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/

Frankly I think that's lazy analysis. This conversation is much better:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/upshot/how-did-trump-win-over-so-many-obama-voters.html?_r=0

 

Lots more out there like that if you want to look for something other than the conclusion you want to believe,

 

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.

Right ... the EC has turned presidential elections into a math equation ... we don't need this, we'll never have this, but if we get this, that and another, we'll have it sewn up. Both sides do this so something needs to be sorted out. I don't really think anything will, but it should.

 

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.

Which is why I'm not necessarily against the EC but I *am* against winner-take-all.

 

It means that if a state isn't in play, a candidate can completely ignore it. There's no reason for a liberal like Clinton to push into a place like Utah - which was ripe for a shift to the left this election - because she has a near-zero chance of winning the majority vote and therefore will only waste her time by visiting.

 

But if two of Utah's six votes are in play for her, that gives her reason to not only visit the state but perhaps alter her platform because if she does, she won't only pick up an extra vote from Utah, she might get a smattering more from Oklahoma, Idaho, Kansas, etc.

 

The inverse applies to conservatives and urban areas.

Why should the EC force parties to pay attention to one group and not another.

 

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.

 

The EC should force the opposite. As I've been saying all along, You are so dead set that your side has been wronged you have thrown reading comprehension out the window. I will endeavor to try again I guess: Paying attention to one over the other leads to failure. As it did in this election. As, I'd argue, it did to the Republicans in the recent past. That's how it is supposed to work and it did.

 

Without the EC you could just focus on a few strategic areas and win. That's what I don't want. I want the office of President to earn more than that kind of support and I think it's dangerous if they don't.

 

You disagreeing with that outcome should lead to an emphasis to change that imbalance by the Dems rather than blow up the EC. The EC is a convenient scapegoat, but it isn't the problem.

Edited November 15, 20169 yr by TheLeviathan

Which is why I'm not necessarily against the EC but I *am* against winner-take-all.

 

It means that if a state isn't in play, a candidate can completely ignore it. There's no reason for a liberal like Clinton to push into a place like Utah - which was ripe for a shift to the left this election - because she has a near-zero chance of winning the majority vote and therefore will only waste her time by visiting.

 

But if two of Utah's six votes are in play for her, that gives her reason to not only visit the state but perhaps alter her platform because if she does, she won't only pick up an extra vote from Utah, she might get a smattering more from Oklahoma, Idaho, Kansas, etc.

 

The inverse applies to conservatives and urban areas.

Hey, I'm with you. I think there is a better hybrid to be had. It may take some recalculating, but I'd prefer to take out the winner take all effect as well. It may, as the downside, lead to some really nasty post election fighting in a close election, but I'd be open to someone smarter than me devising something like what you suggest.

Edited November 15, 20169 yr by TheLeviathan

 

Hey, I'm with you. I think there is a better hybrid to be had. It may take some recalculating, but I'd prefer to take out the winner take all effect as well. It may, as the downside, lead to some really nasty post election fighting in a close election, but I'd be open to someone smarter than me devising something like what you suggest.

I think winner take all is contributing to our current polarization. It allows Clinton to ignore the real problems of Kansas and Trump to ignore the real problems of Baltimore. Neither state is or will be on the table for the opposition so screw 'em. Go pander to your base.

 

The other, and more damaging, side effect is that we allow a 51% majority vote in a place like Ohio to decide our next president. That's madness and needs to change. Not only shouldn't Ohio have that kind of outsized influence, it forces candidates to focus on places like Ohio while completely ignoring Minnesota and Montana, which have equally as important problems to sort out.

I think winner take all is contributing to our current polarization. It allows Clinton to ignore the real problems of Kansas and Trump to ignore the real problems of Baltimore. Neither state is or will be on the table for the opposition so screw 'em. Go pander to your base.

 

The other, and more damaging, side effect is that we allow a 51% majority vote in a place like Ohio to decide our next president. That's madness and needs to change. Not only shouldn't Ohio have that kind of outsized influence, it forces candidates to focus on places like Ohio while completely ignoring Minnesota and Montana, which have equally as important problems to sort out.

All valid criticisms. The size and scope of our country makes these issues so tough to wrestle with. As we trend more and more towards an urban society it may benefit us to down play winner take all as well. At some point rural/urban will no longer be the deciding factor. We may go back to more regional divides. Or something else, but there will always be reasons to force candidates into broader appeals. The EC does that, but could use some tweaking.

Frankly I think that's lazy analysis. This conversation is much better:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/upshot/how-did-trump-win-over-so-many-obama-voters.html?_r=0

 

Lots more out there like that if you want to look for something other than the conclusion you want to believe,

I don't necessarily agree, I've learned a lot from reading this thread and much of what you've written. I'm entirely open to reading things from all perspectives, it's why I read. I found these interesting, it doesn't mean I wouldn't find others with different petspectives equally interesting. I'm not looking for a conclusion, mainly because there isn't just one.

So one thing I heard this last week that I liked was a "winner take all" if a state is over X-amount of votes and then a split according to votes if not. For instance, in South Dakota, there are three electoral votes. 52% vote for Trump, 44% for Clinton, and 4% other, in my hypothetical. Trump would get 2, Hillary would get 1. That same vote is something like 61% or 66%, Trump takes all three.

I don't necessarily agree, I've learned a lot from reading this thread and much of what you've written. I'm entirely open to reading things from all perspectives, it's why I read. I found these interesting, it doesn't mean I would find others equally interesting. I'm not looking for a conclusion, mainly because there isn't just one.

Sorry, that was unfair of me. Sometimes it's hard to separate what is happening nationally with discussions here. There are too many on the left reaching that easy conclusion IMO. Even here it feels like it's becoming a bit too echo-chambery for my liking.

Edited November 15, 20169 yr by TheLeviathan

So one thing I heard this last week that I liked was a "winner take all" if a state is over X-amount of votes and then a split according to votes if not. For instance, in South Dakota, there are three electoral votes. 52% vote for Trump, 44% for Clinton, and 4% other, in my hypothetical. Trump would get 2, Hillary would get 1. That same vote is something like 61% or 66%, Trump takes all three.

Id be curious to see how that sort of system would play out nationally.

 

The EC should force the opposite. As I've been saying all along, You are so dead set that your side has been wronged you have thrown reading comprehension out the window. I will endeavor to try again I guess: Paying attention to one over the other leads to failure. As it did in this election. As, I'd argue, it did to the Republicans in the recent past. That's how it is supposed to work and it did.

Without the EC you could just focus on a few strategic areas and win. That's what I don't want. I want the office of President to earn more than that kind of support and I think it's dangerous if they don't.

You disagreeing with that outcome should lead to an emphasis to change that imbalance by the Dems rather than blow up the EC. The EC is a convenient scapegoat, but it isn't the problem.

 

This is such bluster. Buddy, you're the one who is being deadset and oddly delighting in punishing those arrogant liberals.  Why the heck should the Dems be punished for ignoring rural whites, when the EC has never punished the Republicans for ignoring nearly every minority group except rural whites? 

 

The EC actually empowers what you suggests it mitigates: campaigning in only swing states is not any kind of solution to represent all the people.  When every vote counts, both sides will rally every vote both rural and urban.  

 

Had the Republicans lost, would you be arguing for an increase in EC votes for urban centers so that Republicans would pay more attention to minority voters? I think not.  

 

 

Garrison Keillor's take:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-voters-will-not-like-what-happens-next/2016/11/09/e346ffc2-a67f-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html

 

Even here it feels like it's becoming a bit too echo-chambery for my liking.

So when everyone disagrees with you they are guilty of being an echo-chamber? 

This is such bluster. Buddy, you're the one who is being deadset and oddly delighting in punishing those arrogant liberals.  Why the heck should the Dems be punished for ignoring rural whites, when the EC has never punished the Republicans for ignoring nearly every minority group except rural whites? 

 

The EC actually empowers what you suggests it mitigates: campaigning in only swing states is not any kind of solution to represent all the people.  When every vote counts, both sides will rally every vote both rural and urban.  

 

Had the Republicans lost, would you be arguing for an increase in EC votes for urban centers so that Republicans would pay more attention to minority voters? I think not.

 

Except the Republicans did take huge EC losses relative to the popular vote. Obama won by 7% (a large figure no doubt) but the EC was a 2:1 landslide. Romney lost by 4% and still got clocked by nearly the same margin. This narrative about the unfair EC said demonstrably nonsense.

 

And I have already agreed with your second point repeatedly. How many more times need I do so? Yes, we could stand to tweak things. There it is, at least the eighth time.

 

The EC has nothing to do with the GOP and minority voters. Your hypothetical just plainly doesn't make sense. Honestly, I have no idea what you were getting at. Painting me as some right wing nut is obnoxious. Sorry that I'm not just going to fold the EC because the thread is full of upset left wingers. If you want this to be some hollow echo chamber I will bow out at that point. I have no interest in that.

 

I've made plenty of cogent arguments for the value of the EC and readily agreed dome tweaks would help. That's pretty much where I stand and I'm open to hybrid ideas.

So when everyone disagrees with you they are guilty of being an echo-chamber?

Everyone doesn't. Middle ground has been found a plenty. You should drop the repeated strawmen and read them.

 

Hell, in this discussions i have quoted such notable right wing sites such as Slate, Politico, and the New York Times. Have anything further left I can research since my opinion is too right wing sensitive for you?

Edited November 15, 20169 yr by TheLeviathan

The EC should force the opposite. As I've been saying all along, You are so dead set that your side has been wronged you have thrown reading comprehension out the window. I will endeavor to try again I guess: Paying attention to one over the other leads to failure. As it did in this election. As, I'd argue, it did to the Republicans in the recent past. That's how it is supposed to work and it did.

Without the EC you could just focus on a few strategic areas and win. That's what I don't want. I want the office of President to earn more than that kind of support and I think it's dangerous if they don't.

You disagreeing with that outcome should lead to an emphasis to change that imbalance by the Dems rather than blow up the EC. The EC is a convenient scapegoat, but it isn't the problem.

You keep saying the same things but I feel like the conclusion you keep reaching is the opposite of what you are trying to prove. The ec is letting or even "forcing" candidates NOT to focus on the entire country. The exact opposite is true. People make a big deal over the almost 50% of registered voters who didn't vote. What about adults who don't even bother registering? Trump, Obama, Bush, they were elected by like 20% of the population. Make everyone earn votes in ca, not just give dems 54 ev just because of sf and la. Make republicans earn votes in Texas. Texas which kinda undermines your point about candidates focusing only on cities, which if that were true I'd imagine the democrats would do better their considering all the large metros there. I think a direct, or even more direct vote would increase voter participation in those big states, as well as small. You seem to like the theory of the ec much more than the actual way it affects elections, just as I like the theory of socialism much more than I like the actual implications it causes.

Come on, you two, cool it down a bit. You've been posting together for years. I let it go for awhile because tempers are running hot and while I trust you'll both tone it down in time, now is probably that time.

 

The EC has nothing to do with the GOP and minority voters. Your hypothetical just plainly doesn't make sense. Honestly, I have no idea what you were getting at. Painting me as some right wing nut is obnoxious. Sorry that I'm not just going to fold the EC because the thread is full of upset left wingers. If you want this to be some hollow echo chamber I will bow out at that point. I have no interest in that.

So the EC has nothing to do with the GOP and minority voters, but the reason we should keep the EC is because the Dems ignored a minority group (in this case rural whites)?  

 

Your rationale about tyranny of the majority just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

You seem to like the theory of the ec much more than the actual way it affects elections, just as I like the theory of socialism much more than I like the actual implications it causes.

It's both I think. It has several practical effects I think shouldn't be undersold. The earlier Slate article details that well IMO. There are negative implications I have at no point disagreed with, but as I said to Brock, a switch to a purely popular vote has the same problems. I actually think they'd be worse over time, but that is speculative.

 

I think the best bet is a hybrid system where winner doesn't take all. Though I would be cautious about the dangers that presents with a challenged election and a contentious transition of power.

 

Everyone doesn't. Middle ground has been found a plenty. You should drop the repeated strawmen and read them.

Hell, in this discussions i have quoted such notable right wing sites such as Slate, Politico, and the New York Times. Have anything further left I can research since my opinion is too right wing sensitive for you?

Whatever. In one post you say it's an echo-chamber in here, and in the a second one, you say there's plenty of middle ground.

 

I don't think your arguments are right-wing so much as oddly liberal-shaming, a recurrent past-time of yours. 

 

Liberals can seek to restructure the EC for legitimate reasons.  The assumption that you keep going back to--that desire to change the EC is rash and based on butthurtness--is the most prominent strawman in this discussion.

 

Come on, you two, cool it down a bit. You've been posting together for years. I let it go for awhile because tempers are running hot and while I trust you'll both tone it down in time, now is probably that time.

Noooo!  Okay fine.  But Levi is a doo-doo head. 

 

Garrison Keillor's take:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-voters-will-not-like-what-happens-next/2016/11/09/e346ffc2-a67f-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html

 

Good stuff from Keillor. He's right, the next four years the Republican's will be stuck dealing with disasters made from their own devices. Perhaps liberals can spend their time away from politics and enjoy worldly pleasures, but the party leaders better be using these blame-free four years to figure out a strategy to ensure this is the last hurrah for the ultra conservatives, it really shouldn't be difficult.

So the EC has nothing to do with the GOP and minority voters, but the reason we should keep the EC is because the Dems ignored a minority group (in this case rural whites)?

 

Your rationale about tyranny of the majority just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Your scenario is still unclear. But if you are suggesting the butt whooping they took by Obama should have been a giant red flag to Republicans, I'd say absolutely. Hell, in this very thread I've suggested many times their grip on national elections is greatly jeopardized by there lack of doing so.

 

I've also pointed out that Hillary's inability to turn out young voters and black voters relative to Obama was a major factor. So, yes, had those minorities turned out the EC would have protected that much like it did with Obama when it handed him landslide wins.

 

If your scenario means something else then I still don't understand your point.

Edited November 15, 20169 yr by TheLeviathan

Whatever. In one post you say it's an echo-chamber in here, and in the a second one, you say there's plenty of middle ground.

 

I don't think your arguments are right-wing so much as oddly liberal-shaming, a recurrent past-time of yours. 

 

Liberals can seek to restructure the EC for legitimate reasons.  The assumption that you keep going back to--that desire to change the EC is rash and based on butthurtness--is the most prominent strawman in this discussion.

Where were all those cries the last eight years? I don't recall them happening. It's just happenstance they are coming out now?

 

I have shamed conservative voices here as well on gun issues and a variety of other issues. I've spent the thread blasting the Republican field for their hopeless stupidity.

 

I don't play favorites and you know that. So yeah, I shame liberals. Both sides could stand to hear more shame. That's part of the problem.

I think if you look back in this thread, you'll find I asked for the EC to go before the election. I could be wrong, that could have been FB.....assuming, and stating, it is about the dems losing is insulting. I think it needs to go. Have for years.

I think if you look back in this thread, you'll find I asked for the EC to go before the election. I could be wrong, that could have been FB.....assuming, and stating, it is about the dems losing is insulting. I think it needs to go. Have for years.

Then I commend your consistency, do you think you are in the majority on that?

 

I'll put this out here now, if in four years there is a rise in young and minority voters and the Republicans are ousted like they were in 2008 and 2012 you will hear them whining about it too. Hell, the Slate article I posted was a left wing response to that very thing.

 

Maybe there is something I like about a function that manages to so consistently shake the apple cart for both sides. I'd suggest that says there are elements to it to like.

 

Then I commend your consistency, do you think you are in the majority on that?

I'll put this out here now, if in four years there is a rise in young and minority voters and the Republicans are ousted like they were in 2008 and 2012 you will hear them whining about it too. Hell, the Slate article I posted was a left wing response to that very thing.

Maybe there is something I like about a function that manages to so consistently shake the apple cart for both sides. I'd suggest that says there are elements to it to like.

 

I doubt most anyone put much thought into it (outside this thread, as this thread is full of thoughtful people, though I miss the conservatives) before the election, no.

 

Denigrating education and politics as elitist tends to turn the masses off, which is, of course, the reason you do it if you are in power.

n

I doubt most anyone put much thought into it (outside this thread, as this thread is full of thoughtful people, though I miss the conservatives) before the election, no.

 

Denigrating education and politics as elitist tends to turn the masses off, which is, of course, the reason you do it if you are in power.

There are genuine problems of elitism on the left. That should be a takeaway as well.

 

But my ballots have gone from purple to pretty much all blue over the last ten years. The GOP's tact on education and science being chief (along with abandonment of fiscal conservatism) reasons for my drift. I can't in good conscience vote for most of the people they put on my ballot.

Edited November 15, 20169 yr by TheLeviathan

 

There are genuine problems of elitism on the left. That should be a takeaway as well.

But my ballots have gone from purple to pretty much all blue over the last ten years. The GOP's tact on education and science being chief (along with abandonment of fiscal conservatism) reasons for my drift. I can't in good conscience vote for most of the people they put on my ballot.

 

well, I'd argue most everyone in politics is pretty elitist, from personal experience and remote observation.