[RD] The Democrats are to Blame for Republican Control of the US

[Timsup2nothin]

I think it is more of a structural failure. The political system was designed to maintain greater representation for the rural areas, which was a great idea at the time. However, as transportation technology made urbanization at a level the framers of the constitution would have considered unimaginable into a reality the system has broken down. The urban population has effectively been disenfranchised.

 

[schlaufuchs]

One of the really big problems in the US system too is the "enforced" two-party system (even if the US Constitution doesn't mention political parties or an analogous term once), to the degree that it's become absolutely ingrained like a law of physics (or act of God, depending on your side of THAT argument) and a vote for a Third Party or Independent is "inherently" and "intrinsically" viewed as a wasted or protest vote. Statistically, multi-party systems have higher voter turnout and greater election enthusiasm and less chance a given voter will not have a candidate they can get behind voting for. Also, the funny and ironic fact is, in truth, the US already is a multi-party system, but is in denial. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are effectively shaky and often dysfunctional coalitions of several unofficial parties (that are commonly called "camps" or "factions") who have their candidates bottlenecked through a process called "primaries" and a "convention" to nominate just one candidate for each elected office for each of the Democratic and Republican labels, which only further leads to voter alienation or a "pick your poison" attitude at the polls.

Because their votes are wasted in a literal sense. Only those votes contributing to a 50.1% majority in a state are counted. Everything else is not ultimately counted.

 

[Tristan_C]

It fails to acknowledge the massive increases in welfare and happiness that have actually been brought about in the last century or so. I don't want to oversell this, but most of the problems we (most of us here) have now are pretty minor compared to not knowing whether you'll starve soon or dying a slow, painful death any day due to some relatively simple condition that is incurable due to the lack of knowledge or medicine. Heck, we still get a taste of the latter when we are stricken with cancer or some disease that is still not curable these days - and who would rather have that over pressing boring buttons every day?

Despite the last century, I understand scholars remain convinced that the high mark of human happiness was the late Neolithic period, an almost Edenic period following the last Ice Age which resulted in people developing agriculture during their enormous amount of free time (and thus return to relative misery). It is possible that human intelligence edged upward during this period, as well, since there was little else to select for.

I think it is more of a structural failure. The political system was designed to maintain greater representation for the rural areas, which was a great idea at the time. However, as transportation technology made urbanization at a level the framers of the constitution would have considered unimaginable into a reality the system has broken down. The urban population has effectively been disenfranchised.

States with large cities are basically ruled by those cities with an iron fist, though. So it's sort of the other way around. The city(s) outvotes the rest of the state in the statewide tally of votes, and dictates the electoral college vote for the whole state. California, New York, Illinois? Now Virginia since Washington DC's population is surging? Many others, too.

The system is still a great idea even in this time. I am a fan of the Electoral College as one of the many barricades against true democracy, which the framers (being smart guys) acknowledged as a ridiculous, capricious trap. I expected the opposite of what actually happened in the election (Trump the populist might have won the popular vote while Hillary, the professional campaigner, secured the EC) and was nonetheless prepared to defend the EC even after it screwed my candidate of choice over. Now it's just kind of facile for me to defend the EC. Oh well.

Because their votes are wasted in a literal sense. Only those votes contributing to a 50.1% majority in a state are counted. Everything else is not ultimately counted.

What if the popular nationwide vote was used instead of the EC? Exactly as you said: it would be the tyranny of the majority. In this case, you overestimate the strength of the majority. It was 50.0975% for Hillary, not 50.1%.

The electoral college, which usually delivers the majority opinion but also a smattering of minority interests in the long term. This is better for a nation with no clear mandate (I don't interpret 50.0975% as a clear mandate).

 

[warpus]

From the outside it looks like the Democratic party is ran by a bunch of morons.

I'm surprised large groups of Democrat voters haven't already started the process of abandoning the party. If you keep supporting these asshats they are not going to change. No matter what they do or how incompetent they are, they always get a lot of support. So why would they even think of changing the way they operate?

"But if we don't vote Democrat a Republican will be elected"

Look around, Republicans just got elected into everything.

 

[schlaufuchs]

What if the popular nationwide vote was used instead of the EC? Exactly as you said: it would be the tyranny of the majority. In this case, you overestimate the strength of the majority. It was 50.0975% for Hillary, not 50.1%.

The electoral college, which usually delivers the majority opinion but also a smattering of minority interests in the long term. This is better for a nation with no clear mandate (I don't interpret 50.0975% as a clear mandate).

Were it the popular vote at their votes would be counted, rather than summarily ignored. The EC does not protect rural interests because the vast majority of rural voters do not matter. As I said in another thread, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and North Dakota saw the highest proportion of their votes thrown out. I like the idea of the electoral college. I do think that protecting minority interests is important. But the Electoral College as-is with a FPTP where votes are counted at a state level is not that. Rather it is a system where if you live in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Florida, Nevada, or New Hampshire your issues are deeply important to us, and if you don't y'all can just fudge off because you don't matter. Except for you, New York and California, because we need your money. How is that a fair system? Even to rural folk?

 

[Lexicus]

I think the numbers demonstrate pretty well at this point that Clinton did not lose because Trump inspired lots of new voters. Turnout in this election was lower than in 2012, on both sides:

Last night and this morning many seemed to think that the reason Trump won was because angry white voters turned out in large numbers to vote for him. But with nearly all the votes now tallied it appears as though that’s just not the case. In fact, Trump garnered fewer overall votes nationwide than John McCain and Mitt Romney, the past two losing GOP nominees, did in 2008 and 2012. As of this writing, with almost all votes counted, Trump has tallied 59,611,678 votes; Romney pulled in 60,933,504 in 2012, and McCain 59,948,323 in 2008.

By comparison, Hillary’s 59,814,018 votes (which won her the popular vote, but not the Electoral College vote) is considerably less than the 69,498,516 Obama got in 2008, and the 65,915,795 he received in 2012. She was particularly hurt by low turnout in crucial swing states.

The question is why Democratic voters did not vote for Clinton in sufficient numbers. And I think the answer is a combination of two things: voter suppression efforts by Republican-controlled state governments, and that Clinton was not inspiring enough to get people to turn out.


http://uproxx.com/news/hillary-clinton-democratic-voter-turnout/

 

[Archbob]

No, actually republican voters are to blame for this. They are the ones who vote to put these guys in. Just like, they are at fault if Trump takes the country down. They voted for him.

 

[Tristan_C]

Rather it is a system where if you live in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Florida, Nevada, or New Hampshire your issues are deeply important to us, and if you don't y'all can just **** off because you don't matter.

This is certainly worth contemplating but it is connected to issues far more offensive than the Electoral College. Why does the presidential campaign season last two years, why do our two parties have an arcane caucus/primary system that emphasizes random states and generates terrible candidates in the end, and why must there be a two-party system to begin with.

 

[warpus]

First past the post leads to a 2 party system. We are looking into abandoning first past the post here in Canada and adopting a more representative type of democracy. Whether it happens or not is another question, but there's your answer. As long as you stick to first past the post, your system is always going to tend to a 2 party system. And I mean, if people continue to support the 2 large parties no matter what happens, this isn't going to change.

As for your elections taking so long, yeah, eventually a president is going to get elected and will right away start working on getting re-elected. It's insane but that's how you guys like it, I'm assuming

 

[Lexicus]

No, actually republican voters are to blame for this. They are the ones who vote to put these guys in. Just like, they are at fault if Trump takes the country down. They voted for him.

Right, well keep repeating that if it makes you feel better but it's not going to win you any elections.

 

[Bootstoots]

The question is why Democratic voters did not vote for Clinton in sufficient numbers. And I think the answer is a combination of two things: voter suppression efforts by Republican-controlled state governments, and that Clinton was not inspiring enough to get people to turn out.
http://uproxx.com/news/hillary-clinton-democratic-voter-turnout/

Do have any idea to what extent voter suppression actually worked in this election, and whether it was enough to flip parts of the Rust Belt red along with NC and FL? Trump won FL, PA, MI, and WI by less than two percentage points each, so it seems plausible albeit pretty unlikely that voter suppression might have made a difference.

This is one of the biggest lessons for the Dems: they need to choose someone who actually excites enough people to vote. Abstention is a political choice except where vote is suppressed, and if your candidate is totally uninspiring, many people will choose abstention over your candidate.

I think the biggest lesson, though, is that liberal cultural attitudes towards working class rural and suburban white people need to change. The election was lost in these sorts of places; there was a huge swing against the Democrats among a variety of mostly white rural and suburban counties throughout the Midwest and parts of the Northeast. A substantial number of Obama 2012 voters went to Trump, and even more didn't vote even in places that have liberal early and absentee voting rules, which makes me think they genuinely did not like any candidate. Take a look at Iowa and Wisconsin in particular: there used to be a huge blue patch in the eastern half of Iowa and southeastern Wisconsin that just completely vanished this year. Iowa swung 15 points from Obama by 6 percentage points to Trump by 9. I think its 2012 and 2016 election maps are really revealing of what happened.

Spoiler What went wrong, Hawkeye edition :

(apologies for slightly different color scheme)

Note that while Obama won most of eastern Iowa, including literally every county along the Mississippi, Clinton won only six counties of 99 total. All six have significant cities, universities, or both in them.

 

[Lexicus]

Do have any idea to what extent voter suppression actually worked in this election, and whether it was enough to flip parts of the Rust Belt red along with NC and FL? Trump won FL, PA, MI, and WI by less than two percentage points each, so it seems plausible albeit pretty unlikely that voter suppression might have made a difference.

I don't, but that's partly because voter suppression by its nature is not going to be incredibly visible. My sense is that voter suppression probably had an impact but it was not decisive.

 

[Patine]

Because their votes are wasted in a literal sense. Only those votes contributing to a 50.1% majority in a state are counted. Everything else is not ultimately counted.

But you haven't actually justified the need for POLITICAL PARTIES to choke down everything. Constitutionally, the electors in the EC are dedicated to a "candidate" and the candidate's "running mate," who, by the 12th Amendment must be on the same, ticket, but again, the US Constitution is silent on party membership or even existence of parties. Also, believe it or not, the all-or-nothing thing of a state's electors is NOT in the US Constitution - it was an informal and unofficial fudge of the system done later to "simplify" things and, probably, to continue to prop up a duopoly. If you look, the 18th Century and many 19th Century elections, (especially from the first half)and even a few times in the 20th Century have states with their EV's openly split between candidates, without the special "exception" of Nebraska and Maine today.
In my opinion political parties, especially if they've become so entrenched as to be considered "necessary" for the system to even work, where the idea of voting for a minor party or independent is automatically "throwing away your vote" and politics is more about labeling what party you support than a sober, realistic, well-thought-out, pragmatic, and adaptable view on the political situation, then indeed parties have overstayed their welcome, corrupted the system, and become, themselves, pure poison to the representative democratic system.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

States with large cities are basically ruled by those cities with an iron fist, though. So it's sort of the other way around. The city(s) outvotes the rest of the state in the statewide tally of votes, and dictates the electoral college vote for the whole state. California, New York, Illinois? Now Virginia since Washington DC's population is surging? Many others, too.

The system is still a great idea even in this time. I am a fan of the Electoral College as one of the many barricades against true democracy, which the framers (being smart guys) acknowledged as a ridiculous, capricious trap. I expected the opposite of what actually happened in the election (Trump the populist might have won the popular vote while Hillary, the professional campaigner, secured the EC) and was nonetheless prepared to defend the EC even after it screwed my candidate of choice over. Now it's just kind of facile for me to defend the EC. Oh well.

What if the popular nationwide vote was used instead of the EC? Exactly as you said: it would be the tyranny of the majority. In this case, you overestimate the strength of the majority. It was 50.0975% for Hillary, not 50.1%.

The electoral college, which usually delivers the majority opinion but also a smattering of minority interests in the long term. This is better for a nation with no clear mandate (I don't interpret 50.0975% as a clear mandate).

I wasn't actually referring exclusively to the electoral college, and your description of how state governments operate, while accurate, is not relevant to my actual point.

The federal government structure, as a whole, empowers the rural states. Best evidence of this is that an overpoweringly popular president spent the vast majority of his terms completely hamstrung, because as "one o' them smart city fellers" the congressional leadership sent to congress from podunk districts was irrevocably against anything he proposed, sight unseen. Now we have these towering examples of backwardness potentially empowered by a president elected by the same podunkians. We can thus expect the shackles to come off and yet another wave of "sounds good but is actually stupid" to breeze through in the name of "getting something done" rather than "that terrible gridlock."

In short, the system produces gridlock that can only be broken by intermittent periods of abject failure, since it gives too much power to the rural population of undereducated deplorables.

 

[BvBPL]

...it gives too much power to the rural population of undereducated deplorables.

If you’re a farm hand, a rancher, or a roustabout, you don’t need a college degree to do your job. Ergo, not having one does not make you undereducated.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you’re a farm hand, a rancher, or a roustabout, you don’t need a college degree to do your job. Ergo, not having one does not make you undereducated.

True. But if you are a resident in a "company town" in the middle of nowhere that was built around a factory that closed down a couple decades ago and you "can't leave" because you think you either can't compete elsewhere or you just don't understand the world well enough to recognize you are a dying leaf on a dead branch that does make you undereducated, and there are a whole lot more of those than there are farm and ranch hands.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

They can't leave because it costs money that they don't have, like college, or don't want to, because they love their community. Jesus.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They can't leave because it costs money that they don't have, like college, or don't want to, because they love their community. Jesus.

I love "living off the land" in a place where abundant crystal clear water flows directly to my mouth and pizza grows on trees...but I'm not going to pretend the fact that I haven't found such a place is anyone elses problem.

They "love" their dying community? Okay, so they choose to stay. How does this make fixing their situation a national problem?

They "can't leave because it costs money"? I know a guy who crossed an international border illegally with six hundred dollars in cash and a Bic lighter and survived as a fugitive quite handily, for years. I've avoided traceable income for a decade and a half. I am not really open to whining about what people "can't afford to do."

 

[Lexicus]

They can't leave because it costs money that they don't have, like college, or don't want to, because they love their community. Jesus.

You are talking to an unabashed market fundamentalist...of course he isn't going to get it.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I am not really open to whining about what people "can't afford to do."

Then why support a welfare system at all if you aren't open to "what people can't afford to do"