Selfish, egotistical asshole plans to hand 2020 to Trump on silver platter (Howard Schultz considering independent bid).

[Jub]

The problem is, 40% of the voters, give or take five percent or so, are basically a lost cause, hopelessly emeshed in the Cult of Trump.

So doesn't that just mean that that the Dems have failed to secure their own 40% base over the years? They've had the same chances to do so as the GOP so if they haven't done that's on them as a party.

[Gandalf]

The problem is, 40% of the voters, give or take five percent or so, are basically a lost cause, hopelessly emeshed in the Cult of Trump.

So we're competing for the other 60%. So, we could trounce Schultz 40/20 (or 2/1) and Trump could still eak out a win. Hell, its worse than that, because the Electoral College means Schultz just has to peel away enough voters in a handful of swing states.

Hang on, is this a count of voters, or just the ones who turned up to vote? Given the US' abysmal voting rates, this should probably be clarified.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is, 40% of the voters, give or take five percent or so, are basically a lost cause, hopelessly emeshed in the Cult of Trump.

You do realize you're basically saying the problem with American democracy is that too many people will vote for the other guy, right?

Err, no. That 40% who love Trump wouldn't be enough to make him President if we weren't dealing with a rigged system.

Though yeah, I do consider 40% of the population being fascists a problem.

I get so sick of hearing this soundbite. Yes the Electoral College is democracy. The will of the American people is expressed through the Electoral College in presidential elections and no amount of whining about popular vote trivia will change that. You admitted the Electoral College was legitimate when you voted under it. If you think otherwise, stop voting in presidential elections until it's changed (it won't be changed).

BULL. SHIT.

The Electoral College has twice in the space of twenty years elected a President who had fewer votes. Tell me how the "will of the American people is expressed" by that? I have acknowledged its legal legitimacy because that is simply a statement of fact. But "legal" does not equal "democratic".

No, I will not deny myself what little representation I have in government, however flawed it may be. That does not make me a hypocrite. It means I work with the tools I have, while acknowledging that the system needs to be improved. I am not required to worship the system as flawless in order to participate in it, and I do not forfeit my right to participation because I believe it should be reformed.

Once more you showing yourself for the grovelling lickspittle for fascism that you truly are.

[Ralin]

BULL. SHIT.The Electoral College has twice in the space of twenty years elected a President who had fewer votes. Tell me how the "will of the American people is expressed" by that? I have acknowledged its legal legitimacy because that is simply a statement of fact. But "legal" does not equal "democratic".

Well you see Rom, in America presidential elections are determined by how states vote, with each state getting a set number of electoral college votes. The actual raw number of votes doesn't enter into this and it's weird that you're focused on that particular trivia when you should know by now that the will of the American people is expressed through the electoral college.

Could you tell me how electing a president who happened to receive fewer popular votes is somehow less democratic or representative of the will of the American people than the electoral college?

No, I will not deny myself what little representation I have in government, however flawed it may be. That does not make me a hypocrite. It means I work with the tools I have, while acknowledging that the system needs to be improved. I am not required to worship the system as flawless in order to participate in it, and I do not forfeit my right to participation because I believe it should be reformed.

So yes, you do admit that the electoral college and the elections held under it are legitimate. Concession accepted. Voting in an election implicitly assumes that said election is legit and that you agree to abide by its results.

Once more you showing yourself for the grovelling lickspittle for fascism that you truly are.

Do you have Nazi Tourette's or something?

[The Romulan Republic]

BULL. SHIT.The Electoral College has twice in the space of twenty years elected a President who had fewer votes. Tell me how the "will of the American people is expressed" by that? I have acknowledged its legal legitimacy because that is simply a statement of fact. But "legal" does not equal "democratic".

Well you see Rom, in America presidential elections are determined by how states vote, with each state getting a set number of electoral college votes. The actual raw number of votes doesn't enter into this and it's weird that you're focused on that particular trivia when you should know by now that the will of the American people is expressed through the electoral college.

Could you tell me how electing a president who happened to receive fewer popular votes is somehow less democratic or representative of the will of the American people than the electoral college?

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not saying that electing a President with fewer popular votes is less democratic than the Electoral College, I'm saying its a direct consequence of the Electoral College. Which is demonstrable fact.

And I'm well aware of how the Electoral College works. Like all EC advocates, you seem to assume that anyone who questions the EC must simply be ignorant of it, or believe that simply repeating "This is what the law is" somehow constitutes a justification for the law being that way, and an air-tight rebuttal to any arguments in favour of changing the law. It isn't. My position is not that the Electoral College is unlawful. Its that its undemocratic and the law should therefore be changed.

Trying to pretend I am ignorant of the facts will not absolve you from addressing my actual points.

So yes, you do admit that the electoral college and the elections held under it are legitimate. Concession accepted. Voting in an election implicitly assumes that said election is legit and that you agree to abide by its results.

Legally legitimate. Not democratic. Your argument amounts to "If you acknowledge something is lawful, then you cannot ever support changing or reforming it". Which is a very authoritarian position.

As to the "legitimacy" of 2016, there are plenty of other reasons to question that. If it were simply the Electoral College, I would not question the legal legitimacy of Trump's Presidency. But I would not call it particularly democratic.

Do you have Nazi Tourette's or something?

I calls them like I sees them.

[Ralin]

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not saying that electing a President with fewer popular votes is less democratic than the Electoral College, I'm saying its a direct consequence of the Electoral College. Which is demonstrable fact.

Why yes, obviously. When someone gets more electoral votes they become president even if more people voted for the other candidate. That’s what happens when you win an election.

And I'm well aware of how the Electoral College works. Like all EC advocates, you seem to assume that anyone who questions the EC must simply be ignorant of it, or believe that simply repeating "This is what the law is" somehow constitutes a justification for the law being that way, and an air-tight rebuttal to any arguments in favour of changing the law. It isn't.

Like all popular vote advocates you seem to assume that stating the popular vote is more democratic somehow constitutes a justification for changing the law, and an air-tight rebuttal to anyone who doesn’t want voters whose states would lose influence presidential elections to be stripped of their rights. It isn’t.

My position is not that the Electoral College is unlawful. Its that its undemocratic and the law should therefore be changed.

Your position is wrong. The Electoral College is totally democratic and should not be changed.

Legally legitimate. Not democratic. Your argument amounts to "If you acknowledge something is lawful, then you cannot ever support changing or reforming it". Which is a very authoritarian position.

Your argument amounts to “If a system doesn’t elect the candidates I think should have an advantage it is undemocratic and should be changed.”

[The Romulan Republic]

Why yes, obviously. When someone gets more electoral votes they become president even if more people voted for the other candidate. That’s what happens when you win an election.

Again, you seem to think that repeating what the law is in as condescending a manner as possible, as though I am just too stupid and ignorant to know how the Electoral College works rather than wanting to change how it works, will somehow allow you to avoid arguing my actual points. You are simply attempting to obfuscate and evade, and I will waste no more time debating with someone who will not address my points and will not debate in good faith.

Like all popular vote advocates you seem to assume that stating the popular vote is more democratic somehow constitutes a justification for changing the law, and an air-tight rebuttal to anyone who doesn’t want voters whose states would lose influence presidential elections to be stripped of their rights. It isn’t.

Aw, you think "repeating back what my opponent said, except swapping my points for theirs'" constitutes a rebuttal? This is basically at the level of "I know you are but what am I?"

My position is that the EC is undemocratic because it does not reflect the will of the people. The fact that it repeatedly leads to outcomes contrary to those supported by the popular vote (which, contrary to your dismissively authoritarian attitude, is not mere "trivia" but the clearest indication we have in our flawed system of the actual will of the voters) is an entirely valid point.

Maybe you feel being undemocratic isn't a reason to change the law. But then you are merely conceding my other point, which is that you are an advocate and apologist for authoritarianism.

Again, I will not waste further time debating a troll who is (I believe) deliberately trying to evade and obfuscate, and refusing to address my arguments in good faith.

Your position is wrong. The Electoral College is totally democratic and should not be changed.

You have done nothing to demonstrate either of those points. Repeating a summary of the existing law does not prove that it is democratic, nor that it should not be changed. Mocking me does not prove it either.

Your argument amounts to “If a system doesn’t elect the candidates I think should have an advantage it is undemocratic and should be changed.”

THIS IS A LIE.

I believe in democracy. I believe in government being determined by popular vote- regardless of which candidate it benefits. How is demanding a straight popular vote wanting to change the system to advantage my preferred candidates? Unless you are admitting that the current results do not reflect the will of the people? It is you who advocate a system that is designed to tilt the scales to benefit certain candidates and parties.

I don't mind people having differences of opinion, but I will not tolerate slander.

[Oscar Wilde]

Though yeah, I do consider 40% of the population being fascists a problem.

Because the only reason to vote for Trump is that someone is a facist, sure.
How are those Soros checks treating you anyway?



Also on the subject of the Electoral College I would just like to say 'tyranny of the majority.' The EC system at least helps in keeping giga-populated cities from fucking over say, the midwest.

[The Romulan Republic]

Though yeah, I do consider 40% of the population being fascists a problem.

Because the only reason to vote for Trump is that someone is a facist, sure.
How are those Soros checks treating you anyway?

Many of Trump's actions, allies and policy goals are fascistic. Therefore, if someone votes for Donald Trump, they are either a) a fascist, b) they have no objection to putting fascists in high office and enabling fascist policy in order to achieve whatever it is they hope to get out of Trump's presidency (and I find the distinction between "fascist" and "collaborator" to be a fairly academic one, for the most part), or c) they are phenomenally ignorant of recent US politics and history, in which case they are still supporting fascism- they just don't realize it.

And please clarify what you mean by that Soros comment, because I am seriously tempted to report you for posting anti-Semitic conspiracy crap.

Also on the subject of the Electoral College I would just like to say 'tyranny of the majority.' The EC system at least helps in keeping giga-populated cities from fucking over say, the midwest.

In other words, you admit that its purpose is to tip the scales to give the minority power over the majority. Well, at least your not trying to pretend its somehow democratic, like Ralin is. Its also noteworthy that under this model, the argument for keeping the EC is that it would give more power to predominantly white conservative rural areas over predominantly liberal (and often predominantly minority) urban areas.

This particular defense, however, is inaccurate in any case for several reasons:

1. There are numerous other safeguards against the "tyranny of the majority" boogeyman- the Constitution, the bi-cameral legislature, the independent judiciary, etc. But if there is one place where the majority of the nation's voters should have the final say, its in the election of a national leader. No one has made a convincing argument to me for why we need this particular check on the majority or our nation will fall under tyranny.

Ultimately, for democracy to work, the will of the majority has to prevail, unless the majority takes actions which would violate the fundamental rights of their fellows, or destroy the fundamental underpinnings of a democratic system. We have the Constitution to prevent that. We have an independent judiciary to prevent that. But it is different when you are talking about preventing the majority from electing someone the minority doesn't want. That goes beyond having checks and balances, to being overtly anti-democracy.

2. One of the forms this argument takes is that the EC will prevent the election of a demagogue. Its a very elitist, anti-democratic argument, which basically amounts to: "If we let the people choose their leader without a middleman to vet their choice, the unwashed masses might elect a demagogue." The EC is supposed to prevent the election of such a person. Yet we saw two years ago that the EC elected a demagogue against the will of the voters, meaning that it utterly failed in its supposed purpose, and in fact did the exact opposite of what, under this theory, it is supposed to do.

3. The EC doesn't actually consistently give more power to small states- it gives more power to swing states, regardless of population. Under the EC, a vote from Vermont or Wyoming is basically worthless, while candidates must campaign desperately for every vote from Pennsylvania and Florida, for example (both of which have multiple major urban centers).

4. The entire argument is fallacious because under a popular vote system, "cities" or "big states" wouldn't be picking the next President- every individual voter in the country, regardless of where they were, would have a say. This might even encourage politicians to pursue a 50-state strategy, and help us to think of America as one country rather than a bunch of demographics at odds with one another. But EC advocates are so mired in thinking of elections in terms of "winning states" that they refuse to see that without the EC, big states or cities would matter no more than small ones in the final calculus- because elections wouldn't be about winning states any more. They'd be about winning votes.

And please let it be noted that I am advocating this position as a voter from a fairly small swing state (albeit one that is trending blue), specifically Colorado. I have held this position despite the fact that it would potentially weaken my own voting power, because I believe it is the right course of action.

[Gandalf]

Also on the subject of the Electoral College I would just like to say 'tyranny of the majority.' The EC system at least helps in keeping giga-populated cities from fucking over say, the midwest.

So you replace it with "tyranny of the majority of EC votes?"

"Government of, by, and for the people... based on where they live!" - Thomas Jefferson maybe.

[The Romulan Republic]

Pretty much.

At best, elections are likely to be decided (barring landslides) by a relatively tiny minority of swing voters in a handful of swing states.

At worst, what we have right now is effectively an oligarchy- a few hundred persons, not democratically elected, get to pick the President (though some states have laws against "faithless electors", the penalties IIRC are usually pretty weak and this is not universal nor Constitutionally mandated), while theoretically taking the will of the people into account. By law, therefore, Presidential Elections in the US are a glorified opinion poll, nothing more.

[bilateralrope]

Though yeah, I do consider 40% of the population being fascists a problem.

Because the only reason to vote for Trump is that someone is a facist, sure.
How are those Soros checks treating you anyway?



Also on the subject of the Electoral College I would just like to say 'tyranny of the majority.' The EC system at least helps in keeping giga-populated cities from fucking over say, the midwest.

1 - Could I see the numbers that prove that " giga-populated cities" cities would dominate ?

2 - Any "tyranny" from the presidency comes from the presidents powers, not who elects him. So if I accecpt that the popular vote is "tyranny of the majority", then I don't see how the EC could be anything but "tyranny of the minority". How is that an improvement ?

3 - What about US citizens living in US territory that aren't allowed to vote on the presidency ?
For example, Puerto Rico.

[The Romulan Republic]

All excellent points, though the last remains an issue regardless of whether the EC exists (for the record, I strongly support statehood for Puerto Rico, DC, Guam, and American Samoa).

[Oscar Wilde]

Many of Trump's actions, allies and policy goals are fascistic. Therefore, if someone votes for Donald Trump, they are either a) a fascist, b) they have no objection to putting fascists in high office and enabling fascist policy in order to achieve whatever it is they hope to get out of Trump's presidency (and I find the distinction between "fascist" and "collaborator" to be a fairly academic one, for the most part), or c) they are phenomenally ignorant of recent US politics and history, in which case they are still supporting fascism- they just don't realize it.

I won't deny there's some shitty people who support Trump, but I'll propose another option there: D) they considered him a better choice than the alternatives.

Barrack Obama won the popular vote and the electoral vote in both of his elections. I voted for him. 2016, the republicans fielded a better candidate (who I didn't vote for.) Maybe 'Make America Great Again' is a better rallying cry than 'Its her turn.' It doesn't take fascism, it takes 'maybe they don't have my best interests in mind.'

And please clarify what you mean by that Soros comment, because I am seriously tempted to report you for posting anti-Semitic conspiracy crap.

'Everyone I don't like is a fascist' gets a 'Hows that Soros check' from me. A shitpost for a shitpost.

In other words, you admit that its purpose is to tip the scales to give the minority power over the majority.

Its purpose is to give the minority power.

Well, at least your not trying to pretend its somehow democratic, like Ralin is.

It is, in fact, a check on democratic voting.

Its also noteworthy that under this model, the argument for keeping the EC is that it would give more power to predominantly white conservative rural areas over predominantly liberal (and often predominantly minority) urban areas.

So the latter should have power over the prior? Or should they both have some level of power?

1. There are numerous other safeguards against the "tyranny of the majority" boogeyman- the Constitution, the bi-cameral legislature, the independent judiciary, etc. But if there is one place where the majority of the nation's voters should have the final say, its in the election of a national leader. No one has made a convincing argument to me for why we need this particular check on the majority or our nation will fall under tyranny.

Ultimately, for democracy to work, the will of the majority has to prevail, unless the majority takes actions which would violate the fundamental rights of their fellows, or destroy the fundamental underpinnings of a democratic system. We have the Constitution to prevent that. We have an independent judiciary to prevent that. But it is different when you are talking about preventing the majority from electing someone the minority doesn't want. That goes beyond having checks and balances, to being overtly anti-democracy.

And we have the Electoral College established in the Constitution. And the Electoral College as its SUPPOSED to function (as I understand it) gives a representation of demographics while preventing say, an election coming down to 51% to 49% of a popular vote. If you're going to make repeated arguments about the will of the majority, is there nothing to be said about when its that slim? You're still going to end up with half the population getting someone that they didn't vote for.

2. One of the forms this argument takes is that the EC will prevent the election of a demagogue. Its a very elitist, anti-democratic argument, which basically amounts to: "If we let the people choose their leader without a middleman to vet their choice, the unwashed masses might elect a demagogue." The EC is supposed to prevent the election of such a person. Yet we saw two years ago that the EC elected a demagogue against the will of the voters, meaning that it utterly failed in its supposed purpose, and in fact did the exact opposite of what, under this theory, it is supposed to do.

Yes, you can say it failed in that instance. I could just as well make the argument that demagogues were on both sides of the debate, Trump just ran a better smear and hustle.

Moreover, a system being capable of failure doesn't mean it should be abandoned.

3. The EC doesn't actually consistently give more power to small states- it gives more power to swing states, regardless of population. Under the EC, a vote from Vermont or Wyoming is basically worthless, while candidates must campaign desperately for every vote from Pennsylvania and Florida, for example (both of which have multiple major urban centers).

Is that a matter of the system itself or is that a matter of delegation collusion?

4. The entire argument is fallacious because under a popular vote system, "cities" or "big states" wouldn't be picking the next President- every individual voter in the country, regardless of where they were, would have a say. This might even encourage politicians to pursue a 50-state strategy, and help us to think of America as one country rather than a bunch of demographics at odds with one another. But EC advocates are so mired in thinking of elections in terms of "winning states" that they refuse to see that without the EC, big states or cities would matter no more than small ones in the final calculus- because elections wouldn't be about winning states any more. They'd be about winning votes.

Well my dude, that would be because 'think of America as one country rather than a bunch of demographics at odds with one another' kinda.... misunderstands America as it is and has always been?'

Like a dude from Oklahoma is going to have different needs and priorities than a dude from like, Maine. Those are two different demographics. Some chump from Texas might live near the border, he might have a different perspective on it than someone from like, Oregon. Thats going to influence his vote.

And please let it be noted that I am advocating this position as a voter from a fairly small swing state (albeit one that is trending blue), specifically Colorado. I have held this position despite the fact that it would potentially weaken my own voting power, because I believe it is the right course of action.

And I'm from Illinois. Any way I might vote currently doesn't matter because Chicago decides it all, despite whatever my needs might be, or the needs of the people down in Cairo. 'Chicago said its blue so its blue.'

[The Romulan Republic]

1. Repeatedly describing how the EC works is not an argument for why things should work that way, any more than repeating "Slavery is protected by the Constitution'" was a valid argument against Abolitionism.

2. I don't call people fascists because I don't like them or disagree with them, and I am sick of this lie being repeated ad nauseum on this board, just as I am sick of it being generally acceptable to defame me on this board. I call people fascists when they support fascist politicians and fascist positions, as you pretty obviously do, since you've all but admitted that you voted Trump to spite Hillary. In addition to which, you:

a) Openly support the EC as a "check" on democracy. Can't have the people voting if they don't vote the way you want.

b) Claim that there was no reason given to vote for Hillary other than "its her turn". But hey, if a catchy slogan is all it takes to make you vote for a fascist, then you are the very definition of the ignorant mob who the EC is supposed to (but failed to) prevent from electing a demagogue.

c) Admit to viewing America as a collection of warring demographics rather than a single nation.

Hint: "Society is a zero sum game played along demographic lines, where only one demographic (ie white men) can win at the expense of all others" is a pretty good summary of the Alt. Reich philosophy.

c) Admit that you believe white rural conservatives should be given disproportionate power because (in your mind) the only alternative is poor minorities being given disproportionate power over white men (see previous point about believing society is a zero-sum game played along demographic lines where any success for minorities must come at the expense of white men- arguably the defining characteristic of the Alt. Reich/Neo-fascist world view). I suspected that like so many others, you were using urban as code for black, and I was evidently right.

d) Claim that calling supporters of fascist politicians and policy fascist is equivalent to spreading Anti-Semitic dog whistles invoking Nazi-esque tropes of wealthy Jews controlling liberals (once again we see Whataboutism at work as a tool to legitimize the most loathsome aspects of politics).

3. Reported for violating board rules against hate speech by posting anti-Semitic propaganda.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

To be fair, the GND DOES seem a little wishy-washy and the 'how' of it is something that should be questioned because I think thats a big thing thats going to be on everyone's minds. If there's one bit of policy thats going to hurt democrats going into 2020 its probably how much you can pick into the GND. It does SOUND very nice (as long as that 'economic security for those unwilling to work' part actually is bullshit), but well... gotta make sure theres no catch.

When Hillary was careful to explain how all her policies were achievable, it wasn't inspiring. We need aspirational messaging, not a focus on exactly how to accomplish every bit. We need to aim higher than our actual targets with our policies.

[Jub]

2. I don't call people fascists because I don't like them or disagree with them, and I am sick of this lie being repeated ad nauseum on this board, just as I am sick of it being generally acceptable to defame me on this board. I call people fascists when they support fascist politicians and fascist positions, as you pretty obviously do, since you've all but admitted that you voted Trump to spite Hillary. In addition to which, you:

Does not voting for the Democrats in 2020 also count as being a fascist now? How about voting for Shultz and splitting the vote? Does voting R because there is no other party that supports your community's needs make you fascist?

I get that you're powerless and angry and want change, but screaming and calling people fascists on a message board isn't the way you fix things. Hell, you straight up ignored me questioning why the Dems don't have the same entrenched 40% voter base that the GOP has. Shouldn't each election in a two-party system have both parties fighting for the middle 20% to swing things? If not, doesn't that mean that the Dems have simply failed to grow and secure their base while the GOP has successfully formed a party identity? If the Dems don't have a solid base doesn't that make them a weaker party than the GOP?

a) Openly support the EC as a "check" on democracy. Can't have the people voting if they don't vote the way you want.

Democracy needs checks otherwise you get shit like Brexit based on a single vote. If you think otherwise you must trust the average person a hell of a lot more than I do.

b) Claim that there was no reason given to vote for Hillary other than "its her turn". But hey, if a catchy slogan is all it takes to make you vote for a fascist, then you are the very definition of the ignorant mob who the EC is supposed to (but failed to) prevent from electing a demagogue.

The 2016 election was pretty awful for Hillary. She got the nod over somebody preaching for actual change and he campaign was basically just a shrug and saying, "At least I'm not Trump". It was hardly inspiring stuff.

c) Admit to viewing America as a collection of warring demographics rather than a single nation.

It is though, and in a way that other nations simply aren't. The needs of a voter in Hayes Kansas are vastly different than the needs of somebody in New York, New York. Without the means to give voters in less populated regions a voice you get a situation where only the most populated regions have a voice at the national level. Think of how BC feels in Canada but a million times worse.

-----

Also, TRR, perhaps the board as a whole seems hostile to you personally because you're acting like a crazed zealot who equates votes for anything but the Dems as a vote for literally Hitler. Tone it down a few notches and stop screaming about the sky falling every 30 seconds and people might engage you differently.

-----

To be fair, the GND DOES seem a little wishy-washy and the 'how' of it is something that should be questioned because I think thats a big thing thats going to be on everyone's minds. If there's one bit of policy thats going to hurt democrats going into 2020 its probably how much you can pick into the GND. It does SOUND very nice (as long as that 'economic security for those unwilling to work' part actually is bullshit), but well... gotta make sure theres no catch.

When Hillary was careful to explain how all her policies were achievable, it wasn't inspiring. We need aspirational messaging, not a focus on exactly how to accomplish every bit. We need to aim higher than our actual targets with our policies.

I think you need to be careful walking that line. Aspirational can seem pie in the sky if people lack faith in your ability to actually make your vision a reality. Currently, and maybe this will change by 2020 if they keep standing up to Trump, people don't see the Democrats as able to get things done. They see them as a party that bends and compromises on every bill and can only ever pass a watered down version of what they campaigned on doing (if that).

The Dems need to both bang the drum but also back up what they claim they want to do by actually doing it, without compromise, for once.

[Oscar Wilde]

1. Repeatedly describing how the EC works is not an argument for why things should work that way, any more than repeating "Slavery is protected by the Constitution'" was a valid argument against Abolitionism.

Outlining how it works (or even how it works) and how that method of working is superior to what you propose IS an argument though.
I'm not against changes to the constitution, but they have to be good changes.

2. I don't call people fascists because I don't like them or disagree with them, and I am sick of this lie being repeated ad nauseum on this board, just as I am sick of it being generally acceptable to defame me on this board. I call people fascists when they support fascist politicians and fascist positions, as you pretty obviously do, since you've all but admitted that you voted Trump to spite Hillary. In addition to which, you:

Its not acceptable to defame you, but a lot of your posts DO seem to have a habit of accusing someone of fascism or racism or sexism or anti-semitism as an 'I win' button regardless of whats actually being said or what the feelings on display are.

I also explicitly said that I didn't vote for Trump. I can just understand how he can be considered a better option, as much for his party as the man himself.

a) Openly support the EC as a "check" on democracy. Can't have the people voting if they don't vote the way you want.

I'm calling it what it IS, yes?

b) Claim that there was no reason given to vote for Hillary other than "its her turn". But hey, if a catchy slogan is all it takes to make you vote for a fascist, then you are the very definition of the ignorant mob who the EC is supposed to (but failed to) prevent from electing a demagogue.

I mean, I also boiled down Trump to 'make America great again.' I wasn't going to get into all of the politics because that would be its own thread.
I also said 'I could make the argument that there were demagogues on both sides' which means that the system was doomed to fail.

c) Admit to viewing America as a collection of warring demographics rather than a single nation.

Warring? I don't know about that, but uh. 'The United States' of America. United. States. Staaaaaaaates.

Again, do people in Arkansas not have a different set of needs and priorities (excluding basic human ones, obviously) than someone from Florida? Even if you DID take it as a single nation, there's still a fuckload of demographics that are going to 'war' with each other because they need different things.

c) Admit that you believe white rural conservatives should be given disproportionate power because (in your mind) the only alternative is poor minorities being given disproportionate power over white men (see previous point about believing society is a zero-sum game played along demographic lines where any success for minorities must come at the expense of white men- arguably the defining characteristic of the Alt. Reich/Neo-fascist world view). I suspected that like so many others, you were using urban as code for black, and I was evidently right.

I'm actually pretty sure YOU'RE the one who said 'minorities are usually in the urban areas.' I'm the guy who's not looking at this as a matter of race, because race doesn't matter to me.
And I asked if one should have power over the other or if there should be equality between them. I don't want either group suppressing the other because both demographics deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

d) Claim that calling supporters of fascist politicians and policy fascist is equivalent to spreading Anti-Semitic dog whistles invoking Nazi-esque tropes of wealthy Jews controlling liberals (once again we see Whataboutism at work as a tool to legitimize the most loathsome aspects of politics).

...is it REALLY a nazi-esque 'trope' when its something that the man literally does? I mean yes I invoked it as a shitpost, I don't actually think you're paid by Soros, but you DO realize that the man DOES fund liberal groups, right? How much influence this actually GRANTS him, thats between him and the groups themselves.
Where does the what-aboutism come into play here? I'm not sure that I've actually defended anyone else who engages in philanthropy, whether its to help push a political agenda or not.

3. Reported for violating board rules against hate speech by posting anti-Semitic propaganda.

K!

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe I sound like a zealot, Jub, but I mean... its a two party system, and one of those parties is more or less lockstep behind a man who openly aspires to autocratic power.

Not a lot of room for shades of grey in that set-up. It wasn't of my making, but thems' the breaks.

I agree that the Democrats need to match actions to words, but I don't think you're giving them enough credit, and I don't think you're prepared to accept it when they actually get something right. See, the thing is, there are major substantive policy differences between Democrats and Republicans, that nearly all Democrats agree on: Gun control, public health care, preserving a social safety net, some level of progressive taxation, and, yes, acting as a check on Trump's bigotry, treason, and grasping for absolute power. And yet people just repeat the narrative that "The Democrats don't actually stand for anything except not being Trump." The Democrats fought a hard fight on the shutdown and the border wall, but all we hear is "The Democrats always cave". Because cynics and third partiers have repeated these narratives, along with "Both Sides are just as bad/just the same" so much that they have become engrained in the public consciousness. They're not truth, but they're truisms, and unfortunately those can have more power than truth, sometimes.

As to Brexit, its increasingly clear that the winning team didn't play by the rules there either. I believe democracy will work well, most of the time (no system will ever be completely infallible) when everyone plays by the same rules, and when you have a well-informed public. It will, at the very least, work better than any other system. In Democracy, you need to convince millions of fallible people to make the wrong choice. In oligarchy, maybe hundreds. In autocracy, just one.

If one is cynical about the judgement of their fellow man, then they should support democracy with all their heart, because it makes it harder for any one person to fuck everyone over. Unless one also believes that being part of the powerful elite somehow makes someone innately wiser and more fit to wield power, but I think we both know that history has shown that to be frequently false.

Moreover, democracy is a safety for the system, a pressure-release mechanism. Like how dams will release a little water to reduce pressure and avoid a catastrophic failure. It provides a mechanism for people to voice their frustrations and effect change without bringing everything crashing down in blood and ruin. It means that not every dispute has to be a battle to the death. But that only works if people feel that their voices actually matter, which they won't if they know someone is weighting the scales.

Bob the Gunslinger: I mean, you're not wrong about the importance of catchy messaging. Its just a shame that people think that a catchy slogan outweighs actual policy substance.

Besides, "Make America Great Again" wasn't even a good slogan, if you put five seconds' thought into what it meant. When was America greater than it is now? How did it become Not Great? Hint: What your answer is will likely depend greatly on whether you are a white man who feels threatened by women and minorities.

I said it in 2016 and I'll say it now: "Make America Great Again" was thinly-veiled code for "White Power". Some people figured that out faster than others. Some, seemingly, still haven't figured it out.

[Ralin]

Again, you seem to think that repeating what the law is in as condescending a manner as possible, as though I am just too stupid and ignorant to know how the Electoral College works rather than wanting to change how it works, will somehow allow you to avoid arguing my actual points. You are simply attempting to obfuscate and evade, and I will waste no more time debating with someone who will not address my points and will not debate in good faith.

Again, you seem to think that shouting “POPULAR VOTE! DEMOCRACY!” is an actual argument.

My position is that the EC is undemocratic because it does not reflect the will of the people.

You keep saying that, but no, the Electoral College is democratic because it represents the will of the people.

The fact that it repeatedly leads to outcomes contrary to those supported by the popular vote (which, contrary to your dismissively authoritarian attitude, is not mere "trivia" but the clearest indication we have in our flawed system of the actual will of the voters) is an entirely valid point.

You still haven’t explained how raw popular vote numbers are better representative of the will of the voters than the electoral college. You should do that.

Maybe you feel being undemocratic isn't a reason to change the law. But then you are merely conceding my other point, which is that you are an advocate and apologist for authoritarianism.

Says the person who literally thinks the electoral system should be changed to stop the rest of the country from electing Republican presidents.

Again, I will not waste further time debating a troll who is (I believe) deliberately trying to evade and obfuscate, and refusing to address my arguments in good faith.

Yeah, see…

You have done nothing to demonstrate either of those points. Repeating a summary of the existing law does not prove that it is democratic, nor that it should not be changed. Mocking me does not prove it either.

You don’t HAVE an argument, dumdum. All you’ve done is shout “POPULAR VOTE! DEMOCRACY! REEEEE!!!” over and over as if it was self-evident that a popular vote would be better purely because it was a popular vote. Which is of course not true, because in America we have democracy and the electoral college is part of that.

I believe in democracy. I believe in government being determined by popular vote- regardless of which candidate it benefits. How is demanding a straight popular vote wanting to change the system to advantage my preferred candidates? Unless you are admitting that the current results do not reflect the will of the people? It is you who advocate a system that is designed to tilt the scales to benefit certain candidates and parties.

Procedural reform is never neutral. By stripping states that would be adversely affected of the weight their votes have under the electoral college you are advocating large swathes of the public of their right to representation in presidential elections, something you’ve repeatedly said would prevent Republican candidates from winning elections. You don’t get to pretend you don’t advocate changing the system to benefit your side when you’ve repeatedly cited the fact that the other side keeps winning under the current system as proof that it needs to be changed.

[Jub]

Maybe I sound like a zealot, Jub, but I mean... its a two party system, and one of those parties is more or less lockstep behind a man who openly aspires to autocratic power.

Not a lot of room for shades of grey in that set-up. It wasn't of my making, but thems' the breaks.

There's plenty of room between dialing things to 11 and voting for Trump. Maybe try not screaming at people for disagreeing with you about the severity, cause, and solutions to America's many issues for a start. Not everybody who disagrees with you about the Democrats is a fascist, the same goes with pointing out serious ongoing issues with the Democratic party. The people complaining about them will, or would if they lived in the US, most likely hold their nose and vote for them anyway in 2020.

You can offer critique about the lesser of two evils while still very much recognizing their flaws.

I agree that the Democrats need to match actions to words, but I don't think you're giving them enough credit, and I don't think you're prepared to accept it when they actually get something right. See, the thing is, there are major substantive policy differences between Democrats and Republicans, that nearly all Democrats agree on: Gun control, public health care, preserving a social safety net, some level of progressive taxation, and, yes, acting as a check on Trump's bigotry, treason, and grasping for absolute power. And yet people just repeat the narrative that "The Democrats don't actually stand for anything except not being Trump." The Democrats fought a hard fight on the shutdown and the border wall, but all we hear is "The Democrats always cave". Because cynics and third partiers have repeated these narratives, along with "Both Sides are just as bad/just the same" so much that they have become engrained in the public consciousness. They're not truth, but they're truisms, and unfortunately those can have more power than truth, sometimes.

When was the last time the needle actually moved on gun control on a national scale?

When are they actually going to get to pushing for proper public health care? ACA was a bad joke that, even if it stayed intact and worked okay (which it hasn't on either account), would only serve to dampen the desire for proper single-payer healthcare.

The US social safety net, when was the last time it meaningfully expanded in coverage? It's well and good to fight to keep things, but you don't get people to the polls to preserve the status quo.

When was the last substantial tax reform passed?

You can say that these are their strengths, but aside from the ACA, which was a lame duck the moment the Dems compromised on it, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that they've made any gains on their core areas. This is a massive issue for them as a party.

when you have a well-informed public.

The public has never been well-informed and with insulated social media bubbles, they never will be.

Ask Joe average about climate science and have him give a meaningful breakdown of its causes, possible solutions, and immediate versus long term impacts of various solutions. He'll give you a blank stare. Ask about the pros and cons of flat tax versus progressive tax and then ask them about personal tax versus corporate tax and see if they give you a meaningful answer. The modern world is too complex to allow laymen to vote on it and it's showing with just how difficult it has been for any party or company to operate on more than a short term basis.

With companies it's about profit, with politicians it's about reelection and holding onto power, with voters its about fear and emotion. We need a system that can adjust to rapid changes in our understanding about the world but which also lay down and sticks to long term plans and projects. One that will deal with the short term but also make the unsexy move to allocate money to infrastructure maintenance. Democracy doesn't appear to be that system and it hasn't been for decades now.

If one is cynical about the judgement of their fellow man, then they should support democracy with all their heart, because it makes it harder for any one person to fuck everyone over. Unless one also believes that being part of the powerful elite somehow makes someone innately wiser and more fit to wield power, but I think we both know that history has shown that to be frequently false.

I disagree, the current system gives those with money too much say. Politics is, especially in the US, is more about spending money and buying ad space in people's heads than actually making the world a better place. It's about reelection rather than long term planning.

Perhaps the system can be fixed. For example if we could limit consecutive terms to 1, but allow for reelection after that cycle it might force people to live and die by what they've accomplished rather than allowing for incumbency to stagnate the system. Good luck getting that one passed because it makes trying to be a career politician risky or, outside of the truly exceptional, impossible and the people who'd need to vote for it are also the ones who'd lose if it passes.

The simple fact is that fixing the system means politicians would have to vote away from their own self-interests and because of that the system itself needs to be blown up. You don't get a new system by voting for status quo Dems who's best claim to fame is that they don't actively shit in your shoes every morning like the other guys.

Besides, "Make America Great Again" wasn't even a good slogan, if you put five seconds' thought into what it meant. When was America greater than it is now? How did it become Not Great? Hint: What your answer is will likely depend greatly on whether you are a white man who feels threatened by women and minorities.

It was actually great because it allowed their target audience to fill in the blanks with sunshine and unicorns all without actually promising anything concrete. It enfranchised people because it allowed them to imagine America becoming great for them, personally, in a way a slogan that actually says something can never do.

[Oscar Wilde]

Besides, "Make America Great Again" wasn't even a good slogan, if you put five seconds' thought into what it meant. When was America greater than it is now? How did it become Not Great? Hint: What your answer is will likely depend greatly on whether you are a white man who feels threatened by women and minorities.

I said it in 2016 and I'll say it now: "Make America Great Again" was thinly-veiled code for "White Power". Some people figured that out faster than others. Some, seemingly, still haven't figured it out.

Is it possible that people who liked said phrase (which I can almost assure you includes both minorities and women) considered the country to be in a state of decline and that identity politics didn't have a thing to do with it?

And even with 'again' in there, it makes a for a good rallying cry. No one wants to live somewhere that sucks

Jub nailed it better, but just my two cents.

[Gandalf]

It's funny how these "Trump looked good if..." arguments heavily rely on ignoring Trump's variously horrid statements.

[K. A. Pital]

TRR, sorry, but I do not see „hate speech“. It is a discussion about electoral college and criticism of Soros in particular is not equivalent to hate speech, just as criticism of the State of Israel is or its lobbying organizations is not anti-Semitism.

As for the argument itself, the difference between various representative democracy systems are very much irrelevant to me. They are all undemocratic to some extent, because all rely on elected representatives relaying the will of the voters.

Direct democracy is, sure, democratic. But it brings us xenophobic Switzerland, which did not have full universal suffrage until 1971 or so, and Brexit. One has to be ready for consequences when arguing for more direct democracy.

[Tribble]

While talking about the flaws of the Electoral College is fine, I dont think abolishing it is feasible at this stage. Reforming it would also be very difficult, though perhaps not impossible. It might be possible one day to convince the states to have their electors distributed proportionally within their state rather than winner take all, for instance.

For that matter if Canada were to make a move towards having an elected president we'd probably have to adopt some form of the Electoral College (hopefully while mitigating the flaws). Having an elected president via popular vote is a non-starter with most provinces; there are already more than enough complaints about Ontario and Quebec having an "unfair" influence as it is.