|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall
Yes, but it would be based on who won what state, rather than the popular vote. It would be a nightmare, but would likely hurt the GOP a lot more than the democrats. He would need to make it so they split states 3 ways.
But it is totally possible.
|
On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall
I think you are confusing the Presidential election with the Republican nomination for president. The Republican party could presumably change their rules and just name a nominee to bypass Trump. That would destroy them, but they could do it.
|
The majority of the Republican majority in the house is still establishment. Trump wouldn't be voted President by the house unless that magically changes.
|
On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall
Just a note, for a 3 candidate situation I personally think it's more likely that the Republicans will be the ones to put up someone else under an independent flag (I don't see how Trump doesn't win the nomination). And the kind of fracturing that would let that situation happen would only be worsened if 1) no candidate got an electoral majority and 2) the House chose anyone other than the person who got a plurality of the electoral (or for that matter popular) vote. That's not to say I'm predicting what will happen. I can't dismiss the possibility that the House would commit a major political fuckup if it came to that.
|
On March 04 2016 06:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall Just a note, for a 3 candidate situation I personally think it's more likely that the Republicans will be the ones to put up someone else under an independent flag (I don't see how Trump doesn't win the nomination). And the kind of fracturing that would let that situation happen would only be worsened if 1) no candidate got an electoral majority and 2) the House chose anyone other than the person who got a plurality of the electoral (or for that matter popular) vote. That's not to say I'm predicting what will happen. I can't dismiss the possibility that the House would commit a major political fuckup if it came to that.
Interesting. My memory was that it went to the House in the event of a tie, but that is wrong. One candidate needs a majority of the electoral college. Based on their party discipline during the Obama years I have no doubt Republicans would unite behind Rubio. The question is, since in this scenario each state's delegates get 1 vote, it isn't a simple case of a Republican majority house putting in a Republican. Depends instead on the state by state party majority breakdown. I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but I assume this still goes to the Republicans.
|
On March 04 2016 06:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall Yes, but it would be based on who won what state, rather than the popular vote. It would be a nightmare, but would likely hurt the GOP a lot more than the democrats. He would need to make it so they split states 3 ways. But it is totally possible.
To be fair isn't the whole point of not having the popular vote directly dictating the results to have drama and nightmares? d:
|
Does anyone have a link to an article explaining in detail what the procedure is if no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes on election day?
edit: nvm, it's the twelfth amendment.
|
On March 04 2016 04:52 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 04:17 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2016 04:05 strongwind wrote:
Today it finally hit me just what the death of print journalism has meant for media coverage in general. I can't believe I haven't realized it until now.
Watching this election I've been constantly struck by the sensationalist news headlines that pollute the airwaves and the internet. Add in the pervasiveness of opinion pieces and blog articles, and what we have now is the fracturing of readership / viewership into increasingly polarized camps. Now people get to hear what they "want" to hear instead of the broad reality of the country at large.
At first I thought this might be due to the consolidation and acquisition of the major news agencies by wealthy individuals and corporate entities. But now I realize this was an effect, not the cause. The cause is that the failure to adequately monetize the transition from print to digital media has led to severe cost-cutting measures, effectively winnowing the field of conscientious journalists that strive hard to achieve journalistic integrity.
I for one am tired of the hyperbole being thrown around. I know my opinions are not always right, and I don't think the opposition is the devil incarnate. I want to know why people think the way they do, because I believe there is almost always a nuanced reason behind it.
I understand objective journalism can never be completely unbiased, but I've always trusted journalists to strive for it no matter what. Now with bloggers posing as true journalists, I question that trust. That can't be good for this country. I have to disagree. Sure there is no denying that journalistic integrity has taken a nosedive but the cause hardly seems to be cost-cutting, its not like news celebrities like Wolf Blitzen or Bill O'reily are not payed very well. I would certainly point more to the news agencies realizing that large groups of people don't actually want to hear objective news but are perfectly happy about eating up whatever you put in front of them. People like having their opinions confirmed. There was no big outcry when news stopped telling the objective truth and so news agencies stopped caring about delivering it. Its not the news agencies faults for no longer caring. Its the people for being ok with it that is the problem. People like Wolf Blitzer and Bill O'Reilly underscore the problem. They are paid well precisely because they are good at funneling people into ideological camps. Giving people what they "want" to hear is extremely short-sighted. You create an electorate that can't see past their own biases, and who surround themselves with media pundits that will agree with them. Of course I love hearing people that agree with me, but deep down I know this is not a healthy way to consume the news. Your description of people that are happy with "eating up whatever you put in front of them" is pretty interesting, because it reminds me of why there's an obesity problem in this country. Sacrificing long-term gain for short-term satisfaction is almost never a pathway to success.
But the news agencies no longer consider it their duty to inform, they don't care that what they do it short-sighted for the country in general. They are a business that needs to generate ratings and there are a lot of people who like to have their world view confirmed and catering to them is easier and more profitable then trying to provide objective news.
That is why I said it is the peoples fault, You realize only hearing your side is not healthy but to many people do not share that.
|
On March 04 2016 06:45 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:31 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall Yes, but it would be based on who won what state, rather than the popular vote. It would be a nightmare, but would likely hurt the GOP a lot more than the democrats. He would need to make it so they split states 3 ways. But it is totally possible. To be fair isn't the whole point of not having the popular vote directly dictating the results to have drama and nightmares? d:
It happens every once and a while, but yes. We would come to terrifying point in our history where the president might not have the mandate of the public. The US has little context for how badly elections go in other countries where the results are challenged, even if they are legitimate. I’m not comfortable with the idea of us going there.
|
On March 04 2016 06:48 kwizach wrote:
Does anyone have a link to an article explaining in detail what the procedure is if no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes on election day?
www.archives.gov
|
On March 04 2016 06:45 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:31 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall Yes, but it would be based on who won what state, rather than the popular vote. It would be a nightmare, but would likely hurt the GOP a lot more than the democrats. He would need to make it so they split states 3 ways. But it is totally possible. To be fair isn't the whole point of not having the popular vote directly dictating the results to have drama and nightmares? d:
The point is that in 1787, when the republic was founded, the people who drew up the plans for the country wanted to mitigate direct democracy (at the federal level) since plebs can't be trusted to pick the president of the whole country themselves (judge for yourself if that thesis holds).
|
Mob rule is terrifying, always has been. That is why we have a representative democracy and the Supreme Court is appointed for life.
|
On March 04 2016 06:42 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:37 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall Just a note, for a 3 candidate situation I personally think it's more likely that the Republicans will be the ones to put up someone else under an independent flag (I don't see how Trump doesn't win the nomination). And the kind of fracturing that would let that situation happen would only be worsened if 1) no candidate got an electoral majority and 2) the House chose anyone other than the person who got a plurality of the electoral (or for that matter popular) vote. That's not to say I'm predicting what will happen. I can't dismiss the possibility that the House would commit a major political fuckup if it came to that. Interesting. My memory was that it went to the House in the event of a tie, but that is wrong. One candidate needs a majority of the electoral college. Based on their party discipline during the Obama years I have no doubt Republicans would unite behind Rubio. The question is, since in this scenario each state's delegates get 1 vote, it isn't a simple case of a Republican majority house putting in a Republican. Depends instead on the state by state party majority breakdown. I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but I assume this still goes to the Republicans.
Well, my quick tally is that the Republicans have a whopping 19 state advantage. 33 States have a Republican house majority, 14 have a Democratic majority, and 3 are tied.
I guess the only other question is whether it is the newly elected House that votes or the current. Pretty sure it is the current.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh a trump 3rd party run will just give u hillary.
|
It would be the current house from my understanding. And if a majority can't happen there, its booted up the senate.
|
On March 04 2016 07:09 oneofthem wrote:
uh a trump 3rd party run will just give u hillary.
Yeah, there's not much to argue with here.
|
On March 04 2016 07:08 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:42 frazzle wrote:On March 04 2016 06:37 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall Just a note, for a 3 candidate situation I personally think it's more likely that the Republicans will be the ones to put up someone else under an independent flag (I don't see how Trump doesn't win the nomination). And the kind of fracturing that would let that situation happen would only be worsened if 1) no candidate got an electoral majority and 2) the House chose anyone other than the person who got a plurality of the electoral (or for that matter popular) vote. That's not to say I'm predicting what will happen. I can't dismiss the possibility that the House would commit a major political fuckup if it came to that. Interesting. My memory was that it went to the House in the event of a tie, but that is wrong. One candidate needs a majority of the electoral college. Based on their party discipline during the Obama years I have no doubt Republicans would unite behind Rubio. The question is, since in this scenario each state's delegates get 1 vote, it isn't a simple case of a Republican majority house putting in a Republican. Depends instead on the state by state party majority breakdown. I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but I assume this still goes to the Republicans. Well, my quick tally is that the Republicans have a whopping 19 state advantage. 33 States have a Republican house majority, 14 have a Democratic majority, and 3 are tied. I guess the only other question is whether it is the newly elected House that votes or the current. Pretty sure it is the current.
From what I understand, it's not state legislatures that play a role but the House at the federal level, right? And each state delegation gets one vote. They would definitely go for the candidate who received the most electoral votes without reaching the majority, though. And it'd likely be Hillary.
|
So is the gop essentially deciding between Hilary and Trump? I can't imagine a world where trump doesn't run as either 3rd party or as the nominee. He will be a part of the general election, no matter what. Especially after Romney's attempt to bring him down.
|
On March 04 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:08 frazzle wrote:On March 04 2016 06:42 frazzle wrote:On March 04 2016 06:37 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall Just a note, for a 3 candidate situation I personally think it's more likely that the Republicans will be the ones to put up someone else under an independent flag (I don't see how Trump doesn't win the nomination). And the kind of fracturing that would let that situation happen would only be worsened if 1) no candidate got an electoral majority and 2) the House chose anyone other than the person who got a plurality of the electoral (or for that matter popular) vote. That's not to say I'm predicting what will happen. I can't dismiss the possibility that the House would commit a major political fuckup if it came to that. Interesting. My memory was that it went to the House in the event of a tie, but that is wrong. One candidate needs a majority of the electoral college. Based on their party discipline during the Obama years I have no doubt Republicans would unite behind Rubio. The question is, since in this scenario each state's delegates get 1 vote, it isn't a simple case of a Republican majority house putting in a Republican. Depends instead on the state by state party majority breakdown. I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but I assume this still goes to the Republicans. Well, my quick tally is that the Republicans have a whopping 19 state advantage. 33 States have a Republican house majority, 14 have a Democratic majority, and 3 are tied. I guess the only other question is whether it is the newly elected House that votes or the current. Pretty sure it is the current. From what I understand, it's not state legislatures that play a role but the House at the federal level, right? And each state delegation gets one vote.
I was tallying up the House Reps, so yes. But each state gets one vote, so the reps from each state would caucus and come to a decision as to how their state would vote.
Also, it is the incoming congress that would elect the President
|
On March 04 2016 07:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:09 oneofthem wrote:
uh a trump 3rd party run will just give u hillary.
Yeah, there's not much to argue with here.
Not if, as discussed here, he makes it so the electoral college fails to get Hillary to 270 or higher. I could see a 3rd party run by him or Bloomberg, or both, possibly resulting in that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
