The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Eternal_Freedom]

On the topic of winning the EC vote but losing the popular vote, I recall a youtube video that explained how it's possible to win the EC with only ~22% of the popular vote, but it does require winning the 15 or so smallest states by exactly one vote.

[General Zod]

The best argument I know in favor of the electoral college is that there are large parts of the country which are predominantly rural, and rural voters are a small enough and divided enough minority that they would be largely ignored without disproportionate electoral votes. However, it is one of the federal responsibilities to be the government of the United States, not just the "united cities and suburbs," so the disproportionate weighting is therefore a form of compensation.

I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's the best I've heard.

It's not a very good argument.

[Simon_Jester]

On the topic of winning the EC vote but losing the popular vote, I recall a youtube video that explained how it's possible to win the EC with only ~22% of the popular vote, but it does require winning the 15 or so smallest states by exactly one vote.

It also requires winning 100% majorities in literally every other state. So in other words it's a comically contrived scenario- you'd have to somehow win narrow majorities in a bunch of states as diverse as Wyoming, Rhode Island, Arkansas, Delaware, Vermont, and Hawaii, while simultaneously being massively unpopular in ALL of a group of states as diverse as California, New York, Texas, and Florida.

No one has ever won the presidency on a strategy that didn't try to win a national majority of the popular vote, and no one ever will. It would only work in an Archinist scenario.

It's not a very good argument.

While effectively tripling the voting power of people in the rural states is excessive, I will note that these rural areas would have effectively no representation without something like the Senate and the Electoral College. As a result, they would be entirely left to rot. If a state like Wyoming didn't have senators it would probably just decay into howling wilderness as "flyover country."

And that's not necessarily in the interests of the nation as a whole. Regions and cultures matter, not just individuals.

As it stands, the electoral college comes very close to representing the popular vote in statistical terms, with popular landslides resulting in electoral landslides, and closely contested popular votes resulting in closely contested electoral votes. The only time in living memory that the popular and electoral votes went in different directions was during precisely one such closely contested election, during which it would have been something of a nightmare to even calculate the overall nationwide popular vote.

[General Zod]

The electoral college would be less of a problem if it wasn't a winner take all system. I think if we did away with that one aspect and kept everything else it would be far more representational.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly I favor a proportional representation system in the Electoral College myself.

Nebraska and Maine's system is less good but has some advantages of its own.

[Iroscato]

Would a coalition government work within the US system? Considering there are now 4 main parties (obviously, the Dems and Reps get as close as dammit to all the votes, but this is just a hypothetical).

[Eternal_Freedom]

On the topic of winning the EC vote but losing the popular vote, I recall a youtube video that explained how it's possible to win the EC with only ~22% of the popular vote, but it does require winning the 15 or so smallest states by exactly one vote.

It also requires winning 100% majorities in literally every other state. So in other words it's a comically contrived scenario- you'd have to somehow win narrow majorities in a bunch of states as diverse as Wyoming, Rhode Island, Arkansas, Delaware, Vermont, and Hawaii, while simultaneously being massively unpopular in ALL of a group of states as diverse as California, New York, Texas, and Florida.

No one has ever won the presidency on a strategy that didn't try to win a national majority of the popular vote, and no one ever will. It would only work in an Archinist scenario.

Of course it's an absurdly contrived scenario, that's kind of the point, to show how the EC system does not correlate exactly with popular vote. It's a useful example for non-US people who are unfamiliar with the system (as I was when I came across it).

[Simon_Jester]

Would a coalition government work within the US system? Considering there are now 4 main parties (obviously, the Dems and Reps get as close as dammit to all the votes, but this is just a hypothetical).

I'm sure a de facto coalition government could exist in Congress if a minor party managed to get a small number of people into the legislature. However, there's no way to share the presidency.

[Q99]

Would a coalition government work within the US system? Considering there are now 4 main parties (obviously, the Dems and Reps get as close as dammit to all the votes, but this is just a hypothetical).

There's two parties that are themselves coalitions, and two sideshows mostly made up of those who don't like to work with others.

Split the US system into the six biggest political factions and the libertarians might make it on, the greens definitely wouldn't, or even close, ranking below a number of regional state parties.

(On the list would include the Socialists, who thanks to Bernie have one major national level person.)

[Elfdart]

I am watching the debate.

How the FUCK is this guy considered to be a serious political candidate? WTF. He can't even articulate a proper thought. Jesus.

He isn't. He's a bad joke that has gotten way out of hand. If he were running against a less shitty opponent, you'd be looking at an LBJ 1964 65-35 landslide, complete with the Dems winning both houses in the bargain. As for his demeanor, I think Howard Dean M.D. might be on to something when he suggests that contrary to the old commercial jingle for soda pop, things don't always go better with coke.

[Q99]

It's not Hillary that is why Trump is doing well- remember he beat the Republicans too.

It's that on the right side of the nation there is a large angry continent who hate what they view as establishment politics (and often have, shall we say, certain views on race) and want a weapon more than they want a candidate.

[Lord Insanity]

On the Electoral College from this thread from almost three years ago.

A 1996 Discover magazine article (republished in 2004) by physicist Alan Natapoff.
Edit: Article was written by Will Hively refering to the work of Alan Natapoff
Math Against Tyranny

The more Natapoff looked into the nitty-gritty of real elections, the more parallels he found with another American institution that stirs up wild passions in the populace. The same logic that governs our electoral system, he saw, also applies to many sports--which Americans do, intuitively, understand. In baseball’s World Series, for example, the team that scores the most runs overall is like a candidate who gets the most votes. But to become champion, that team must win the most games. In 1960, during a World Series as nail-bitingly close as that year’s presidential battle between Kennedy and Nixon, the New York Yankees, with the awesome slugging combination of Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, and Bill "Moose" Skowron, scored more than twice as many total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates, 55 to 27. Yet the Yankees lost the series, four games to three. Even Natapoff, who grew up in the shadow of Yankee Stadium, conceded that Pittsburgh deserved to win. "Nobody walked away saying it was unfair," he says.

Runs must be grouped in a way that wins games, just as popular votes must be grouped in a way that wins states. The Yankees won three blowouts (16-3, 10-0, 12-0), but they couldn’t come up with the runs they needed in the other four games, which were close. "And that’s exactly how Cleveland lost the series of 1888," Natapoff continues. "Grover Cleveland. He lost the five largest states by a close margin, though he carried Texas, which was a thinly populated state then, by a large margin. So he scored more runs, but he lost the five biggies." And that was fair, too. In sports, we accept that a true champion should be more consistent than the 1960 Yankees. A champion should be able to win at least some of the tough, close contests by every means available--bunting, stealing, brilliant pitching, dazzling plays in the field--and not just smack home runs against second-best pitchers. A presidential candidate worthy of office, by the same logic, should have broad appeal across the whole nation, and not just play strongly on a single issue to isolated blocs of voters.

"Experts, scholars, deep thinkers could make errors on electoral reform," Natapoff decided, "but nine-year-olds could explain to a Martian why the Yankees lost in 1960, and why it was right. And both have the same underlying abstract principle."

Addressing Gerrymandering:

Ideally, too, no bloc should dominate any district. This consideration, by itself, probably makes the 50 states a grid that’s closer to ideal for electoral voting than, say, the 435 congressional districts. For example, in heavily black districts, no single white or black person’s vote would be likely to change the outcome, if blacks in that district tend to vote as a bloc. Each of those voters, black and white, would have more national power in a districting scheme more closely balanced between black and white. For this reason, Natapoff says, gerrymandering can be counterproductive even when undertaken with the intention of boosting some national minority’s power. The gerrymandered district might guarantee one seat in Congress to this minority, but those voters might actually wield more national bargaining power with no seat in Congress if representatives from, say, three separate districts viewed their votes as potentially swinging an election. Anyway, Natapoff says, the point of districting is to reduce the death grip of blocs on the outcome. "This is a nonpartisan proposition," he says. "The idea is to be sure all votes in a district have power." Ideally no single party, race, ethnic group, or other bloc, nationally large or nationally small, will dominate any of the districts-- which for now happen to be the 50 states plus Washington, D.C.

The Bottom Line:

Almost always, he found, individual voting power is higher when funneled through districts--such as states--than when pooled in one large, direct election. It is more likely, in other words, that your one vote will determine the outcome in your state and your state will then turn the outcome of the electoral college, than that your vote will turn the outcome of a direct national election. A voter therefore, Natapoff found, has more power under the current electoral system.

The Electoral College does exactly what it is supposed to. It gives the underdog a greater chance of winning acting as a check against tyranny of the majority.

[The Romulan Republic]

Would a coalition government work within the US system? Considering there are now 4 main parties (obviously, the Dems and Reps get as close as dammit to all the votes, but this is just a hypothetical).

There's two parties that are themselves coalitions, and two sideshows mostly made up of those who don't like to work with others.

Split the US system into the six biggest political factions and the libertarians might make it on, the greens definitely wouldn't, or even close, ranking below a number of regional state parties.

(On the list would include the Socialists, who thanks to Bernie have one major national level person.)

Indeed.

The major parties are essentially semi-permanent coalitions who group together in the general elections because you need a majority, or close to it at least, to win.

The Democrats are largely a coalition of establishment centrists (i.e., socially liberal, but pro-trade and somewhat pro-interventionism) and progressives, with the Blue Dogs (conservative Democrats/Republicans in all but name) and Socialists as smaller sub-factions on the fringes.

The Republicans are essentially a (somewhat frayed) coalition of establishment Neo-Cons, Biblical theocrats, Alt. Rightists/white supremacists/fascists, and libertarians.

Though of course their is some overlap between these groups.

[White Haven]

Okay, brief election rant here. What the heck is with the election emails this cycle and just intermittently deciding that capital letters are not a thing? My 'you can't be bothered to capitalize a subject line ergo you are illiterate and shall be ignored' mental filter just keeps firing, and it's slowly driving me mad.

[Q99]

Indeed.

The major parties are essentially semi-permanent coalitions who group together in the general elections because you need a majority, or close to it at least, to win.

The Democrats are largely a coalition of establishment centrists (i.e., socially liberal, but pro-trade and somewhat pro-interventionism) and progressives, with the Blue Dogs (conservative Democrats/Republicans in all but name) and Socialists as smaller sub-factions on the fringes.

The Republicans are essentially a (somewhat frayed) coalition of establishment Neo-Cons, Biblical theocrats, Alt. Rightists/white supremacists/fascists, and libertarians.

Though of course their is some overlap between these groups.

With the largest faction of Democrat supporters being black voters, who're centrist in some ways but also have some more progressive areas.

And the most successful third party in the last 50 years (probably longer) is, without a doubt, the Tea Party. As a group they crawled into the Republicans, took over a chunk of their membership, and used their position to push a lot of policy strategy.

[bilateralrope]

The best argument I know in favor of the electoral college is that there are large parts of the country which are predominantly rural, and rural voters are a small enough and divided enough minority that they would be largely ignored without disproportionate electoral votes. However, it is one of the federal responsibilities to be the government of the United States, not just the "united cities and suburbs," so the disproportionate weighting is therefore a form of compensation.

I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's the best I've heard.

It sounds like an argument put forwards by someone who doesn't want you to look at how few states the candidates currently pay attention to now.

The President is a position that is filled by a single person. There is no way to get small, divided, groups to have their opinion reflected in it. You either have a system that gives the president to whoever got the most votes throughout the country, or you have a system which makes the votes of some people more important than the votes of other people.


If you want to give representation to those groups, give it to them through the senate/congress.

The Bottom Line:

Almost always, he found, individual voting power is higher when funneled through districts--such as states--than when pooled in one large, direct election. It is more likely, in other words, that your one vote will determine the outcome in your state and your state will then turn the outcome of the electoral college, than that your vote will turn the outcome of a direct national election. A voter therefore, Natapoff found, has more power under the current electoral system.

The Electoral College does exactly what it is supposed to. It gives the underdog a greater chance of winning acting as a check against tyranny of the majority.

Tell me about the power of the vote of a democrat in a solid republican state, or a democrat in a solid republician state. Because the power of their vote seems pretty weak to me, given that their state will go to the party they don't want and they know before the election that their vote can't change it. Even when the actual winner of the presidency remains uncertain.

[Q99]

Trump engaged in illegal business in Fidel-era Cuba, and lied to Republican Cuban-Americans in Florida about it at the time he was doing so.

[Executor32]

Okay, brief election rant here. What the heck is with the election emails this cycle and just intermittently deciding that capital letters are not a thing? My 'you can't be bothered to capitalize a subject line ergo you are illiterate and shall be ignored' mental filter just keeps firing, and it's slowly driving me mad.

trying to seem hep to the twatter jive methinks

[Grumman]

Or they'll just discard/ignore/lie about the internet votes and ask the 30 questions they'd originally planned on anyway.

The sad thing is that that might actually be the best option.

Among Clinton's problems as a candidate are her perceived lack of honesty, and her perceived lack of accountability to the general public as opposed to her pals in Wall Street. If you want her to win, doubling down on the flaws that are hurting her campaign the most is not the way to do it.

[Grumman]

Oops. Hit quote instead of edit.

[TimothyC]

If you want to give representation to those groups, give it to them through the senate/congress.

Yeah, we can't do that thanks toWesberry v. Sanders.

[Simon_Jester]

Or they'll just discard/ignore/lie about the internet votes and ask the 30 questions they'd originally planned on anyway.

The sad thing is that that might actually be the best option.

Among Clinton's problems as a candidate are her perceived lack of honesty, and her perceived lack of accountability to the general public as opposed to her pals in Wall Street. If you want her to win, doubling down on the flaws that are hurting her campaign the most is not the way to do it.

I find it bitterly ironic that in a race against Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton can be suffering with voters because she is seen as dishonest. Or accountability-proof. Or pally with the Wall Street establishment.

Exactly who arranged for all that to happen?

[Knife]

And the most successful third party in the last 50 years (probably longer) is, without a doubt, the Tea Party. As a group they crawled into the Republicans, took over a chunk of their membership, and used their position to push a lot of policy strategy.

The Tea Party wasn't new, it was an old thing with a new coat of paint. It was the libertarian and bible thumper wings of the GOP who rose up and tried (successfully) to knock out their own establishment. Didn't hurt that a fringe GOP group that was incredibly wealthy funded them for their own industrial and tax issues.

[Q99]

The Tea Party wasn't new, it was an old thing with a new coat of paint. It was the libertarian and bible thumper wings of the GOP who rose up and tried (successfully) to knock out their own establishment. Didn't hurt that a fringe GOP group that was incredibly wealthy funded them for their own industrial and tax issues.

It was sort of a mutation of old stuff- fueled by libertarian money, really motivated by more evangelical stuff- but that's true of most 'new' parties. Parties usually split off of other parties, they almost never form out of real outsiders, who lack the skill and experience on how to run a political operation.

[Elheru Aran]

The Tea Party wasn't new, it was an old thing with a new coat of paint. It was the libertarian and bible thumper wings of the GOP who rose up and tried (successfully) to knock out their own establishment. Didn't hurt that a fringe GOP group that was incredibly wealthy funded them for their own industrial and tax issues.

It was sort of a mutation of old stuff- fueled by libertarian money, really motivated by more evangelical stuff- but that's true of most 'new' parties. Parties usually split off of other parties, they almost never form out of real outsiders, who lack the skill and experience on how to run a political operation.

It got a bit of a start in the mid-00's thanks to Congress briefly going Democratic, right-wing backlash against growing opposition to the various wars Bush and Co. got us into, but arguably the biggest impetus to the Tea Party was simply Obama getting elected. Good ol' straight-up racism, in other words-- many, many other words, but no, yeah, that's pretty much what it boils down to.