Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

We might get a tie.



Holy shit we might actually get a tie.

It's looking increasingly unlikely, actually. The early voting numbers are looking worse and worse for republicans, and we've still got time.

[Strife26]

Johnson has the general libertarian "the government doesn't have the power to tell individuals what to do" stance on vaccines, I believe.

[Rolepgeek]

I found a couple of parties I rather like, voting in the general election. I also learned 'hands-on' how crazy some of the others are. Like the Constitution party, holy shit.

Working Families is pretty cool, tho

[Max™]

Johnson has the general libertarian "the government doesn't have the power to tell individuals what to do" stance on vaccines, I believe.

This is one area he is way better than wishy-washy wifi-addled Stein: http://digital.vpr.net/post/reversal-gov-gary-johnson-now-supports-mandatory-vaccination

He favors it being a local thing, but if it was pushed the federal level he said he'd have to side with the science behind vaccination and herd immunity, and admitted his prior ignorance being at fault when he said he didn't see why it should be required. Good on him.

[misko27]

Vote Third Party you dweebs.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

God, it's like the metaphysical shadow of my ideological sovereignty. SCP's golden age is long over, but that's a good one.

[sprinkled chariot]

If this dumb fuck actually hands the election to Donald Trump/McMuffin by giving an EV to Sanders...

Is not the idea behind electors, that they are suppir smart, educated and will not let dirty nonelector plebian crowd to ruin everything?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, that's such a widespread misunderstanding that it might as well be a conspiracy theory. Faithless electors are not and have never been the intention of the EC, they're just an unfortunate consequence of it (which is why it's illegal in so many places, and would be illegal in all of them if anything had ever been decided by a faithless elector as opposed to the protest votes they really are).

The electoral college exists as a relic of the US beta testing democracy and a Presidential system between an association of 13 different states all with very divided opinions on what that all should look like. To give you the short form, slaveholding states supported having Congress elect the President because their slave populations were counted under the 3/5ths Compromise for the number of representatives they would have, while free states supported having a direct popular vote because the lack or relative rarity of slaves meant they would have more influence electing the President.

The electoral college was the most easily agreed upon system to prevent everybody from killing each other or smothering the union in its cradle and becoming vulnerable to the European powers/Canada/each other.

We've been trying to get rid of it ever since. You might think of it as a generational curse, almost.

[martinuzz]

What happens with a tie? You get two presidents? Hillary and Trump have to duke it out celebrity deathmatch style? A Mexican interrim dictator is appointed?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A tie leads to the same result as nobody reaching 270: House picks the President, Senate picks the Veep.

[smjjames]

Part of the reason that it's so hard to get rid of is because it requires a constitutional amendment to deal with, and that in itself is a high bar to cross. There is a method or two going around to do it in a way that doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

The whole ordeal of 2000 sparked off discussion on it, but however things go, there may very well be renewed discussion about it from either side. Especially if the Republicans lose.

What happens with a tie? You get two presidents? Hillary and Trump have to duke it out celebrity deathmatch style? A Mexican interrim dictator is appointed?

Lol martinuzz, no. If there is a tie or nobody gets the required number of votes, it gets thrown to the House and they decide on it there. It's only happened maybe once or twice in our history. And no, the 2000 election wasn't a case of that.

[martinuzz]

A tie leads to the same result as nobody reaching 270: House picks the President, Senate picks the Veep.

So then you could end up with a democratic president and a republican VP or vice versa? That'd be awkward. I guess the secret sevice's main task in that case will be frisking the VP for assasination weapons.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, I'm not fully certain. The Constitution has been amended a couple of times on this matter, and it's still never really gone to Happening.

The original sense is that the House picks the President and the Senate picks the Veep (which hearkens back to some of the very earliest inclinations never used, that the runner up of the election would become Veep instead of having running mates). Some say now that the Veep just gets decided by whichever ticket the House picks, while if the House deadlocks it goes to the Senate who pick the President from the Veep candidates.

tl;dr it's fucking confusing and never been deployed, dust off those law codes because I sure am seeking jurisprudence

[PTTG??]

It would be interesting. If they pick Hillary, then the Trumpets actually will go to war.

[UXLZ]

You're on 666. I'm on 400. =P