US Gen. Election Thread FINALE - Votegeddon

[AiliailiA]

The only 'fuck you' to democracy would be Trump's win. The electoral college has a choice. They can either vote Trump and fuck over the people, or go faithless and vote Hillary and empower the people. If some people hate democracy and think they should not choose the people over the states, that's fine, just don't pretend you care about democracy.

America's not a pure democracy. We are a republic where the population of states, not the whole population of the country, get to have a say. The electoral college is suppose to prevent high populated states like California and New York from screwing over less populated states like Montana and the Dakotas.

With that, Trump got the most States on his side, so he won fair and squared.

That's not how it works. That's how the Senate works, but not the Electoral College.

IF winning the Presidency required only that a candidate comes first in 26 of the 51 states+DC

Wyoming
Vermont
District of Columbia
North Dakota
Alaska
South Dakota
Delaware
Montana
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Maine
Hawaii
Idaho
West Virginia
Nebraska
New Mexico
Nevada
Kansas
Utah
Arkansas
Mississippi
Iowa
Connecticut
Oklahoma
Oregon
Kentucky

would be enough to win. They have a combined population of 52 million, or 16.6% of the total.


Thankfully the Electoral College is more representative of voters than the US Senate is. To get the majority of Electors, 270, the minimum required is

Wyoming
Vermont
District of Columbia
North Dakota
Alaska
South Dakota
Delaware
Montana
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Maine
Hawaii
Idaho
West Virginia
Nebraska
New Mexico
Nevada
Kansas
Utah
Arkansas
Mississippi
Iowa
Connecticut
Oklahoma
Oregon
Kentucky
Louisiana
South Carolina
Alabama
Colorado
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Maryland
Missouri
Tennessee
Indiana
Arizona
Massachusetts
Washington
North Carolina

with a combined population of 138 million, or 43.9% of the national population

While still not ideal, it's considerably less perverted than a "win the most states" system would be.

The college may not be perfect, but it does prevent mob rule which is something that the founding fathers didn't want.

If what the founders wanted was our criterion, there wouldn't be a Presidential election at all. It's up to the states how they assign Electors, and the states individually chose to hold elections to do that.

[Gauthier]

Yea, I admit, we're kind of weird with our vote as a group.

It's hard to point out where the real cause of the divide though.

One article by the Houston Chronicle (a reputable newspaper in Houston), points out conservatism and the disenchantment with the Obama's administration failure to pass immigration reform and many other promises given to Latinos in the campaign trail might have been the cause, based on the polls back in 2014:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/ho ... 876952.php

Hilariously, the republicans in the house cockblock immigration reform and then voted back in by those who want immigration reform.

Folks, I do believe we have been outmaneuvered.

I dare say the Reality Television era gave people the short term memories of goldfish. Hence Trump getting away with documented fraud and bragging about sexual assault, plus the public's fixation on Weinermail.

[G-Tech Corporation]

So RFK thinks the 50s didn't exist?

The 50s- when women were expected to stay in the kitchen, black people couldn't vote, gay people and (suspected) Communists were arrested, and the specter of nuclear annihilation loomed over daily life, while most of the rest of the world rebuilt from the rubble of the greatest war in human history or continued to be wracked by war and instability (sometimes involving American soldiers or spies).

Yes, what a lovely time. But if you were a white man, you could get a job really easily and just sit on the assembly line for eight hours and make a decent living, so yeah, it was great!

Nostalgia, upon closer inspection, usually turns out to be a steaming pile of crap that's been painted over.

I think the increasing divide between urban and rural is part of the blame for the polarization we're seeing. The federal government keeps pushing national legislation which only one or the other agrees with.

Gun control is one issue. In rural areas gun crime is low; crime in general is low because the population density is low. Rural voters don't see what the big deal is when urban voters voice concerns over gun crime because they are so far removed from them. They think they're being punished for something they haven't done, while not knowing what victims of gun crime have gone through.

Minority rights is another thing. Urban areas have more diversity by virtue of simply being densely populated economic hubs. Urban voters are more likely to get to know black, Latino, LGBT, etc. people, so they know they're just people. Rural areas have less diversity. There's a good chance they only know about minorities from what they see through the media. Our media is sensationalist; the loudest craziest voices get he most airtime.

Wanted to circle back to this- why should rural voters be able to push urban voters around on issues like minority rights and gun control? Those are issues that have serious impact in cities in particular, but because of a paranoid fear of mob rule, we've just got to let rural voters who feel afraid or angry about people taking their guns away or brown/gay people being different-looking push us around? The whole one region pushing another around, if you see it that way, is a fucking two way street.

You really don't get it.

[Geilinor]

That's basically what he's run his campaign on- reverse change, restore America to the glory and pre-eminence it supposedly once possessed, et cetera.

So RFK thinks the 50s didn't exist?

Which weren't so great for the people Trump insulted. He offered power to his supporters and told them he would go after everyone else.

[Patridam]

So RFK thinks the 50s didn't exist?

Which weren't so great for the people Trump insulted. He offered power to his supporters and told them he would go after everyone else.

Okay, but say Trump wants to bring back the kind of prosperity, glory, and eminence it experienced in the 1950s... only no longer exclusive to whites?

Not saying he can, but would it not be an admirable goal?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Which weren't so great for the people Trump insulted. He offered power to his supporters and told them he would go after everyone else.

Okay, but say Trump wants to bring back the kind of prosperity, glory, and eminence it experienced in the 1950s... only no longer exclusive to whites?

Not saying he can, but would it not be an admirable goal?

I think it would be, honestly.

[Hittanryan]

I think the increasing divide between urban and rural is part of the blame for the polarization we're seeing. The federal government keeps pushing national legislation which only one or the other agrees with.

Gun control is one issue. In rural areas gun crime is low; crime in general is low because the population density is low. Rural voters don't see what the big deal is when urban voters voice concerns over gun crime because they are so far removed from them. They think they're being punished for something they haven't done, while not knowing what victims of gun crime have gone through.

Minority rights is another thing. Urban areas have more diversity by virtue of simply being densely populated economic hubs. Urban voters are more likely to get to know black, Latino, LGBT, etc. people, so they know they're just people. Rural areas have less diversity. There's a good chance they only know about minorities from what they see through the media. Our media is sensationalist; the loudest craziest voices get he most airtime.

Wanted to circle back to this- why should rural voters be able to push urban voters around on issues like minority rights and gun control? Those are issues that have serious impact in cities in particular, but because of a paranoid fear of mob rule, we've just got to let rural voters who feel afraid or angry about people taking their guns away or brown/gay people being different-looking push us around? The whole one region pushing another around, if you see it that way, is a fucking two way street.

You've missed my point entirely. I was saying that both rural AND urban areas feel pushed around by the other, not that one side or the other is right. Because Newt Gingrich killed compromise in Congress, it turns into both sides trying to force rural or urban-leaning policy on the whole country. Democrats and Republicans might as well call themselves "urban" and "rural" now.

The example of gay marriage illustrates this polarization. I remember the outcry and backlash, generally in coastal urban liberal states, when George W. Bush proposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. There was just as strong an outcry from the other side when Obergefell v. Hodges legalized it throughout the country. It's like there are two countries: urban and rural.

Unless we can learn to compromise again, we'll just lurch back and forth from one extreme to the other, canceling each other out while the country stagnates. Trump may take power now, repeal everything Obama did, and pass a bunch of conservative legislation that liberal urban voters find completely intolerable. When liberals take power again somewhere down the line, they'll repeal everything Trump did and pass a bunch of liberal legislation that rural conservatives find intolerable. Then conservatives will take power again, repeal all the liberal stuff, and so on and so forth. We'll never get anywhere that way.

[Geilinor]

You really don't get it.

Cracked is not evidence. The data tells us that Trump supporters are for the most part not dirt poor rural dwellers. http://qz.com/679589/trump-voters-earn-more-and-are-better-educated-than-the-typical-american/

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

So all of this talk of wanting Trump's victory to be taken away by the electoral college in December, wouldn't that just be a big 'fuck you' to democracy? I mean sure, Trump didn't get the most people, but got the most states, which is how the electoral college is suppose to work, IIRC.

I mean even people who opppose Trump should know how fucked up this desire is...

The only 'fuck you' to democracy would be Trump's win. The electoral college has a choice. They can either vote Trump and fuck over the people, or go faithless and vote Hillary and empower the people. If some people hate democracy and think they should not choose the people over the states, that's fine, just don't pretend you care about democracy.

Not like it ever happened before, when the winner lost the PV...

[Ebliania]

The only 'fuck you' to democracy would be Trump's win. The electoral college has a choice. They can either vote Trump and fuck over the people, or go faithless and vote Hillary and empower the people. If some people hate democracy and think they should not choose the people over the states, that's fine, just don't pretend you care about democracy.

Not like it ever happened before, when the winner lost the PV...

Wait until the Dems win the presidency that way. Things will go to shit then.

[Valrifell]

Not like it ever happened before, when the winner lost the PV...

Wait until the Dems win the presidency that way. Things will go to shit then.

It only becomes a problem when the Dems benefit from it.

[Senkaku]

You really don't get it.

That article has shown up like three or four times on my Facebook feed at this point. It has some interesting things to say. It in no way refutes my point that many urban voters feel like rural interests are holding back progress and legislation that would improve the quality of life for urban dwellers. As I said, and as Hittan also pointed out, the urban-rural divide is a two-way street, and America has had it for centuries.

Personally, in a world where I somehow acquired unlimited political capital, I'd try and redefine the boundaries of the states, encourage resettlement programs (possibly going both ways, and including not just movement of people but also of things like corporate HQs), and also possibly some sort of exchange program for young people. If both cities and rural regions had parallel state-level governments, each could more effectively pursue policy that better suits the respective living and economic situations and ideological leanings of their populations, and resettlement and exchange programs would hopefully encourage interaction, dialogue, and economic stimulation.

(Also: Cracked? Really?)

You really don't get it.

Cracked is not evidence. The data tells us that Trump supporters are for the most part not dirt poor rural dwellers. http://qz.com/679589/trump-voters-earn-more-and-are-better-educated-than-the-typical-american/

^Also true- nowadays there simply aren't enough rural voters to put him in the WH.

Okay, but say Trump wants to bring back the kind of prosperity, glory, and eminence it experienced in the 1950s... only no longer exclusive to whites?

I believe I tried to point out that prosperity, glory, and pre-eminence are all nostalgic modern reflections on a frankly very frightening time. It's also worth pointing out that America only was such a manufacturing powerhouse in those days because it had had to gear up to fight the largest war in history.

[Senkaku]

They can either vote Trump and fuck over the people, or go faithless and vote Hillary and empower the people.

Why are you acting like all of the people voted for Hillary? They didn't.

If some people hate democracy and think they should not choose the people over the states, that's fine, just don't pretend you care about democracy.

"Hate democracy"? Chill, fam. They care about the centuries-old system of government that has, for better or for worse, managed to keep the country running this long.

[Saiwania]

I feel so misled and I think that perhaps I shouldn't have ever abandoned the Trump train. I genuinely thought that Donald Trump wouldn't do anything but sink the Republican party. Like him or not, Donald Trump has done the seemingly impossible- he's defeated the Clinton machine with a skeleton campaign and didn't just get past the supposed blue wall of states, but demolished it. Trump did way better than Mitt Romney and has gotten much farther than I've ever given him credit for.

How in the world could nearly all of the polls and media have been so wrong when they were right in 2008 and 2012 and there was no indication that they'd be wrong this time around? The biggest lesson I take from 2016 is that an election isn't over until its really over. The "shy Trump voter" apparently did exist to a large enough extent to win a low turnout election.

Trump now has a unique opportunity to do well enough to win a 2nd term in office, or to screw up everything for at least 4 years. In any case, what a disaster for the DNC. The people who're behind getting Clinton the nomination knowing full well how weak she'd perform in the general, should be getting fired.

[Geilinor]

I feel so misled and I think that perhaps I shouldn't have ever abandoned the Trump train. I genuinely thought that Donald Trump wouldn't do anything but sink the Republican party. Like him or not, Donald Trump has done the seemingly impossible- he's defeated the Clinton machine with a skeleton campaign and didn't just get past the supposed blue wall of states, but demolished it. Trump did way better than Mitt Romney and has gotten much farther than I've ever given him credit for.

How in the world could nearly all of the polls and media have been so wrong when they were right in 2008 and 2012 and there was no indication that they'd be wrong this time around? The biggest lesson I take from 2016 is that an election isn't over until its really over. The "shy Trump voter" apparently did exist to a large enough extent to win a low turnout election.

Trump now has a unique opportunity to do well enough to win a 2nd term in office, or to screw up everything for at least 4 years. In any case, what a disaster for the DNC. The people who're behind getting Clinton the nomination knowing full well how weak she'd perform in the general, should be getting fired.

The polls weren't wrong because of "shy Trump voters", he got fewer votes than Romney. Clinton had a turnout problem that developed in the last week or maybe it always existed it.

[Valrifell]

I feel so misled and I think that perhaps I shouldn't have ever abandoned the Trump train. I genuinely thought that Donald Trump wouldn't do anything but sink the Republican party. Like him or not, Donald Trump has done the seemingly impossible- he's defeated the Clinton machine with a skeleton campaign and didn't just get past the supposed blue wall of states, but demolished it. Trump did way better than Mitt Romney and has gotten much farther than I've ever given him credit for.

How in the world could nearly all of the polls and media have been so wrong when they were right in 2008 and 2012 and there was no indication that they'd be wrong this time around? The biggest lesson I take from 2016 is that an election isn't over until its really over. The "shy Trump voter" apparently did exist to a large enough extent to win a low turnout election.

Trump now has a unique opportunity to do well enough to win a 2nd term in office, or to screw up everything for at least 4 years. In any case, what a disaster for the DNC. The people who're behind getting Clinton the nomination knowing full well how weak she'd perform in the general, should be getting fired.

The polls weren't wrong because of "shy Trump voters", he got fewer votes than Romney. Clinton had a turnout problem that developed in the last week or maybe it always existed it.

Really, I think the polls may have caused some voters to think the election was safe in Clinton's bag no matter how they voted.

[Geilinor]

Which weren't so great for the people Trump insulted. He offered power to his supporters and told them he would go after everyone else.

Okay, but say Trump wants to bring back the kind of prosperity, glory, and eminence it experienced in the 1950s... only no longer exclusive to whites?

Not saying he can, but would it not be an admirable goal?

The country still has glory and eminence, lots of it.

[Gauthier]

I feel so misled and I think that perhaps I shouldn't have ever abandoned the Trump train. I genuinely thought that Donald Trump wouldn't do anything but sink the Republican party. Like him or not, Donald Trump has done the seemingly impossible- he's defeated the Clinton machine with a skeleton campaign and didn't just get past the supposed blue wall of states, but demolished it. Trump did way better than Mitt Romney and has gotten much farther than I've ever given him credit for.

How in the world could nearly all of the polls and media have been so wrong when they were right in 2008 and 2012 and there was no indication that they'd be wrong this time around? The biggest lesson I take from 2016 is that an election isn't over until its really over. The "shy Trump voter" apparently did exist to a large enough extent to win a low turnout election.

Trump now has a unique opportunity to do well enough to win a 2nd term in office, or to screw up everything for at least 4 years. In any case, what a disaster for the DNC. The people who're behind getting Clinton the nomination knowing full well how weak she'd perform in the general, should be getting fired.

The polls weren't wrong because of "shy Trump voters", he got fewer votes than Romney. Clinton had a turnout problem that developed in the last week or maybe it always existed it.

Mostly Fuck The Establishment hipsters and blue collars who swallowed Trump Snake Oil.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I feel so misled and I think that perhaps I shouldn't have ever abandoned the Trump train. I genuinely thought that Donald Trump wouldn't do anything but sink the Republican party. Like him or not, Donald Trump has done the seemingly impossible- he's defeated the Clinton machine with a skeleton campaign and didn't just get past the supposed blue wall of states, but demolished it. Trump did way better than Mitt Romney and has gotten much farther than I've ever given him credit for.

How in the world could nearly all of the polls and media have been so wrong when they were right in 2008 and 2012 and there was no indication that they'd be wrong this time around? The biggest lesson I take from 2016 is that an election isn't over until its really over. The "shy Trump voter" apparently did exist to a large enough extent to win a low turnout election.

Trump now has a unique opportunity to do well enough to win a 2nd term in office, or to screw up everything for at least 4 years. In any case, what a disaster for the DNC. The people who're behind getting Clinton the nomination knowing full well how weak she'd perform in the general, should be getting fired.

The polls weren't wrong because of "shy Trump voters", he got fewer votes than Romney. Clinton had a turnout problem that developed in the last week or maybe it always existed it.

The polls were also within the margin. So it could have swung either way, honestly.

[Shrillland]

The polls weren't wrong because of "shy Trump voters", he got fewer votes than Romney. Clinton had a turnout problem that developed in the last week or maybe it always existed it.

Mostly Fuck The Establishment hipsters and blue collars who swallowed Trump Snake Oil.

Also, a steep drop in Millenials voting. Turnout among them was 19% nationwide, less than half that of 2012 and almost a third of that in 2008.

[Vassenor]

The polls weren't wrong because of "shy Trump voters", he got fewer votes than Romney. Clinton had a turnout problem that developed in the last week or maybe it always existed it.

Mostly Fuck The Establishment hipsters and blue collars who swallowed Trump Snake Oil.

And vindictive Sanders fans.

[Gauthier]

Mostly Fuck The Establishment hipsters and blue collars who swallowed Trump Snake Oil.

And vindictive Sanders fans.

Nah, the moment Bernie got behind Clinton to keep the revolution on solid ground they all declared him Judas. Just Fuck The Establishment hipsters who rallied behind him because it was cool.

[Valrifell]

And vindictive Sanders fans.

Nah, the moment Bernie got behind Clinton to keep the revolution on solid ground they all declared him Judas.

How can he be both their Judas and Jesus?

[Gauthier]

Nah, the moment Bernie got behind Clinton to keep the revolution on solid ground they all declared him Judas.

How can he be both their Judas and Jesus?

He stopped being their Jesus when he made the mistake of being pragmatic.

[AiliailiA]

Regarding the electoral college and rural voters, I have a rather surprising finding.

The EC doesn't favor them significantly. The EC favors small-population states, but those are not consistently rural states.

The states which have the most rural population, is surprising in itself. Places like Utah and Nevada with lots of open space are not particularly rural states (the open space doesn't have many people in it). And the two most rural states (biggest percentage of state population being rural) are two very liberal states: Maine and Vermont.

Urban and rural population by state (XLS spreadsheet) from US Census 2010

First, I'll graph all the states. Mainly so I won't be accused of cherry picking.

Now, the states whose voters are advantaged by the Electoral College. Roughly speaking, the smaller the population of a state, the more advantaged its voters are. This is because every state gets 2 bonus Electors regardless of the number of House districts. But it's not strictly so, because the number of House districts per state only approximates the State's share of national population.

I've used someone else's calculations here to eliminate states whose voters are disadvantaged (Texas, California etc) compared to the average US voter.

The average is gotten by dividing the national population by the total number of electors. National population is 313 million because that was the estimate in 2012 (the year of Fzxboy's calculations) and there are 538 Electors. It comes to 581.8 thousand persons per Elector. States with more persons per Elector are eliminated. I also excluded Ohio since I can't tell if it's above or below that line, so it's not clearly advantaged.
I've also marked the MOST advantaged states: 7 states where the Electoral representation is more than twice the national average. Unsurprisingly they are among the least populous.

That's basically my case for why advantaging the least populous states does not significantly advantage RURAL voters.

For anyone who doesn't trust the method of determining 'advantaged' or 'disadvantaged' states, I've also used a simpler method. Here are the 25 least populous states, plus DC: