Trump's America

[elengil]

Rumblings on the Electoral College front
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/24/69682777 ... -in-states

Democrats in Colorado and New Mexico are pushing ahead with legislation to pledge their 14 collective electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — no matter who wins each state.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not especially wild about that approach, as if it is just a few states that adopt that rule while the rest don't it could lead to even more bizarre results.

Meanwhile, an ex-campaign staffer has filed a federal lawsuit against Mr. Trump alleging that he kissed her on the month without her permission or desire during the 2016 campaign, and it barely has created a ripple.

[Dave_LF]

I know Clinton won the popular vote, but nevertheless, IMO, the proper reaction to President Trump is to put more safeguards between the popular will and the final result, not fewer.

[yovargas]

Umm. Can you think of a system that would provide such "safeguards" that wouldn't be even more prone to corruption and manipulation?

[Dave_LF]

Can I, personally? No. But do I feel comfortable saying such a thing is needed given the outcome the current system just produced? Absolutely.

[elengil]

Can I, personally? No. But do I feel comfortable saying such a thing is needed given the outcome the current system just produced? Absolutely.

Except it is exactly the 'system' of separating the popular vote from the winner that gave that outcome. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that system did not exist, so I don't see how adding to the system is the correct course of action in your mind.

[Frelga]

Dave, I got to agree with elengil here. I don't see how that would help. Unless you misspelled Putin's as popular? Would you like to elaborate?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Honestly, I don't even understand what it is that Dave is suggesting.

I'm not as big a detractor of the electoral college as some. I don't blame it for Trump's victory so much as sexism, a poorly run campaign by Clinton and her team, Russian interference and Comey being forced by FBI insurgents in the New York office to announce that they were reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails, a most uninformed and apathetic public, and sexism. And did I mention sexism?

That having been said, while I would prefer a straight popular vote for president over the electoral college, I think a system in which some states had the overall popular vote dictate their electoral college members, and some states did not, would be worse than either.

[Dave_LF]

I'm not sure what was unclear... Yes, as I said upfront, Clinton won the popular vote. But it was really close, and could easily have gone the other way. There need to be safeguards in place to prevent people like Donald Trump from winding up in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal, even if they win popular elections.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What kind of safeguards? Who would decide who is worthy of being in charge?

[yovargas]

Asides from finding a benevolent god, or at the very least crowning me king of the world, I can't fathom what such a system could be.

It's that whole "the only thing worse than democracy is everything else" thing.

[Dave_LF]

Like I said, I don't know. But I am much more open to the idea of major reformation than I used to be. President Donald Trump represents such an utter failure of the system, I think we need to consider it fundamentally broken.

[elengil]

Like I said, I don't know. But I am much more open to the idea of major reformation than I used to be. President Donald Trump represents such an utter failure of the system, I think we need to consider it fundamentally broken.

But again, why is the solution to not remove that broken system rather than attempt to reinforce the broken system?

While I agree the current attempts are worse in that we'll have such differing results from state to state, why not simply do away with the broken system?

[Dave_LF]

Because I believe that in general, removing the electoral college would make it easier for people like Donald Trump to wind up in charge, even though in the specific case of 2016, it would have (barely) worked out the other way.

[elengil]

Because I believe that in general, removing the electoral college would make it easier for people like Donald Trump to wind up in charge, even though in the specific case of 2016, it would have (barely) worked out the other way.

But let's be realistic, the only thing that actually would prevent that is to disregard votes, because the only reason Trump won was because people voted for him. Whether it's calculated via popular vote, or electoral votes, or some other system, it's because people voted that way. So the only system that would ensure that this never happens again is a system which removes people's votes entirely from consideration, and that is not a system I want.

What I *would* like is better education on things like politics and government, yes, but also science, critical thinking, manipulation recognition, news reporting, etc. The things that make people want to vote for a person like Trump are the things we need to address, not the election process itself.

[Alatar]

Well, in many countries, people vote for parties and parties elect their own leader. Trump could never have been elected in Ireland for example. It just couldn't happen.

[elengil]

Well, in many countries, people vote for parties and parties elect their own leader. Trump could never have been elected in Ireland for example. It just couldn't happen.

Yes, but that goes beyond fixing our election process, that is changing significant parts of how our government works. I'm not even saying that would be bad, but it seems to go far beyond the scope of what Dave sounded like he was suggesting.

[RoseMorninStar]

I've been told that in countries like Finland/some other European countries people are educated early on in how propaganda works/rational thinking and perhaps that is why it may not work as well in their countries. They are well aware of the pitfalls. I think we, as Americans, are a bit arrogant that way, thinking that could never happen here/we would not fall prey to a con/propaganda.

[Frelga]

Because I believe that in general, removing the electoral college would make it easier for people like Donald Trump to wind up in charge, even though in the specific case of 2016, it would have (barely) worked out the other way.

I believe the opposite. Electoral college makes it possible for a president to be elected with the minority of the popular vote but a tiny majority of voters in a handful of states. Gerrymandering and "winner takes all" vote allocation favor the Republican candidate.

Worse, this makes it much easier for a foreign or domestic adversary to target a handful of voter districts to change the outcome.

This is exactly what Russia is said to have done. Stolen emails from the Clinton campaign gave them insight into her plans, which allowed both the Trump campaign and Russian disinformation organizations to focus in crucial areas.

[Faramond]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wi ... ats-again/

There is really no truth to the idea that the electoral college will consistently favor Republicans.

I'm not especially wild about that approach, as if it is just a few states that adopt that rule while the rest don't it could lead to even more bizarre results.

But this is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, isn't it? It doesn't go into effect until states representing 270 electoral votes pass it.

What I wonder is who exactly certifies the national popular vote? What if a recount is needed for a really close election?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact