The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Raw Shark]

I'm Raw Shark, and I personally endorse anybody who has ever made a sex tape that anybody would want to watch. Mentioning that is just not a credible attack in my book, and anybody who would treat it as one is IMHO from a very different reality than the one I inhabit.

[Flagg]

I'm Raw Shark, and I personally endorse anybody who has ever made a sex tape that anybody would want to watch. Mentioning that is just not a credible attack in my book, and anybody who would treat it as one is IMHO from a very different reality than the one I inhabit.

I still want to see Betty White doing full on anal with Morgan Freeman. And I don't mean when they were younger, I mean like let's make it happen in the next month.

[The Romulan Republic]

Florida and Nevada have now both flipped back to leaning blue in the Polls-plus and Polls-only forecasts.

Ohio is back in the blue column in the Now-cast, along with Florida, Nevada, and NC.

Woo, Ohio! I was less sure on that one.

Glad to see Hillary has a few-state buffer again, if soft in places.

Nice to see even polls plus is at 65/35.

Sadly Ohio seems to have shifted, ever so slightly, back to red.

Clinton seems to have dropped slightly. I guess that's the height of the post-debate bump. Disappointing, but its still given us a bit more of a margin.

Now, let's see how Kaine does against Pence.

[Q99]

Sadly Ohio seems to have shifted, ever so slightly, back to red.

Clinton seems to have dropped slightly. I guess that's the height of the post-debate bump. Disappointing, but its still given us a bit more of a margin.

Now, let's see how Kaine does against Pence.

I'm gonna wait a day or two before I call it, sometimes there's just minor corrections while the trend continues... though a 4-point shift is pretty huge as a bump anyway!

[Lord Insanity]

Is this a joke? The underdog has no chance at all using the popular vote. He loses period. This is especially hilarious that you have the 2000 election results showing one of the few times the underdog wins via the electoral college. Making it possible to win despite losing the popular vote is exactly what the electoral college is supposed to do.

But it's only supposed to do that if the college members have a major reason to, it's not supposed to be a roll of the dice based on where the lines happen to fall like it normally is.

What possible reason could an elector give other than their own state's popular vote for contradicting the national popular vote that wouldn't make them the most hated person in the country?

The states are the closest thing we are likely ever going to have as ideal districts for the purposes of the electoral collage. Unlike congressional districts the state's lines are fixed and don't get redrawn or gerrymandered at all.

Once again the presidential election is 51* separate state elections not a single national election. *(D.C. counts as a state for this purpose.) This is completely fair because everyone is playing by the same rules. In order to win a candidate must appeal to a broad cross-section of the country and not just focus on a few major population centers.

[The Romulan Republic]

I know its always been this way, and is less so now than it was originally, but the US is too divided along state lines. We're one country- if you get a majority of the votes in that country, that should be sufficient, regardless of where those votes come from. And realistically, you won't win on votes from just a few big states unless you get utter blowouts in those states. US Presidential elections tend to be pretty close, and you'll want to get your votes wherever you can.

As opposed to now, where instead of only big states mattering, only swing states matter much.

And as I recall, at least one elector has said they will not vote for Trump no matter how their state votes (sadly, I don't have a source at the moment).

Fun times.

[Simon_Jester]

The federalism of the US states has one major advantage- it allows us to enjoy political diversity within a uniform country. As it is, some states are (relatively) far left in how they govern their own affairs, and others are far right. The populations of each kind of state would be very unhappy living under policies set by the other kind. But by allowing states a large degree of flexibility, we avoid situations where the national government has to dictate the exact same policy for everyone when there are profound regional divisions within the nation about how to proceed.

This is valuable in, for example, gun control, where there are parts of the country where much of the population intensely desires it and other parts where it would be actively useless and intrusive for them.

Forcing a single solution to this problem through at the federal level won't necessarily make things better.

[Q99]

The Stock Markets moved in line with Hillary and Trump's debate performance

Down when Trump looked to be doing ok, up when Hillary took command.

[Raw Shark]

I still want to see Betty White doing full on anal with Morgan Freeman. And I don't mean when they were younger, I mean like let's make it happen in the next month.

I'd give it a watch. The dialogue alone would be worth the price of admission.

[LaCroix]

Is this a joke? The underdog has no chance at all using the popular vote. He loses period. This is especially hilarious that you have the 2000 election results showing one of the few times the underdog wins via the electoral college. Making it possible to win despite losing the popular vote is exactly what the electoral college is supposed to do.

I could echo your first statement right back at you. You and I do have a vastly different perception about what democracy means. Any result where someone wins while not having a mayority of the popular vote in his corner in comparison to the other contenders is a perversion of what democracy stands for.

And especially the 2000 result shows that the popuplar vote is giving underdogs more chance. Nader was THE underdog, and would have had 2.7% instead of 0. This - small underdogs getting a share of the vote even though they never won, outright, would make 3rd parties possible, as they could compete with other parties. If people see that their vote is not 'thrown away' but their choise has a chance of succeeding, democracy could be revived.

Also, Gore would have won, the one with MORE votes. The 2000 election perfectly shows all that is wrong about using the college.

[Vendetta]

And especially the 2000 result shows that the popuplar vote is giving underdogs more chance. Nader was THE underdog, and would have had 2.7% instead of 0. This - small underdogs getting a share of the vote even though they never won, outright, would make 3rd parties possible, as they could compete with other parties. If people see that their vote is not 'thrown away' but their choise has a chance of succeeding, democracy could be revived.

You can't be 2.7% of a president though. (I mean Donald Trump probably could, but let's not test that eh America?)

Third party viability needs to start in Congress and the Senate. That's what the Tea Party did, although they did it as a special interest group/cancerous polyp inside one of the existing parties.

[LaCroix]

And especially the 2000 result shows that the popuplar vote is giving underdogs more chance. Nader was THE underdog, and would have had 2.7% instead of 0. This - small underdogs getting a share of the vote even though they never won, outright, would make 3rd parties possible, as they could compete with other parties. If people see that their vote is not 'thrown away' but their choise has a chance of succeeding, democracy could be revived.

You can't be 2.7% of a president though. (I mean Donald Trump probably could, but let's not test that eh America?)

Third party viability needs to start in Congress and the Senate. That's what the Tea Party did, although they did it as a special interest group/cancerous polyp inside one of the existing parties.

It's a start - if you see that every vote counts, you will see the third party shares increase. And one day you may have 30-30-30 splits in a presidental race. (you then either take the one with the most votes or have a second vote on the frontrunners, if you absolutely NEED a 50%+1 result - most presidental elections are done this way, worldwide)

But with the current way it is done, this will never happen. Same for congress, senate - no more districts, just a statewide popular vote for each position. The candidate with the most votes gets it. No more Gerrymandering.

Unless these toxic voting practices are removed, there will never be a 3rd party in the US.

[Gaidin]

It's a start - if you see that every vote counts, you will see the third party shares increase. And one day you may have 30-30-30 splits in a presidental race. (you then either take the one with the most votes or have a second vote on the frontrunners, if you absolutely NEED a 50%+1 result - most presidental elections are done this way, worldwide)

But with the current way it is done, this will never happen. Same for congress, senate - no more districts, just a statewide popular vote for each position. The candidate with the most votes gets it. No more Gerrymandering.

Unless these toxic voting practices are removed, there will never be a 3rd party in the US.

They could do it under the current system if they wanted to take a more long term investment in their work and actually run people for local and district offices and establish a power base instead of just showing up every four years like the new idiot on the block. The number of offices they bother running for(much less winning) is atrocious.

[Simon_Jester]

You can't be 2.7% of a president though. (I mean Donald Trump probably could, but let's not test that eh America?)

Third party viability needs to start in Congress and the Senate. That's what the Tea Party did, although they did it as a special interest group/cancerous polyp inside one of the existing parties.

It's a start - if you see that every vote counts, you will see the third party shares increase.

No, because third parties will do to a national election exactly what they did in the state elections in 2000: draw off votes that would otherwise have gone to a mainstream candidate

The votes of small third parties have useful effects in elections to a representative body. They do not have useful effects in an election where there can be only one winner. Indeed, votes for small third parties tend to actively decrease the odds of the third party's agenda getting through.

And one day you may have 30-30-30 splits in a presidental race. (you then either take the one with the most votes or have a second vote on the frontrunners, if you absolutely NEED a 50%+1 result - most presidental elections are done this way, worldwide)

At the moment, any such divided election would go to the House of Representatives, which logically ought to be fine if we're actually worried about scenarios like this. We might object to the specific outcome of the House's decision in a specific situation, but that doesn't mean it is fundamentally wrong to let the House arbitrate elections as such, in the absence of a clear winner of the 270-electoral-vote majority.

But with the current way it is done, this will never happen. Same for congress, senate - no more districts, just a statewide popular vote for each position. The candidate with the most votes gets it. No more Gerrymandering.

This would require California voters to vote 'yes' or 'no' on each of 53 candidates. You might as well just give them a single check box for 'vote Republican' or 'vote Democrat,' because that's what effectively all California voters would do: vote mindlessly for a party's slate of candidates. At least with the current system every representative is carefully looked at by SOME group of voters, rather than being looked at carefully by NO voters.

If you want to fix gerrymandering, fix gerrymandering; it isn't actually hard to apportion territorial districts in a fair way. Don't abolish territorial representation in the House of Representatives when that is already the only aspect of the federal government answerable to local concerns.

[Terralthra]

Simon, all of the effects of third-party voters you mention are tendencies of first-past-the-post voting. That's not the only system around.

[LaCroix]

It's a start - if you see that every vote counts, you will see the third party shares increase. And one day you may have 30-30-30 splits in a presidental race. (you then either take the one with the most votes or have a second vote on the frontrunners, if you absolutely NEED a 50%+1 result - most presidental elections are done this way, worldwide)

But with the current way it is done, this will never happen. Same for congress, senate - no more districts, just a statewide popular vote for each position. The candidate with the most votes gets it. No more Gerrymandering.

Unless these toxic voting practices are removed, there will never be a 3rd party in the US.

They could do it under the current system if they wanted to take a more long term investment in their work and actually run people for local and district offices and establish a power base instead of just showing up every four years like the new idiot on the block. The number of offices they bother running for(much less winning) is atrocious.

If they actually did this, under the current system, and manage to get up to congress and senate level - which woudl take decades - what then?
They new party would only drive the one party of the 'two parties' out of the race, and takes its place. The party who got pushed out will pretty fast fade into oblivion (if they don't manage to get back in next election), for "you throw away your vote if you still vote for them".
Thus the race turns into a new gridlock between the new 'Two parties'. It would only exchange one gridlock with a new one, probably just as long-living, for the next new party would also need to grind decades to get a shot at Congress or Senate. The problem is lack of political mobility. It will take so long for political change to be implemented that most people simply will not even attempt it.

[Vendetta]

It's a start - if you see that every vote counts, you will see the third party shares increase. And one day you may have 30-30-30 splits in a presidental race. (you then either take the one with the most votes or have a second vote on the frontrunners, if you absolutely NEED a 50%+1 result - most presidental elections are done this way, worldwide)

Proportional allocation of electoral college votes would make third parties show up, it wouldn't give them any kind of viable political presence unless they made that a year round presence by going and getting some seats in one of the houses. They'd remain the sideshow to the presidential election that they currently are, but would show up in the scoreline.

But with the current way it is done, this will never happen. Same for congress, senate - no more districts, just a statewide popular vote for each position. The candidate with the most votes gets it. No more Gerrymandering.

The idea of districts is that the congresscritter represents that district specifically. And y'know that's not necessarily a bad thing, because you know who specifically to contact to raise your concerns.

Gerrymandering can be fixed in other ways, like by a nonpartisan boundaries committee with strict operating rules about how it can define districts.

Unless these toxic voting practices are removed, there will never be a 3rd party in the US.

There will never be a third party in the US until they start running for Congress and the Senate. Which they can do, because not all districts are gerrymandered to fuck, and independents do exist. A viable third party needs to start winning seats in government so they can say "look at the things our congresspeople do, vote for your local representative of our party".

You can't be a viable third party just by aiming for one job in the whole government, countries with multi-party systems have those parties represented properly in the actual houses of government, they don't just try and be president and nothing else.

[LaCroix]

]This would require California voters to vote 'yes' or 'no' on each of 53 candidates.

Each of these is representing them, as he represents California. Why shouldn't they have a say in who represents them?

Vote for all seats (more power for you), or abstain from the ones you don't care and vote on some of them (the one rep from the district you occasionally travel to maight be an asshole) and just vote for the one district you live in (as you do now). You decide how involved in politics you want to be.

[Gaidin]

If they actually did this, under the current system, and manage to get up to congress and senate level - which woudl take decades - what then?
They new party would only drive the one party of the 'two parties' out of the race, and takes its place. The party who got pushed out will pretty fast fade into oblivion (if they don't manage to get back in next election), for "you throw away your vote if you still vote for them".
Thus the race turns into a new gridlock between the new 'Two parties'. It would only exchange one gridlock with a new one, probably just as long-living, for the next new party would also need to grind decades to get a shot at Congress or Senate. The problem is lack of political mobility. It will take so long for political change to be implemented that most people simply will not even attempt it.

That's how they have a shot at the Presidency in the current system. Ask yourself. How much of the current Republican and Democratic elected party base is helping both Donald and Hillary where and when they want. I mean, there are exceptions like a few Senators that want nothing to do with Donald. But literally, there's an elected powerbase, much less the committees out trolling for both of them. There's only one candidate after all. For all Trump's fundamentally handicapped himself by not running his own advertisement campaign and thrown it all on the RNC. If a third party wants a shot they need that backbone. And they need a platform that's less insane, with just parts of specialized issues tweaked in their directions. And holy crap, no getting arrested for environmental issues once your party nominates you. Whatever it does for the Presidency of whatever election they happen to get a shot at, whether it makes it 30-30-30, or just happens to dump a main party out and the third party happens to become a main player in that election, whatever. They need to be willing to plan long term enough and take a long enough time to get that base in place.

[Simon_Jester]

]This would require California voters to vote 'yes' or 'no' on each of 53 candidates.

Each of these is representing them, as he represents California. Why shouldn't they have a say in who represents them?

Actually, that's not true under the current status quo. Each representative represents their district, specifically, not the state as a whole. This is what 'constituency' means; elected officials are answerable directly to the people who voted them into office.

Your complaint is that this should not be true- that instead of having 53 people representing 53 districts within California, we should have 53 at-large representatives for California as a whole.

Under the US constitution, that job is already taken, by the senators. It is explicitly the senators' job to represent the interests of the state as a whole, while the House represents the interests of the people, in the form of the people from each specific voting district.

Vote for all seats (more power for you), or abstain from the ones you don't care and vote on some of them (the one rep from the district you occasionally travel to maight be an asshole) and just vote for the one district you live in (as you do now). You decide how involved in politics you want to be.

In that case, the votes of the 2% of the state population living in any one district are going to be totally overwhelmed by 10% or more of votes from the state's total population of Concerned People. Because the Concerned People have decided they have a right to vote in my local election to influence overall federal politics. That is, they vote straight party tickets in favor of whichever side they're on.

As a result, the local voice in any of the 53 elections is lost. The only way for representatives to campaign effectively is to throw their weight fully behind the party and let the party decide who is going to be on its ticket for each district. Or, alternatively, by ignoring the interests of their local district and trying to become a statewide celebrity in hopes that their popularity statewide will offset their low popularity in their own district.

At large representation of a large population by dozens of individual politicians who are not accountable to any specific part of the large population is not a good thing.

[LaCroix]

]This would require California voters to vote 'yes' or 'no' on each of 53 candidates.

Each of these is representing them, as he represents California. Why shouldn't they have a say in who represents them?

Actually, that's not true under the current status quo. Each representative represents their district, specifically, not the state as a whole. This is what 'constituency' means; elected officials are answerable directly to the people who voted them into office.

Your complaint is that this should not be true- that instead of having 53 people representing 53 districts within California, we should have 53 at-large representatives for California as a whole.

Under the US constitution, that job is already taken, by the senators. It is explicitly the senators' job to represent the interests of the state as a whole, while the House represents the interests of the people, in the form of the people from each specific voting district.

Vote for all seats (more power for you), or abstain from the ones you don't care and vote on some of them (the one rep from the district you occasionally travel to maight be an asshole) and just vote for the one district you live in (as you do now). You decide how involved in politics you want to be.

In that case, the votes of the 2% of the state population living in any one district are going to be totally overwhelmed by 10% or more of votes from the state's total population of Concerned People. Because the Concerned People have decided they have a right to vote in my local election to influence overall federal politics. That is, they vote straight party tickets in favor of whichever side they're on.

As a result, the local voice in any of the 53 elections is lost. The only way for representatives to campaign effectively is to throw their weight fully behind the party and let the party decide who is going to be on its ticket for each district. Or, alternatively, by ignoring the interests of their local district and trying to become a statewide celebrity in hopes that their popularity statewide will offset their low popularity in their own district.

At large representation of a large population by dozens of individual politicians who are not accountable to any specific part of the large population is not a good thing.

Well, yes if you put it like this, I see the problem you are having with it. Under the current US system, it doesn't make sense. I'll concede that point.

[Simon_Jester]

Basically, it would be a step in the direction of proportional representation where you vote for parties, rather than for candidates.

The current US system for selecting representatives is designed around the idea that the House provides representation of local interests with a defined geographical constituency, directly into the federal government, potentially bypassing the state level entirely. This has some significant advantages.

For one, it means that each congressman is personally elected by a constituency, rather than being selected by a party and placed on a slate of candidates the party* promises to put into office if it gets enough votes in a proportional representation system.

For another, it means that minorities which are concentrated in a certain territory have more assurance of getting some kind of representation than would be the case if all elections were held on a statewide basis. If rural farmers make up 60% of two of my state's eight congressional districts, while suburban and urban voters make up 80-90% of the other six, in theory the roughly 75/25 breakdown of urban-suburban versus rural voters should result in two out of eight seats going to rural interests in a proportional system OR in a territorial system.

But in practice, I suspect that in a proportional representation system the farmers are lucky to get one congressman who actually bothers to represent their interests. Because it's a much more reliable strategy for a party seeking election to pander to the urban and suburban voters, while ignoring the rural voters completely.

If there are two or three parties, they will all be seeking to compete for the urban/suburban vote, even at the risk of compromising the interests of their rural voters. Because restricting your support base to a small minority of the population, and rigorously pursuing the interests of that minority, is a recipe for remaining marginal even under a proportional representation system.

Now, if we're only concerned about Great National Issues, that's not a problem, I suppose. But at least in the US, there are a wide variety of issues where disagreements about social and economic policy break down along regional lines. There always have been. The US's high degree of federalism and multiple layers of procedures for making sure areas are represented has helped the US retain social and political stability through a variety of difficult periods.

...

*[Note that formally the American electoral system does not recognize parties. Parties exist and have basically always existed, but they have no formal role defined in our written constitution.]

[Adam Reynolds]

Apparently the New York Times received a copy of Trump's 1995 state tax returns. Based on these, he could have avoided paying anything for up to 18 years, due to his $916 million dollar loss in that year. It also shows that he did not contribute to any charities at the state level.

His statement claims that this shows that he knows the tax system better than any other candidate. Because that is the takeaway here. Ironically his now retired accountant Mr. Mitnick claims the opposite, that Donald had a much lower appreciation for the details of tax code than his father Fred.

[Gaidin]

He likes to say it's because he's smart. What's he going to do now. Say he purposely lost nearly a billion dollars one year?

Smart.

[Adam Reynolds]

The loss is actually spread across several years, but they just carried it over into the one year.