What's it like in your country after one side loses a close election?

What's it like in your country after one side loses a close election?

Other urls found in this thread:

independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-immigration-eu-referendum-result-what-it-means-eurospectic-areas-a7165056.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote
uselectionatlas.org/.
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I am pretty sure this is how its gonna play out.

Come on, New York, save this country again

A purge follows.

>New York.
>Trump

kek. Also.

>Ohio
>Florida
>Trump

wew

ummm i don't think so sweetie xx

He will win Ohio and Florida, but not much else in terms of swing states

Florida is extremely conservative outside of the south, i'm surprised they're not full red

Will we see a shy tory effect? I'm willing to wager alot of people aren't willing to say they support Trump.

Trump literally needs every swing state and more to win.

Again
>Florida
kek. Trump has even managed to piss off the Cubans which are the only hispanic group that votes Republican. He is fucked.

>Ohio
Not while Kasich refuses to endorse him

Depends, the NDP fell apart after while the PC'S regrouped.

People predicting the end of the world, threatening to move abroad and some jokesters getting sent to prison for making death threats at the politicians.

No mate.
We have a shy tory effect. But its in honor of Clinton.

Think about it.
If you are a young person who likes Clinton all your peers will call you an establishment sellout for supporting her and not Bernie.

>I'm willing to wager alot of people aren't willing to say they support Trump

Do Trump fans seem like the type of people to keep quiet and hide their opinions?

Going strictly based off of polls, he has a good chance in both FL and OH

I'd disregard polls this early

We have 11 political parties or so (now temporarily even more due to the split up parties).
So if one party wins he usually needs at least two other parties to get a majority.
It's quite common for the three biggest parties to rule togheter.

oldest state is the state of intoxication,nobody wins,bad thread

>What's it like in your country after one side loses a close election?

Proactive.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-immigration-eu-referendum-result-what-it-means-eurospectic-areas-a7165056.html

Don't forget that near the end the media is going to pressure people to vote, especially the minorities.

We do have that some parties get butchered in the elections from time to time. That they lose 2/3th or more of their votes. After that they are usually afraid to participate in a new ruling coalition, as it's easier to gain support while shouting from the sidelines.

Is Geert going to be the next PM of your cunt? Polls suggest they're the biggest party, right?

>the media is going to pressure people to vote, especially the minorities.

Trump is taking care of that himself.

Hispanics are registering to vote in record numbers.
We will probably see record turnout from them

In the polls his party is now as big as the two ruling parties combined. So chances are he'll win and get first picks on forming a new ruling coalition.
And the first, second and third biggest party in the polls are all right wing.

So chances are he'll be the next Prime Minister. Wilders tends to speak his mind, which can lead to reputation damage of the parties that rule along with him. So he has to convince the other parties to take responsibility and rule along with him.

alri

interesting times ahead in the netherlands.

In the Netherlands it's illegal for ministers to disagree with each other. So imagine if Wilders goes around saying he wants Moroccans out. Then the other ministers have to agree

That's not a position they want to be in. So that needs to be worked out first.

>it's illegal for ministers to disagree with each other
I'm sorry, what?
I can't even wrap my mind around this.

There are several reasons for that.
1. The government can't give out mixed signals.
2. The parliament can just hold the government responsible as one. And ministers can't hide behind "oh it wasn't me who said that".
3. Our King is part of the government. And whatever he says is actually a statement of the government. But he's untouchable. So the ministers are held responsible instead for everything he (as the government) says. Someone has to be responsible so the ministers will just have to own up to it.

It's like that in Japan too
All ministers must agree in order to make a cabinet decision

If you believe Clinton is going to win then you're a funny guy.

Collective cabinet responsibility, it's a thing in the UK too.
They had to pass a special law to allow ministers to campaign to leave the EU without resigning their government positions because the government's position was to remain.

>Do Trump fans seem like the type of people to keep quiet and hide their opinions?
They sure like to act that way.

Not the original American, but that makes sense looking at it that way. The US I guess does have the same thing, but it's guaranteed as the President selects all the cabinet members with the advice and consent of the Senate.

It's fundamental in the UK because the commons, the legislature, holds the executive government to account as a whole. A vote of no confidence, a motion "that this house has no confidence in her majesty's government", forces resignation of the entire government.
The prime minister is meant to be simply first amongst equals, decisions are meant to be made by the cabinet as a collective.

Occasionally they get what's called a free vote for certain issues.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote

And we have the King added into the mix. He usually doesn't make political statements, except to emphasize on what issues he finds important. But theoretically there is nothing stopping him.

But he seems to be a-political or rule through the ministers. He advises them every monday but it's a secret what they talk about, so no one actually knows.

The queen is similar here, she makes no public statements on government policy, except the Queen's speech at the state opening of parliament, but that is a speech written by the government setting out their legislative agenda. She does have a private meeting with the PM every week though.

Of course, in the US, the executive is independent of Congress, in that there's no such thing as a "vote of no confidence", and the President gets to decide, so long as the Senate agrees with his choice, the composition of the cabinet, so US Cabinets are all but guaranteed to have internal agreement. Since Westminster systems are not like that, I can see where a convention to enforce uniformity is needed.

Also, fundamental matters of policy are decided by either Congress or the President depending on specifics, so a "Conscience Vote" per is irrelevant.

It's funny how the UK and Netherlands are often so much alike.

desu

Also in the US, our parties don't really exercise that much control over legislators, so there's also no need for a conscience vote in Congress.

Constitutional monarchies with parliaments that evolved over a similar timescale, it makes sense.

When we invaded London at the Glorious Revolution we were actually a republic. And you got a healthy dose of our system.

After the Napoleonic wars we became a monarchy. And we probably copied parts of your system.

I wouldn't be surprised if the countries of Europe had quite a bit of board similarities in how they operate, given that almost every western country except the US has the Westminster parliamentary system, although they might vary quite a bit with head of state and all.

Shit, that was meant as a reply to

Cyprus is the only presidential republic in the EU I know. Most European nations are parliamentary republics and what's left are constitutional monarchies. Except the French, who have a fucked up semi-presidential system.

From what I can read, France's president is in some ways even more powerful than the US President.

Just to list some of the powers per Wikipedia, and compare them to the US:
>Limited from of veto, to ask the Parliament or Constitutional Court to review it
The President in the US can outright block a bill from becoming law, so long as his veto is not overridden by Congress within 10 days.

>May Dissolve National Assembly
Not even the US President can dissolve Congress due to Separation of Powers, but this is comparable to the technical power of Constitutional monarchs

>Commander-in-Chief of Armed Forces
Ditto with US

>Names Prime Minister but can't dismiss him
There is no Prime Minister in the US, but the President names other cabinet members with the consent of the Senate, and can dismiss them without such consent.

>May grant pardons/commute sentences (but no amnesty) to criminals
The US President can do this, but in practice France's President is more powerful since the US President's pardon power only applies to Federal Prisoners and he is powerless in the individual states, where 90% of our prison population is convicted and sentenced.

Wait until the winning side does an screw up (it always happens) and shove an impeachment process down their asses.

It doesn't work all the time, but it did work this year thanks to Dilma really fucking everything up. And we're just waiting after the Olympics to finish her.

Yeah but Jack Layton WAS the NDP, once he died they lost their charismatic leader so they fell apart

you're retarded

Too bad too, NDP wasn't looking too bad there for a while.

>new Hampshire
>red

New Hampshire is one of the last refuges of rationality in the East Coast Occupied Territories. Look up their polls.

>16 out of 50 states can decide an entire election

American """"democracy""""

Pennsylvania demographics are flipping red, over 200,000 recently switched to republican.

If I had to bet all my savings I would say Trump would lose as of now, hopefully first among comrades Hillary doesnt win though

why is the right-wing party red? are americans dumb or something?

red = bad
it fits

t. comrade sanders

Quality post.

It was only standardized in 2000, although there are precedents for either way. The maps on this site started before it became convention, so uses Red for Democrats and Blue for Republicans uselectionatlas.org/. Also, both parties can be considered as at least center-right on a global scale, as there isn't really a left wing in the US.

People are salty for a while, but then it slows down into a mild festering dislike for the new president.

First time I actually hate my usual parties nominee though. I suppose this is an interesting election. Probably going to see record turnout for third parties, and a less than happy populace no matter who wins.

people don't realize how fucking bad clinton is

Well, one of the big reasons the (((media))) is spending every moment of every waking day shitting on every thing they can think of or blow out of proportion on Trump is that Hillary is just so bad and unlikable. They have most of the low-attention-span crowd frothing at the mouth about Trump, and hope to keep them that way so they don't look too closely at Hillary.

If these leaks about collusion with the DNC to subvert the democratic process, and her mishandling of private emails engineered to hide them from public accounting had been actions taken by Trump, we'd be hearing it on a non-stop record loop until November.

Ohioan here, most people in my State either support Trump or third party
I see very few Hillary supporters, and I'm all over the State for work

The media is just out to make a profit, they don't try to change your mind if it's not profitable, and it's not profitable to be a green party echo chamber.

Nothing much really, the capital gets shut down by protesters for months costing the country billions, a parallel government is installed, the country comes close to the brink of civil war... The usual...

To answer OP's question, nothing much in particular; the losing side might engage in partisan bickering, which might be especially harmful if it's close enough in Congress, but that's pretty much every election.

New Hampshire is indeed a red state

Other Ohion
In Cuyahoga county.
Can confirm this.

They were originally blue until the 1960's

I really want to see NH and NV flip to Trump in this scenario and watch no candidate take 270. Even better if Johnson steals a state thus making him eligible to become president when the House votes.

As unlikely as it is, as someone voting for Johnson in a Clinton-safe area, I'd also like to see it.

Then campaign and canvas hard for Johnson.
At the very least this sets up the Libertarian party for some ground next time.

Fair enough, will do.