trump campaigned in the way the rules were set up. He would have had a different strategy with different rules. I wasn't a fan of either candidate but am surprise by how many people don't understand how elections work and how candidates campaign to those set of rules. As a country, we need to be more informed. Then again, we rank somewhere in the late 20's in education in the world so maybe that is part of the issue.

I can only imagine the flak I might get for this....just a vent after explaining so many times to many people who had no idea how some of this worked.
Click to expand...

Wall said. Exactly correct.

Not only would Trump have campaigned in big populous states he didn't, but where he did campaign in Blue States, he actually won. See PA, MI, WI, etc.
 
TBpup said:
What a waste of money. A political strategist had a brilliant explanation of the Electoral College vs a straight Popular vote. First of all, it's the rules. He pointed out that in a 5-set tennis match, the loser can win as man as 30 games while the winner can garner as few as 21 games yet can still be the winner....because that is how it is scored.

Secondly, if it were a straight popular vote, Trump (in this case) would have campaigned in California and NY to shrink the size of the gap in those states. Take out those two states and Trump won the rest of the country by 2,000,000 votes. The electoral college was set up partially so two states like NY/CA couldn't influence the election in such a dramatic way.

So Trump campaigned in the way the rules were set up. He would have had a different strategy with different rules. I wasn't a fan of either candidate but am surprise by how many people don't understand how elections work and how candidates campaign to those set of rules. As a country, we need to be more informed. Then again, we rank somewhere in the late 20's in education in the world so maybe that is part of the issue.

I can only imagine the flak I might get for this....just a vent after explaining so many times to many people who had no idea how some of this worked.
Click to expand...
Tweet it
 
TBpup said:
What a waste of money. A political strategist had a brilliant explanation of the Electoral College vs a straight Popular vote. First of all, it's the rules. He pointed out that in a 5-set tennis match, the loser can win as man as 30 games while the winner can garner as few as 21 games yet can still be the winner....because that is how it is scored.

Secondly, if it were a straight popular vote, Trump (in this case) would have campaigned in California and NY to shrink the size of the gap in those states. Take out those two states and Trump won the rest of the country by 2,000,000 votes. The electoral college was set up partially so two states like NY/CA couldn't influence the election in such a dramatic way.

So Trump campaigned in the way the rules were set up. He would have had a different strategy with different rules. I wasn't a fan of either candidate but am surprise by how many people don't understand how elections work and how candidates campaign to those set of rules. As a country, we need to be more informed. Then again, we rank somewhere in the late 20's in education in the world so maybe that is part of the issue.

I can only imagine the flak I might get for this....just a vent after explaining so many times to many people who had no idea how some of this worked.
Click to expand...
Fuck I'm sorry, I should have said get an actor or musician to retweet it
 
Thank you Jill! Not only did Trump gain more votes in Michigan and Wisconsin, there is now an inquiry on mass voter fraud in Detroit where Hillary won the most votes. Jill helped expose the mass voter fraud by the left.

It's gotta be the Russians!
 
magnifier661 said:
Thank you Jill! Not only did Trump gain more votes in Michigan and Wisconsin, there is now an inquiry on mass voter fraud in Detroit where Hillary won the most votes. Jill helped expose the mass voter fraud by the left.

It's gotta be the Russians!
Click to expand...
HAHAHA! no wonder it dropped off MSM!
 
I personally have no problem with the Electoral College system. While I am exceedingly grateful I live in a "liberal" state like Oregon (as it meets a high percentage of my needs and preferences) our current "one party system" is a prime example of what America would look like if there was no Electoral College. We don't have a true representative government in Oregon and we would not have a true representative American government without the EC. And while I don't always agree with the more conservative view points, I believe strongly that every American (and Oregonian) should have equal representation......or at least SOME kind of representation.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...illion-votes-outside-California-New-York.html

Final tally shows Trump lost popular vote by 2.8 million – but he BEAT Clinton by 3 million votes outside of California and New York

Final vote tallies from the November 8 election show that Democrat Hillary Clinton out-polled President-elect Donald Trump by 2.8 million votes while losing the contest by a wide margin in the all-important Electoral College.​

Her upper hand with voters, however, came down to performances in New York and California that were far stronger than necessary.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top