2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Kingmaker]

Like all states California gets just 2/100 senate seats, regardless of population... now how is that remotely fair and democratic?

There's more to democracy than vulgar majoritarianism.

[Civil War Man]

Where California and other large US states are really disenfranchised is the Senate. Like all states California gets just 2/100 senate seats, regardless of population... now how is that remotely fair and democratic?

To be fair, the Senate, as originally conceived, is not supposed to be democratic in that way. In theory, the House is supposed to represent the people, while the Senate is supposed to represent the states. It's why House membership is based on population and has always been directly elected, while the Senate is not based on population and was, until relatively recently, not directly elected (they were originally appointed by the state legislatures).

There have been a lot of changes since then (states are now much less autonomous than they were in 1790), so there are arguments to be made over whether the design of the Senate is still relevant. There is a significant difference between the legislature and the EC, though, since at least part of the legislature is democratic, since not all representatives are from the same party. If the legislature were like the EC, then each of California's districts would have a vote, and whichever party won 50%+1 in the most number of districts would win all 53 House seats and both Senate seats, regardless of which candidates actually received more votes.

[Patroklos]

So what? More votes is more votes.

Or do they not count if they're from one of those nasty blue states?

The count, and were counted the same way as always. In California.

[Kingmaker]

There have been a lot of changes since then (states are now much less autonomous than they were in 1790), so there are arguments to be made over whether the design of the Senate is still relevant.

While the states aren't quite as autonomous, they're still pretty autonomous (and senators are directly elected anyway), and the underlying reason - preventing the domination of smaller states by larger ones - hasn't gone away. The states themselves in their current arrangement are probably someone obsolete, but the conflicting regional issues remain, I think, and states aren't really amenable to reorganization.

[Knife]

Which puts us back to one of the original debates of our country. Federalism, no federalism, or at least a weak federalism.

[Tribble]

To be fair, the Senate, as originally conceived, is not supposed to be democratic in that way. In theory, the House is supposed to represent the people, while the Senate is supposed to represent the states. It's why House membership is based on population and has always been directly elected, while the Senate is not based on population and was, until relatively recently, not directly elected (they were originally appointed by the state legislatures).

There have been a lot of changes since then (states are now much less autonomous than they were in 1790), so there are arguments to be made over whether the design of the Senate is still relevant. There is a significant difference between the legislature and the EC, though, since at least part of the legislature is democratic, since not all representatives are from the same party. If the legislature were like the EC, then each of California's districts would have a vote, and whichever party won 50%+1 in the most number of districts would win all 53 House seats and both Senate seats, regardless of which candidates actually received more votes.

The Electoral College could be reformed so that there is a state-wide proportional vote as opposed to "winner take all". The argument against a state-wide proportional vote is that it is still not fully proportional and smaller states will still have a bigger influence than they otherwise should (although judging from my math in the other thread the practical effect between the two of them would be similar).

While the states aren't quite as autonomous, they're still pretty autonomous (and senators are directly elected anyway), and the underlying reason - preventing the domination of smaller states by larger ones - hasn't gone away. The states themselves in their current arrangement are probably someone obsolete, but the conflicting regional issues remain, I think, and states aren't really amenable to reorganization.

Then that underlying reason could be viewed as flawed. Disenfranchising larger state voters so that the voters in smaller states get massively more power and influence than they should via the Senate could be viewed as wrong, plain and simple. Let the states do what they want at their level, but when it comes to the nation shouldn't all votes be counted equally?

Why shouldn't the setup be similar to Australia*, where the House of Representatives is for local representatives while the Senate is elected proportionately?

*Technically the Australian Senate has an equal number of senators from each state but IIRC they are now elected proportionately based on the nationwide vote.

[Civil War Man]

The Electoral College could be reformed so that there is a state-wide proportional vote as opposed to "winner take all". The argument against a state-wide proportional vote is that it is still not fully proportional and smaller states will still have a bigger influence than they otherwise should (although judging from my math in the other thread the practical effect between the two of them would be similar).

The thing with proportional EC voting, I find, is that it either has the same reliability or representation problems we have with the current system (especially since gerrymandering is still a thing), or it's basically just adding an extra unneeded layer of complexity to just having a straight popular vote. Plus, there's still the whole thing I've pointed out in the other thread that the EC rewards a lack of voter participation, which is a pretty critical flaw in an ostensibly democratic system.

[Tribble]

The Electoral College could be reformed so that there is a state-wide proportional vote as opposed to "winner take all". The argument against a state-wide proportional vote is that it is still not fully proportional and smaller states will still have a bigger influence than they otherwise should (although judging from my math in the other thread the practical effect between the two of them would be similar).

The thing with proportional EC voting, I find, is that it either has the same reliability or representation problems we have with the current system (especially since gerrymandering is still a thing), or it's basically just adding an extra unneeded layer of complexity to just having a straight popular vote. Plus, there's still the whole thing I've pointed out in the other thread that the EC rewards a lack of voter participation, which is a pretty critical flaw in an ostensibly democratic system.

Fair enough, but why should the Senate be viewed any differently? It's far worse than the EC if we go by the notion that all votes should be treated equal. A vote in Wyoming is worth ~ 66 x more than a vote in California when it comes to the Senate.

[jwl]

The Electoral College could be reformed so that there is a state-wide proportional vote as opposed to "winner take all". The argument against a state-wide proportional vote is that it is still not fully proportional and smaller states will still have a bigger influence than they otherwise should (although judging from my math in the other thread the practical effect between the two of them would be similar).

The thing with proportional EC voting, I find, is that it either has the same reliability or representation problems we have with the current system (especially since gerrymandering is still a thing), or it's basically just adding an extra unneeded layer of complexity to just having a straight popular vote. Plus, there's still the whole thing I've pointed out in the other thread that the EC rewards a lack of voter participation, which is a pretty critical flaw in an ostensibly democratic system.

Well, "rewarding lack of voter participation" is really only a problem if you see the purpose of the president as representing voters rather than the population at large.

[Imperial528]

Tribble, the entire point of the senate vs. the house is that the senate represents all states' interests equally and the house represents their populations. Senators have the same power regardless of their state's population, because they represent the state itself, not just its populace. House representatives exist to represent to the legislature the population of their states via representing their districts within their states.

[Kingmaker]

Then that underlying reason could be viewed as flawed. Disenfranchising larger state voters so that the voters in smaller states get massively more power and influence than they should via the Senate could be viewed as wrong, plain and simple. Let the states do what they want at their level, but when it comes to the nation shouldn't all votes be counted equally?

Alternative: let the states do what they want at their level, but nation-wide policy should have nation-wide buy in. Perhaps the Senate weights smaller states too heavily, but the general concept is not undemocratic.

One of the problems with strict majoritarianism is that if you get 50%+1 of the votes/representatives/whatever, you don't get 50%+1 of policy-making power. You get all of it. (This is a problem in varying degrees with any democratic system.) And that's problematic bad, especially if the people who get left out are highly concentrated.

Well, "rewarding lack of voter participation" is really only a problem if you see the purpose of the president as representing voters rather than the population at large.

I'd argue that voter participation in a democracy is generally good in itself - it means people are buying into the democratic process and believe that they're having an impact on their government. And as a practical matter, the president is going to represent voters rather than the people at large, because it's the voter who elected him, and he'd presumably like to be re-elected.

[Khaat]

The thing with proportional EC voting, I find, is that it either has the same reliability or representation problems we have with the current system (especially since gerrymandering is still a thing), or it's basically just adding an extra unneeded layer of complexity to just having a straight popular vote. Plus, there's still the whole thing I've pointed out in the other thread that the EC rewards a lack of voter participation, which is a pretty critical flaw in an ostensibly democratic system.

Now that would be interesting: adjust the number of EC votes by the voter turn-out. If total registered voter turn-out for the state is 58%, the state only gets 58% of its Electoral votes this time around. If they bump-up voter turn-out, they can get to cast more. States never actually lose their Electoral votes, they just have to be "silent", like their voter base (or "no confidence" votes.) This would have to be widely accepted (like Amendment-level accepted), so every state is held to it. Each state would have to take voter roll maintenance seriously, and work against voter suppression, since it would cost the state Electoral College votes to keep opposition from voting.

Appealing to the middle would force extremists to the periphery, and get "loyal opposition" government back to work.

[Tribble]

Tribble, the entire point of the senate vs. the house is that the senate represents all states' interests equally and the house represents their populations. Senators have the same power regardless of their state's population, because they represent the state itself, not just its populace. House representatives exist to represent to the legislature the population of their states via representing their districts within their states.

And what argument is there for that to continue in 21st century America? Since the 17th amendment, senators are no longer appointed by their state legislators and do not represent the states themselves in any meaningful sense. Today's Senate is merely another popular house that Democrats and Republicans fight over, ableit one where smaller states are massively overrepresented.

For comparison, the German upper house is directly appointed by their state and the representatives represent their state's interests directly.

One of the problems with strict majoritarianism is that if you get 50%+1 of the votes/representatives/whatever, you don't get 50%+1 of policy-making power. You get all of it. (This is a problem in varying degrees with any democratic system.) And that's problematic bad, especially if the people who get left out are highly concentrated.

I'm not talking about abolishing the Senate so much as reforming it. I agree that having two levels of legislature is critical to prevent a single 50% +1 vote dominating everything.

[Civil War Man]

Fair enough, but why should the Senate be viewed any differently? It's far worse than the EC if we go by the notion that all votes should be treated equal. A vote in Wyoming is worth ~ 66 x more than a vote in California when it comes to the Senate.

It's why I said that there are arguments to be made over whether the Senate's design is relevant in today's environment, but there are advantages the Senate has over the EC. The primary advantage is that power is much less concentrated in the legislature than it is in the executive. The Senate is only half of the legislature, so it shares power with the more democratically-designed House. Each state also has between 3 and 55 total representatives between both chambers, so barring extreme gerrymandering or electoral shenanigans you are less likely of having all representatives of a state being from the same party (not impossible, naturally, but less likely for large states). The Presidency, on the other hand, is a nationwide winner-take-all system where the victor gets all of the power and second place is, at best, the most popular loser.

So while the EC and Senate are, on paper, equally undemocratic (or at least have similar problems, since the Senate is a component in determining EVs), those problems are less prominent with the Senate since the power is less concentrated.

Now that would be interesting: adjust the number of EC votes by the voter turn-out. If total registered voter turn-out for the state is 58%, the state only gets 58% of its Electoral votes this time around. If they bump-up voter turn-out, they can get to cast more. States never actually lose their Electoral votes, they just have to be "silent", like their voter base (or "no confidence" votes.) This would have to be widely accepted (like Amendment-level accepted), so every state is held to it. Each state would have to take voter roll maintenance seriously, and work against voter suppression, since it would cost the state Electoral College votes to keep opposition from voting.

It'd be an interesting experiment, and would likely discourage suppression on some levels, but depending on how you implement it you are just doing a national popular vote with a bunch of extra baggage tacked on to make the process more opaque at that point.

[jwl]

Then that underlying reason could be viewed as flawed. Disenfranchising larger state voters so that the voters in smaller states get massively more power and influence than they should via the Senate could be viewed as wrong, plain and simple. Let the states do what they want at their level, but when it comes to the nation shouldn't all votes be counted equally?

Alternative: let the states do what they want at their level, but nation-wide policy should have nation-wide buy in. Perhaps the Senate weights smaller states too heavily, but the general concept is not undemocratic.

One of the problems with strict majoritarianism is that if you get 50%+1 of the votes/representatives/whatever, you don't get 50%+1 of policy-making power. You get all of it. (This is a problem in varying degrees with any democratic system.) And that's problematic bad, especially if the people who get left out are highly concentrated.

Well, "rewarding lack of voter participation" is really only a problem if you see the purpose of the president as representing voters rather than the population at large.

I'd argue that voter participation in a democracy is generally good in itself - it means people are buying into the democratic process and believe that they're having an impact on their government. And as a practical matter, the president is going to represent voters rather than the people at large, because it's the voter who elected him, and he'd presumably like to be re-elected.

The chances are though, the non-voters in a state will have views approximately similar to the voters, therefore allowing a state electors based on population rather than voter count represents the population as a whole better.

[aerius]

Hilarity going down in Washington State

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/st ... 84763.html

The Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash.

The Latest on the Electoral College vote in Washington state (all times local):

12:59 p.m.

The count is in for Washington state's Electoral College votes.

Democrat Hillary Clinton received eight votes, former Secretary of State Colin Powell got three, and Faith Spotted Eagle, an elder in the Yankton Dakota tribe, got one. Clinton won the state's popular vote.

For vice president, Clinton running mate Tim Kaine got eight, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Native American activist Winona LaDuke each got one vote.

This is not the defection you're looking for...

[Imperial528]

And what argument is there for that to continue in 21st century America? Since the 17th amendment, senators are no longer appointed by their state legislators and do not represent the states themselves in any meaningful sense. Today's Senate is merely another popular house that Democrats and Republicans fight over, ableit one where smaller states are massively overrepresented.

This point would be valid if not for the existence of the House. Without the structure of the Senate, populous states would wield far greater power than small ones, and vice-versa without the existence of the House, though the disparity would not be as bad. I don't think small states are over-represented in the Senate at all; it represents all states' interests equally, regardless of their population.

I don't think the method of selecting senators matters here, though frankly I would not mind returning to senators being appointed rather than elected, with the caveat that such a system of appointing senators would necessarily have to select for capability and merit over political or popular favor. I don't think that will happen, not in the current culture.

[Flagg]

Hilarity going down in Washington State

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/st ... 84763.html

The Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash.

The Latest on the Electoral College vote in Washington state (all times local):

12:59 p.m.

The count is in for Washington state's Electoral College votes.

Democrat Hillary Clinton received eight votes, former Secretary of State Colin Powell got three, and Faith Spotted Eagle, an elder in the Yankton Dakota tribe, got one. Clinton won the state's popular vote.

For vice president, Clinton running mate Tim Kaine got eight, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Native American activist Winona LaDuke each got one vote.

This is not the defection you're looking for...

Yankton is in South Dakota! Maybe we should go pot-dry during the election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hilarity going down in Washington State

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/st ... 84763.html

The Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash.

The Latest on the Electoral College vote in Washington state (all times local):

12:59 p.m.

The count is in for Washington state's Electoral College votes.

Democrat Hillary Clinton received eight votes, former Secretary of State Colin Powell got three, and Faith Spotted Eagle, an elder in the Yankton Dakota tribe, got one. Clinton won the state's popular vote.

For vice president, Clinton running mate Tim Kaine got eight, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Native American activist Winona LaDuke each got one vote.

This is not the defection you're looking for...

What the fuck, Washington? Four Electors voting for random candidates who couldn't possibly win even in a mass-defection scenario, never ran, and won neither the state nor the nationwide popular vote?

Hope your empty gesture makes you feel good about yourselves while Herr Trump takes power.

[Iroscato]

Good. Hopefully that sends a message that the Dems need to give themselves the almightiest kick up the arse, pull themselves together, and actually back a decent candidate next time.

I live in eternal hope.

[Iroscato]

And for the punch-drunk love of FUCK, stop making out Trump is Hitler 2.0 already. It was old (not to mention highly inaccurate) a year ago, now it's just beyond pathetic.

[Elfdart]

And for the punch-drunk love of FUCK, stop making out Trump is Hitler 2.0 already. It was old (not to mention highly inaccurate) a year ago, now it's just beyond pathetic.

You're right. Hitler wasn't a draft-dodger.

[Gandalf]

What the fuck, Washington? Four Electors voting for random candidates who couldn't possibly win even in a mass-defection scenario, never ran, and won neither the state nor the nationwide popular vote?

Hope your empty gesture makes you feel good about yourselves while Herr Trump takes power.

Considering people's reactions, I find it a rather darkly amusing gesture, considering that so many people were encouraging the electors to vote with their consciences.

[Mr Bean]

It's going to down as one of the most darkly ironic things of 2016 was out of touch college professors saying the Electors will stop Trump and there are over twenty Trump electors willing to switch parties

And instead it's Democratic electors saying never Hillary.
Let that be one of the a lesson if nothing else, one someone says they hate someone... they are usually not lying they really frigging hate her.

[The Romulan Republic]

What the fuck, Washington? Four Electors voting for random candidates who couldn't possibly win even in a mass-defection scenario, never ran, and won neither the state nor the nationwide popular vote?

Hope your empty gesture makes you feel good about yourselves while Herr Trump takes power.

Considering people's reactions, I find it a rather darkly amusing gesture, considering that so many people were encouraging the electors to vote with their consciences.

Well, maybe. I can't speak for anyone else. But speaking only for myself, I think I'm being pretty consistent on this point- I always argued that if they ditched Trump, they should go to Clinton, because, much as I despise her personally, she is the strongest alternative and the only alternative to Trump who can claim any kind of democratic mandate (having won the popular vote). And Trump is, I truly believe, a tyrant in the making, and likely elected with the aid of (and possibly even in collusion with) a foreign despot and enemy of the United States.

I don't for a moment deny that these electors had the right to do as they did. I do not believe that they should face any legal consequences for having done so. But their are many things you have the right to do that are not good ideas. I have the right to get pissed drunk every night until I die of liver failure (something that seems increasingly appealing with each new news report on Trump). Doesn't make it a good idea.

These electors had the right to vote the way they did. And I have the right to say that I think that it was idiotic, selfish, and short-sighted.

And for the punch-drunk love of FUCK, stop making out Trump is Hitler 2.0 already. It was old (not to mention highly inaccurate) a year ago, now it's just beyond pathetic.

He may not literally be a carbon-copy of Hitler, but he is certainly a bigot who incites violence and has repeatedly state his intent to pursue unConstitutional, anti-democratic policies up to and including war crimes and mass deportation (which could be considered a form of ethnic cleansing).

Fascism parallels are not unwarranted, though actually, I'd say Erdogan, Duterte, and Putin's puppets in Eastern Europe are probably more precise parallels.

We are watching what may well prove to be the death of the last remnants of democracy in America, and people are afraid to call it what it is, or they refuse to believe it, or they think that its just another bad President, just business as usual. It isn't. And at some point, I'd rather overstate the risk than keep understating it.

This, above all, is why I respect Martin O'Malley more than any other notable Democrat right now, even Bernie Sanders. Because he is the only one who will actually say, publicly, that Donald Trump is a fascist. Even if the terminology isn't as precise as some might prefer, he is the only one I am aware of who sees the magnitude of the threat and is prepared to say it.

On that basis alone, if it was a primary between him and Bernie, I'd be inclined to pick O'Malley.