Pretty sure public protests recently were a major factor in the resignation of the South Korean Prime Minister.

Which loosely translates to these protesters have lost the people. Its not the peoples job to show up, its the protesters that must inspire the people. 

Language such as 'racism', and 'misogyny' doesnt work either which if you knew anything about SA they accuse their opponents of. No one will support protesting in Australia until they are gone. 

TheSelectFew pretty much summed up my sentiments. I'm not saying that protests don't do anything, it's just that these protest won't achieve anything.

I totally disagree. Many Australian's don't protest because they are apathetic to many issues (if it doesn't concern them directly they aren't interested). If Australians aren't marching because of the use of words such as racism and misogyny, it is probably because they identify with such values. Sure they can be overused, but it is a weak excuse to not support protests in any form.

I don't know ... he has already started to appoint a more diverse committee including two he has openly insulted previously. Could he be doing this possibly to appeal to those protesting and an effort to unite the country??

Nah.

I only got into this discussion because the suggestion was that these protestors were anti-democratic which they're clearly not. They've already achieved something, people are talking about it. Don't know if it will progress further than that but I doubt it.

So people talking about them being no life losers means they have achieved something? Going by that, quite a few people have achieved something on these forums :laugh:

A crib sheet of Donald Trumps potential conflicts of interest:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

That may be true for yourself but I have been to a few. They reach nobody. Its as good as a letter. 

Protests don't get on TV in Australia anymore unless they:

a) are so massive you can't ignore them (eg Iraq war, work choices), or
b) are supported by the right wing media (eg convoy of no confidence), or
c) feature a sandal wearing socialist getting run over by a police horse.

Good work from Jill Stein
Recounts to occur in Wisconsin, Michigan & Pensylvania
As the will of the people has not been fulfilled (Clinton now over 2M votes ahead), this adds to his impending 4 year long train wreck.

The popular vote is like claiming to win a football match because you had more possession.

Now that Hilary has officially joined with the re-count in Wisconsin, I hope Trump pushes hard with the investigation after the failed vote recount and sends Clinton to jail. You had you chance Hilary to walk away, but you now look even more desperate and pathetic.

Whether Trump gets assassinated or dies of cancer, either way Earth benefits from the cnut's death.
I hope it's the latter, so he suffers more, like he inflicted on so many of the people he employed.

Imagine her strung up in prison. Would be a great sight. 

This recount business has really triggered Donny.

Except for the fact that the electrocal college system is meant to reflect the popular vote in the US election (that is "colleges" are given votes based on the states population). The only reason for not basing the decision on the popular vote is because of trouble counting votes in the 1800s.

As I stated previously the winner of the popular vote (prior to this election) has won all but 4 of the presidential elections. Prior to George W's win in 2000 (where he lost the popular but won the election), the last time the popular vote winner didn't get elected was 1888 (Australia existed as states only at this time). The margin between the winner of the popular vote and election hasn't been this wide since 1876.

The recount won't change a thing.

Trump won fair and square, remember its not the New York or Los Angeles yuppies that just vote.

Average white man living in rural mid-west America gets a vote too. That's the vote that rebelled against Hillary and the Establishment.

Democracy. Hillary lost. Live with it.

Good to see tardtho show his colours. 

No it's not, it's because America is a constitutional republic instead of a democracy. It's a literally a UNITED STATES of America, so the EC protects the little states from the big ones so to speak.

It's so SoCal and NYC don't dictate the entire path of the country for the entire midwest. 

The bolded bit is completely wrong. It's clearly a democracy and constitutional republic means that the government's powers are limited by a constitution. I think we all know what a republic is...

It's a federation of states (like we are) so in some ways the EC makes sense, EXCEPT that states already have that sort of representation in congress and the senate. These representatives limit the power of the president and have a day to day use (unlike EC voters). The president is a single person voted in to represent the entire nation for all people, it should represent who the majority of people want.

Trump claimed that he won the popular vote, "if you get rid of the illegal votes".

So Clinton is smart enough to rig the election, but too stupid to rig it properly...?

:laugh:

I don't mind recounts, I think it's ever so slightly hypocritical considering the flack he copped for not agreeing that he would accept the election result, considering the reverse is now occurring, but recounts are always a good thing.

The popular vote argument is a bit of a joke though, the rules are well known beforehand and result in a completely different campaign strategy, if the popular vote was the most important then many people would campaign in cities and the get out the vote effort in populous urban areas would be more important than in the sparsely populated regional areas. No system is inherently fairer than another, because one candidate won the popular vote because of strengths with inner city demographics, and lost the EC because of weaknesses with working class Americans in more regional areas.

The popular vote argument is completely reasonable ahead of time, changing the rules before the game is fine, but afterwards is kind of nonsense, it's the same as people who show this picture and claim that most of America wants Trump.

https://i2.wp.com/thoughtfulreading.com/files/2016/11/us-2016-presidential-election-map-full-size.png
">

You could solve a lot of the problem people have with the EC by changing it from winner takes all to proportionally awarded, with a minimum threshold of something like 5% to ensure that the spoiler effect is somewhat limited.

Beyond the EC the most alarming result is the amount if straight ticket voting, people are either more apathetic or less aware of what they're voting for, straight ticket voting is the pinnacle of what is wrong with most modern politics, that we pick an -ism and are stuck with it, whether right or wrong our colour is more important, because our colour, not our choices, defines our morality, you can't be moral if you're blue, you can't be progressive if you're red etc. It's poisonous, and results in the vitriol America is currently experiencing now.

As an aside I find it interesting that Jill Stein has raised more money for the recount than her entire campaign raised for the election.

BTW I'm an isolationist, nationalist, social progressive with strong anti establishment sentiments. I'm anti-globalism but pro managed migration, I believe in equality of opportunity, what box do I fit into, what -ism do I follow?

So do those whining about the popular vote feel that the same principle should be applied to football, that after the match is finished one side should be allowed to change the criteria used to determine victory?

I'm also not a fan of popular vote arguments. The Electoral College was designed in part to avoid a "tyranny of the masses" where people in big cities have a higher-than-proportional influence than people in rural areas. Urban/rural voters have different key issues in elections, so the EC aims to ensure all areas get a proportionally equal vote.

Bear in mind also that the rules were the same for both sides and that both sides campaigned accordingly. Had the popular vote been the deciding factor, both parties would have campaigned very differently and the popular vote result could well have been different. We would have seen more campaigning in large population centres and people in rural areas would have been ignored, which again is what the Electoral College is designed to avoid.

As with many processes in a democratic country, it's one of those situations where it's not always an ideal solution, but it's the best of the alternatives available.

This is an interesting point. I think in this US election cycle it really showed how caught up with labels people are when it comes to politics. Labels can be useful for generalising a movement or position, but they are also the easiest way for detractors to silence their opponents. People on both sides shouting down opposing voters based only on the knowledge of who they voted for (Trump voters are racists, Hillary voters are unpatriotic etc).

In reality there are always a lot of issues people take into account when choosing who to vote for, but people seem to be content to attack opposing voters over single issues they might not even agree with, which just creates more anger and resentment. The media were also keen to fuel these fires, which didn't help. This election was the most vitriolic in a long time. Hopefully we get a return to reasonable discussion next time around.

It's in no way the best, and who is realistically suggesting that they "change the rules" for this election? The old tyranny of the majority argument is one I'm a fan of but they already have that in the senate and the congress.

It's hilarious that many of the people in this thread (not you Adelphite) that are arguing that the EC system is fine because it gives a greater voice to smaller states, are the same that get annoyed when there are rules put in place that favour minorities and women to give them a better chance to succeed. It's clearly only ok when people that they identify with get an advantage. 

I didn't mean to imply that people are genuinely suggesting to change the rules retrospectively; I just mean in relation to comments I see on Facey and the like that argue against the legitimacy of the result on the basis of the popular vote being in Clinton's favour. I'm not a big fan of Trump, I just think it's a silly argument to make given that those were the rules both sides played by and planned their strategies for.

You raise an interesting point in the second paragraph. I see what you're saying but I'm not sure if that's a fair equivalence to make. I'll have to think about it! :)