2016 Election Thread

[Otto von Ballpark]

If you want local context, there are Senate races, House races, state and local races, ballot iniatives, etc. Huge parts of our American government are based entirely on local context.

 

The presidential election is a single contest for which the entire nation votes simultaneously. It doesn't make sense to weigh those votes to artificially inject local context. It almost certainly discourages participation on both sides and causes dissatisfaction in the unnatural results.

[Otto von Ballpark]

In practical terms, I think fewer voters are encouraged/empowered by the electoral college, than are discouraged from having their vote manipulated (either ignored in a losing state effort, or cast aside after the state is won).

 

If the nation is evenly divided enough, it doesn't help bridge the divide by unnaturally weighing the results.

 

Admittedly it would be hard to get Republicans to give up the EC since it was their most recent path to victory, but I think it is a worthy cause.

[biggentleben]

 

It's partially geography, largely because that's the relevant issue today.  It's also about the populace, the safety of the democracy, the efficacy of the election, and cohesiveness of the voting public.  The truth is, removing the EC would also create an unequal balance in voting.  One, in my opinion, more stark and more widely dangerous than the flaws of the EC now.  

 

My objection to you is that you seem to be stamping your foot and saying "but my vote!" without looking at the larger picture for how the EC prevents the tyranny of the majority.  I mean, you've flat out ignored numerous points and arguments I've made in favor of it and continued stamping your foot. I don't deny that your vote is on unequal footing if you are an urbanite in a blue state.  I don't even disagree that we should make the popular vote matter more.  (I've said that repeatedly, I'm in favor of a hybrid)

 

What I disagree with is how quick we are (especially for the losing side every cycle) to complain about the negative aspects of the EC without acknowledging the very positive bulwarks it provides to keep the election process from becoming a giant s*!$ storm.  And, most importantly, the effect it has on keeping politicians from focusing too specifically on any one group or region.  

 

I look at it like this.  The Cubs and the Indians played themselves to a 27-27 tie in runs scored.  If we handled the Presidential Election like that, we'd have to declare the World Series a tie.  Instead, we count how they did game to game and decided it 4-3.  We do that because if a team wins one game 11-0 but loses the next six 1-0, they shouldn't be declared the winner.  Likewise, you shouldn't let one imbalance (in this case, New York or California) over run the majority of the other outcomes.  It let's 11-0 win the day rather than the 6-1 edge in games played.

In a country with such a wide range of beliefs (and such a large geographic range) I think we do a disservice to the outcome to let popular vote alone decide the outcome.  A hybrid of some kind is much more appealing to me.

 

Atlanta Braves, 1991 World Series Champions!! Yay!!

[TheLeviathan]

 

If you want local context, there are Senate races, House races, state and local races, ballot iniatives, etc. Huge parts of our American government are based entirely on local context.

The presidential election is a single contest for which the entire nation votes simultaneously. It doesn't make sense to weigh those votes to artificially inject local context. It almost certainly discourages participation on both sides and causes dissatisfaction in the unnatural results.

 

You just made my point for me.  In local contests (like, Game 5 of the World series), by all means keep track of the individual plurality of votes (runs).  In a larger contest, composed of smaller contests, you take away the importance of the smaller contests by just lumping them all together without any weight to the impact.  You just made run 2 in the 11-0 blow out matter as much as the ninth inning walk-off to win 1-0 in Game 2.  

 

It's precisely because the President represents the entire nation that the voting outcome should reflect it as well.  Not go to the first team that can blow the other out in an isolated contest or two.

 

The Republicans, just 4 years ago, were whining about the EC because they felt the lopsided EC win for Obama didn't represent the popular vote.  Most of the post-election whining is sour grapes rather than any real, principled opposition to the concept.

 

And, again, I'm ok with some tweaks and changes.  It's probably necessary, but throwing the baby out with the bath water?  No....that's not a good idea IMO.

[PseudoSABR]

 

It's precisely because the President represents the entire nation that the voting outcome should reflect it as well.  

That the North Dakota republican somehow deserves more weight than the California democrat defies that notion.  

 

If your point is that presidential elections ignore certain population groups, that applies equally to rural westerners as it does to those living on coastal cities.   Moreover, not all urban populations have the same values, nor do all rural people. 

 

You're arguing as if the weighted EC applies to all rural voters throughout the country; it does not.  It's very small portion of people (rural or not) who benefit from the weighted EC by living in either North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming or Montana.   Most of rural America, in spite of your argument, live else where in the US.   The rural Minnesota farmer, rural Arizona rancher, rural Michigan former-factory worker is not benefited by this scheme. 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

That the North Dakota republican somehow deserves more weight than the California democrat defies that notion.  

 

If your point is that presidential elections ignore certain population groups, that applies equally to rural westerners as it does to those living on coastal cities.   Moreover, not all urban populations have the same values, nor do all rural people. 

 

You're arguing as if the weighted EC applies to all rural voters throughout the country; it does not.  It's very small portion of people (rural or not) who benefit from the weighted EC by living in either North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming or Montana.   Most of rural America, in spite of your argument, live else where in the US.   The rural Minnesota farmer, rural Arizona rancher, rural Michigan former-factory worker is not benefited by this scheme. 

 

If you go simply by popular vote no one but the California and NorthEast voter will matter.  Under the current system, both at least matter, just one more than the other.   Which, I get why that is a thorny issue, but we should look at making a better system to keep the positives of the EC rather than just throwing it out because we're butthurt about the election and think it favors our side to do so.  Let's at least try to look big picture.  I'd have hoped that would've been one of the hallmark lessons the last week.

 

And your last paragraph is demonstrably false as evidenced by one week ago.  If not for the EC, those people you just listed would be watching Hillary Clinton take the victory tour and not Donald Trump.  If not for the EC their overwhelming belief that Trump should be President, not Clinton, would've been drowned in the popular vote by the large urban areas.  And the plurality of state and regional voting (which was decidedly for Trump) would've been drowned out by the same urban, high population vote.

[PseudoSABR]

 

If you go simply by popular vote no one but the California and NorthEast voter will matter.  Under the current system, both at least matter, just one more than the other.   Which, I get why that is a thorny issue, but we should look at making a better system to keep the positives of the EC rather than just throwing it out because we're butthurt about the election and think it favors our side to do so.  Let's at least try to look big picture.  I'd have hoped that would've been one of the hallmark lessons the last week.

 

And your last paragraph is demonstrably false as evidenced by one week ago.  If not for the EC, those people you just listed would be watching Hillary Clinton take the victory tour and not Donald Trump.  If not for the EC their overwhelming belief that Trump should be President, not Clinton, would've been drowned in the popular vote by the large urban areas.  And the plurality of state and regional voting (which was decidedly for Trump) would've been drowned out by the same urban, high population vote.

1) I'm not endorsing the popular vote.  If we're going to have the EC, it's the extra votes that go to small population states that I have an issue with. Even without the "extra" EC votes from WY/MT/SD/ND, Trump wins the EC. 

 

2) Again, not arguing for the popular vote. The reason Trump won the election was because of rural voters in Michigan and Penn. and Ohio and Florida, not because of rural voters in the Dakotas. The voices actually benefited with the outsized EC count were no more listened to in this election than ones past.  

 

3) Rural Americans are not a special minority, with special rights that are distinct from any other group. This notion that they, specifically, deserve some built-in procedural advantage is the stuff affirmative-action is made of.  Many minorities have a claim in fighting against the tyranny of a majority, shall we divvy more EC votes among them?

 

4) In an election close as this, every vote would have been counted and recounted, in that sense every vote would have mattered.   Even had Clinton won, her victory would be without a mandate (as is Trump's).   

 

5) I'd avoid painting those that disagree with you as butthurt. Come on, dude.

[TheLeviathan]

 

1) I'm not endorsing the popular vote.  If we're going to have the EC, it's the extra votes that go to small population states that I have an issue with. Even without the "extra" EC votes from WY/MT/SD/ND, Trump wins the EC. 

 

2) Again, not arguing for the popular vote. The reason Trump won the election was because of rural voters in Michigan and Penn. and Ohio and Florida, not because of rural voters in the Dakotas. The voices actually benefited with the outsized EC count were no more listened to in this election than ones past.  

 

3) Rural Americans are not a special minority, with special rights that are distinct from any other group. This notion that they, specifically, deserve some built-in procedural advantage is the stuff affirmative-action is made of.  Many minorities have a claim in fighting against the tyranny of a majority, shall we divvy more EC votes among them?

 

Sorry, it was butthurt 4 years ago and 8 years ago too.  I get why it stings, but flipping the process because you lost doesn't make any sense to me.  And it doesn't matter which side is proposing it when they lose.

 

Your first two points are nothing I've objected too.  I've said repeatedly that the EC should be rebalanced.  I'm even open to a better hybrid of the system.  I just believe it needs to stay in place in some form or another.  So yeah, dock a few points here and there.  I'm fine with that in the way you described.

 

As for your third point, I said at the very outset that the EC offers protection for many types of minorities depending on how the country is constituted.  Right now the divide appears to be urban/rural (and likely will continue to be that way for the forseeable future) so insofar as that is the case right now, rural voters are the ones being protected from that majority.  It need not be that way and it hasn't always been that way....but it is right now.  I'm doing nothing more than stating my argument in the current context, not advocating for any particular protections for any group, only advocating for the general protection the EC offers for marginalized groups.  And for reducing a number of electoral issues that a country like ours would have under a straight popular vote.  It just so happens, right now, that many of those protections are under the framework of urban/rural.

[Bark's Lounge]

Note: Butthurt will probably be illegal at some point in the near future.

 

When the electoral college allows one election to be passed on to the unpopular vote candidate, that is an anomaly, when it happens twice in 16 years, there is a problem. Clinton and Trump were both awful candidates... this we all know. 2 times in twenty years means it needs to be examined.

 

Donald Trump is a guy who is fueled off of having fans and being sensational. He might try to do some weird and wacky things that the left likes and the right hates and vice versa. Anyone's guess is as good as mine.

 

If people are freaked out about Islamic Extremism, the Vice President is a Christian Extremist. I hate them both equally. Logistically, I don't know if "Rowe v. Wade" can be overturned realistically. All religion that tries to force themselves into the government doctrine is absolutely wrong, and should be destroyed.

 

Look at Saudi Arabia, it has worked out great for them. Actually it has for the ruling class, but bloggers or journalist who express their opinion are jailed and flogged, and executed in some situations.

 

I could go on all day about religion, but I don't have the time or energy to do so.

 

Gannon is a White National Socialist.

 

Giuliani is nuts as well.

 

There are so many more... it's crazy.

 

So this is the United States of America of 2017. The vote is in and I know we should all be very ashamed of ourselves. Some people say "you get what you deserve", and maybe we do. I think in some ways it could have played out better. It is what it is and I am going to have to live in the sewage of it all - and so will you.

 

Make America Educated Again!!!

[PseudoSABR]

Stop questioning people's motives. No one here is advocating changing the EC because they lost this one time.  The EC, gerrymandering, voting rights issues, god knows what else have given republicans procedural advantages throughout recent history; this isn't isolated butthurtness.  People have every right to question the Electoral College, esp. given the result. The EC did not result in our better selves.  The decency of a minority group did not overcome the majority vote's tyranny. 

 

As for your third point, I said at the very outset that the EC offers protection for many types of minorities depending on how the country is constituted. 

Is this a proposal for forced desegregation? If not, the EC makeup shows no signs of including any other minority groups.  Maybe all the LGTB should move to South Dakota, I guess?

[flpmagikat]

Yeah I live in one of the reddest states, utah, and so I know my vote counts for nothing on just about every level. I'm not sure why most of my neighbors should count as "more" than mine. Cause I live pretty much in salt lake and they live in Provo or price? My votes were practically as meaningless when i lived in Washington state, though while being a "lock" as far as presidential races go, statewide it is much more diverse.

[flpmagikat]

It just seems asinine to argue that somehow the ec represents more voters. I think a proportional ec rather than winner take all makes more sense, though some flaws in that idea have been brought up already. And no Levi, 50% of the country doesn't live in la, sf, and new England. Though im sure there are plenty of republicans in those cities/regions who would like to think their votes affected an election, just as there are plenty of liberals in utah and Montana and any red state who either vote and feel it's pointless or just don't even bother anymore. And that's true inversely as well. I think the ec promotes apathy and have since before i could vote.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Stop questioning people's motives. No one here is advocating changing the EC because they lost this one time.  The EC, gerrymandering, voting rights issues, god knows what else have given republicans procedural advantages throughout recent history; this isn't isolated butthurtness.  People have every right to question the Electoral College, esp. given the result. The EC did not result in our better selves.  The decency of a minority group did not overcome the majority vote's tyranny. 

 

Is this a proposal for forced desegregation? If not, the EC makeup shows no signs of including any other minority groups.  Maybe all the LGTB should move to South Dakota, I guess?

 

See, I think that is the key to the issue.  You are making a moral judgment on the nature of the minority's vote this time and allowing that to influence your consideration of the EC in general.  I think that's a mistake.  

 

All of my points have been made about the EC in general and I think they still stand.  11-0 shouldn't win out when you lose the rest of the series 6-1.  If you want to tweak things, I'm on board, but we still need to settle this thing state to state and not by popular vote, that will create an unbalance that isn't good for the country in the long view.  Not for the office of President.

[TheLeviathan]

 

When the electoral college allows one election to be passed on to the unpopular vote candidate, that is an anomaly, when it happens twice in 16 years, there is a problem. Clinton and Trump were both awful candidates... this we all know. 2 times in twenty years means it needs to be examined.

 

Donald Trump is a guy who is fueled off of having fans and being sensational. He might try to do some weird and wacky things that the left likes and the right hates and vice versa. Anyone's guess is as good as mine.

 

I would suggest that the problem is within the electorate.  The unpopular vote candidate winning is a symptom of deep divisions.  As it has been in the past.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

This "rural" thing doesn't really fly with me.

 

Nearly 10% of the nation's rural population lives in... wait for it... California.

 

Another 6-7% live in Texas.

 

Sure, we need to pay more attention to rural America. I'm all in on that idea.

 

But, again, does the EC really do that? The current breakdown of the EC means the big red middle of America goes bright red every election, allowing both candidates to almost entirely ignore the region.

 

How does that serve the rural population, either in red states or blue?

 

[stringer bell]

This "rural" thing doesn't really fly with me.

 

Nearly 10% of the nation's rural population lives in... wait for it... California.

 

Another 6-7% live in Texas.

 

Sure, we need to pay more attention to rural America. I'm all in on that idea.

 

But, again, does the EC really do that? The current breakdown of the EC means the big red middle of America goes bright red every election, allowing both candidates to almost entirely ignore the region.

 

How does that serve the rural population, either in red states or blue?

Add the west coast as bright blue. Trump is running at like 33% in California, but there are still more votes for him in that state than any other except Texas and Florida and by the time they finish counting all the votes, he may have the most from California. Washington, Oregon and California are now being ignored as much as Texas, despite accounting for something like 75 electoral votes. The presidential campaign shouldn't come down to 5-10 states. The feeling by everyone that their vote might matter (pardon me) trumps every regional or geographical argument for the current electoral college. Some hybrid makes the most sense, but if I have to pick between an electoral college that has twice in sixteen years picked the popular vote loser and a system that gives the person with the most votes the office, I pick popular vote election.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Add the west coast as bright blue. Our Orange Overlord is running at like 33% in California, but there are still more votes for him in that state than any other except Texas and Florida and by the time they finish counting all the votes, he may have the most from California. Washington, Oregon and California are now being ignored as much as Texas, despite accounting for something like 75 electoral votes. The presidential campaign shouldn't come down to 5-10 states. The feeling by everyone that their vote might matter (pardon me) Our Orange Overlords every regional or geographical argument for the current electoral college. Some hybrid makes the most sense, but if I have to pick between an electoral college that has twice in sixteen years picked the popular vote loser and a system that gives the person with the most votes the office, I pick popular vote election.

The bolded is my biggest problem with the EC.

 

Candidates largely ignore places like CA (especially rural CA) because they're a given. The same goes for Texas and much of the Midwest.

 

Instead, candidates hammer away at Florida, Ohio, and other traditional swing states. Why are we assuming the problems of Floridians are synonymous with those of Ohio, Utah, Minnesota, North Dakota, etc.?

 

Swing states and how drastically they impact the election topics and candidates' time is not a good system for a nation as large and diverse as the United States.

[Mike Sixel]

 

So VICE news pointed out something ironic to me...

 

Hillary had her campaign night gathering in a place that had a glass ceiling. You cannot make that up.

 

That was the plan, to symbolically break it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

If you go simply by popular vote no one but the California and NorthEast voter will matter.  Under the current system, both at least matter, just one more than the other.   Which, I get why that is a thorny issue, but we should look at making a better system to keep the positives of the EC rather than just throwing it out because we're butthurt about the election and think it favors our side to do so.  Let's at least try to look big picture.  I'd have hoped that would've been one of the hallmark lessons the last week.

 

And your last paragraph is demonstrably false as evidenced by one week ago.  If not for the EC, those people you just listed would be watching Hillary Clinton take the victory tour and not Donald Trump.  If not for the EC their overwhelming belief that Trump should be President, not Clinton, would've been drowned in the popular vote by the large urban areas.  And the plurality of state and regional voting (which was decidedly for Trump) would've been drowned out by the same urban, high population vote.

 

I don't know how you can KNOW with such certainty, that only CA and the NE will matter......but you sure are certain.

[stringer bell]

BTW, regarding the Electoral College, Silver at 538 has an article about that. He says that the EC relatively favored Obama, especially in 2012 and favored Kerry in '04, so it is likely it will swing back at some point. My argument remains unchanged--ignoring 80% of the country is undemocratic and having a system that has twice in the last five elections won the office for the popular vote loser is something that needs repair. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-the-electoral-college-doom-the-democrats-again/

 

[TheLeviathan]

I don't know how you can KNOW with such certainty, that only CA and the NE will matter......but you sure are certain.

Look at this year as an example of the problem. For years now the Dems have been drifting strategically away from reaching out to sparse population areas and concentrated more and more on urban centers. And that's with the EC mitigating that advantage. The Republicans have been doing the same with their platform, but still throwing rhetorical bones out.

 

The problem over time? Well, aren't we looking at it right now? Aren't we staring in the face a catastrophe of the ramifications when such a large group feels totally ignored? When their voices are ignored in favor of the majority?

 

Sure, no EC and we are spared the result this time....but as I've been saying this entire thread....this issue isn't going away. A Trump loss might have only escalated the problem. It damn sure wouldn't have solved it. It would've never made the Dems look in the mirror on their own failures and we need that to happen too. And, perhaps worst of all, it would have generated even more anger and desperation.

[TheLeviathan]

The bolded is my biggest problem with the EC.

 

Candidates largely ignore places like CA (especially rural CA) because they're a given. The same goes for Texas and much of the Midwest.

 

Instead, candidates hammer away at Florida, Ohio, and other traditional swing states. Why are we assuming the problems of Floridians are synonymous with those of Ohio, Utah, Minnesota, North Dakota, etc.?

 

Swing states and how drastically they impact the election topics and candidates' time is not a good system for a nation as large and diverse as the United States.

All of the problems you listed are equally, more so IMO, problems with a strict popular vote as well. You will shift the problems around, sure, but you haven't made things better. And if population trends continue, likely to make them far worse over time.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Look at this year as an example of the problem. For years now the Dems have been drifting strategically away from reaching out to sparse population areas and concentrated more and more on urban centers. And that's with the EC mitigating that advantage. The Republicans have been doing the same with their platform, but still throwing rhetorical bones out.

The problem over time? Well, aren't we looking at it right now? Aren't we staring in the face a catastrophe of the ramifications when such a large group feels totally ignored? When their voices are ignored in favor of the majority?

Sure, no EC and we are spared the result this time....but as I've been saying this entire thread....this issue isn't going away. A Trump loss might have only escalated the problem. It damn sure wouldn't have solved it. It would've never made the Dems look in the mirror on their own failures and we need that to happen too. And, perhaps worst of all, it would have generated even more anger and desperation.

 

If anyone thinks the GOP cares about rural USA and poor people....other than pandering for their vote....

 

So, I'm not sure the EC helped anyone, other than the GOP, frankly. So, while they got to scream and yell and protest.....the EC didn't actually HELP them....imo, of course.

 

I don't think the anger and desperation are going anywhere, I've been typing here for some time, and elsewhere longer, a revolution will happen in our children's lifetime. Power and wealth cannot concentrate this much.

[TheLeviathan]

If anyone thinks the GOP cares about rural USA and poor people....other than pandering for their vote....

 

So, I'm not sure the EC helped anyone, other than the GOP, frankly. So, while they got to scream and yell and protest.....the EC didn't actually HELP them....imo, of course.

 

I don't think the anger and desperation are going anywhere, I've been typing here for some time, and elsewhere longer, a revolution will happen in our children's lifetime. Power and wealth cannot concentrate this much.

Yeah, please don't think I believe the GOP is looking out for, well, anyone really past the super rich. But rhetorically at least they are throwing bones compared to outright contempt from the left.

 

The EC helped those people send the middle finger to both establishments, for whatever that's worth. I have serious doubts it will be worth much either, for the record. But I do believe desperate, marginalized people that constitute huge portions of the country shouldn't get drowned out. I'd like to think we can merge the positives of both.

[twinsnorth49]

White, middle class rural people are now the marginalised in America? 

 

Wow.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed these articles, they are interesting viewpoints if nothing else.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/the-real-reason-donald-trump-got-elected-we-have-a-white-extremism-problem/article32817625/

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trigger-warning-trump-fans-this-column-calls-racists-racists/article32816606/

[stringer bell]

I would amend Levi's statement to say that the Electoral College allowed the folks in Iowa, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to flip their middle finger at ....

 

The President is president of all fifty states, not just those listed above plus Nevada, Colorado and New Hampshire. If there is no Electoral College, each vote gets equal weight. Farmers, ranchers, steel mill workers and stay-at-home moms vote all equal the same no matter what state they live in.

[twinsnorth49]

In other news, the Liberal Trudeau govt. is dropping the Visa requirement for Mexican citizens imposed by the Conservatives in 2009.

 

Looks like Trump might have to build two walls after all.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Look at this year as an example of the problem. For years now the Dems have been drifting strategically away from reaching out to sparse population areas and concentrated more and more on urban centers. And that's with the EC mitigating that advantage. The Republicans have been doing the same with their platform, but still throwing rhetorical bones out.

Why should the EC force parties to pay attention to one group and not another.  Why should Republicans get extra points for pandering to Western Rural voters, and the Democrats get no points for appealing to urban non-white voters.  IT MAKES NO SENSE.  One group is no more equipped to root out tyranny than any other group. 

 

And even if we accept the rationale that EC is designed to protect from the tyranny of the majority, is that what you are alleging what happened here? If not, that justification does not apply here.  

 

There might be some hypothetical reality where the current EC scheme really does give light to hidden voices which overcome the tyranny of the majority, but such hypotheticals give little solace when the outcome here had no such result. 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

White, middle class rural people are now the marginalised in America? 

 

Wow.

Right.  That's what's being alleged here.  We need to inflate the rural white vote because only they can overcome tyranny!!!

[Craig Arko]

 

In other news,the Liberal Trudeau govt. is dropping the Visa requirement for Mexican citizens imposed by the Conservatives in 2009. 

 

Looks like Trump might have to build two walls after all.

So now I have to move to Mexico first and then move to Canada?