|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 11 2016 01:23 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 01:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 01:00 sharkie wrote:
Why did we not have discussion about the electoral college 4 and 8 years ago then?
Always the same with people, only complaining when something doesn't suit them. Discussions about the EC occur every election cycle, but iirc Obama beat Romney and McCain in both the electoral and popular vote, whereas Bush and Trump won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, so there was no discrepancy during the Obama elections. There really should also be an equally large amount said about the way EC influences the presidential debate beyond just who wins. There's pretty much 0 motivation for a presidential candidate to appeal to republicans in deep blue states or democrats in deep red ones. So that helps with us ending up with candidates like Trump and Clinton that can embody one region's ideals while shitting all over the ideals of other regions. If Trump had to appeal to republicans in deep blue states there's a lot less room for him to get away with saying things that turn those voters off. The EC seems to me like it just deepens the divide across the country by letting people get away with only appealing to very small groups of people. For example Trump got only 64% of the # of republican votes that Romney got in 2012 (827,555 vs 1,290,670), but that has 0 bearing on the election at all.
That is the problem with FPTP, not necessarily with the electoral college as such. One could make an argument about state representation in the presidential election and keep the EC but get rid of FPTP and simply divide the EVs per state proportionally (this would be similar (but not exactly the same) to the Spanish system). The biggest problem with the EC is FPTP. The problem with proportionality between states is really minor in comparison.
Those in favour of FPTP, what exactly is its benefits now that people no longer have to go on horseback to DC in order to elect the next president?
|
On November 11 2016 01:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 01:23 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 01:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 01:00 sharkie wrote:
Why did we not have discussion about the electoral college 4 and 8 years ago then?
Always the same with people, only complaining when something doesn't suit them. Discussions about the EC occur every election cycle, but iirc Obama beat Romney and McCain in both the electoral and popular vote, whereas Bush and Trump won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, so there was no discrepancy during the Obama elections. There really should also be an equally large amount said about the way EC influences the presidential debate beyond just who wins. There's pretty much 0 motivation for a presidential candidate to appeal to republicans in deep blue states or democrats in deep red ones. So that helps with us ending up with candidates like Trump and Clinton that can embody one region's ideals while shitting all over the ideals of other regions. If Trump had to appeal to republicans in deep blue states there's a lot less room for him to get away with saying things that turn those voters off. The EC seems to me like it just deepens the divide across the country by letting people get away with only appealing to very small groups of people. For example Trump got only 64% of the # of republican votes that Romney got in 2012 (827,555 vs 1,290,670), but that has 0 bearing on the election at all. That is the problem with FPTP, not necessarily with the electoral college as such. One could make an argument about state representation in the presidential election and keep the EC but get rid of FPTP and simply divide the EVs per state proportionally (this would be similar (but not exactly the same) to the Spanish system). The biggest problem with the EC is FPTP. The problem with proportionality between states is really minor in comparison. Those in favour of FPTP, what exactly is its benefits now that people no longer have to go on horseback to DC in order to elect the next president?
Not in favor of FPTP (at all) but for something like the presidency it is more or less required since you don't want to give all that power to someone who is not represented by the majority of voters. Hence why France for example has multiple run-offs to get down to 2 candidates.
Losing FPTP would work perfectly well for the House and Senate tho.
|
The discussion right now about the electoral college is a red herring here. Even if Clinton won the popular vote, it's still true that almost 50% of the country voted for Trump. Whether you disenfranchise slightly more or slightly less than 50%, the problem is still the same.
The electoral map posted by Danglars illustrates the real problem here: we are a country that is living in two different worlds. The way rural America experiences the world is too different from urban America does. Even the urban Trump voter probably voted for Trump for vastly different reasons than his rural counterpart. In the last day since the election, I've been trying to reconcile myself with how so much of the country not only has a different worldview from my own, but one that seems utterly incompatible with my own.
It is easy to dismiss their view as uneducated or illogical, but that doesn't make the problem go away. It's easy to be partisan and blame the other side, when in fact a lot of what's wrong isn't the fault of either party, and is just an inevitable consequence of advancing technology and a shift in economy toward 21st century tech. We need to make a better effort to understand each other as a country, and what we should be doing to help such a massive swath of people who have been left behind by the 21st century.
|
On November 11 2016 01:51 TheYango wrote:
The discussion right now about the electoral college is a red herring here. Even if Clinton won the popular vote, it's still true that almost 50% of the country voted for Trump. Whether you disenfranchise slightly more or slightly less than 50%, the problem is still the same.
The whole point is that 50% of the country didn't vote for trump. Near 50% of the population didn't vote at all. That is exactly why we're discussing EC, as that is thought to be the main reason as to why.
|
On November 11 2016 01:51 TheYango wrote:
The electoral map posted by Danglars illustrates the real problem here: we are a country that is living in two different worlds. The way rural America experiences the world is too different from urban America does. Even the urban Trump voter probably voted for Trump for vastly different reasons than his rural counterpart. In the last day since the election, I've been trying to reconcile myself with how so much of the country not only has a different worldview from my own, but one that seems utterly incompatible with my own.
It is easy to dismiss their view as uneducated or illogical, but that doesn't make the problem go away. It's easy to be partisan and blame the other side, when in fact a lot of what's wrong isn't the fault of either party, and is just an inevitable consequence of advancing technology and a shift in economy toward 21st century tech. We need to make a better effort to understand each other as a country, and what we should be doing to help such a massive swath of people who have been left behind by the 21st century.
Well put. I've been trying to wrap my head around this realization of the existence of another America inside the one I know, and it has been really eye-opening.
The behavior of some many liberals who are saying some pretty terrible things because they can't handle losing has also been very eye-opening for me.
My understanding of the politics of this country has changed dramatically in just 2 days. Really crazy.
|
On November 11 2016 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 01:24 Trainrunnef wrote:
I don't think anything related to Bill's scandals should really be counted as they are very personal and very different situations. Someone accuses your wife/husband of cheating and everyone will have the same reaction as she did, without exception. I'm not sure calling one of them a "narcissistic loony toon" and another "some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on" counts as a universal reaction (the latter was said on an ABC News interview too). Anger, disbelief, self-doubt, resistance to the idea of betrayal, sure. But all of them could've come without public denunciations and deliberate behind-the-scenes campaigns to delegitimize their claims. A committed feminist should know that in these situations, the woman takes the brunt of criticism as being salacious and possessing poor judgment. But she didn't hesitate to play into them for the sake of protecting her and her husband's political standing. Nevertheless, I count them because it's part of a pattern of behavior regarding Hilary's public relationship with feminism. Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 01:33 Doodsmack wrote:On November 11 2016 01:20 CosmicSpiral wrote:
She just won't risk her neck for it. Also true of every male in politics when it comes to their priorities, for the record. Which is part and parcel of modern apathy in American politics: when it comes to politicians, we just assume self-preservation and political ambition supersede everything else. But this has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with self-image. The concerted push to promote Hilary as some great Feminist Earth Mother wasn't just a strategical decision by the party, but an assumption by almost every supporting media outlet. And again, the tiresome insistence of the Democratic Party to promote their candidates as moral exemplars only made the hypocrisy blatant. There was no ground to admit that she did well in that department, but could've done better (and would hopefully do better as President). It was similar to the way the campaign almost dismissed the concept of class out of hand and framed the primary social conflict as an extension of the culture wars.
You're using a double standard here because did not adhere in his business life to his criticism of politicians and their policies. Unless you also admit that's the case about Trump, which brings us back to the gender double standard.
|
On November 11 2016 01:51 TheYango wrote:
The discussion right now about the electoral college is a red herring here. Even if Clinton won the popular vote, it's still true that almost 50% of the country voted for Trump. Whether you disenfranchise slightly more or slightly less than 50%, the problem is still the same.
The electoral map posted by Danglars illustrates the real problem here: we are a country that is living in two different worlds. The way rural America experiences the world is too different from urban America does. Even the urban Trump voter probably voted for Trump for vastly different reasons than his rural counterpart. In the last day since the election, I've been trying to reconcile myself with how so much of the country not only has a different worldview from my own, but one that seems utterly incompatible with my own.
It is easy to dismiss their view as uneducated or illogical, but that doesn't make the problem go away. It's easy to be partisan and blame the other side, when in fact a lot of what's wrong isn't the fault of either party, and is just an inevitable consequence of advancing technology and a shift in economy toward 21st century tech. We need to make a better effort to understand each other as a country, and what we should be doing to help such a massive swath of people who have been left behind by the 21st century.
Well it is a country of 330 mil people across 3+ timezones after all. Nonetheless there's something at least symbolically problematic about electing the POTUS with fewer votes than the opponent. It was a problem in 2000 and it's a problem now, at least in terms of the legitimacy of the president.
|
Rural folk aren't nearly as mysterious as many in the media are supposing; previously, Democrats had a stronger rural presence because unions used to play a much larger local/state role as an organizing force. With the erosion of manufacturing union power and influence, it has become more difficult for Democrats to communicate with/organize the countryside. Add in Clinton's relative deafness to rural issues of aracial joblessness and lack of services and her loss becomes more and more understandable.
Moving forward, Democrats really just need to switch the focus around and push out some new blood that display a more palpable understanding of what it feels like to be left behind, white, and in the country.
|
On November 11 2016 01:55 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 01:51 TheYango wrote:
The discussion right now about the electoral college is a red herring here. Even if Clinton won the popular vote, it's still true that almost 50% of the country voted for Trump. Whether you disenfranchise slightly more or slightly less than 50%, the problem is still the same. The whole point is that 50% of the country didn't vote for trump. Near 50% of the population didn't vote at all. That is exactly why we're discussing EC, as that is thought to be the main reason as to why.
It's also a pointless circle.
There's multiple reasons why Clinton lost and multiple things to be done to improve the situation.
Having people who gravitate towards different things say everyone else is following a red herring just leads to no one championing anything and everything staying the same.
Some people want to address out voting scheme, some people want to address why democrats didn't get certain demographics, some people want to focus on protecting the rights of minorities/LGBT/Women, some people want to hold the media accountable for their terrible coverage of the election. That all seems fine.
|
Trump won by the rules of the current game. If there were different rules, there would be a different game. It wouldn't just be what we have now, but a flipped result. We don't know with any comfortable certainty what would happen.
|
On November 11 2016 01:20 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 00:41 kwizach wrote:
No they don't, because she doesn't have one. Like the Kathy Shelton case back in '75? Or when she verbally abused Kathleen Wiley when the latter accused her husband of assault? Let's not even get into her attempts to discredit the testimony of Bill's mistresses when they started making her affairs public.
All of this has already been addressed ad nauseam throughout the election season. She tried to avoid having to represent Shelton's rapist but couldn't, and she proceeded to defend him to the best of her abilities because that was her obligation as an attorney. Mentioning this as to argue that she has a "long history of marginalizing victims of sexual assault" is outright dishonest. I'm not sure of what you're referring to about HRC verbally abusing Wiley. Did she also kill her cats, though? And having harsh words for people who had sexual relations with your husband is hardly surprising and not at all synonymous with having a "history of marginalizing victims of sexual assault".
On November 11 2016 01:20 CosmicSpiral wrote:I hope she realizes she cannot claim to be an advocate of "women's rights in foreign countries" while maintaining support of Israel's actions in the occupied territories, and perhaps the impoverished sisters in Libya would've appreciated less hawkish insistence for military intervention over microwaves. But that's always been Hilary's issue: feminism inevitably takes a seat when supporting it would interfere with her other priorities, especially support of corporations and foreign intervention.
I'm not sure how you think bringing up those two issues is supposed to invalidate the clear evidence that I just presented you with that she was an advocated for women's rights in foreign countries when she was Secretary of State. There is nothing contradictory between being a feminist with a history of advocacy in defense of women's rights and having supported the intervention in Libya. It's nonsensical to pretend otherwise (and yes, I'm aware that there exist feminists claiming otherwise).
On November 11 2016 01:20 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 00:41 kwizach wrote:
There's a difference between saying that she has faced criticism from some feminists (while being defended by others), and saying that she doesn't care about the rights of women and minorities, like LegalLord claimed. Those criticisms are a more nuanced elaboration on LegalLord claimed, that Hilary is opportunistic and will support the rights of women/minorities when it's politically expedient. But her record also shows that she is forever cautious over supporting these when they threaten to derail her career or question her other ambitions. I don't doubt that she genuinely wants a better life for the next generation of women. She just won't risk her neck for it.
She's defended the rights of women and minorities since she was a young woman, way before she was involved in politics, and before she even met her husband. Saying she won't "risk her neck for it" is meaningless -- her feminist positions and statements complicated Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992, and she gave her speech about women's rights being human rights against pressure by Chinese and US officials. Not defending women's rights abroad as Secretary of State would also obviously have been easier than defending them. What you're saying is basically "I wish she could have paid a heavier price for defending women's rights than she has".
In any case, LegalLord wasn't saying that she doesn't sufficiently stick her neck out for the rights of other people, but that she doesn't care about them at all (unless the polls tell her to care). That's demonstrably false, as I said.
|
On November 11 2016 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
Trump won by the rules of the current game. If there were different rules, there would be a different game. It wouldn't just be what we have now, but a flipped result. We don't know with any comfortable certainty what would happen.
I don't think that's a good deflection of criticisms of the current system though.
Like pissed off workers in Michigan have probably been wanting to complain with their vote for a few cycles already (or have been?) but no one bothered paying attention to them because the state was going to go blue anyways. It works both ways for both parties and I'm not really sure anyone is benefiting except the people who end up in office (regardless of party).
|
On November 11 2016 01:56 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 01:51 TheYango wrote:
The electoral map posted by Danglars illustrates the real problem here: we are a country that is living in two different worlds. The way rural America experiences the world is too different from urban America does. Even the urban Trump voter probably voted for Trump for vastly different reasons than his rural counterpart. In the last day since the election, I've been trying to reconcile myself with how so much of the country not only has a different worldview from my own, but one that seems utterly incompatible with my own.
It is easy to dismiss their view as uneducated or illogical, but that doesn't make the problem go away. It's easy to be partisan and blame the other side, when in fact a lot of what's wrong isn't the fault of either party, and is just an inevitable consequence of advancing technology and a shift in economy toward 21st century tech. We need to make a better effort to understand each other as a country, and what we should be doing to help such a massive swath of people who have been left behind by the 21st century. Well put. I've been trying to wrap my head around this realization of the existence of another America inside the one I know, and it has been really eye-opening. The behavior of some many liberals who are saying some pretty terrible things because they can't handle losing has also been very eye-opening for me. My understanding of the politics of this country has changed dramatically in just 2 days. Really crazy.
I don't think it's about handling losing so much as handling Trump being president. And that kind of statement to criticize Democrats is really hyperbolic given that Trump's campaign has been run with not accepting the results because it's rigged. He is going to be incredibly unacceptable to liberals in the same vein maybe that Obama was unacceptable to all those conservatives in that McCain video I linked back.
|
On November 11 2016 01:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 01:51 TheYango wrote:
The discussion right now about the electoral college is a red herring here. Even if Clinton won the popular vote, it's still true that almost 50% of the country voted for Trump. Whether you disenfranchise slightly more or slightly less than 50%, the problem is still the same.
The electoral map posted by Danglars illustrates the real problem here: we are a country that is living in two different worlds. The way rural America experiences the world is too different from urban America does. Even the urban Trump voter probably voted for Trump for vastly different reasons than his rural counterpart. In the last day since the election, I've been trying to reconcile myself with how so much of the country not only has a different worldview from my own, but one that seems utterly incompatible with my own.
It is easy to dismiss their view as uneducated or illogical, but that doesn't make the problem go away. It's easy to be partisan and blame the other side, when in fact a lot of what's wrong isn't the fault of either party, and is just an inevitable consequence of advancing technology and a shift in economy toward 21st century tech. We need to make a better effort to understand each other as a country, and what we should be doing to help such a massive swath of people who have been left behind by the 21st century. Well it is a country of 330 mil people across 3+ timezones after all. Nonetheless there's something at least symbolically problematic about electing the POTUS with fewer votes than the opponent. It was a problem in 2000 and it's a problem now, at least in terms of the legitimacy of the president.
No love for Hawaii and alaska? And I'm pretty sure there are 4 timezones in the continental 48
It's symbolically bad looking but it's the best policy to not make sparsely populated areas worthless which would be worse if we didn't have a compromise like the ec.
|
On November 11 2016 02:07 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
Trump won by the rules of the current game. If there were different rules, there would be a different game. It wouldn't just be what we have now, but a flipped result. We don't know with any comfortable certainty what would happen. I don't think that's a good deflection of criticisms of the current system though. Like pissed off workers in Michigan have probably been wanting to complain with their vote for a few cycles already (or have been?) but no one bothered paying attention to them because the state was going to go blue anyways. It works both ways for both parties and I'm not really sure anyone is benefiting except the people who end up in office (regardless of party).
The core of people's complaints really is just that "the wrong candidate won because the system is BS." And while the system may be BS, we really don't know how it would have gone with a different system. We only have educated guesses.
Maybe Michigan workers would get ignored in favor of California liberals who are too lazy to get out and vote unless prodded. We really just don't know. The system we have led to the current results. A different system wouldn't just be "this same thing but different presidents." It would be completely different.
|
On November 11 2016 02:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 01:57 Djzapz wrote:On November 11 2016 01:51 TheYango wrote:
The discussion right now about the electoral college is a red herring here. Even if Clinton won the popular vote, it's still true that almost 50% of the country voted for Trump. Whether you disenfranchise slightly more or slightly less than 50%, the problem is still the same.
The electoral map posted by Danglars illustrates the real problem here: we are a country that is living in two different worlds. The way rural America experiences the world is too different from urban America does. Even the urban Trump voter probably voted for Trump for vastly different reasons than his rural counterpart. In the last day since the election, I've been trying to reconcile myself with how so much of the country not only has a different worldview from my own, but one that seems utterly incompatible with my own.
It is easy to dismiss their view as uneducated or illogical, but that doesn't make the problem go away. It's easy to be partisan and blame the other side, when in fact a lot of what's wrong isn't the fault of either party, and is just an inevitable consequence of advancing technology and a shift in economy toward 21st century tech. We need to make a better effort to understand each other as a country, and what we should be doing to help such a massive swath of people who have been left behind by the 21st century. Well it is a country of 330 mil people across 3+ timezones after all. Nonetheless there's something at least symbolically problematic about electing the POTUS with fewer votes than the opponent. It was a problem in 2000 and it's a problem now, at least in terms of the legitimacy of the president. No love for Hawaii and alaska? And I'm pretty sure there are 4 timezones in the continental 48 It's symbolically bad looking but it's the best policy to not make sparsely populated areas worthless which would be worse if we didn't have a compromise like the ec.
When do our sparsely populated territories get their representation in the EC then?
Like even if we are going to stick to the EC there's massive problems with it, not the least that our territories don't get representation. It's really hypocritical to say that sparsely populated areas deserve higher than average representation without acknowledging the areas in the US that don't receive said representation.
|
I think Mike Pence has the most interesting job in the nation, trying to make the weird stuff Trump said sound palatable. It would be hilarious to have that job.
|
Okay, GIVEN that rural and small town voters have real problems that aren't being addressed, how do we address those problems?
|
On November 11 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:
I think Mike Pence has the most interesting job in the nation, trying to make the weird stuff Trump said sound palatable. It would be hilarious to have that job.
No, the most interesting job in the nation will be Trump's press secretary (though largely for the same reason). Milo joked that he wanted to be Trump's press secretary if Trump won the election. I think that would be glorious.
|
On November 11 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:
I think Mike Pence has the most interesting job in the nation, trying to make the weird stuff Trump said sound palatable. It would be hilarious to have that job.
Why is that interesting? Mike Pence's whole career has been making the unpalatable things Mike Pence believes sound palatable. He's just doing the job for 2 people now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
