Trump protestors

[swansont]

swansonT,

 

In every election and while watching the returns of every state, you see the same thing. A large swath of America is red and there is a little blue around the great lakes, in the NE and on the West Coast. And in each state race, the early vote comes in from the countryside red and later goes blue as Detroit or Miami or Phili comes in with their large city vote. In California, in the area where the two terrorists killed the guy's coworkers, the area is highly red, yet the state always goes blue because of Los Angeles and San Francisco and San Diego. I dropped California, because they are a good indicator of why the popular vote usually goes blue, and why the only way the reds ever have a voice in presidential elections is the extra votes in the electoral college that small population states get.

 

Yes, I am aware of this. I am asking you why the numerous denizens of e.g San Francisco or Detroit should not be considered citizens worthy of representation, as your analysis implies.

[tar]

swansonT,

 

They should be considered, and they are. But so should the small states be represented. If the founders of the constitution put together a genius system of checks and balances, which they did, you have to ask why we have senators at all, and why we just don't have a house of representatives that reflects the population better. And in any case, we have a representative system and the population does not vote for most issues and laws, anyway. We vote for someone to represent us, and states rightswise, the senate is important in this balance. If New York City and Chicago and Miami and Dallas and LA where allowed to make the laws, the laws would favor city interests and rural America would be left out of power and unable to have a say in their own future.

 

Regards, TAR

.

[swansont]

swansonT,

 

They should be considered, and they are. But so should the small states be represented. If the founders of the constitution put together a genius system of checks and balances, which they did, you have to ask why we have senators at all, and why we just don't have a house of representatives that reflects the population better. And in any case, we have a representative system and the population does not vote for most issues and laws, anyway. We vote for someone to represent us, and states rightswise, the senate is important in this balance. If New York City and Chicago and Miami and Dallas and LA where allowed to make the laws, the laws would favor city interests and rural America would be left out of power and unable to have a say in their own future.

 

Regards, TAR

.

The small states ARE represented. From a senate perspective, they get more representation than people from big states. In some cases, they get more representation in the House.

 

So stop waffling and answer my question.

[MigL]

Very interesting ( and informative ) maps Delta.

Thank you.

[npts2020]

Yes, I am aware of this. I am asking you why the numerous denizens of e.g San Francisco or Detroit should not be considered citizens worthy of representation, as your analysis implies.

A large plurality of Americans are not represented in the US government. The largest number of voters *by far* are neither Republican nor Democrat. How many elected officials around the country are not Democrats or Republicans?

[swansont]

A large plurality of Americans are not represented in the US government. The largest number of voters *by far* are neither Republican nor Democrat. How many elected officials around the country are not Democrats or Republicans?

 

 

Some by disenfranchisement and some because of apathy. I have sympathy for the former, not the latter. If someone chooses not to participate, then that's their choice. As far as actual voters go, they are still represented — i.e. a representative exists — even if they don't like their choices. That we have a two-party system was not an issue I was discussing. I want to know why tar feels that simply dismissing a certain group of voters is reasonable when discussing who won the popular vote.

[Ten oz]

Considering voter turnout was at a 20yr low and both candidates (Clinton and Trump) received less votes than the losing candidate in 2012 I think we are overstating the rural vs metro angle. It seems apathy twowards the 2 candidates more so than a nation divided is responsible for the outcome.The map below reflects voter participation change between 2012 and 2016. Most of the country had little to no change.

 

 

 

 

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I was not dismissing California voters, I was pointing out that their wishes override the wishes of the rest of the country, as the city vote overrides the rural. Many election cycles have the republican winning in blue states up until the city vote comes in and the blue state goes blue. The red states go red and the republican is close to the democrat, until late poll closing California comes in, and 55 electoral votes outweigh the decision of two big states or three small states or 10 little states.

 

I am not dismissing these voters, I am using their 55 electoral votes arrival on the scene, as an analog to the city vote coming in in the blue states to underscore the fact that my red vote in a blue state, means absolutely nothing, as I live in NJ when Paterson and Newark and Camden nearly always pull the state blue. And I was dropping California to point out, that Trump won the electoral vote, even though Hilary got the California 55. And I dropped California to show that before California numbers came in Trump was actually ahead in the popular vote. So why are you discounting the wishes of the other 49 states, when minus California, the popular vote was for Trump?

 

Regards TAR

Ten Oz,

 

Thinking about the low vote turnout, I am remembering from the individual state maps talked about on CNN that red counties came in stronger than normal and blue counties came in weaker. A lot of Trump supporters energized in the red areas and a lot of Sanders supporters and minority voters and people with doubts about Hilary sitting the thing out. When my wife and I went to the polls, we drove past the high school where there was a group of about 15 kids with chairs and Trump signs excitingly urging us to vote Trump.

 

As I watched CNN I expected the big city counties to come in Blue and turn the state. In state after state, PA in particular the city vote came in Blue with big percentage blue, but the numbers were not large enough to overcome the early red lead it usually does. The red numbers kept coming in, and the blue numbers did not. Not like usual.

 

So, I agree, that the 60 million Trump votes does not tell the story of where the country wants to go. But it does tell the story of who 60.2 million want to lead their country. It counters who 60.8 million wanted and in that, there are 700,000 whose plurality is overridden by the electoral college system and 700,000 more people wanted Hilary than Trump, but still the wishes of the 60.2 that wanted Trump to lead, are to be respected, in this situation. Even if they are deplorable in the eyes of the other 60.8 million.

 

So the appointment of Bannon has brought more people to the street, to protest against white supremacy. I am white, and I don't want to be supreme. I like the Seahawks locking arms to show we are one tribe. Americans. And the color of our skin is irrelevant.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 14, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

I was not dismissing California voters, I was pointing out that their wishes override the wishes of the rest of the country, as the city vote overrides the rural.

 

 

How do they do that? Do California voters, or city voters, get more than one vote per person? You are still taking the position that these voters should get less of a say, so you are, in fact, dismissing them.

 

I am not dismissing these voters, I am using their 55 electoral votes arrival on the scene, as an analog to the city vote coming in in the blue states to underscore the fact that my red vote in a blue state, means absolutely nothing, as I live in NJ when Paterson and Newark and Camden nearly always pull the state blue. And I was dropping California to point out, that Trump won the electoral vote, even though Hilary got the California 55. And I dropped California to show that before California numbers came in Trump was actually ahead in the popular vote. So why are you discounting the wishes of the other 49 states, when minus California, the popular vote was for Trump?

 

 

I'm not doing anything other than asking you why this is a reasonable argument. A lot of people live in California, but you are insinuating that they are not really part of the country and don't count.

 

The argument boils down to "if things weren't the same, they'd be different". BFD. In the meantime, California is part of the US, and Clinton won the popular vote.

[Ten oz]

SwansonT,

 

I was not dismissing California voters, I was pointing out that their wishes override the wishes of the rest of the country, as the city vote overrides the rural. Many election cycles have the republican winning in blue states up until the city vote comes in and the blue state goes blue. The red states go red and the republican is close to the democrat, until late poll closing California comes in, and 55 electoral votes outweigh the decision of two big states or three small states or 10 little states.

 

I am not dismissing these voters, I am using their 55 electoral votes arrival on the scene, as an analog to the city vote coming in in the blue states to underscore the fact that my red vote in a blue state, means absolutely nothing, as I live in NJ when Paterson and Newark and Camden nearly always pull the state blue. And I was dropping California to point out, that Trump won the electoral vote, even though Hilary got the California 55. And I dropped California to show that before California numbers came in Trump was actually ahead in the popular vote. So why are you discounting the wishes of the other 49 states, when minus California, the popular vote was for Trump?

 

Regards TAR

Republican lost the popular vote in 2000 but still won the White House, Republicans lost the popular vote by 1.4 million in House races in 2012 but still picked up over 30 more seats, and now just lost the popular vote for the White House again yet still won. Between 1888 and 1996 this wasn't an issue a single time. A trend is forming and it appears to only help one party. It is worth a national debate.

 

After FDR served 4 terms we admended the Constitution to ensure that would never happen again. After the Supreme court stripped the voting rights act in 2013 (Shelby County v. Holder) 30 states changed their voting laws. Changes to our system have happened throughout our history and continue to happen. Insisting that the system is the way it is ignores the fluidity that actually exists.

 

Changes we should consider in my opinion:

- Election day should happen on the weekend or be a holiday so the greatest number of people can participate.

- Any time there is a split between the popular vote and and the Electoral College there should be an automatic recount in every state within 5%.

- A national law that outlines early voting rather than state by state laws. The vote is for national office so why not have a common national standard.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I am not dismissing California, I am arguing the same idea you are pressing in the opposite direction. Minus California, the popular vote in ALL the other 49 together, went to Trump. Why should California liberals dictate the policy by which the rest of the country goes?

 

Regards, TAR

[Tim88]

Civil unrest, assault, burning private property, because some of the electorate didn't like the results of a democratic election. This is shameful, and classless. I cannot recall Republicans rioting after the results of '08 and '12 elections, or any other election regarding both sides. Obama is calling for unification and a peaceful transition.

 

your thoughts?

 

~EE

 

I agree that it's classless and the excesses are shameful, but it's hardly surprising - for example Hitler and Hamas were democratically elected, but not everyone was happy about those events either. And while comparisons with Hitler are much exaggerated, for me the related question remains: How could someone who calls for things like torture and murder remain eligible for president? Has the USA no rules to prevent such an incredible thing? In my eyes, THAT is most shameful.

 

This isn't anything like earlier elections in the USA that I know of, it's more like like the Philippines where the people chose another lawless guy for their president earlier this year - and hardly surprising, that madman likes Trump, and Trump likes Putin.

[Ten oz]

 

I agree that it's classless and the excesses are shameful, but it's hardly surprising - for example Hitler and Hamas were democratically elected, but not everyone was happy about those events either. And while comparisons with Hitler are much exaggerated, for me the related question remains: How could someone who calls for things like torture and murder remain eligible for president? Has the USA no rules to prevent such an incredible thing? In my eyes, THAT is most shameful.

 

This isn't anything like earlier elections in the USA that I know of, it's more like like the Philippines where the people chose another lawless guy for their president earlier this year - and hardly surprising, that madman likes Trump, and Trump likes Putin.

Voter turnout was at a 20yr low. Only about 56% of eligible voter participated. The comparisons made to Obama's victories that some have made ignore the difference in context I think. Obama won the popular vote by several million votes in both elections and participation was up not down. In this election participation was down (some feel by design) and the winner lost the popular vote. A smaller minority of the eligible voting population decided this election than we have seen in a long time.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I like the idea of the popular vote having more influence. For instance, if we did not have the system where all the votes of a state go to the popular vote winner, my red vote, in a blue state would matter, and all states would be various shades of purple.

 

Regards, TAR

but then all the values of the electoral college system would be defeated

I think we all think we live in a democracy when we actually live in a representative republic.

[Delta1212]

Ten Oz,

 

I like the idea of the popular vote having more influence. For instance, if we did not have the system where all the votes of a state go to the popular vote winner, my red vote, in a blue state would matter, and all states would be various shades of purple.

 

Regards, TAR

 

but then all the values of the electoral college system would be defeated

 

I think we all think we live in a democracy when we actually live in a representative republic.

It wouldn't, actually. If the benefit of the Electoral College is, in your view, that it bolsters the influence of people who live in less populous states, then it would still ultimately do that. The votes per electoral vote in those states would still be more favorable than in the more populous states, they would just break up along the lines people actually voted in that state instead of all going to the majority in that state.

 

A vote in Wyoming would still count four times as much as a vote from New York the way it does now.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Delta1212

[tar]

if we each had to pay attention to every line of every bill and debate each and vote on it, we would not have any time to do anything else and most would not be paying proper attention and just the few that were would establish policy for all...so I don't know about hoping for pure democracy

and there is my 90 10 argument that says 10 percent of the population lead the other 90

 

In this, the senator system is workable, as it is better for a capable and trustworthy person to decide policy than to let us all decide upon it by popular vote. We are liable to all vote for free food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care and entertainment, and vote to have the 10 percent that know how to add value, pay for it.

Edited November 14, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

On the other hand, the way it seems right now is that the ten percent has structured the political and economic system so that they have access to all of those things and everyone else be damned.

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

So are you for the senate or against? The electoral college give votes to states according to the population, reflected in the house rep numbers, and two each reflecting the two senators per state.

 

Regards, TAR

One thing important to my 90 10 theory is that it is incumbent upon the 10 percent to do things in the best interest of those that they lead.

This is where the trustworthy part of the capable and trustworthy comes in.

[Delta1212]

But there is no special correlation between competence and trustworthiness. There is no reason to expect that the most capable 10% of the population is also the the most trustworthy 10% of the population.

 

 

The common complaint about democracy is that the people can just vote to give themselves more money/benefits/whatever at the expense of whoever's money it was originally.

 

But that's not actually a flaw in democracy. That's what ultimately happens in every system of government. Whoever has the power grants themselves privileges at the expense of those with less power than themselves. In an outright democracy, those with power are the majority of people. In pretty much every other form of government, it is a much smaller minority.

 

For some reason, we much more comfortable with a small leadership of the most powerful individuals accumulating wealth and privileges for themselves at the expense of the larger mass of people than we are with the larger mass of people taking privileges and resources from the most powerful class.

[tar]

On the other hand, the way it seems right now is that the ten percent has structured the political and economic system so that they have access to all of those things and everyone else be damned.

 

well yeah, there is that

 

but such has been the political question forever

 

Socialism fails because the people that work the hardest and are the most capable get no more than the lazy dolt.

 

Capitalism fails because the boss that sits in his office giving orders makes more than the guy sweating on the line.

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

I am not dismissing California, I am arguing the same idea you are pressing in the opposite direction. Minus California, the popular vote in ALL the other 49 together, went to Trump. Why should California liberals dictate the policy by which the rest of the country goes?

 

Regards, TAR

I am not pressing in the opposite direction, I am simply questioning your premise that a conservative from Wyoming (or anywhere else) should be able to dictate the government of a liberal in California, but that the opposite is not true. I have not seen you defend why that should be the case. My position is one of equal counting of votes, and we were discussing the popular vote.

 

Despite your claims of non-dismissal, you are doing exactly that. California shouldn't count because they've a majority of liberals. If that's not your position, then you have done a poor job of explaining yourself.

[tar]

but here we have the protests in the street that say that all we fear from Trump, all the demonization of Trump, the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic misogynist claims of Hilary and Warren and Reid are true, and we must take to the streets to keep it from happening in our county

 

One must ask which party, in this debate is being the most divisive. Preventing Trump from getting into office was what one side attempted. Preventing Hilary from getting into office is what the other side did in this election. With demonization on both sides. Innuendo and slippery slopes and evil intent on the other person's part. The fate of the country in terms of supreme court and laws and international status hanging in the balance.

 

Thing is, Trump won. The debate is over. The other side is not now, or ever was as evil as the other side says. We would not have lost the country had Hilary been elected, and we will not lose the country now that Trump will be president.

 

Regards, TAR

[zapatos]

 

Socialism fails because the people that work the hardest and are the most capable get no more than the lazy dolt.

 

 

Not in any version of socialism I've ever heard of. Perhaps you are thinking of communism.

[tar]

swansonT,

 

They absolutely should count.

 

Regards, TAR

Zapatos,

 

Ok then communism.

 

Regards, TAR

Zapatos,

 

Which brings up the love trumps hate thing, and the Bernie supporter thing, and perhaps the blue we have at the coasts and our borders...in this manner. The socialism of Bernie is similar to the socialism of Europe. The blue in our country happens in the metropolitan cities with international airports and near the borders with Mexico and socialist Canada. The red happens in the middle of the country and in the countryside where exposure to other cultures and ideas is less.

 

When I as a suburbanite visit the city areas, as I did last night to go to Jimmy Buff's in my old home town, my wife felt uncomfortable, and I stood outside the car with her as she smoked her after dinner cigarette, when in other areas of the country I would get in the car and let her smoke.

 

Socialism works in Europe because the people of each European country are ethnically similar and view each other as we.

 

In the city, where people have different clothes and different churches and different moral values, where one feels that the other is the other, some third person, socialism is not as easy. It is a we they thing. Like the reason we moved out of East Orange was the crime and drugs that were evident as more blacks moved in and more whites moved out. Racist? I guess. But socialism would say that Syrian refugees are welcome to share the wealth that mostly non-Syrians have created. And the xenophobic reaction is to suggest that Syrians make their own county better, not come over here and enjoy the situation we have created for ourselves.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 14, 2016 by tar

[Phi for All]

Ok then communism.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Here, RIGHT HERE, is where you fail as an American.

 

Remember it. It's important.

 

In treating economic solutions like socialism, capitalism, and communism as entire systems, you push ignorance into a situation that needs information and critical thinking. By conflating socialism with communism (Oh, I defined socialism wrong? OK then communism), you're sticking your head in the sand about ownership and economic responsibility. You've admitted you like owning the roads and parks and museums, which we've chosen to treat socialistically, yet you continually refer to socialism like communism and always assume it's replacing capitalism somehow.

 

I guess I can understand why you don't recognize good socialism when you see it, mostly because people like you who label themselves conservative always insist on padding social programs with lots of capitalist concerns, to make them seem less communistic in your minds. I don't know why you think having the People own certain processes like transportation infrastructure is the same as state ownership, where you would have no say.

 

In all the years I've discussed politics with you, you've always allowed your fear of paying for lazy people to override your basic care and concern for those in legitimate need of social programs. If I sift through the waffle long enough, I find that you support a helping hand for all the widowed mothers, but you listen to the other fear-mongers and disallow funding because that same helping hand program might benefit a few you've judged as undeserving. So People suffer because you can't figure out how we can cover basic needs for human dignity and still make a profit, or because you purposely misunderstand how social responsibility increases overall benefit while still allowing you to be in a privileged class.