Jump to content

President-elect Trump

Politics   (45,875 Views 192 Comments)
6 Followers; 100,725 Visitors; 16,642 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 12 of President-elect Trump. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

If the popular vote was determinative, he'd have won that too, running away. Neither candidate played to the popular vote so using that as a standard is moot, worse than apples and oranges.

The EC is an advantage for Democrats. They start with CA and NY in the bag and 1/3rd of the way to 270 without breaking a sweat. In fact, the only way for a GOP candidate to win was to break a DEMOCRAT firewall. The GOP has no such firewalls in the EC. If Trump had lost NC, FL or OH, any one of them, those firewalls would have been unneeded by the Democrats. The only way for Trump to win the EC was by threading a very small needle. Which, he did.

The EC favors Democrats by moving the campaign fight on GOP territory. When you're fighting for hearts and minds in the heartland, then Democrats are fighting for rural votes. In fact, had HRC even bothered to campaign in WI, maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

But.

Move to the PV and everything changes. The fight moves onto Democrat turf and into the big cities. It would force the GOP to try to be competitive in urban area. Trump at least sounded that he understood this. So, an alternative election where Trump is campaigning in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Miami and striking an infrastructure message to urban voters??

Put another way, the GOP doesn't have to win a majority of urban voters to change the electoral map. If they change the urban vote just 10%, so that they lose areas like Philadelphia by 60% instead of 70%, then the map is fundamentally different and much more challenging for the Democrats.

HRC didn't need to win the rural vote in WI, MI and OH. She just needed a few more percentages of it. A few campaign rallies worth of attention.

Fighting the election on urban turf is moving the fight to the Democrats. The GOP would be contesting for urban voters in places where they can easily get out their message to the masses while the Democrats would not only have to check that, but also reach out to rural voters who would then feel even more neglected than they do now.

The Democrat party, since the 80's, have argued that demographics is destiny. 40 yrs later and they're still waiting for demographics to make competing for votes moot. Sean Trende of RCP argues that both parties will alway adjust to make the electorate very close to a 50-50 proposition in a binary system. As the demographics change, the parties will adjust to the change. In this cycle, the major change was that Democrats ceded the white working class vote and Trump took advantage of it.

No. Moving to the PV wouldn't be salvation for Democrats. The GOP would adjust and pick off just enough urban voters to remain competitive.

Neither party contested to win the PV. They both were trying to win the EC. The PV is less than irrelevant to the outcome and changing it would only make winning more challenging for Democrats.

~faith,

Timothy.

This is the first argument I've heard for the idea that the EC actually benefits democrats, so I'm curious what your basis is for that, but I'm still not sure what you're basing that on.

It is true that in winning California and New York can bring a candidate close to a third of the way to winning the EC, but that's because in winning those two states you've won a huge population of people. Yet for republicans to get to the same number of EC votes, they have to win over far fewer people, which is a pretty clear advantage for republicans. For instance, in Wyoming, each electoral vote represents 143,000 people, while in California and New York it's more than 500,000 to each EC vote.

Basically, EC adds more weight to more rural votes relative to more urban votes, which pretty clearly benefits republicans more than it benefits democrats, as evidenced by 2000 and 2016.

There's no doubt that candidates would run differently if it was based on the PV instead of the EC, mainly in that republicans would have to make up for what they lose in rural votes becoming equal by seeking more votes from traditionally democratic voters, which would shift their center to the left.

My main issue that as the son of a statistician I find the EC to be offensive to sound mathematical principles, it's essentially a system with built-in rounding errors and measuring flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the first argument I've heard for the idea that the EC actually benefits democrats, so I'm curious what your basis is for that, but I'm still not sure what you're basing that on.

It is true that in winning California and New York can bring a candidate close to a third of the way to winning the EC, but that's because in winning those two states you've won a huge population of people. Yet for republicans to get to the same number of EC votes, they have to win over far fewer people, which is a pretty clear advantage for republicans. For instance, in Wyoming, each electoral vote represents 143,000 people, while in California and New York it's more than 500,000 to each EC vote.

Basically, EC adds more weight to more rural votes relative to more urban votes, which pretty clearly benefits republicans more than it benefits democrats, as evidenced by 2000 and 2016.

There's no doubt that candidates would run differently if it was based on the PV instead of the EC, mainly in that republicans would have to make up for what they lose in rural votes becoming equal by seeking more votes from traditionally democratic voters, which would shift their center to the left.

My main issue that as the son of a statistician I find the EC to be offensive to sound mathematical principles, it's essentially a system with built-in rounding errors and measuring flaws.

(I wish I could like this more than once. This is also my long-standing objection to the EC, that it is so grossly, unfairly weighted toward the less populated states.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the first argument I've heard for the idea that the EC actually benefits democrats, so I'm curious what your basis is for that, but I'm still not sure what you're basing that on.

It is true that in winning California and New York can bring a candidate close to a third of the way to winning the EC, but that's because in winning those two states you've won a huge population of people. Yet for republicans to get to the same number of EC votes, they have to win over far fewer people, which is a pretty clear advantage for republicans. For instance, in Wyoming, each electoral vote represents 143,000 people, while in California and New York it's more than 500,000 to each EC vote.

Basically, EC adds more weight to more rural votes relative to more urban votes, which pretty clearly benefits republicans more than it benefits democrats, as evidenced by 2000 and 2016.

There's no doubt that candidates would run differently if it was based on the PV instead of the EC, mainly in that republicans would have to make up for what they lose in rural votes becoming equal by seeking more votes from traditionally democratic voters, which would shift their center to the left.

My main issue that as the son of a statistician I find the EC to be offensive to sound mathematical principles, it's essentially a system with built-in rounding errors and measuring flaws.

Conflating a Republic with democracy has been a neat trick of the media since the 70's. We aren't a democracy and the founders despised the idea. "A tyranny of the majority" is how they viewed democracy. The Constitution is based on the idea that most of your rights come from your Creator and are therefore not subject to the whims and fancies of your neighbors.

The founders also believed that your Senator was to be chosen by your State leaders, not you. The amendment calling for direct election of Senators is one way we have already moved to PV to decide our representation.

The founders intended the EC to be offensive to the idea of democracy because they despised that idea.

RE the PV favoring the GOP, think about it this way, if we switch to the PV, the election moves to the top 20 US cities by population. That's where the votes are. It wouldn't be cost effective to spend your time and money anywhere else.

So. Rural areas get ignored. The Dems made a conscious decision to ignore white working class voters in favor of identity politics and a PV shift would reward that strategy. But. It also more or less locks in the rural vote.

In a PV election, the GOP starts with rural voters locked in and uncontested. At any point in the equation, it's more cost effective for Dems to attempt to increase urban turnout than contest rural voters.

By the same token, it then becomes crucial for the GOP to contest urban voters. So. Now the GOP is talking about being better urban managers (all the truly bad innercity areas are Dem controlled), better at infrastructure, school choice for innercity youths, free enterprise zones ala Jack Kemp, welfare reform that rewards marriage and work, etc.

The GOP message stays the same nationally but also becomes very targeted to urban areas. I would argue that they should be doing this anyway. The GOP ceded innercity voters to the Dems first or the Dems never would have felt comfortable ceding rural white working class voters.

Politics in a binary system always adjust to a 50-50 proposition. That's Sean Trende's take in "The Lost Majority". If the GOP started losing urban areas by just 10% less, the entire playing field changes.

And that would mean that in a PV election where the GOP is actively contesting urban voters, the Dems would have to re-engage rural voters to compete. That just wouldn't be cost effective to do. Not ONLY would the Dems have to reach out to rural areas, they'd have to cross check the GOP strategy in urban areas.

So. The GOP gets to play to urban voters while the Dems are spread thin trying to cover all bases.

In any case, a PV election would be so fundamentally different than an EC election that the current PV means nothing. HRC didn't beat DJT in the PV because NOBODY ran that race. If they had, the outcome would have been fundamentally different. It's like running a NASCAR race and the second place finisher crying, "But I had more gas left at the finish line, that means I should have won!?"

That said, since he's so thinned skinned and it obviously bothers him, if I were the loyal opposition, I'd put the PV in DJT's face constantly.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conflating a Republic with democracy has been a neat trick of the media since the 70's. We aren't a democracy and the founders despised the idea. "A tyranny of the majority" is how they viewed democracy. The Constitution is based on the idea that most of your rights come from your Creator and are therefore not subject to the whims and fancies of your neighbors.

The founders also believed that your Senator was to be chosen by your State leaders, not you. The amendment calling for direct election of Senators is one way we have already moved to PV to decide our representation.

The founders intended the EC to be offensive to the idea of democracy because they despised that idea.

This has been a popular meme lately, but the founding fathers including Madison were very clear that they were establishing a republic that utilized at least in part a representative democracy, what Madison said he opposed was a different type of democracy; a "pure" or "direct" democracy.

The argument that you're either Republic or a Democracy is like arguing you're either from Dallas or from Texas, you can't be from both. A republic is a type of government which by definition uses some form of democracy, most commonly a representative democracy.

Madison argued for representative democracy in part due to his opposition to a "pure" democracy, where the people draft and vote on laws directly. This is because this was the common form of democracy at the local level at the time, which typically involved chaotic and disorderly town meetings, where he felt the minority views were literally shouted down by the majority, leaving the final decision making process without any incorporation of the views of the minority, which coincidentally has become one of the main criticisms of the EC.

While Madison's initial preference was to directly elect the President, he went along with the EC compromise based mainly on this explanation:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

Looking at his views overall, it appears pretty unlikely that he would attempt to maintain the EC today.

RE the PV favoring the GOP, think about it this way, if we switch to the PV, the election moves to the top 20 US cities by population. That's where the votes are. It wouldn't be cost effective to spend your time and money anywhere else.

So. Rural areas get ignored. The Dems made a conscious decision to ignore white working class voters in favor of identity politics and a PV shift would reward that strategy. But. It also more or less locks in the rural vote.

In a PV election, the GOP starts with rural voters locked in and uncontested. At any point in the equation, it's more cost effective for Dems to attempt to increase urban turnout than contest rural voters.

By the same token, it then becomes crucial for the GOP to contest urban voters. So. Now the GOP is talking about being better urban managers (all the truly bad innercity areas are Dem controlled), better at infrastructure, school choice for innercity youths, free enterprise zones ala Jack Kemp, welfare reform that rewards marriage and work, etc.

The GOP message stays the same nationally but also becomes very targeted to urban areas. I would argue that they should be doing this anyway. The GOP ceded innercity voters to the Dems first or the Dems never would have felt comfortable ceding rural white working class voters.

Politics in a binary system always adjust to a 50-50 proposition. That's Sean Trende's take in "The Lost Majority". If the GOP started losing urban areas by just 10% less, the entire playing field changes.

And that would mean that in a PV election where the GOP is actively contesting urban voters, the Dems would have to re-engage rural voters to compete. That just wouldn't be cost effective to do. Not ONLY would the Dems have to reach out to rural areas, they'd have to cross check the GOP strategy in urban areas.

So. The GOP gets to play to urban voters while the Dems are spread thin trying to cover all bases.

In any case, a PV election would be so fundamentally different than an EC election that the current PV means nothing. HRC didn't beat DJT in the PV because NOBODY ran that race. If they had, the outcome would have been fundamentally different. It's like running a NASCAR race and the second place finisher crying, "But I had more gas left at the finish line, that means I should have won!?"

That said, since he's so thinned skinned and it obviously bothers him, if I were the loyal opposition, I'd put the PV in DJT's face constantly.

~faith,

Timothy.

You're correct, changing to a popular vote would change how candidates run for president, that's the whole point.

Currently there is little incentive to incorporate the views of minority using an all or nothing state vote, something Madison clearly felt was important to include. There's no benefit in trying to increase your support in a particular state from 20 to 30%, since in the end it just gets changed to zero, which means there is no reason to improve your standing with the minority by accounting for minority views in your policy positions, yet according to Madison that incentive should exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MunoRN - I appreciate your thoughtful post regarding the mind-set behind the Electoral College. I still hold the firm belief that the Electoral College should be abolished. (Been saying this for a few decades.) It's outdated.

Here's the irony. Because of the Electoral College, a minority of our country's citizenry successfully voted in a charlatan, a blatant liar. The "one person, one vote" concept would have prevented this tragedy because, as it currently stands, Trump ("President Elect") did not win the popular vote. Instead, the very vocal and often "chaotic and disorderly" minority of our country's citizenry were successfully conned, duped, deceived, tricked, hood-winked -- at OUR country's (and THEIR!) expense, and Trump is soon to be our President. Given Trump's current choice of cabinet members, it seems that the interests of big-business, conglomerates, and Wall Street are winning, and the "Good Ol' Boy" system of government remains, at the expense of our general welfare as human-beings and citizens of the United States. . . all disguised and falsely scripted as "shaking up the system and Making America Great Again" (cough, cough). I would argue that the process of the Electoral College failed our country.

Edited by Ted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The popular vote doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is the electoral college. Popular vote would only serve to allow the alt-reality left an easier path to voter fraud. Perhaps Trump has a point about the number of illegals that voted in this election.

MunoRN - I appreciate your thoughtful post regarding the mind-set behind the Electoral College. I still hold the firm belief that the Electoral College should be abolished. (Been saying this for a few decades.) It's outdated.

Here's the irony. Because of the Electoral College, a minority of our country's citizenry successfully voted in a charlatan, a blatant liar. The "one person, one vote" concept would have prevented this tragedy because, as it currently stands, Trump ("President Elect") did not win the popular vote. Instead, the very vocal and often "chaotic and disorderly" minority of our country's citizenry were successfully conned, duped, deceived, tricked, hood-winked -- at OUR country's (and THEIR!) expense, and Trump is soon to be our President. Given Trump's current choice of cabinet members, it seems that the interests of big-business, conglomerates, and Wall Street are winning, and the "Good Ol' Boy" system of government remains, at the expense of our general welfare as human-beings and citizens of the United States. . . all disguised and falsely scripted as "shaking up the system and Making America Great Again" (cough, cough). I would argue that the process of the Electoral College failed our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The popular vote doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is the electoral college. Popular vote would only serve to allow the alt-reality left an easier path to voter fraud. Perhaps Trump has a point about the number of illegals that voted in this election.

Does this mean you are in favor of a recount?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Popular vote would only serve to allow the alt-reality left an easier path to voter fraud. Perhaps Trump has a point about the number of illegals that voted in this election.

You keep talking about "the alt-reality" in connection with liberals, but it seems to me that it is the Trump supporters on the right that are the "alt-reality" crowd. It is the right that repeatedly fell for and frothed at the mouth over "news" during the campaign that has now been admitted (by its creators) to be entirely false and fictional, who ignored and rejected the debunking of these "fake news" items during the campaign, and at least one of the "fake news" entrepreneurs admitted in interview that his group tried doing the same thing (creating "fake news") targeted at liberals, but that didn't work; liberals wouldn't take the bait or fall for fake news. But large numbers of people on the right (including people who posted here about these "fake news" items) would fall for any crazy thing that they put on the web because it was something they wanted to be true.

Also, it's worth pointing out (once again :rolleyes:) that the only two individuals actually accused of and charged with voter fraud so far in this election are both Trump supporters.

Liberals are only the "alt-reality" group in your alt-reality world.

Edited by elkpark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HRC is ahead by 2.5 million votes nationally but it doesn't tell a good story because nobody ran that race.

House seats, where PV is the name of the race, GOP won 3.5 million more votes nationally than Dem. But, this doesn't tell the whole story either because House races are gerrymandered while Statewide races aren't.

The truth of how a national PV race would have worked out is likely somewhere in between, to wit: an actual PV race would be very close to a 50-50 proposition because the parties would adjust. Just like actual EC races tend to be closely contested 50-50 propositions.

The GOP didn't find a generational advantage in 2004. The Dems didn't in 2012 and I guarantee the PoT (Party of Trump) didn't in 2016, either.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You keep talking about "the alt-reality" in connection with liberals, but it seems to me that it is the Trump supporters on the right that are the "alt-reality" crowd. It is the right that repeatedly fell for and frothed at the mouth over "news" during the campaign that has now been admitted (by its creators) to be entirely false and fictional, who ignored and rejected the debunking of these "fake news" items during the campaign, and at least one of the "fake news" entrepreneurs admitted in interview that his group tried doing the same thing (creating "fake news") targeted at liberals, but that didn't work; liberals wouldn't take the bait or fall for fake news. But large numbers of people on the right (including people who posted here about these "fake news" items) would fall for any crazy thing that they put on the web because it was something they wanted to be true.

Also, it's worth pointing out (once again :rolleyes:) that the only two individuals actually accused of and charged with voter fraud so far in this election are both Trump supporters.

Liberals are only the "alt-reality" group in your alt-reality world.

I made up some fake news stories, told them at a bar in San Francisco, and many liberals ate it up. Totally fell for it.

I tried the same on some republicans. No go. They said I was full of it.

So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far our biggest PV race has demonstrated that Pat McCrory is a one-hit wonder. Thank God.

My hope is that Gov.-elect Roy Cooper (who is not perfect but at least makes an effort to be decent) and AG Josh Stein will help be a buffer here against whatever monstrosities Trump has up his sleeve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the rules allow it and the party is paying for it then there shouldn't be a problem. I find it a bit hypocritical that Clinton who whined about Trump accepting the election results has decided to join the recount effort.

Does this mean you are in favor of a recount?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.