The economic consequences of a Trump US Presidential Victory?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Got a link for this Hamish.

Current vote count - Clinton leads by 400K.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elections

California - millions of ballots still to be counted.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-there-are-more-than-4-million-ballots-1478828215-htmlstory.html

Given that Clinton is outperforming Trump by over 30% in California her lead in the popular vote seems almost certain to stretch beyond a million - and perhaps closer to two million by the time all is said and done.

3 million so far on the petition is not going to change anything, even if everyone who voted Clinton signed, it isn`t going to change anything? The system is the system, it wasn`t a referendum.

There is no law in half the US states requiring the electoral college to vote for any one candidate. And even in the states where there is a law the penalty for disobeying is trivial - usually a $500 fine.

It's far from unprecedented for individual electors to choose someone else other than who they were pledged to - hundreds have over history - I'll grant you that it's not very likely that enough will do so this time to make a difference.

But it's also far from impossible....

Masomnia

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Current vote count - Clinton leads by 400K.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elections

California - millions of ballots still to be counted.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-there-are-more-than-4-million-ballots-1478828215-htmlstory.html

Given that Clinton is outperforming Trump by over 30% in California her lead in the popular vote seems almost certain to stretch beyond a million - and perhaps closer to two million by the time all is said and done.



There is no law in half the US states requiring the electoral college to vote for any one candidate. And even in the states where there is a law the penalty for disobeying is trivial - usually a $500 fine.

It's far from unprecedented for individual electors to choose someone else other than who they were pledged to - hundreds have over history - I'll grant you that it's not very likely that enough will do so this time to make a difference.

But it's also far from impossible....

And? The Californian electors will all be voting for Clinton anyway.

The system is the system, put in place to ensure that the winner of the election had broad support from across the whole country, as it's a federal republic.

Clinton's already conceded, so it seems a bit pointless.

Filo25

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Got a link for this Hamish, as you usually have lots of links to "prove" your stretches of imagination. I heard that HE probably won the popular vote and 3 million so far on the petition is not going to change anything, even if everyone who voted Clinton signed, it isn`t going to change anything? The system is the system, it wasn`t a referendum.

I think the popular vote is largely a red herring.

Everyone knew what the rules were going into the election and fought the election on that basis, the Electoral College may be a stupid way to decide a presidential election and it should be changed to be purely a case of the highest popular vote wins so that every vote has the same value, but that wasn't the basis on which this election was fought.

I will say though that I haven't seen anything to indicate Trump won the popular vote.

LHW99

Not preparing at all for government until the day you win the election is the mark of a real Moron.

That would include the German government then?
"No-one really expected this result, so no-one had established communication with anyone on his team," says Peter Beyer, spokesman for Mrs Merkel's CDU party on transatlantic relations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37936207

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Masomnia wrote: »

The system is the system, put in place to ensure that the winner of the election had broad support from across the whole country, as it's a federal republic..

Not quite...

In many states, it’s perfectly legal for electors to change their minds.

More than a dozen states don’t have laws to punish them if they do go rogue and even the ones that do have very light penalties.

The 'founding fathers' of the USA were actually afraid of direct election to the Presidency.

They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power - and how right they were.

Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.

This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

The electoral college was put in place largely as a safeguard to prevent extremist candidates from conning the masses and being elected as President.

Some would argue that's precisely the situation we find ourselves in today - and if Clinton's lead in the popular vote is measured in millions rather than a few thousand - the calls for the democratic will of the people to be respected will grow ever louder.

Masomnia

Fearing a tyrant yes, as the war of Independence was fought against George III whom they did consider a tyrant, it was the climate in which the nation was founded. You could have a situation like pre-Civil War where a collection of states want to secede, and if they all united behind one candidate could take power over the whole Union if they were against split opposition, and having an electoral college prevents this, because as I say it ensures that the winner has support across the Union. As Trump does.

But really it's a classic Hamish putting your spin on things - there's no reference in there to the 'manipulation of public opinion', 'populism', or people being 'unqualified' for the job. All of which is your opinion, and imposing your modern viewpoint on Early Modern thinkers.

I don't like Trump and I wouldn't have voted for him, but he won under the system that they have. If America wants to change the system it's up to them.

zagubov

Would it be time for all democracies to consider compulsory voting?

Thrugelmir

Masomnia wrote: »

I don't like Trump and I wouldn't have voted for him, but he won under the system that they have. If America wants to change the system it's up to them.

Nor would I. However Clinton wouldn't have got my vote either. Such is the nature of US politics currently.

People complaining that the US will become protectionist. Don't understand the mentality of many Americans who are very much of this viewpoint. They have no interest in the RoW.

kabayiri

IMO Clinton dodged a bullet.

She needs to go home and look after her health.

(oh, and check out the Western Union fees for repaying money back to corrupt Middle Eastern states. They didn't get the 'product' they paid for.)

mwpt

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Seems you do indeed hold very narrow views. Assumptive too about other people. Perhaps take a look in the mirror before using words such as bigot. Out of interest how much time have you spent in the US or in the company of Americans generally. I'm not talking about trips to Disneyland, New York or the Grand Canyon either.

While I appreciate that you have successfully shifted the argument from something interesting and pertinent (whether humanity has benefited from globalisation or not - it has, btw) and moved on to personal comments about me and my opinion on Trump, I think I will disengage with this particular line.