Board 8 > If given the option, which recent US presidential election would you flip?

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

My "gut feeling" is that Hillary had 20 points more unfavourability and extremely narrow appeal.

I can't find more closer-dated polls, but we all know and talked about this back in 2016 so this should illustrate the point:

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/bernie-sanders-favorability-february-2016#republican-identification

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/hillary-clinton-favorability-october-2016#republican-identification

Bernie won upsets in the primaries in Wisconsin and Michigan on the backs of independent voters, and he won 70% of the independent voters in Pennsylvania.

If he won those states that Hillary flubbed, he would be President.

There are your "facts and evidence".

You can argue he was in a weaker position than Hillary if you believe more hardcore Hillary stans were going to vote for Trump than Bernie gained in Independents, but then you are validating the position of the Bernie voters who said Democrats and the DNC don't want their votes.

I think that last paragraph is where your version of this alternate universe and where my version of this alternate universe differ. It's not so much "Hillary Stans" as the Democratic party's base of voters (not the establishment, not the DNC, not the Democratic Party Apparatus; I'm talking about the most reliable group of voters who the party believes will turn out to vote for them come election day). We've disagreed on this in the past, but nothing about this country's voting patterns makes me think I'm wrong in saying that America is extremely conservative by Western standards, and the majority of Democratic voters lean more center-right or moderate or centrist, full stop. You put them in a position where the choice is Bernie versus Trump, and I'd HOPE there are a good portion that rightfully realize that Trump is a vile, hate-spewing demagogue. But I'm more inclined to believe that you'd have a sizable chunk of the Democratic base who sees a candidate far to the extreme right of their beliefs, and a candidate far to the extreme left of their beliefs, and they feel like either neither candidate represents them (thus inspiring apathy, or a desire to throw their vote at a third party candidate), or...and this is the one that stings more...they feel more inclined to vote Trump because they're self-centered and the GOP runs on cutting taxes.

Again, maybe I'm misinterpreting your posts in these matters, but the way you word things in these discussions tends to point at the DNC and the politicians and the people at the top as the ones with a problem and the ones who need to change. Do they? Yeah...there are some definite problems with the higher-ups of the Democratic party. But it's also important to consider that a lot of the choices made by the party are the result of the voters who put them into power. That's where I regularly feel a disconnect on this issue. Blaming the DNC is the easiest way to absolve oneself of any responsibility for failure. "They keep fucking up and making mistakes, and they need to change and listen to me more." But that mindset completely ignores the fact that progressive messaging (not even policy, but just the way they message towards a wider audience beyond the voters already onboard with their beliefs) does little to appeal to the moderate majority of Democratic voters.

This is the kind of thinking that led to what we saw in 2020. Bernie went into the Democratic primaries riding a wave of recognition he didn't have going for him in 2016, and aside from Elizabeth Warren, there really wasn't anyone in the field who was going to leech of him in terms of solidifying the progressive vote. And yet, we saw him struggle to beat comparative no-name Pete Buttigieg in Iowa...and worse, in New Hampshire. He had the one strong showing in Nevada, before Biden dominated South Carolina, and then destroyed Bernie on Super Tuesday, in states where he didn't even campaign. And the response was "Well the DNC rigged it to have people drop out" as though Bernie winning entirely because the majority split their votes is a good thing?

I'm sorry...it's just frustrating, because I actually look into progressive policies and they make complete sense to me, and I agree with them and want to see them implemented. I voted for Bernie over Biden in 2020 when the primaries rolled around to my state. But it just seems like progressive voices care more about appealing to their specific base and not considering that the majority of Democratic voters aren't part of that base...and the same messaging isn't going to appeal to them. It's how we get situations like Buffalo, where an open socialist won the Democratic primary, and had the endorsements of a fuckton of "establishment" Democrats...yet she still lost in the general election because voters (GOP included, since their votes matter whether we like it or not) would much rather have a moderate Democrat than a left-winger in power. It's fucking stupid, and I fully acknowledge that it sucks for progressives to feel powerless over this, but constantly blaming "the establishment" instead of acknowledging the voters as having independent choice in the matter, doesn't help fuel wins.

2016 was sort of a one-time opportunity. It was a year in which voters wanted change, one way or another, and were way more receptive to candidates either far to the left or far to the right than usual. That window has now closed, people want candidates in the center again.

foolm0r0n posted...

Of course, assuming we knew that orphan killing results in fewer votes.

This is another good example of your absurdity. You're saying that as long as the opponent kills 2+ orphans, then Hillary is totally absolved of any fault for killing 1 orphan. Like, what? Can't we just accept that killing any # of orphans hurts her chances?

We're not talking about "hurts her chances", we're talking about "deciding the election", and don't think I didn't notice that you've tried to flip this to be about getting less votes when actually Clinton got more votes.

Aside: I don't actually even think killing orphans hurts your chances in the US considering how consistently we elect warmongers. I also don't like Clinton at all and have never voted for her in a primary so I don't know why you keep trying to paint me as a supporter of hers! Show me on the doll where I've ever said anything supportive of Hillary Clinton.

Lopen posted...

Trump killed 2 Orphans
Hillary killed 1
Bernie killed 0

Bernie wins the "I like candidates who don't kill Orphans" vote where Hillary did not because the people who really wanted no Orphan murders abstained or voted independent. They're not interested in "lesser of two evils" votes.

Sure. The only comparison here that matters is Clinton vs Trump though. I'm not talking about Sanders at all.

Lopen posted...

Also hot take I don't think popular vote should actually win and the Electoral College system is better than a purely popular vote approach.

wow shocker i am shocked

Kenri posted...

I also don't like Clinton at all and have never voted for her in a primary so I don't know why you keep trying to paint me as a supporter of hers!

This is the default playbook for people who really hate Clinton. They can't fathom that someone might have, like, a nuanced perspective on the 2016 election.

Lopen posted...

(which are slightly blown out of proportion-- the system is broken but not ridiculously so you're not flipping blowout losses with it)

Hillary defenders flat out disagree with this. To them it's a system that is impossible to win (ignoring all the times they did win with it)

Kenri posted...

We're not talking about "hurts her chances", we're talking about "deciding the election", and don't think I didn't notice that you've tried to flip this to be about getting less votes when actually Clinton got more votes.

The whole point is that hurting your chances by 1% OBVIOUSLY decides the election when the margin is under 1%. Yes the other 49% also decides the election but why dismiss a critical 1%?

And it's always been about more votes. More votes in Pennsylvania and other places that mattered.

Kenri posted...

We're not talking about "hurts her chances", we're talking about "deciding the election", and don't think I didn't notice that you've tried to flip this to be about getting less votes when actually Clinton got more votes.

If Clinton killed 1 Orphan and it lost her the votes of people of people who don't want to vote for an Orphan killer then it's the deciding factor for a bunch of people who abstained or didn't show up as a result. Does that mean it was the number one cause? Not necessarily, but it very well could have been.

Because a lot of people don't care about lesser of two evils they're just not going to show up. "Well that guy is worse" politics doesn't really work. They want an appealing candidate. That's why Hillary lost states she was considered a strong favorite in-- the Democratic base didn't show up because they weren't interested in voting the candidate that murdered one baby vs the candidate that murdered two.

foolm0r0n posted...

The whole point is that hurting your chances by 1% OBVIOUSLY decides the election when the margin is under 1%. Yes the other 49% also decides the election but why dismiss a critical 1%?

Because if your opponent also does the thing that hurts one's chances by 1%, it evens out?

foolm0r0n posted...

And it's always been about more votes. More votes in Pennsylvania and other places that mattered.

OK yeah, thanks for agreeing with me I guess.

Kenri posted...

Because if your opponent also does the thing that hurts one's chances by 1%, it evens out?

It doesn't because republicans don't care about Orphan murdering and democrats do. So Orphan murdering candidates lose more Democrat votes

Lopen posted...

If Clinton killed 1 Orphan and it lost her the votes of people of people who don't want to vote for an Orphan killer then it's the deciding factor for a bunch of people who abstained or didn't show up as a result. Does that mean it was the number one cause? Not necessarily, but it very well could have been.

Because a lot of people don't care about lesser of two evils they're just not going to show up. "Well that guy is worse" politics doesn't really work. They want an appealing candidate. That's why Hillary lost states she was considered a strong favorite in-- the Democratic base didn't show up because they weren't interested in voting the candidate that murdered one baby vs the candidate that murdered two.

Sure but it's not like they voted for Trump, right? So why does it matter? Walk me through this like I'm stupid, why would more votes for Clinton have made any difference at all when you clearly don't win based on more votes (or she'd have won anyway)?

Lopen posted...

It doesn't because republicans don't care about Orphan murdering and democrats do. So Orphan murdering candidates lose more Democrat votes

Granted. But why does party affiliation matter, again?

Kenri posted...

Sure but it's not like they voted for Trump, right? So why does it matter? Walk me through this like I'm stupid, why would more votes for Clinton have made any difference at all when you clearly don't win based on more votes (or she'd have won anyway)?

If more people turn out to support Clinton in the battlefield states she wins.

Hypothetical example because you requested dumb dumb talk

Say Pennsylvania normally gets

75% voters who care about baby killing and vote Democrat 75-25
25% voters who don't care and normally vote republican 75-25

Now due to baby killer vs baby killer that 75% by and large doesn't show up. Say only 20% if it shows up, making their percentage 15% to the other side's 25%. So now you've got this ratio.

37.5% voters who care about baby killing and vote Democrat 75-25
62.5% voters who don't care and normally vote republican 75-25

Now Trump wins a state he would lose under basically any other Democratic candidate that year.

Now you're going to say "well the voter turnout is higher that can't be Lopen" well yes but just say overall voter turnout doubles due to the high stakes election before that and you're still fine. This is just a basic example so you get why losing votes among demographics due to running sleaze can matter.

Lopen posted...

If more people turn out to support Clinton in the battlefield states she wins.

And why does it matter which state her votes are coming from, again...?

For the record, Hillary never killed any orphans. Vince Foster knew both of his parents.

Kenri/KP & Foolmo/Lopen, could you clarify what is even being argued over at this point? Because if I'm understanding what's being said, I think you're both right and aren't inherently disagreeing with each other (aside from Lopen's pro-electoral college stance).

Kenri posted...

Because if your opponent also does the thing that hurts one's chances by 1%, it evens out?

Lopen posted...

It doesn't because republicans don't care about Orphan murdering and democrats do. So Orphan murdering candidates lose more Democrat votes

It's not only that - it's that the opponent has advantages that you don't have ("outsider" image, actual electoral college strategy) so they are winning by default.

If you match all of their downsides but don't add enough upsides to make up for it, you will lose.

Inviso posted...

Kenri/KP & Foolmo/Lopen, could you clarify what is even being argued over at this point?

Whether it was impossible for the Democrats to pick a candidate that could've won Pennsylvania or not. I say yes since they won it 30 years in a row excluding 2016.

Lopen posted...

Each state getting 2 votes for senators and population based representatives is definitely better than just raw popular vote though in the sense of helping the smaller states have a voice.

Why do smaller states deserve extra power just for being small? Especially considering state borders are pretty much completely arbitrary in the first place. For example, do we really need two Dakotas? If not, what's the justification for their extra votes?

(But smaller states don't really skew the Electoral College much anyway, so I suppose it's not relevant to this topic anyway.)

Kenri posted...

And why does it matter which state her votes are coming from, again...?

The theory is that the candidates should need to address regional concerns not just the concerns of population centers.

Whether that's fulfilled in practice is another discussion and I don't think the current system is perfect but flat "more votes" isn't either.

Go back to the previous silly hypothetical where Japan is part of Hawaii. Say the candidate runs on a platform of doing some tax incentive to benefit Japan's (Hawaii's) economy or makes Japanese a mandatory national second language or whatever.

So candidate wins Japan/Hawaii 90-10 (up around 100 million votes)
Loses the rest of US 40-60 (down around 60-70 million votes)

Do you think in this hypothetical United States the candidate should win? The margin is actually not super high in terms of Electoral votes (Japan/Hawaii would have the most votes of the US in this hypothetical but would still be worth less than Texas + New York + California) and I believe would be flipped by the modified electoral vote scheme Maine/Nebraska use.

Inviso posted...

Kenri/KP & Foolmo/Lopen, could you clarify what is even being argued over at this point? Because if I'm understanding what's being said, I think you're both right and aren't inherently disagreeing with each other (aside from Lopen's pro-electoral college stance).

We absolutely are but it's very funny to watch people try to ignore objective reality because they hate Hillary Clinton so much (and/or love the electoral college, I guess)

Lopen posted...

The theory is that the candidates should need to address regional concerns not just the concerns of population centers.

Whether that's fulfilled in practice is another discussion and I don't think the current system is perfect but flat "more votes" isn't either.

Go back to the previous silly hypothetical where Japan is part of Hawaii. Say the candidate runs on a platform of doing some tax incentive to benefit Japan's (Hawaii's) economy or makes Japanese a mandatory national second language or whatever.

So candidate wins Japan/Hawaii 90-10 (up around 100 million votes)
Loses the rest of US 40-60 (down around 60-70 million votes)

Do you think in this hypothetical United States the candidate should win? The margin is actually not super high in terms of Electoral votes (Japan/Hawaii would have the most votes of the US in this hypothetical but would still be worth less than Texas + New York + California) and I believe would be flipped by the modified electoral vote scheme Maine/Nebraska use.

I mean yeah they probably should win in this scenario? Like it's obviously bad but the reverse seems worse to me.

Without the Electoral College, Lincoln could never have gotten elected. He won with 39% of the popular vote by winning across the North with small to moderate margins and getting less than 1% of the vote across the South. Note: the Dems ran 3 candidates because they knew about their Electoral College problem - if there wasn't one they would have run 1 candidate and cruised to victory.

I'm just telling you the theory. You disagree. I think that's because you don't really understand the issue more than "smaller number won grr" (ignoring the fact that it was not really that much smaller) but whatever.

I think the current electoral college is not perfect by any means but I don't think just stacking votes and pandering to population centers for votes on policy is better-- it's worse. Because they absolutely could and would if you did that and that's why the system is set up as it is in theory. The whole point of the United States is we work together on things to make everything gel better. That involves making some concessions to the smaller states at times. The Maine/Nebraska method is a good start-- honestly just doing that with margin of victory per state factored in rather than primarily districts would probably be pretty good and way way better than "more votes win" because more votes win would dumb down the process so much that you'd have massive sections of the country completely ignored because there just aren't enough people living there even if their resources are valuable to the country as a whole.

A President should not be incentivized to ignore large regions of the country because they don't have as many people. Which is basically what Hillary did and why she lost by the way.

The system isn't even working the way it was set up lmao. Like the electoral college exists exactly to keep populists out of power, but now electors aren't allowed in many states to be unfaithful, so we have this system that is not working as intended _or_ working as unintended (because it doesn't work at all).

Lopen posted...

more votes win would dumb down the process so much that you'd have massive sections of the country completely ignored because there just aren't enough people living there even if their resources are valuable to the country as a whole.

got bad news for you about massive sections of country right now (that incidentally have way more people in them than the ones you're worried about)

I mean I think the electoral college should be ignored because the federal government is so weak that no one cares that much about who is president, like it was for decades. Wisconsin can stay proud of their "overpowered" 3 votes or whatever.

Lopen posted...

I'm just telling you the theory. You disagree. I think that's because you don't really understand the issue more than "smaller number won grr" (ignoring the fact that it was not really that much smaller) but whatever.

I think the current electoral college is not perfect by any means but I don't think just stacking votes and pandering to population centers for votes on policy is better-- it's worse. Because they absolutely could and would if you did that and that's why the system is set up as it is in theory. The whole point of the United States is we work together on things to make everything gel better. That involves making some concessions to the smaller states at times. The Maine/Nebraska method is a good start-- honestly just doing that with margin of victory per state factored in rather than primarily districts would probably be pretty good and way way better than "more votes win" because more votes win would dumb down the process so much that you'd have massive sections of the country completely ignored because there just aren't enough people living there even if their resources are valuable to the country as a whole.

A President should not be incentivized to ignore large regions of the country because they don't have as many people. Which is basically what Hillary did and why she lost by the way.

She went all in on NV AZ and GA and got burned basically.

Shes a bad politician. Fact is these last two generations of American politicians are complete fuckin dinks.

Lopen posted...

A President should not be incentivized to ignore large regions of the country because they don't have as many people. Which is basically what Hillary did and why she lost by the way.

You mean like we have now, where Democrats ignore red states, and Republicans ignore blue states?

Ashethan posted...

You mean like we have now, where Democrats ignore red states, and Republicans ignore blue states?

At some level yes.

Would be even worse with raw vote totals.

The idea of some rural backwaters of America determining the POTUS is way more revolting to me than the idea that large crowds of people living in a relatively small area would. People are supposed to vote, not states! Or at least that's how it works everywhere else. And don't even argue other countries aren't so big, since neither was the USA when the Electoral College was established.

Lopen posted...

Would be even worse with raw vote totals.

Prove it.

I mean, the way things are now, rather than an urban majority imposing their will on a low population region, we have a rural minority imposing their will on high population regions. I guess I dont understand why thats considered okay.

Espeon posted...

I mean, the way things are now, rather than an urban majority imposing their will on a low population region, we have a rural minority imposing their will on high population regions. I guess I dont understand why thats considered okay.

Yeah this is really the crux of the matter. Like obviously majority rule is bad but I'm not sure why minority rule is in any way better (and I can think of several reasons why it's worse).

Not to mention that under the current system you actually have both. Fun game, ask a rural Californian if they feel their vote matters!

Going to Lopens pro-EC example, the current system essentially disregards those 100 million Japanese-Hawaiian voters in favor of a minority population that can theoretically impose a law that bans the Japanese language in America.

There is no imposition of will it is literally a 1% flipped result you're complaining about here. These aren't 60-40 elections flipping on their head because bad system.

This boils down to "bigger number should win grr" and you're mad someone who actually knows how the Electoral College works is engaging with you and explaining why it works that way.

Republicans ignoring blue states and Democrats ignoring red is inevitable. In your world the 3-5 Electoral Vote States would be ignored by BOTH parties which is what we're trying to avoid.

I like this, next character battle when Mario beats Crono we should just flip the result.

Lopen posted...

Republicans ignoring blue states and Democrats ignoring red is inevitable. In your world the 3-5 Electoral Vote States would be ignored by BOTH parties which is what we're trying to avoid.

Both sides ignore solid red/blue states, though. Like, how does the need for a few random small states to have a voice make it right to completely ignore the millions of people in California or Texas?

Eddv posted...

I like this, next character battle when Mario beats Crono we should just flip the result.

Arguably already happened in 2003.

Lopen posted...

There is no imposition of will it is literally a 1% flipped result you're complaining about here. These aren't 60-40 elections flipping on their head because bad system.

This boils down to "bigger number should win grr" and you're mad someone who actually knows how the Electoral College works is engaging with you and explaining why it works that way.

Republicans ignoring blue states and Democrats ignoring red is inevitable. In your world the 3-5 Electoral Vote States would be ignored by BOTH parties which is what we're trying to avoid.

They're already ignored. Reds don't campaign there because they know they've got them on lock, and blues don't campaign there because they know they've got no shot. Let's be completely honest here: there are six or maybe seven states at this point that candidates from either party really need to care about. None of the other 43/44 states matter under the current system. At least under a national popular vote, your vote matters regardless of what arbitrary parcel of land you occupy.

Xeybozn posted...

Both sides ignore solid red/blue states, though. Like, how does the need for a few random small states to have a voice make it right to completely ignore the millions of people in California or Texas?

If this is your viewpoint your problem isn't the electoral college as a concept it's the implementation

Which is why I've been saying the Nebraska/Maine way is better and the system needs work instead of "the Electoral College is completely fine"

Just raw population vote is probably worse-- you just don't really understand why the system was designed that way to begin with and want your candidate to win by changing the rules of the game that everyone was aware of when they campaigned poorly.

Lopen posted...

If this is your viewpoint your problem isn't the electoral college as a concept it's the implementation

Which is why I've been saying the Nebraska/Maine way is better and the system needs work instead of "the Electoral College is completely fine"

Just raw population vote is probably worse-- you just don't really understand why the system was designed that way to begin with and want your candidate to win by changing the rules of the game that everyone was aware of when they campaigned poorly.

I mean, we GET why the system was designed the way it was. We know. But under the current system, you have 3 branches of government, and 2.5 of those are dependent entirely on landmass and not the will of the people overall. You have the Senate, which is two senators per state, regardless of population, so every state has an equal say. You have the Presidency, decided by the electoral college, which again is landmass over population. You have the Supreme Court, which is decided by a combination of the Senate and the Presidency.

Meanwhile, the most democratic of the branches is the House of Representatives, but even THAT is determined by arbitrary land mass, rather than outright popular vote, and it's also been capped for almost a hundred years now. AND it's the branch that gets swapped out every two years.

Kenri posted...

Yeah this is really the crux of the matter. Like obviously majority rule is bad but I'm not sure why minority rule is in any way better (and I can think of several reasons why it's worse).

Minority rule is excellent and necessary for freedom. It lets things like anti-racism to bubble up from small progressive areas into the larger society, to eventually challenging the majority.

Problem is the US has no minority rule at all. The "minority" is the losing half of the 2-party system, which has like 48% at any given time. So it's about 51% rule vs 48% rule. There's always been the 2-party system, but in the past most of the power was in the states and cities, so that was how minorities grew. But in the last 100 years all power was federalized, so that's gone.

Parliamentary systems seem way more minority-centric than what the US has currently. 1-5% can actually make a difference, and even 10-20% is very achievable for a minority party.

Inviso posted...

You have the Presidency, decided by the electoral college, which again is landmass over population

I'm glad you think Montana has more Electoral Votes than New York

Inviso posted...

dependent entirely on landmass

Arbitrarily drawn boundaries, not landmass. Though the thought of Alaska controlling ~1/6th of the Senate/EC is pretty funny.

Xeybozn posted...

Arbitrarily drawn boundaries, not landmass. Though the thought of Alaska controlling ~1/6th of the Senate/EC is pretty funny.

Also wrong but closer to right

I don't know if you guys realize but the places with the most EC votes have the highest population.

foolm0r0n posted...

Minority rule is excellent and necessary for freedom. It lets things like anti-racism to bubble up from small progressive areas into the larger society, to eventually challenging the majority.

my brother in christ, if the minority is ruling they don't need to "eventually challenge the majority" they are already in control

anyway yes 2-party system bad

Question, Lopen: When Texas has statewide elections, Harris County (population: ~4.7 million) has thousands of times more votes cast than Loving County (population: probably less than 100). Nothing is done to give extra power to voters in Loving County; all votes are counted the same regardless of which county they come from. Is this fair, or would it only be fair if some complicated system was created to give Loving County a disproportionately large say in the results?

Your hypothetical is absurd because in an electoral college system Loving County would have 3 Electoral Votes to Harris's like 500.

Lopen posted...

Also wrong but closer to right

I don't know if you guys realize but the places with the most EC votes have the highest population.

California has 54 electoral votes. To achieve an equivalent population (only off by 500k in California's favor), you would need to take a large cluster of states (mostly contiguous) in the west/midwest and combine them. However, despite an equivalent population, those states net 82 electoral votes. To EQUAL that, you would need to take the two biggest blue states (California and New York) and add them together. So a population of 38 million is equal in electoral strength to a population of 57 million. How does that make sense to you?

Lopen posted...

Your hypothetical is absurd because in an electoral college system Loving County would have 3 Electoral Votes to Harris's like 500.

this is like the funniest possible answer you could have given, well done.

Inviso posted...

California has 54 electoral votes. To achieve an equivalent population (only off by 500k in California's favor), you would need to take a large cluster of states (mostly contiguous) in the west/midwest and combine them. However, despite an equivalent population, those states net 82 electoral votes. To EQUAL that, you would need to take the two biggest blue states (California and New York) and add them together. So a population of 38 million is equal in electoral strength to a population of 57 million. How does that make sense to you?

Those 54 electoral votes could potentially turn on a single vote. If California were divided 50/50, a single voter could decide the recipient of all 54 of those electoral votes. By contrast, no single voter in the bloc of states with 82 electoral votes could decide anywhere near that many votes on their own.

California gets a significant amount of power from unity of action, which it gives back by having fewer total electoral votes. If California doesn't like it and truly wants to maximize its EVs/capita, it can try to split itself up into multiple smaller states. But the same people who don't like the Electoral College generally don't support that either.