Some thoughts about the reports of supposed evidence of election irregularities(electionupdates.caltech.edu)
electionupdates.caltech.edu
Some thoughts about the reports of supposed evidence of election irregularities
http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2016/11/24/some-thoughts-about-the-reports-of-supposed-evidence-of-election-irregularities-in-mi-pa-and-wi/
111 comments
This is similar to what Nate Silver put out earlier (as mentioned in the article). The difference in voting to each candidate by county and voting machine type is completely explained by the population distribution in those counties.
In Wisconsin, the counties that used paper ballots tended to be less white and better educated. That's why Clinton got more votes there, probably. It is unlikely that there is real widespread tampering.
That said, there is still good reason to audit all national elections. They're quite important, after all. The mad dash to say who won really quickly does a disservice to the process, IMO.
In Wisconsin, the counties that used paper ballots tended to be less white and better educated. That's why Clinton got more votes there, probably. It is unlikely that there is real widespread tampering.
That said, there is still good reason to audit all national elections. They're quite important, after all. The mad dash to say who won really quickly does a disservice to the process, IMO.
there is still good reason to audit all national elections. They're quite important, after all. The mad dash to say who won really quickly does a disservice to the process, IMO.
Agreed. Maybe it's late, but I'm leaning towards thinking auditing should be closer to the norm than otherwise. Kinda like testing? Get the system so smooth and clean that everything is obvious and trustworthy.
Edit: Okay, it is getting late. I just starting thinking of what an election Chaos Monkey would look like.
Agreed. Maybe it's late, but I'm leaning towards thinking auditing should be closer to the norm than otherwise. Kinda like testing? Get the system so smooth and clean that everything is obvious and trustworthy.
Edit: Okay, it is getting late. I just starting thinking of what an election Chaos Monkey would look like.
State elections do go to automatic recount in 20 states - http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automat...
Nobody else mentioned it, but an election "chaos monkey" would be interesting.
From the few second I thought about it, you could have some "approved troublemakers" that are VERY well controlled and licensed to go and do things like attempt to tamper with machines, multi-vote, ballot stuff, or something similar. If it's done in a way that they know exactly how many extras they put in (how i'm not sure, but it'd need to be bullet proof) they could basically "audit" election systems.
Currently, there is no legal way to "test" the system as far as I know.
From the few second I thought about it, you could have some "approved troublemakers" that are VERY well controlled and licensed to go and do things like attempt to tamper with machines, multi-vote, ballot stuff, or something similar. If it's done in a way that they know exactly how many extras they put in (how i'm not sure, but it'd need to be bullet proof) they could basically "audit" election systems.
Currently, there is no legal way to "test" the system as far as I know.
Interesting idea, isn't it? I suspect that many of the failure modes you'd want to test would require a full re-do of the election, at least at the level of the precinct. I don't know how tolerant the population would be. Though I encourage you to follow through and see what you come up with :) I'd be interested to read about it.
I'm not so sure it would need to be that drastic.
If I get a "stamp of approval" to tamper with a voting machine, I could get to the point of being able to tamper, but not do anything. Or I could (if it was safe to do so) have it add 30,000 votes to a false candidate. It would be similar to how "white hat" hackers need to be able to show a POC but not actually do any harm.
Hell even having "false elections" could be a useful first step.
It wouldn't be perfect, but it could at least start figuring out where the weakness are.
If I get a "stamp of approval" to tamper with a voting machine, I could get to the point of being able to tamper, but not do anything. Or I could (if it was safe to do so) have it add 30,000 votes to a false candidate. It would be similar to how "white hat" hackers need to be able to show a POC but not actually do any harm.
Hell even having "false elections" could be a useful first step.
It wouldn't be perfect, but it could at least start figuring out where the weakness are.
Hell even having "false elections" could be a useful first step.
That, I think, would be potentially useful.
That, I think, would be potentially useful.
Here's a 2012 paper from a team at the University of Michigan detailing a "mock election" gone wrong:
Title. Attacking the Washington, D.C. Internet Voting System
Abstract. In 2010, Washington, D.C. developed an Internet voting pilot project that was intended to allow overseas absentee voters to cast their ballots using a website. Prior to deploying the system in the general election, the District held a unique public trial: a mock election during which anyone was invited to test the system or attempt to compromise its security. This paper describes our experience participating in this trial. Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near-complete control of the election server. We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot. Election officials did not detect our intrusion for nearly two business days—and might have remained unaware for far longer had we not deliberately left a prominent clue. This case study—the first (to our knowledge) to analyze the security of a government Internet voting system from the perspective of an attacker in a realistic pre-election deployment—attempts to illuminate the practical challenges of securing online voting as practiced today by a growing number of jurisdictions.
https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/dcvoting-fc12.pdf
Title. Attacking the Washington, D.C. Internet Voting System
Abstract. In 2010, Washington, D.C. developed an Internet voting pilot project that was intended to allow overseas absentee voters to cast their ballots using a website. Prior to deploying the system in the general election, the District held a unique public trial: a mock election during which anyone was invited to test the system or attempt to compromise its security. This paper describes our experience participating in this trial. Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near-complete control of the election server. We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot. Election officials did not detect our intrusion for nearly two business days—and might have remained unaware for far longer had we not deliberately left a prominent clue. This case study—the first (to our knowledge) to analyze the security of a government Internet voting system from the perspective of an attacker in a realistic pre-election deployment—attempts to illuminate the practical challenges of securing online voting as practiced today by a growing number of jurisdictions.
https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/dcvoting-fc12.pdf
Thanks for the link! I look forward to reading the paper.
Yeah, from what I've read I really don't think any type of online voting system is the way to go. Interesting that they pretty much owned the server. Without reading, I suspect that has more to do with the system architecture than it being a voting application.
Yeah, from what I've read I really don't think any type of online voting system is the way to go. Interesting that they pretty much owned the server. Without reading, I suspect that has more to do with the system architecture than it being a voting application.
In Wisconsin, the counties that used paper ballots tended to be less white and better educated.
The linked article says that all counties in Wisconsin use paper ballots, and thus the claim that there is a difference between counties that use paper ballots and other counties "cannot be true". Are you disputing this, or did you perhaps mean to say Pennsylvania instead of Wisconsin?
The linked article says that all counties in Wisconsin use paper ballots, and thus the claim that there is a difference between counties that use paper ballots and other counties "cannot be true". Are you disputing this, or did you perhaps mean to say Pennsylvania instead of Wisconsin?
This isn't entirely true. All counties in Wisconsin may use paper ballots as the main form of voting, but there are two different methods of accessible voting offered: direct-recording electronic machines, and machines that print paper ballots. See http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/page/179/voting_... (Of course, since only a small percentage of voters use these machines...)
The article has been updated with a note that addresses this. It's at the very end.
Absolutely, there is no harm done in double checking. In a way it's weird that in 2016 there is no automatic auditing of all elections for congress and president, given how much is at stake.
If Nate Silver's analysis is correct, it suggests strongly that electronic ballots are not for white, educated people.
That's a problem in itself, isn't it? What are the reasons for this demographic difference in how the election is conducted?
That's a problem in itself, isn't it? What are the reasons for this demographic difference in how the election is conducted?
It also probably introduces suppression effects from multicollinearity when entering the same multiple regression, like Nate Silver did.
I agree completely, this was an extremely important election with a lot of future implications and it, and really all elections, should be meticulously audited. I think there is a lot of pressure to come up with a quick result when the emphasis should be more on accuracy.
Has anyone noted that Trump sounding off about election rigging is a perfect ploy for one who knew the election would be rigged in their favor?
In response, the opposition made strong claims that elections cannot be rigged, in spite of the verified evidence of experts that they can be rigged.
Net result: Trump wins an 'upset' election, that was actually rigged in his favor, whilst the opposition cannot bring itself to claim that is was rigged, as that would be a contradiction of their earlier defense of the voting system's integrity.
There already exists a flawless system for ensuring 100% accurate voting results: a distributed consensus network utilizing a public block chain. Voters get assigned public/private key pairs upon registration. Their vote is a simple transaction on the blockchain which they can validate anytime they want.
In response, the opposition made strong claims that elections cannot be rigged, in spite of the verified evidence of experts that they can be rigged.
Net result: Trump wins an 'upset' election, that was actually rigged in his favor, whilst the opposition cannot bring itself to claim that is was rigged, as that would be a contradiction of their earlier defense of the voting system's integrity.
There already exists a flawless system for ensuring 100% accurate voting results: a distributed consensus network utilizing a public block chain. Voters get assigned public/private key pairs upon registration. Their vote is a simple transaction on the blockchain which they can validate anytime they want.
If a voter can validate their vote at any time, the system is susceptible to coercion and vote buying. From what I've read most experts seem to agree that paper voting is the safest.
Also susceptible to hackers who get access to the voter's private key. It's not "a flawless system for ensuring 100% accurate voting results".
I don't understand how our government can fight against the widespread use of strong encryption but in the same breath insist that it is the ONLY way to conduct an election?
This argument that everyone's vote or at least the default method of voting MUST be absolutely inviolately private and secure while our most personal conversations and details of our lives be matters of government scrutiny seems, to put it in the most charitable light, "inconsistent".
A much more plausible explanation would seem to me to be that making voting more accessible regardless of security implications will change the voting demographics in ways that haven't been vetted and agreed upon by both parties in our two party system.
This argument that everyone's vote or at least the default method of voting MUST be absolutely inviolately private and secure while our most personal conversations and details of our lives be matters of government scrutiny seems, to put it in the most charitable light, "inconsistent".
A much more plausible explanation would seem to me to be that making voting more accessible regardless of security implications will change the voting demographics in ways that haven't been vetted and agreed upon by both parties in our two party system.
Has anyone noticed that "blockchain" has become the new "rewrite"? Except that I've never seen anyone rely on a conspiracy theory to argue for a rewrite.
Funnily enough prior to the election I had a dream exactly to this effect, and Trump calling Clinton a hypocrite.
Or, more likely, Trump sounding off about election rigging puts potential election riggers on notice and lets them know if try it they'll be caught in a recount.
That hasn't stopped claims of up to three million illegal immigrants voting in the presidential election [1].
We know of course there's some illegal immigrant voting (no voter ID laws in some states + lots of illegal immigrants in those states + some very big motivation to vote = yes, of course they'll vote). We just don't know how much. Is it closer to 3 million illegal immigrant votes, or closer to only 30,000 votes?
Trump warning about rigging won't prevent illegal immigrants from going to the polls organically. However, it does put a damper on any potential plans the DNC might've had to have voters drive to critical districts and place votes there, as they've supposedly done in the past [2].
That said, I have a hard time believing the DNC could mobilize enough voters to really change the polls, even targeting key swing counties in key battleground states. Far more likely are rigged machines, like those encountered in early reports in Texas [3].
Of course, anything is possible - Trump could've done some rigging himself! But normally it would be counterproductive to seed the idea in everyone's minds that an election is rigged if you intend to rig it. Just because you won doesn't mean the meme goes away. You just create problems for yourself after you steal the election. Far better to play it like Hillary Clinton and calmly dismiss any talk of rigging: "Oh, posh, there won't be any rigging. Don't be silly!"
Also, as Clinton so aptly pointed out in the third debate, Trump has a tendency to accuse anything he might not win of being rigged (like the Emmys). This is more a general strategy of his than anything else. It's analogous to how ball players and coaches yell at referees that their play calling is atrocious and one-sided, in the hope of influencing things to go their way. In this case, Trump was likely whipping up his base + aiming to discourage any possible / prospective plans to rig things on the other side.
[1] http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/24630-...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
[3] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/texas-rigged-first-...
That hasn't stopped claims of up to three million illegal immigrants voting in the presidential election [1].
We know of course there's some illegal immigrant voting (no voter ID laws in some states + lots of illegal immigrants in those states + some very big motivation to vote = yes, of course they'll vote). We just don't know how much. Is it closer to 3 million illegal immigrant votes, or closer to only 30,000 votes?
Trump warning about rigging won't prevent illegal immigrants from going to the polls organically. However, it does put a damper on any potential plans the DNC might've had to have voters drive to critical districts and place votes there, as they've supposedly done in the past [2].
That said, I have a hard time believing the DNC could mobilize enough voters to really change the polls, even targeting key swing counties in key battleground states. Far more likely are rigged machines, like those encountered in early reports in Texas [3].
Of course, anything is possible - Trump could've done some rigging himself! But normally it would be counterproductive to seed the idea in everyone's minds that an election is rigged if you intend to rig it. Just because you won doesn't mean the meme goes away. You just create problems for yourself after you steal the election. Far better to play it like Hillary Clinton and calmly dismiss any talk of rigging: "Oh, posh, there won't be any rigging. Don't be silly!"
Also, as Clinton so aptly pointed out in the third debate, Trump has a tendency to accuse anything he might not win of being rigged (like the Emmys). This is more a general strategy of his than anything else. It's analogous to how ball players and coaches yell at referees that their play calling is atrocious and one-sided, in the hope of influencing things to go their way. In this case, Trump was likely whipping up his base + aiming to discourage any possible / prospective plans to rig things on the other side.
[1] http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/24630-...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
[3] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/texas-rigged-first-...
> We know of course there's some illegal immigrant voting
Can you provide some corroborating evidence for that?
Can you provide some corroborating evidence for that?
I don't think this article adds anything to the discussion. It repeats Halderman's earlier point.
the important point is that all elections should be audited, and not only if you have statistics suggesting that something might be fishy.
And repeats other conclusions which say that there are no signs of something fishy in the currently available data, at least based on initial statistical analyses.
the important point is that all elections should be audited, and not only if you have statistics suggesting that something might be fishy.
And repeats other conclusions which say that there are no signs of something fishy in the currently available data, at least based on initial statistical analyses.
Is it not currently the case that there are redundancy tests (i.e. overconstraint tests / unit tests) on election results already? Would a manual miscount of a vote have a near-nil chance of getting caught?
If so, I totally agree we need to have samples of all elections verified to at least get bounds on error rates.
If so, I totally agree we need to have samples of all elections verified to at least get bounds on error rates.
It's a pity that journalists (and a few self-interested politicians) distorted Halderman's points so dramatically. This stuff's never going to go away, now -- it'll be the foundation of wild conspiracy theories for decades.
> This stuff's never going to go away, now -- it'll be the foundation of wild conspiracy theories for decades.
Eh, the same stuff was said after Bush v Gore and it died down within a few months of inauguration. You can see it happening already, most people are uninterested in pushing this.
Eh, the same stuff was said after Bush v Gore and it died down within a few months of inauguration. You can see it happening already, most people are uninterested in pushing this.
Why do they allow computers for voting at all? There will always be doubt that computers have been manipulated.
Just have the computer print a machine-readable and human-readable ballot and put it in a box
If you mistrust the computer vote count reread the ballots (and manually count them if the doubt persists)
If you mistrust the computer vote count reread the ballots (and manually count them if the doubt persists)
But paper ballots and scanning machines... those are clearly safer?
Yes. Because - assuming you keep the paper ballots around somewhere - someone 2000 miles away can't manipulate what those paper ballots say.
> Yes. Because - assuming you keep the paper ballots around somewhere - someone 2000 miles away can't manipulate what those paper ballots say.
But someone on the premises can. It's not as if there was never election fraud before computerisation!
But someone on the premises can. It's not as if there was never election fraud before computerisation!
It's a lot harder to organize multiple staff at multiple polling stations in multiple precincts - enough so that it's unlikely someone not in on the plan won't notice what's going on, all of whom are willing to cover for each other and who won't leak, and who can somehow protect the ballots against independent auditing, to conspire to manipulate paper ballots than some guy in another country just compromising the polling station and tweaking the numbers slightly to give one side an edge.
Election fraud is possible in any system, but it's a lot easier when the system is purely computer-based.
Election fraud is possible in any system, but it's a lot easier when the system is purely computer-based.
True. With paper ballots it is more localized. Chains of custody along with observers from multiple parties help prevent collusion. Like all security, you can only minimize, not eliminate, risk.
Paper ballots allow for auditing, which is objectively more verifiable than voting via direct-record electronic voting machines.
What about paper ballots counted by people? That's how we do it in France, it works fine. As long as there are enough people participating and people don't choose their counting partners, it's quite resistant to fraud.
The Americans usually respond to this with "that doesn't work in the US, because it's too big, and you would need too many people to count the votes." Apparently it's not so obvious that in a bigger country you also have more people available for counting.
Paper voting is still done in many, many, many places in the US. It's still a substantial fraction of US voting.
It is true that counting paper ballots in the US is a more time-consuming process than elsewhere, because it's perfectly normal to vote for thirty different elected offices in the US and say, five referendums.
It is true that counting paper ballots in the US is a more time-consuming process than elsewhere, because it's perfectly normal to vote for thirty different elected offices in the US and say, five referendums.
In 2013, the supreme court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. As a result, "fourteen states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in 2016. [...] This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act." [0]
For instance, this was the first election in Wisconsin where voters were required to show a photo ID, a measure which barred 300,000 people from voting. Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin was only 22,525 votes.
In addition to voter suppression, there were also large unexplained discrepancies between exit polls and vote counts. [1]
[0] https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-...
[1] http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-we-count-election-...
For instance, this was the first election in Wisconsin where voters were required to show a photo ID, a measure which barred 300,000 people from voting. Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin was only 22,525 votes.
In addition to voter suppression, there were also large unexplained discrepancies between exit polls and vote counts. [1]
[0] https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-...
[1] http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-we-count-election-...
I can't go to a bar or buy alcohol/tobacco without showing ID.
Why should I be able to vote for the country's future without ID?
Why should I be able to vote for the country's future without ID?
The voter ID law in Wisconsin disqualified 9% of its registered voters. The right to vote is protected by 5 constitutional amendments and isn't conditional upon obtaining a state-issued photo ID. Requiring a photo ID is akin to a poll tax (24th amendment). There's no evidence that photo IDs make elections more secure, since voter-impersonation fraud is practically non-existent [0].
[0] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-i...
[0] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-i...
In what meta-logical wonderland is requiring ID equivalent to a poll tax?
There are fees involved in getting a photo ID.
And that's before you get to the states which require photo ID making it somewhat more difficult by requiring it to come only from government office X which is in county Y (obviously with poor public transport) only open on every third Tuesday between 1000 and 1400.
A bit off topic but: our country has a real problem that was hit home last night by a comment made by a dinner guest. He is a democrat (my wife and I are also registered democrats) and was over joyed at the prospect of a recount and/or electoral college delegates putting Clinton in the White House.
I pointed out how disruptive this would be to the country and the fact that Clinton has acknowledged that Trump won, and that Trump will probably end up with close to 2/3 of the electoral votes, kind of a landslide. I stated that we could have mass violence in this country if the election were overturned this late after the election.
Our friend said that mass violence was better than a Trump presidency, which seems like a really stupid point of view. I find it troubling that his view seems to be reflected by many people. In my opinion, we should respect the office of presidency, give Trump a "honeymoon" period to see what he actually does, and most importantly, get very politically active before the next interim elections.
I pointed out how disruptive this would be to the country and the fact that Clinton has acknowledged that Trump won, and that Trump will probably end up with close to 2/3 of the electoral votes, kind of a landslide. I stated that we could have mass violence in this country if the election were overturned this late after the election.
Our friend said that mass violence was better than a Trump presidency, which seems like a really stupid point of view. I find it troubling that his view seems to be reflected by many people. In my opinion, we should respect the office of presidency, give Trump a "honeymoon" period to see what he actually does, and most importantly, get very politically active before the next interim elections.
> I stated we could have mass violence in this country if the election were overturned this late after the election.
"Could"?
There will be a civil war if Trump's presidency is revoked. Count on it.
By the way, how many Democrats are there in the Army, Navy and Air Force? How about the National Guard? Law enforcement? How many Democrats own guns?
Democrats are funny people. "Mass violence is better than a Trump presidency."
Be careful what you wish for.
"Could"?
There will be a civil war if Trump's presidency is revoked. Count on it.
By the way, how many Democrats are there in the Army, Navy and Air Force? How about the National Guard? Law enforcement? How many Democrats own guns?
Democrats are funny people. "Mass violence is better than a Trump presidency."
Be careful what you wish for.
>Democrats are funny people. "Mass violence is better than a Trump presidency."
And yet Republicans have been using crypto-revolutionary language for years, especially after deciding to make the Tea Party their proxy in order to gin up fears of Obama's "radical marxist ideology".
This isn't a matter of only one party or the other wanting bloodshed. The Second Amendment has deeply ingrained into the American political consciousness the premise that revolutionary violence is not only justifiable but periodically necessary for a free state - that ideal, coupled with the polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their opponents as evil and their every political action illegitimate, makes violence seem inevitable.
Luckily for our Republic, far more American armchair revolutionaries are willing to talk about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants than are willing to do the gardening themselves.
And yet Republicans have been using crypto-revolutionary language for years, especially after deciding to make the Tea Party their proxy in order to gin up fears of Obama's "radical marxist ideology".
This isn't a matter of only one party or the other wanting bloodshed. The Second Amendment has deeply ingrained into the American political consciousness the premise that revolutionary violence is not only justifiable but periodically necessary for a free state - that ideal, coupled with the polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their opponents as evil and their every political action illegitimate, makes violence seem inevitable.
Luckily for our Republic, far more American armchair revolutionaries are willing to talk about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants than are willing to do the gardening themselves.
> the polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their opponents as evil and their every political action illegitimate
I think you'll find that the game theory behind a winner-take-all simple majority vote leads almost inevitably to exactly that.
The one dynamic responsible is what I call "the Price is Right phenomenon". In that game show we're both guessing a price and the closest guess wins. If you bet $2 and my guess is $4, I'm still going to say $2.01 because I've captured the middle-ground. If the price is $2.04, far closer to your best guess than mine, I'll still still win. Whereas if I expressed my true beliefs I'd have lost.
Note that I also win if the price is $200.04. This parallels the support you get and accept, because in a one-dimensional political system (all a single vote can express) all you have is left and right. All nuance in the other side is lost in the fact that they'll outlaw your gay marriage, or they'll let your daughter get an abortion, whichever way you swing.
This leads to hypocrisy such as saying "A vote for a third party is a vote wasted" and then being upset at a party for accepting the support of unsavory characters (who you've just told not to waste their votes.) In a two-party system, which is what first past the post produces, your enemies are, by necessity, friends with your enemies.
It's not people who suck, or that we deserve ourselves, it's specifically the system we use. With a broken system there is no way to properly state your preferences, and to the degree you can you may have to pull the lever one way to try to go the other. In any and all other aspects of lives we demand better. We don't let the bank or the grocery store offer us such poor options for expressing our preferences. We're doomed to live this until we have more input than 0 or 1 (and hardly that, in a swing state...)
Investigate Approval Voting and push for it in all public elections in your name.
I think you'll find that the game theory behind a winner-take-all simple majority vote leads almost inevitably to exactly that.
The one dynamic responsible is what I call "the Price is Right phenomenon". In that game show we're both guessing a price and the closest guess wins. If you bet $2 and my guess is $4, I'm still going to say $2.01 because I've captured the middle-ground. If the price is $2.04, far closer to your best guess than mine, I'll still still win. Whereas if I expressed my true beliefs I'd have lost.
Note that I also win if the price is $200.04. This parallels the support you get and accept, because in a one-dimensional political system (all a single vote can express) all you have is left and right. All nuance in the other side is lost in the fact that they'll outlaw your gay marriage, or they'll let your daughter get an abortion, whichever way you swing.
This leads to hypocrisy such as saying "A vote for a third party is a vote wasted" and then being upset at a party for accepting the support of unsavory characters (who you've just told not to waste their votes.) In a two-party system, which is what first past the post produces, your enemies are, by necessity, friends with your enemies.
It's not people who suck, or that we deserve ourselves, it's specifically the system we use. With a broken system there is no way to properly state your preferences, and to the degree you can you may have to pull the lever one way to try to go the other. In any and all other aspects of lives we demand better. We don't let the bank or the grocery store offer us such poor options for expressing our preferences. We're doomed to live this until we have more input than 0 or 1 (and hardly that, in a swing state...)
Investigate Approval Voting and push for it in all public elections in your name.
> the polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their opponents as evil and their every political action illegitimate
I don't recall such an atmosphere being present in prior elections. I don't recall ever witnessing so much divisiveness among Americans as I have the last few weeks. This election was particularly heated, and, frankly, I blame the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that.
The Clinton campaign somehow managed to convince roughly half of the country that the other half are actually akin to, and just as evil as, Hitler supporters. Such thinking has no basis in fact. It's her characterization of half of the population of the US as "deplorables" that caused such enormous divisiveness among Americans. In response to the election, many democrats have resorted to name-calling (racist, sexist, etc.), fraudulent claims of violence and rape, actual violent attacks on alleged Trump supporters, and temper-tantrums in general. This reaction only serves to fuel the division. And, because of Clinton's tactic of demonizing her critics and non-supporters, her supporters feel absolutely justified in these actions. After all, if you had a chance to stop the Nazis from taking over, wouldn't you do anything in your power to do so? Hillary, whether she intended to or not, gave her supporters a free pass to be utterly ruthless towards everyone else without compromising their consciences or their morals.
It seems to me like many of Hillary's supporters never even gave Trump a fair listen, given that all of their arguments against a Trump presidency seem to be counterfactual bullshit straight out of the campaign propaganda machine. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made against Trump, but vague accusations that he's a "white supremacist" and a "sexist" and a "Nazi" seem to be par for the course, and have no empirical foundation whatsoever.
Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and have a look at the reality around them. Instead of writing off your fellow Americans as bigots, give them a chance to explain where they're coming from. Seek some understanding of your compatriots instead of being so quick to deride them.
I don't recall such an atmosphere being present in prior elections. I don't recall ever witnessing so much divisiveness among Americans as I have the last few weeks. This election was particularly heated, and, frankly, I blame the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that.
The Clinton campaign somehow managed to convince roughly half of the country that the other half are actually akin to, and just as evil as, Hitler supporters. Such thinking has no basis in fact. It's her characterization of half of the population of the US as "deplorables" that caused such enormous divisiveness among Americans. In response to the election, many democrats have resorted to name-calling (racist, sexist, etc.), fraudulent claims of violence and rape, actual violent attacks on alleged Trump supporters, and temper-tantrums in general. This reaction only serves to fuel the division. And, because of Clinton's tactic of demonizing her critics and non-supporters, her supporters feel absolutely justified in these actions. After all, if you had a chance to stop the Nazis from taking over, wouldn't you do anything in your power to do so? Hillary, whether she intended to or not, gave her supporters a free pass to be utterly ruthless towards everyone else without compromising their consciences or their morals.
It seems to me like many of Hillary's supporters never even gave Trump a fair listen, given that all of their arguments against a Trump presidency seem to be counterfactual bullshit straight out of the campaign propaganda machine. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made against Trump, but vague accusations that he's a "white supremacist" and a "sexist" and a "Nazi" seem to be par for the course, and have no empirical foundation whatsoever.
Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and have a look at the reality around them. Instead of writing off your fellow Americans as bigots, give them a chance to explain where they're coming from. Seek some understanding of your compatriots instead of being so quick to deride them.
> It's her characterization of half of the population of the US as "deplorables"
Let me help you read that quote: "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic"
Half of Trump's supporters. That's roughly 20% of the country. And yes, if they're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, they are deplorable.
> Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and have a look at the reality around them.
Cough, yes. You really should lay off the propaganda.
> Instead of writing off your fellow Americans as bigots, give them a chance to explain where they're coming from.
No. If you're telling me what to do in my bedroom, I don't give a rat's ass. If you're racist, I don't care what anecdotes made you that way. If you're trying to tell me who I can marry, I don't care in the slightest why you feel that way.
You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a fit when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.
Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.
> Hillary, whether she intended to or not, gave her supporters a free pass
You're equating mean words with Trump's racist scapegoating, his stated intent to kill families of terrorists, deport people born here, etc. Get a sense of scale.
> never even gave Trump a fair listen
A fair listen doesn't mean hang on his words, it means to listen until he's made it obvious that he's clearly unfit for the position.
Maybe you believe he's smarter than all the generals, etc, but if I heard that ignorant bravado from a coworker or a presidential candidate I'd put them in the stupid pile.
For years before the election he went on about Obama's birth certificate. Him and the racists. But yeah, you can tell yourself that he had a real legalistic reason for asking Obama but not Clinton, Bush, etc.
> frankly, I blame the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that
I'm sure you do.
Let me help you read that quote: "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic"
Half of Trump's supporters. That's roughly 20% of the country. And yes, if they're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, they are deplorable.
> Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and have a look at the reality around them.
Cough, yes. You really should lay off the propaganda.
> Instead of writing off your fellow Americans as bigots, give them a chance to explain where they're coming from.
No. If you're telling me what to do in my bedroom, I don't give a rat's ass. If you're racist, I don't care what anecdotes made you that way. If you're trying to tell me who I can marry, I don't care in the slightest why you feel that way.
You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a fit when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.
Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.
> Hillary, whether she intended to or not, gave her supporters a free pass
You're equating mean words with Trump's racist scapegoating, his stated intent to kill families of terrorists, deport people born here, etc. Get a sense of scale.
> never even gave Trump a fair listen
A fair listen doesn't mean hang on his words, it means to listen until he's made it obvious that he's clearly unfit for the position.
Maybe you believe he's smarter than all the generals, etc, but if I heard that ignorant bravado from a coworker or a presidential candidate I'd put them in the stupid pile.
For years before the election he went on about Obama's birth certificate. Him and the racists. But yeah, you can tell yourself that he had a real legalistic reason for asking Obama but not Clinton, Bush, etc.
> frankly, I blame the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that
I'm sure you do.
> You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a fit when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.
> Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.
Ironically, I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far left making conspicuous attempts to control other people. The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the last several years, been loudly and publicly shaming people who don't share their opinions. These are the same people who decry bullying and use their hashtags to raise awareness about "cyberbullying", and then turn around and try their best to get some "toxic male" who criticized Anita Sarkeesian in a tweet fired from his job. The same people who emphasize diversity and equality while systematically silencing and excluding anyone with so-called "privilege". The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless) all the while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black supremacist movement.
The reasons for Trump's election are varied, complicated, and much more nuanced than "toxic masculinity and white privilege".
I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it. The power of the president is constitutionally limited for this very reason, checks and balances and all that. And, frankly, once we got through the primaries, I wasn't going to like the outcome of this election no matter what. President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give him the shaft), or even Rand Paul (too bad he's a boring, down-to-earth guy lacking in outrageous, showy behavior or anything particularly radical to put forward... and, for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC... I wouldn't be surprised at this point (cash rules everything and whatnot)). I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the president. Shit's tense right now.
> Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.
Ironically, I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far left making conspicuous attempts to control other people. The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the last several years, been loudly and publicly shaming people who don't share their opinions. These are the same people who decry bullying and use their hashtags to raise awareness about "cyberbullying", and then turn around and try their best to get some "toxic male" who criticized Anita Sarkeesian in a tweet fired from his job. The same people who emphasize diversity and equality while systematically silencing and excluding anyone with so-called "privilege". The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless) all the while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black supremacist movement.
The reasons for Trump's election are varied, complicated, and much more nuanced than "toxic masculinity and white privilege".
I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it. The power of the president is constitutionally limited for this very reason, checks and balances and all that. And, frankly, once we got through the primaries, I wasn't going to like the outcome of this election no matter what. President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give him the shaft), or even Rand Paul (too bad he's a boring, down-to-earth guy lacking in outrageous, showy behavior or anything particularly radical to put forward... and, for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC... I wouldn't be surprised at this point (cash rules everything and whatnot)). I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the president. Shit's tense right now.
> I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far left making conspicuous attempts to control other people.
Right. I totally agree. I mentioned this just upthread, though in a slightly different context.
The 90% of sane voters are defined by the crazy 5% at either end, because you're either in one party or the other...
Some candidates and some parties are better about not endorsing these loons though, which is all we can ask for. At least to not have their nonsense codified.
> The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the last several years, been [...]
Even though I'm closer to their side than the KKK types at the other end, I too see them as a toxic corruption of the proper message. I do think we need to get rid of bullies, but I don't think that simply having an unpopular attitude is a problem unless you act upon it to actually discriminate, etc.
I don't know the anti-Sarkeesian tweets you mention but I've seen many other baseless fits pitched, so I can imagine.
> The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless)
Yes, and being someone who cares about actual racism, this bothers me. We can't get proper treatment for real issues if we're executing people for tweets.
> [...] while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black supremacist movement.
Yeah, I don't know how people can openly support any racist group in the name of wiping out racism.
> I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it.
I remember just as many tantrums from the candidates in the previous elections. (Asking for recounts, mocking the person asking for recounts, etc.) The protests are somewhat new, but they're a peaceful expression of disgust, not riots or anything. They seem totally reasonable, considering the toxic messages flying around.
> President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give him the shaft)
I agree, but I'll point out that both political parties are intended to do this. Because similar candidates are "spoilers" in a first-past-the-post election you need a way to weed out people like you but with slightly less chance of winning. The only issue is that they did it behind closed doors.
This won't be fixed until we have a better process, such as Approval voting, that isn't vulnerable to these problems.
> for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC
I have no faith that he wouldn't have, but it seems unlikely given how much nasty infighting there way.
> I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the president.
Well ultimately, that's the right stance. The president, even elected and in power, can't do anything on his own. Everything he hopes to accomplish can only be enacted by the people. If we do terrible things under his rule it'll be because we were already willing to and just waiting for someone to come along and justify it.
Right. I totally agree. I mentioned this just upthread, though in a slightly different context.
The 90% of sane voters are defined by the crazy 5% at either end, because you're either in one party or the other...
Some candidates and some parties are better about not endorsing these loons though, which is all we can ask for. At least to not have their nonsense codified.
> The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the last several years, been [...]
Even though I'm closer to their side than the KKK types at the other end, I too see them as a toxic corruption of the proper message. I do think we need to get rid of bullies, but I don't think that simply having an unpopular attitude is a problem unless you act upon it to actually discriminate, etc.
I don't know the anti-Sarkeesian tweets you mention but I've seen many other baseless fits pitched, so I can imagine.
> The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless)
Yes, and being someone who cares about actual racism, this bothers me. We can't get proper treatment for real issues if we're executing people for tweets.
> [...] while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black supremacist movement.
Yeah, I don't know how people can openly support any racist group in the name of wiping out racism.
> I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it.
I remember just as many tantrums from the candidates in the previous elections. (Asking for recounts, mocking the person asking for recounts, etc.) The protests are somewhat new, but they're a peaceful expression of disgust, not riots or anything. They seem totally reasonable, considering the toxic messages flying around.
> President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give him the shaft)
I agree, but I'll point out that both political parties are intended to do this. Because similar candidates are "spoilers" in a first-past-the-post election you need a way to weed out people like you but with slightly less chance of winning. The only issue is that they did it behind closed doors.
This won't be fixed until we have a better process, such as Approval voting, that isn't vulnerable to these problems.
> for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC
I have no faith that he wouldn't have, but it seems unlikely given how much nasty infighting there way.
> I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the president.
Well ultimately, that's the right stance. The president, even elected and in power, can't do anything on his own. Everything he hopes to accomplish can only be enacted by the people. If we do terrible things under his rule it'll be because we were already willing to and just waiting for someone to come along and justify it.
The vast majority of Trump voters wouldn't walk past the end of their own block to protest an accurate vote count.
You'd say the same thing if Kodos won the election though, right? Is there anyone you wouldn't support the peaceful transition of power to?
Had the Germans fought a civil war in the 1930s instead of accepting their populist leader they and the rest of the world would have been better off.
Had the Germans fought a civil war in the 1930s instead of accepting their populist leader they and the rest of the world would have been better off.
Ah, the "literally Hitler" argument!
What you energetic Godwinians forget, is that Hitler was a socialist and abused the executive powers of a massively oversized state to obtain his dictatorial powers.
Powers that the outgoing President of the USA pushed to new horizons in a government bureaucracy larger than has ever existed.
Perhaps if the Godwin-kin stopped creating turn-key totalitarian states, we wouldn't have to suffer from an endless list of genocidal dictators.
Or did you think Hitler was a conservative?
What you energetic Godwinians forget, is that Hitler was a socialist and abused the executive powers of a massively oversized state to obtain his dictatorial powers.
Powers that the outgoing President of the USA pushed to new horizons in a government bureaucracy larger than has ever existed.
Perhaps if the Godwin-kin stopped creating turn-key totalitarian states, we wouldn't have to suffer from an endless list of genocidal dictators.
Or did you think Hitler was a conservative?
Ah, someone who just learned about "Godwin's law". How cute. But no, I didn't make an argument either way or compare anyone to anyone else so you need to recalibrate your meter.
I'm just saying that without standards, whatever they are, you'll accept anything.
And "it avoids civil war" isn't a justification because in some cases we'd be better off if the entire country in question burned itself to the ground in an internal struggle rather than inflicting it on the rest of the world.
> did you think Hitler was a conservative?
Wow you've got a Hitler fixation. I wasn't really talking about him, just our tendency to elect bad people and how in retrospect the fact that they're legally elected is no justification for what they end up doing.
No, I think he was a sociopath who threw the jews under the bus for convenience. And his policies didn't fit any right-left divide because neither liberal or conservative is a codeword for genocidal.
If you want to continue this line of thought, an interesting question to ask yourself is "If I put Hitler's words into the mouth of those the candidate preferred by the self-identified conservatives, and the candidate preferred by self-identified liberals, which group most-supports those misattributed statements?"
I'm just saying that without standards, whatever they are, you'll accept anything.
And "it avoids civil war" isn't a justification because in some cases we'd be better off if the entire country in question burned itself to the ground in an internal struggle rather than inflicting it on the rest of the world.
> did you think Hitler was a conservative?
Wow you've got a Hitler fixation. I wasn't really talking about him, just our tendency to elect bad people and how in retrospect the fact that they're legally elected is no justification for what they end up doing.
No, I think he was a sociopath who threw the jews under the bus for convenience. And his policies didn't fit any right-left divide because neither liberal or conservative is a codeword for genocidal.
If you want to continue this line of thought, an interesting question to ask yourself is "If I put Hitler's words into the mouth of those the candidate preferred by the self-identified conservatives, and the candidate preferred by self-identified liberals, which group most-supports those misattributed statements?"
> Had the Germans fought a civil war in the 1930s instead of accepting their populist leader they and the rest of the world would have been better off.
Oh, was there another populist leader the Germans should have rejected in the 1930s? Do enlighten me.
>Wow you've got a Hitler fixation. I wasn't really talking about him [...]
Projection at its finest. See above.
"LITERALLY HITLER!!!!!!!" is the totality of your argument. Perhaps you should broaden your critical thinking landscape.
Oh, was there another populist leader the Germans should have rejected in the 1930s? Do enlighten me.
>Wow you've got a Hitler fixation. I wasn't really talking about him [...]
Projection at its finest. See above.
"LITERALLY HITLER!!!!!!!" is the totality of your argument. Perhaps you should broaden your critical thinking landscape.
As I said, it's kind of cute how you go on about things you've just heard about.
> was there another populist leader the Germans should have rejected in the 1930s?
Pray tell, which politician do you think I'm comparing to Hitler?
I'm certainly referring to Hitler. I am German. He's the last one of those in my country? Are you appropriating my culture?
But I'm not saying either of the US presidential candidates are Hitler, literally or otherwise, or even very much like him.
Pay attention here... I'm only saying that "legally elected" is almost the least important thing about them. What's important is how they'll govern, not if they managed to win a badly run popularity contest.
I do agree with the OP that his friend was hoping for something silly - violence in the street to stop Trump. But, unless the OP had a line where he'd wish for such a thing, he's actually the naive one. There certainly are some examples, like the one I shared from my homeland, where it's worth almost any internal pain (even civil war) to stop the legally elected candidate from assuming power.
> was there another populist leader the Germans should have rejected in the 1930s?
Pray tell, which politician do you think I'm comparing to Hitler?
I'm certainly referring to Hitler. I am German. He's the last one of those in my country? Are you appropriating my culture?
But I'm not saying either of the US presidential candidates are Hitler, literally or otherwise, or even very much like him.
Pay attention here... I'm only saying that "legally elected" is almost the least important thing about them. What's important is how they'll govern, not if they managed to win a badly run popularity contest.
I do agree with the OP that his friend was hoping for something silly - violence in the street to stop Trump. But, unless the OP had a line where he'd wish for such a thing, he's actually the naive one. There certainly are some examples, like the one I shared from my homeland, where it's worth almost any internal pain (even civil war) to stop the legally elected candidate from assuming power.
james-watson(1)
[deleted]
yummyfajitas(7)
All we do is make excuses.
Yes; HRC lost because she ran a bad campaign, not because the voting machines were hacked.
Yes. The US is very much a blame society.
The whole reason people think it's fraud is because the media led people to think that Hillary couldn't possibly lose. When she lost, people started looking for an explanation.
That's not entirely true. President Elect Trump himself spent the greater part of a month prior to the election claiming repeatedly that the election was "absolutely" rigged and, if you remember, predicated his unconditional acceptance of the results on his victory. People of a conspiratorial bent were already primed by his muddying of the waters so it shouldn't be a surprise that his own upset victory would be met with challenge.
Not to mention that this entire election cycle was one where bad actors from all directions took advantage of the poor discernment of the American electorate to the point where truth, innuendo, dubious claims and outright lies were given equal weight in the decision making process of many. Informational chaos has now been proven to be a winning strategy (and not just because Trump won) so why wouldn't that carry on post-election?
Not to mention that this entire election cycle was one where bad actors from all directions took advantage of the poor discernment of the American electorate to the point where truth, innuendo, dubious claims and outright lies were given equal weight in the decision making process of many. Informational chaos has now been proven to be a winning strategy (and not just because Trump won) so why wouldn't that carry on post-election?
> President Elect Trump … predicated his unconditional acceptance of the results on his victory.
While I am no fan of the man, and have no doubt that he would fiercely have contested a loss, I don't think that it is quite as you have described it. What I remember is that he said that he would "keep you in suspense", and that he would accept the election results "if he was satisfied", never explicitly that he would only accept a victory for himself.
While I am no fan of the man, and have no doubt that he would fiercely have contested a loss, I don't think that it is quite as you have described it. What I remember is that he said that he would "keep you in suspense", and that he would accept the election results "if he was satisfied", never explicitly that he would only accept a victory for himself.
A very strange thing to write as my first post, but in one of the debates Trump did indeed say he would respect the results "if I win" [1].
I think the "I'll look at it on the day" comments came a bit later.
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/donald-trump-i-wi...
I think the "I'll look at it on the day" comments came a bit later.
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/donald-trump-i-wi...
Taken out of context thats easy to conclude, but putten in context then it remains unclear.
Because even then he said, that he is not going to say that he wil accept a loss, no matter what happened.
Because even then he said, that he is not going to say that he wil accept a loss, no matter what happened.
I'd posit that Trump making noise about the election being rigged beforehand also contributed to this perception.
The result of the popular vote reflected the media's interpretation of pre-election polls: she won by a strong margin, millions of votes. Trump still won the presidency thanks to the peculiar American system that emphasizes the mostly arbitrary state lines over popular representation.
Because the results of a single state can swing the total so wildly out of proportion with the state's population, doing recounts against the paper trail (which otherwise would never get looked at) seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Because the results of a single state can swing the total so wildly out of proportion with the state's population, doing recounts against the paper trail (which otherwise would never get looked at) seems like a reasonable thing to do.
How do the results of a single state swing the total "so wildly out of proportion with the state's population"?
The Electoral College is exactly based on a state's congressional representation. California has more people, thus more electoral votes. Each electoral vote represents roughly 700,000 people within a state.
While state lines are arbitrary, states are not: they represent a sovereign entity within the United States much like Belgium is a sovereign state within the EU despite Belgium having arbitrary borders. To think otherwise is to fail to understand what the United States is: a federal system with divisions of power allocated by the Constitution. The interests of the people of Louisiana are vastly different than those of New York -- the system represents that reality.
The more interesting question is if we would have this discussion if Hillary had won? Popular vote does not determine the presidency -- that has been true since the beginning; it isn't like anyone was robbed.
If Trump had lost and Breitbart had conducted some statistical analysis to prove that the vote was rigged, it wouldn't even make it on Hacker News. Every election one side or another tries to justify their losses but rarely does such a justification ascend to high art as it is apparently doing here. Ultimately the bottom line is that the media state-by-state predictions were wrong and now there is hand-wringing to rationalize it. National polls are meaningless yet we continue to subscribe to their irrelevance.
The Electoral College is exactly based on a state's congressional representation. California has more people, thus more electoral votes. Each electoral vote represents roughly 700,000 people within a state.
While state lines are arbitrary, states are not: they represent a sovereign entity within the United States much like Belgium is a sovereign state within the EU despite Belgium having arbitrary borders. To think otherwise is to fail to understand what the United States is: a federal system with divisions of power allocated by the Constitution. The interests of the people of Louisiana are vastly different than those of New York -- the system represents that reality.
The more interesting question is if we would have this discussion if Hillary had won? Popular vote does not determine the presidency -- that has been true since the beginning; it isn't like anyone was robbed.
If Trump had lost and Breitbart had conducted some statistical analysis to prove that the vote was rigged, it wouldn't even make it on Hacker News. Every election one side or another tries to justify their losses but rarely does such a justification ascend to high art as it is apparently doing here. Ultimately the bottom line is that the media state-by-state predictions were wrong and now there is hand-wringing to rationalize it. National polls are meaningless yet we continue to subscribe to their irrelevance.
In a state like Wyoming there are about 190,000 people per elector. In California or Texas it's more like 700,000. The fundamental unit of a democracy should be the citizen, not the square mile. (Cue responses that it's not at all a democracy)
Why do you make that statement without any argument to back it up? It's clear that equal representation per person is not universally agreed to be ideal.
That's not how any federal system works. They are more like unions of states than one big government and in a union the less powerful partners deserve some protections.
That's not how any federal system works. They are more like unions of states than one big government and in a union the less powerful partners deserve some protections.
Yes--all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
its in the name. united states of america.united states.
The popular vote is meaningless. Everybody knew the system. There is no incentive to vote in states-not-perceived-as-swing-states. It's not clear from this election who would have one a straight up popular vote.
Also: The voting system America has is an important step to protect minority groups, that is, small population states. Maybe the winner-takes-all in the states has to be modified.
The president is meant to represent the populace more closely than it does, as should the House. The Senate is meant to protect less populace states.
Really, the problem is capping the number of representatives at around 450. We should have something like 1000-3000 members of the house, which if distributed by population would fix most people's problems with the electoral college.
Basically, Congress got selfish and broke the balance of power for the country to entrench their own, and now the states that don't do much have too much say, and basically slow the country down.
Really, the problem is capping the number of representatives at around 450. We should have something like 1000-3000 members of the house, which if distributed by population would fix most people's problems with the electoral college.
Basically, Congress got selfish and broke the balance of power for the country to entrench their own, and now the states that don't do much have too much say, and basically slow the country down.
> minority groups, that is, small population states.
I'm not sure that this synonymy is justified.
I'm not sure that this synonymy is justified.
It is nonsensical to credit Trump's win to the Electoral College. How a candidate runs a campaign is dependent on the rules that govern the election. If you were to change the rules, the campaign would be run differently. None of us know what would have happened if the candidates had run their campaigns without the constraints imposed by the Electoral College.
The electoral college is not some new information the media wasn't aware of, so it doesn't make sense to say it explains their story about how she couldn't lose.
In my opinion the whole reason people think it's fraud is because a lot of voters seems to think we're in a direct democracy and have no understanding whatsoever what a representative democracy is, what Electorate College is and what purpose it serves. Seriously, stop a random person on the streets and ask them. Everything else is just adding fuel to the fire.
If they think it's a fraud, they're by definition correct. The system is supposed to represent them and if they don't feel a representative democracy (hah!) does, who's to tell them otherwise?
The plain fact of the matter is that the representative system was implemented for two reasons 1) necessity in a pre-industrial society 2) to actually limit the power of the people.
The fact that #2 was intended to make us safer (avoid a tyranny of the masses, etc) doesn't change the fact that our government is intended not to listen to our opinions.
The plain fact of the matter is that the representative system was implemented for two reasons 1) necessity in a pre-industrial society 2) to actually limit the power of the people.
The fact that #2 was intended to make us safer (avoid a tyranny of the masses, etc) doesn't change the fact that our government is intended not to listen to our opinions.
[deleted]
Looks like we're about to have the same voting/election discussion we've had at least 6 times over the past month or so (most recently a day ago). If anyone's interested in reading what's already been discussed, here are links to the previous threads:
"Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13032199
"American Elections Will Be Hacked" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12921967
"Maryland will audit all votes cast in general election" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12885396
"Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12883356
"In Pennsylvania, Claims of a Rigged Election May Be Impossible to Disprove" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790247
"Votes could be counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12841178