2016 US Presidential Election

[addams]

Genuine question: do USAians give a shit about Nigel Farage? Do they even know who he is?

Nigel Farage?
oh, Felstaff; I'm sorry.

I do quite a lot of reading.
Yet; I have only a vague idea of who and what Nigel Farage is.
(I, kind of, think of him as a Real Life Troll.)

But,..No.
No. USAians do Not know who he is.
Neither do most give a Flying Fuck.

Felstaff? Is your entertainer/politician going play an important part in 'syncing-up' the political soup in the English speaking worlds.
Felstaff? Is that goofy looking, Real Life, blood and bone, English/British man going to be one of the co-authors of our re-written histories?

Felstaff; Many;.. Most,.. All USAians are less educated and more ill-informed than most,..many of us are able to comprehend.

May I ask?
Felstaff; Why did you ask the question?

[HES]

No. USAians do Not know who he is.
Neither do most give a Flying Fuck.

And that is precisely the recognition he deserves.

[Felstaff]

↶
May I ask?
Felstaff; Why did you ask the question?

He's giving it the big I am. Like Trump.
Reasonable people (generally) can't stand him. Like Trump.
Older people (generally) laud him for speaking his mind. Like Trump.

He wants to become the unofficial ambassador to the US. Appearing not dissimilar to a castaway muppet or broken ventriloquist's frog dummy, he posed with Trump the day after the election. Twitter, on cue, captioned it succinctly: 'two young earnest revolutionaries plotting the downfall of the global elite from their humble golden elevator".

[morriswalters]

Quit reading Twitter. The sooner it goes broke the better.

[addams]

oh, Felstaff!
What have you done to me??!

I started reading...fell asleep.
I woke up and read some more.

Damn It!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38059623
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38061616

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980

Spoiler:

America is an Asian power when it wants to be,
Beijing will suggest, while China is the power that never leaves.

As Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned bluntly on a visit to Washington in August,
TPP put America's "reputation on the line" with its partners in the region.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-wh ... ch-2016-11
I read a bunch of other stuff, too.

I, just, happened to follow the TPP trail, this time.
I have no passion for it.

Like one American wrote, one small choice made all the difference.
The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost

Spoiler:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then looked down the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

I wonder things to myself, and now to you.
1. Is the BBC a good source for Real News?
2. Do you think Don J. knows what weight reputation has
in the hearts and minds of people from Asian cultures?

On election night, the president of China, Mr. Xi told Trump by phone:

Spoiler:

“I place great importance on the China-U.S. relationship, and look forward to working with you to uphold the principles of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation,”

Don J. is a scripted Reality TV Show *Star*.
The title, The Most Powerful Man in the World may not stay stuck on him, long.

That title may land on The president of China Mr. Xi.
If it does, it might 'stick'. What do you think?

[ucim]

That title may land on The president of China Mr. Xi.
If it does, it might 'stick'. What do you think?

China is a big market. There is lots of money to be made if we have a cooperative relationship with China. China will "suggest" terms. We will make a good deal with them, money-wise. It will only cost us the first amendment. Not to worry; we have 26 more.

ETA:

While nobody looks quite as dumb (and evil) as we do right now, there is unfortunately nothing to suggest Germans or Europeans in general are immune to Trump-style fascism.

I wasn't suggesting that. However, I had heard (but not verified personally) that due to Germany's experience with propaganda and fascism, they now teach propaganda recognition in the schools. I was neutrally asking how that worked - that is, what mechanisms they teach people for identifying propaganda, and how they teach it, with special attention to doing so without implicitly supporting a particular political view.

Jose

[svenman]

However, I had heard (but not verified personally) that due to Germany's experience with propaganda and fascism, they now teach propaganda recognition in the schools. I was neutrally asking how that worked - that is, what mechanisms they teach people for identifying propaganda, and how they teach it, with special attention to doing so without implicitly supporting a particular political view.

At least when I went to the German equivalent of high school and college in the 1970s and 1980s, teaching "propaganda recognition" was not explicitly a thing. However, as educatiion is responsibility of the states, there is not one but sixteen education systems in Germany (as of 1990), so maybe something like this exists nowadays somewhere without me having heard of it.

That said, becoming a "mündiger Bürger" (competent and responsible citizen) was and is consistently a goal of political school education in (the Federal Republic of) Germany, which ideally certainly would include the ability to recognize and see through propaganda. I'm afraid there is no simple and easy recipe how to achieve that, though.

[Sableagle]

Maybe a famous interviewer can help:

Paxman answers the questions

To get a straight answer, it is said, all you have to do is ask a straight question. Well, Jeremy Paxman has been asking straight questions on Newsnight for more than 15 years and it does not seem to have done him much good.

"Any spokesman for a vested interest is well schooled in how to say what it is they wish to say, which may bear no relation at all to what you've asked them. Because they're more practised in the mechanics of interviews, it's perhaps slightly more difficult to get through the carapace."

Grade said the BBC should avoid "slipping into the knee-jerk cynicism that dismisses every statement from every politician as, by definition, a lie. Scepticism is a necessary and vital part of the journalist's toolkit. But when scepticism becomes cynicism it can close off thought and block the search for truth."

Paxman says he agrees completely. "There isn't a word there that I dissent from. I wrote to the Times pointing out the idiocy of their reporting on it. I very much doubt they'll print the letter, but there we are." Yet it is clear why the story appeared - the line, sometimes wrongly attributed to Paxman, that he approaches every interview by asking of himself the question: "Why is this lying bastard lying to me?"

In fact the statement was made by Louis Heren, a former deputy editor of the Times, in his memoirs.

[Felstaff]

↶
1. Is the BBC a good source for Real News?
2. Do you think Don J. knows what weight reputation has
in the hearts and minds of people from Asian cultures?

1. The BBC, in being a taxpayer-funded enterprise, in its news must demonstrably show impartiality towards all political parties, as governed by the Royal Charter, to which it is bound. I am very pro-BBC, because I approach all news items from a skeptical standpoint, and generally a BBC article will raise fewer red flags than, say, a Guardian article (left-leaning) or a Times article (rightwing/Murdochian nightmare dystopia)
2. There is a beautiful little game called Osmos, where you start as a tiny single-celled organism that subsumes smaller organisms by osmosis, gradually enlarging, until you become the dominant cell in the cosmic fish tank. The US and China are two competing cells, each vacuuming up as much as they can. The TTP opened up a whole new petri-dish for the US to osmose the shit out of, namely all of southeast Asia, but Trump's isolationist/protectionist policies towards long-lost and nonexistent US jobs means that the China supercell can now imbibe with impunity this market that makes up some 35% of the global economy. Taking the insular route ensures the US economy might grow at a small pace, or at least avoid recession, but China's burgeoning soufflé of steel, silicon, and sweaters will inflate satisfyingly over the next decade. "Swell" may well be an American colloquialism, but it more aptly describes China's direction.
   
   Does reputation matter in this cold war of rampant capital consumerism? For the capitals and consumers; yes. For the politicos; not so much. They are Liars; their brand doesn't have the weight of Apple ("Designed in California. Assembled in China"). They open the barn door, then attempt to regulate the bolting horse. People cease observing chivalry when money rains from the sky; Asian culture is no different, though the stereotype might suggest otherwise.
   
   US winning of hearts and minds? The Kit Carson Scouts attempted it in 1966, though its unruly cousin, Rolling Thunder, put paid to that by '68. Has America cosied up to its transpacific friends since? Tried to right the fallen dominoes without Agent Orange? Reputation loses a lot of water across The Water, but embossed and proud on the good ship MAERSK's figurehead, the dollar sign remains. Trump, as we all know, has one tattooed across his buttocks; clenching them creates the Mad Fold-in ("the all ighty ollar").

[morriswalters]

The TTP opened up a whole new petri-dish for the US to osmose the shit out of, namely all of southeast Asia, but Trump's isolationist/protectionist policies towards long-lost and nonexistent US jobs means that the China supercell can now imbibe with impunity this market that makes up some 35% of the global economy. Taking the insular route ensures the US economy might grow at a small pace, or at least avoid recession, but China's burgeoning soufflé of steel, silicon, and sweaters will inflate satisfyingly over the next decade. "Swell" may well be an American colloquialism, but it more aptly describes China's direction.

Such is life. Nothing lasts forever and the particular conditions that made the US a superpower were a product of 2 wars on the European continent and a period of time when the US was unreachable to anyone that mattered in terms of security. That last time a foreign army invaded the US was when the UK burned Washington. That ship has sailed.

You can't outrun your population and not expect that they will look elsewhere for leadership. And the current generation needs to understand that. World trade didn't lift all boats equally. You'll either deal with that or someone like Trump will eat you. That particular bug bear isn't exclusive to the US. It brought the UK Brexit and there seems to be a swell of right wing Nationalism in Europe.

Or, maybe I'm deluded, and Obama really is a secret Muslim, global warming is a Chinese hoax, Hillary is guilty of treason, and Trump does know more about military strategy than all the generals...

Consider how you "know" that Obama isn't a Muslim. It isn't because Obama's birth certificate is on file in Hawaii. It's because trusted sources tell you it's true. You don't really "know" anything. If I can erode those sources of trust then I can change apparent reality. Thus Trumps, and some others on the right, attacks on the media.

[elasto]

Consider how you "know" that Obama isn't a Muslim. It isn't because Obama's birth certificate is on file in Hawaii. It's because trusted sources tell you it's true.

That's not how I know it. It's because all sides - Ds and Rs - agreed Obama was a Christian in Wright's congregation when that scandal broke.

In a court case, if the defence and prosecution both agree on a fact, I can be pretty sure that fact is true. If one side later contradicts that same fact, my instinct is to assume they are FOS unless they go out of their way to explain how and why they were wrong previously.

If some conspiracy nutter can't even apply that level of rationality then I feel safe in dismissing them out of hand.

[morriswalters]

That's not how I know it. It's because all sides - Ds and Rs - agreed Obama was a Christian in Wright's congregation when that scandal broke.

How does that not fit what I said? People you trusted told you it was true. You never spoke to any of the principles. Other people told you, and you either believed them or you didn't.

In a court of law it isn't what they agree on that is in question, it is the facts to which they disagree. One reality sends you to prison the other reality sets you free. In my home town a man sexually tortured a women and then murdered her. His accessory gave testimony against him and went to jail herself. He was acquitted. Years later someone rehabbing his old house discovered pictures taken while he was killing her. The case turned on who the jurors trusted not on what they knew. This is an extreme example.

If some conspiracy nutter can't even apply that level of rationality then I feel safe in dismissing them out of hand.

I gather as much. A lot of Liberals dismissed Trump as well. I was hoping to spark of discussion of the nature of facts, particularly as it relates to elections. I don't think that is going to happen.

[elasto]

How does that not fit what I said? People you trusted told you it was true.

No. People I didn't trust told me it was true. It's a totally different thing.

It's no different to when a sceptic claims a fact that supports global warming, or if a creationist claims something that backs up evolution, or if the prosecution lawyers in a trial agree the accused was a good man.

When detractors concur with advocates, It's much stronger than when only one (potentially biased) side claims something.

In this case, R's claimed Obama was a Christian. When deciding whether Obama is a Muslim, which obviously I have zero first-hand knowledge of, that holds more weight with me than if only D's had claimed it.

If you don't get how it's entering conspiracy nutter territory to dispute facts which all sides were (and basically still are) agreed upon then I don't know what to tell you.

[Soupspoon]

Oh dear. Here was I thinking that Trump had mostly stopped being all wild and crazy (well, maybe not all, but mostly...) about the many things he used for electioneering purposes only...



(Seems to have come from the single source @JumpVote whose entire 'proof' so far is saying that he promises to release all the information to the people before the media gets it (as if handing it to media would stop the people knowing, sheeesh) but no more about his "proprietry identity resolution and citizenship identification algorithms". I smell crank.)

[morriswalters]

No. People I didn't trust told me it was true. It's a totally different thing.

Trust isn't a binary. And advocates and detractors describe something closer to, trusted or less trusted, rather than trusted and not trusted. Trust itself is context specific. When a bill hits the floor in Congress, both sides will see the same bill, and draw different conclusions about what it means. When you move closer to the center, nutters are out of play, and you have supposedly reasonable men disagreeing about what the "facts" mean.

Oh dear. Here was I thinking that Trump had mostly stopped being all wild and crazy

Why would you think that?

[Soupspoon]

Oh dear. Here was I thinking that Trump had mostly stopped being all wild and crazy

Why would you think that?

A vague hope that reality had struck home.

From the "Hillary was a great opponent", rather than continuing to assert that he'd lock her up, to the "ACA has some good bits that we'll keep" instead of it being entirely repealed, and then there was that bit where he met Obama, took about five times as long as planned to be shown the Alien Space Pods that are the secret rulers of the world ultimate realities of Presidency and then Donald looked so cowed in the following press conference alongside Barrack, as if he'd discovered just what the job was that he'd unwittingly been interview for...

It was looking like he was just going to annoy his maddest fan-base by not actually being so crazy himself, while toning down on his sociopathicly-slanted statements. But probably this is a loose knee-jerk reaction against Jill Stein's recount petitions. Which will be interesting to see, though I don't actually think they'll change things as much as some people obviously fear they will...

[elasto]

Trust isn't a binary. And advocates and detractors describe something closer to, trusted or less trusted, rather than trusted and not trusted.

That's not at all how it works.

Ok, so there's basically three ways for me as a third-party to establish 'truth' over something I have no first-hand knowledge of.

First is the inquisitorial model. This is where I trust an expert to gather first-hand evidence. An example of this would be snopes. It's not that snopes can't be wrong, it's that their entire reputation is based on them not being wrong too badly too often.

Second is the adversarial model. This is where I trust noone. An example of this would be the courts and politics. Here I expect both sides to bend the truth as far as it will go in an attempt to win the argument for their side. If after both sides bend the truth in their direction they still agree, then I assume that no bending is possible and the fact is as trustworthy as it can be under this model.

Finally is the distributed model. This is like with ebay or amazon ratings - and works best when many independent people share first-hand knowledge, and you hope any biases and incompetencies even out.

(Science is so powerful a method of truth finding because it actually combines all three aspects: Someone gathers first-hand evidence, others play devil's advocate with alternate hypotheses, and many people repeat the experiments independently.)

Many people treat politics as if it were 'inquisitorial' rather than 'adversarial' - and, indeed, it used to be the case that politicians cared somewhat about their reputation for honesty; They'd mislead through ambiguity or omission rather than bare-faced and easily disprovable lies. So it wasn't totally inappropriate to treat politicians as 'experts' rather than 'adversaries'. However it's becoming an increasingly invalid approach in this post-truth world.

As I always favoured the adversarial model for politics, nothing really changes for me: The adversarial model led me to the conclusion that Obama is a Christian and I have no reason to change my belief.

Does that clarify things for you as to how I see the world?

[Dauric]

Oh dear. Here was I thinking that Trump had mostly stopped being all wild and crazy

Why would you think that?

A vague hope that reality had struck home.

From the "Hillary was a great opponent", rather than continuing to assert that he'd lock her up, to the "ACA has some good bits that we'll keep" instead of it being entirely repealed, and then there was that bit where he met Obama, took about five times as long as planned to be shown the Alien Space Pods that are the secret rulers of the world ultimate realities of Presidency and then Donald looked so cowed in the following press conference alongside Barrack, as if he'd discovered just what the job was that he'd unwittingly been interview for...

It was looking like he was just going to annoy his maddest fan-base by not actually being so crazy himself, while toning down on his sociopathicly-slanted statements. But probably this is a loose knee-jerk reaction against Jill Stein's recount petitions. Which will be interesting to see, though I don't actually think they'll change things as much as some people obviously fear they will...

Vote tallies go straight to Trump's ego gratification, probably his single greatest motivator. He has to be "The Best", and a popular vote tally that goes to Clinton runs contrary to that narrative. As it is he is effectively winning on a technicality (electoral college votes), and he's lost on the actual popularity contest.

[morriswalters]

It was looking like he was just going to annoy his maddest fan-base by not actually being so crazy himself, while toning down on his sociopathicly-slanted statements. But probably this is a loose knee-jerk reaction against Jill Stein's recount petitions. Which will be interesting to see, though I don't actually think they'll change things as much as some people obviously fear they will...

This is him altering reality. If the recount doesn't change anything then he didn't say it. If it does then it sets up his base not to believe. Consider all the whining about the election being rigged.

Does that clarify things for you as to how I see the world?

Ok.

many independent people share first-hand knowledge

This first. You can't share first hand knowledge. You either have first hand knowledge or you have what someone told you. So if a product sold on Amazon has a lot of 5 star reviews it is your hope that it reflects reality. However one of a number of underlying assumptions is that Amazon isn't playing games or that someone isn't gaming the system. The same could be said of inquisitorial or adversarial investigations.

If after both sides bend the truth in their direction they still agree, then I assume that no bending is possible and the fact is as trustworthy as it can be under this model.

This doesn't really say anything. In a courtroom if both sides agree than there wouldn't need to be a trial. A trial is is an investigation of disagreement about facts.

So the question in point for me is why X doesn't see what Trumps says as I do. It's easy to say that Trump is a fruitcake, it is less easy to say why so many people evidently drink the same cool aid. Saying that they are all bigots isn't explanatory.

[Izawwlgood]

Honestly, the only recount outcome that I think isn't catastrophic is that clear and evident foreign government tampering is discovered. All other outcomes just result in further division.

[HES]

Honestly, the only recount outcome that I think isn't catastrophic is that clear and evident foreign government tampering is discovered.

All America needs for unity is a common enemy to rally against?

[GodShapedBullet]

I'm trying to think how clear and evident the evidence would have to be for it not to result in further division.

Some combination of "conspiracy theory", "not enough to affect the election", "you are being sore losers", and "crooked media" seems like a pretty good counter to any audit of the election.

[Tyndmyr]

Depends on what you mean by "swing voters".

If nothing is solved, I expect significantly less enthusiasm from said disadvantaged places next go-round. I mean, partisanship is strong, so sorta mediocre progress can totally be passed off as way more impressive than it is, but you need something to point at, or you're just another person who promised 'em stuff and betrayed them. 2020 is the real goal here. 2018's fucked regardless, but 2020 has a real window of opportunity.

On the flip side, if it sounds vaguely reasonable, and you can at least help out a goodly proportion of these various little towns with no industry, you can parlay those soundbites into a pretty compelling narrative.

Midwest white swing voters that went GOP this year.
Let's take a look at two extremes, since we don't know what Congress + Trump will end up with.
Say we do everything policy experts say we should do in an infrastructure spending bill. Is that enough to make them vote GOP again?
Say we do the worst, and do nothing but tax breaks and incentives for stuff we already building. Is that enough to make them vote GOP again?
In either case, we can point to significant projects, and with proper media coverage, it can look really good. Aka, can Midwest swing voters see through propaganda?

There's a greater goal here for Democrats, gain power to save the world*, and enact favored policies. But there's also the smaller goal of actually helping those in economic need.

*at least until Republicans regain their sanity about the environment

It depends if it actually works. If it's the right thing according to the experts, and it doesn't change their lives, it won't matter. If anything, they're somewhat anti-intellectual in some respects, so "I did what the experts said" will not be taken as a sufficiently good excuse.

Sure, propaganda really gets you a lotta mileage out of every actual accomplishment, but still, there's a great deal of power to having a local success. The voter in Michigan probably isn't super enthused about a new roadway in Iowa, no matter how much press it gets. But maybe if Trump leans on the whole "lead in the water" thing, and that gets fixed, he can take credit.

Propaganda helps, but it doesn't replace actual accomplishments.

I doubt any of this will much help the racist misogynistic college dropouts who made Trump president. You can create manufacturing jobs but they will still go first and foremost to educated people who know how to show up on time, use a computer, and not smear shit swastikas on the nearest wall. You can fix (or at least temporarily expand) American manufacturing but as the saying goes, you can't fix stupid.

This is certainly true. A lot of people seek blame in the system, but really, they aren't going to be successful because they're horrible people. They're gonna have job problems regardless.

But, they're not most people. You can fix rural economies without really even engaging with them. Probably easier, too. They're not much of an asset for any purpose.

As for the whole Fascism thing...given that half the news agencies aren't using the word to describe frigging Castro....yeah. I'm gonna say nobody's immune.

[Izawwlgood]

Honestly, the only recount outcome that I think isn't catastrophic is that clear and evident foreign government tampering is discovered.

All America needs for unity is a common enemy to rally against?

I think it would be hard for even the most ridiculous of Trumpeteers to say that Russian hacking of our elections is something we should go ahead and respect. Though yes, it would take some pretty iron clad evidence.

If the recount reveals Hillary actually won, I think that would delegitimize her victory. If the recount reveals Trump actually won they'll be emboldened and furthermore, ignore all points of Hillary's popular vote win.

[sardia]

Oh dear. Here was I thinking that Trump had mostly stopped being all wild and crazy (well, maybe not all, but mostly...) about the many things he used for electioneering purposes only...



(Seems to have come from the single source @JumpVote whose entire 'proof' so far is saying that he promises to release all the information to the people before the media gets it (as if handing it to media would stop the people knowing, sheeesh) but no more about his "proprietry identity resolution and citizenship identification algorithms". I smell crank.)

Journalists aren't sure if Trump is trying to salve his bruised ego(losing popular vote), trying to distract from his scandals(his corruptions), or playing to his alt right base of support. Hell, it could just be Bannon was the last person to whisper into his ear, so he did it.

Trump's team is weird. Kelly Anne Conway was petitioning Trump on TV to dump Romney. That's messed up. Why would your own campaign senior staff have to petition you on live TV?

[CorruptUser]

Trump's team is weird. Kelly Anne Conway was petitioning Trump on TV to dump Romney. That's messed up. Why would your own campaign senior staff have to petition you on live TV?

To gain popular support or present a certain image?

REMEMBER: Trump being an asshole is his "brand" that he has cultivated over the years, much like how Richard Branson cultivates the image of Branson as the cool, laid-back rebel billionaire, or Steve Jobs cultivated the image of himself as an outside-the-box pioneer rather than a Trump-level asshole.

Of course, if you are pretending to be an asshole, it's not pretend.

[Angua]

Trump threatens to terminate Cuban deal.

Sigh. I know I shouldn't expect anything better, but this terrible tact and foreign relations just keeps getting rubbed in. Not the best time for this statement.

[Sableagle]

... and now for something far more important:

Kittens!

Just ignore the one about Michelle Obama being a man. That's some nutter puking into the ether. As long as he doesn't get to vote, he's pretty much harmless. Concentrate on the kittens.

[Tyndmyr]

Trump's team is weird. Kelly Anne Conway was petitioning Trump on TV to dump Romney. That's messed up. Why would your own campaign senior staff have to petition you on live TV?

To gain popular support or present a certain image?

REMEMBER: Trump being an asshole is his "brand" that he has cultivated over the years, much like how Richard Branson cultivates the image of Branson as the cool, laid-back rebel billionaire, or Steve Jobs cultivated the image of himself as an outside-the-box pioneer rather than a Trump-level asshole.

Of course, if you are pretending to be an asshole, it's not pretend.

To an extent, if you live an image long enough, you become it. At least a little bit. You are what you do, to an extent.

Not that any of those people were only those things...of course they weren't, but any persona you play long enough affects you.

[LaserGuy]

Honestly, the only recount outcome that I think isn't catastrophic is that clear and evident foreign government tampering is discovered.

All America needs for unity is a common enemy to rally against?

I think it would be hard for even the most ridiculous of Trumpeteers to say that Russian hacking of our elections is something we should go ahead and respect. Though yes, it would take some pretty iron clad evidence.

If the recount reveals Hillary actually won, I think that would delegitimize her victory. If the recount reveals Trump actually won they'll be emboldened and furthermore, ignore all points of Hillary's popular vote win.

Actually, this raises an interesting, if hypothetical question. Suppose that it were found that a foreign nation had directly tampered with the voting process resulting in a huge, but unknown number of votes being incorrectly cast in multiple jurisdictions. What would the process be to remedy this? Can the election be rerun entirely? Or at least, can there be a revote in those particular states/counties?

[Izawwlgood]

Honestly, the only recount outcome that I think isn't catastrophic is that clear and evident foreign government tampering is discovered.

All America needs for unity is a common enemy to rally against?

I think it would be hard for even the most ridiculous of Trumpeteers to say that Russian hacking of our elections is something we should go ahead and respect. Though yes, it would take some pretty iron clad evidence.

If the recount reveals Hillary actually won, I think that would delegitimize her victory. If the recount reveals Trump actually won they'll be emboldened and furthermore, ignore all points of Hillary's popular vote win.

Actually, this raises an interesting, if hypothetical question. Suppose that it were found that a foreign nation had directly tampered with the voting process resulting in a huge, but unknown number of votes being incorrectly cast in multiple jurisdictions. What would the process be to remedy this? Can the election be rerun entirely? Or at least, can there be a revote in those particular states/counties?

I think it would be a fascinating outcome - you could say to the Trumpeteers "he was right, you were all right, there is massive voting fraud! Now we have to do something about it".

I'm sure they'd still want to go ahead and inaugurate Trump, but yeah, it would be a fascinating thing to have to sort through.

[Liri]

A do-over would be quite nice. But I have no idea what the constitution says about that possibility.

[KnightExemplar]

A do-over would be quite nice. But I have no idea what the constitution says about that possibility.

The electoral college are a bunch of people. Technically speaking, the official vote hasn't happened yet. All that has happened, is that we've elected our electors, who will be going to assemble for a vote.

It is the State's job to choose electors who represent the State IIRC.

[Liri]

A do-over would be quite nice. But I have no idea what the constitution says about that possibility.

The electoral college are a bunch of people. Technically speaking, the official vote hasn't happened yet. All that has happened, is that we've elected our electors, who will be going to assemble for a vote.

It is the State's job to choose electors who represent the State IIRC.

Right, yeah. I'll rephrase: do any State constitutions provide for re-votes?

[KnightExemplar]

A do-over would be quite nice. But I have no idea what the constitution says about that possibility.

The electoral college are a bunch of people. Technically speaking, the official vote hasn't happened yet. All that has happened, is that we've elected our electors, who will be going to assemble for a vote.

It is the State's job to choose electors who represent the State IIRC.

Right, yeah. I'll rephrase: do any State constitutions provide for re-votes?

Uhhhh... its complicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

And probably shifts on a state-by-state basis...

[Tyndmyr]

A do-over would be quite nice. But I have no idea what the constitution says about that possibility.

The electoral college are a bunch of people. Technically speaking, the official vote hasn't happened yet. All that has happened, is that we've elected our electors, who will be going to assemble for a vote.

It is the State's job to choose electors who represent the State IIRC.

While technically possible, it's highly unlikely. Not only would there need to be rather a lot of switches, all in one direction, many states have rules against faithless electors.

If it did somehow end up getting swapped in a mass orgy of vote changing, people would probably lose their minds. The popular vote being different from the electoral vote already causes a significant amount of heartburn, but further shenanigans would probably play into narratives about how the system's rigged.

[morriswalters]

I don't think there is a do over..

3 U.S. Code § 5 - Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code

If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 673.)

And it is difficult to see how the results could have been tampered with to that degree given the assurances by people who should know, who said as much when Trump raised this issue during the election. Has something really changed? Trump apparently has altered reality even for Liberals. Hillary conceded, and this was an issue during the general that she was aware of.

The peaceful transfer of power is predicated on trusting the outcome of the election. Evidently we have finally managed to fuck that up. Oh joy.

[Izawwlgood]

The peaceful transfer of power is predicated on trusting the outcome of the election. Evidently we have finally managed to fuck that up. Oh joy.

When the head of the NSA states that something was afoot, I think it's safe to assume something may be afoot.

Though, Trump won Michigan by two tenths of a percentage (10k votes). So. I dunno.

[Chen]

Regarding recounts, I always wondered, are they done more stringently than regular counting? If not surely if a recount resulted in a different winner it'd still only be 1-1, and thus a second recount would be required to break the tie no? And if it IS done more stringently, is there a reason we don't just count that way to begin with? Is it a matter of them being MUCH more costly than regular vote counting?

[Tyndmyr]

Recount rules vary wildly by state. Shit, the whole state may not even be recounted. It all just depends.

But at least in many cases, no, it's not in any way more accurate, it's just rolling the dice again to see if the margin of error turns up differently.