Trump II

[JoeKitchen]

He won the complex and kind of silly electoral college vote and most American's, myself included don't fully understand this odd and complex process. Where as, a popular vote is pretty easy to understand.
The other item to examine in this mess of an electoral system is something called gerrymandering!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd

It's really a very simple process.  Really, it is so simple.  Each state has so many electoral votes, and all of those votes go to the candidate that won that state's popular election.  Then, the total tally of electoral votes decides on who wins the election. 

It is not anymore complicated then that.

This process is much better then a popular vote since it prevents a "tyranny of the majority" from forming in the country and also demands national politicians actually pay attention to all areas of the country.  Just imagine if HRC actually campaigned in PA, WI and MI, she would be president.  Instead she ignored those states since they were "shoe-ins," her mistake.   

And by the way, gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with presidential elections, since it only deals with districts and not the overall state.  (I could not open the link you provide since you need a subscription to do so, but even suggesting gerrymandered districts could effect the popular election of a state must have been quite the stretch.  I really would have liked to have had a chuckle reading it.) 

Gerrymandering is the process of drawing local districts in such a way that it is more likely house representatives within that state are elected from the same party.  This has no bearing on senate seats either, since they are elected in state wide popular elections too. 

Now before you cry fowl on the GOP, both parties are just as guilty in doing this over the decades.  The only reason the media is making such a big deal now is because during the census, which is when district maps are redrawn, the GOP was in control, and the controlling party dictates how the districts are redrawn. 

But both parties do this, as John Oliver explains here.    So it is pretty much an universal problem. 

[digitaldog]

It's really a very simple process.  Really, it is so simple. 

It's far, far more complex than the popular vote which is the way elections should be conducted.
This is simple too and rather unfair:



ger·ry·man·der
ˈjerēˌmandər/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: gerrymandering
manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.


Doesn't matter if one party does this more or less than another; it's wrong!

"tyranny of the majority" we disagree on any such tyranny. I disagree with Mr. Hamilton.

[digitaldog]

And by the way, gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with presidential elections, since it only deals with districts and not the overall state.

I'll try again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd

I will cry fowl on the GOP, both parties are not just as guilty in doing this over the decades.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/02/10/gerrymandering-is-the-biggest-obstacle-to-genuine-democracy-in-the-united-states-so-why-is-no-one-protesting/?utm_term=.1d5c388a6b17

While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis  in 2014 found that eight of the ten most gerrymandered districts in the United States were drawn by Republicans.

[JoeKitchen]

It's far, far more complex than the popular vote which is the way elections should be conducted.
This is simple too and rather unfair:



ger·ry·man·der
ˈjerēˌmandər/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: gerrymandering
manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.


Doesn't matter if one party does this more or less than another; it's wrong!

"tyranny of the majority" we disagree on any such tyranny. I disagree with Mr. Hamilton.

It really is not far, far more complex.  Perhaps slightly more involved; literally only one extra step is added to the process.  If you really feel it is far, far more complex, your bar for complex is way too high. 

Furthermore, popular votes failed societies repeatably throughout history.  Any serious study of civics would teach this, which is why virtually no country in the world elects national politicians through a popular vote anymore.  Not one major countries does this!

Yes, gerrymandering is much more complicated, but can be both moral and immoral depending on the instance.  John Oliver explains that pretty well too in the video I posted. 

[digitaldog]

It really is not far, far more complex.  Perhaps slightly more involved; literally only one extra step is added to the process.

Fine, we'll disagree over the semantics if that makes you happy.

Furthermore, popular votes failed societies repeatably throughout history.

And the alternative has failed the current society!

Yes, gerrymandering is much more complicated, but can be both moral and immoral depending on the instance.

Manipulation to favor one party or class is immoral IMHO. Especially when the two result in this (again for the 3rd time):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd
Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with presidential elections?

[JoeKitchen]

I'll try again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd

I will cry fowl on the GOP, both parties are not just as guilty in doing this over the decades.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/02/10/gerrymandering-is-the-biggest-obstacle-to-genuine-democracy-in-the-united-states-so-why-is-no-one-protesting/?utm_term=.1d5c388a6b17

While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis  in 2014 found that eight of the ten most gerrymandered districts in the United States were drawn by Republicans.

Once again, I can not open the post. 

But I stand firm in my assessment that it is impossible for gerrymandering to have anything to do with presidential elections.  Gerrymandering only effects House of Representative seats, nothing else. 

Whom the electoral officials vote for within a particular state only depends on the state's popular vote.  The district votes and maps have nothing to do with the electoral votes.  They are not even close to being connected.  It would be quite the stretch to suggest otherwise. 

[JoeKitchen]

Fine, we'll disagree over the semantics if that makes you happy. And the alternative has failed the current society!Manipulation to favor one party or class is immoral IMHO. Especially when the two result in this (again for the 3rd time):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd
Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with presidential elections?

Semantics has nothing to do with it.  Using correct and proper diction does. 

Also, by failed, I meant the state failed.  As far as I can tell, the USA is still a single country not in civil war. 

[Peter McLennan]

Illegals put Americans out of work and drive wages down.

Now that's strange.  I could have sworn that you were in favour of free markets.

(Illegals or not illegals, by the way.  Those Indian engineers you mentioned aren't all swimming the Rio Grande.)

[digitaldog]

Semantics has nothing to do with it.  Use correct and proper diction does. 

Also, by failed, I meant the state failed.  As far as I can tell, the USA is still a single country not in civil war.

A. I believe I did.
B. Do you live in the USA?
C. Still ignoring that indeed, Gerrymandering has absolutely something to do with presidential elections.
D. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/

[digitaldog]

Once again, I can not open the post.

Not impossible for some of us. But to aid you along (of course, some here will call it fake news):

[JoeKitchen]

Not impossible for some of us. But to aid you along (of course, some here will call it fake news):

OMG!  This really is funny!  I love it, and I was correct in saying it was quite the stretch! 

Did you read the article and fully comprehend what it was actually saying?  It's talking about state borders, not district borders, and whomever choose the title was being journalistically disingenuous, along with a lack of knowledge on proper english diction and vocabulary (which was more then likely purposely, which makes it worse).  Gerrymandering is only defined as to being an issue with district borders; using it in this title is improper. 

State borders are not gerrymandered or redrawn every 10 years like districts are.  Politicians can't just haphazardly change the border of their state to influence the national election like they can, and are legally mandated to do, to effect house elections.  Most state borders where drawn decades ago (in the 1800s), settling from natural borders and how populations where broken, long before the current democratic and republican parties were even in existence. 

To even suggest the current two parties "gerrymandered" state lines to influence the presidential election is laughable, which is what is being implied. 

Nice thought experiment, but nothing more then that. 

[digitaldog]

OMG!  This really is funny!  I love it, and I was correct in saying it was quite the stretch! 

So you read the entire 5 page article that moments ago you said you could not access?
Yes or no?
Know anything about the 'winner take all' differences within varying states?

[JoeKitchen]

So you read the entire 5 page article that moments ago you said you could not access?
Yes or no?

No I did not; like i mentioned I before, the link will not open.  But I did read the screen capture. 

Perhaps you can help me here, please explain how redrawing districts for House of Representative votes effects the popular election of a state as per the article you site. 

Please paraphrase this for me, because what you posted makes no sense what so ever.  It is suggesting state lines be redrawn, which is a far cry from district lines.

And the winner take all differences really only effects a hand full of states.  And the hand full that are different do not split the votes up by house districts. 

And by the way, I do live in this country, I was born here, and have studied civics. 

[digitaldog]

No I did not

Kind of what I expected from you.
Can your web browser make it here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-fitzgerald/electoral-college-gerrymandering_b_2552584.html
In 2012, President Obama won Virginia with just over 51 percent of the vote. But under the Republican-proposed system of allocating votes, Obama would have received just four electoral votes while Mitt Romney would have received nine. Raise your hand if that sounds right.

[JoeKitchen]

Kind of what I expected from you.
Can your web browser make it here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-fitzgerald/electoral-college-gerrymandering_b_2552584.html

Are you really understanding what is being written in these articles.  This one starts off with an hypothetical of having electoral college votes being decided upon by house districts, which is not the current case.  They then go on to explain if this were to happen, gerrymandering would effect the outcome, something I would agree with. 

However, since this is not how it currently operates, their is no way gerrymandering could be currently effecting the outcome. 

It's a nice thought experiment that would have issues with gerrymandering if, and only if, we changed to this system. 

But, once again, since we are not doing so, gerrymandering has no effect on the current election process. 

You're arguing on gerrymandering effecting an hypothetical, and then applying that reasoning to the actual reality. 

I had to look up the actual logic text, but the argument being made falls into the popular fallacy of a "Faulty Analogy."

[digitaldog]

You're arguing on gerrymandering effecting an hypothetical, and then applying that reasoning to the actual reality.

No, I'm trying to get you to see the principle of “one person, one vote” doesn't really apply to the electoral college. Seems pointless. Bed time. 

[James Clark]

OMG!  This really is funny!  I love it, and I was correct in saying it was quite the stretch! 

Did you read the article and fully comprehend what it was actually saying?  It's talking about state borders, not district borders, and whomever choose the title was being journalistically disingenuous, along with a lack of knowledge on proper english diction and vocabulary (which was more then likely purposely, which makes it worse).  Gerrymandering is only defined as to being an issue with district borders; using it in this title is improper. 

State borders are not gerrymandered or redrawn every 10 years like districts are.  Politicians can't just haphazardly change the border of their state to influence the national election like they can, and are legally mandated to do, to effect house elections.  Most state borders where drawn decades ago, settling from natural borders and how populations where broken, long before the current democratic and republican parties were even in existence. 

To even suggest the current two parties "gerrymandered" state lines to influence the presidential election is laughable. 

Nice thought experiment, but nothing more then that.

Yeah - that's imprecise language (at best) on the part of the writer, though the fundamental point is sound (though ultimately irrelevant) in that extremely minor alterations of borders would create vastly different outcomes, which in turn argues against the theory that the EC as construed is somehow a bulwark against "tyranny of the majority."

There are a host of other problems that come up when one looks at the origin of the EC - problems that it was meant to address that are no longer relevant today.  The fact that blacks counted as 3/5 of a white man, the fact that women could not vote, the fact that fundamentally correct information about the state of the nation was not available to the average citizen (maybe that one is true again)... etc. and perhaps (in my opinion) the most pernicious problem - that the founders of the United States never envisioned or intended (but did fear) that leadership of the country be dominated by partisan factions, nor did they ever intend that electors be beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar. 

In short, the "killer app" of the EC was intended to be an independent body with knowledge and a sense of responsibility above that often average man, and certainly not bound to a party.  Read Hamilton's rationale in Federalist 68 - it's obvious that the system is broken.

Edit - TL;DR - DDog is right - "one man one vote" is clearly NOT reflected in the EC, but you're right too - it wasn't really meant to be.  However, the reasons why that compromise was made are not particularly relevant today.

[digitaldog]

Are you really understanding what is being written in these articles.

Are you really understanding what is being written in these articles you didn't fully read?

[JoeKitchen]

No, I'm trying to get you to see the principle of “one person, one vote” doesn't really apply to the electoral college. Seems pointless. Bed time. 

So what? 

As stated before, no country elects national politicians with popular votes.  I know you never said it, but I feel the need to mention the USA is not unique in this situation. 

Yes, there are problems with the electoral college; all political systems are inherently bias by some degree.  However, there are more problems with popular votes.  I'll take the lesser of two evils here. 

[JoeKitchen]

Are you really understanding what is being written in these articles you didn't fully read?

It is blatantly obvious to anyone who studied logic (my degrees are in mathematics) that these arguments are Faulty Analogies, which is a popular fallacy used to deceive people. 

If you boil the argument down to it's simplest form, they are creating a hypothetical that has a problem arising from how it was created.  Then they falsely analogizing that to the current situation.  It is a false analogy because the problem within the hypothetical only effects the hypothetical due to how the hypothetical was constructed.  In the reality of the situation, the reasons why the problem exist in the hypothetical are not present.