Farewell, Dr. Dull

[vector2]

Do yourself a favor, Bozo. Don't use the plight of the Irish, in the context of any discussion, as grist for your sarcasm mill. It's just as offensive as making jokes about the holocaust or the 30 million who died during China's Great Leap Forward.

You've been plainly caught not knowing the context of the discussion (i.e. America) now you wanna lash out? Lighten up, Francis.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted171991]

Man ... it's not paranoia... certain people really classify you based on your national origin, your skin color, or your religious affiliation, you should just remember that you are the smart one in the room and move on.
I guess you have come to a point where you convinced yourself that bigotry does not exist... I congratulate you my friend.

No, I haven't. I agree with your views. I just try to give people the benefit of the doubt. The bigoted will discriminate against me regardless. And the non-bigoted don't deserve and won't understand my paranoia anyway. So I learned to ask people back exactly the same questions they ask me, and judge them by their actions not words.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Based on this thread it is quite clear why the “deplorables” voted for Trump. They felt left out and accused by liberals of racism for wanting their conservative or moderate voices heard. Most of these people are not “haters” or “racist” but rather moderate Americans who don’t share the far left liberal agenda socially or economically. But, the moment these moderates voice their concerns the liberals treat them as bigots. I can see why the polls don’t reflect the actual votes on Election Day.

 

[vector2]

Based on this thread it is quite clear why the “deplorables” voted for Trump. They felt left out and accused by liberals of racism for wanting their conservative or moderate voices heard. Most of these people are not “haters” or “racist” but rather moderate Americans who don’t share the far left liberal agenda socially or economically. But, the moment these moderates voice their concerns the liberals treat them as bigots. I can see why the polls don’t reflect the actual votes on Election Day.

The so-called deplorables voted for trump because they think being called a bigot is worse than being an honest-to-god, actual bigot.

If you don't want people to think you're a bigot, then don't vote or cheerlead for someone who propagated housing discrimination against blacks in the 70s, called for the death of the central park 5, championed the birther movement, called Mexicans criminals, drug dealers, and rapists, said there were many good people on both sides of a white supremacist march, faked an accent to mock the PMs of South Korea and Japan at a fundraiser, told US citizen Congresswomen of color to go back where they came from, and is actively trying to get LGBTQ people out of the military.

Also, let's be very clear- the polls did reflect a +3 million vote margin for HRC. It's the electoral college which failed to to reflect the will of the people.

 

[nimbus]

The so-called deplorables voted for trump because they think being called a bigot is worse than being an honest-to-god, actual bigot.

If you don't want people to think you're a bigot, then don't vote or cheerlead for someone who propagated housing discrimination against blacks in the 70s, called for the death of the central park 5, championed the birther movement, called Mexicans criminals, drug dealers, and rapists, said there were many good people on both sides of a white supremacist march, faked an accent to mock the PMs of South Korea and Japan at a fundraiser, told US citizen Congresswomen of color to go back where they came from, and is actively trying to get LGBTQ people out of the military.

It is too bad he is the only viable candidate that the Republicans can put up at this point in time.

 

[aneftp]

The so-called deplorables voted for trump because they think being called a bigot is worse than being an honest-to-god, actual bigot.

If you don't want people to think you're a bigot, then don't vote or cheerlead for someone who propagated housing discrimination against blacks in the 70s, called for the death of the central park 5, championed the birther movement, called Mexicans criminals, drug dealers, and rapists, said there were many good people on both sides of a white supremacist march, faked an accent to mock the PMs of South Korea and Japan at a fundraiser, told US citizen Congresswomen of color to go back where they came from, and is actively trying to get LGBTQ people out of the military.

Also, let's be very clear- the polls did reflect a +3 million vote margin for HRC. It's the electoral college which failed to to reflect the will of the people.

The electoral college has been in place for since our founding fathers.

Our founding fathers didn’t trust the will of the people either.

So saying the popular vote is the will of the people is incorrect in that context.

While we are at it. Why not just have votes by each county in America. The majority of the counties are red. Not blue. The majority of the counties in California are actually red not blue.

Liberals just get upset when things don’t go their way. It’s not like the rules were changed in the last election.

Just shows how poorly Hillary Clinton campaign misjudged things even with the most heavily funded campaign.

 

[doctalaughs]

It is too bad he is the only viable candidate that the Republicans can put up at this point in time.

True. Also the number of people that truly “love” Trump are a very, very small vocal minority that get a lot of press (because they really are bigots- and the media likes covering them and conflating every Trump voter with their views).

The true “deplorables,” the ones that really elected Trump in 2016 and will re-elect him in 2020- the ones democrats just cannot seem to understand - are those that do not personally like Trump and his racist / stupid statements — but largely agree with many of his policies. And believe that the extreme left policies being voiced on the other side would destroy our country.

 

[Apollyon]

Also, let's be very clear- the polls did reflect a +3 million vote margin for HRC. It's the electoral college which failed to to reflect the will of the people.

Dude, do your research. That +3million comes exclusively from California, which Trump didn't think he could win, anyhow. You take CA out, and, in the 49 remaining states, Trump has a 1.4million lead.

Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California

Hillary Clinton garnered 4.3 million more votes than Donald Trump in the nation's most populous state.

www.snopes.com

 

[pgg]

The so-called deplorables voted for trump because they think being called a bigot is worse than being an honest-to-god, actual bigot.

If you don't want people to think you're a bigot, then don't vote or cheerlead for someone who propagated housing discrimination against blacks in the 70s, called for the death of the central park 5, championed the birther movement, called Mexicans criminals, drug dealers, and rapists, said there were many good people on both sides of a white supremacist march, faked an accent to mock the PMs of South Korea and Japan at a fundraiser, told US citizen Congresswomen of color to go back where they came from, and is actively trying to get LGBTQ people out of the military.

Also, let's be very clear- the polls did reflect a +3 million vote margin for HRC. It's the electoral college which failed to to reflect the will of the people.

A significant portion of President Trump's votes in 2016 came from people who wanted Scalia's seat filled by a Republican, any Republican, not a Democrat, and especially not Sen Clinton.

In other news, today it was reported that Justice Ginsburg just finished 3 weeks of radiation for a pancreatic tumor, and had a bile duct stent placed. If she's clearly on her deathbed next summer, the "deplorables" will be at the polls again.

 

[nimbus]

Dude, do your research. That +3million comes exclusively from California, which Trump didn't think he could win, anyhow. You take CA out, and, in the 49 remaining states, Trump has a 1.4million lead.

Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California

Hillary Clinton garnered 4.3 million more votes than Donald Trump in the nation's most populous state.

www.snopes.com

Why would you discount California? It contributes over 13% of the US economy. More than any other state by a wide margin. We are Americans too.

 

[AdmiralChz]

Why would you discount California? It contributes over 13% of the US economy. More than any other state by a wide margin. We are Americans too.

No one is “discounting” them but the entire idea is that population centers like cities don’t rule the roost for elections to the detriment of other locales. That’s the foundation of a republic (versus a true democracy).

 

[BLADEMDA]

A significant portion of President Trump's votes in 2016 came from people who wanted Scalia's seat filled by a Republican, any Republican, not a Democrat, and especially not Sen Clinton.

In other news, today it was reported that Justice Ginsburg just finished 3 weeks of radiation for a pancreatic tumor, and had a bile duct stent placed. If she's clearly on her deathbed next summer, the "deplorables" will be at the polls again.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is going to hang on until her death next year. By then, the election will be around the corner so the GOP controlled Senate won't be able to get their nominee through the vetting process. Instead, the election will decide her seat and I'm betting that despite Trump's victories in the upcoming debates Biden wins the 2020 election.

 

[Apollyon]

Why would you discount California? It contributes over 13% of the US economy. More than any other state by a wide margin. We are Americans too.

I was strictly quoting the numbers. I only meant that, without CA, Trump has a majority (actually, though, either one has a plurality - no one hit 50%). The most populous state went very heavily Democrat, which skews the results. It's not like Clinton was winning every state by a little bit.

 

[pgg]

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is going to hang on until her death next year. By then, the election will be around the corner so the GOP controlled Senate won't be able to get their nominee through the vetting process. Instead, the election will decide her seat and I'm betting that despite Trump's victories in the upcoming debates Biden wins the 2020 election.

What, you think Sen McConnell couldn't (or wouldn't) get a new Justice confirmed in a week or two?

Confirming judges is literally the only thing the Senate has consistently accomplished this entire presidency. (OK they passed a tax cut too.)

Even if President Trump loses and the Republicans lose the Senate, they'd lame duck a nominee in between the election and the January inauguration.

Justice Ginsburg needs to last until January 2021 if she wants to be replaced by a different president. That's 16 months for an 86 yo with a stented bile duct and a round of palliative radiation for recurrent pancreatic cancer that was probably the primary for a lobectomy for metastatic disease less than a year ago. I wish her a long life and happy retirement but we're all familiar with how this goes. I think President Trump is going to appoint another Justice, and if she's still serving on election day, her seat will drive turnout for Trump.

 

[sevenup]

Dr. Dull called gays "degenerates" and "perverts" in his 2004 letter to the editor. He later used his position as chairman of the anesthesiology department to harass, intimidate, and derail the career of Dr. Kleinman, one of the staff anesthesiologists at UA at least in part because he was gay. It appears that other staff anesthesiologists were mistreated as well.

Hopefully, Dr. Dull's ouster gives some measure of vindication to Dr. Kleinman. Kudos to the anesthesiologists at UA who had the courage to stand up to Dr. Dull. I hope that we will all, regardless of political affiliation, call out this type of toxic behavior in the workplace.

 

[MoMoGesiologist]

Based on this thread it is quite clear why the “deplorables” voted for Trump. They felt left out and accused by liberals of racism for wanting their conservative or moderate voices heard. Most of these people are not “haters” or “racist” but rather moderate Americans who don’t share the far left liberal agenda socially or economically. But, the moment these moderates voice their concerns the liberals treat them as bigots. I can see why the polls don’t reflect the actual votes on Election Day.

So are we saying that Dr. Dull’s comments are “moderate”?

 

[vector2]

True. Also the number of people that truly “love” Trump are a very, very small vocal minority that get a lot of press (because they really are bigots- and the media likes covering them and conflating every Trump voter with their views).

The true “deplorables,” the ones that really elected Trump in 2016 and will re-elect him in 2020- the ones democrats just cannot seem to understand - are those that do not personally like Trump and his racist / stupid statements — but largely agree with many of his policies. And believe that the extreme left policies being voiced on the other side would destroy our country.

The ones who actively acknowledge trump’s bigotry, dislike it immensely, and then vote for him anyway (for guns or taxes or judges or whatever) are imo more morally reprehensible than the true believers.

Dude, do your research. That +3million comes exclusively from California, which Trump didn't think he could win, anyhow. You take CA out, and, in the 49 remaining states, Trump has a 1.4million lead.

Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California

Hillary Clinton garnered 4.3 million more votes than Donald Trump in the nation's most populous state.

www.snopes.com

What kind of dumb logic is this? Ok, now let me arbitrarily and retroactively get rid of Texas since trump won that one by almost a million votes...

 

[vector2]

The electoral college has been in place for since our founding fathers.

Our founding fathers didn’t trust the will of the people either.

So saying the popular vote is the will of the people is incorrect in that context.

While we are at it. Why not just have votes by each county in America. The majority of the counties are red. Not blue. The majority of the counties in California are actually red not blue.

Liberals just get upset when things don’t go their way. It’s not like the rules were changed in the last election.

Just shows how poorly Hillary Clinton campaign misjudged things even with the most heavily funded campaign.

Yes, I’m aware of the electoral college and how it works. I wonder if you’re aware of how poorly the number of congressional representatives per capita has kept up with population growth over the last 250 yrs. I also wonder if you’re aware that the founders intended the EC “to strengthen the agrarian elite, offer more federal power to slaveholding states, and counterbalance factionalism and polarization,” none of which the EC accomplishes today.

Regardless, I was specifically responding to blade who was trying to make a pithy point about polls being wrong. A poll of a random sampling of likely voters is a surrogate of the popular vote, and the average of polls toward the end of the 2016 race accurately predicted the final popular vote result. What likely voter polls have difficulty predicting is how the fact that a Wyomingite’s vote is worth 3.6x a Californian’s vote (among other imbalances) will affect the final electoral college result.

 

[Apollyon]

What kind of dumb logic is this? Ok, now let me arbitrarily and retroactively get rid of Texas since trump won that one by almost a million votes...

Are you this dense? The very trivial point is that the Clinton plurality was due to one single state. You already demonstrate your proclivity, which colors everything you post.
I don't have a dog in this fight. As I said, it's not like she won a whole bunch of states with a narrow majority. Anyone claiming a moral victory for a win with the popular vote, if examined more closely, actually supports the Electoral College.

But, as is typical on SDN, nothing anyone says will change your perspective. You have your viewpoint, and it is unyielding.

 

[deleted171991]

So are we saying that Dr. Dull’s comments are “moderate”?

They may have been, in 2004, in a small Utah town of 8,000. You tell me.

Again, change is hard. Please don't fool yourselves that most heterosexuals, in 2004, were as tolerant toward homosexuals as they may be today. Also, don't confuse tolerance (as in live and let live) with seeing them as equals.

I was lucky to have been raised by a mother who emphasized not judging people based on characteristics that are not their choice. Others were not.

 

[vector2]

Are you this dense? The very trivial point is that the Clinton plurality was due to one single state. You already demonstrate your proclivity, which colors everything you post.
I don't have a dog in this fight. As I said, it's not like she won a whole bunch of states with a narrow majority. Anyone claiming a moral victory for a win with the popular vote, if examined more closely, actually supports the Electoral College.

But, as is typical on SDN, nothing anyone says will change your perspective. You have your viewpoint, and it is unyielding.

My proclivities, or the fact I didnt vote for trump or hrc, or your likely disingenuous implication of your unabashed neutrality and willingness to be persuaded, have nothing to do with the actual logic of the point you're trying to make. I understand the triviality of the point you're making. A lot of people live in California. The coasts are liberal. My response is: so what?

Let me say it again: removing California and then going "Aha! See! HRC would've lost the popular vote if I take that state out" is 100% totally and completely arbitrary. I honestly can't understand why you dont grasp that. Why stop at one state? Why not two? Ten?

Even the snopes article you quoted says,

"One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election."

Whatever electoral system one is in favor of, it's absurd and arbitrary to hypothetically exclude a part of the whole and then argue the counterfactual result. California is a US state. The voting population of each US state counts toward the popular vote tally that is historically calculated. Right now we have a system where Wyoming votes are 3.6x weighted vs California. The popular vote hypothetical of excluding CA would weight those votes at a value of zero. No matter which system you favor, do you see the absurdity of using CA exclusion to make a point?

I am obviously in favor of the popular vote and against the EC, and have been since 2000. But, what I don't do, is pretend I'm impartial and then go around trying to make some stupid point like "well, if we just excluded all electoral college members whose first names starts with the letter L then the other person would've won"

 

[deleted480308]

Most of my black/African American peers had stories of people asking if they were the patient transporter or a part of the OR turnover crew, while they were standing at the head of the bed of an intubated patient in the OR.

The only special treatment people want is the deference white folks assume is normal.

That’s not true at all if you look at current pushes for diversity initiatives and “acceptable” numbers of people in preferable roles

 

[Apollyon]

My proclivities, or the fact I didnt vote for trump or hrc, or your likely disingenuous implication of your unabashed neutrality and willingness to be persuaded, have nothing to do with the actual logic of the point you're trying to make. I understand the triviality of the point you're making. A lot of people live in California. The coasts are liberal. My response is: so what?

Let me say it again: removing California and then going "Aha! See! HRC would've lost the popular vote if I take that state out" is 100% totally and completely arbitrary. I honestly can't understand why you dont grasp that. Why stop at one state? Why not two? Ten?

Even the snopes article you quoted says,

"One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election."

Whatever electoral system one is in favor of, it's absurd and arbitrary to hypothetically exclude a part of the whole and then argue the counterfactual result. California is a US state. The voting population of each US state counts toward the popular vote tally that is historically calculated. Right now we have a system where Wyoming votes are 3.6x weighted vs California. The popular vote hypothetical of excluding CA would weight those votes at a value of zero. No matter which system you favor, do you see the absurdity of using CA exclusion to make a point?

I am obviously in favor of the popular vote and against the EC, and have been since 2000. But, what I don't do, is pretend I'm impartial and then go around trying to make some stupid point like "well, if we just excluded all electoral college members whose first names starts with the letter L then the other person would've won"

All I can say is, "screw you" with your claim of "disingenuous". I find that, honestly, to be insulting. As I said, I do not have a dog in this fight. What I have been is completely honest and clear.

All I said was that the HRC lead in the popular vote was that it was completely due to California. That is all. Your wall of text showed your bias. I have no bias.

If you want to insult me more, have at it. However, all I ask is that you be honest and sincere. To be equally honest, I have not been insincere. Show me the same respect.

 

[pgg]

Whatever electoral system one is in favor of, it's absurd and arbitrary to hypothetically exclude a part of the whole and then argue the counterfactual result.

It's just as absurd and arbitrary to pretend the popular vote means something when everyone knows the election is decided by the electoral college. The existence of the EC dictates campaign strategy. Who knows what the vote in CA or NY would have been if the popular vote mattered and the candidates campaigned there? Did Trump even set foot in CA during his campaign?

This persistent fixation on how Clinton coulda shoulda won and how Trump's win is tarnished or delegitimized because of the popular vote baffles me. It is literally no different than a Yankees fan whining about losing to the Dodgers by 5 runs to 4 on a day when the Yankees got 11 hits to the Dodgers' 7.

If you don't like the EC then you should join a movement to change the Constitution. There's a mechanism for doing so.

 

[Planktonmd]

It is too bad he is the only viable candidate that the Republicans can put up at this point in time.

The republican senators wouldn't dare challenge him because he has a strong grip over their constituents and they want to keep the senate.
It's all about job security.

 

[Planktonmd]

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is going to hang on until her death next year. By then, the election will be around the corner so the GOP controlled Senate won't be able to get their nominee through the vetting process. Instead, the election will decide her seat and I'm betting that despite Trump's victories in the upcoming debates Biden wins the 2020 election.

So you actually are able to tell when people will die! Can you walk on water too?

 

[MoMoGesiologist]

They may have been, in 2004, in a small Utah town of 8,000. You tell me.

Again, change is hard. Please don't fool yourselves that most heterosexuals, in 2004, were as tolerant toward homosexuals as they may be today. Also, don't confuse tolerance (as in live and let live) with seeing them as equals.

I was lucky to have been raised by a mother who emphasized not judging people based on characteristics that are not their choice. Others were not.

At one time it was a “moderate” opinion that black people counted as 3/5 a person or that women shouldn’t vote. It’s a moderate opinion in some countries today that girls younger than their teens can be married off to older men.

The question becomes does moral truth change with time and place or should we not use our current, local values to judge others. For me it’s hard not to judge but I’m willing to hear the argument why we shouldn’t

 

[deleted171991]

At one time it was a “moderate” opinion that black people counted as 3/5 a person or that women shouldn’t vote. It’s a moderate opinion in some countries today that girls younger than their teens can be married off to older men.

The question becomes does moral truth change with time and place or should we not use our current, local values to judge others. For me it’s hard not to judge but I’m willing to hear the argument why we shouldn’t

Yes, moral truth does change with time (other truths, too - we once believed that the Earth was flat, some still do). Also, peer pressure is a very important social engine, and one of the reasons we didn't prosecute every single German after WWII. It is very hard to go against the herd. It usually leads to ostracization (just see the current left-wing "cancellations"). Even those of us who can't stand PC will rarely go against it, for fear of being misunderstood and shunned.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." We wouldn't have that saying if it didn't describe a frequent event, whatever the evil may be.

When about slavery, we as a nation were morally r-t-rded when compared to others, even 200 years ago. Btw, which person was better 200 years ago: the one who didn't own slaves, or the one who treated them as valued family members, thus saving them from savage owners?

So, Dr. Dull is about as guilty as the entire town who didn't confront him back in 2004. Eight thousand or so morally "deplorable" people, right?

 

[vector2]

It's just as absurd and arbitrary to pretend the popular vote means something when everyone knows the election is decided by the electoral college. The existence of the EC dictates campaign strategy. Who knows what the vote in CA or NY would have been if the popular vote mattered and the candidates campaigned there? Did Trump even set foot in CA during his campaign?

This persistent fixation on how Clinton coulda shoulda won and how Trump's win is tarnished or delegitimized because of the popular vote baffles me. It is literally no different than a Yankees fan whining about losing to the Dodgers by 5 runs to 4 on a day when the Yankees got 11 hits to the Dodgers' 7.

If you don't like the EC then you should join a movement to change the Constitution. There's a mechanism for doing so.

It's not absurd to consider what the popular vote result means because, as you state, we do have a mechanism which has been employed 27 times to change the ultimate law which governs this country. It's also not absurd on a theoretical level to consider the popular vote because the PV is already used to decide the outcome of a bazillion state and local elections. Not to mention, The National Popular Vote bill has already been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions representing 196 EC votes

I am in agreement that no one could've predicted the counterfactual (although my thinking is trump could've campaigned in CA to very little effect considering his margin of defeat in his home state/residence of 70 years), but ultimately, whomever was the winner of 2016 is less important than us as a country deciding whether each person's vote is actually being counted fairly. When the first Congress was founded, there was 1 representative for every 57,000 people. What's absurd is thinking that the founders couldve imagined that a couple hundred some years later there would be 1 rep for every 747,000 people. Those waxing about how important the EC is to the defense of a democratic republic should consider whether constituents' concerns are really heard at all when each rep has to listen to 3/4 of a million people. My position is that even if you think changing to a PV is a pipedream, congressional apportionment has been changed as recently as a hundred years ago, and changing it now to increase representation (and thus total number of EC votes) should be a no-brainer to anyone interested in fairness.

And don't you worry pgg, I put my money where my mouth is. Even if it's small you never know when the movement could catch fire: Donate

Answering Myths

Changing the way we elect the President is an important topic that deserves careful scrutiny. This page summarizes the concerns that have been raised during the course of the debate on the National Popular Vote bill, and shows how they are myths. The myths are grouped into categories that can be...

www.nationalpopularvote.com

 

[vector2]

All I can say is, "screw you" with your claim of "disingenuous". I find that, honestly, to be insulting. As I said, I do not have a dog in this fight. What I have been is completely honest and clear.

All I said was that the HRC lead in the popular vote was that it was completely due to California. That is all. Your wall of text showed your bias. I have no bias.

If you want to insult me more, have at it. However, all I ask is that you be honest and sincere. To be equally honest, I have not been insincere. Show me the same respect.

Sorry for the wall of text, let me condense down the exchange :

Tl;dr

Me: Hrc won the popular vote by 3 million vote margin, so indeed, a higher total number of American voters favored the Democrat, but yet the outcome did not reflect that. I found that unfair in 2000 and I find it unfair now.

You: Yes, but if you remove California then HRC would've lost. Also, you're a liberal and I am totally unbiased.

Me: But why would you remove California? That seems silly because CA is a US state filled with American voters....

You: Screw you. You're a partisan jerk.

 

[deleted162650]

Sorry for the wall of text, let me condense down the exchange :

Tl;dr

Me: Hrc won the popular vote by 3 million vote margin, so indeed, a higher total number of American voters favored the Democrat, but yet the outcome did not reflect that. I found that unfair in 2000 and I find it unfair now.

You: Yes, but if you remove California then HRC would've lost. Also, you're a liberal and I am totally unbiased.

Me: But why would you remove California? That seems silly because CA is a US state filled with American voters....

You: Screw you. You're a partisan jerk.

Something tells me you wouldn’t be bitching about it had the EC and PV results been flipped.

 

[ryanjmy]

The true “deplorables,” the ones that really elected Trump in 2016 and will re-elect him in 2020- the ones democrats just cannot seem to understand - are those that do not personally like Trump and his racist / stupid statements — but largely agree with many of his policies. And believe that the extreme left policies being voiced on the other side would destroy our country.

Exactly. Trump is a means to an end. Every republican candidate is going to be labeled a bigot. Most people are tone deaf to this talk.

 

[deleted126335]

If you don't like the EC then you should join a movement to change the Constitution. There's a mechanism for doing so.

I think an end run on the individual state level that allows for and encourages faithless electors is a more likely to be effective strategy.

 

[vector2]

Something tells me you wouldn’t be bitching about it had the EC and PV results been flipped.

That's an absurd enough hypothetical (considering the electoral geographic distribution and the total # of registered D vs R voters) that you might've well as said 'what if green were orange?' .....but believe it or not some of us can actually remain internally consistent in our beliefs even if "our team" loses.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I think an end run on the individual state level that allows for and encourages faithless electors is a more likely to be effective strategy.

I saw a neat idea where the electors that are based on population get distributed proportionally while the 2 that every state gets at baseline go to whoever wins the majority of that state.

Seems like a nice compromise to me.

 

[deleted126335]

I saw a neat idea where the electors that are based on population get distributed proportionally while the 2 that every state gets at baseline go to whoever wins the majority of that state.

Seems like a nice compromise to me.

What is this word compromise?

 

[deleted171991]

I saw a neat idea where the electors that are based on population get distributed proportionally while the 2 that every state gets at baseline go to whoever wins the majority of that state.

Seems like a nice compromise to me.

Certain European states do this with their senators and representatives.

 

[deleted171991]

What is this word compromise?

It's a compromised word.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Certain European states do this with their senators and representatives.

Oh, well in that case we can't do it.

'Murica!

 

[deleted171991]

Oh, well in that case we can't do it.

'Murica!

 

[pgg]

It's not absurd to consider what the popular vote result means because, as you state, we do have a mechanism which has been employed 27 times to change the ultimate law which governs this country. It's also not absurd on a theoretical level to consider the popular vote because the PV is already used to decide the outcome of a bazillion state and local elections. Not to mention, The National Popular Vote bill has already been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions representing 196 EC votes

I am in agreement that no one could've predicted the counterfactual (although my thinking is trump could've campaigned in CA to very little effect considering his margin of defeat in his home state/residence of 70 years), but ultimately, whomever was the winner of 2016 is less important than us as a country deciding whether each person's vote is actually being counted fairly. When the first Congress was founded, there was 1 representative for every 57,000 people. What's absurd is thinking that the founders couldve imagined that a couple hundred some years later there would be 1 rep for every 747,000 people. Those waxing about how important the EC is to the defense of a democratic republic should consider whether constituents' concerns are really heard at all when each rep has to listen to 3/4 of a million people. My position is that even if you think changing to a PV is a pipedream, congressional apportionment has been changed as recently as a hundred years ago, and changing it now to increase representation (and thus total number of EC votes) should be a no-brainer to anyone interested in fairness.

And don't you worry pgg, I put my money where my mouth is. Even if it's small you never know when the movement could catch fire: Donate

Answering Myths

Changing the way we elect the President is an important topic that deserves careful scrutiny. This page summarizes the concerns that have been raised during the course of the debate on the National Popular Vote bill, and shows how they are myths. The myths are grouped into categories that can be...

www.nationalpopularvote.com

I'm not reflexively opposed to increasing the size of the House of Representatives by a factor of 13, though I wonder how useful that would be when the body already gets so little done with 435 people split into two factions. As you wrote, it's been over 100 years since that number changed so sure, maybe we should revisit it.

You (and everyone who supported Clinton over Trump) seem very angry about the EC, and it really just has the smell of disappointment and sour grapes. You speak of the popular vote as if it's some kind of self-evident "right" way to elect a president, but it's not. Maybe instead of trying to change these rules Democratic candidates could try harder to get votes from people in red states.

The other half of Congress is made up of 2 Senators from each state, for exactly the same reason the EC exists - to prevent smaller, less populous states from being dominated by more populous states. Arguing that presidents should be elected by popular vote is like saying California should have more Senators than Wyoming. We already have a segment of government that is proportioned to population. The other segments don't have to be; indeed were designed NOT to be.

I don't see anything on the nationalpopularvote.com web site about abolishing the Senate. I wonder why that is.

For the record, I voted for the libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson) in 2016. My employer limits what I can say about currently elected officials, but you can dig up my posts from those days to read what I thought about everyone when they were candidates. My opinions haven't changed.

I do not favor changing either the Senate or the EC. Good luck with your nationalpopularvote thing. That's democracy in action and though I disagree with the aim, I can respect non-deplorable efforts like that.

 

[pgg]

I think an end run on the individual state level that allows for and encourages faithless electors is a more likely to be effective strategy.

Somehow I suspect that faithless electors will only be applauded by the people who's preferred candidate they defected to.

I don't see how encouraging electors to flat out ignore the votes cast by the people is an improvement for either a republic or a democracy.

 

[deleted171991]

Somehow I suspect that faithless electors will only be applauded by the people who's preferred candidate they defected to.

I don't see how encouraging electors to flat out ignore the votes cast by the people is an improvement for either a republic or a democracy.

The electoral system was invented EXACTLY for the faithless electors. That's why it's unconstitutional to oblige an elector to follow the popular vote. The idea was to put a more elite group of citizens over the hoi polloi, to avoid excesses and intemperate outbursts by the masses. This country is not a (full) democracy, nor was it designed to be. It's the electors who vote for the president and the people who have a consulting role, not the other way round. 😉

Hamilton viewed the system as superior to direct popular election. First, he recognized, the "sense of the people should operate in the choice", and would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College. Second, the electors would be:

...men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice and to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Federalist No. 68 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[pgg]

The electoral system was invented EXACTLY for the faithless electors. The idea was to put a more elite group of citizens over the hoi polloi. This country is not a democracy; was never designed to be.

Back then the electors weren't elected by the people. Over time states passed laws to change that.

The idea of having an elite buffer between the people and the presidency was abandoned a long time ago. All that's left is the (slight) numeric tilt toward smaller states. I'm just a little amused that stepping backward, toward that kind of non-accountability to the people, is being presented as a way to correct an imagined injustice from a supposed EC-not-popvote flaw.

 

[deleted171991]

Back then the electors weren't elected by the people. Over time states passed laws to change that.

You still can't tell an elector how to vote. It's unconstitutional (even if by state law). You elect them as you wish, but they are not obliged in any way to vote for the candidate of the party which nominated them.

Appeals court says Colorado elector didn't have to vote for Clinton

A federal appeals court has found it was unconstitutional for Colorado to block an elector from voting for a candidate other than the winner of the state's popular vote in 2016, which was Hillary Clinton

www.cnn.com

 

[pgg]

You still can't tell an elector how to vote. It's unconstitutional (even if by state law). You elect them as you wish, but they are not obliged in any way to vote for the candidate of the party which nominated them.

Appeals court says Colorado elector didn't have to vote for Clinton

A federal appeals court has found it was unconstitutional for Colorado to block an elector from voting for a candidate other than the winner of the state's popular vote in 2016, which was Hillary Clinton

www.cnn.com

I didn't know that. I thought some states had made the votes binding.

 

[vector2]

I'm not reflexively opposed to increasing the size of the House of Representatives by a factor of 13, though I wonder how useful that would be when the body already gets so little done with 435 people split into two factions. As you wrote, it's been over 100 years since that number changed so sure, maybe we should revisit it.

You (and everyone who supported Clinton over Trump) seem very angry about the EC, and it really just has the smell of disappointment and sour grapes. You speak of the popular vote as if it's some kind of self-evident "right" way to elect a president, but it's not. Maybe instead of trying to change these rules Democratic candidates could try harder to get votes from people in red states.

The other half of Congress is made up of 2 Senators from each state, for exactly the same reason the EC exists - to prevent smaller, less populous states from being dominated by more populous states. Arguing that presidents should be elected by popular vote is like saying California should have more Senators than Wyoming. We already have a segment of government that is proportioned to population. The other segments don't have to be; indeed were designed NOT to be.

I don't see anything on the nationalpopularvote.com web site about abolishing the Senate. I wonder why that is.

For the record, I voted for the libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson) in 2016. My employer limits what I can say about currently elected officials, but you can dig up my posts from those days to read what I thought about everyone when they were candidates. My opinions haven't changed.

I do not favor changing either the Senate or the EC. Good luck with your nationalpopularvote thing. That's democracy in action and though I disagree with the aim, I can respect non-deplorable efforts like that.

I wouldn't necessarily conflate fairer representation, i.e. more reps per capita in Congress with the inability for Congress to get anything done. There are myriad other problems like gerrymandering, the filibuster, and the majority/minority leaders having way too much control as to which legislation is brought up for consideration.

Consider though, the way geographic population density is changing, by 2040 there will be 16 senators representing half of the entire population and 84 representing the other half. Is that what the founders had in mind when planning for a body of congress to be not entirely proportional? The history of how we came to have this particular number of senators is fascinating, but it seems little of it stemmed from principles of democracy, fairness, or justness. . You say that electing the president by popular vote is like saying California should have more senators than Wyoming. I would pose a broader moral and political question to you, outside of constitutional originalism concerns, about whether this is actually undesirable. As I said earlier, the electoral college and non-proportional representation no longer serves the original intent of the founders, so what purpose does it serve today other than allowing a hyperpartisan smaller minority to obstruct the wishes of a majority of the American people? You imply that California shouldn't have more Senators than Wyoming because presumably that would be unfair, but where in the fairness scale does that fall in relation to 80,000 people in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania deciding who becomes president?

I'm not exactly a political philosopher so it may be a bit difficult for me to explain why a popular vote is a priori the right way, but there are many other writers out there more educated then myself who have offered persuasive arguments. What I can say is that intuitively it feels like we as human beings desire some form of fairness when it comes to democratically choosing who governs us, and something feels particularly unjust being governed by someone who lost by 3 million votes and who can barely hit a 40% (let alone break 50%) approval rating for the entirety of his tenure.

I've followed politics for the last 20 years in much the same way I followed sports (relatively avidly and for entertainment value), but I was severely mistaken for the first 18 years of my voting eligibility because I had the false impression that voting didnt matter since I lived in mostly deep red and an occasional deep blue state. This was erroneous because there were probably a hundred downticket races where my vote would have counted, and realizing this fact is part of the reason that 2018 was the first election in which I participated.

I wasn't particularly fond of hrc, but I was the "standard" amount of anti-trump because I felt he was an unqualified, uneducated, undignified, racist, xenophobic boor. However, my streak of non-voting continued because I trusted that the almost perfect correlation between popular vote and EC victory would hold. While I'm sure others who were big hrc supporters and who actually voted reek of "sour grapes," it would be strange for me to hold that kind of grudge since I didn't actually cast what must feel like an unjust, artificially partial vote.

 

[lymphocyte]

I didn't hear anyone complaining about the EC until HRC lost. It was crickets. Why now the concern?

Was Bush v Gore before your time?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Was Bush v Gore before your time?

I don't recall quite the same uproar

 

[lymphocyte]

I don't recall quite the same uproar

That's true. Maybe because the margin was much less, the Supreme Court settled the issue definitively, and Bush was less polarising. But there seems to be a structural issue that needs addressing going back at least 20 years -- either we agree the EC is the best way of doing things in a massive and geographically diverse country or we decide on something better. But it seems utterly wrong and anti-democratic to only have the conversation when somebody's favourite candidate wins/loses.