Jan McNulty Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 I am so fed up with the constant TV coverage. We have had the result, we have had the analysis and now it is just going on and on and on... The BBC had better not cancel Pointless! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alison Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Yes, and other things more than worthy of a mention have also happened today, sadly 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Having worked in a press office I'm aware of how unpalatable news gets buried on days like this. The fatal tram accident in Croydon, five dead so far, has received almost no coverage at all. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alison Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 That's what I was referring to, MAB, as I guess you can imagine. If it had been a train, and on a normal day, it would have taken up at least 10 minutes of the news. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTL Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 (edited) Seven dead and fifty injured in the Croydon tram crash to date, according to the BBC website, though I had to scroll down a bit to find it, and it will headline the local BBC 6.30 pm news programme. Perhaps there isn't enough top talent left in London to cover it more prominently. Edit: tram not train. And it's been brielfy covered as "one other major item for you tonight" on the extended national news before the sign-off live from Washington. Edited November 9, 2016 by Grand Tier Left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alison Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 I was afraid the death toll was going to rise And Transport for London are still referring to it as a "serious incident". For heaven's sake! Reports that the tram was travelling too fast: and it's a very tight bend - you can often hear the screech of the wheels as the train comes round the curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Apparently it's the worst rail accident in the London area since the Ladbroke Grove crash in 1999. with seven people now dead and others still in a serious condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 .Edit: tram not train. And it's been brielfy covered as "one other major item for you tonight" on the extended national news before the sign-off live from Washington. Oh, that's appalling and so lacking in respect. Has the media lost all sense of proportion? [Ladbroke Grove was covered live for hours on both the BBC and CNN World.] 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huddsballetmum Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 It's now been released that Hilary Clinton got more votes than Donald Trump, and I know that the voting system is different in America with numbers of state votes per headcount, but surely the person with the most votes should be the one that becomes president. Not that I think Hilary Clinton would be a whole lot better than Trump but there has to be some logic involved. More Americans voted for Clinton than they did Trump yet they do not get to have their president of choice. Poor America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinMM Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Actually that film yesterday of him in the Whitehouse with Obama caught something different. I thought he looked rather nervous and for once over awed ......perhaps he won't be nearly as bad in practice as he was in the campaign. Hope he picks his advisors wisely. Still a difficult thing to understand.....how did he get so far in it all...... but I suppose money talks in the end especially in America. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aileen Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 That can happen in the UK too with our FPTP system in each constituency as well as overall. Many people feel that their votes are 'wasted' and that creates voting apathy. With referendums every vote does actually count. There will be an anguished postmortem about the pollsters' inaccurate predictions in the next weeks and months but, even as I watched the coverage on Tuesday night before any of the swing states' results came through, I felt that there was too much emphasis placed on relatively minor demographic changes in these states ie a small number of Black and Latino citizens moving into predominately white areas. People who voted for Trump wanted change and Clinton represented more of the same. Personally, I don't think that any Democratic candidate of any persuasion would have won. Of course, Trump won't find it easy to deliver on his simplistic slogans. Investment in jobs and training costs money but people want lower taxes. People want cheap goods but locally made goods have higher production costs. How is he going to resolve these contradictions? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunrise Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Actually that film yesterday of him in the Whitehouse with Obama caught something different. I thought he looked rather nervous and for once over awed ......perhaps he won't be nearly as bad in practice as he was in the campaign. Hope he picks his advisors wisely. Still a difficult thing to understand.....how did he get so far in it all...... but I suppose money talks in the end especially in America. The impression I had was that Trump's campaign had far less to spend than Clinton. He was disadvantaged in money, organisation, endorsements (political, media, celebrity) and experience. His campaign was a mess but he did have a consistent, if distasteful, message that resonated with many people who seemed to like that he was a successful business and outsider and decided, happily or not, to overlook his many personal flaws because he told them what they wanted to hear. I was initially mildly encouraged by his victory speech and that he took some of the worst of his campaign promises off his webpage after Election Day, but they seem to have returned, and his immature response to the protestors on twitter (professional protestors, media-incited) reminds me of how dangerous men like him in power can be. I can't bear to watch or read the news anymore. I might try to keep up with it through a youtube Stephen Colbert filter because if I didn't laugh at it all I'd cry. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McNulty Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 But how successful a businessman is he? It is a matter of record that he has declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy on some of his companies 6 times! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aileen Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 I don't think that corporate bankruptcy carries quite the same stigma in the US as it does in the UK although attitudes are changing in the UK. I think that it's almost expected of entrepreneurs. Starting and running a business which becomes successful - with failures along the way - is all part of the American Dream. I loathe Trump but lots of people in the US admire the fact that he is a businessman rather than someone who has spent all or most of his life in politics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa O`Brien Posted November 11, 2016 Author Share Posted November 11, 2016 (edited) A UK journalist on Twitter [can't remember who] said they wouldn't be surprised if in future America votes for a President Kardashian, the way things have gone. Edited November 11, 2016 by Lisa O`Brien 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi4ballet Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 I thought he looked rather nervous and for once over awed ......perhaps he won't be nearly as bad in practice as he was in the campaign. Hope he picks his advisors wisely. Perhaps the enormity of it might be dawning on him - and also that he now has rather a large number of favours to repay...? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinMM Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 There may be some quarters of the world which will feel the downfall of the West has begun....started all on their own!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Has anyone seen a film called 'Idiocracy'? It didn't get a general release here, I think the best way to describe it is satirical comedy sci-fi. The story line is to do with the creation of a time machine by the military. They send two people into the future, a surplus to requirements army clerk and a prostitute who is prepared to do anything to escape her pimp. They find a society where years of dumbing down has created a world of idiots and where nothing works anymore. The hip dude in charge got the job of world president after being voted coolest man on the planet. The two hapless time travellers find themselves the only two people in the world endowed with common sense. Lisa's comment about a President Kardashian could be a step towards the situation in the film. so could the events of the last couple of days. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alison Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Even things way back as far as Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 have pointed in that direction. In a society where not a few people already vote as if an election was simply a televised popularity (or reverse-popularity) contest, that wouldn't surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alison Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 It's now been released that Hilary Clinton got more votes than Donald Trump, and I know that the voting system is different in America with numbers of state votes per headcount, but surely the person with the most votes should be the one that becomes president. Personal votes, I guess you mean. I've been left the past few days wondering if the time differences across the USA actually tend to disadvantage the West Coast states, given that the whole election appeared to have been done and dusted before their votes were counted anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melody Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) Personal votes, I guess you mean. I've been left the past few days wondering if the time differences across the USA actually tend to disadvantage the West Coast states, given that the whole election appeared to have been done and dusted before their votes were counted anyway. It's even worse than that. California is the largest state in the country in terms of number of voters, yet it has a very late primary. So by the time the people of California got to vote in the primaries in June, Trump was the only Republican still in the race on that side even though some of the candidates who'd already withdrawn were still on the ballot. So the people of California had no say in choosing the Republican candidate. Then in the election last Tuesday, the media were calling states for Trump or Clinton as soon as their models told them who was the projected winner, and that was happening as soon as the polls closed on the east coast. So the polls were still open in California when it started to be discussed that there was no way Clinton was realistically going to win. Which makes it more likely that Democrats wouldn't bother to go to the polls, which affects all the other races in the state as well as the presidential one. I remember one year, a TV anchor actually told Californians not to bother to go and vote because their vote didn't matter any more. Not that that's helpful when there were all sorts of state and local issues on the ballot too, but the media generally doesn't care about that. But it's bloody sad in a democracy for the people in the most populous state in the country to be told their votes don't matter. Edited November 12, 2016 by Melody 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melody Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Has anyone seen a film called 'Idiocracy'? It didn't get a general release here, I think the best way to describe it is satirical comedy sci-fi. The story line is to do with the creation of a time machine by the military. They send two people into the future, a surplus to requirements army clerk and a prostitute who is prepared to do anything to escape her pimp. They find a society where years of dumbing down has created a world of idiots and where nothing works anymore. The hip dude in charge got the job of world president after being voted coolest man on the planet. The two hapless time travellers find themselves the only two people in the world endowed with common sense. Lisa's comment about a President Kardashian could be a step towards the situation in the film. so could the events of the last couple of days. I've seen it, and I've been a bit worried about the parallels with real life over the last few days. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 It's even worse than that. California is the largest state in the country in terms of number of voters, yet it has a very late primary. So by the time the people of California got to vote in the primaries in June, Trump was the only Republican still in the race on that side even though some of the candidates who'd already withdrawn were still on the ballot. So the people of California had no say in choosing the Republican candidate. Then in the election last Tuesday, the media were calling states for Trump or Clinton as soon as their models told them who was the projected winner, and that was happening as soon as the polls closed on the east coast. So the polls were still open in California when it started to be discussed that there was no way Clinton was realistically going to win. Which makes it more likely that Democrats wouldn't bother to go to the polls, which affects all the other races in the state as well as the presidential one. I remember one year, a TV anchor actually told Californians not to bother to go and vote because their vote didn't matter any more. Not that that's helpful when there were all sorts of state and local issues on the ballot too, but the media generally doesn't care about that. But it's bloody sad in a democracy for the people in the most populous state in the country to be told their votes don't matter. I find that truly shocking, puts those west coast protests into context. As for Hillary Clinton's higher personal vote, didn't something similar happen with Al Gore in one of the elections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinMM Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Oh Melody had no idea it was like that in the US that's terrible. .....never thought about the nitty gritty of time zones. Couldn't there be some agreement not to count votes until all were in .....in all states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonty Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 I am a little confused as to what sort of voting system America has. Is it the same as the Alternative Vote that Nick Clegg was trying to push through in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 I can highly recommend a complete news fast for several days or ideally a week. i do this regularly now and find it psychologically necessary to prevent being driven mad by today's media ( even the best of it is hysterical). Anyway, Ballet Forum keeps me up to date with all the really important news. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa O`Brien Posted November 12, 2016 Author Share Posted November 12, 2016 Oh Melody had no idea it was like that in the US that's terrible. .....never thought about the nitty gritty of time zones. Couldn't there be some agreement not to count votes until all were in .....in all states? This is what happens in Northern Ireland. All elections are held on a Thursday, whether GE or Local Govt. But for security reasons the ballot boxes are secured over the weekend. Counting doesn't start until Monday morning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alison Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 I find that truly shocking, puts those west coast protests into context. As for Hillary Clinton's higher personal vote, didn't something similar happen with Al Gore in one of the elections? That was the notorious "hanging chad" election, wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melody Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) I find that truly shocking, puts those west coast protests into context. As for Hillary Clinton's higher personal vote, didn't something similar happen with Al Gore in one of the elections? Yes, in 2000. The electoral college tends to favour the less populated states. A candidate can win California or New York by a wide margin but end up losing as a result of close losses in states like Ohio and Wisconsin, which is what happened this time around. This is what happens when all the electoral college votes in a state go to the winner, regardless of how close the vote was. In a few states it's done by district (which opens the system up to the same sort of gerrymandering that's bedeviling the House of Representatives at the moment) but mostly it's a statewide thing. Edited November 12, 2016 by Melody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melody Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) I am a little confused as to what sort of voting system America has. Is it the same as the Alternative Vote that Nick Clegg was trying to push through in the UK? I don't think so - there aren't alternative votes. On the ballot people vote for one or other of the candidates, and the elections are run by the states so that they're counted state by state. But the actual selection is made by the electoral college, and the way the electoral college is chosen is that all the electoral college votes in a state will go to the candidate who wins that state, they aren't apportioned proportionally with respect to what percentage each candidate gets. So if a candidate wins California with 51% of the vote, s/he gets all 55 electoral college votes for California. If s/he wins California with 81% of the vote, s/he gets the same 55 electoral college votes. So a big win isn't an advantage. This is how one party can win the popular vote and lose the election - winning by large margins in states with densely populated areas (especially California, New York, and Illinois) and losing by small margins in a large number of smaller states in the Midwest and south. And that's what happened in this election; Clinton got 62% of the vote in California to Trump's 33%, 59% in New York to Trump's 37%, and 55% in Illinois to Trump's 39%, which is where the bulk of her popular vote win came from. But in the swing states, he won Florida and Pennsylvania 49% to 48%, Michigan and Wisconsin 48% to 47%, and North Carolina 51% to 47%; he won Iowa and Ohio by larger margins but nothing like her wins in California and New York. However, just as she got all the California electoral college votes for her 29-point victory, he got all the Florida electoral college votes for his 1-point victory. A small number of states apportion the electoral college votes proportionally, but it's just a bare handful of small states, and even then it's done by electoral district rather than pure percentage of voters, meaning there's another way to manipulate the result because electoral districts are drawn by whichever party is in power in the state after each census, and that leads to serious gerrymandering. After every election there are calls to abandon the electoral college because it skews the results so weirdly, especially in favour of the party which appeals more to rural voters, but it's in the Constitution so it's going to be very hard to do anything about it. Edited November 12, 2016 by Melody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melody Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 That was the notorious "hanging chad" election, wasn't it? Yep, it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colman Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 (edited) FPTP can give a majority to very small vote percentages when there are multiple parties running. If you haf four candidates in every constituency as little as 13% of votes cast could give you a majority in parliament, I think. Coming from a proportional representation system it doesn't look democratic at all! Democracy isn't just counting votes and doing whatever the majority want - that's mob rule. It's also the institutions built around that - which is why recent rhetoric attacking those institutions in the U.K. is so disturbing. The electoral college is designed to make sure that a President has a geographically wide support base, rather than just support in a few populous states. The Senate is set up similarly, with all states having two senators regardless of population. We do something similar in the EU Council, requiring a majority of states representing a majority of the population to pass laws on a lot of issues - to stop a few big states trampling all the small ones and to stop the small ones ganging up and passing laws to detriment of the big ones. That's when we don't just require unanimity, of course. ???? Edited November 13, 2016 by Colman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi4ballet Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 How come Farage has been the first British politician to have a meeting with Trump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts