Tons of such threads were flagged. Most were both heavily upvoted and heavily flagged, in some cases upvotes won out, in some cases flags won out, and in a few cases flags won out but moderators overrode the flags. This is the normal tug-of-war with divisive submissions on HN—where "divisive" has multiple values: people are divided politically, but also about what's on topic for the site.
@fortran77: I’m trying to understand why you are submitting multiple stories on the same event, some after others are flagged. Can you clarify or elaborate, please?
This sort of thing can generally be described as a coup.
It's insane that the political system gives the losing side ~2 months to soapbox, obstruct, and use force to contest the results of an election. In nearly every democracy, power turns over very next day, or at worst, within the week, in order to avoid this kind of crisis.
> It's insane that the political system gives the losing side ~2 months ... In nearly every democracy, power turns over very next day, or at worst, within the week
You have to keep in mind the genesis of that two months time-frame.
This was written into the constitution circa the 1790 timeframe (rough estimate, I'm not trying to nail down an exact date). That is 230 years ago (+- some error factor).
The fastest method of communication available 230 years ago was a rider and multiple, fast, horses arranged in a sort of "relay race" configuration to transport that rider, and their communications data, from one part of the country to another.
There was simply no means available, 230 years ago, to "turn over power" within a day or a week, because it could easily have taken far more than a week just to transport the results of distant states votes to the central point of counting (originally this would have been Philadelphia, then it became Washington DC when the federal govt. moved into DC).
The "2 months" is an artifact of a different time, with significantly slower means of communication than we enjoy today, 230 years or so later. Unfortunately, the "2 months" time has also not been updated as the years passed, and communications speed improved considerably from the horse and rider days of yesteryear.
[+] [-] whymauri|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[+] [-] josefresco|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petecooper|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fjdjsmsm|5 years ago|reply
There is a coup going on right now. How do you not understand what is happening?
[+] [-] vkou|5 years ago|reply
It's insane that the political system gives the losing side ~2 months to soapbox, obstruct, and use force to contest the results of an election. In nearly every democracy, power turns over very next day, or at worst, within the week, in order to avoid this kind of crisis.
[+] [-] pwg|5 years ago|reply
You have to keep in mind the genesis of that two months time-frame.
This was written into the constitution circa the 1790 timeframe (rough estimate, I'm not trying to nail down an exact date). That is 230 years ago (+- some error factor).
The fastest method of communication available 230 years ago was a rider and multiple, fast, horses arranged in a sort of "relay race" configuration to transport that rider, and their communications data, from one part of the country to another.
There was simply no means available, 230 years ago, to "turn over power" within a day or a week, because it could easily have taken far more than a week just to transport the results of distant states votes to the central point of counting (originally this would have been Philadelphia, then it became Washington DC when the federal govt. moved into DC).
The "2 months" is an artifact of a different time, with significantly slower means of communication than we enjoy today, 230 years or so later. Unfortunately, the "2 months" time has also not been updated as the years passed, and communications speed improved considerably from the horse and rider days of yesteryear.
[+] [-] fjdjsmsm|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]