What is this election missing? Empathy for Trump voters. - WaPo

349 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

Timebandit wrote:
quizzical, women have been part of the reinforcement of the patriarchal system for generations. 

you put this much nicer than i was thinking about some women who are being their own worst enemies.

 

Quote:
Doug Saunders had a good article that makes a better case than I can on the fly:

the article was good. i don't think Trump supporters here in Canada or in the USA see themselves as being radicalized

Quote:
 As white people, it was our turn to experience the cold shock of discovering that a significant part of our community has been radicalized, sometimes over the Internet, into a form of intolerant extremism that rejects conventional Western values and threatens the integrity of entire countries. That it has so far manifested itself in ballots rather than bombs shouldn’t mask its gravity: Because we are so numerous, our zealots are capable of paralyzing nations.We need to do what we have long told other groups to do when they face an extremism problem: Speak up about it, identify it, try to understand what has happened to so many people like us, find a way to lead them away from extremism.

and this closing snip from the article below kinda made me laugh on many levels briefly and then i realized it's going to get ugly.

"This was a white riot"

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Yes, it is.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Please empathize with these people.They are SOOO misunderstood. Wink

https://twitter.com/PAYOLETTER/status/797106526104285184

Mr. Magoo

Voting Republican = "radicalization" now?

"Stephen cut ties with his family, abandoned his Catholic upbringing, and secretly flew to Pakistan to join forces with ISIL and retake a neighbouring village.  He's been radicalized.

Mary voted for the Republican instead of voting for Clinton as expected.  She has also been radicalized".

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

If it wasn't true before,the Republican party is now indisputably a radical right wing insurgency. Does that make Trump supporters 'radical'? Probably not,but they proudly support this coup against the Constitution.

swallow swallow's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Voting Republican = "radicalization" now?

"Stephen cut ties with his family, abandoned his Catholic upbringing, and secretly flew to Pakistan to join forces with ISIL and retake a neighbouring village.  He's been radicalized.

Mary voted for the Republican instead of voting for Clinton as expected.  She has also been radicalized".

It's tongue in cheek - you don't recognize the style? 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Voting Republican = "radicalization" now?

"Stephen cut ties with his family, abandoned his Catholic upbringing, and secretly flew to Pakistan to join forces with ISIL and retake a neighbouring village.  He's been radicalized.

Mary voted for the Republican instead of voting for Clinton as expected.  She has also been radicalized".


Not every radicalized person on the Muslim side goes off to fight jihad, either. And only some Trump supporters beat people, paint swastikas on things or threaten women and minorities. But many have now embraced a radical political position.

bekayne

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/white-nationalists-on-bannon/inde...

White nationalist leaders are praising Donald Trump's decision to name former Breitbart executive Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, telling CNN in interviews they view Bannon as an advocate in the White House for policies they favor.

The leaders of the white nationalist and so-called "alt-right" movement — all of whom vehemently oppose multiculturalism and share the belief in the supremacy of the white race and Western civilization — publicly backed Trump during his campaign for his hardline positions on Mexican immigration, Muslims, and refugee resettlement. Trump has at times disavowed their support. Bannon's hiring, they say, is a signal that Trump will follow through on some of his more controversial policy positions.

 

bekayne

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/11/14/racist-post-about-michelle-o...

Clay County Development Corp. director Pamela Ramsey Taylor made the post following Donald Trump's election as president, saying: "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels."

Clay Mayor Beverly Whaling responded: "Just made my day Pam."

...

Last week in Kentucky, Republican Dan Johnson defeated incumbent Democrat Linda Belcher in Bullitt County despite a series of Facebook posts that depicted Barack Obama and his wife as monkeys. Republican officials, including likely new House Speaker Jeff Hoover, had called on Johnson to drop out of the race. But Hoover declared last week that Johnson would be "welcome in our caucus."

 

quizzical

Quote:
....“Hey, white person,” the sign read. “Tired of political correctness? Wondering why only white countries have to become ‘multicultural’? Figured out that diversity only means ‘less white people’?”

The poster lists websites associated with the alt-right, a movement associated with promotion of white identity and white supremacy.

“I was absolutely floored,” Kerr said. He tweeted photo of the poster, saying he was “disgusted by racists empowered by (Donald Trump).”

The signs were quickly denounced on social media by many, while others questioned whether the poster was racist, in some cases citing free speech.

Ward 31 councilor Janet Davis was notified of the sign and said city staff would be removing the posters.

“This hate is unacceptable in our city,” Davis tweeted. “Staff are removing the posters immediately and investigating who is responsible.”

Nate Erskine-Smith, the member of parliament for Beaches-East York, also condemned the sign.

“We are better than this. Ignorant, unacceptable and #NotMyCanada,” he tweeted.

 

Boze

All the best places to live in the world are part of "Western civilization," with very few exceptions (most notably Japan, which explicitly modeled its development in the 20th century on Britain, Germany and the United States). Of course Western civilization is "better" than others. If that makes me a supremacist...guilty as charged I guess. 

Disagree? Convince me otherwise, or else you implicitly concede that I am right.

PZ Myers is pretty much the embodiment of "political correctness: the problem." Half of the voters are assholes! Think your concerns are more important than mine? You're an asshole! Think your values are better than mine? You're an asshole! And if you come to my blog - hosted, with absolutely no sense of irony, on "freethoughtblogs" - and disagree, I'll ban you for it, because anyone who disgrees with me is an asshole, and assholes can't possibly be worth listening to!

quizzical

lolololol it does.

swallow swallow's picture

Boze wrote:

All the best places to live in the world are part of "Western civilization," with very few exceptions (most notably Japan, which explicitly modeled its development in the 20th century on Britain, Germany and the United States). Of course Western civilization is "better" than others. If that makes me a supremacist...guilty as charged I guess. 

Disagree? Convince me otherwise, or else you implicitly concede that I am right.

Have you lived in other places? Your claim seems unsupported by evidence. 

Or is your argument that it's better to live in a wealthy country? 

PS yes, I know, should not let myself be trolled by people who do not agree with rabble's fuonding principles, but I'd say the majority of babblers no longer agree with those principles. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Uruguay and Brazil arer far more progresive than 'white' countries. And within 'white' countries are very regressive,backward and barbaric states that are no better than 'brown' countries.

6079_Smith_W

Boze wrote:

All the best places to live in the world are part of "Western civilization"

Better for whom?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ohio-police-idUSKBN1370F3

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Why it's irrelevant to seek understanding of Trump voters:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/there_i...

Quote:

Whether Trump’s election reveals an “inherent malice” in his voters is irrelevant. What is relevant are the practical outcomes of a Trump presidency. Trump campaigned on state repression of disfavored minorities. He gives every sign that he plans to deliver that repression. This will mean disadvantage, immiseration, and violence for real people, people whose “inner pain and fear” were not reckoned worthy of many-thousand-word magazine feature stories. If you voted for Trump, you voted for this, regardless of what you believe about the groups in question. That you have black friends or Latino colleagues, that you think yourself to be tolerant and decent, doesn’t change the fact that you voted for racist policy that may affect, change, or harm their lives. And on that score, your frustration at being labeled a racist doesn’t justify or mitigate the moral weight of your political choice.

In the same way that the election-year demand for empathy toward Trump supporters obscured the consequences of Trump’s support for his targets, this demand for empathy does the same. It’s worse, in fact. In the wake of Trump’s win, the United States was hit with a wave of racist threats, agitation, harassment, and violence, following a year in which hate crimes against Muslim Americans and others reached historic highs. With Trump in office, millions of Americans face the prospect of a federal government that is hostile to their presence in this country, and which views them as an intrusion, even if they are citizens. Even if they’ve lived their entire lives as Americans.

To face those facts and then demand empathy for the people who made them a reality—who backed racist demagoguery, whatever their reasons—is to declare Trump’s victims less worthy of attention than his enablers. To insist Trump’s backers are good people is to treat their inner lives with more weight than the actual lives on the line under a Trump administration. At best, it’s myopic and solipsistic. At worst, it’s morally grotesque.

Boze

swallow wrote:

Boze wrote:

All the best places to live in the world are part of "Western civilization," with very few exceptions (most notably Japan, which explicitly modeled its development in the 20th century on Britain, Germany and the United States). Of course Western civilization is "better" than others. If that makes me a supremacist...guilty as charged I guess. 

Disagree? Convince me otherwise, or else you implicitly concede that I am right.

Have you lived in other places? Your claim seems unsupported by evidence. 

Or is your argument that it's better to live in a wealthy country? 

PS yes, I know, should not let myself be trolled by people who do not agree with rabble's fuonding principles, but I'd say the majority of babblers no longer agree with those principles. 

On any meaningful index of quality of life, like, say, the UN human development index, what non-western country other than Japan ever outperforms western countries? Serious question. By all means, educate me, but I think the evidence backs me up, in terms of health outcomes, freedom of the press, gender equality, etc. Could we do better? Of course we should. But you can't have an idea of "good" or "better" without a preference for some things over other things. If you can never say that some countries are better than others, then you can't have a concept of what it would mean for a country to improve. This is pretty basic logic, IMO. But, by all means, appeal to "rabble's founding principles" (which I broadly support) if you can't actually rebut what I'm saying with logic. That will just mark you for all to see as anti-intellectual, authoritarian, and another example of "political correctness: the problem." I'm not trolling. I'm throwing down the fucking gauntlet.

Boze

alan smithee wrote:

Uruguay and Brazil arer far more progresive than 'white' countries. And within 'white' countries are very regressive,backward and barbaric states that are no better than 'brown' countries.

Maybe you've heard of the GINI coefficient which measures income equality? Canada currently ranks 4th. Where do Brazil and Uruguay rank? Where do they rank on indeces of gender equality or racial equality?

Take your time, I'll wait.

swallow swallow's picture

On the HDI, Singapore and Hong Kong outrank the UK. South Korea outranks Japan, Belgium, and France. Taiwan outranks Spain and Italy. The HDI is a decent indicator in that it looks at overall wealth, health, and education.  

If all wealth is in the West and eastern Asia, is that because those countries are "superior" or because their are factors in the global trade system that favoured this? Note: colonialism happened. 

Other indicators question whether wealth is the best way to measure positives, and note that it omits ecological footprint (if you pollute other countries, no drop to your HDI). 

The Happy Planet Index, which aims to measure these other sort of items, lists Costa Rica first, Vietnam second, and Colombia third. Is Latin America the "West" more or less than Canada? Why or why not? 

The Satisfaction with Life Index, which tries to measure happiness, ranks Jamaica first, Switzerland second. Famously happy Bhutan outranks Canada by two spots. 

On the OECD quality of health care meaasures, South Korea and Israel often outrank the US and other Western countries. 

If you believe things like climate change are issues, and that being the biggest economy (USA, followed by China) or top greenhouse gas emitter (China, followed by USA) is not a sign of being superior, you can consider things like the Environmental Performance Index. It gives top spots, perhaps unsurprisingly, to Finland, Iceland, and Sweden, last spot to Afghanistan. 

These are all crude measures. The sum to me makes it look like the "best" countries to live in are Scandinavian, with the US and Canada tending to trail behind. On several measures, eastern Asian countries rank in and amongst the European and North American countries. 

The assumption that the highest rankings on HDI and so on are signs of "superiority" may be worth questioning. 

On GINI co-efficient, Boze, are you sure you are reading correctly? OECD comparisons ranks Canada as more unequal than most European countries. The CIA ranks more tahn 30 countries as more equal than Canada on its own GINI scale, and have Canada tied with Bangladesh. 

As you've mentioned raacial inequality, there's an interesting compilation of statistics that shows First Nations in Canada as being more marginalized than African Americans. Just out in Maclean's. Is this something to be proud of? Is it a sign of "superior" civilization? 

 

Paladin1

So what form of government should the US adopt since democracy doesn't seem to work?  Maybe the Spartan two monarch system?

 

I seen one great suggestion on SM; ban white people from voting int he US for a few years. That'll teach em.

quizzical

it wasn't democracy happening down there paladin. i'm sure you over-looked this reality. unintentionally though

Paladin1

It wasn't?

People voted for who they wanted to be elected. How is that not democracy?  Are you saying if Clinton would have won then it wouldn't have been democracy either?

Clinton was really pissed off when Hamas got voted in during Palestinian elections.  Clinton commented that the US should have rigged the election. Ironic eh? That's the tricky thing about democratic elections.

6079_Smith_W

On the contrary.

Listen in particular to the tail end of the second part of this interview. The worst case scenario.

Boze

 

Canada's human rights record as far as First Nations are concerned is one of the worst in the world. Of course, this is not something to be proud of. Does this mean we can't compare Canada favourably with any other countries? I am not interested in justifying the sins of the past because they are not justifiable. The sins of the present on the other hand are certainly manifold. I am not saying Canada can't improve. Obviously. Nor am I saying that the US is a particularly good place to live.

I'm looking at the Happy Planet Index. Columbia is 3rd?? Wtf? Despite ranking 69th in life expectancy, 48th in ecological footprint, 83rd in inequality, and 30th in wellbeing? Wtf? Are there other rankings involved? No, it turns out the formula they use is [(life expectancy x wellbeing) x inequality] / ecological footprint. Their measure of ecological footprint is the global hectare per person and the measure of wellbeing is a single survey question and their methods for measuring inequality are rather complex.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5735c421e321402778ee0ce9/t/578dec...

And then they do some fancy math with it. I am not in a position to evaluate the construct validity of all this at this moment...but I certainly have some reservations. A lot of them. Even if the other measures actually measure what they purport to measure, the measurement of wellbeing seems dubious.

http://happyplanetindex.org/countries/colombia

And yes, the US, especially some parts of it, is one of the worst places in the developed world to visit. 

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

It wasn't?

People voted for who they wanted to be elected. How is that not democracy?  Are you saying if Clinton would have won then it wouldn't have been democracy either?

Clinton was really pissed off when Hamas got voted in during Palestinian elections.  Clinton commented that the US should have rigged the election. Ironic eh? That's the tricky thing about democratic elections.

Democratic is quite the loose word. Then there is a question of quality. Like when the loser is the one with the most votes. And that is just the start of it.

So of course you can label the US as a democracy but is their system a functional good quality democracy? Perhaps not.

 

6079_Smith_W

The problems notwithstanding, we had better hope democracy prevails down there. Sanders is right in his comments. It could turn to full oligarchy. Part of the reason it was lost this time WAS voter suppression.

swallow swallow's picture

Boze - I am not endorsing the Happy Planet Index. I merely provided some stats, as you asked. As with HDI, there are some serious methodology issues with the HPI. No index is perfect, but the indices (you brought up the HDI; there's also a gender-adjusted HDI) seem to show a mix of countries near the top. (Some people in eastern Asia will argue that Confucian cultures are "superior" based on this sort of thing; obviously I reject that notion as I reject the notion that the "West" is somehow "superior.") 

Canada can certainly be compared to other countries. On some measures, we come off well. On others, such as colonial attitudes towards Indigenous people, we come off poorly (thread on the Maclean's survey in anti-racism forum). Obviously I much prefer living in Canada to living in Congo or Cameroon. On the other hand, I preferred living in Southeast Asia to living in the USA. 

None of this indicates that the "West" (however defined - again, why would you say Canada is "Western" and Brazil not?) is in any way "superior." And of course we need to look at things like colonialism history and climate change to understand why some countries are wealthier than others, and why Europe and North America and parts of eastern Asia are currently (and perhaps temporarily) on top. 

I asked you a few questions above. If you want to continue this line of discussion, please do go ahead and let me know your answers. 

6079_Smith_W

Plus it is a racist  line of thinking that ignores everything which so-called western civilization looted, and continues to loot from the rest of the world, from smallpox vaccine, to the potato, to gunpowder - three things which made a critical difference in the growth of their empires. And how they have perpetually stomped down any attempt at self-determination which they feel threatens their control.

 

 

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

It wasn't?

People voted for who they wanted to be elected. How is that not democracy?  Are you saying if Clinton would have won then it wouldn't have been democracy either?

Clinton was really pissed off when Hamas got voted in during Palestinian elections.  Clinton commented that the US should have rigged the election. Ironic eh? That's the tricky thing about democratic elections.

Democratic is quite the loose word. Then there is a question of quality. Like when the loser is the one with the most votes. And that is just the start of it.

So of course you can label the US as a democracy but is their system a functional good quality democracy? Perhaps not.

 

We both (all) know that if Clinton would have won the electoral college but Trump won the "most votes" the left would have said too fucking bad that's how the system is set up and the system works so deal with it.

I admit I don't understand the electoral voting system. It seems weird that some votes count for more than others but I guess there's more to it than that?  Maybe this will be the driving factor for the US to reform their electoral college process?

Right now the only danger to public safety is the protestors.   I've noticed theres some serious slut-shamming (if I'm using the term correctly) targeted towards the soon to be first lady too (who's also an immigrant, but shes a white immigrant so it doesn't matter). I guess it's an accepted practice if it's for a good reason? Or attacking women and POCs if they voted for the wrong person?  There's a lot of hypocrisy going on.

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

Right now the only danger to public safety is the protestors. 

Really? Protesting is dangerous? And it is the only danger to public safety?

http://time.com/4569129/racist-anti-semitic-incidents-donald-trump/

Cody87

Paladin1 wrote:

I admit I don't understand the electoral voting system. It seems weird that some votes count for more than others but I guess there's more to it than that?  Maybe this will be the driving factor for the US to reform their electoral college process?

It's very analgous to the Canadian riding system. In fact at the extreme ends the Canadian riding system distorts things even worse, even in a 2 party system, due to the very low population in certain northern ridings. Just as each individual riding in Canada is "winner take all", so too is each state in the U.S. Therefore, someone could theoretically lose the popular vote by a huge margin in both countries (even with only two parties) and still win the election.

In Canada, imagine that a party wins 170 ridings 51-49 and loses the other 168 1-99, and there are only two parties. They would have just slightly over 25% of the popular vote but have a majority government. This could get even more ridiculous as more parties are added, say they instead win 170 ridings 26-25-25-24 in a four party system and the rest 1-33-33-33. Now they would have far less overall votes than any other party but have a majority.

In the U.S., imagine that a candidate wins 270 electoral votes from states that all were won 51-49, and loses the rest 1-99. Very very similar principle.

Of course both of the above would be the absolute most extreme case of losing the popular vote but winning the election, but in from a theoretical perspective it's possible just not plausible.

In context of Trump, he won many states by 3-5% but lost a few really populous states by huge (30%+) margins (California, New York). So it's not too surprising for him to win convincingly in the electoral college and be slightly behind in overall popular vote.

Without making any kind of value statement on whether popular vote would be a better model, I will say the official rationale for states being "winner take all" is because a state that goes, for example, 52-48 in a popular vote model and therefore allocates it's votes roughly split gets very little representation when all is said and done....imagine placing an equal bet on both sides of a sport's match (at 1:2 odds)...there's no real point because what you gain by winning one contest you lose by losing the other. Because the states as a whole want to have as much influence as possible, they assign their electoral college votes winner take all so that they can have the maximum influence.

The practical influence of this is that battleground or "swing" states like Florida, North Caronlina, Ohio, etc that can go either way tend to control the election while solid red or blue states (like Texas or California, resp.), even with a large population, are unlikely to impact the election because even if one party overperforms or underperforms they are unlikely to swing by enough to flip the plurality of votes.

Again, without making any kind of value statement, if the election was done by popular vote the balance of power among the states would completely flip. Battleground states, especially small ones, would suddenly have no influence while high population highly partisan states like California, Texas, and New York would suddenly have enormous importance.

Flipping that last point back to Canada, if we switched to a popular vote model, Quebec would go from probably the most important province (as it can go solid for any party or a big split) to the least importance, half the population of Canada is in southern Ontario so that's where all the parties would focus 100% of their efforts on because whoever could win southern ontario would probably win the whole thing.

In other words, a "winner take all" model such as Canada's ridings and the U.S. electoral college force candidates to try to appeal to the whole country and win each area by a plurality (any plurality will do) instead of just the population centres. A popular vote model would encourage candidates to focus on the population centres and win those by the largest margins possible.

quizzical

so you're arguing how wonderful the electoral college and  FPTP are?

6079_Smith_W

There is a difference between FPTP as a model for choosing a legislature and in a single race like a presidential election.

In the latter, it actually does make more sense than the electoral college. As a system for choosing a legislature in a multi-party system, it is not the best model.

 

Cody87

quizzical wrote:

so you're arguing how wonderful the electoral college and  FPTP are?

...Without making any kind of value statement on whether popular vote would be a better model,

 (snip)

Again, without making any kind of value statement, if the election was done by popular vote...

 

I am explicitly not saying that. 

I merely explained how the electoral college works using a familiar example and showed how they have similar rationale and function in similar ways, and how those functions would be impacted (and how campaigns would change) with a popular vote system.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Right now the only danger to public safety is the protestors. 

Really? Protesting is dangerous? And it is the only danger to public safety?

http://time.com/4569129/racist-anti-semitic-incidents-donald-trump/

 

Good point Smith.  I meant that Trump hasn't started WW3, rounded up people and put them into death camps  or grew horns and wings as prophesized on him winning the election.  

I'm very skepticle about anything I read in the news but lets say that article is 100% accurate for arguments sake.  Had Clinton won would those same people have kept to themselves or would they be protesting and doing the same exact shit they're doing now? I think had Clinton won we've be int he very same place with regards to racially motivated crimes and attacks. The election was a national-level facebook thread gone to shit.

I think the US has a society and respect for others problem. Trump needs to step up and deal with the racist attacks like a leader should.

6079_Smith_W

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Cody -- the comparison to Canada is extremely poor. We have over three hundred ridings. Thay have 50 States and 8 times the population or so.

The delegate count is not the issue as the delegates are not elected individually -- entire states move together. This would be like Canada having only 20 ridings at FPTP instead of 350.

To say the distortion is even worse at the extreme ends indicates you do not understand your own comparison very well. The larger the unit of FPTP the more the distortion. We have it at the riding level and they have it at the State level. In Canada we have three territories and a province that are very tiny. A majority of these would not have any significant balance of power between large provinces. In the US small underpopulated States that have a simlar demographic (mostly white, older and Conservative) can dominate larger population states and there are a lot more than three.

You talk about winning states by large majorities and that distorion but you forget how this is compounded by the other point of the relative weight of those states. You say it is rare for the plurality to be offset but in fact in close elections in the US it is actually likely as we have seen recently.

I cannot figure out the point you are trying to make here but your analysis is very deeply flawed. The issue is greater than you suggest, the Canadian example not at all comparable when you consider the scale of this and the racial impact of this you gloss over (the over-represented states being much more white than the under-represented ones).

And you do not get into the organized and deliberate vote suppression of a scale we have never seen here but acting with these other factors is massive.

You seem to have a partial understanding of swing states but not a full indication that the election is largely irrelevant in most of the United States. In Canada that is much, much, much less the case. The majority of Canada is significant in an election and capable of moving. In the US that is a minority.

josh

Paladin1 wrote:

It wasn't?

People voted for who they wanted to be elected. How is that not democracy?  Are you saying if Clinton would have won then it wouldn't have been democracy either?

 

It was democracy and Clinton got the most votes.  But the system was rigged against her.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Cody -- the comparison to Canada is extremely poor. We have over three hundred ridings. Thay have 50 States and 8 times the population or so.

The delegate count is not the issue as the delegates are not elected individually -- entire states move together. This would be like Canada having only 20 ridings at FPTP instead of 350.

To say the distortion is even worse at the extreme ends indicates you do not understand your own comparison very well. The larger the unit of FPTP the more the distortion. We have it at the riding level and they have it at the State level. In Canada we have three territories and a province that are very tiny. A majority of these would not have any significant balance of power between large provinces. In the US small underpopulated States that have a simlar demographic (mostly white, older and Conservative) can dominate larger population states and there are a lot more than three.

You talk about winning states by large majorities and that distorion but you forget how this is compounded by the other point of the relative weight of those states. You say it is rare for the plurality to be offset but in fact in close elections in the US it is actually likely as we have seen recently.

I cannot figure out the point you are trying to make here but your analysis is very deeply flawed. The issue is greater than you suggest, the Canadian example not at all comparable when you consider the scale of this and the racial impact of this you gloss over (the over-represented states being much more white than the under-represented ones).

And you do not get into the organized and deliberate vote suppression of a scale we have never seen here but acting with these other factors is massive.

You seem to have a partial understanding of swing states but not a full indication that the election is largely irrelevant in most of the United States. In Canada that is much, much, much less the case. The majority of Canada is significant in an election and capable of moving. In the US that is a minority.

Another member of the community said they did not understand how the electoral college works. I explained how it works. It works in a similar way to Canada despite a difference in scale. Obviously the electors do not become MPs either.

WRT the distortion, I believe I said "at the extreme." As in, 3500 voters in Nunavut = 1MP while 150000 in Oshawa = 1MP. The U.S. has no state that gets 40x the representation per person of another state. The smallest states, like Vermont, get at most 3x the representation per voter that larger states do. 

I could respond to more and maybe I will when I'm not on mobile and can easily reference exactly what I said, but did you miss the fact that I was not advocating for either system but just explaining how they work and the implications of each?

 

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

It wasn't?

People voted for who they wanted to be elected. How is that not democracy?  Are you saying if Clinton would have won then it wouldn't have been democracy either?

 

It was democracy and Clinton got the most votes.  But the system was rigged against her.

I agree that rigged is not too hash a term to use for a system that prejudices minorities and regions to allow a minority to win.

The point here is that the electoral college bias is not an accident.

It is true that in Canada we have had a region (the west) that faced an unjustifiable inequitable imblance in seats. However this imbalance is not to the same degree as what they have done in the United States. This imbalance, as far as I know has never resulted in a different government. It has reduced, unfairly, the clout that region has had in federal governments (Alberta and BC) but this is different than twice in a couple decades having a distortion so great as to repudiate the popular vote choice.

Given that the minorities in the US who are under-represented, also face vote suppression, and are as a group underprivileged and underserved by their government AND that this is a political predictable and designed bias, you cannot sue a word less than rigged with any credibility.

Let us also not forget that this election rigging mirrors the primaries which use the same formula plus a requirement for money. Without this, I am not saying Sanders would have won. I am saying there would have been progressive people other than him in the primaries with a real chance of winning -- who were not white.

This is not about how the cookie crumbled. This is how it was baked.

 

Cody87

josh wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

It wasn't?

People voted for who they wanted to be elected. How is that not democracy?  Are you saying if Clinton would have won then it wouldn't have been democracy either?

 

It was democracy and Clinton got the most votes.  But the system was rigged against her.

She lost according to the pre-established rules of the election. Now complaining about the rules of the system is meaningless because the entire campaign, and even the primaries, would have been run differently under a different system. People who two weeks ago boasted about a "blue wall" and now decry the electoral college are hypocrites who want to change the rules because they don't like the outcome, not because of a principled opposition to the system.

I don't like FPTP and I don't like the electoral college, but the election was fought with all parties understanding exactly the rules of engagement. Post hoc complaints that the system is flawed ring hollow.

Not a single Clinton supporter currently complaining about the electoral college would be protesting if she won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. Of course if roles were reversed Trump's supporters would be protesting and their protests would be equally opportunistic.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

Anything for you Smith Kiss

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

josh wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

It wasn't?

People voted for who they wanted to be elected. How is that not democracy?  Are you saying if Clinton would have won then it wouldn't have been democracy either?

 

It was democracy and Clinton got the most votes.  But the system was rigged against her.

She lost according to the pre-established rules of the election. Now complaining about the rules of the system is meaningless because the entire campaign, and even the primaries, would have been run differently under a different system. People who two weeks ago boasted about a "blue wall" and now decry the electoral college are hypocrites who want to change the rules because they don't like the outcome, not because of a principled opposition to the system.

I don't like FPTP and I don't like the electoral college, but the election was fought with all parties understanding exactly the rules of engagement. Post hoc complaints that the system is flawed ring hollow.

Not a single Clinton supporter currently complaining about the electoral college would be protesting if she won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. Of course if roles were reversed Trump's supporters would be protesting and their protests would be equally opportunistic.

False equivilency. Imagine two kids: you give one 3/4 of a candy bar and the other one 1/4. The kid with 1/4 whines. So you say well if I gave the kid that got the 3/4 just half he would whine so it is all equal and fair.

The issue is not that the Clinton side lost -- it is that they did not lose in an unbiased and fair context.

You can say she was not good enough to not only win a fair election but to win one biased against her -- but that is not the half of it. The system was rigged such that only someone like her could be a candidate for her party. The kind of money and privilege to get that far rigged the field such that the population had to choose between two rich and unsavoury people. It was rigged again such that the most unsavoury won in the end even though he got fewer votes.

swallow swallow's picture

Joe Clark lost the popular vote in 1979 but still became PM in a minority government. I think the NDP got power in BC once despite losing the popular vote too (Glen Clark?) Neither system is perfect. The electoral college does seem to be outdated, though - no need for a college to check the overly-democratic urges of the masses and over-rule their votes any more, is there? 

Maryland has apparently voted to give its electoral college votes in future to the winner of the popular vote - but only if all the other 49 states do the same. That would be one way to change things without constitutional amendments and so forth. 

ygtbk

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

josh wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

It wasn't?

People voted for who they wanted to be elected. How is that not democracy?  Are you saying if Clinton would have won then it wouldn't have been democracy either?

 

It was democracy and Clinton got the most votes.  But the system was rigged against her.

She lost according to the pre-established rules of the election. Now complaining about the rules of the system is meaningless because the entire campaign, and even the primaries, would have been run differently under a different system. People who two weeks ago boasted about a "blue wall" and now decry the electoral college are hypocrites who want to change the rules because they don't like the outcome, not because of a principled opposition to the system.

I don't like FPTP and I don't like the electoral college, but the election was fought with all parties understanding exactly the rules of engagement. Post hoc complaints that the system is flawed ring hollow.

Not a single Clinton supporter currently complaining about the electoral college would be protesting if she won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. Of course if roles were reversed Trump's supporters would be protesting and their protests would be equally opportunistic.

False equivilency. Imagine two kids: you give one 3/4 of a candy bar and the other one 1/4. The kid with 1/4 whines. So you say well if I gave the kid that got the 3/4 just half he would whine so it is all equal and fair.

The issue is not that the Clinton side lost -- it is that they did not lose in an unbiased and fair context.

You can say she was not good enough to not only win a fair election but to win one biased against her -- but that is not the half of it. The system was rigged such that only someone like her could be a candidate for her party. The kind of money and privilege to get that far rigged the field such that the population had to choose between two rich and unsavoury people. It was rigged again such that the most unsavoury won in the end even though he got fewer votes.

Bernie probably would have won vs. Trump. And based on leaked emails the DNC was fine with trying to sabotage both Bernie and the more moderate Republicans. It is really hard to not say anything inflammatory about that.

josh

Cody87 wrote:

josh wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

It wasn't?

People voted for who they wanted to be elected. How is that not democracy?  Are you saying if Clinton would have won then it wouldn't have been democracy either?

 

It was democracy and Clinton got the most votes.  But the system was rigged against her.

She lost according to the pre-established rules of the election. Now complaining about the rules of the system is meaningless because the entire campaign, and even the primaries, would have been run differently under a different system. People who two weeks ago boasted about a "blue wall" and now decry the electoral college are hypocrites who want to change the rules because they don't like the outcome, not because of a principled opposition to the system.

I don't like FPTP and I don't like the electoral college, but the election was fought with all parties understanding exactly the rules of engagement. Post hoc complaints that the system is flawed ring hollow.

Not a single Clinton supporter currently complaining about the electoral college would be protesting if she won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. Of course if roles were reversed Trump's supporters would be protesting and their protests would be equally opportunistic.

If Trump had lost the electoral college but won the popular vote, there would have been an uprising. Led by Trump himself, tweeting non-stop. Electoral college members would probably be receiving death threats.

I was being a bit facetious when I said rigged. But for a long time it has been progressives who have wanted to get rid of the electoral college, and the right that has fought to keep it. The right embraces minority rule. Which is why they prefer fewer people voting, super majority requirements, and unrepresentative institutions like the senate.

Rev Pesky

josh wrote:
...If Trump had lost the electoral college but won the popular vote, there would have been an uprising. Led by Trump himself, tweeting non-stop. Electoral college members would probably be receiving death threats...

It's difficult to know for sure what the reaction would have been, but given Trump supporters were already threatening violence if they felt the election had been rigged (i.e., a close result), I don't think it's going to far to say they would be going postal over a popular vote win but a electoral college loss.

Paladin1

Speaking of empathy, or lack there of, did you see how disrespectful Trump was towards the media? They're having a fit. He went out for supper with his family and didn't even inform them!  One reporter called it a clear display of lack of transparency. What audacity from Trump.

Sean in Ottawa

swallow wrote:

Joe Clark lost the popular vote in 1979 but still became PM in a minority government. I think the NDP got power in BC once despite losing the popular vote too (Glen Clark?) Neither system is perfect. The electoral college does seem to be outdated, though - no need for a college to check the overly-democratic urges of the masses and over-rule their votes any more, is there? 

Maryland has apparently voted to give its electoral college votes in future to the winner of the popular vote - but only if all the other 49 states do the same. That would be one way to change things without constitutional amendments and so forth. 

Good point -- one reason why it happened was the west. The Liberals had over 20% of the vote in the 4 western provinces but managed less than 5% of the seats -- 3. They did about the same in the East as the PCs with over a third fewer seats. They had 5% fewer votes in Ontario but barely over half the seats. Seriously bad luck in vote efficiency.

JKR

swallow wrote:

Maryland has apparently voted to give its electoral college votes in future to the winner of the popular vote - but only if all the other 49 states do the same. That would be one way to change things without constitutional amendments and so forth. 

The plan Maryland has joined does not require all 49 states, just enough states to make up more than half the electoral college. The 9 most populace states in the U.S.make up more than half their population so if just these 9 states states agreed to this plan the electoral college would then be decided by majority vote. So it is possible for a minority of the states to get together to implement this idea, anywhere between 9 and 25 states that make up more than half of the U.S. Population.

Pages