US Elections: Post-Mortem Blame Games

[Datepalm]

Weird unreasonable interactions happen all the time between people. Some of them are charged with sexual harassment and politics. A woman yelling "harassment" at the top of her voice to a guy sayinng hello to her in the street may be inappropriate. (It may not be.) But that the response to this is 'I am being silenced and oppressed' from the hypothetical guy - or rather his supporters - and furthermore as a reasonably explanation for voting for Trump (rather than, you know, simply thinking that misogyny is a legitimate trait in a politician) is astonishingly disingeneous.

[The guy from the Vale]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

True or false, losing the EC makes Rural votes count much less than Urban votes?

False. It makes rural votes count the same as urban votes.

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

True or false, losing the EC makes Rural votes count much less than Urban votes?

No, without the EC 1 vote: 1 vote. You're mistaking volume for value...that there are more urbans necessarily means urban areas will be more represented, but does not give extra weight to individual urban votes. The current system does give extra weight to some rural votes. That's not democratic.

[Ormond]

1 minute ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Something like that already exists, it's been in the works since 2000. It comes into play when enough states have signed on and they have over 270.

But what happens when California has to award it's votes to a Republican even though the voters overwhelmingly chose the Democrat?

Nobody is going to protest that when ( as will happen at least 2/3 of the time) the original EV and the popular vote systems would give the same result.

And in the rarer cases, you tell Californians "this is how we make sure the election fairly represents the national will". If they (or residents of any other state) really want their state as an entity to affect the election in this way, they shouldn't vote for any change in the first place, and that should be explained to them. 

[SerPaladin]

17 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Eh, I blame the stunning array of Clown Car candidates on the Republican side for that. I don't think what the DNC wanted to happen there had any real effect on the outcome. His primary bid was unstoppable in the face of such underwhelming competition. 

You don't think that if the DNC or whoever had the Access Hollywood tapes released them in the primary that Trump wouldn't have just gone "poof"? I think the clown car would have made that more effective. It would have painted him as unelectable, and no way the south votes for him in the primary when there is anyone else not named Clinton available.

[Guess who's back]

41 minutes ago, Commodore said:

if going by the list leaked to Buzzfeed, my preference would be

 

Please don't give that shit website any clicks and don't advertise it for others. For the love of god.

[drawkcabi]

6 minutes ago, Datepalm said:

Weird unreasonable interactions happen all the time between people. Some of them are charged with sexual harassment and politics. A woman yelling "harassment" at the top of her voice to a guy sayinng hello to her in the street may be inappropriate. (It may not be.) But that the response to this is 'I am being silenced and oppressed' from the hypothetical guy - or rather his supporters - and furthermore as a reasonably explanation for voting for Trump (rather than, you know, simply thinking that misogyny is a legitimate trait in a politician) is astonishingly disingeneous.

What about a response that says "If this is how liberals/progressives act, I don't want to be on their side"?. It can be a convenient excuse for many but maybe a few it actually happened that way.

That's not me and I think it's tremendously short sited and inconsiderate of more severe issues. But that's a vibe I have been feeling coming off the internet for a while and wanted to bring up because it did concern me, now and before the election.

But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I accept that.

Just don't tell me I'm not far off from being like Trump for talking about it. (Not you Datepalm, just in general).

[OldGimletEye]

12 hours ago, Stubby said:

What would be hilarious is if Pres Obama gives Hillary a blanket pardon for everything Trump has accused her of before he sees out his term.

I certainly detest all the made up nonsense about Hillary that has come from  the right. But, I guess when you don't have much in the way of policy, then nonsense is all you got.

Anyway, I've been thinking about this. And, I'm starting to think, let's dare Trump to do something to Hillary. Maybe he won't. Because his GOP handlers, I'd hope, would be sensible to know that there is nothing there. All that bullshit for was for the "true believers". If Trump actually tried to do something the whole thing could blow up in his face and in the GOP's face. Reasonable people and the international community surely would have to be appalled if Trump tried to prosecute Hillary.

If Trump doesn't move, then we can likely infer his charges were bullshit and he knew they were bullshit and the GOP's antics were bullshit and the GOP elite knew they were bullshit.

If Trump does move, then let the world see how deplorable he is and the Republican Party. I'm willing to bet if this thing has to go court, the GOP might not be lookin so good. And anyway, Trump's presidency would be largely tied up with the prosecution of Hillary and tying him up from doing anything else. Surely, the GOP can't be that stupid.

Okay, now I have to admit what is wrong with my theory. It depends on people in the GOP, besides Trump, not being stupid. And that is perhaps a fatal flaw with it.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

15 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Nobody is going to protest that when ( as will happen at least 2/3 of the time) the original EV and the popular vote systems would give the same result.

And in the rarer cases, you tell Californians "this is how we make sure the election fairly represents the national will". If they (or residents of any other state) really want their state as an entity to affect the election in this way, they shouldn't vote for any change in the first place, and that should be explained to them. 

They're already part of it I think.  I just think the entire concept is ridiculous. Alter the Constitution if you want to get rid of it. I'm not sure voters are given say in a referendum .  I wasn't given a say here in New York, I didn't even know we were part of it. 

 

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

[Mr Fixit]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

If lessons are to be learned for the future, I'm strongly sceptical that 'nominating a more left-wing candidate' is the right one.

And that's why Democrats will continue to lose. Because they are neoliberal rightists with socially progressive agenda. If you think that has no impact on voter preferences, and especially middle-class preferences, I'm afraid you're gonna be disappointed. The entire Bernie or bust movement and the Dems bleeding middle-class worker vote has at least partly to do with their belief that the party abandoned their roots in favor or big businesses and corporate corruption. You think otherwise, OK.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

No, without the EC 1 vote: 1 vote. You're mistaking volume for value...that there are more urbans necessarily means urban areas will be more represented, but does not give extra weight to individual urban votes. The current system does give extra weight to some rural votes. That's not democratic.

James, & TGFTV,

Volumn has a value all its own.  As does the concentration of those votes.  It is much easier and more economical to focus on a few large urban areas than it is to focus on rural areas.  Get ride of the EC and rural interests (which are important for stratigic reasons) get frozen out.

[Castel]

7 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

What about a response that says "If this is how liberals/progressives act, I don't want to be on their side"?. It can be a convenient excuse for many but maybe a few it actually happened that way.

That's not me and I think it's tremendously short sited and inconsiderate of more severe issues. But that's a vibe I have been feeling coming off the internet for a while and wanted to bring up because it did concern me, now and before the election.

But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I accept that.

Just don't tell me I'm not far off from being like Trump for talking about it. (Not you Datepalm, just in general).

There's a reason that a lot of liberals tend to be skeptical about this, namely that a lot of people in online debates really do seem to be looking for an excuse to be fellow travelers for the more extreme anti-liberals. 

If you spend any time you see people reacting pretty negatively to things that are nowhere near the sort of thing you saw above (e.g. the very term "privilege"),  and then try to hide behind the very extreme cases. Take the case of Skepchick saying that she doesn't like getting approached in elevators and getting a fucking torrent of internet shit. That's nowhere near comparable to this particular weird person and it still got shit for any sort of message people found discomfiting.

Of course, they would react horribly if anyone held some similarly unpoliceable and odd interaction coming from a racist as definitive.

Arguably, there'll always be a reactionary movement, many of those types have just learned to couch it in false concern, since the very basic tenets of say...feminism are no longer to be discussed. 

 

[Guess who's back]

12 hours ago, Stubby said:

What would be hilarious is if Pres Obama gives Hillary a blanket pardon for everything Trump has accused her of before he sees out his term.

Hilarious? It would be a perfect way to stain his legacy forever. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

You don't think that if the DNC or whoever had the Access Hollywood tapes released them in the primary that Trump wouldn't have just gone "poof"? I think the clown car would have made that more effective. It would have painted him as unelectable, and no way the south votes for him in the primary when there is anyone else not named Clinton available.

That doesn't play. It didn't kill him in the General, which is much harder to win than the primary. No, I don't believe that it would've mattered had the DNC targeted one of the other Republican primary candidates as the guy they wanted to face in the General. Trump was going to get the nomination regardless.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

James, & TGFTV,

Volumn has a value all its own.  As does the concentration of those votes.  It is much easier and more economical to focus on a few large urban areas than it is to focus on rural areas.  Get ride of the EC and rural interests (which are important for stratigic reasons) get frozen out.

I have always found the argument that you are making very strange.  Are you suggesting that rural voters be more important than urban voters because there are fewer of them?  How does that make sense?

[Castel]

Trump insulted not just a former GOP primary winner but a military hero and, by extension, all others captured in battle. 

Enough of the GOP decided that they just didn't give a fuck what he did, regardless of what they cared about last election.

[IheartIheartTesla]

38 minutes ago, Fez said:

Obama and Trump just did their 'joint statements in the oval office' thing after their meeting this morning. Seems like the meeting went, going over 90 minute when it was supposed to only be 10-15 minutes. Trump said he looked forward to reaching out to Obama many more times and Obama seemed legitimately encouraged by how it went. We'll see. 

Also, the cabinet appointments are important, but its just as important to find out who the chief policy advisors within the White House are. If Trump names his son-in-law chief of staff (and its being speculated that he will, since Jared was meeting with Obama's chief of staff while Trump was meeting Obama), he's going to have a mainstream Democrat meeting with him every day to help decide his priorities.

I am hoping, and this is what all the Trump voters have been saying all along, is that he should be taken seriously but not literally. I am also hoping that the Oval office has some sort of 'civilizing' influence on him.

I still think his Presidency will be a disaster, but hopefully a disaster within normal parameters and not a chaotic one. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

11 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

You don't think that if the DNC or whoever had the Access Hollywood tapes released them in the primary that Trump wouldn't have just gone "poof"? I think the clown car would have made that more effective. It would have painted him as unelectable, and no way the south votes for him in the primary when there is anyone else not named Clinton available.

I don't think the DNC had much or anything to do with the Access Hollywood tape release in either case. If they did, they fucked that up as well. Had that come out say two weeks prior to the election it might have sunk him.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

46 minutes ago, Ormond said:

It is true the Electoral College makes some votes more important than others. As I said way earlier in these threads, I think what somebody needs to doing right now (maybe some Clinton-supporting billionaires like Warren Buffett and Mark Cuban) is spearheading a drive to get that "the state assigns its electors to the winner of the popular national vote once states having at least half the national electoral votes have signed on to the idea" proposition added to state constitutions in states which have a referendum option.

And among the first places to try are precisely the "firewall" states that Clinton lost -- WI, MI, PA, and FL. If Trump does turn out to be off-putting and unable to fulfill many of his promises to Rust Belt guys and small town dwellers, you only need to get a few percentage points of his voters in those states to have "buyer's remorse" for them to think passing that amendment would be a really good idea. If you get those four states plus the states Hillary Clinton won to all sign on, we have that idea in effect.

And yes, Scot, I believe direct popular election of the President is better and if this year's election had turned out the other way (Clinton more EVs than Trump with Trump winning the popular vote) I would be having the huge cognitive dissonance of feeling relief but at the same time thinking that was basically wrong. 

As someone who lives in Nebraska-2, I appreciate my state having the district plan. But for that to really work nationally you would not only need to get rid of gerrymandering, but also to get rid of the 2 electoral votes each state gets to correspond to Senators, as that still gives small population states too much clout, IMHO. 

Ormond,

I believe that you would have.  You are someone I trust to stick to his guns that way.  My point is that the EC does have utility in that it spreads the wealth (an irony coming from me) and allows candidates to use rural areas to compensate for the concentration of population in Urban areas.  I think the cultural differences between Urban and Rural voters make this valuable.  

I'm not ready to chuck the EC just yet.

[The hairy bear]

14 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

False. It makes rural votes count the same as urban votes.

In practice it makes urban votes count more.

Let's imagine a presidential race on an island with five voters. Three of them live together in a "city", and the other two live in rural areas. Imagine now that we have to choose a "president" of the island entrusted with the task of building hammocks, and that the available budget is 10.

Now we have one candidate who proposes to distribute the budget proportionally: 6 to the city, and 4 to the rural areas, and another who proposes to build only hammocks in the city. It's easy who would win. For this reason, to compensate for the higher capacity for coordination and lobbyism in the cities, most Western democracies give some degree of overrepresentation to their rural areas.

I think that this is not a bad thing. Of course how much overrepresentation is too little and how much is too much is a far more complicated issue.