Trump protestors

[Delta1212]

I was commenting on the popular vote count. The popular vote count is irrelevant. Donald Trump was elected by the states, in accordance with the US constitution, to be the next president of the United States. That is what you need to get over. Protest and attempt to obstruct him all you want, just quit denying that Trump won.

 

I appreciate that you are simply in the bargaining stage of grief, but you are not going to win the bargain with irrelevant facts.

 

No, there is no degree at which I would feel differently. We must follow our constitution. The constitution defines methods to change or amend the constitution. The time to change or amend the constitution would be when the rules defined by the constitution are followed and the changes are approved by three fourths of the states. Not a moment before then.

 

Swansont, the iPhone won't be the president either.

You are obfuscating. Nobody wakes up one day and randomly finds themselves at a Constitutional Convention. There is usually first a lengthy conversation about whether something needs to be changed or not.

 

So, in your opinion, is there any threshold of discrepancy between popular and electoral vote that could be reached that would make you think "Hmm, maybe a constitutional amendment, brought about through the legally defined channels for doing so, would be a good idea."

 

Incidentally, Trump has yet to actually win according to the rules laid out in the Constitution. As you say, the popular vote doesn't matter, only the electoral votes. And Constitutionally, the electors can do whatever they want. Since they haven't voted yet, Trump hasn't won yet.

 

We all know he is going to, but if you're going to be a stickler for constitutional law, you can't pick and choose which elements you want to follow.

[swansont]

I was commenting on the popular vote count. The popular vote count is irrelevant. Donald Trump was elected by the states, in accordance with the US constitution, to be the next president of the United States. That is what you need to get over. Protest and attempt to obstruct him all you want, just quit denying that Trump won.

Who is denying that Trump won?

 

Swansont, the iPhone won't be the president either.

I'm not at all sure if this a bad attempt at continuing the satire of the article, or a misunderstanding of the satire, or what.

[iNow]

This article seems pertinent given the exchanges above. A few snippets included herein (emphasis added):

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/22/yes-in-the-u-s-the-people-can-reject-a-president-if-theyre-convinced-hes-a-tyrant/

If the thousands of protesters chanting “Not my president!” are any indication, the U.S. president-elect’s legitimacy may be in peril.

 

This should not be dismissed as mere rhetorical flourish: A recent poll shows that 18 percent of Americans reject Donald Trump’s legitimacy as president.

 

Some critics dismiss these protesters as sore losers. More seriously, they are blamed for undermining the legitimacy of our democratic institutions. Trump won fair and square according to our agreed-upon constitutional processes; hate him all you want, as Andrew Sabl wrote here in the Monkey Cage, but you cannot reject the winner just because your side loses.

 

What these arguments fail to grasp, however, is that, in the United States, authority is never legitimate if it is tyrannical, no matter how unanimous the vote or impeccable the electoral process.

(snip)

Before anyone starts running around rejecting elected leaders willy-nilly, know that there is a catch to this “Not my president!” business. Only when government becomes destructive to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is it “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,” Jefferson writes in the Declaration of Independence, adding that “when a long train of abuses…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”

 

Only a lot of tyranny — a “long train of abuses” — justifies denying legitimacy to a government. This qualification would seem to significantly limit the cases in which the People could justly declare “Not my president!”

(snip)

Okay, so the People can challenge the legitimacy of a sitting president based on his (and someday her) actions. But what about a president-elect? After all, Trump’s administration is not yet installed; he has not yet imposed on anyone’s liberty. It is doubtful that a “long train of [tweeted] abuses,” could fit anyone’s definition of tyranny.

 

On the other hand, Trump has said, among other things, that he would lock up his political opponent, deport immigrants and register Muslims. He has endorsed torture and expressed a willingness to kill the families of terrorists, which would be a war crime. We know that undivided government is imminent; therefore, such designs are imminently realizable.

(snip)

Surely some people will think this to be, as Locke wrote, “manifest evidence, that designs are carrying on against their liberties.” Others will disagree.

(snip)

Trump is the legitimate winner of the presidential election. But protesters are not protesting the legitimacy of the election, but rather what they fear are the tyrannical inclinations of the coming administration. And so long as the People remain the source of sovereignty in the United States, they will always be the only ones with the authority to say: Not my president.

Edited November 22, 2016 by iNow

[tar]

 

To varying degrees. Having been in the service and from a family with long standing service, one can appreciate America's contribution.

 

The issue myself and many of my countrymen have with that though, is any (even the slightest) dissent is viewed upon as ungratefulness, pacifism or any other derogatory label d'jour.

 

It's no secret America is deeply divided along party lines and no one takes responsibility for it, but to double down with intransigence, jingoism or protectionism.

 

If you think for one minute Tar, that abolishing pollution laws, stiffing trade partners and marginalizing citizen groups makes America great again, have at it. Just don't expect other countries to follow suit.

 

rangerx,

 

Well you have made me temper my stance a little, along with Mark Cuban's remark, that we should support the good and lobby against the bad, in this manner. The 2 point plurality that Hilary got does not matter to the outcome of the election. The desires of rangerx in some other country, does not matter to the outcome of the election...but what America does, does matter to rangerx and what America does, does matter to the 62 million plus Americans that did not want to have Trump represent their country and set policies that are counter the good things that have been accomplished over the years, in terms of social justice and world cooperation.

 

To that, my stance is similar to Cuban, as that the president is just the president, and needs the rest of the country behind him, to do anything big, so we can still lobby against anything stupid or bigoted or destructive that he might attempt. We can't stop executive orders that will roll back Obama's executive orders, but neither could the right stop Obama from issuing executive orders that they disagreed with.

 

Good will still prevail in my take. If Trump goes against our laws, the Supreme court will challenge him. If he partakes in an impeachable offense, the congress will impeach him. If he turns against citizens, the citizens will stand against him. If he acts in an inappropriate manner on the world stage, the U.N. will respond. We have a constitution that guards against the president ever holding absolute power, and we have a populace that will not let it go badly.

 

So the protests are good. I hope they continue, in the sense that we need to stay a good country, and stand for the things we want to stand for.

 

In the same vein though, we need to uphold the rule of law. Change the law when we think it needs changing, and follow the law, even when we don't agree with it...up to the point when enough of us, want to change the law, that it changes, and then we all together, follow the new law or regulation.

This is complicated in terms of things that happen, regarding laws, that make some winners and others losers. I think personally that laws should only be made, that make at least 90 percent winners...but nobody listens to me on that. Laws are passed every day it seems that benefit a small group at the expense of a larger group, and it always seems lately to be laws that are aimed to help some minority population at the expense of everybody else, or to help everybody else at the expense of some rich guy...maybe that is logically inconsistent, to want majority rule, and want minority interests protected, at the same time...I guess that is why we have debates and a constitution and the group that makes the laws, the group that interprets the laws and the guy (or gal) that enforces the laws, each with powers over the other two branches.

 

So rangerx, I will try to make sure our new president upholds the constitution of the U.S. and will lobby him to support and maintain the good agreements we have had with your country, and to operate the nation in a manner that benefits our population first, and your population next, but that benefits us all.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 22, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

62 million plus Americans that did not want to have Trump represent their country

Almost 64 million voted for Hillary, as of recent numbers, but the number not voting for Trump is about 138 million. (there are ~200 million registered voters)

 

Of people who voted, ~69 million voted for someone other than Trump.

[rangerx]

 

rangerx,

 

Well you have made me temper my stance a little, along with Mark Cuban's remark, that we should support the good and lobby against the bad, in this manner.

 

So rangerx, I will try to make sure our new president upholds the constitution of the U.S. and will lobby him to support and maintain the good agreements we have had with your country, and to operate the nation in a manner that benefits our population first, and your population next, but that benefits us all.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Cooler heads prevail. I'm a moderate, having been brought up by liberal parents and conservative grandparents. My liberal parents taught me to work hard, earn my own living, keep the peace and respect different opinions. To stand up to injustice and to be good stewards of our lands and resources. My conservative grandparents taught me to work hard, earn my own living, keep the peace and respect different opinions. To stand up to injustice and to be good stewards of our lands and resources. My parents loathed welfare, unemployment benefits and supported growth and prosperity in business. My grandparents took in immigrants, were pro-union, pro-life, accepted gays in the family and espoused the value of a good education.

 

We don't live in those times anymore. The American liberal has put too many obstacles before progress and bubble wrapped our youth. While I don't doubt there's a strong need to control pollution and enforce accountability and liability, they've gone too far trusting those who are untrustworthy and over-regulated those who are. Likewise, conservatives claim to eschew government involvement, but would have that same government interfere in the the reproductive health of women, marginalize gays and minorities, including those who are not conservative enough. Personal responsibility and high moral character went out the window in your last election cycle.

 

I've defended you in the past and would defend you again. If you were my neighbor, I'm certain you'd have my back, even if we never met or spoke. We seem to be the same age. What troubles me Tar, the times we grew up in are done and gone. Try if you might, but they're not coming back. I'm certain the last whaler was an awesome family man, a charitable person and a loyal tax payer. But his day had come, we move on. We do not dwell.

 

It's a fool's errand to think a turncoat Manhattan liberal will do even a fraction of what was promised, no less to the benefit of everyone.

 

The alt-right has hijacked the agenda, insidiously. This is an undeniable fact. There is plenty of blame to go around for that. However, Trump has vocalized policies which have citizens of your country and the rest of the world concerned, gravely. The right to dissent, protest and to act lawfully are the cornerstones of democracy and the foundation of basic human rights. To even begin to suggest otherwise, is one of those concerns. I am pained by that, but relieved you've reconsidered some things. There are countless groups having multiple issues regarding Trump's rhetoric, lack of transparency, childishness and overwhelming double standard.

 

In international trade, America "first" is not bargaining in good faith, no less from a position of strength. It's selfish and arrogant. Greed stuffs coffers but empties trust. Bullies win battles, but lose wars. My country is your ally and one of you greatest trade partners. We've stood on the field of battle together, that all of us may be equal and fair.

 

All I ask of you, is to not undermine that alliance with divisiveness, protectionism or jingoism. In return, I'll endeavor to earn your respect by addressing, not dismissing your concerns. Fair enough?

 

MLK said it best. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that".

[Ten oz]

No, there is no degree at which I would feel differently. We must follow our constitution. The constitution defines methods to change or amend the constitution. The time to change or amend the constitution would be when the rules defined by the constitution are followed and the changes are approved by three fourths of the states. Not a moment before then.

 

Swansont, the iPhone won't be the president either.

In my opinion, if true and not merely captious, that no degree could exist which would change your point of view lacks reasoning.There is a degree at which I would change my point of view about anything and everything. If you do not allow for new information to update your prespective your are being unreasonable. Perhaps 2 million more popular votes isn't enough for you to consider revising how you feel but to say no number seems either dishonest or dangerous. Surely if Clinton won 120 million votes to Trumps 60 million votes yet lost the Electoral College you would reconsider? There is a point where the imbalance become too great for us to call our system democratic.

 

"We must follow our Consitution" is an empty statement. The Constitution is different today than it was in 1787. It was designed in such a way as to allow change. Changes are the reason why more than only land owners are allowed to vote, a President can only serve two terms, we still don't have slaves, and etc. The total populatioon of the Country when the Constitution was signed was 3.9 million. The 2 million more votes Hillary Clinton received is a number larger than the total pool of eligible voters that existed when the Constitution was created.

[John Cuthber]

John,

 

Primarily my fear is that my way of life will be taken away by Islam fulfilling Mohammed's command, 'til all the world is for Allah'.

Secondarily my fear is that I will be put in jail for killing a rabid squirrel, or for burying some oil after an oil change 20 years ago.

Third I am afraid of losing some social security money, because I earn some money while retired.

Fourth, or maybe first, I am afraid that gangs and drugs will follow me out of the city, to the countryside.

Fifth, I am afraid that people will not respect my opinion, or look to me for guidance and wisdom and protection, because I am an old white man, that still remembers there was a time when the man was expected to be the breadwinner and the head of household and the protector from outside dangers, and now the government is taking over those roles and responsibilities.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Well, I have good news and I have bad news.

"Primarily my fear is that my way of life will be taken away by Islam fulfilling Mohammed's command, 'til all the world is for Allah'."

That's not His only command. Have a look here

https://islamqa.info/en/128862

Not only that but , it's just plain silly to imagine that a country with the right to bear arms as individuals, and the worlds biggest military budget is going to be overrun my anyone.

So, the good news is that you can stop worrying on that account.

 

On the other hand, you have been gravely misled.

That Mr Trump (together with his cronies) has been lying to you.

He wants you frightened so you will go to him for "protection" from a threat that essentially, he invented.

It's like the threat from Mexicans- the numbers don't tally up.

He promised you a "beautiful" wall- and, as soon as he was held to it, he reneged on the promise. He lied about it.

He took a lot of money from students and he eventually gave some of it back. He did that because it was clear that he lied about it.

 

 

He's a compulsive liar- as shown by his latest nonsense about that theatre.

And, yet- for some reason- you trust him.

 

 

Then we can look at your next line "Secondarily my fear is that I will be put in jail for killing a rabid squirrel, or for burying some oil after an oil change 20 years ago."

well, why on earth would you think anyone (orf any political persuasion) would do that?

Is it because the Republicans told you that it was their plan?

Well it's yet another lie.

 

Thirdly we come to the really odd one "Third I am afraid of losing some social security money, because I earn some money while retired."

So why vote for Trump?

He's the one whose party doesn't believe in the government doing anything- so, obviously, he doesn't believe in it paying social security.

The democrats are much more likely to look after your pension.

 

All the things you are worried about are things that Trump is going to make worse.

[tar]

rangerx,

 

I will attempt to help the situation work, as I always have. In business I often disagreed with a company decision and voiced my objection. Sometimes the thing was amended, usually it went ahead without my permission. I was just a employee, I was not the CEO. And as employee my job was to make the situation work, in spite of the policies of management, and when the CEO had an initiative, that automatically became my initiative.

 

But I understand I cannot bring back whaling. Things move on. Still there are somethings, like personal accountability, that are on the wane that make ultimate sense when it comes to workability and they will come back. The pendulum swings. In my company the pendulum that was always swinging was the change between central control and having decisions being made at the local level. Different trade offs of quality and expense and customer satisfaction occur. Our company got so regimented and cost controlled that at one point the initiative came down from the top, that we should take care of the customer. What a brilliant idea? Whaling is not coming back, but I am not a statistic, and people do not do well, when they are statistics. personal accountability will return.

 

And I really appreciate your words of support. I have taken rep hits to speak on this board and I take them personally. Like lectures, that I am doing it wrong. Like I am acting inappropriately. And perhaps I am, when I profile a stranger. But perhaps I have learned something about people in 62 years, and know when somebody is likely to be on my side or against me.

 

swansonT,

 

Thank you for the correction of the numbers. But and this is a big but, people that stayed home, may have stayed home for different reasons, and people that voted for Hillary may have not wanted her as much as I did not want Trump. You can not say that people that did not vote for Trump, did not want Trump. It might be true, but you are assuming that everyone that voted for Trump is an idiot, and everybody that did not vote for Trump hates him and does not want him as their president. You cannot make such gross generalizations in this case. It was a weird year, and people like me, voted for Trump, even though it is embarrassing to mention. The polls indicated that Hilary was going to win in several states that she lost. This means that people that said they were going to vote for Hillary voted Trump, or that people that don't usually vote, voted Trump, or people that said they were going to vote for Hilary did not bother to make the trip to the polls, figuring that she was going to win the state, anyway...or any number of reasons. You cannot however assume a president is illegitimate based on the large number of people that voted for someone else. That, I think is always the case, that if you put the number of votes the winner got, against the number of people that didn't vote for the winner but either voted for somebody else or stayed home, we probably never have had a president, that was demonstrably wanted by the majority of the country. Well maybe so, but you get my point. You can't assume people that are not registered, or that did not vote, or that voted for other candidates feel Trump is not their president. Why in fact, there are probably people that voted for Hilary that consider Trump their president elect.

 

Regards, TAR

 

John Cuthber,

 

How do you know what Trump will make better or worse? Are you saying he is going to do what he says, or are you saying he is not going to do what he says?

 

And your link did not prove me wrong about the "'til all the world is for Allah thing" in fact in the first paragraph it said...

 

"The Islamic view of humanity is filled with mercy and compassion, and it cannot be otherwise, because the Islamic religion is the last of the religions that were prescribed by Allah, may He be exalted, and He commanded all of mankind to enter this religion."

 

Regards, TAR

besides, John, you asked me what I was afraid of, not what I thought anybody dem or repub would do or not do for me

Some, I voted for Trump, in the hopes he would do what he said he would do about ISIS and trade deals, and our energy and industrial policies and keeping drugs from coming across our southern borders, and such, and because I did not want to see Hilary tax the rich to establish social programs and I did not trust her to handle Syria correctly. The fears list, was just in response to your question as to what I was afraid of. And as big and strong as our country is, I stood at Port Imperial and watched the plume of black smoke where once two beautiful towers full of people stood...I don't think you have a chance in hell of convincing me there was not some evil in this world that sought to take away my way of life...and subsequent to 9/11 I have stood in lines to get into buildings and airports, where I used to be able to wait in the waiting room at the gates for an arrival. My way of life has already been challenged, and to say it is some irrational fear is just stupid.

Edited November 22, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

In my opinion, if true and not merely captious, that no degree could exist which would change your point of view lacks reasoning.There is a degree at which I would change my point of view about anything and everything. If you do not allow for new information to update your prespective your are being unreasonable. Perhaps 2 million more popular votes isn't enough for you to consider revising how you feel but to say no number seems either dishonest or dangerous. Surely if Clinton won 120 million votes to Trumps 60 million votes yet lost the Electoral College you would reconsider? There is a point where the imbalance become too great for us to call our system democratic.

 

"We must follow our Consitution" is an empty statement. The Constitution is different today than it was in 1787. It was designed in such a way as to allow change. Changes are the reason why more than only land owners are allowed to vote, a President can only serve two terms, we still don't have slaves, and etc. The total populatioon of the Country when the Constitution was signed was 3.9 million. The 2 million more votes Hillary Clinton received is a number larger than the total pool of eligible voters that existed when the Constitution was created.

 

 

I disagree with your position that we must follow our Constitution being an empty statement. We must follow the Constitution — we don't get to pick and choose when we do this, which is one of the frustrating things in many of these discussions — there are some who are very much of the a-la-carte school of thought. We also have politicians who take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, and have already promised actions that violate the constitution, so basically their first official act is one of perjury.

 

If the constitution needs changing, we change it.

 

However...

 

The notion that the constitution must be amended in order to change the system is also incorrect. The states decide how to apportion their electoral votes (we have two states that can split them: Nebraska and Maine). There is a movement afoot to have states commit all of their votes to the popular vote winner that kicks in once there are 270 votes' worth committed to doing it. 165 already have, from 10 states + DC. But given GOP control of state legislatures, getting enough to get to 270 is not going to happen soon. And if it becomes possible down the road, there's no guarantee that the popular vs electoral divide is going to pose the same issue, so interest might wane. It will depend on flipping states that vote blue for president but are red at the state level.

[Ten oz]

 

 

I disagree with your position that we must follow our Constitution being an empty statement. We must follow the Constitution — we don't get to pick and choose when we do this, which is one of the frustrating things in many of these discussions — there are some who are very much of the a-la-carte school of thought. We also have politicians who take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, and have already promised actions that violate the constitution, so basically their first official act is one of perjury.

 

If the constitution needs changing, we change it.

 

However...

 

The notion that the constitution must be amended in order to change the system is also incorrect. The states decide how to apportion their electoral votes (we have two states that can split them: Nebraska and Maine). There is a movement afoot to have states commit all of their votes to the popular vote winner that kicks in once there are 270 votes' worth committed to doing it. 165 already have, from 10 states + DC. But given GOP control of state legislatures, getting enough to get to 270 is not going to happen soon. And if it becomes possible down the road, there's no guarantee that the popular vs electoral divide is going to pose the same issue, so interest might wane. It will depend on flipping states that vote blue for president but are red at the state level.

I don't know that I want the popular vote to decide things. I am still thinking about it. Cheaters cheat! Changing the rules merely changes the manner in which they cheat. We need more due diligence. Things like automatic recounts in states which are closer than 5% when the popular vote and EC is split, nationalized standard for absentee and early voting so there is continuity, maybe even allow a second national vote when the popular and EC splits specifically and only for voters who were already registered but didn't vote for whatever reason on election day, and etc.

 

We currently have 50 states doing it 50 different ways. CO primarily has a mail system with over 20 days to vote while other states like PA doesn't have early voting at all. Bothsides complain about the system. Conservative claim illegal immigrants are able to vote and Liberal point out that many of the laws individuals states put in place supress turnout and tagetedly make it hard for specific groups to vote. With so many variances around the country it is very hard to not feel uncomfortable when someone like Trump (a provable liar) is able to win an election while receiving 2 million less votes.

[swansont]

The current system favors voter suppression in swing states if you can implement it. A few thousand votes squelched can deliver 10 or 20 electoral votes. Currently it's easier to suppress the vote of people who tend to vote democrat.

 

I'm not sure how much can be done at a federal level to fix the system of voting (court cases lag by years and only show what's against what's left of the VRA), but how electors act is a matter for the states.

[tar]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/activists-urge-clinton-camp-to-challenge-election-results-in-three-states/ar-AAkDeYj?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

maybe the election is not over

[Ten oz]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/activists-urge-clinton-camp-to-challenge-election-results-in-three-states/ar-AAkDeYj?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

maybe the election is not over

It is tough. No one like to be a sore loser. People are also nervous about embracing conspiracy theories for fear of seeming irrational. In my opinion recounts are in order. I have said as much since the election happened. It is worth doing to help create closure and ensure fairness. I never have understood the hesitation to perform recounts. It happens in both the general and mid-terms. There are close races and people end up debating whether recounts should happen, just perform the recount. What is the harm? In this case one candidate won 2 million more votes but still lost. It is an unprecedented situation. Just perform a recount. One shouldn't feel like they are part of the tin foil hat brigade for wanting recounts.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Ten oz

[tar]

ten oz,

 

except for the fact that the straw that is being grasped at is election fraud

The hope is that somebody paid by Trump hacked into the electronic voting system and found a way to cleverly "lose" one out of every 14 votes cast electronically for Hilary and switch them to Trump, and that these votes have left no paper trail, and therefore the recount will be meaningless and the suspicion will be enough to demand that EVERY electronic system be suspected of being hacked by Russia or Trump, and that the election needs to be redone, using paper ballots.

How this would not be a conspiracy theory is beyond me. Could be true, we could all be dupes, but same for black helicopters and alien anal probes.

It ignores the reality that in every state, there are good people that are looking for things that don't add up. And the systems have been checked and double checked for bugs and vulnerabilities by people that are citizens of the U.S. and designed the system to not be vulnerable to such attempts. Do you trust these people, or not?

 

I can't promise you that my scenario above is not true. It would make you right and me wrong. Russia has the Snowden clipdrive, after all, and Snowden gave away more than he even was aware of, in terms of how to operate within our computer systems as if you belonged.

 

But what that means, is not that Trump rigged the election, but that the Russians did, and that we cannot have an honest election ever again, unless we use paper ballots, and trust the old system of trusting personal integrity to ensure a fair election. But that would also mean that we are at the mercy of the Russians in any and all areas of our computer systems, and would have to scrap and redo everything. The reach of the conspiracy would grow, and we would all be afraid that the Russians were syphoning off our bank accounts, a 14th of a cent at a time, to where nobody noticed the theft.

 

Bottom line, believing that Trump could not have won legitimately is virtually saying that 60 million of your fellow Americans stole the election from you, and the system did not work for you, because you wanted Sanders and government provided heath care and higher education and most of those 60 million people are stupid and uneducated and hateful evolution and global warming deniers , and they shouldn't be allowed to have the reigns of government.

 

What you are ignoring, is that the populace of the U.S. is the same as it always was, except for a change in some demographic variables. Same people that voted for Trump, are the ones that have made this country work, for years. They are not the enemies of America nor her values, they are the upholders of such.

 

What would a recount hurt? The whole idea of an election. We would have to do the whole thing over again, the primaries, the conventions the whole deal. And it would give a chance for people to vote based on what happened when they did not. Maybe Bush or Kasich would win the republican primary if people got a do over, or Sanders or Biden win the democratic line if people got a do over. From the beginning I thought Trump was not a serious candidate. Turns out, he was.

 

Regards, TAR

[Memammal]

If there is any evidence to suggest that the elections were rigged and possibly that the Russians were behind it, should Americans just sit back and accept their fate? I would think not. Recount and make absolutely sure! This is way too important, don't you think?

[Ten oz]

@tar, that is a lot of extrapolation. Asking for a recount in states that are extremely close does not mean I believe Russia hacked voting machines. No where in this thread or any other thread can't you find a post were I implied that. I have said Russia hacked Clinton's campaign but that is known to be true and not a fringe theory. As mail in ballots have continued to be counted the margins for Trump's victories in keys states has shrunk. It doesn't require belief in an eloborate plot to want a recount.

[Delta1212]

While, at this point, I don't advocate a recount, I would say a few things in response to that.

 

One, voting fraud doesn't mean someone from the campaign Paid someone to do it, nor that a foreign government got involved. Any given US election has tens of millions of people who are very passionate about the outcome. It's pretty likely that you will be able to find a couple in there who will have attempted to commit voter fraud all on their own.

 

I don't personally think it is a particularly wide spread phenomenon in our elections that is typically worth worrying about because I don't think you will really find it on a scale that would sway any but the most razor thin of elections.

 

Electronic voting machines do represent a potential weak point where a smaller number of people could potentially influence the count for a much larger number of votes. Again, personally, I don't think this is likely on a very large scale, and while the election was close in a lot of swing states, it wasn't 2000 Florida close. I don't think it's likely that even if cases of fraud were discovered that it would be enough to flip the Electoral vote, even if it narrowed the margins in a lot of states.

 

Second point, even in an election where there was voting fraud capable of affecting the outcome, it would not mean that everyone who voted for the "winner" stole the outcome from the person who would have won. They voted for their candidate in good faith and simply would have lost except that someone stuck a finger on the scale. The person or persons who actively committed voter fraud would be the ones that stole the election. Saying that believing there was voter fraud (which I don't, at least not on the scale necessary to make a difference to anything) is to believe that all of Trump's supporters stole the election is factually incorrect and unnecessarily turns any suggestion of voter fraud into an attack on you personally.

 

That's not a good way to proceed in a discussion.

[tar]

Well perhaps Memammal, but consider what you are asking for. If we find the Russian's are behind a hack, they would have succeeded in disrupting our election, because we would have to do a do over. And we tried the first time to have a fair election, the best we could. How could we do even better, on a retry? Wouldn't the retry be just as vulnerable to the hack, or to some unexpected variation of the hack?

 

But most importantly, if you are operating on the assumption that good, trustworthy, capable people are running your election, you have put your trust in your fellow citizens, and know the thing was done correctly. If however you don't have trust in your fellow citizen you have nobody to trust to make the redo election fair.

[Delta1212]

 

@tar, that is a lot of extrapolation. Asking for a recount in states that are extremely close does not mean I believe Russia hacked voting machines. No where in this thread or any other thread can't you find a post were I implied that. I have said Russia hacked Clinton's campaign but that is known to be true and not a fringe theory. As mail in ballots have continued to be counted the margins for Trump's victories in keys states has shrunk. It doesn't require belief in an eloborate plot to want a recount.

Has it really shrunk, though? The only swing states that Clinton is really in "striking distance" of Trump in that I can see are Michigan and, at the outside, Pennsylvania. Even if both of those went to Clinton, Trump would still have 270 electoral votes to Clinton's 268.

 

That would give Trump the win. It would also mean that if any Electors defected, it could sway the election, but while an elector defecting from voting for Trump is not out of the question, you're unlikely to get even a couple of them to directly flip from Trump to Clinton and hand her the election in that scenario. The ones who have already voiced consideration for defecting have specifically talked about voting for some other Republican.

 

So any defections would result in no one having a majority, which would kick it to the House to decide between Hillary and Trump, in which case they pick Trump because there is no way the Republican controlled House is picking Clinton.

 

There is simply no realistic path that I can see for Clinton to reach the White House even in the most favorable of unlikely circumstances where you assume both voter fraud and Electoral voter defections.

[geordief]

Are the votes all amenable to being counted manually as well as electronically ?

 

What reason can there be for refusing a manual recount? Surely the (potential) manual count is the one that should give confidence and validity to any electronic count.

 

Additionally ,if manual counts were the only counts allowed until the last person had voted in California if would prevent the time zones interfering with the outcome.

 

It would also make the polls seem more "consequential" - more of a "democratic sacrament or " ,less "entertainment"

 

Voters could be encouraged to lie to pollsters if they conduct exit polls .

 

But I can see ,why the Democrats may well not ask for a recount this time unless there is a good reason for that.

[tar]

it is important to me, and my worldview, that I consider that other people have integrity and good intentions, equal to or greater than my own, and that other people have wills and goals and desires that may or may not align with mine

 

When I lose an election, I figure that the people with wills and desires counter mine, have won and I will have to wait two years, for their unworkable thinking to show itself unworkable, and a vote the next time around will put more sensible folks in charge.

 

I think it inappropriate to trust programs any more than people. People after all design the systems. Why not just trust the people in the first place. Like regulations, if you are going to trust the regulators to be fair and unbiased and trustworthy, why not just cut out the middleman and the chance of favoritism and influence peddling and trust the people that are being regulated.

 

Evil people and cheats and a@@holes exist. Like there are KKK members that vote republican, and illegal aliens and gang members and sexual predators that vote democrat. Our country is not run by, nor defined by our worst. It is run by and defined by our best. Always was. Always will be.

[Delta1212]

Well perhaps Memammal, but consider what you are asking for. If we find the Russian's are behind a hack, they would have succeeded in disrupting our election, because we would have to do a do over. And we tried the first time to have a fair election, the best we could. How could we do even better, on a retry? Wouldn't the retry be just as vulnerable to the hack, or to some unexpected variation of the hack?

 

But most importantly, if you are operating on the assumption that good, trustworthy, capable people are running your election, you have put your trust in your fellow citizens, and know the thing was done correctly. If however you don't have trust in your fellow citizen you have nobody to trust to make the redo election fair.

You are presenting a false dichotomy here between trusting all of the people who run our elections completely or trusting none of them at all.

 

I think the vast, vast majority are good, honest, civic-minded people who are doing a great service for their country. But you can always find at least one dishonest person in any sufficiently large group of people. It's entirely possible to believe that a small number of dishonest people managed to slip something by the honest people around them that might be caught on review by those honest people without being inconsistent in your thinking.

 

However, like I said, I don't think that election fraud is a big enough issue in this country to have made a difference in this election, even as close as it was. And I think any fraud taking place on the scale that would be required (many tens of thousands of fraudulent votes spanning multiple states) really would fall into that category you are talking about where the entire election process fails to be trustworthy on any level.

 

I also think the "recount is reasonable under any circumstances to make sure every vote is counted" meme actually is a dangerous one. In 2000, the entire election hinged on a very thin margin in a single, large state. In that case, a recount is warranted.

 

But if we keep expanding that margin to any amount that is "close", then we're opening the door to things like what is going on in North Carolina right now with the governor's race, which I think is actually a more direct attack on the democratic process in this country than the Presidency going to the person with fewer votes.

it is important to me, and my worldview, that I consider that other people have integrity and good intentions, equal to or greater than my own, and that other people have wills and goals and desires that may or may not align with mine

 

When I lose an election, I figure that the people with wills and desires counter mine, have won and I will have to wait two years, for their unworkable thinking to show itself unworkable, and a vote the next time around will put more sensible folks in charge.

 

I think it inappropriate to trust programs any more than people. People after all design the systems. Why not just trust the people in the first place. Like regulations, if you are going to trust the regulators to be fair and unbiased and trustworthy, why not just cut out the middleman and the chance of favoritism and influence peddling and trust the people that are being regulated.

 

Evil people and cheats and a@@holes exist. Like there are KKK members that vote republican, and illegal aliens and gang members and sexual predators that vote democrat. Our country is not run by, nor defined by our worst. It is run by and defined by our best. Always was. Always will be.

There are sexual predators that vote Republican, too. I understand this wasn't your intention, but you did just kind of ascribe a single "deplorable" group to Republicans and multiple much larger groups to Democrats, one of which would be voter fraud and another of which there is no particular correlation at all in terms of supporting one party or the other.

[tar]

just a thought

 

If Washington and California mail in ballots are counted if they are postmarked on or before election day, does it matter to fairness if post offices stayed open late and processed mail (knowing that the ballots were likely 2 to 1 Hilary.)

 

just a question?

 

what is the challenge process for mail in ballots? At my polls there is person there that sees my face and my signature, and how it jives with the last time I voted, and there are challengers sitting there to see that nobody inappropriately casts a vote. How do you challenge a mail in? Are you sent a notice that your vote was counted, and a verification that your vote was counted the way you voted? if for instance, you voted in person in one state, and mailed in in another, both with legal addresses, is there a database somewhere that would see your name twice? Or if you mailed in a ballot for somebody else, how is it determined that their will was reflected on the ballot? Or what if mail box pick up times and routes were adjusted on election day to favor late pickup and processing in areas likely to vote one way or the other? Were the post offices open in California and Washington on election day? Who processes the votes? Under what challenge system?

[Delta1212]

Re: closing times

 

I don't know what the post office closing times are. However, there is no nationally mandated closing time for polls. The states determine when they are open and when they are closed. If the rule is that any vote post-marked by Election Day is to be counted, then it doesn't really matter what time the post office closes in comparison to the polls because the rules in that state simply say "any vote postmarked by Election Day" not "Any vote postmarked by the time the polls close."