Re: Decision 2016
 

. . . and yet another way in which we are under siege. Not just the small "we," but the big "we," Americans who value the bedrock freedoms that make America great. Not great "again," but great now. This is not right.

Re: Decision 2016
 

He's such a ****ing dick. He used the media to help him get elected. He got tons of free advertising and played the media the way he wanted to. When he says stupid ****, they have to report it because it's their job. Then he denounces them to his followers and they buy into the not trusting the media crap. They turn to other sources to get their news, though who the heck knows any truths that come from those sources, but at least it's not the "dirty media".

He's setting up the media even more now, so that whenever they report negative things or have raise questions, his followers are going to naysay that reporting because "the mainstream media is biased against him and always lies."

He continues to show what a thin-skinned little child he is. Sure, his followers will say that he's maverick and treating the media how the need to be treated and he is the only one with the balls to do it. The problem with that is that he is like that with anyone that doesn't praise him and kiss his ring. So because the media doesn't worship him, he calls them liars. What a ****ing hypocrite! He lies all the time and yet has the gall to call others liars. Yet his followers eat that **** up and buy right into it.

What an embarrassment.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Lol. I'm sorry, you guys are upset because the media got its hand slapped after years, and years of biased reporting and it's the end of our "bedrock freedoms"? Give me a break. It's this constant bitching about stuff like this that doesn't matter that causes people like me to dismiss 90% of the complaints people have. It's armageddon fatigue, and the sky is not falling because Donald Trump told the media what he thought of them. Good god get a grip people. Especially coming off the heels of one of the least transparent administrations in recent history.

The media is STILL FREE to do their job, investigate and report, even if Trump has a low opinion of them.

- Raider30

Re: Decision 2016
 

Well he has ditched the media since being President Elect, and doing so as President wouldn't be so cool. There have been times where some big events happened in the world, and having the press corps there for the President to make an statement or address has been a good thing. Of course, perhaps Trump will simply thumb his nose at the media and post his thoughts on the crisis on Twitter or YouTube. Some people will see it I suppose.

Well if they were biased this election cycle, it was because Trump made it so. He got so much free attention because of stuff he said. Plain and simple. He missed plenty of opportunity to let the media to sink its teeth into Clinton because he'd say something stupid and bring the attention back on himself. Apparently that strategy worked, because not only did it get him the White House, but it also saved him a ton of money. But for him to whine about the media that he used for his benefit, it's pretty hypocritical.

So he slapped the media on the wrist. So what, a liar is calling the media a liar. I'm sure those people are sleeping fine.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The President does not get to tell the media how to do its job. Regardless, he made a specific accusation, and it was not a complaint about "bias." He accused them of being "liars."

Now, I know that many people take it on faith that the media have a liberal bias. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that those people would have a tough time finding evidence to support that proposition. Can you? I know you can find evidence that the media aren't *trusted*, but can you find evidence that the media are *biased*?

Regardless, the accusation wasn't one of bias, but was one of "lying." That's a serious accusation, and I think it's appropriate to ask for evidence of it. I can't ask the President Elect, but do *you* have any idea what he's talking about? Can you give examples?

I am aware that Obama's administration was not transparent. He did not sit a bunch of members of the media down and accuse them of being liars, though. He let them do their jobs.

As for the conflicts of interest, they are frightening, too. What you call "Armageddon fatigue" I call "reading the news." He registered eight (six? I forget (edit: eight)) businesses in Saudi Arabia during the campaign, laying the groundwork for major construction there. I hope you would agree that if he has multimillion dollar projects in that country, it might affect diplomatic relations. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm not a child. I've seen the office of the presidency change parties more than once. I'm not nervous because Clinton lost; I'm nervous because of specific things the President Elect is doing. I hope you're right; I hope my concern will amount to nothing.

edit: Today's separate meeting, between Trump and the NYT, was canceled by the President Elect:
He won't even meet with them unless they agree that it's "off the record." If they won't agree to keep it secret, he literally has nothing to say to them. Go ahead and defend him if you want, Raider30, but will you at least agree that these are uncharted waters?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Well said DS.

So now he's discrediting the media, without giving specifics. He already discredited our intelligence agencies and generals, so who's next for him to tell the world that we shouldn't trust?

Re: Decision 2016
 

We shall see how things go. The early reports of president elect Trump are not encouraging me that this is a man who will be upholding the job in a respectable manner.

The report with the media is whatever. It doesn't shock me, but it also isn't something I never thought our president would be doing.

The reports that Trump asked for personal favors from the president of Argentina is troubling. Of course he is denying them and it could be false, so it's hard to say. But the fact Trump and his children continue to hedge on stating that they will hand the business over to a blind trust does leave room for legitimate concerns over some conflicts of interest.

Finally, in some WI news a federal court just announced that the states redistricting at the Republican's hands in 2011 was unconstitutional. I know a few pages back I shared how I felt my state was pretty heavily gerrymandered in that last round of redistricting and now a federal court agreed. Of course nothing will officially change until the next round of elections, and even then we'll see what happens. But it is frustrating to know that I live in a state where gerrymandering has officially occurred now for several years and their won't be any actual punishments over it. The Republicans successfully gerrymandered the state districts so that they have had about 60% of the seats with 48-52% of the vote in recent years.

I really hope that within my lifetime we see reform in the redistricting process so that boundaries are set up by truly neutral parties to ensure that the representation closely matches the actual voters wishes. As is this representative democracy I live in hasn't even been working for me. In 2012 a majority voted for Democrats for the state senate and state assembly, yet the Republicans managed around 60% of the seats. Unfortunately I'm not sure this federal courts decision will actually matter as I'm sure my state's attorney general shall appeal to the supreme court. We'll see if change is actually had for the 2018 and beyond elections.

Re: Decision 2016
 

[quote=Dad_Scaper;2122412] Sure he does, and they can choose to ignore him and do their job anyway. That is sort of the whole point about a free press isn't it? Every President out there has tried to control the media in one way, shape or form, and if they aren't doing it directly their staffers certainly are. Are you really going to argue that?

Here's an article that describes exactly the type of control Presidents attempt to exert on the media.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ms_127907.html

I am curious, exactly what evidence would you accept? Because honestly I have a feeling that anything brought up as a perceived bias by one person can be seen as not biased by someone of the opposite bent. Would Donna Brazile feeding debate questions to Hillary Clinton count as a bias in your mind? I suspect it would for most people.

However, not everything has to be as obvious as that. You know as well as I do, especially given our respective jobs, that omission, or what is not said or asked, is often just as important to the story. Or the way a question is phrased to elicit an answer or box someone into a corner.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ide-it-anymore (sorry for the long link, I don't know how to shorten and caption it with a nifty title like you do)

For the record, I think that a person can be biased and still do their job. Being biased doesn't always mean using that bias to exert influence. Reporters are human, and they have thoughts/feelings/fears/hopes/etc. but it's when personal emotions come into their professional lives that they lose their credibility.

Is it really all that serious? People lie all the time. I don't like it, my kids know that if I catch them lying any punishment for wrongdoing is likely going to be worse than the wrong doing itself. Nonetheless our culture is filled with "lies and the lying liars who tell them" - Al Franken.

This is exactly the kind of 'sky is falling' nonsense I'm talking about. Did the mass media and democrat left have a conniption when Clinton lied about coming under sniper fire? Nah, not really. Bill Clinton lied UNDER OATH WHILE HE WAS A SITTING PRESIDENT. But ya know it was only about sex so no big deal right? The perspective of the person hearing the lie is what determines exactly how much influence a person puts on the lie and how upset that person is about the lie. Donald Trumps perspective is that the media said some things that were wrong, intentionally or otherwise, and thus they lied about him. That's his perspective. We just had a whole section of this thread devoted to people exercising their rights to their perspective by protesting, he's entitled to his.

As people who attempt to deal in truth, because you and I know that lies can have direct impact on peoples lives, I don't think I'm out of line to say that the culture we live in is bothersome to both of us.

Nah, he tried to control the message just like everyone else dealing with the media tries to control the message. Admittedly he was smoother at it than Trump is. But in part that's what people like about Trump, he will directly attack back. I'm not saying it's the smartest thing to do, nor that I agree with it, but it's not the end of times.

Sure, as long as you agree that there was a possible conflict of interest between the Clinton Foundation, it's donors, and Hillary Clinton. It's odd really, I don't recall seeing a lot of hand-wringing about what might happen if Hillary Clinton became president, and how all those foreign donors might have affected her thoughts or diplomatic relations. Maybe it was there and I just missed it, but it doesn't seem like it was a huge deal. I wonder if that's because the appearance of impropriety is so enmeshed with the Clinton's that people just tune it out, a version of 'armageddon fatigue' maybe?(that's probably a philosophical question for another time though)

No you are not and it was not my intent to imply such. My frustration stems from the fact that I believe there are much more important things our country should be worrying about than if Trump scolded a bunch of media members who honestly run a business and are likely more worried about their ratings, subscriptions, income, and personal agendas than they are about educating the public with impartial facts about the various issues confronting the county. Which is why most of America probably knows that Kanye West was hospitalized but people can't name the senators from their state.

- Raider30

Re: Decision 2016
 

I think, for me, the thing that gives me the most issue taking (some) liberal thinkers and common thoughts seriously is how seriously they take themselves. Do I think that Trump is going to be a good president? Not really. Am I alarmed by the moves Trump is making? Yes, I am. Am I going to freak out over it and exaggerate everything he does into a national disaster? No, because I know that in four years, we'll get the chance to remove him. Short term, Trump might cause trouble for the country. Long term, he's just gonna be another president. He might replace Nixon as the worst president, but the country survived Nixon fine, and we'll survive Trump fine.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You guys aren't taking issue with my facts, just my level of alarm. That's cool. Like I said, as far as that goes, I hope you're right.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Again, you act like this is something new. Reporters meet with politicians all the time in an off the record capacity. Trump's tweet says it was the NYT who tried to change the terms of the meeting, the NYT quote you listed above says it was Trump. And as a small point of fact the article you linked also has this quote from the NYT:

This quote indicates that the original plan WAS in fact an off the record session and that Trump's tweet was correct and the NYT statement was inaccurate.

Uncharted waters for a politician wanting to talk off the record or control the message? Ugh...stop please, I'm literally begging you to stop taking every little scrap of nonsense that comes out and turning it into a mountain. Remember the emails that came out about the Clinton campaign having 'veto' power over an NYT article? Here's a nice little article that talks all about it, one that clearly states numerous times that off the record talks go on all the time. It's nothing new, and certainly nothing uncharted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/ma...racy.html?_r=0

- Raider30

Re: Decision 2016
 

That's a pretty fair statement, however, the level of alarm is part of the problem, IMO. It's kind of a 'boy who cried wolf' or 'sky is falling' attitude that I honestly believe does more harm than good. Hence, my comment about 'armageddon fatigue'.

When everything is a crisis then nothing is a crisis.

- Raider30

Re: Decision 2016
 

But that's what I said above: I've seen transitions in administrations before. This one is different, for all the reasons I listed above. He has complained about the New York Times and other media outlets repeatedly since winning the election, without once acknowledging and decrying the hate crimes being committed in his name across the country. Yes, I saw the 60 Minutes bit. He did not acknowledge the fact that there are hate crimes being committed, or that they are being committed in his name. And the "hail Trump" convention has been since then, and he was quiet about that.

He's doing it differently, and the way he's doing it *should* be alarming to some people. If it's not alarming to everybody, that's cool. Just stay alert. But *some* people should be troubled by his deep (and largely unknown) financial dealings with foreign powers. It's ok to be troubled.

I'm not sitting here panicking or anything. I've slept better since the election than I did before it, because at least the outcome is known. As Swamper said, he could be the worst ever. Well, it wasn't my choice, but it was a choice made. Now I will hope that he is also correct that we will survive him just fine.

I'm pointing out reasons to be concerned. You are welcome to feel the same, or not feel the same, and point out where you think I'm wrong, as you have. Nothing wrong with conversation.

We're going in circles on your "Armageddon fatigue" line. I am aware of the parable of the boy who cried wolf. On the other hand, unlike the boy who cried wolf, I'm not trying to deceive anybody. I'm only pointing out the incidents that seem serious. It just so happens that that's been most days this week. :)

I get what you're saying. I have friends who seem to be upset every day. I tell them to pace themselves because it's going to be 4 years of this stuff. It's better to flag the things without expressing outrage, I think. So I will try to do that. Or I will just keep my mouth shut.

I think it's pretty likely that Swamper's speculation that he will be the worst President ever is well-founded. But he is where he is, and that's out of my hands. "Until the day God deigns to reveal the future to man, the sum of all human wisdom will be contained in these two words: 'wait' and 'hope.'" ~ Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Just taking a moment to look at this quickly.

There's a big difference between these two cases. First off the Clinton foundation is a non profit corporation dedicated to philanthropic efforts around the world. Hillary Clinton was, but no longer is, a board member for the organization. Her husband and daughter still are I believe partially in charge of the organization. But none of them have ever received any amount of money from the foundation. The foundation has been given very high ratings from organizations who check to ensure that a charity actually funnels a healthy percentage of its funds to philanthropic efforts instead of the pocketbooks of those running it. All around the Clitnon Foundation by any objective sense is not trying to earn money to make people rich but is actually a charitable organization.

Trump on the other hand runs a business empire that gives him enormous profit. (Exactly how much is quite unknown, but very conservatively we are in the millions of dollars range per year). He stands to actually make personal profit from his business dealings that will benefit him in the long term, far after he is out of the office of the presidency. Furthermore, he is still very much in charge of and active in his business's dealings.

Therefore a president Clinton who isn't a board member of her charitable foundation would have what conflicts of interest? I suppose her husband and daughter could still communicate with her and then she could attempt to get funds for her organization, but it wouldn't even personally benefit her.

President Trump on the other hand has legitimate conflicts of interest. He stands to make significant personal gains that may conflict with the interests of his constituents. His job is to make decisions that will benefit Americans, yet at times he may have a conflict of interest where he would stand to personally benefit. This is a legitimate conflict of interest that we have a right to be concerned about, which is why president Trump should be handing over his business empire to a blind trust for the next 4 or 8 years while he is supposed to be doing his job as president. The fact that he and his children do not seem to understand why this is so is troubling.

For these reasons this is why I'm concerned about the conflict of interest that president Trump has and why nobody has really been talking about any conflict of interests for Hillary Clinton. It just wasn't a concern for Clinton mostly due to her not having anything to personally gain through her foundations, therefore no conflict of interest would emerge. For President Trump it very much is still a concern.

Not a sky is falling type concern either. In most things it probably won't matter. But it still is troubling to me that he doesn't seem concerned by it as it shows a lack of judgement and decision making that I think does not bode well for his time in office.

Re: Decision 2016
 

What do y'all think about the Democrat's trying to decide how to respond to the Trump presidency? Unless I'm mistaken, it seems like there's two train of thoughts: either don't work with Trump on anything, or just work with him on things they agree on and obstruct everything else. What do y'all think the right choice is?

Re: Decision 2016
 

It's interest, btw, Raider, that you bring up the old Clinton Foundation argument. After all, there *would* be handwringing if she had won and had private meetings with major international donors; there *would* be handwringing if she had won and stayed on the board and routinely dealt with foreign powers who were giving to her Foundation. And that business is a charitable one, with open books! He's running a vast business with unknown ties to foreign powers, both known and unknown.

You are guessing that Clinton might have immediately embroiled herself in a conflict of interest if she'd won. I'm guessing not, but it doesn't matter, because we'll never get to know. She didn't win; he won. Now he has to deal with a real conflict of interest problem. But hey! As you guys say, it's now out of my hands.

edit: @Swamper Surely there is temptation to be outrageously obstructionist. The refusal to move on a nominee to the Supreme Court defied the Senate's constitutional obligation, and set a new standard for intransigence in (what used to be) the more genteel chamber. But they won't get to do much, other than try to keep the important things in the news. Which is an important service, notwithstanding the complaints about the media. We'll see what happens.

As to the media, Raider, try me. Find some source showing me a liberal bias. Some academic paper somewhere, or something. You don't have to if you don't want to; we've moved on in the conversation. But it's something that some people seem to take for granted, and I just want to see some evidence. I am saying that that particular emperor has no clothes, and I await evidence to the contrary.

As for the one link you posted, an opinion piece complaining about 11 negative pieces against Trump vs. none against Clinton in a one or two day period, that's not evidence about anything other than what the news was that day. There was a *mountain* of coverage of Clinton's emails, the writer's narrow complaint notwithstanding. If Trump had stories in the preceding week involving (1) groping women, (2) declining to release his taxes, (3) behaving like a thin-skinned narcissist on Twitter, and so on, should the newspaper kill all those stories, just because Clinton didn't have as many negative items in the previous week? No. The news is the news. It should be independent from politics, and what your article suggests - that the political implications of news should be weighed before reporting - is precisely what I think we all agree should not be the case.

So you're right, I don't accept that link. Not because of its conclusion, but because of its reasoning. Let me see something with some kind of analysis based on data or a study or something. I genuinely don't know if it's out there, and I challenge you (or anyone wishing to press the point) that your premise that the news has a liberal bias is unsupported. Surprise me.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I just want them to try and govern well. For the most part that means they should try and work with the Republicans to pass legislation that will help the country out.

Specifically, I wan them to block any attempts to repeal Obamacare outright. But I absolutely want the democrats to work with the republicans on passing some simple fixes to that bill. It will not take that much effort to fix the problems that have arose thus far. I'm not at all opposed to having the Democrats compromise and give the Republicans some real leeway to edit and replace parts of that bill either. Anything that just actually helps people get affordable health care. That's what will actually help people.

For supreme court justices and other appointments I want them to be fair. Obviously Trump will try appointing some fairly conservative people. I want the Democrats to review those people and make sure they are qualified. Block them if they aren't, but otherwise appoint them.

Basically I just want them to actually govern with the Republicans. I don't want to see them become the party of obstructionism that the Republicans have been for the past few years. I don't want to see the government get shut down or a refusal to appoint someone until the next election. I don't want these things to be the new normal in the way our government works.

If this means the Republicans actually wind up governing well and passing legislation that helps people and makes things better, and the Republicans stay in power, well great. Because things are apparently getting better. If the Republicans try their best to pass some good legislation and it just doesn't work well, fine then hopefully the voters will speak up in the 2018 midterms.

I don't want to see continued hyper partisanship where the minority leaders of the house and senate outright say their number one goal is to stop the president's agenda. I thought it was awful when the Republicans said and did that during the Obama era, I would find it equally awful for the democrats to do that during the Trump era. We have to be the change we want to see in the world and all that.

So that's what I'd hope for. We shall see what happens.

Re: Decision 2016
 

A concern I would have is that people will be so mistrusing of the mainstream media, that they will be relying on news created/reported from people writing it from their basement with no journalistic experience or ethics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...?tid=a_inl-amp

Re: Decision 2016
 

Well, I guess people churning out completely fake news is a problem, but completely outlawing that causes way worse problems. People need to use just a little bit of a critical thinking when they read.

I don't think "fake news" was a widespread enough problem to merit any real concern. Misleading interpretations of news, from mainstream and alt media, are way worse.

Re: Decision 2016
 

If you're on Facebook, vegie, I suspect you don't get it on your feed.

http://l2.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/65...44d9a6f443da38

You and I might not be circulating fake news, but *somebody* is. Lots of somebodies, even.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I have seen enough crap circulated on my Facebook page because some friends either "share" or "like" a story, meme or whatever. So I have seen several fake stories for sure. I will research them and find out that it was bogus. Heck, I've even seen my friend say, "I don't know if this is real or not, but I wouldn't doubt it."

So stories are getting spread around like crazy through all sorts of social media outlets and because it's "on the Internet", a lot of people just believe it and don't bother to do any research, especially if the story kind of lines up with their biases.

I would say that it works both ways and people on both the left and right end up perpetrating or being victims of it.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I've debunked so many incorrect facebook shares in the last 6 months. It's been about an even split of debunking incorrect liberal and conservative stories for me, but then, I have a lot more liberal friends on facebook so what I see is skewed.

All of this, all of this.

The relative level of concern about the Clinton Foundation over the course of the campaign was really pretty amazing. All people ever really came up with was that the access the donors had to the Clintons "raised concerns", despite no credible evidence of any sort of quid pro quo on any issue. And really, the idea that giving money to a highly rated charity was a means of bribery was always a bit of a stretch.

Meanwhile, Trump has obvious and actual meaningful conflicts of interest. The true extent is hard to know because his financials are more opaque than any president in modern history.

And then there's the Trump Foundation, which actually admitted to self-dealing. Then there's the Pam Bondi scandal, where the Trump Charitable foundation was caught making a donation to the campaign fund of the attorney general of Florida while she was considering whether to join a lawsuit against Trump university. Then they tried to cover it up. They ended up admitting wrongdoing and paying a fine.

This is a more clear case of corruption than anything ever raised about Hillary Clinton, by a country mile. And it got, what, 1% of the coverage of "troubling" donations to the Clinton Foundation? But yeah, the media was really in the tank for Hillary. :roll:

Re: Decision 2016
 

Statistically, the fake news stories - stories invented by people trying to get clicks, as opposed to misunderstandings or misinterpretation of real news - were pro-Trump. Read this link, demonstrating the point, from the notoriously political magaizine "PC World." Which, I assure you, does not stand for "politically correct."

I was reflecting again on the accusation of "armageddon fatigue," and I realized that it was comical, in a way. After all, I've read about non-scandals from Travelgate through Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation. It's been a steady stream of almost-scandals, as dok just explained above, coming from the other direction. Now I point out *real* scandals - instead of a personal foundation that could, theoretically be corrupt, though there's no demonstration that it is, we have a real corrupt foundation, being used for things like paying off politicans and personal debts - I'm the one who is perpetrating an armageddon fatigue.

Well, like I said, I'm feeling pretty calm. And nobody *here* has been noisemaking about the non-scandals from the right, so I'm not pointing fingers. But it's interesting.

And now I move on.

Re: Decision 2016
 

So I know I commented on this right when it happened, but I just wanted to follow up on it as a lesson to everyone in the future. Millions of ballots get counted in the days and weeks after an election. Counting raw votes or trying to judge turnout the day after an election is folly.

Clinton now has over 2 million more votes than Trump and has a little over 64 million votes. The discussion about exactly what did occur will be sure to continue as more data comes in and more time is had to break down the results, but I think this is just a useful point to remember that vote counting isn't an instantaneous thing.


As for the fact that Clinton is now by up over 2 million votes and has around a 1.5 percentage points lead over Trump....well that does continue to frustrate me. I understand the electoral college is how things work in our country and that Trump is the legitimate president....

but I think it's ridiculous that in a representative democracy the person with less votes actually wins. No other election in our country works like that. If Senator Johnson gets the most total votes he wins the election. We don't like decide who won each of the 72 counties and award them points based on those county's populations to determine who won. We just count the vote.

I realize there probably is no real way that this system changes and that it is a rare occurrence that the person who wins the popular vote doesn't win the electoral college, but still. It just seems positively silly to me to say that my vote (in WI) is much more meaningful than anyone's vote in California, while a person in say Ohio has their vote matter even more. All our votes should be equal--and the only way to do that is to just make it a straight out popular vote. Else we continue to essentially say certain Americans votes are meaningful and important while the rest are not.

Unfortunately I just do not know a way to get this all changed...but it just seems silly to me that it is still around.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The only real way the EC could change, and it's a legitimate path, is the national popular vote interstate compact. It's an agreement that once 270 EVs worth of states have joined the compact, ALL of those states will cast their electors for the popular vote winner. Because states have the right to allocate their electors essentially however they want, it's an effective end-around on the system without a constitutional amendment.

So far I think the compact sits a touch under 170 EVs. It wouldn't surprise me if it gets to above 180 or even close to 200 in the coming years. However, at the moment it's all deep blue states that have passed the law, and in order to move it's going to need some red or swing states to get in the game.

Unfortunately, the only way that's likely to happen is if a Democrat wins the white house while losing the popular vote. The reality is that this is just as likely as a Republican doing the same. Despite what people think, the EC does not systematically favor Republicans. It seems that way because the two times we've had a popular vote/EC split in our lifetimes have favored Republicans. What people don't realize is that the EC favored Democrats in 2004, 2008, and 2012. We just didn't notice because the elections weren't close enough to produce a split. The closest of the three was 2004, and if Kerry had done just a bit better overall we would have had the bizarre experience of back-to-back elections being won by the popular vote loser.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Huh, I hadn't actually seen that ever somehow.

That is a cool idea that totally could work by getting around the need for a constitutional amendment which is basically impossible. Getting 270 EVs worth of states however....that is somewhat possible.

Unfortunately I suspect you are right--that would probably require a Democrat to get into the white house without having the popular vote, probably within the next few decades. I don't want more elections where the popular vote loser actually wins, but if it fixed the system for the future I guess that at least would be cool. I'd love if that pact just got to the 270 EV's it needs, but alas. Who knows if/when that would ever happen. But I'll be sure to vote for any WI politician that says they will join in. I'd love to see that come to pass in the next few years.

Anyhow thanks for pointing that stuff out.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Candidates campaign around the electoral college and would campaign differently around the popular vote. There's a lot of disenfranchised people in Texas, California, Illinois and other states that can't possibly be swung, and candidates would campaign more in their core states to increase turnout to higher levels there. I'm not saying that Clinton would not have won if popular vote was the decider, but we can't know from the results where we used the Electoral College. This is like in Heroscape where you beat someone in Capture the Flag and they tell you they would have won in a Kill 'Em All since you had less figures left at the end.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I absolutely agree that the landscape changes slightly in how people campaign and what they campaign for in a different system and it could lead to different results.

But I'm not sour just because Clinton lost. I'm sour because our system continues to value the votes of some voters above others. I think that should change so that every vote matters the same for electing our president.

I guess my main gripe is just that I am convinced there is no benefit to having the electoral college. I understand the arguments for keeping it, but none of them hold up in my opinion. We'd be better off switching to popular vote wins.

Ultimately I just think that simple change would lead to a democracy where the voices of more people matters and we don't get distorted views where only a small fraction of states and voters actually are heard from or listened to. It's not hugely important that this actually get done, but it just seems like one of those simple things that could easily be changed and for the most part has broad support. (Polls seem to suggest at least 70% of voters agree the electoral college should be removed.)

Re: Decision 2016
 

I think there is a benefit for the electoral college: the original pretenses under which it was set up. To make sure that the president is elected by the same mix of popular and per state representation that Congress has. It's not like the popular vote being different from the Electoral College is a "miss", that means that more states went Trump and when the system was set up, states' rights mattered a lot. I continue to believe the Electoral College's allocation of voting power is fine, and the problem is the all-or-nothing aspect of swing states. But there's no way to force states to allocate proportionally, and really they are incentivized not to, since it gets candidates to campaign there harder if they don't.

I think you can make the argument that states' rights are not as important now as they were when the electoral college was set up, and that we don't need the equal representation per state anymore. I don't see that argument against the electoral college though, I see the claims that the system values some voters above others (which is true, and intentional). If the system were changed, then candidates would campaign more in high population areas, the system would value the opinions of some over others. It's not a simple problem or a simple solution.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Except I am pretty sure it is. The problem as I see it is that a very small subset of voters and states are all that matters in our national elections with how the system is set up.

The solution is very easy--make every person's vote count the same by just focusing on the popular vote. As I pointed out that is how every other election in the country works. We don't elect mayors by focusing on each of the cities numerous wards and allocating points based on votes to then choose a mayor. We don't focus on counties or districts when electing senators (although direct election of senators is something that came later via 17th amendment, so it's not like we haven't had reform on how we elect people in this country in the past anyhow).

You are correct that this probably leads campaigns to focus on higher population areas. However this isn't exactly a new phenomenon--even now candidates and campaigns spend more time in cities, just cities focused in certain states. Still I don't see how this is possibly a bad thing as it would mean candidate and campaigns would be listening and focusing on the voices of more people. As for concerns that rural voters would no longer have a voice or be listened to, well their votes matter just the same as others, so you'd expect campaigns would still figure a way to speak to them and listen to their issues.

In general I just would expect that candidates and campaigns would do a better job of speaking to everyone and spending time everywhere. I think that would be a significant improvement on the problem that I see--that right now only a small subset of voters actually determine the outcome of elections.

Re: Decision 2016
 

We do elect senators, who represent the individual states in deciding laws, by focusing on each of the numerous states and giving them equal points. The electoral college is not without precedent. It is an intentional a mix of both halves of Congress, because that is who the president will be working with.

I don't think it's a "small subset" of voters that determine elections. Obviously the massive amounts of strongly blue or red people in California or Texas are being heard and those voters are still "determining" an election even if many of their votes are already decided. I would not say that Clinton or Trump made specific promises to appeal to voters in swing states, so the representation from all states was still equal, even if the outcome was decided by the swing states.

The US is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Directly electing the president removes some of the protections for the voices of the minority that a republic allows for.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The electoral college is an interesting perception problem. Because some states reliably vote certain ways, they are considered known quantities and are basically ignored. Swing states, even though they largely award fewer electoral votes, "decide" elections since their outcome wasn't known in advance. In effect states can be rewarded with increased political attention for being split between the two major parties.

The primary system adds a wrinkle where states (particularly the big ones) can decide who is running for these major parties, but even that is a little skewed by the order of voting for the states. Ohio, for instance, gets a ton of political attention during that time for the fact that it votes first.

Re: Decision 2016
 

While I agree that at its founding it was an intentional mix of the house and the senate to have a mix of the state based and population based power in the country. But no matter what, this does not really matter to me why it was founded or what the original intent was--my point remains that it does not benefit the country or its people.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016

As the article even point out my republican Governor Scott Walker stated "The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president. Twelve states are." He was absolutely right. It is almost always that way.

If you watch election coverage on election night, the moment polls close in some states, news networks like CNN are able to instantly call them. Poll close in Texas? Give those electoral votes to the Republican. Oh New York closed? Hand those to the Democrat. Everyone knows it. Those voters have no real sway.

So instead the entire battle is in the battleground states. The candidates spend almost all their time in those states, talking to and wooing those voters. If you don't think that has an impact on their stances or how they are presenting themselves....well I'd challenge that.

In many small and large ways this influences events. Vice Presidents are often chosen from battleground states in the expectation that they can help their candidate win that state. There is some evidence that battleground states tend to receive more federal aid and exemptions, in essence they get slightly preferential treatment.

Even if you don't think this is happening, the fact that the incentives line up for that type of stuff I think should be troubling.

This I think is just silly though. First off we could directly elect the president and still be a democratic republic, so I don't quite see what the point of bringing that up is.

Next off, I think it does not follow that we are protecting the voices of the minority through the electoral college. I'd really like to hear you defend this. The electoral college disproportionately makes some American's votes mean more than others. You seem to be suggesting that this in some way helps protect the voices of a minority--but the minority in this case just seems to be the people in swing states, which isn't in any way a minority that needs protecting (compared to say latinos or LGBT people).

Largely most of your arguments thus far seem to be explaining to me why we do have the Electoral College, but there has been precious little explaining what good the electoral college does in the present day.

I continue to argue it makes only a few state's voters relevant in determining the president which is bad as a large number of Americans effectively do not matter when electing the president, meaning they do not have a say in who their leader is.

I think that the excessive focus on swing states (which directly follows from the incentives created by the electoral college) creates an arena where swing states get disproportionate attention to their votes and the plight of those voters. It may also give them more federal aid and exemptions as politicians and parties try to court favor there (as they have incentive to do so over other states).

I have not seen any salient argument as to what benefit the electoral college provides that justifies the continued issues it presents.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The reason I keep explaining the electoral college's existence is because you haven't given satisfying reasons for why things have changed enough justify changing it.

I don't care what republican governor Scott Walker said, I'm not him or a republican. The idea that 12 states decide the election is just wrong, they may what changes the outcome, but they aren't the only thing that matters. The voices of other nonswing states are just strongly tilted in one direction. The same thing would happen if you did a national popular vote, with "independents" deciding the election. That doesn't mean that it's an advantage to be an independent, it just means that people who's votes are more uncertain will inherently be the focus of political talk. Uncertainty does not imply importance, those people who will certainly vote for someone are equally important in their vote.

The minority is a political opinion and voices, a geographic difference in what should happen in the country. If you live in a different area than the majority of the population, then you may have different ideas on what should happen. A switch to pure popular vote could limit their voices.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Let's remember that the real reason the EC exists is so that slave states could get some credit for their slaves. The "3/5 compromise" said that slaves could count for 3/5 of a person for the purposes of allocating electors. But since they didn't want the slaves to, you know, actually vote, they needed a layer of abstraction. Hence, the electoral college was born.

Everything else justifying the EC's existence is just post-hoc rationalization bull****. It doesn't protect rural voters or regional interests or any of that with any kind of reliability. It's just erratic and serves to effectively disenfranchise huge numbers of voters.

Re: Decision 2016
 

We may have fundamentally different ideas about how much the argument "well it's always been that way" holds sway in what we should do today. I personally could care less about why it used to be--I care purely for what would be best now.

Therefore I see zero reason to even debate or argue what factors have changed that should justify changing it. I will however continue to point out the problems I see (a small fraction of voters being the only ones who matter).

There is something very different here, this analogy doesn't work. The key reason it fails is because the 538 electoral votes must be cast, where every eligible voter does not. Suppose somehow California got every one of its citizens to vote this year and the margin remained the same. Clinton would have won a majority of all voters, would have had more votes than the next candidate by more than 5 million votes, and yet Trump would still actually win the election.

By abolishing the electoral college it makes every single voter matter. If some state can manage to get a huge turnout and is overwhelmingly full of democrats or republicans it will matter. The election will not simply be swaying the independents--it will very much be about getting every single person mobilized to vote. How many times do you hear or see people in California or Oregon or New York makes statements about how their vote doesn't really matter? Well they are right--they don't need to go vote as they aren't going to change the outcome of their state. We all know that. But go to a national popular vote and turning out these people becomes quite important. The voices of all Americans will matter, not just a fight for independents. Every single voter will matter.

Finally, 12 states do decide the election. That's why the campaigns spend all their time there. I suspect you agree campaigns should focus their time on only those states that are actually competitive. So I don't get why you are pushing back on the claim that only 12 states actually matter. (The 12 is somewhat debatable, but it's clearly between around 6-15). I suspect your point is simply that winning all 12 swing states isn't enough if you don't also manage to win the deep blue or deep red states you need to, but the point is that those things are a virtual given. There is a reason those results are known. Currently the fight for the presidency goes through a handful of battleground states and those voters are the only ones who truly are making a choice. A person in California is not going to impact the election. The chances their vote actually sways the outcome is minuscule. The chances a voter in Ohio swings the election is still small, but it is literally millions of times more likely than that voter in California.

I think that is a real problem for a Representative democracy. There is no good reason that people living in Ohio should have that much more sway over the outcome of the election than people in California. But that is undoubtedly how it is.


And rightly so. There is no good reason why we should artificially value the opinions of some voters over the opinions of the others in this matter. I agree that a switch to a pure popular vote will limit the influence that some voters currently have, but a switch to a purely popular vote will mean that every single persons opinion and voice matters equally.

You still have not presented a single good reason it should be otherwise. I agree that switching will make some voters lose sway, but only so that they become equal to all other voters.

Personal Experience
 

The correct answer is many, many, many, many times. If I had a nickel for how many times I heard fellow Oregonians say this, I'd have a lot of nickels. I mean if the argument is it gives more rural voters a say, then I guess the rural voters of Oregon, California, and Washington don't matter? (Admittedly, here in Oregon there is talk about how the entire eastern part of the state is drowned out by the needs of Portland.) I think it's worth discussing, but there is a lot more land out east. It's just much less densely populated.

~Dysole, dealing with demographics

Re: Decision 2016
 

The rural argument, like so many others, is post-hoc and bull****. You know who has the second-most electors per voter? The 100% urban District of Columbia, that's who.

Urban population percentage is negatively correlated with ratio of EVs to population, but not by much. And of course, this ignores that the ratio of EVs to population has almost no correlation to actual voting power. The most powerful voters in 2016 were in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, not Wyoming or D.C. or Vermont.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Voter power and electoral power are two different things. Voter power is lowered if a state has more uniform political views and raised if the outcome is uncertain.

I am in agreement that the swinging of winner-take-all for a state is bad. Eliminating that gets rid of basically every voter power issue while still ensuring equal representation for states

Re: Decision 2016
 

Can you please explain what solution you would like to see then?

Because you seem to mostly agree with me on the problems so I have a difficult time understanding why you are arriving at some different conclusion as to what the solution is. You seem to be advocating for some hybrid system that perpetuates the problems I am laying out.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I think a push for proportional allocation by state, with current distribution of electoral votes maintained, would be fine. I don't see how that perpetuates the problems. You seem to be a weird spot where you only look at the bad consequences of the electoral college and the positives of a pure popular vote, which I guess is easier given that we only have the electoral college elections as a reference. Anyway, I think where we differ is that I'd rather have the current system than a pure popular vote

Re: Decision 2016
 

I agree with vegi.

I do not want to rely on popular vote, as the President would be chosen by only a few states with the highest populations. States like California. New York, etc. Hell, there wouldn't likely ever be a republican elected again.

I'm not positive that I have a complete handle on the workings of it all but the EC system is supposed to insure that all the states pick our President, not all the people. We are the United States of America after all, not the United People.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The two America's of 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...rds=AudDevGate

Re: Decision 2016
 

Not sure why Ivanka is there

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/...eign-dignitary

Re: Decision 2016
 

The electoral college is very important. I don't want New York, California and Texas picking all our presidents.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The concept that each person's vote should count the same is not so strange.

More on fake news: We're being manipulated by a foreign power. Link.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I've been lurking on this thread mostly, but wanted to pipe in with the one story that concerned me (but not enough not to support Hillary) about the Clinton foundation.

There was an episode of last week tonight that brought up a story I had not heard about and I later looked up more stories to support it. If you want to know more I'll edit a link to the episode in (just type in last week tonight raisins and you should get it).

Cliff notes version. Under Secretary of State Hilary Clinton the US sold a Uranium mine to a company in Russia. So what? Apparently her foundation around that time received money from a Russian source that had a vested interest in the deal. (it was a while since I saw it so watch the video for more accuracy)

Concerning? Yes.
Altogether wrong? No.


Again for anyone who wants to know this is what concerned me. Does it prove wrongdoing? No, not enough for me not to support her, but it still is something to look at.
EDIT: Link to show:
Hmmm was not expecting to put the video in like that...

Re: Decision 2016
 

Thoughts on the vote recounts that are being pursued?