I disagree, Trump wasn’t a president that should really trigger the failsafe of the elector college. That’d be more if we were electing someone that was a clear threat. Trump was and is not a clear threat to Americans. He’s pretty incompetent and honestly still don’t know if he’s worse than the alternative(s).
That's already what congress is for, the US system just gives too much power to the president, while having it a directly elected position, so it has to have this complicated system which is entirely broken.
Parliamentary Democracies have fared much better in recent times.
Divining original intent is weird because it's from an era where not even adult white males had universal suffrage. Prior to the mid 19th century, nearly all states required you to be a land-owner to vote. I've always viewed the electoral college as an enlightenment-era hack to work around a scenario where one state would "liberalize" suffrage to garner outsized influence during a national election. If this was 1790, non-land owners deciding an election would be the feared "tyranny of the majority" the founders sought to prevent; and that's not even counting suffrage for women and non-whites.
At least in theory (putting aside any voter suppression efforts), the US today has near universal suffrage for all adults, with the only remaining restrictions being placed on felons (of which we have many). So it really doesn't make sense: We functionally have the popular vote, but we have this weird legacy layer on top that, in 2000 and 2016, selected someone who lost the popular vote.
I think the person with the popular vote should have lost.
The EC performed to spec in my opinion. Nobody, myself included, likes that outcome, but the truth is Clinton didn't do the work needed to win the election.
Now, she had a number of challenges, but she was also running to sell the world on the idea of her being the leader too. No excuses. I feel strongly about that.
The primary reason I feel that way is she flat out could have won.
A shift in campaign strategy, something her own staff urged her to do many times as they saw the numbers, would have sealed the deal. Visit Wisconsin, do some real work in the Rust Belt, and talk about jobs, not just education, or other similar things that put the fault on those who are expected to vote, and she would have won easily.
What actually happened was a run on popular vote totals. I'm told that was to increase the legitimacy of her win, and lay the foundation for a mandate type win. Ok, that's all fair, valid, reasonable, but for the fact that the basic work all that is predicated on simply was not done.
The EC more or less forces that work to get done too.
I'm fine with the EC as it exists today. An awful lot of the EC discussion is driven by a bad outcome, and I am just not sure that makes sense, or at least it does not make sense without a super honest, raw analysis of what actually did happen.
There was very little if any grousing about the EC compared to today (there was actually some speculation that Trump might win the popular and lose the EC) and each side agreed to the rules ahead of time.
Whining about it now is kinda like crying that you lost a game of Chess even though you took the most pieces.
Fact is Clinton did not have her priorities in order and she lost because her choices did not result in her doing the work to win. They did result in a large pop vote total though.
Sure seems to me this is a discussion on how best to run a campaign that offers up a compelling VOTE FOR proposition to win, rather than a "let's ditch the EC" conversation.
-----
Edit, due to rate limit, intended for comment below.
You are right. It's not!
So then, those people looking to be leaders should take the rules in play at the time we are making the democracy happen pretty seriously right?
I think so, which is precisely why I authored the comment above. Doing the work to win the election involves working the process as it is defined at the start of the contest, not what one may wish were true at that time.
Secondly, should we change that process, and I'm not opposed to doing that, should we not change that process based on actual problems, not contrived ones based on poor judgement?
I will read any response with great interest -->Tomorrow. The rate limit is not a negative thing. Time to move on to better things. Cheers all!
If you want the will of the People you certainly wouldn't give Hillary the election. You do realize she only captured a small minority of the entire voting age population right? and even less people really wanted her there for her own sake.
What would happen if you rally all the assorted fringe groups that are currently dispersing their votes and unite them with all the mainstream voters who are holding their nose as well as all the couch potato nonvoters and came up with a candidate a truly comprehensive electorate would really end up picking?
You'd probably throw both Drumpf and Hillary out and put in (another) Hollywood megastar or some charismatic Bible thumper.
We don't have to divine the original intent. There are historical documents that lay out what the founders were thinking, not least of which is The Federalist Papers #68.
The federalist papers were intended to convince Americans to support the new constitution so it would get ratified, so I feel that Alexander Hamilton deliberately going out of his way to discuss how it was supposed to work captures something about the intent of those who ratified it based on that sales pitch.
Eh...lately one controversy has been the plan to ask on the 2020 census (used for apportioning electoral votes) whether or not one is a citizen. It turns out that non-citizens (typically immigrants) are counted in the census but are ineligible to vote. Which means, much as the 19th century EC accounted for “indirect representation” of non-voters, the contemporary one accounts has similar effects for eg recent immigrants.
Right one always gets funny looks saying it should have been 0/5ths not 3/5ths of anyone bared to vote, and that would have dramatically changed 19th century politics (hopefully for the better).
Exactly. This is how it has basically been for the past 230 years. The ruling in no way "kicks at the foundation of how America chooses presidents".
A few states recently enacted an unconstitutional law to attempt to void the faithless electors vote, and all this ruling does is clarify that those state laws were indeed unconstitutional.
Almost. If this were a Supreme Court decision, I would agree with you. But it's "only" the 10th Circuit. It doesn't apply to most of the country unless the Supreme Court agrees or unless and until the other districts adopt the same reasoning when such a case comes before them.
I agree that the 12th amendment doesn't allow states to void the faithless elector's vote, but it would be constitutionally permissible for them to criminalize faithless voting, would it not?
If Libs are SO concerned that the Will of the People must always be heard can we count on their support to bring back popular initiatives like CA Prop 187 that Judges struck down,have the census count citizens so that Blue States can't improperly gain Legislative seats, crack down on ballot harvesting (when it benefits them) and generally reverse all the things Libs have done that wouldn't have won in a straight majority vote of the population? No?
Why would the census count citizens? We already know how many citizens we got, every US citizen has documentation on their existence. If you don't exist on paper already, you aren't a citizen as far as the US government is concerned. The census is for one thing, counting the number of people actually living in each area and the very basics of what conditions they live in. Being a citizen doesn't change whether you exist or not.
I’m not American so I may be wrong on this, but my understanding of US law regarding birthright citizenship is that if you’re born in the US, regardless of your parents immigration or citizenship status, you’re considered a citizen. From this it would follow that the US citizen children of undocumented immigrants may well not have documentation of that fact.
If you wanted to know where the citizen children of a divorced and living in 2 states couple lived, how would you do that in a way that tied out for census purposes without doing a census? For retired people with houses in more than one state?
2016 was an establishment referendum election for many Americans.
The number of people struggling economically rose to a majority during Obama. That has not gone without notice.
Trump, whether it's true or not, positioned himself as an outsider. That's savvy, and potent in these times. Economic performance from both parties, in terms of ordinary working people, has been poor. It's tough for way too many people and being networked now, they know it, flat out.
Clinton was seen as Obama 2.0, and that tepid performance, along with 1000+ seat party losses made for a difficult election, given Trumps positioning and willingness to work the crowds. (It's not really a debate as to whether he intended to follow up on any of that rhetoric. He had no intent other than to win.)
All of that added up to populism. People responding to messages aimed at them.
Again, I'm not speaking the merits of the current POTUS. Just that his messaging and positioning was solid populist on economic fronts, and moderate enough on social fronts to make for a compelling package.
One must also consider very large numbers of people not voting. That share of people is actually quite large, and is larger than either party base right now. Getting those people involved basically means populist messaging right now too.
It's still going to be a referendum. The economic difficulties are still in play.
Anyway, maybe that helps frame it a bit. And it's just one way to look at it. There are several, likely valid.
Populist may not = popular, and in this case didn't.
He outright said he wouldn’t accept the outcome if he lost. It’s not like this was some imagined scenario. He barely accepted the actual outcome! Despite winning, he couldn’t resist calling it rigged and saying millions of illegal votes were cast.
Could it be that perhaps his opinions... didn't depend on the result?
Seems like what you're describing is basically ideological consistency: believing the same thing both before and after it suits you, for the same stated reasons (polling places not adequately protecting the integrity of the ballot) on either side.
Hillary Clinton just tried throwing a family friend under the bus because his research led somewhere she doesn't like; does that bother you equally?
No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals.
I got my news about this from the horse's mouth, I'd been following the guy's work before Hillary threw him under the bus. This is not a "biased right wing" story, it is a true story.
> No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals.
Frankly, how dare you cast those aspersions on me? Take that back. You can't just go calling people cynical, bad-faith actors because they've said something you aren't willing to look in to.
I really do miss the left who were willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, a politician who receives significant monetary and material support from a particular major corporation, is willing to go to bat for that corporation in spite of the facts.
It is no crime for you to be fond of Hillary Clinton, the Doctor himself is, despite what she's done to him this week.
However, not every criticism of her actions is pseudo-something; sometimes it's just something.
I tried following that twitter thread but I just got bored with all the details. Why should I care? The obsession with Hillary is like some weird social disease. For example nobody talks about John Kerry. I don't get it.
If you aren't willing to read a couple paragraphs of text from a PhD who is sympathetic to your politics, you aren't even in the conversation. Why publish your opinion if you admit you are unwilling to make even the slightest effort to back it up?
Why derail the conversation and start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with some professor when the original topic was Donald Trump and his attacks on the legitimacy of the 2016 election?
You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all.
> You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all.
Well, I'll set your mind-reading aside.
> Why ... start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with ... professor when the original topic was Donald Trump ... 2016 election?
Because Hillary Clinton is in active denial, with a seeming corporate motive, about the election at least as much as you've accused Donald Trump of intending to be. Nobody in that race is clean of this particular accusation.
I brought up the recent example of conduct related to that state of denial specifically because it demonstrates that if we're going to go down that road, nobody will emerge without mud on them.
What does “denial” have to do with anything? My complaint is about undermining the peaceful transition of power that is fundamental to the idea of democracy.
There is an incredible number of psuedo-allegations against the Clintons. It's been practically its own industry over the last three decades. There may also be substantial criticisms but at this point it's pretty well-adjusted for people to assume that any given criticism is more likely psuedo than substantial.
I haven't really given Epstein's bias charges much of a serious look because the popular summaries don't address a basic question: what would it even mean for you to say that given search term is "biased" towards one candidate or another, unless what people are typing in is "who should I vote for as President?" Even if that's the level at which we're talking about, in what sense was the bias different than, say, if editorial board upon editorial board of newspapers throughout the United States declared support for Clinton, in spite of any history of frequent support of candidates from the opposite party? Isn't it more likely that what people are searching for is information about candidate positions, statements? Maybe news?
Now, maybe this is something that Dr Epstein explains in his more formal research, but why can't he explain it in his popular stuff? Maybe it's so complicated that it defies popular summarization or.... maybe there really isn't a lot of there there. The fact that I can't find answers to any of those questions even where he claims to have detailed methods ( https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Metho... ) strongly suggests the latter to me.
The combination of crying wolf when it comes to the Clintons and a lack of a hook makes it pretty easy to ignore. Maybe that's why Dr Epstein is primarily finding only right wing borderline propaganda outlets are listening.
> Despite winning, he couldn’t resist calling it rigged and saying millions of illegal votes were cast.
This is the bit in particular I'm responding to. Wouldn't it be more worth criticizing to stop saying the election was rigged once you won it?
Nobody here is particularly saying he's generally consistent, though on that matter it can sometimes be said.
People you don't like, you shouldn't rely on them to be wrong and bad in every way just to prove your one point; your foes will have a tendency to let you down on that!
That quote is directly connected to the bit you’re responding to. He said he’d accept the election if he won. He ended up repeatedly questioning its legitimacy despite winning.
It’s bad to question (without evidence) the legitimacy of an election you lose. It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win. It’s bad to state in advance that you’ll only accept the results if you win. It’s bad to say that and then question its legitimacy after you win. He did, or said he would do, all of these things.
> He said he’d accept the election if he won. He ended up repeatedly questioning its legitimacy despite winning.
My question then is, why is it worse to you that he chose to say it was rigged after he was elected? It seems you're saying he should have done the politically expedient thing, and stopped saying it after winning.
Where am I saying it’s worse? He did a bunch of bad stuff related to questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election and I’m not attempting to rank them.
So what? It’s not like the only two possibilities were “delegitimize the election he won after saying he would accept the results” or “accept the results of the election he won after saying he wouldn’t accept the results if he lost.”
He could have, for example, said he’d accept the results, period. Or reserved the right to challenge the results if there was evidence of irregularities.
You don’t get to build your very own custom Kobayashi Maru and then complain that it’s a no-win scenario.
Keep in mind that my original comment was a reply to someone who seemed to be implying that Democrats made up accusations that Trump wouldn’t accept the results. I was pointing out that not only did Trump say he wouldn’t accept the results if he lost, he really didn’t accept them even the way it happened. This being bad is a secondary point (although it certainly is bad); the main point is that this was a real thing, not something made up by Democrats.
> It’s bad to question (without evidence) the legitimacy of an election you lose.
With the "(without evidence)" part of this, I agree. I think "question" may be too strong a word - "challenge", perhaps. It's certainly bad to challenge election results without evidence of malfeasance.
> It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win.
I wholeheartedly disagree here. If Trump believes that the election was unfair in some way or that there were attempts to illegally influence it, then he absolutely should question in. Since he won, it would be reasonable for him to have ordered an investigation into it.
> It’s bad to state in advance that you’ll only accept the results if you win.
I think that's certainly boorish, but the action isn't necessarily bad. The man obviously believed he would be a good and faithful President, and apparently believed that Clinton would make a poor President. Why would he challenge the result upon winning, and risk putting someone he believed to be unfit into office?
“It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win” was meant to implicitly have the same “without evidence” qualifier as the previous statement.
I must disagree with your last paragraph in the most strenuous possible way. The peaceful and orderly transition of power is by far the most important aspect of democracy, and public faith in elections is a crucial part of that. I don’t care how great Trump thought he was or how awful his opponent was, saying he’ll only accept the result if he wins, with no evidence of any problems with the electoral process, is extremely destructive to the foundation of the whole country. If it was Jesus versus Satan, I’d still expect Jesus to say that he’ll accept the results of the election if Satan wins.
"He outright said he wouldn’t accept the outcome if he lost."
This is a is objectively untrue. You cannot find an in-context quote of Trump saying this 'outright'. You need to apply several layers of hostile interpretation, which the media is happy to do.
Interpretation Layer 1: He's mocking critics who were saying he wouldn't accept the outcome. Since he's mocking, he's not serious. You have to interpret a mocking response as serious.
Interpretation Layer 2: He never said he wouldn't accept if he lost. You have to infer that yourself.
Interpretation Layer 3: He said 'totally', which often means the alternative is 'not totally'. He could have meant he would just complain about the results, but still accept them. To think he would fully reject them in an outright, actionable way you need to interpret the words in a special way.
--
So the original statement was false as I said. Nothing here is even close to 'outright' saying he wouldn't accept the result.
I really find it amusing that you think you're making some kind of clever incisive point, but you apparently can't tell the difference between:
(1) a candidate who said a loss for him meant the system was rigged vs a candidate who, in the end, actually conceded the election
(2) refusing to accept the outcome of the election vs acknowledging the outcome while believing a different system would produce better results
(3) a post that's about the limits of state ability to control EC votes vs a discussion that's about certain forms of structural countermajoritarianism
It's the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, so it's not binding on the rest of the country. It would be good if this went to the Supreme Court and was ruled on while it's just one elector, and isn't going to actually change an election. (Lawrence Lessig is on the side that won this ruling. He's trying for a Supreme Court decision, one way or the other. But the only way to get that is if the other side appeals this ruling, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case.)
Whats the point of having actual human electors if they can't be faithless? Couldn't the Founding Fathers just say tally up the electoral votes if a mechanical transition from popular to electoral votes was desired?
That was the precise idea - and in an age when riding from the states to DC could take a month or more, the mechanism for that tally was electors who physically travelled to DC, and were sworn to vote as they were directed by the populace.
Which could also be said for electors voting against their local interests in favor of their state's interests. Who's the derelict if everyone who lives within a 50 mile radius votes one way but the state goes another? That's the point of electors; states getting all of them for free should be the outlier.
Thats pretty odd to specify Electors who would vote then. Could have just said tally up the votes into EC votes and then the same man in a funny wig would still be dispatched to report in. Seems a pretty stupid convoluted way to go about it if what you're saying is correct
We do have records of the arguments that were made for the elector system mandated by the Constitution, and they demonstrate that your "precise idea" is a fabrication.
It had almost nothing to do with the practicality (or lack thereof) of the popular vote. The debates focused upon balancing the right of the people with the right of the states, i.e., the ability of states with large populations to make the votes of smaller states irrelevant. Hamilton also focused on the need for trusted electors so that the people both had a say, and trusted individuals could avoid rash populism. I.e., the value of a representative form of election. The transient nature of the college was also important. The electors would have one task, and then be dismissed. They could not be people with a vested interest, such as members of congress, governors, etc. This also made them less likely to be influenced by foreign powers, as they would not be electors long enough to be so influenced.
There is nothing in 68 about states rights or relative populations. Central to 68 is the connection between regular citizen voters choosing Electors, directly, amongst themselves. They were to be deliberative, self-evidently independent from partisan party politics, chosen from the general population
Federalist 68 proposes a mechanism we have not used since before the Civil War. The ballot would have been write-in only, and the name you were writing in was a person who lived in your own state, not a presidential candidate.
but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE
Unfortunately, the Founders appear to not have anticipated the wholesale corruption the party system would employ to sabotage both common sense and deliberate design, by making laws at state level to explicitly make Electors not from the general population but exclusively party loyalists: people who have sworn money and allegiance to their respective party. Who and what you are really voting for when you tick a box for a candidate, is not the candidate, but the candidate's party and that party system, and the state laws say the popular vote result is to cause that party's pre-selected loyalists to become Electors.
That is what bugs me. There is no realistic information shared about electors. It seems to me these people's character should be of the utmost importance from what I've read on the subject. Their neutrality from partisan politik was supposed to be a feature to guard against dropping chief executive authority on a candidate of ill nature.
It's a pattern that happens all over the government. The masses are the first filter, a second pass is done by a smaller (generally more recognized) few, and then reconcile until everyone is satisfied.
I didn't say that every argument at the time was embodied in Federalist 68. Madison, among others, was the most prominent one making the state's rights argument.
But you are not wrong in your basic argument. The corruption of the college by the party system is a travesty. We may as well have a parliament / prime minister at this point. It would be preferable to the current system, IMO, at least in being more honest.
The Electors never traveled. The state Electors deliberated amongst themselves in their own state, and submitted the result of their deliberation to the Congress.
It's worth noting that the decision — by a three-judge panel of the appellate court — is only an interim decision.
In essence, the trial court took a shortcut — in software terms, an early return or -exit: The trial judge concluded that, when Colorado's secretary of state removed a member of the Colorado delegation to the Electoral College (for having voted for Kasich instead of Clinton), the removed "elector" had no legal right to sue for nominal damages because the Colorado secretary of state had the legal authority to remove the elector. The trial judge therefore summarily tossed out the removed elector's lawsuit.
The appellate court panel concluded that the trial judge got the law wrong, and therefore the removed elector did have the right to sue for nominal damages. The panel sent the case back to the trial court so that the lawsuit could (in theory) proceed normally.
The state has the right to appeal further, to the entire appellate court sitting "en banc" and/or to the Supreme Court.
Here are some excerpts from the three-judge appellate panel's opinion (which I find compelling, incidentally):
"[T]he Supremacy Clause is broader than preemption; it immunizes all federal functions from limitations or control by the states." Slip op. at 75 (citation omitted).
"Unlike the President appointing subordinates in the executive department, states appointing presidential electors are not selecting inferior state officials to assist in carrying out a function for which the state is ultimately responsible. Presidential electors exercise a federal function—not a state function—when casting their ballots. Burroughs, 290 U.S. at 545. When undertaking that federal function, presidential electors are not executing their appointing power's function but their own." Id. at 82-83.
"As the text and structure show, the Twelfth Amendment allows no room for the states to interfere with the electors’ exercise of their federal functions." Id. at 86.
"Dictionaries from the relevant period support Mr. Baca’s contention that the drafters of the Twelfth Amendment intended electors to exercise discretion in casting their votes for President and Vice President." Id. at 88.
"As these sources reflect, the definitions of elector, vote, and ballot have a common theme: they all imply the right to make a choice or voice an individual opinion. We therefore agree with Mr. Baca that the use of these terms supports a determination that the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose." Id. at 90 (footnote omitted).
"In summary, the text of the Constitution makes clear that states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the President and Vice President candidates of their choice." Id. at 93.
"Although we concur with [Colorado's] review of historical practice [of elector pledges], we cannot agree that these practices dictate the result the Department seeks. First, and most importantly, the practices employed—even over a long period—cannot overcome the allocation of power in the Constitution. McPherson, 146 U.S. at 35–36. Second, there is an opposing historical practice at play: a history of anomalous votes, all of which have been counted by Congress." Id. at 99. "This uninterrupted history of Congress counting every anomalous vote cast by an elector weighs against a conclusion that historical practices allow states to enforce elector pledges by removing faithless electors from office and nullifying their votes." Id. at 101.
The problem with the system is that it's not one person one vote. If you're in New York, your vote is basically worthless. And it shows. You barely ever see presidential election ads on TV, or get any robocalls. Meanwhile, people in swing states are inundated.
The party system has completely perverted the intent of the Electoral College, most centrally by populating it with party loyalists, the worst possible people on earth for this task.
Federalist 68 says Electors were to be deliberative people, people chosen for this task, and not to any preestablished body. Electors chosen from the general mass by their fellow citizens will best be able to carry out "complicated investigations". There is no complication or investigation in the current process! It's 180 degrees from Federalist 68.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
The present system lends itself directly to blackmail because those with all the money both choose Electors, and are Electors. They are not chosen from the general mass, they are not chosen by the people. And further:
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes;
What persons could possibly be more of a prostitute than party loyalists? We would be better off if the Electors were randomly selected from the general population, minus the expressly listed people in Federalist 68: politicians or other person holding a place of trust or profit.
Party loyalists are the opposite of prostitutes. Prostitutes can be bought. Party loyalists are True Believers. They don't make a lot of money, and they spend years refining their messages with each other. They have a sincere belief in what they're doing, and believe it to be the best way to run a country.
They may well be wrong, stupid, or even malignant. They certainly have some strange bedfellows: winning elections or votes means crossing that 50% level, which requires making friends with people whose interests are only partially aligned with yours (as opposed to the people whose interests are diametrically opposed to yours). Their loyalty is at least partly sunk-cost fallacy: it takes a long time to be a party insider and they can't just hop over to any other party without losing those years of trust built up.
But what they aren't, is prostitutes. For better or worse, they believe.
77 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadBut that's not tge world we've got anymore.
Rule by a demagogue is the primary weakness of a democracy and it's a pretty bad one at that.
Parliamentary Democracies have fared much better in recent times.
You're forgetting that we are Constitutionally allowed 1 congress rep per 30k. Right now it's at 1 per 790k. Thats already demagogue territory.
Also, forgetting the 17th Amendment and the original intent of Senators.
You have a very narrow way of rationalizing the destruction of an actual bulwark against tyranny.
At least in theory (putting aside any voter suppression efforts), the US today has near universal suffrage for all adults, with the only remaining restrictions being placed on felons (of which we have many). So it really doesn't make sense: We functionally have the popular vote, but we have this weird legacy layer on top that, in 2000 and 2016, selected someone who lost the popular vote.
The EC performed to spec in my opinion. Nobody, myself included, likes that outcome, but the truth is Clinton didn't do the work needed to win the election.
Now, she had a number of challenges, but she was also running to sell the world on the idea of her being the leader too. No excuses. I feel strongly about that.
The primary reason I feel that way is she flat out could have won.
A shift in campaign strategy, something her own staff urged her to do many times as they saw the numbers, would have sealed the deal. Visit Wisconsin, do some real work in the Rust Belt, and talk about jobs, not just education, or other similar things that put the fault on those who are expected to vote, and she would have won easily.
What actually happened was a run on popular vote totals. I'm told that was to increase the legitimacy of her win, and lay the foundation for a mandate type win. Ok, that's all fair, valid, reasonable, but for the fact that the basic work all that is predicated on simply was not done.
The EC more or less forces that work to get done too.
I'm fine with the EC as it exists today. An awful lot of the EC discussion is driven by a bad outcome, and I am just not sure that makes sense, or at least it does not make sense without a super honest, raw analysis of what actually did happen.
Whining about it now is kinda like crying that you lost a game of Chess even though you took the most pieces.
I really like your Chess analogy.
Fact is Clinton did not have her priorities in order and she lost because her choices did not result in her doing the work to win. They did result in a large pop vote total though.
Sure seems to me this is a discussion on how best to run a campaign that offers up a compelling VOTE FOR proposition to win, rather than a "let's ditch the EC" conversation.
-----
Edit, due to rate limit, intended for comment below.
You are right. It's not!
So then, those people looking to be leaders should take the rules in play at the time we are making the democracy happen pretty seriously right?
I think so, which is precisely why I authored the comment above. Doing the work to win the election involves working the process as it is defined at the start of the contest, not what one may wish were true at that time.
Secondly, should we change that process, and I'm not opposed to doing that, should we not change that process based on actual problems, not contrived ones based on poor judgement?
I will read any response with great interest -->Tomorrow. The rate limit is not a negative thing. Time to move on to better things. Cheers all!
What would happen if you rally all the assorted fringe groups that are currently dispersing their votes and unite them with all the mainstream voters who are holding their nose as well as all the couch potato nonvoters and came up with a candidate a truly comprehensive electorate would really end up picking?
You'd probably throw both Drumpf and Hillary out and put in (another) Hollywood megastar or some charismatic Bible thumper.
[1]: https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Federalist.html
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68
I for one won’t pay any tribute to them than exceeds their merit.
The Wikipedia article on them has a surprisingly good discussion on their use in the courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
A few states recently enacted an unconstitutional law to attempt to void the faithless electors vote, and all this ruling does is clarify that those state laws were indeed unconstitutional.
No, according to the court's opinion ("slip opinion"), starting at p.73 of the PDF [0]. I've posted excerpts in a top-level comment.
[0] https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1173.pdf
The number of people struggling economically rose to a majority during Obama. That has not gone without notice.
Trump, whether it's true or not, positioned himself as an outsider. That's savvy, and potent in these times. Economic performance from both parties, in terms of ordinary working people, has been poor. It's tough for way too many people and being networked now, they know it, flat out.
Clinton was seen as Obama 2.0, and that tepid performance, along with 1000+ seat party losses made for a difficult election, given Trumps positioning and willingness to work the crowds. (It's not really a debate as to whether he intended to follow up on any of that rhetoric. He had no intent other than to win.)
All of that added up to populism. People responding to messages aimed at them.
Again, I'm not speaking the merits of the current POTUS. Just that his messaging and positioning was solid populist on economic fronts, and moderate enough on social fronts to make for a compelling package.
One must also consider very large numbers of people not voting. That share of people is actually quite large, and is larger than either party base right now. Getting those people involved basically means populist messaging right now too.
It's still going to be a referendum. The economic difficulties are still in play.
Anyway, maybe that helps frame it a bit. And it's just one way to look at it. There are several, likely valid.
Populist may not = popular, and in this case didn't.
Seems like what you're describing is basically ideological consistency: believing the same thing both before and after it suits you, for the same stated reasons (polling places not adequately protecting the integrity of the ballot) on either side.
Hillary Clinton just tried throwing a family friend under the bus because his research led somewhere she doesn't like; does that bother you equally?
No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals.
https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176
I got my news about this from the horse's mouth, I'd been following the guy's work before Hillary threw him under the bus. This is not a "biased right wing" story, it is a true story.
> No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals.
Frankly, how dare you cast those aspersions on me? Take that back. You can't just go calling people cynical, bad-faith actors because they've said something you aren't willing to look in to.
I really do miss the left who were willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, a politician who receives significant monetary and material support from a particular major corporation, is willing to go to bat for that corporation in spite of the facts.
It is no crime for you to be fond of Hillary Clinton, the Doctor himself is, despite what she's done to him this week.
However, not every criticism of her actions is pseudo-something; sometimes it's just something.
You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all.
Well, I'll set your mind-reading aside.
> Why ... start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with ... professor when the original topic was Donald Trump ... 2016 election?
Because Hillary Clinton is in active denial, with a seeming corporate motive, about the election at least as much as you've accused Donald Trump of intending to be. Nobody in that race is clean of this particular accusation.
I brought up the recent example of conduct related to that state of denial specifically because it demonstrates that if we're going to go down that road, nobody will emerge without mud on them.
I haven't really given Epstein's bias charges much of a serious look because the popular summaries don't address a basic question: what would it even mean for you to say that given search term is "biased" towards one candidate or another, unless what people are typing in is "who should I vote for as President?" Even if that's the level at which we're talking about, in what sense was the bias different than, say, if editorial board upon editorial board of newspapers throughout the United States declared support for Clinton, in spite of any history of frequent support of candidates from the opposite party? Isn't it more likely that what people are searching for is information about candidate positions, statements? Maybe news?
Now, maybe this is something that Dr Epstein explains in his more formal research, but why can't he explain it in his popular stuff? Maybe it's so complicated that it defies popular summarization or.... maybe there really isn't a lot of there there. The fact that I can't find answers to any of those questions even where he claims to have detailed methods ( https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Metho... ) strongly suggests the latter to me.
The combination of crying wolf when it comes to the Clintons and a lack of a hook makes it pretty easy to ignore. Maybe that's why Dr Epstein is primarily finding only right wing borderline propaganda outlets are listening.
Consistency is not one of Trump’s strong points.
This is the bit in particular I'm responding to. Wouldn't it be more worth criticizing to stop saying the election was rigged once you won it?
Nobody here is particularly saying he's generally consistent, though on that matter it can sometimes be said.
People you don't like, you shouldn't rely on them to be wrong and bad in every way just to prove your one point; your foes will have a tendency to let you down on that!
It’s bad to question (without evidence) the legitimacy of an election you lose. It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win. It’s bad to state in advance that you’ll only accept the results if you win. It’s bad to say that and then question its legitimacy after you win. He did, or said he would do, all of these things.
My question then is, why is it worse to you that he chose to say it was rigged after he was elected? It seems you're saying he should have done the politically expedient thing, and stopped saying it after winning.
Wouldn't you criticize him for that as well?
He could have, for example, said he’d accept the results, period. Or reserved the right to challenge the results if there was evidence of irregularities.
You don’t get to build your very own custom Kobayashi Maru and then complain that it’s a no-win scenario.
Keep in mind that my original comment was a reply to someone who seemed to be implying that Democrats made up accusations that Trump wouldn’t accept the results. I was pointing out that not only did Trump say he wouldn’t accept the results if he lost, he really didn’t accept them even the way it happened. This being bad is a secondary point (although it certainly is bad); the main point is that this was a real thing, not something made up by Democrats.
With the "(without evidence)" part of this, I agree. I think "question" may be too strong a word - "challenge", perhaps. It's certainly bad to challenge election results without evidence of malfeasance.
> It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win.
I wholeheartedly disagree here. If Trump believes that the election was unfair in some way or that there were attempts to illegally influence it, then he absolutely should question in. Since he won, it would be reasonable for him to have ordered an investigation into it.
> It’s bad to state in advance that you’ll only accept the results if you win.
I think that's certainly boorish, but the action isn't necessarily bad. The man obviously believed he would be a good and faithful President, and apparently believed that Clinton would make a poor President. Why would he challenge the result upon winning, and risk putting someone he believed to be unfit into office?
I must disagree with your last paragraph in the most strenuous possible way. The peaceful and orderly transition of power is by far the most important aspect of democracy, and public faith in elections is a crucial part of that. I don’t care how great Trump thought he was or how awful his opponent was, saying he’ll only accept the result if he wins, with no evidence of any problems with the electoral process, is extremely destructive to the foundation of the whole country. If it was Jesus versus Satan, I’d still expect Jesus to say that he’ll accept the results of the election if Satan wins.
This is a is objectively untrue. You cannot find an in-context quote of Trump saying this 'outright'. You need to apply several layers of hostile interpretation, which the media is happy to do.
Doesn’t take more than one small layer of perfectly reasonable interpretation.
Interpretation Layer 1: He's mocking critics who were saying he wouldn't accept the outcome. Since he's mocking, he's not serious. You have to interpret a mocking response as serious.
Interpretation Layer 2: He never said he wouldn't accept if he lost. You have to infer that yourself.
Interpretation Layer 3: He said 'totally', which often means the alternative is 'not totally'. He could have meant he would just complain about the results, but still accept them. To think he would fully reject them in an outright, actionable way you need to interpret the words in a special way.
--
So the original statement was false as I said. Nothing here is even close to 'outright' saying he wouldn't accept the result.
(1) a candidate who said a loss for him meant the system was rigged vs a candidate who, in the end, actually conceded the election
(2) refusing to accept the outcome of the election vs acknowledging the outcome while believing a different system would produce better results
(3) a post that's about the limits of state ability to control EC votes vs a discussion that's about certain forms of structural countermajoritarianism
And probably would've been beaten to death or hanged in public for the wrong form of dereliction of that duty. ;- )
We do have records of the arguments that were made for the elector system mandated by the Constitution, and they demonstrate that your "precise idea" is a fabrication.
Here is some reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68
It had almost nothing to do with the practicality (or lack thereof) of the popular vote. The debates focused upon balancing the right of the people with the right of the states, i.e., the ability of states with large populations to make the votes of smaller states irrelevant. Hamilton also focused on the need for trusted electors so that the people both had a say, and trusted individuals could avoid rash populism. I.e., the value of a representative form of election. The transient nature of the college was also important. The electors would have one task, and then be dismissed. They could not be people with a vested interest, such as members of congress, governors, etc. This also made them less likely to be influenced by foreign powers, as they would not be electors long enough to be so influenced.
Federalist 68 proposes a mechanism we have not used since before the Civil War. The ballot would have been write-in only, and the name you were writing in was a person who lived in your own state, not a presidential candidate.
but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE
Unfortunately, the Founders appear to not have anticipated the wholesale corruption the party system would employ to sabotage both common sense and deliberate design, by making laws at state level to explicitly make Electors not from the general population but exclusively party loyalists: people who have sworn money and allegiance to their respective party. Who and what you are really voting for when you tick a box for a candidate, is not the candidate, but the candidate's party and that party system, and the state laws say the popular vote result is to cause that party's pre-selected loyalists to become Electors.
What we have isn't anything like Federalist 68.
It's a pattern that happens all over the government. The masses are the first filter, a second pass is done by a smaller (generally more recognized) few, and then reconcile until everyone is satisfied.
But you are not wrong in your basic argument. The corruption of the college by the party system is a travesty. We may as well have a parliament / prime minister at this point. It would be preferable to the current system, IMO, at least in being more honest.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Personally, I think it's a necessary balance to Prosecutorial discretion however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ
In essence, the trial court took a shortcut — in software terms, an early return or -exit: The trial judge concluded that, when Colorado's secretary of state removed a member of the Colorado delegation to the Electoral College (for having voted for Kasich instead of Clinton), the removed "elector" had no legal right to sue for nominal damages because the Colorado secretary of state had the legal authority to remove the elector. The trial judge therefore summarily tossed out the removed elector's lawsuit.
The appellate court panel concluded that the trial judge got the law wrong, and therefore the removed elector did have the right to sue for nominal damages. The panel sent the case back to the trial court so that the lawsuit could (in theory) proceed normally.
The state has the right to appeal further, to the entire appellate court sitting "en banc" and/or to the Supreme Court.
Here are some excerpts from the three-judge appellate panel's opinion (which I find compelling, incidentally):
"[T]he Supremacy Clause is broader than preemption; it immunizes all federal functions from limitations or control by the states." Slip op. at 75 (citation omitted).
"Unlike the President appointing subordinates in the executive department, states appointing presidential electors are not selecting inferior state officials to assist in carrying out a function for which the state is ultimately responsible. Presidential electors exercise a federal function—not a state function—when casting their ballots. Burroughs, 290 U.S. at 545. When undertaking that federal function, presidential electors are not executing their appointing power's function but their own." Id. at 82-83.
"As the text and structure show, the Twelfth Amendment allows no room for the states to interfere with the electors’ exercise of their federal functions." Id. at 86.
"Dictionaries from the relevant period support Mr. Baca’s contention that the drafters of the Twelfth Amendment intended electors to exercise discretion in casting their votes for President and Vice President." Id. at 88.
"As these sources reflect, the definitions of elector, vote, and ballot have a common theme: they all imply the right to make a choice or voice an individual opinion. We therefore agree with Mr. Baca that the use of these terms supports a determination that the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose." Id. at 90 (footnote omitted).
"In summary, the text of the Constitution makes clear that states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the President and Vice President candidates of their choice." Id. at 93.
"Although we concur with [Colorado's] review of historical practice [of elector pledges], we cannot agree that these practices dictate the result the Department seeks. First, and most importantly, the practices employed—even over a long period—cannot overcome the allocation of power in the Constitution. McPherson, 146 U.S. at 35–36. Second, there is an opposing historical practice at play: a history of anomalous votes, all of which have been counted by Congress." Id. at 99. "This uninterrupted history of Congress counting every anomalous vote cast by an elector weighs against a conclusion that historical practices allow states to enforce elector pledges by removing faithless electors from office and nullifying their votes." Id. at 101.
[0] https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1173.pdf
Federalist 68 says Electors were to be deliberative people, people chosen for this task, and not to any preestablished body. Electors chosen from the general mass by their fellow citizens will best be able to carry out "complicated investigations". There is no complication or investigation in the current process! It's 180 degrees from Federalist 68.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
The present system lends itself directly to blackmail because those with all the money both choose Electors, and are Electors. They are not chosen from the general mass, they are not chosen by the people. And further:
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes;
What persons could possibly be more of a prostitute than party loyalists? We would be better off if the Electors were randomly selected from the general population, minus the expressly listed people in Federalist 68: politicians or other person holding a place of trust or profit.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
They may well be wrong, stupid, or even malignant. They certainly have some strange bedfellows: winning elections or votes means crossing that 50% level, which requires making friends with people whose interests are only partially aligned with yours (as opposed to the people whose interests are diametrically opposed to yours). Their loyalty is at least partly sunk-cost fallacy: it takes a long time to be a party insider and they can't just hop over to any other party without losing those years of trust built up.
But what they aren't, is prostitutes. For better or worse, they believe.