Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 205648 times)

jrhampt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #450 on: December 12, 2016, 02:42:45 PM »
I'm hardly certain Trump suppressed democratic voter turnout. Hillary and the DNC own that.

Trump won the election because a majority of areas of the USA supported him over the other candidates.  I mean, he flipped Florida, and Michigan etc. I just can't get behind any popular vote discussion because it's completely unhelpful and unproductive - either work within the Trump system to make things better, or get a party that can put up candidates that have broader appeal than Trump and win a damn election. Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

The only reason it merits any kind of discussion is that people in this thread (and the president elect) are disputing an objective fact. 

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1349
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #451 on: December 12, 2016, 02:48:18 PM »
I'm hardly certain Trump suppressed democratic voter turnout. Hillary and the DNC own that.

Trump won the election because a majority of areas of the USA supported him over the other candidates.  I mean, he flipped Florida, and Michigan etc. I just can't get behind any popular vote discussion because it's completely unhelpful and unproductive - either work within the Trump system to make things better, or get a party that can put up candidates that have broader appeal than Trump and win a damn election. Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

This is a slightly different directly, but voter turnout suppression is systematic in some states:
https://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/inside-the-republican-creation-of-the-north-carolina-voting-bill-dubbed-the-monster-law/2016/09/01/79162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_term=.419779dfb253

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #452 on: December 12, 2016, 11:33:55 PM »
I'm hardly certain Trump suppressed democratic voter turnout. Hillary and the DNC own that.

Trump won the election because a majority of areas of the USA supported him over the other candidates.  I mean, he flipped Florida, and Michigan etc. I just can't get behind any popular vote discussion because it's completely unhelpful and unproductive - either work within the Trump system to make things better, or get a party that can put up candidates that have broader appeal than Trump and win a damn election. Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

This is a slightly different directly, but voter turnout suppression is systematic in some states:
https://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/inside-the-republican-creation-of-the-north-carolina-voting-bill-dubbed-the-monster-law/2016/09/01/79162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_term=.419779dfb253

It should also be noted that these laws are important because they affect almost exclusively the poor and POC. You know, people who tend to vote Dem. They're so good at it that one law was struck down because of its "surgical precision" in marginalizing only those groups. And if you don't think Republicans know about this when they enact these laws, then I've heard of this Nigerian prince that needs your help. All you have to do is send me some money and....

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5286
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #453 on: December 12, 2016, 11:53:27 PM »
Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

This is SUCH an interesting point I just can't stop thinking about it.

So you're totally fine with the country electing a President who loses the election by 2%, as long as he wins the electoral college.  Would you also be fine with electing someone who lost by 90%?  At what point do you think the country's changing population distribution will warrant changing the electoral college?

If a 2% loss is fine, how about a 5% loss or a 10% loss or a 25% loss?  Surely there comes a point when we would all recognize that an electoral system that habitually elected the minority candidate must be fundamentally flawed, right?  In theory, it's people who are voting and the electoral college is supposed to just be a convenient way of counting up the people.

So as of today 40% of the most recent presidential elections have elected the candidate who did NOT get the most votes.  What if it was the next five in a row?  Would we, as a nation, complain if the minority candidate won in more than half of elections?  How about more than 80% of elections?  When do we decide it's broken?  Shouldn't something as important as American democracy work more than 60% of the time?

Because I don't see this problem going away anytime soon.  It appears to be fundamentally broken, and I'm just trying to identify some ground rules for what it would take to convince people that America's best interests are not being served here. 

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7172
  • Registered member
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #454 on: December 13, 2016, 12:54:00 AM »
Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

This is SUCH an interesting point I just can't stop thinking about it.

So you're totally fine with the country electing a President who loses the election by 2%, as long as he wins the electoral college.  Would you also be fine with electing someone who lost by 90%?  At what point do you think the country's changing population distribution will warrant changing the electoral college?

If a 2% loss is fine, how about a 5% loss or a 10% loss or a 25% loss?  Surely there comes a point when we would all recognize that an electoral system that habitually elected the minority candidate must be fundamentally flawed, right?  In theory, it's people who are voting and the electoral college is supposed to just be a convenient way of counting up the people.

So as of today 40% of the most recent presidential elections have elected the candidate who did NOT get the most votes.  What if it was the next five in a row?  Would we, as a nation, complain if the minority candidate won in more than half of elections?  How about more than 80% of elections?  When do we decide it's broken?  Shouldn't something as important as American democracy work more than 60% of the time?

Because I don't see this problem going away anytime soon.  It appears to be fundamentally broken, and I'm just trying to identify some ground rules for what it would take to convince people that America's best interests are not being served here.

Don't forget to disband the senate while you're at it.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #455 on: December 13, 2016, 03:53:53 AM »
Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

This is SUCH an interesting point I just can't stop thinking about it.

So you're totally fine with the country electing a President who loses the election by 2%, as long as he wins the electoral college.  Would you also be fine with electing someone who lost by 90%?  At what point do you think the country's changing population distribution will warrant changing the electoral college?

If a 2% loss is fine, how about a 5% loss or a 10% loss or a 25% loss?  Surely there comes a point when we would all recognize that an electoral system that habitually elected the minority candidate must be fundamentally flawed, right?  In theory, it's people who are voting and the electoral college is supposed to just be a convenient way of counting up the people.

So as of today 40% of the most recent presidential elections have elected the candidate who did NOT get the most votes.  What if it was the next five in a row?  Would we, as a nation, complain if the minority candidate won in more than half of elections?  How about more than 80% of elections?  When do we decide it's broken?  Shouldn't something as important as American democracy work more than 60% of the time?

Because I don't see this problem going away anytime soon.  It appears to be fundamentally broken, and I'm just trying to identify some ground rules for what it would take to convince people that America's best interests are not being served here.

America is not a democracy. So I don't hold its elections to the same standards I might hold a democracy. Personally, I'd be fine with up to approximately 8% leeway with popular vote. I don't feel that the candidate that gets 1 single more vote than the other should automatically take all, nor do I feel that a 2% majority is a reason to run roughshod over minority views.   

I would absolutely support moving towards a more 'representative republic' to increase the power minority views have in the United States' government. It wouldn't have changed this election results, but would be my preferred route for improvement.

As far as convincing people that it is not in America's best interest to protect minority views while providing a stop-gap against mob rule or a completely dangerous populist candidate; I'm not sure you've presented enough evidence that a simple majority vote would provide these protections while greatly increasing the 'will of the people'.  I'm also of the opinion that in America, people often get the government they deserve, as unfortunate as that is, though it doesn't particularly address the point of improvements.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2301
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #456 on: December 13, 2016, 04:22:50 AM »
The US might be more of a representative democracy if it did away with gerrymandering, which looks utterly corrupt.   I guess the College of Electors is another form of gerrymandering - unless it does its job and saves the US from a corrupt, ill-informed, anti-intellectual idiot who is in hock to the two biggest totalitarian regimes in the world.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #457 on: December 13, 2016, 05:49:07 AM »
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #458 on: December 13, 2016, 06:01:37 AM »
The US might be more of a representative democracy if it did away with gerrymandering, which looks utterly corrupt.   I guess the College of Electors is another form of gerrymandering - unless it does its job and saves the US from a corrupt, ill-informed, anti-intellectual idiot who is in hock to the two biggest totalitarian regimes in the world.

I think it could be argued that the electoral college is not gerrymandered, unless you think that state borders were purposely drawn to group as few people into them as possible for the purpose of winning presidential elections.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #459 on: December 13, 2016, 07:16:34 AM »

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #460 on: December 13, 2016, 07:21:41 AM »
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #461 on: December 13, 2016, 07:26:00 AM »
where there is this much smoke, there has to be fire.   

If this election cycle has taught me anything it's that this adage is no longer true.

That said - I see lots of FIRE in this here smoke. So in the case of our president elect, the adage holds up.
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #462 on: December 13, 2016, 07:34:33 AM »
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

I find this argument fascinating. "Land" is apparently people now?  And certain people's votes (because they have the unpatriotic audacity to live in a city) should matter less than others.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 08:08:38 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

jrhampt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #463 on: December 13, 2016, 08:00:01 AM »

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #464 on: December 13, 2016, 08:09:14 AM »
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

I find this argument fascinating. "Land" is apparently people now?  And certain people's votes (because they have the unpatriotic audacity to live in a city) should matter more than others.

Actually, it is reasonable.   A place like North Dakota can be very harsh but produces quite a bit of resources for the USA (we drove through there and the giant farms were everywhere).   Giving them a small say in who is president seems to be fair compared to the winters they must endure to live there.

There is a reason everyone crowds to the coasts...it is a very desirable area with decent climate.   So should we reward those who already have the best place to live with the sole power to choose who is president?

If you are so upset about it, you could move from the city to a place like North Dakota and vote there.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1965
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #465 on: December 13, 2016, 08:23:52 AM »
It is just one messed up state with too many people that skews the whole country.

I wasn't talking about an enclave, I was talking about how most of the people in the United States voted.  If you ignored the artificially drawn lines and just asked American citizens what they wanted, Clinton would be our next president.

But that's not how we elect presidents in America, land of the free.  In fact, in 40% of the most recent presidential elections, we have elected the person who did NOT get the most votes.

Is everyone really okay with that?  Will we still be okay with it if it starts happening every single time?  Will we be okay with it if we start electing the person who loses the vote by 10%, or by 75%?

Can we please stop whining about the popular vote? It's silly and clearly pointless. It means nothing. That's not how the election works so we have no idea who most Americans wanted to be president. Until we have an election were the popular vote matters we just don't know. Having the election by one set of rules, then declaring that the looser won according to these other rules that nobody played by is just stupid, and frankly looks pathetic.

If it was a simple popular vote election Trump would have campaigned in CA and NY. Would that have gotten more votes for him there? Maybe. Clinton could have campaigned in.. states other than FL, OH and PA? Maybe her ignoring WI and Michigan wouldn't have been so bad.. Millions of people don't vote, for the simple reason that their vote don't matter. If you're a republican in a deep blue state, or vise versa why would you bother? What would the balance of non-voting republicans vs democrats be? No idea. Trump is a horrible scumbag, but he won according to how the rules are set up. Deal with it.

PS: I almost hate Clinton as much right now for managing to somehow loose to this pathetic Berlusconi-Stalin hybrid with a spray tan. Seriously, if you can't beat that you're insanely incompetent and clearly don't deserve to be president! So in that regard I'm glad she's not.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #466 on: December 13, 2016, 08:31:53 AM »
PS: I almost hate Clinton as much right now for managing to somehow loose to this pathetic Berlusconi-Stalin hybrid with a spray tan. Seriously, if you can't beat that you're insanely incompetent and clearly don't deserve to be president! So in that regard I'm glad she's not.

I don't hate Clinton for running. I certainly don't hate her for losing. I don't think she would have been a good president, and I don't support most of her policies.  I do hate the people who thought she could beat Trump for not nominating or voting for someone who could.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1965
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #467 on: December 13, 2016, 08:43:42 AM »
Actually, it is reasonable.   A place like North Dakota can be very harsh but produces quite a bit of resources for the USA (we drove through there and the giant farms were everywhere).   Giving them a small say in who is president seems to be fair compared to the winters they must endure to live there.

There is a reason everyone crowds to the coasts...it is a very desirable area with decent climate.   So should we reward those who already have the best place to live with the sole power to choose who is president?

If you are so upset about it, you could move from the city to a place like North Dakota and vote there.

Fascinating! Can you tell me some other criteria we should use to decide how much more on person's vote should count over another? So far we have:
- Relative harshness of climate (how do we measure this? Average temperatures? Minimum? Rainfall?)
- Economic output. Per person per sq-mi? GDP/person/sq-mi? In this regard I think cities would still crush rural areas though. And isn't extractive industries just taking advantage of what belongs to everyone? Google create value "out of thin air"...
- Geographic area is more important than number of citizens

Let's think of some more:
- Tax payments? I pay more, shouldn't I have a larger say??
- More miles driven should have more say in transportation policy?
- Hawaii is so nice those people get zero votes.
- Old people will die soon so they get no votes, and:
- Babies have a long life ahead, they get double.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #468 on: December 13, 2016, 08:44:36 AM »
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

I find this argument fascinating. "Land" is apparently people now?  And certain people's votes (because they have the unpatriotic audacity to live in a city) should matter more than others.

Actually, it is reasonable.   A place like North Dakota can be very harsh but produces quite a bit of resources for the USA (we drove through there and the giant farms were everywhere).   Giving them a small say in who is president seems to be fair compared to the winters they must endure to live there.

There is a reason everyone crowds to the coasts...it is a very desirable area with decent climate.   So should we reward those who already have the best place to live with the sole power to choose who is president?

If you are so upset about it, you could move from the city to a place like North Dakota and vote there.

I used to live in a place like that. In fact, I was born and grew up in a place like that. The opportunities for me were so few, and people's disdain for my beliefs and values was so oppressive that I moved away.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 09:01:48 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #469 on: December 13, 2016, 08:53:19 AM »
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #470 on: December 13, 2016, 09:20:11 AM »
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

It is not logical to protect the rights of minority voters. It is still important, however.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #471 on: December 13, 2016, 09:22:32 AM »
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

It is not logical to protect the rights of minority voters. It is still important, however.
I wasn't thinking of minority voters, I was thinking of voters in some states have less voting power than others due to the EC set up.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #472 on: December 13, 2016, 09:30:27 AM »
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

It is not logical to protect the rights of minority voters. It is still important, however.
I wasn't thinking of minority voters, I was thinking of voters in some states have less voting power than others due to the EC set up.

Quite. Especially because the voters who have more power due to the EC set up are almost all white.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #473 on: December 13, 2016, 09:34:37 AM »
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

It is not logical to protect the rights of minority voters. It is still important, however.
I wasn't thinking of minority voters, I was thinking of voters in some states have less voting power than others due to the EC set up.

Quite. Especially because the voters who have more power due to the EC set up are almost all white.

O Jesus, its always the race card with you isn't it Kris.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #474 on: December 13, 2016, 09:36:50 AM »
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

It is not logical to protect the rights of minority voters. It is still important, however.
I wasn't thinking of minority voters, I was thinking of voters in some states have less voting power than others due to the EC set up.

Quite. Especially because the voters who have more power due to the EC set up are almost all white.

O Jesus, its always the race card with you isn't it Kris.

No. It is not. But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

jrhampt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #475 on: December 13, 2016, 09:45:09 AM »
+1

So sorry people are offended when injustice is pointed out. Be offended by the unjustice instead.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5286
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #476 on: December 13, 2016, 09:45:56 AM »
But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.

I think it does, as long as by "minority" you mean rural whites.

What could possibly be a better argument for protecting the minority's interest than electing the minority's candidate for president?

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #477 on: December 13, 2016, 09:49:30 AM »
The senate also provides a lot more power to low-population states.

But all of this was deliberate, you have to remember. The rural/urban divide existed (and was, in fact, personified) in Jefferson and Hamilton.

-W

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #478 on: December 13, 2016, 09:50:14 AM »
But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.

I think it does, as long as by "minority" you mean rural whites.

What could possibly be a better argument for protecting the minority's interest than electing the minority's candidate for president?

Sure. But it strikes me that the same people who would argue for the rectitude of protecting that "minority" would probably also protest strongly against any reform that would end up privileging any other "minority" that didn't happen to be white.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #479 on: December 13, 2016, 09:55:04 AM »
Define minority voter. Are you basing it on race, gender, geographic location, sexual orientation, etc. I feel like you are starting to play lose with the term minority voter.

While I agree that it is wrong that certain votes count less than others in the current system. I don't understand how it does anyone any good to try and draw conclusions about voluntary geographic location and skin color.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 09:57:12 AM by Pooplips »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #480 on: December 13, 2016, 10:11:26 AM »
Define minority voter. Are you basing it on race, gender, geographic location, sexual orientation, etc. I feel like you are starting to play lose with the term minority voter.

While I agree that it is wrong that certain votes count less than others in the current system. I don't understand how it does anyone any good to try and draw conclusions about voluntary geographic location and skin color.

So your contention is that (in your words) voluntary "minorities" (by way of geographic location) are rightfully offered better protections by way of a more influential vote than minorities by birth, who have no way of changing that status? Or should all of the inner city black people just move to North Dakota?

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #481 on: December 13, 2016, 10:11:50 AM »
Metric Mouse brought up the term "minority" in this instance, by which I assume he is referring to rural white voters.

However, voluntary geographic location, as you point out, doesn't seem enough to qualify someone as a "minority." Especially when that person is white.

Given that, saying that the EC protects "minority" voters seems specious at best.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #482 on: December 13, 2016, 10:14:38 AM »
Define minority voter. Are you basing it on race, gender, geographic location, sexual orientation, etc. I feel like you are starting to play lose with the term minority voter.

While I agree that it is wrong that certain votes count less than others in the current system. I don't understand how it does anyone any good to try and draw conclusions about voluntary geographic location and skin color.

So your contention is that (in your words) voluntary "minorities" (by way of geographic location) are rightfully offered better protections by way of a more influential vote than minorities by birth, who have no way of changing that status? Or should all of the inner city black people just move to North Dakota?

I never said "rightfully". I actually agreed that the current system isn't right. I am objecting to Kris's statement that it's because they are white. That's all.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #483 on: December 13, 2016, 10:15:41 AM »
No. It is not. But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.

The minority of people who live in rural areas. While their racial demographics are similar, they have very different concerns, and very different interests than the majority of urban persons. The EC is one way to insure against their concerns being over-run by simple majority mob rule.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #484 on: December 13, 2016, 10:15:58 AM »
Metric Mouse brought up the term "minority" in this instance, by which I assume he is referring to rural white voters.

However, voluntary geographic location, as you point out, doesn't seem enough to qualify someone as a "minority." Especially when that person is white.

Given that, saying that the EC protects "minority" voters seems specious at best.

I agree with everythign you said with a slight mod.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #485 on: December 13, 2016, 10:16:50 AM »
Define minority voter. Are you basing it on race, gender, geographic location, sexual orientation, etc. I feel like you are starting to play lose with the term minority voter.

While I agree that it is wrong that certain votes count less than others in the current system. I don't understand how it does anyone any good to try and draw conclusions about voluntary geographic location and skin color.

So your contention is that (in your words) voluntary "minorities" (by way of geographic location) are rightfully offered better protections by way of a more influential vote than minorities by birth, who have no way of changing that status? Or should all of the inner city black people just move to North Dakota?

I never said "rightfully". I actually agreed that the current system isn't right. I am objecting to Kris's statement that it's because they are white. That's all.

When did I say it's "because" they are white? I said they are mostly white.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #486 on: December 13, 2016, 10:17:46 AM »
Metric Mouse brought up the term "minority" in this instance, by which I assume he is referring to rural white voters.

However, voluntary geographic location, as you point out, doesn't seem enough to qualify someone as a "minority." Especially when that person is white.

Given that, saying that the EC protects "minority" voters seems specious at best.

I agree with everythign you said with a slight mod.

White people are not yet a racial minority in this country. So you might not agree, but that does not change it.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #487 on: December 13, 2016, 10:20:19 AM »
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #488 on: December 13, 2016, 10:20:58 AM »
Define minority voter. Are you basing it on race, gender, geographic location, sexual orientation, etc. I feel like you are starting to play lose with the term minority voter.

While I agree that it is wrong that certain votes count less than others in the current system. I don't understand how it does anyone any good to try and draw conclusions about voluntary geographic location and skin color.

So your contention is that (in your words) voluntary "minorities" (by way of geographic location) are rightfully offered better protections by way of a more influential vote than minorities by birth, who have no way of changing that status? Or should all of the inner city black people just move to North Dakota?

I never said "rightfully". I actually agreed that the current system isn't right. I am objecting to Kris's statement that it's because they are white. That's all.

Got it, thanks for clarifying. I will add that bringing up race in this context is still meaningful, not because of some "all Trump voters are racist" narrative, but because Trump played with racial identity politics far more blatantly than any recent candidate. Also and more importantly, I think it's fair to point out that the "minorities" many in this and other threads have been defending as needing to be protected from "mob rule" are only minorities in one narrowly defined way. Pointing out their race (by and large) is one way to highlight this fact. If you are all for the EC giving preferential advantages to one particular minority group, you should logically support things like affirmative action, oppose any and all voter suppression efforts, etc.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #489 on: December 13, 2016, 10:22:14 AM »
However, voluntary geographic location, as you point out, doesn't seem enough to qualify someone as a "minority."

Voluntarily choosing to live in an area that has very slightly less (percentage wise, though still massively greater, in absolute terms) voting power should not be a reason to remove voting power from others.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #490 on: December 13, 2016, 10:23:14 AM »
No. It is not. But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.

The minority of people who live in rural areas. While their racial demographics are similar, they have very different concerns, and very different interests than the majority of urban persons. The EC is one way to insure against their concerns being over-run by simple majority mob rule.

I get a kick out of this. 

democracy - control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
"the intended extension of industrial democracy"

So we don't want majority rules then?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #491 on: December 13, 2016, 10:23:47 AM »
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #492 on: December 13, 2016, 10:26:08 AM »


I get a kick out of this. 

democracy - control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

What's you point?

As far as American elections and politics is concerned, this is a more important term: Republic
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Age: 31
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #493 on: December 13, 2016, 10:28:21 AM »
No. It is not. But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.

The minority of people who live in rural areas. While their racial demographics are similar, they have very different concerns, and very different interests than the majority of urban persons. The EC is one way to insure against their concerns being over-run by simple majority mob rule.

I get a kick out of this. 

democracy - control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
"the intended extension of industrial democracy"

So we don't want majority rules then?

No. I want checks and balances like with the House and Senate. One is majority rule the other allows the "minority states" and equal say.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #494 on: December 13, 2016, 10:29:15 AM »
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

It does have a play in that white voters, on average, have a more influential vote than nonwhite voters. This may be largely for geographic reasons but it remains a fact, and if someone is going to wax poetic about the importance of the EC to "protect the 'minority,'" I hope they have given serious additional thought to the many other minority groups in this country beyond those who voluntarily live in middle America.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #495 on: December 13, 2016, 10:31:29 AM »
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

It does have a play in that white voters, on average, have a more influential vote than nonwhite voters. This may be largely for geographic reasons but it remains a fact, and if someone is going to wax poetic about the importance of the EC to "protect the 'minority,'" I hope they have given serious additional thought to the many other minority groups in this country beyond those who voluntarily live in middle America.

So if (insert problem) is based on voluntary conditions, then persons who are affected should move, yes?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1349
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #496 on: December 13, 2016, 10:32:49 AM »
Somewhat on topic quote from Dan Rather today:
Quote
I think we should erect a monument built from materials impervious to the elements and list the names of all the elected officials and others in positions of power today in the United States who refuse to stand with the science on climate change.

We can put this monument on the coast - say off Miami - and have its base equal to the lapping waves of high tide. As sea levels rise, the monument will begin to be submerged, at increasingly greater depths. It will become a symbol of the cynicism, stupidity, and folly of our age. And it will be important for future generations to know who was responsible for this failure of action and imagination as this global crisis crescendoed. When I see Donald Trump cast doubt on climate change, I am deeply disappointed. When I see him appoint climate change deniers to key posts in his cabinet, I am deeply worried. When I see those in the scientific community and elsewhere pushing back, I am determined to bring these voices of reason to light.

Science is not a conclusion. It's a process. It's also about the real world. Not a post-truth world. If you're wrong as a scientist, it's hard to keep that hidden for very long because others will do an experiment and show the limitations of your earlier conclusions.

All these climate change deniers are denigrating the very nature of scientific discovery. It's the same enterprise that, in biological research, leads to the cures these climate deniers plead from their doctors, or the geological research that finds and extracts the raw materials that power these climate deniers' lives, or the physics that makes these climate deniers' modern technology work.

To cherry pick the science you like is to show you really don't understand much of anything. That is your right. But when it affects my life, that of my family, the future direction of my country, and the health of our planet, than the ignorance is far from harmless. The world must remember what is happening here and perhaps the judgement of history might induce some to the action we so desperately need.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #497 on: December 13, 2016, 10:32:55 AM »
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm a "one person, one vote" kind of gal.

But I'm working with the word "minority", which was brought up as a reason why people in NoDak, for example, should have their votes count more than people in California.

There are many ways to define "minority." I didn't bring the term up. But calling people from NoDak "minorities" as a reason their votes should count more seems pretty crazy, since they are not racial minorities, and their choice to live in a particular geographic location is just that: a choice.

My point being, "minority" seems like an argument that crumbles pretty quickly when one brings up the EC and tries to justify it that way.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #498 on: December 13, 2016, 10:35:21 AM »
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

It does have a play in that white voters, on average, have a more influential vote than nonwhite voters. This may be largely for geographic reasons but it remains a fact, and if someone is going to wax poetic about the importance of the EC to "protect the 'minority,'" I hope they have given serious additional thought to the many other minority groups in this country beyond those who voluntarily live in middle America.

So if (insert problem) is based on voluntary conditions, then persons who are affected should move, yes?

You're missing the point. I personally think the "if you don't like it, move" argument is asinine, no matter who is making it. But you and others are on record expressing concern that we not have "mob rule" in this country. The problem with that statement is that the EC only protects against that from a geographic standpoint. There are way more minority groups than rural middle Americans. Why should they be the only ones who benefit from this "protection?"

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1349
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #499 on: December 13, 2016, 10:41:35 AM »
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm a "one person, one vote" kind of gal.

But I'm working with the word "minority", which was brought up as a reason why people in NoDak, for example, should have their votes count more than people in California.

There are many ways to define "minority." I didn't bring the term up. But calling people from NoDak "minorities" as a reason their votes should count more seems pretty crazy, since they are not racial minorities, and their choice to live in a particular geographic location is just that: a choice.

My point being, "minority" seems like an argument that crumbles pretty quickly when one brings up the EC and tries to justify it that way.

Before we get too far into semantics, can we just recognize that the term minority usually has to be interpreted within context? As a white male I am in a majority group (for now0, but I am still within a religious minority in this nation. As a person with a PhD, I am in an educational minority, etc... The use of the term minority does not automatically and equivocally invoke the race card.

The electoral college (as Sol discussed above) was set up as a way for states to select the president and to maintain a political balance of power between regions of the fledgling country. Different portions of the country had pretty different cultures. Slaves were also allotted 3/5 representation (but still not allowed to vote) to help balance that power too. Mathematically, more people in this country live in urban areas now. Rural voters are a mathematical minority. Rural votes have disproportionate power in the EC (and the senate).