2016 Presidential Election (General Election)

[Arlington]

Why should rural voters have more power just cause they happen to live in the middle of nowhere?

To protect them from the condescension of [and disregard by] city people?

It is not unlike (and actually the fruit of) the small states' demand to be protected from the dominance of big states, not as much protection as they have in the Senate, not as little as they have in the House, but as a blended value when voting for President.

 

[datadyne007]

I hate this argument. So does my vote count less if I live in a city. Why should rural voters have more power just cause they happen to live in the middle of nowhere?

Bingo. The EC is weighted far too heavily in favor of the states with no one in them. Turning out 300,000 democrats in the Bronx has absolutely no effect on the overall result of New York, despite a massive number of people wanting one candidate. If anything, the EC marginalizes far more people than the popular vote would. People wonder why only 49% of the country votes... it's because the votes of people in "safe states" really don't matter. It's just 11 or so states that get swingy.

 

[Arlington]

Bingo. The EC is weighted far too heavily in favor of the states with no one in them. Turning out 300,000 democrats in the Bronx has absolutely no effect on the overall result of New York. If anything, the EC marginalizes far more people than the popular vote would.

Viewed from the Hinterlands, city people already have all the advantages: concentration of learning, media, wealth, power, global trade, & actually living in "the capital cities", why should they have the additional advantage of being able to determine election outcomes all by themselves?

This board is by, for, and about the urban bubble that has done great with its diversity, educated women, & globalization. We like our social norms and other alien-to-the-burbs things like bikes, transit, and walking, and mostly saw Clinton as champion of *all* cities hold dear.

This article is worth a reflective read:
How Half of America Lost its F**king Mind

In our comfy finance-scinfotainment bubble were we really making policies for a nation of 320million people?

 

[TheRifleman]

Hillary won. The person who receives the most votes should be president.

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

So basically the coastal major metropolitan cities determine who the president is every election and the people that live in the rural Midwest can go fuck themselves.

That's great logic.

 

[Arlington]

I hate this argument. So does my vote count less if I live in a city.

It is natural to only see "the system" when it disadvantages us, not when we are advantaged by it.

Lots of votes count more or less for all kinds of reasons. Millions of people who supported neither candidate spend most of every 4 years feeling disenfranchised. Your vote for Clinton might have been 5% to 15% disadvantaged. Votes for Greens or Libertarians were 100% disenfranchised--ever give a thought as to how to enfranchise them?

 

[datadyne007]

It is natural to only see "the system" when it disadvantages us, not when we are advantaged by it.

Lots of votes count more or less for all kinds of reasons. Millions of people who supported neither candidate spend most of every 4 years feeling disenfranchised. Your vote for Clinton might have been 5% to 15% disadvantaged. Votes for Greens or Libertarians were 100% disenfranchised--ever give a thought as to how to enfranchise them?

Yes I have. Ranked Choice Voting/Single Transferable Vote. Maine of all places is leading the way as they just approved it last Tuesday. They are perhaps the poster child for RCV as third party voting gave them 2 rounds of Paul LePage.

 

[Justin7]

They both ran under the same set of rules.

You don't understand the rules. The electors are chosen by the states. The electors then vote for the president. They can vote however they wish. They are free to vote their conscience and they are certainly free to vote for the person who won the national popular vote. That is obviously not how it is usually done, and they may be fined by their respective states, but this system exists as a safeguard for a situation such as this. Otherwise we would just directly attribute electoral votes.

I don't expect it to happen, but it is constitutional, and it should happen, not just because I think this is a disaster, but because my vote should count as much as anyone's vote.

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

 

[Justin7]

So basically the coastal major metropolitan cities determine who the president is every election and the people that live in the rural Midwest can go fuck themselves.

That's great logic.

Go away.

 

[datadyne007]

300,000 people in Wisconsin (mainly in heavily democratic areas) lacked proper ID* because of voter ID laws. Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

The election results have nothing to do with the Democratic Party platform or candidate & everything to do with pure voter suppression.

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...hts-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

*Edited

 

[statler]

300,000 people in Wisconsin (mainly in heavily democratic areas) were turned away because of voter ID laws. Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

The election results have nothing to do with the Democratic Party platform or candidate & everything to do with pure voter suppression.

This is the second time I've seen this stat. I would not be surprised if it is true, but do you have a link?

 

[fattony]

300,000 people in Wisconsin (mainly in heavily democratic areas) were turned away because of voter ID laws. Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

The election results have nothing to do with the Democratic Party platform or candidate & everything to do with pure voter suppression.

Source?

 

[datadyne007]

Source?

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...hts-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

Also, it is apparently 300,000 who lacked proper ID. It is not clear if that is the number that was turned away. I have edited my original post to reflect this. Knowing they didn't have a proper ID though, it's likely many wouldn't go to the polls at all.

This election was indeed the voter suppression election. This is what happens when you void key parts of the Voting Rights Act.

 

[statler]

Thanks! And yes, this is very important and underreported story.

 

[Arlington]

Yes I have. Ranked Choice Voting/Single Transferable Vote. Maine of all places is leading the way as they just approved it last Tuesday. They are perhaps the poster child for RCV as third party voting gave them 2 rounds of Paul LePage.

RCV should be rolled out everywhere. Let me know if anyone starts a ballot initiative for it here, I'll go out and collect signatures.

My general feeling is that the EC embodies all the sausage-making that was needed to establish a federal republic in the first place. The EU doesn't even try to elect 1 president (it has a multi-person executive). We actually decided to let umpteen diverse jurisdictions elect just one person, and we're not a unitary state like France, so the EC, as crazy as it is, is a decent embodiment of democratic compromise.

Until we have collective consciousness, though, there's always going to be flaws/unfairness in democratic decision making, and how to draw people into the process and let them know their vote counts (but never quite as perfectly as we'd want).

 

[DZH22]

You don't understand the rules.

I certainly do understand the rules. I'm not the person who said Clinton should win the election due to winning the popular vote.

.....but this system exists as a safeguard for a situation such as this.

Situations such as what? The person you voted for losing?

At the end of the day, I think Hillary lost the election when it came out that the DNC was, in fact, rigged against Bernie. (not in terms of outright voter fraud, but more about specific timing, media attention, feeding her questions in advance, etc) She counted on Bernie voters flipping to her, but instead enough of them either: A. Voted 3rd party, B. Didn't vote/wrote in "Mickey Mouse", or C. Voted Trump out of spite. Most probably fell in categories A and B. Regardless, it was those couple percentage points she was counting on to win the election, and they never materialized.

 

[DZH22]

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...hts-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

Also, it is apparently 300,000 who lacked proper ID. It is not clear if that is the number that was turned away. I have edited my original post to reflect this. Knowing they didn't have a proper ID though, it's likely many wouldn't go to the polls at all.

This election was indeed the voter suppression election. This is what happens when you void key parts of the Voting Rights Act.

It bothered me a lot that I could just walk in and vote without proving who I was.

Let's say you know that your friend, "Bob X.", pledged not to vote that year. What would stop you from walking into his polling place, claiming you are "Bob X.", verifying an address, and voting in his stead?

Why is having an ID to prove who you are considered such a hardship in 2016? While extremely unlikely, isn't it as least POSSIBLE that those 300,000 people (or at least a huge percentage of them) shouldn't have been able to vote to begin with? (or were trying to pull their own version of the "Bob X." scheme)

If you don't have any sort of proof that you are who you say you are, you shouldn't be able to vote. If Side A is more affected by this than Side B, then Side A needs to get its act together. No excuses. Every American should have some sort of proof of who they are, particularly if they want to help decide the future of the country.

 

[datadyne007]

It bothered me a lot that I could just walk in and vote without proving who I was.

Let's say you know that your friend, "Bob X.", pledged not to vote that year. What would stop you from walking into his polling place, claiming you are "Bob X.", verifying an address, and voting in his stead?

Why is having an ID to prove who you are considered such a hardship in 2016? While extremely unlikely, isn't it as least POSSIBLE that those 300,000 people (or at least a huge percentage of them) shouldn't have been able to vote to begin with? (or were trying to pull their own version of the "Bob X." scheme)

If you don't have any sort of proof that you are who you say you are, you shouldn't be able to vote. If Side A is more affected by this than Side B, then Side A needs to get its act together. No excuses. Every American should have some sort of proof of who they are, particularly if they want to help decide the future of the country.

Obtaining an ID anywhere costs money & valuable time. For low income & minority voters, it means taking an unpaid day off work & skipping a meal (or MANY meals) to go get & be able to afford an ID (which is typically around $75). $75 is an entire day's pay for some. This problem was exacerbated in formerly VRA-regulated states where they have such complex fee schemes, requirements & reduced DMV hours that it can cost as much as $300 to obtain a valid ID to vote in some states. Even college IDs are not being allowed.

Situations such as what? The person you voted for losing?

No. The situation where Trump may end up losing the popular vote by 2 points (way more than 2000, ~2m votes!) while winning more electoral votes than any Republican in 3 decades.

 

[tysmith95]

^Let's rig the electoral system so that the vote for the residents of most big cities doesn't matter. At the same time lets create laws that effectively require people to have drivers licence in order to vote (yes there are other forms of ID but they aren't common). Because lets suppress the vote for the inner city poor even more.

Until states provide free ID's for every citizen at birth (and renewed for free on a regular basis) ID's should not be required as a condition to vote.

 

[CSTH]

Why is having an ID to prove who you are considered such a hardship in 2016?

Many states have made it hard for certain classes of people, deliberately. And it's not just 'any ID' - for example in WI you need a WI ID, and to get that you need an original birth certificate - even if you are a legal immigrant from a country like Colombia where some jurisdictions don't issue birth certificates. I.e. if you're a Wisconsinite of Colombian origin, you will never be able to vote again unless the law changes.

Many WI residents who moved from other states were impacted - e.g. there are stories of low-income people who have been required to travel to their home states to appear in person to get certified birth documents in order to satisfy the WI RMV.

In case its not clear - these are artificially difficult barriers.

None of this has been done in good faith. The success of the effort relies on people like you who think it's 'common sense'. You can bet however that any politician who proposed this would first figure out whether it would be disproportionately beneficial to his party (how could it be otherwise?). And then he'd figure out how to write the fine print to maximize that impact.

That 'perverse incentive' is why there has been a de-facto standard for two generations that the fair requirement is the minimal requirement - i.e. no ID required. Because otherwise you inevitably introduce vote suppression effects. Yes, it does open the door to people voting under a false claim. But again the consensus has been a no-ID requirement does much less harm. e.g. if we assume that there were in fact tens of thousands of people who were prevented from voting - how does that compare to the number who you think voted under false IDs in previous elections? (hint - all the actual evidence says the number is in the single digits).

So do you prevent 30,000 citizens from voting their genuine preferences, in order to keep 3 people from voting under a false identity? Only if you're trying to gain an advantage.

If you familiarize yourself with the practices of the 'Jim Crow' era you'll find a lot that is familiar.

 

[datadyne007]

Many states have made it hard for certain classes of people, deliberately. And it's not just 'any ID' - for example in WI you need a WI ID, and to get that you need an original birth certificate - even if you are a legal immigrant from a country like Colombia where some jurisdictions don't issue birth certificates. I.e. if you're a Wisconsinite of Colombian origin, you will never be able to vote again unless the law changes.

None of this has been done in good faith. The success of the effort relies on people like you who think it's 'common sense'. You can bet however that any politician who proposed this would first figure out whether it would be disproportionately beneficial to his party (how could it be otherwise?). And then he'd figure out how to write the fine print to maximize that impact. That 'perverse incentice' is why there has been a de-facto standard for two generations that the fair requirement is the minimal requirement - i.e. no ID required. Because otherwise you inevitably introduce vote suppression effects.

If you familiarize yourself with the practices of the 'Jim Crow' era you'll find a lot that is familiar.

This is a fantastic write-up, thank you.