Jump to content

U.S. Politics 2016: The Mayans Were Only Off By 1418 Days


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

Just now, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said:

 

haven't yet reached the point in the metaphor where we wake up in a bed thats not ours, with a pounding headache and a burning sensation when we piss

 

I don't get it, is the tweet a joke? I'm not very tuned in to... much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And trump did not get less than 20% of the vote.

He was voted for by less than 20% of the population, though. But then, so was Hillary. Even if you exclude children, it's still a pretty dismal excuse for a mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, felice said:

He was voted for by less than 20% of the population, though. But then, so was Hillary. Even if you exclude children, it's still a pretty dismal excuse for a mandate.

The turnout currently stands at about 55% so Trump got about 25% of all eligible voters and Clinton got about 26% of them. It should go up a bit (I've seen numbers as high as 58%) in which case their numbers will go up by about half of the increase which means that neither of them will exceed 30%. However, this is a silly way to determine whether somebody has a mandate because, as far as I can tell, nobody has ever gotten more than 50% since the popular votes first started being counted. Since the beginning of the 20th century, even 40% is unheard of. For example, Obama's 2008 victory (which was justifiably described as overwhelming) only rated at about 33%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Altherion said:

However, this is a silly way to determine whether somebody has a mandate because, as far as I can tell, nobody has ever gotten more than 50% since the popular votes first started being counted. Since the beginning of the 20th century, even 40% is unheard of. For example, Obama's 2008 victory (which was justifiably described as overwhelming) only rated at about 33%.

But surely such an appallingly low turnout is an indication that something is terribly wrong with American democracy? The electoral college is obviously part of the problem (though it doesn't need to be abolished to improve turnout; having all states split their electors proportionately to the number of votes for each candidate instead of winner-takes-all would do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why turnout has been so low in the "motherland of modern democracy" and in an election that was (maybe not unfoundedly so) hyped as decisive is also a puzzle for me. Of course the idiotic system probably leads to low turnout in states that are not swing states. Then there were many people who disliked both candidates immensely.

But if the system cannot be fixed (because the majorities for that would be impossible right now because the low population states benefitting from the status quo would never agree to change it), the US probably has to live with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...