Will you accept the election results?

[Scot Dutchy]

Dont expect anything else?

[Forty Two]

Over to you, USA...

Given that President Obama is unlikely to initiate anything that could be described as "forcible" (though I expect possibly more stringent sanctions) and Trump professes not to believe that Russia was responsible, the chance that there will be any serious repercussions for Russia from this seems rather small. I think there's a good chance that Trump will lift any sanctions that Obama imposes, as well as those that are currently in place.

So, the "leader of the free world" will roll over and let Putin tickle its tummy...

Good boy...

Someone has seen evidence that Russia did it?

[Forty Two]

Any government that doesn't attempt to influence the elections of other nations to the benefit of its own interests is naive and weak...

It's bullshit all the way down innit?

Whoever obtained the emails and documents which showed the nefarious and odious behind the scenes behavior and conduct -- didn't they do a service to the public? There has been no allegation that particular items were fabricated. So, it's not like they pumped out fake information. The allegation seems to be that Russia "hacked" and disclosed the truth.

You know, if the Russians did the hacking, then why aren't we hearing the Obama Administration appointing a task force to review government cyber security, to ensure it doesn't happen again? Relative to DNC, Clinton, Podesta and other emails, why hasn't the DNC hired a specialist or army of specialists to find out how they were hacked, and to remedy it? Why aren't they locking their shit down?

Hacking and such is often defined very broadly. Sometimes for some purposes, hacking can be "finding out someone's password" or "using someone's password without permission." so, a "hack" could be that a clinton insider disclosed the password access. We, obviously, have no idea what was hacked, how it was hacked, who did the hacking, how they managed to do it, whether they had help, and even, and this is the money shot -- even WHETHER ANY HACKING ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Not a shred of evidence has been made public about alleged Russian hacking.

Excuse me, but with all due respect to "unnamed intelligence sources" - they can go fuck theyselves. Or zeselves. Or zoozooselves. Whatever. I don't buy it. I don't buy it because it's self-serving and clearly benefits the DNC and Democrats to say there was some foreign hacking. I wouldn't trust the Reupblicans under similar circumstances, and I'm not naive enough to believe the Democrats are more trustworthy, or sufficiently more trustworthy to be believed without evidence.

[Forty Two]

Actually, the COUNTRY is gerrymandered to favor Republicans. What happened in the last frame is exactly what gave Trump all those states:

That's ridiculous. The popular vote is counted state-by-state, not district by district. The gerrymandering point you made would make the Republicans have more House of Representative seats in the 3rd column, than the first two. But, it would have zero effect on the Presidential election, since the vote is not about a winner taking all of a district. It's the winner of the total of votes in the entire state.

Also, the example in the chart doesn't mean that in the third column there was, in fact, gerrymandering. It is always possible for one county or another to lean, lightly or heavily, to one party or another. And, the geographical boundaries of a district are arbitrary. They've never been uniform. So, there will always be bitching. But, Democrats gerrymander when they can. This is not a scandal, nor are the Democrats innocent bystanders, objecting to gerrymandering on principle.

[Svartalf]

actually, it's been done... and it may be that state borders were fixed with this in mind

[Forty Two]

actually, it's been done... and it may be that state borders were fixed with this in mind

You believe the borders of the states were gerrymandered so that Republicans would have an advantage?

Did this begin in the 1780s?

[Svartalf]

maybe not the 13 colonies, but the states that came after...

[laklak]

But back then the Republicans were the Good Guys. They freed the slaves and all that rot. The Democrats were racist mofos with police dogs and fire hoses, all the way up to the 70s. Bull Conner, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond - all Democrats.

[Tero]

Actually, the COUNTRY is gerrymandered to favor Republicans. What happened in the last frame is exactly what gave Trump all those states:

That's ridiculous. The popular vote is counted state-by-state, not district by district. The gerrymandering point you made would make the Republicans have more House of Representative seats in the 3rd column, than the first two. But, it would have zero effect on the Presidential election, since the vote is not about a winner taking all of a district. It's the winner of the total of votes in the entire state.

Not what I meant. The states themselves are made up in such a manner as to always maximize the effect of rural votes. The Electoral College does part of that but very populated areas in counties bordering on rural counties across a state line favors the rurals. You have "too many Democrats" concentrated in Illinois for example.

[JimC]

I thought that the gerrymandering (by either major party) was mostly about seats in Congress...

[Tero]

It is. But the phenomenon is no different from how the states and electors work out. In fact, the distribution of electors lags 10 years behind. The cities should have more than they do.

[Scot Dutchy]

Any form of district system is gerrymandering.

[Tyrannical]

It is. But the phenomenon is no different from how the states and electors work out. In fact, the distribution of electors lags 10 years behind. The cities should have more than they do.

There are only two States that don't award electors winner take all from the State's popular vote. So you can't gerrymander the electoral college.

And yes we have a census every ten years, and it is from that congressional districts are drawn.

[Scot Dutchy]

And you trust a census in America?

[Forty Two]

Any form of district system is gerrymandering.

Indeed, as is the concept of nation-states to begin with.

However, practicalities often entail a need for divisions of power and authority, so as such, jurisdictions are needed. In a very large and diverse country, it's not effective to try to govern uniformly, basing everything on a national level. We have counties here in the US that are bigger than the Netherlands. San Bernardino County, California is almost 25% bigger than the Netherlands in land area. And, just two counties in the US - Cook County and Los Angeles county, equals the Netherlands in population. From the standpoint of governance, the Netherlands should have a mayor and a city council, and that would be good enough. People could attend monthly city council meetings and directly participate in all the decisions effecting what amounts to a couple of municipalities.