A more Divisive Trump 2020 Victory

[Tokora]

My question is a simple one. Would anything happen in the event that Trump wins the electoral collage with 270 votes, but loses the popular vote with only a fourth of the total popular vote (which I'm estimating would be around 40,000,000 out of a total of 150,000,000 votes casted). Obviously Trump still wins regardless do to that being how elections work in the US (we're not a very bright lot at the end of the day) but would americans react at all to the majority being completely sidelined this way? Would there be any protests not just from the left, but mainstream Americans as a whole? Could a movement form that would be strong enough to make a impact in the time after?

And in addition to the above scenario, does anything change if it becomes know that there was both electoral tampering and invited foreign interference but the Senate not only refuses to look into/prosecute, but also harrasses investigators and witnesses?

I do believe that there would be some rioting but do this being a worst case scenario I'm having trouble knowing just how much Americans actually would do due to the nations sheer antipathy to activism.

I do want to be clear that this question can be about literally any extremely divisive party in power, left or right, it's just that the GOP fits the current description.

[Aclion]

The EC whining would get louder.

But it's an academic question anyway. Barring some upset between now and November Trump is headed for a blowout since the dems shit their britches on impeachment.

[Ostroeuropa]

The house of representatives typically picks the president in the event of a tie, and it leans democrat.

If it were the senate that picked, which typically leans republican, I imagine there would be riots.

[Marxist Germany]

The house of representatives typically picks the president in the event of a tie, and it leans democrat.

If it were the senate that picked, which typically leans republican, I imagine there would be riots.

Each state gets one vote in a tie.

[Albrenia]

The EC whining would get louder.

But it's an academic question anyway. Barring some upset between now and November Trump is headed for a blowout since the dems shit their britches on impeachment.

Not sure the impeachment thing really changed much, to be honest. Anti-Trump folks are still anti-Trump, pro-Trump are pro-Trump, and the people in the middle probably won't care much in a few months.

I still think Trump is going to win though, because of the Democrat's incompetence, and how little the actual facts seem to matter anymore in favour of people just getting what they want for their worldview.

[Sylvai]

The house of representatives typically picks the president in the event of a tie, and it leans democrat.

If it were the senate that picked, which typically leans republican, I imagine there would be riots.

To expand on what Marxist Germany said, even if the House votes, it would go to Trump. Each state gets a single vote, regardless of how many representatives it has (making the total votes out of 50). There are more smaller/rural/Trumpist states than big/urban/Dem states, so I doubt the House vote would result in anything but a tiebreaker in favor of Trump.

[Aclion]

The EC whining would get louder.

But it's an academic question anyway. Barring some upset between now and November Trump is headed for a blowout since the dems shit their britches on impeachment.

Not sure the impeachment thing really changed much, to be honest. Anti-Trump folks are still anti-Trump, pro-Trump are pro-Trump, and the people in the middle probably won't care much in a few months.

Partisans will never change, but Opposition to impeachment jumped 10 points during the public hearing,. And the battleground states switches to being net opposed.

In the end Democrats held up important work to pursue impeachment, only to fail to provide any evidence damaging to Trump. This lost them the support independents in key states. That's put the White House solidly out of play for 2020 and the house is up for grabs.

[Neu California]

The election is almost a year out. A lot can happen in that time. Saying the white house is out of reach now is seriously premature

[Aclion]

The election is almost a year out. A lot can happen in that time. Saying the white house is out of reach now is seriously premature

Barring some upset between now and November

Upsets being a war or economic downturn. I'd previously say major scandal but, *gestures at soiled britches*.
Trump has shown he can mitigate conflict without major military involvement, and the speculated downturn doesn't appear to be happening any time soon.

[Totenborg]

Not sure the impeachment thing really changed much, to be honest. Anti-Trump folks are still anti-Trump, pro-Trump are pro-Trump, and the people in the middle probably won't care much in a few months.

Partisans will never change, but Opposition to impeachment jumped 10 points during the public hearing,. And the battleground states switches to being net opposed.

In the end Democrats held up important work to pursue impeachment, only to fail to provide any evidence damaging to Trump. This lost them the support independents in key states. That's put the White House solidly out of play for 2020 and the house is up for grabs.

They only failed to provide evidence if you don't understand evidence. Or witness tampering. Or really anything about the impeachment process.

[-Astoria]

Divisive or decisive, OP?

[New Paine]

Not sure the impeachment thing really changed much, to be honest. Anti-Trump folks are still anti-Trump, pro-Trump are pro-Trump, and the people in the middle probably won't care much in a few months.

Partisans will never change, but Opposition to impeachment jumped 10 points during the public hearing,. And the battleground states switches to being net opposed.

In the end Democrats held up important work to pursue impeachment, only to fail to provide any evidence damaging to Trump. This lost them the support independents in key states. That's put the White House solidly out of play for 2020 and the house is up for grabs.

Hmm, I have found sources that say slightly over half of the country supports the impeachment and removal of Trumpand I have found polls that are pretty evenly split. I would agree that most Trump supporters opinions are unchanged after the impeachment hearings, and most those that opposed Trump are still opposed to Trump.

As for the OP question, if Trump wins the electoral collage but yet again loses the popular vote, we may see protest amongst some places, but I don’t believe we will see 90s style L.A riots. The Democrats may push harder for abolishment of the electoral college in feature elections. It may be codified in the platform. The Republicans will keep defending it, as they are now.

[Forsher]

Divisive or decisive, OP?

It's clearly meant to be divisive.

Trump's posed to lose the popular vote by truly enormous numbers and barely grab an electoral college victory.

I feel like that would be a substantial enough pull in opposing directions to force a constitutional convention but that's because the numbers would clearly exist. The real alternative to this is that states Trump wins try to secede. Which they're not going to do. Unless, of course, the Libertarian party is the reason this happens. I imagine most of their voters would be... willing to accept Trump Round 2.

You have to remember that there is a relationship between popular and electoral college vote. Yes it's extremely imperfect but you wouldn't get those kinds of numbers without also having the numbers to, at the very least, lame-duck Trump & change the ruless.

[Aclion]

Hmm, I have found sources that say slightly over half of the country supports the impeachment and removal of Trumpand I have found polls that are pretty evenly split. I would agree that most Trump supporters opinions are unchanged after the impeachment hearings, and most those that opposed Trump are still opposed to Trump.

They only failed to provide evidence if you don't understand evidence. Or witness tampering. Or really anything about the impeachment process.

Response in general election thread to avoid derail.

[Antityranicals]

I'm honestly expecting Trump to get an electoral landslide, and to win at least 55% of the popular vote. Given his opposition, there's nobody who can hope to beat him, and the media's 24-7 slander job on the man is slowly but surely turning moderates towards him.

[Vetalia]

I don't think that it's possible for Trump to win 270 votes and not have a popular vote within a couple percent of a plurality because the vast majority of EC votes are based on population to begin with.

An interesting question to consider regarding the 2016 election is how many of the Libertarian voters would have voted Republican in other circumstances as this election had unusually high turnout for the Libertarian ticket, which if they were primarily Republican votes would have pushed them to a possible plurality.

[Vassenor]

I'm honestly expecting Trump to get an electoral landslide, and to win at least 55% of the popular vote. Given his opposition, there's nobody who can hope to beat him, and the media's 24-7 slander job on the man is slowly but surely turning moderates towards him.

[citation needed]

[Antityranicals]

I'm honestly expecting Trump to get an electoral landslide, and to win at least 55% of the popular vote. Given his opposition, there's nobody who can hope to beat him, and the media's 24-7 slander job on the man is slowly but surely turning moderates towards him.

[citation needed]

This is a prediction. It cannot be cited.

[Vassenor]

[citation needed]

This is a prediction. It cannot be cited.

Your statement about the effects on moderates is listed as a present tense fact. That means it can be cited.

[Forsher]

I don't think that it's possible for Trump to win 270 votes and not have a popular vote within a couple percent of a plurality because the vast majority of EC votes are based on population to begin with.

An interesting question to consider regarding the 2016 election is how many of the Libertarian voters would have voted Republican in other circumstances as this election had unusually high turnout for the Libertarian ticket, which if they were primarily Republican votes would have pushed them to a possible plurality.

It can be much lower because every electoral college vote is on a FPP victory... even in those states which have the multiple electoral college areas.

What this means is that if you have 2% of the vote and 98 other guys have 1% of the vote, then you win. And if you have 2% of the vote in 50 states, assuming no split EC states (not true) and nothing else changed about the US election, then Donald Trump would have had (using this data)... a complete electoral college victory and 2% of the vote (or, 2,735,078.72 voters for him, using this data). If we relax the "no split EC states" thing then the only bit that changes is the number of voters (I think the partition theorem explains why, but basically it's just a mathematical reality that 2% in every voting area will add up to 2% overall).

Obviously, in a near two party system, this kind of result is unlikely but that it's possible tells you the Founders (Framers!?) were idiots and their political science really shouldn't have the kind of influence over American elections it does. Wait, I just remembered... it's meant to be a whole thing that the Framers (Founders!?) thought the EC would actually argue and stuff, in which case the popular vote is just meant to be hard evidence to be taken into account (whereas what happens now is that the popular vote is taken very directly into the EC vote, and when it's not you get the whole "faithless electors" problem which, by the earlier point, is a contradiction in terms).

[citation needed]

This is a prediction. It cannot be cited.

This is not how predictions work. Predictions are inferences, which means they need to be reasonably generated from available data. Your data comes without citations.

[Antityranicals]

This is a prediction. It cannot be cited.

Your statement about the effects on moderates is listed as a present tense fact. That means it can be cited.

No, it doesn't necessary. It's simply an observation from people I've actually talked to.

[Forsher]

Your statement about the effects on moderates is listed as a present tense fact. That means it can be cited.

No, it doesn't necessary. It's simply an observation from people I've actually talked to.

In other words... you made some shit up and are neither willing to amend your statement to reflect its actual basis nor seek to verify the veracity of what you made up.

That's how intellectual honesty works. If you want to pull something out of your arse, you say you're pulling it out of your arse. Being intellectually honest means not going beyond the evidence you have presented, it doesn't mean being right. And, in turn, it covers your arse from people going, "But you said Trump would win" because you get to say, "No, I said that based on this evidence, Trump would win... I didn't even say that was good evidence." And if they were being intellectually honest they'll go, "Whoops, my bad". But, since this is NSG, I can tell you now, they'll probably act like you're doing something wrong by forcing them to respect that you haven't said anything other than what you did say. Why? Because very few people are intellectually honest and they don't recognise it when they see it.

Here's hoping you're different, right?

[Necroghastia]

This is a prediction. It cannot be cited.

Your statement about the effects on moderates is listed as a present tense fact. That means it can be cited.

The statement about a "slander job" can also be cited, assuming anyone has actually been proven to commit slander against him.

[Chan Island]

The democratic party would start to seriously consider putting reforming the voting system on their official platform.

There would probably be riots... in democratic states.

Trump is president for 4 more years.

The democratic party would probably break into a bitter round of soul-searching.

[Albrenia]

Your statement about the effects on moderates is listed as a present tense fact. That means it can be cited.

The statement about a "slander job" can also be cited, assuming anyone has actually been proven to commit slander against him.

People just like to be able to ignore the shit Trump does by believing that everything is a great big conspiracy of lies against Trump.