The 2016 General Election Thread

[jamil]

Maybe. On the other hand, I'm not so sure we need to be removing even more power from the states. The people get the government they want.

I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of power taken from California and New York. I'm tired of seeing the sparse blue islands of blue speaking for the entire nation. We're long past the usefulness, if there ever really were any, of the electoral college. It was a the result of a bad compromise. I want to do away with the two party system and the electoral college. This election the system will give us a president that a majority of the nation doesn't want. I'm tired of having to make the hobson's choice. I'm absolutely fed up with it. Either way the election goes America will elect one of the worst presidents in history.

 

[T.Lex]

How do you figure? There are approx. 250 EV located in states that haven't been won by a Republican Prez candidate in a quarter-century. If I was a Vegas bookie making bets this far out, that's the meter I'd be making judgements by. The national polls would seem to be more of a "noise meter," and the EV the "steady needle" that hasn't changed direction much (and when it does make a big jump, it seems to be in the D-direction).

Well, we'll have to start being more specific.

This is a great site to play the EC numbers game:
2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map

The old, if you live in the vast majority of the country your vote doesn't matter, map. Gotta love the electoral college.

Its demise is well overdue.

Aw Hayl no. Arguably more reason for the EC now than when it was created.

Maybe. On the other hand, I'm not so sure we need to be removing even more power from the states. The people get the government they want.

Or at least the government that a majority of the 55% of the people that vote want.

 

[jamil]

Aw Hayl no. Arguably more reason for the EC now than when it was created.

Why? With the EC we have red state locks and blue state locks where an opposition party victory is highly unlikely and voter turnout is generally lower than the swing states. Why do we want the same 4 or 5 states determining the president in every election? I want to scrap the whole thing. Scrap the need for primaries. Scrap the two party system. Scrap the EC. Ranked order voting. One vote. Done. THAT system would never have come down to a choice between Trump and Clinton, and maybe the Libertarian douchebag Johnson. I want a system where I can vote for who I really want, instead of having to vote strategically to avoid getting who I don't want.

 

[jamil]

Or at least the government that a majority of the 55% of the people that vote want.

There are ways to increase voter awareness and education. Taking away the importance and power of political parties would make that easier and fairer to achieve.

 

[T.Lex]

Why? With the EC we have red state locks and blue state locks where an opposition party victory is highly unlikely and voter turnout is generally lower than the swing states. Why do we want the same 4 or 5 states determining the president in every election? I want to scrap the whole thing. Scrap the need for primaries. Scrap the two party system. Scrap the EC. Ranked order voting. One vote. Done. THAT system would never have come down to a choice between Trump and Clinton, and maybe the Libertarian douchebag Johnson. I want a system where I can vote for who I really want, instead of having to vote strategically to avoid getting who I don't want.

Same result.

In ranked voting, you have more choices in the initial rounds for who not to vote for. The winnowing process results in a few choices of lesser evils.

Without the EC (or some other system similar to a hybrid of Senate/House elections), you would have 5-8 swing cities that are the difference.

I'm not arguing that there's some upside to the ranked order voting that you are a fan of, I'm just saying that it isn't a panacea. And, for the US, it probably would make the factionalism even worse. Might as well go full parlaimentary and functionally require ruling coalitions.

The EC has downsides, but it also has built-in protections. The real problem being described is that large swaths of the country believe in different things and vote accordingly (2008 is probably an outlier) over time. There are reliable red and blue states, but it is because of the people that live there - not because of the EC.

 

[T.Lex]

There are ways to increase voter awareness and education.

First, not really. At least not that I've seen on a large scale. I'm very interested in what you're talking about, though. Issues drive elections.

Second, ask yourself if we really want more people voting. What people don't vote now, and who do you think they'd vote for?

Taking away the importance and power of political parties would make that easier and fairer to achieve.

Probably. But the "taking away" part would likely require unconstitutional legislation.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

First, not really. At least not that I've seen on a large scale. I'm very interested in what you're talking about, though. Issues drive elections.

Second, ask yourself if we really want more people voting. What people don't vote now, and who do you think they'd vote for?



Probably. But the "taking away" part would likely require unconstitutional legislation.

No, we don't need more ignorant people voting. There are opportunities galore out there for people to educate themselves. But it's hard to stream porn on your ipad while teasing out the policy differences between candidates.

 

[jamil]

Same result.

In ranked voting, you have more choices in the initial rounds for who not to vote for. The winnowing process results in a few choices of lesser evils.

Without the EC (or some other system similar to a hybrid of Senate/House elections), you would have 5-8 swing cities that are the difference.

I'm not arguing that there's some upside to the ranked order voting that you are a fan of, I'm just saying that it isn't a panacea. And, for the US, it probably would make the factionalism even worse. Might as well go full parlaimentary and functionally require ruling coalitions.

The EC has downsides, but it also has built-in protections. The real problem being described is that large swaths of the country believe in different things and vote accordingly (2008 is probably an outlier) over time. There are reliable red and blue states, but it is because of the people that live there - not because of the EC.

Incorrect. There are no rounds. There is one vote. With ROV, there is no real advantage to strategic voting. In a field of several candidates in an electorate millions of voters, ranking a less liked but acceptable candidate higher to avoid a hated candidate doesn't give nearly the advantage it does in first past the post. Generally, the best advantage each voter can give their preferred candidates is to rank them in the true preferred order of preference.

In the threads on ROV I explained the advantages as well as downfalls. So if you were involved in those threads, hopefully you got the point that I don't think of it as a panacea. I think that of all the voting systems concocted by people over the centuries, it is probably the most fairest and most representative. We are not a binary voters. Yet we have a binary voting system. We all have differences and degrees to which we apply our values and expectations of our leaders. Of the several voting systems I've looked at, ROV is the most individualistically representative, and least corruptible.

There is another system that's probably easier than ROV. That's multiple vote. You're not limited to vote for just one candidate. For example, if Hillary, Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Johnson, Peterson, Paul were all on the ballot, I might click the box next to 3 or 4 of them. The one with the most checks wins. The only problem with that system is that it wouldn't pass the transitivity test like ROV does. But still would lessen the need to vote strategically. There'd really be no advantage to voting for a less favored candidate over a more favored candidate just so that the least favored candidate doesn't win. Just pick all the choices you can live with.

 

[jamil]

First, not really. At least not that I've seen on a large scale. I'm very interested in what you're talking about, though. Issues drive elections.

Second, ask yourself if we really want more people voting. What people don't vote now, and who do you think they'd vote for?



Probably. But the "taking away" part would likely require unconstitutional legislation.

To change our current voting system and move to something besides first past the post, we'd need a constitutional amendment anyway.

 

[T.Lex]

In the threads on ROV I explained the advantages as well as downfalls. So if you were involved in those threads, hopefully you got the point that I don't think of it as a panacea.

Yeah, sorry, I was confused about what your proposal was - I remember more of it now. And I still don't see it as any better.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, sorry, I was confused about what your proposal was - I remember more of it now. And I still don't see it as any better.

Trump and Clinton are the two worst candidates in the race between all the Rs and Ds that put their names in the hat.

ROV would not have produced the result where one of those to will be president. If there were nothing else better about ROV, THAT is better enough for me.

 

[T.Lex]

ROV would not have produced the result where one of those to will be president.

I don't see that as an absolute. Or, more accurately, I can easily envision that 1 of those 2 candidates would be the winner. In primary states, we can look at the vote totals and infer what a ranked order would be. I don't see very many voters listing HRC/Trump as 1-2.

A clear majority would've had either Trump or HRC as 1. So, the ranked order turns into a fancy popular vote in a cycle like this. I will absolutely concede that this is an unusual cycle. (Or at least, it won't become the norm.) A guy that gets a majority of 5s isn't going to surpass all those 1s.

 

[jamil]

I don't see that as an absolute. Or, more accurately, I can easily envision that 1 of those 2 candidates would be the winner. In primary states, we can look at the vote totals and infer what a ranked order would be. I don't see very many voters listing HRC/Trump as 1-2.

A clear majority would've had either Trump or HRC as 1. So, the ranked order turns into a fancy popular vote in a cycle like this. I will absolutely concede that this is an unusual cycle. (Or at least, it won't become the norm.) A guy that gets a majority of 5s isn't going to surpass all those 1s.

We can't infer what the ranked order would be from the primary process because that process contains many dynamics not found in the ROV. Because primary elections happen over several months in several states, that introduces a totally different, and in my opinion a harmful dynamic to the process. As candidates drop out it forces a sort of strategic vote to take place in the subsequent state elections, that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The fewer the candidates left, the worse the problem gets. In the end, the Republican process produced a sort of Hobson's choice of it's own. Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. What a horrible choice to represent the party. With ROV, one doesn't need to appeal to a base to win. Hard to imagine on INGO, but among all Republicans, I don't believe that ROV would have put Trump and Cruz anywhere near the top of the party.

In ROV, all the candidates participate in the same election, the same day. There'd be a period of campaigning, probably some head-to-head debates. And then the election. There isn't a separate months long process within the parties. Certainly the parties could have their own internal process to determine which candidates to run, but it's unnecessary. But the whole thing would take less time, and would require candidates to raise less money. And best of all, the two party system would die a natural death.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It must be nice having Google in your back pocket during an election.

 

[jamil]

Oh you misunderstand. Google employs a much more complicated algorithm that ignores disparaging results.
I kinda like to know what I want to know. So DuckDuckGo.

It must be nice having Google in your back pocket during an election.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Utah seems to be leaning blue... which it hasn't done in a generation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-utah-poll-is-amazingly-bad-for-donald-trump/

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Utah seems to be leaning blue... which it hasn't done in a generation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-utah-poll-is-amazingly-bad-for-donald-trump/

I really think if Johnson supported the same sort of religious liberty that Petersen did, and gave it as much air time as he did his support for "marriage equality" and legalizing marijuana, he'd be beating the likes of Trump in places like Utah.

 

[jamil]

I really think if Johnson supported the same sort of religious liberty that Petersen did, and gave it as much air time as he did his support for "marriage equality" and legalizing marijuana, he'd be beating the likes of Trump in places like Utah.

But then a leopard would have to change its spots.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But then a leopard would have to change its spots.

Yes, having watched Johnson in a couple debates this spring, it's dawned on me "socially liberal" means you support using the government to force acceptance of social positions liberals think everyone should support.

 

[T.Lex]

RCP shows fairly consistent polling of "Right track or wrong track" as +40% think the country is on the wrong track. Despite HRC marginally in the lead against Trump (basically within or at the MOE), I think the wrong-track polling reveals a Trump-friendly electorate. The outsider gets a benefit when the current administration is disliked.

Interesting pundit-driven map:
Consensus Pundit Electoral Map