sup /pol, frenchfag here.
I have no clue how the US election system works, and I heard that despite his success, Trump will never be president.
I want a clear explanation of that, please be realistic, I know you guys love him and I think he's the only possible choice if we want to keep our civilisation alive so I'm getting interested.
Thanks
>>65654276
would like to know too
>>65654499
seems we won't get any answer
Some Jewish/Anglo bankers and business types toss out a couple viable candidates and are nice enough to let us pick.
That's how it works everywhere....r-right guys?
>>65655727
not in north kor i guess
>>65654276
USA does not have direct vote, but a proportional arrangement voting power by state
main problem is that he needs to pick at least 3 of the states that Obama won in 2012, including Florida, which also went for Obama in 2008
It is not just a problem for Trump, but for every other republican as well
>>65654276
0.00001% of the nation picks a candidate in a primary election that nobody cares about except poor white trash.
Then the person they picked loses against the Democrat in the actual election because they're unpopular.
>>65656771
I don't even know your flag but das koo
Ok thank you for that answer, know I see what the problem is. What is your opinion of the probabilities for Trump to be president ? give me a raw number
>>65656924
I see, why did I believe that he could win... pol is so biased sometimes, kebab will never be removed
>>65656771
Why will Florida stump?
>>65657077
according to predictwise (aka people betting money on this), the republicans have a 30 % chance of winning the election
Trump has a 90 % chance of being the republican candidate
so overall chances right now are around 27 %
>>65657481
puertoricans fleeing from their bankrupted island and second-generation cubans that never lived under gommunism are turning the state blue
That is why the republicans field two second-generation cubans (Cruz and Rubio) the expectations is that it would attract those cuban voters back to the GOP
>>65657535
now i'm sad, but at least I know the truth. thank you stranger
>>65658020
Well the elections are still 8 months ago, a lot of stuff can still happen
But the time is still not ripe for a right-wing political insurgency
give it one decade more
>>65654276
The parties are private organizations.
If they choose to do so, they can say fuck the vote we are running Marco Rubio.
Doing this though, would expose their big lie.
>>65658583
* away
>>65654276
>Implying the US election system "works."
Shitposting aside, we're focus on the President since the House and Senate aren't AS horrible, just standard first past the post bullshit.
Ok, so the first thing to know is that the people do not vote for the US President, they vote for the people who vote on the President. Every Candidate selects "electors" in each State, these electors are political friends or campaign worker usually. While electors are not legally required to vote for their candidate, this has never effected the outcome of an election, and "faithless" electors are rare since candidates are only going to choose somebody as an elector if they're certain they'll cast the vote for them.
Each State gains 3 electors to start, and then the rest are given out proportionally to the State's population. There are 538 electors which is the size of the House of Representatives(435) + the Senate(100) + 3 for Washington, DC which isn't part of any State and so runs its own elections.
And once each State has the number of electors sorted out, from 3 in less populated States like Wyoming to 55 in California (although California is actually underrepresented due to the 3 elector minimum causing electors to be "taken" from larger States to smaller ones), the voting begins.
And from there, each State votes. All but 2 States, Nebraska and Maine, operate on winner take all, so any candidate who wins that State gets all of their chosen electors sent to the College. Nebraska and Maine assign them proportionally...sorta, read more about them if you want.
And in the end, 538/2=269, so the candidate with 270 votes wins, since you NEED A MAJORITY to win, you cannot win with only a plurality of electors.
>But wait, what if the College ties, or a third party gains enough votes to cause no candidate to win a majority?
This has only happened once (1824), but it's worth noting. If the electoral college ties, the vote for Presidency goes to the House of Representatives. (cont).
>>65654276
It's called denial. Trump is our next President.
>>65657535
The election system is done electronically.
People are like, "OHHHH I CAN VOTE ON A GIANT IPHONE!?!?!".
Software like that is a black-box. You have no clue if your vote is actually counted, or if you are just being presented the illusion of voting.
This explains the disparity between exit polls and why every vote turns out to be 51%/49%.
>>65654276
Here's how it works
Two party system(why? conquer and divvy strat)
each party has elections to vote for a presidential candidate. These are party elections, not state elections. this is why you have republicans and democrats arguing among themselves.
eventually they argue long enough that one republican and one democrat are left. Then two things happen at once
A popular vote, by the people
and an electoral vote, by anonymous state appointed electorates.
Only the electorate vote counts, but we show the popular one just because.
In some states however, the popular vote determines the electoral votes. They do not use an electorate.
Whichever runner gets 270 votes(majority of electorate votes) wins presidency
>>65658939
The House of Representatives is made up of (duh) Representatives sent from the States. Each State gets a minimum of 1 Representative, so Wyoming has 1 and California has 55. So you may be thinking "oh so it's just a simple vote, right?"
No. Each State gets 1 vote in this scenario, each individual delegation votes on what that vote will be. Also, since there are currently 50 States, this can also tie, and there's no fallback beyond that. Also, the Vice President is selected the same way in a tie, but the Senate, made up of 2 Senators from each State, does that one instead.
We are currently in the Primaries, which are just pre-elections to decide who each party's candidate will be in the general. The primaries are not legally binding at all, and the parties are actually free to select whoever regardless of the results (although doing so would be suicide for the General).
And that's it.
>But...this sounds fucking stupid
It is, especially since the only States that ultimately matter are the middle-sized "swing" States that don't lean strongly towards one candidate or the other. The biggest States tend to always vote with one party (eg California with Democrats and Texas with Republicans), so minority party voters in those States tend to not show up (which is sorta a self fulfilling prophecy but meh).
>>65658939
>>65659602
Also for your question about Trump...it's a tossup. Because of our two party system, 80% of Americans polled have stated that they will vote with their party's candidate no matter what. Since all the likely candidates poll terribly with independents this year, it's really a tossup. It depends on who people perceive as the lesser evil in the general, and which party's supporters actually turn out to vote (this has screwed over both parties in the past). Trump is pretty unpopular with large parts of their party, but then so are Clinton and Sanders. Again, tossup, anyone who tells you differently is shilling.
>>65654276
They're in denial. Back in August they were saying that it was impossible for Trump to win a single state.
Then he could never win a caucus state.
Now Trump has a commanding lead an momentum. He hasn't won yet, but he's the frontrunner.
>>65654276
However it's impossible for Bernie to ever win because blacks hate him.
>>65658939
>>65659602
Thanks sir, I learned a lot. Now I truly think that Trump hasn't any chance of being president.
But guess what, even a feminist would be better than our president.
>>65659511
thanks for that tl dr of the above dude, appreciate it
>>65661442
>>65661512
As I said I don't believe in Trump being elected, I don't wanna be pessimistic but we have the same illusion in france with the Front National
I think we've gone beyond the break-even point where there is too many stupid/imigrants people in our countries to do anything
>>65662180
FN wasn't running against this though.
>>65662716
I want you to think about how much you hate Clinton. Really, seriously, think about how much you hate her.
That's how much most Democrats hate Trump, along with Cruz and Rubio (the Tea Party in general, really). Even most of the ones who dislike Clinton would vote for her over Trump.
You need to look past your own bias here, I'm not saying Trump can't win, I'm saying he has just as much of a chance to win as Clinton.
>>65663123
A lot of Democrats don't like Clinton either.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/19/democrats-fear-bernie-sanders-supporters-wont-back/?page=all
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/265330-some-dems-would-defect-for-trump-poll-shows
>>65664107
That's one poll, and a similar poll said 14% of Republicans would vote Democrat. This isn't unusual, and with how much numbers are sure to vary by November those polls shouldn't be taken as absolute.
And you can't guarantee, with how young his supporters are, that they were going to vote in the first place. Overall, I still maintain my point; most Democrats will vote Democrat, most Republicans will vote Republican. And right now I don't think we can account for the rest of America.
>>65664629
The undecided voters and absentees will probably decide this election. I do think that Trump favoring Nationalism over Neo Conservatism could well force a party shift and create a new GOP coalition. The Democratic nomination is revealing that racial identity vs socialism is conflict of their party. I know Bernie can't win the nomination without Shillary being indicted.
