vivster said:
I know it won't change the outcome, I'm asking if those proceedings have the power to delay the final decision and subsequent inauguration. Legal battles can take some time, as can recounts. |
Probably not. These battles will either be expedited or turned down due to the importance of it.
vivster said:
I know it won't change the outcome, I'm asking if those proceedings have the power to delay the final decision and subsequent inauguration. Legal battles can take some time, as can recounts. |
No. Part of the reason Bush v. Gore was decided as it was, was because the recount would not have been completed before the results needed to be certified. In this case, since there wasn't ballot irregularity or anything, the recount should be able to be conducted before certification, and if it can't, then that's going to benefit the person in the lead.
It is conceivable that MAYBE a legal challenge could delay things if there is a really compelling case that something truly fraudulent happened, but it doesn't seem there is one. Most of these cases are getting thrown out by the district courts, and I doubt very much the supreme Court will even take up the cases.
I
Interesting quick fact as best I can figure (Wikipedia is decent but not what I'd call a 100% reliable source):
Every time in American history that the winner didn't recieve the popular vote, it was a Democrat losing to a Republican. 4 elections in US history had a democrat with the popular vote but lose the election to a republican due to the electoral college, and it has never happened the other way around.
I know the democrat/republican value chart was very different back then in the 1800s, but it's still an interesting fact. Eventually, around 1808 or something, the parties get weird and I'm not familiar with US history enough to claim to know what I'm talking about there.
The 1824 elections confuse me. Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were both the Democratic-Republican party, Jackson won the most states, the most electoral votes, and the popular vote by a wide margin, yet didn't win the election due to that election being inconclusive. NEver heard of that before, but hey, the rabbit holes you go down. This one won't count for our stats/counter.
The 1876 election had Rutherford B. Hayes win as a republican, beating Samuel J. Tilden as a democrat despite Tilden having 200,000 more votes.
The 1888 election had Benjamin HArrison win as a republican, beating Grover Cleveland as a democrat despite Cleveland having nearly 100,000 more votes
The 2000 election had George Bush win as a republican, beating Bob Dole as a democrat despite Dole having 550,000 more votes
The 2016 election had Donald Trump win as a republican, beating Hillary Clinton as a democrat despite Clinton having nearly 3,000,000 more votes
Not sure what you can gleam from this other than....maybe y'all need to get rid of the electoral college because it clearly favours republicans. No wonder it's republicans eager to not replace or reform it. IT's also worth noting that democrats have won all but one popular vote since 1992. They won 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. Literally the only time republicans won the popular vote was George Bush and likely because it was wartime.
Just sayin'. the country is leaning blue, and the red are fighting SUPER hard to not become obsolete. There's a reason some call it progressive vs regressive. The future is progressive, the future is liberal. The only thing stopping us are republicans who find change scary.
Last edited by Runa216 - on 09 November 2020My Console Library:
PS5, Switch, XSX
PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360
3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android
| Runa216 said: I Interesting quick fact as best I can figure (Wikipedia is decent but not what I'd call a 100% reliable source): Every time in American history that the winner didn't recieve the popular vote, it was a Democrat losing to a Republican. 4 elections in US history had a democrat with the popular vote but lose the election to a republican due to the electoral college, and it has never happened the other way around. I know the democrat/republican value chart was very different back then in the 1800s, but it's still an interesting fact. Eventually, around 1808 or something, the parties get weird and I'm not familiar with US history enough to claim to know what I'm talking about there. The 1824 elections confuse me. Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were both the Democratic-Republican party, Jackson won the most states, the most electoral votes, and the popular vote by a wide margin, yet didn't win the election due to that election being inconclusive. NEver heard of that before, but hey, the rabbit holes you go down. This one won't count for our stats/counter. The 1876 election had Rutherford B. Hayes win as a republican, beating Samuel J. Tilden as a democrat despite Tilden having 200,000 more votes. Not sure what you can gleam from this other than....maybe y'all need to get rid of the electoral college because it clearly favours republicans. No wonder it's republicans eager to not replace or reform it. IT's also worth noting that democrats have won all but one popular vote since 1992. They won 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. Literally the only time republicans won the popular vote was George Bush and likely because it was wartime. Just sayin'. the country is leaning blue, and the red are fighting SUPER hard to not become obsolete. There's a reason some call it progressive vs regressive. The future is progressive, the future is liberal. The only thing stopping us are republicans who find change scary. |
https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
This is a concise read about the switch of the two parties' values. Kinda crazy if you think about it. Makes it so disgusting when Republicans say they're the party of Lincoln to pretend they're the good guys.
"From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."
In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business."
Apparently Republicans have always been sucking corporate dick.
Last edited by vivster - on 09 November 2020If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
Cobretti2 said:
Honestly I can't see Biden winning a second term and not because he is old and likely to die but because he wasn't really a great candidate to begin with. If Trump handled COVID better he would have won easily, now that is a scary thought lol. Like you it has no impact on me being in Australia. The only thing I can conclude from the last two elections is America is a bigger mess than Australia where people take their political views too far almost cult like. We sometimes complain about our politicians but I think any of ours are a better option than what America has got atm lol. |
Many in Australia believe its the controlling/monopolised influences in much of the media that has stoked the fires of division over a long period
Kevin Rudd's petition calling for a royal commission into the Murdoch media has been tabled in parliament
Mr Turnbull, a former Liberal prime minister, said the Murdoch media used to be a group of traditional right-leaning outlets but has now become "a vehicle of propaganda."
"We have to work out what price we're paying, as a society, for the hyper-partisanship of the media," Mr Turnbull said.
"He warned that allowing the media to become increasingly partisan was dreadful for democracy because people ended up being unable to agree on shared facts to form the basis of political debate."
"Look at the United States and the terrible, divided state of affairs that they're in, exacerbated, as Kevin was saying, by Fox News and other right-wing media."
Note: For those that don't know Australian politics Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull were both past Prime Ministers from opposing parties (Labour (left) and Liberal (Right)) they are both on the same side of this debate/petition to reign in the corrupting influence on Democracy from the Murdoch media empire
Last edited by Rab - on 09 November 2020
IcaroRibeiro said:
And then I thought the whole point of being a Republican was to lowering taxes, defending free market yada yada... |
Trump was all about Protectionism, which tariffs are a often used way to implement.
Cobretti2 said:
Honestly I can't see Biden winning a second term and not because he is old and likely to die but because he wasn't really a great candidate to begin with. If Trump handled COVID better he would have won easily, now that is a scary thought lol. Like you it has no impact on me being in Australia. The only thing I can conclude from the last two elections is America is a bigger mess than Australia where people take their political views too far almost cult like. We sometimes complain about our politicians but I think any of ours are a better option than what America has got atm lol. |
Covid and "systemic racism". Basically Biden was elected thanks to one big fat lie. Devious schemes are nothing unusual in politics, but this is on different scale. The socially disruptive one.
Hunting Season is done...
Zoombael said:
Covid and "systemic racism". Basically Biden was elected thanks to one big fat lie. Devious schemes are nothing unusual in politics, but this is on different scale. The socially disruptive one. |
I'd call it progress considering Trump was elected thanks to a hundred big fat lies. Maybe the next president only has like half a big fat lie.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
| Runa216 said: I Interesting quick fact as best I can figure (Wikipedia is decent but not what I'd call a 100% reliable source): Every time in American history that the winner didn't recieve the popular vote, it was a Democrat losing to a Republican. 4 elections in US history had a democrat with the popular vote but lose the election to a republican due to the electoral college, and it has never happened the other way around. I know the democrat/republican value chart was very different back then in the 1800s, but it's still an interesting fact. Eventually, around 1808 or something, the parties get weird and I'm not familiar with US history enough to claim to know what I'm talking about there. The 1824 elections confuse me. Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were both the Democratic-Republican party, Jackson won the most states, the most electoral votes, and the popular vote by a wide margin, yet didn't win the election due to that election being inconclusive. NEver heard of that before, but hey, the rabbit holes you go down. This one won't count for our stats/counter. The 1876 election had Rutherford B. Hayes win as a republican, beating Samuel J. Tilden as a democrat despite Tilden having 200,000 more votes. Not sure what you can gleam from this other than....maybe y'all need to get rid of the electoral college because it clearly favours republicans. No wonder it's republicans eager to not replace or reform it. IT's also worth noting that democrats have won all but one popular vote since 1992. They won 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. Literally the only time republicans won the popular vote was George Bush and likely because it was wartime. Just sayin'. the country is leaning blue, and the red are fighting SUPER hard to not become obsolete. There's a reason some call it progressive vs regressive. The future is progressive, the future is liberal. The only thing stopping us are republicans who find change scary. |
Exactly to me this is wacked and broken. I also think the most votes wins is also broken because using Virginia as an example, 75% of the state voted republican but their voices are ignored because they live in hicksville and only the cities were democratic. What would work better is if every state seat was up for grabs individually for both sides (i.e. if there is 6 seats create 6 electoral regions). One party should not have full control of a state. Then you could end up in a situation where both parties are equal and then are forced to work with each other to benefit both side (a common middle ground) and more important all areas of the state not just the ones that voted for the winning party and rest ignored.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
