NationStates

The Lone Alliance wrote:It's just usual sore loserism.

Yep, a la Hillary 2016.

San Lumen wrote:If it were just that fine but the Senate President strongly hinted at overturning the will of the people.

I thought he pretty much whined about the spoiler effect. I don't believe he explicitly said "you're getting Bevin and the election results don't matter."

Fahran wrote:

San Lumen wrote:If it were just that fine but the Senate President strongly hinted at overturning the will of the people.

I thought he pretty much whined about the spoiler effect. I don't believe he explicitly said "you're getting Bevin and the election results don't matter."

He strongly hinted at it.

San Lumen wrote:

Fahran wrote:I thought he pretty much whined about the spoiler effect. I don't believe he explicitly said "you're getting Bevin and the election results don't matter."

He strongly hinted at it.

"Strongly" is a bit generous there. And this is a seat that will likely revert the minute a popular Republican runs anyhow. There's no need to sabotage democracy here.

Fahran wrote:

The Lone Alliance wrote:It's just usual sore loserism.

Yep, a la Hillary 2016.

Really I wonder if people realized how badly they lowered the bar thanks to the antics of 2016.

This stuff is now seen as acceptable for every election now.

"You didn't win, cry and pitch a temper tantrum and scream to the heavens because that's what EVERYONE did in 2016 and if they can do it so can you!"

San Lumen wrote:

Fahran wrote:I thought he pretty much whined about the spoiler effect. I don't believe he explicitly said "you're getting Bevin and the election results don't matter."

He strongly hinted at it.

In the same way you strongly hinted that the Electoral College was going to vote Hillary in.

He's in denial San Lumen.

That title is a bit clickbaity don´t you think? If the election is this close then a recount seems pretty justifiable. It´s also a bit suspect how some people who are all for are fine with someone with less than 50% of the popular vote to win is odd, but oh well some people only care when it suits them. To those that would say that by me saying that I should support Trump´s deposition, he won via the electoral college and for a nation of this size it´s kind of necessary so urban centers don´t dominate the elections every time.

The Lone Alliance wrote:Really I wonder if people realized how badly they lowered the bar thanks to the antics of 2016.

This stuff is now seen as acceptable for every election now.

"You didn't win, cry and pitch a temper tantrum and scream to the heavens because that's what EVERYONE did in 2016 and if they can do it so can you!"

It doesn't inspire confidence in elected leadership. I wouldn't have an issue with a recount by itself given the precise numbers involved, but it's all the whining that's accompanying that irks me.

Atkemri wrote:That title is a bit clickbaity don´t you think? If the election is this close then a recount seems pretty justifiable. It´s also a bit suspect how some people who are all for are fine with someone with less than 50% of the popular vote to win is odd, but oh well some people only care when it suits them. To those that would say that by me saying that I should support Trump´s deposition, he won via the electoral college and for a nation of this size it´s kind of necessary so urban centers don´t dominate the elections every time.

he won the most votes. Republicans are merely doing this because they dont like the fact they lost. Plus that is not why the electoral college was created and its also not the topic

This is one of those situations where it would be helpful to read what actually happened rather than OP's take.

Atkemri wrote:That title is a bit clickbaity don´t you think?

Saying the title is "a bit" clickbaity is a severe understatement. The OP is a definite partisan hack and only cares about democracy when it suits him and his side.

Bear Stearns wrote:This is one of those situations where it would be helpful to read what actually happened rather than OP's take.

I posted an article and gave a short explanation a bit earlier.

San Lumen wrote:he won the most votes. Republicans are merely doing this because they dont like the fact they lost. Plus that is not why the electoral college was created and its also not the topic

Just like everyone in every major race since 2016.

Republicans are simply doing what was done in 2016 now because now it's seen as something socially acceptable and it's a way to shift the blame and appease their base.

Dresderstan wrote:

Atkemri wrote:That title is a bit clickbaity don´t you think?

Saying the title is "a bit" clickbaity is a severe understatement. The OP is a definite partisan hack and only cares about democracy when it suits him and his side.

and your the same person who said it was unfair that urban areas got their fair share of representation and that a vote in Philadelphia counts the same as someone on a farm in rural Pennsylvania. You said the same about Canada

Is it unfair that urban areas in Kentucky came out in droves to oust Bevin? Should we have weighted votes of small rural counties because land area? Dirt and farms dont vote. People do

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:The majority of Americans also voted for Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016, yet I don't see you or any Republican for that matter complaining about a "rigged system". If you want a better handled election, then start a movement to enact ranked choice voting nationwide. That will once and for all overhaul the dysfunctional electoral system America has.

Pfff. Do you want to get rid of both major parties? That's how you get rid of both major parties.

Actually, I do. The old duopoly had more than enough time to fix America's problems and make it the world's #1 country, but they failed miserably. Its about time we bust their political trusts and introduce proper competition within American politics. Out with the old, in with the new.

San Lumen wrote:

Atkemri wrote:That title is a bit clickbaity don´t you think? If the election is this close then a recount seems pretty justifiable. It´s also a bit suspect how some people who are all for are fine with someone with less than 50% of the popular vote to win is odd, but oh well some people only care when it suits them. To those that would say that by me saying that I should support Trump´s deposition, he won via the electoral college and for a nation of this size it´s kind of necessary so urban centers don´t dominate the elections every time.

he won the most votes. Republicans are merely doing this because they dont like the fact they lost. Plus that is not why the electoral college was created and its also not the topic

But the election is close enough where the margin of error is large enough to permit a recount. I simplified the electoral college and if you don´t want it mentioned here you should look to your friend Vassenor who has mentioned it and the 2016 election multiple times. I was attempting to counter the argument s\he was going to make before they posted something to that effect which was fairly likely if I just had the first part.

San Lumen wrote:he won the most votes. Republicans are merely doing this because they dont like the fact they lost. Plus that is not why the electoral college was created and its also not the topic

with less than 1% and without a total majority, your argument is invalid. You act like Republicans can't issue a recount, but oh God the Dems DESERVE a recount in Georgia. Who the fuck are you to say what is and is not democratic, you fucking hypocrite?!

Atkemri wrote:That title is a bit clickbaity don´t you think? If the election is this close then a recount seems pretty justifiable. It´s also a bit suspect how some people who are all for are fine with someone with less than 50% of the popular vote to win is odd, but oh well some people only care when it suits them. To those that would say that by me saying that I should support Trump´s deposition, he won via the electoral college and for a nation of this size it´s kind of necessary so urban centers don´t dominate the elections every time.

I mean you're basing your opinions on the EC on a myth, but whatever.

Last i've seen was a 0.4% victory, with all ballots counted.

There was a Libertarian candidate that got 1.97%, thereby impeding any of the candidates to get over 50%.

Will stay tuned.

Vassenor wrote:

Atkemri wrote:That title is a bit clickbaity don´t you think? If the election is this close then a recount seems pretty justifiable. It´s also a bit suspect how some people who are all for are fine with someone with less than 50% of the popular vote to win is odd, but oh well some people only care when it suits them. To those that would say that by me saying that I should support Trump´s deposition, he won via the electoral college and for a nation of this size it´s kind of necessary so urban centers don´t dominate the elections every time.

I mean you're basing your opinions on the EC on a myth, but whatever.

Well, that´s what it works as regardless of it´s intended purpose.

Atkemri wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
I mean you're basing your opinions on the EC on a myth, but whatever.

Well, that´s what it works as regardless of it´s intended purpose.

One day, I'm going to write a long post on the EC but that's not the subject of this thread. Let's stay on topic.

New Sukberia wrote:Last i've seen was a 0.4% victory, with all ballots counted.

There was a Libertarian candidate that got 1.97%, thereby impeding any of the candidates to get over 50%.

Will stay tuned.

That closes the gap between them by about half if true since my article reported it as 0.7%. That'd be maybe 3,000 votes out of 1,400,000, I think.

Fahran wrote:

New Sukberia wrote:Last i've seen was a 0.4% victory, with all ballots counted.

There was a Libertarian candidate that got 1.97%, thereby impeding any of the candidates to get over 50%.

Will stay tuned.

That closes the gap between them by about half if true since my article reported it as 0.7%. That'd be maybe 3,000 votes out of 1,400,000, I think.

Beshear: 49.2%-709,846
Bevin: 48.8%-704,760

So it's less than .5%

Bear Stearns wrote:This is one of those situations where it would be helpful to read what actually happened rather than OP's take.

You should always read what actually happened, especially when the thread title is plain clickbait

Dresderstan wrote:

Fahran wrote:That closes the gap between them by about half if true since my article reported it as 0.7%. That'd be maybe 3,000 votes out of 1,400,000, I think.

Beshear: 49.2%-709,846
Bevin: 48.8%-704,760

So it's less than .5%

Yes, i'm also seeing a 5.000 and some difference between the two, taking from French media since it's not biased.

Another day another blunder of neoliberal democracy…