And the winner of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, as reported by the major mainstream media outlets is Donald Trump. It has also been reported that Hillary Clinton called President-elect Donald Trump to concede.
Electoral vote count (so far): 279 for Donald Trump, 218 for Hillary Clinton. 270 electoral votes are needed to win.
Popular vote: 57,227,164 votes (48.0%) for Donald Trump, 56,279,305 votes (47.2%) for Hillary Clinton. Update: Now it is closer to 59,085,795 votes (47.5%) for Donald Trump and 59,236,903 votes (47.6%) for Hillary Clinton.
Yell, scream, gnash teeth... but please keep it civil.
Results at CNN, NYT, FiveThirtyEight, Wikipedia.
takyon: Republicans have retained control of the House and Senate.
Here's some market news:
Dow futures plunge nearly 750 points as investors warily eye electoral map
Asian markets plummet on likelihood of Trump victory
Bitcoin price soars as Trump pulls ahead
Opinion: How to profit from a Donald Trump victory
Ballot measure results will be covered in an upcoming story. Some initial results can be found at Ballotpedia and CNN.
[TMB Note: Stop breaking stuff, cmn32480]
Fundamentally, for sure.
What they SHOULD DO when the census changes drastically, is to add seats to the house. If Rhode Island's population triples, just give them another seat or two. To hell with redrawing districts.
Go by county lines. I htink my state has 57 counties - to lazy to look to be sure - so if it warranted another seat, just take some counties from this district, some from that district, and make them a new district. Balance out the population overall, but stop trying to create a minority majority district and two or six majority majority districts. Counties were created for several reasons - the counties should be the unit of barter in any "redistricting" plans.
I have been carefully gerrymandered into a completely separate counties district despite being within walking distance to our counties district HQ. My kids elementary and middle schools are in different districts, and the local voting place is literally 100 yards from the other district. I pass in and out of "my" district several times when going to the store.
Gerrymandering is not just a Republican thing. Both of "my" districts are controlled by Democrats.
Not only do both parties do it, they often cooperate with each other. It is a win-win for both: The republican trades the democrat leaning parts of his district for the democrats part that has more republicans. Makes both districts safer for each congress critter. They literally pick their voters.
That's not necessarily true. There is another way to go about things called proportional representation where instead of each district electing a single winner, the whole county or state elects candidates (or parties) to multiple seats.
I wonder why they didn't do that? I mean they could have done it back in the 1800s and saved us this hassle.
I can't speak for the whole country, but in my part of the world it is considered important to have someone local to represent interests in your area. Locals know where roads are needed, when pollution is a problem, and when their neighbors are in trouble. I suppose that you could try to do a proportional representation system that drew officers with geographic as well as idealistic proportionality, but nobody has ever made that work.
They didn't do that because the point was to elect someone that knew your local concerns. A group of 10,000 people shouting at each other won't accomplish anything. But break them down into common types (farmers, city dwellers, etc...) and have them each elect a few people, then suddenly it's only 10 people shouting at each other while maintaining the same concerns of those 10,000 people. The whole US government is structured as a pyramid on purpose.
So the reduction feature is working exactly as designed, except the type wasn't really meant to be one of two political parties.
I suppose that you could try to do a proportional representation system that drew officers with geographic as well as idealistic proportionality, but nobody has ever made that work.
So you say the German system doesn't work?
In Germany we have exactly this: In elections for the federal parliament, everyone has two votes. One for a district representative ("direct candidate"), and one for the party in general. The second vote determines the proportion. Additional delegates from party lists are added to make the proportion right.
Needlessly ignoring slinches' perfectly valid (and much simpler) solution, we could agree on an algorithm for dividing a polygon into n roughly equal districts, and then have the computer spit out an answer that anybody could verify as having been made by the agreed upon algorithm. As long as we aren't changing the algorithm whenever a different faction takes over or the population shifts slightly, this should work just fine. If legislators do fiddle with the algorithm, they can't hide behind the excuse of neccessary redistricting. I'm just proposing that this one problem is solvable, not that American democracy is generally fixable.
agreed upon algorithm
Stop right there. You might as well have it picked by unicorns if agreeing on anything is a requirement.
Despite your retroactive advice, I contiued:
I'm just proposing that this one problem is solvable, not that American democracy is generally fixable.