Support NeoGAF

[klaus]

People voted in an electoral college election, not a popular vote election.

Therefore it was a specifically rules-limited subset of 'the people' who voted. Therefore 'the people' have not spoken.

I don't know how many times I have to state the fact that both the Trump and Clinton campaigns would have been dramatically different if they were designed to win the popular vote. A popular vote win in an EC campaign means literally nothing as far as result or any imputed 'will of the people'.

Counterfactual speculation isn't actually a "fact."

His post was not responsive to mine.

Perhaps my grasp of the English language is not the best, but I took it that your answer to D.Lo's post was in response to the bolded part. Denying that it is a fact that both candidates followed the strategy to win the electoral votes seems quite weird to me.

But feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood what you were saying.

 

[Dude Abides]

Perhaps my grasp of the English language is not the best, but I took it that your answer to D.Lo's post was in response to the bolded part. Denying that it is a fact that both candidates followed the strategy to win the electoral votes seems quite weird to me.

But feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood what you were saying.

It isn't a "fact." It's pure conjecture that the campaigns or vote totals would have been substantially different. And that's a fact, even if pointing it out triggers The Albatross. It actually seems rather unlikely that in a popular vote contestTrump would have concentrated his efforts in California or New York where he is unpopular rather than trying to drive up turnout in the rust belt where he had voters. Trump did not focus on the rust belt because he had a super sophisticated strategy to eke out a win in Michigan by less than 20,000 votes. He concentrated there because that's where his message of protectionism and racism resonated.

The only "fact" is that of the people who actually voted in this world, rather than in the hypothetical one in D.Lo' s head, more expressed a preference for Hillary Clinton to be president than expressed a preference for Donald Trump. There's no reason, much as Donald Trump and apparently D.Lo would have people think otherwise, that that would have been otherwise in a popular vote contest.

 

[klaus]

So now you do agree that my post had a direct relevancy in relation to yours. If you want to change your mind at will whenever convenient & freely mix the meaning of "facts" and "baseless speculation", feel free to go on, but don't count on me playing that game. I'm really worried about the outcome of the elections, but see no point in doing brain acrobatics just to prove some point, sorry.

 

[D.Lo]

It isn't a "fact." It's pure conjecture that the campaigns or vote totals would have been substantially different. And that's a fact, even if pointing it out triggers The Albatross. It actually seems rather unlikely that in a popular vote contestTrump would have concentrated his efforts in California or New York where he is unpopular rather than trying to drive up turnout in the rust belt where he had voters. Trump did not focus on the rust belt because he had a super sophisticated strategy to eke out a win in Michigan by less than 20,000 votes. He concentrated there because that's where his message of protectionism and racism resonated.

The only "fact" is that of the people who actually voted in this world, rather than in the hypothetical one in D.Lo' s head, more expressed a preference for Hillary Clinton to be president than expressed a preference for Donald Trump. There's no reason, much as Donald Trump and apparently D.Lo would have people think otherwise, that that would have been otherwise in a popular vote contest.

Wow you just really don't get it do you. I never claimed Trump would win a popular vote contest, I made no speculation as to the result of that theoretical popular election.

What I did say is that we did not have that election, and the election we did have for for Electoral College. As such winning the popular vote in this situation is meaningless.

You can't say 'votes in real life favoured Clinton' as a popular vote election 'fact' since a free vote was not held. Who knows how it would have gone, but it didn't happen, and the popular vote in an EC election is no evidence of how it would have gone given the swing state strategies of an EC election.

 

[Theonik]

Haven't some states enacted laws which mandate that the electors must vote for the winner of the popular vote?

Votes are anonymous so it's not possible to enforce laws regarding the faith of electors though, 29 states have penalties for electors breaking their pledge but they are very rarely used if ever. We do know about when electors have decided to back away though. Supreme Court has ruled to allow the elector pledge to be formal but not every state legislature allows this and there has been no application of such laws.

That law you mention though is a bit different. The electors aren't compelled to vote one way, instead the state will send electors based on which candidate won the popular vote. So if Trump had gotten the popular vote for instance Californian law would send trump electors on the 19th.

 

[Septimius]

Isn't it time to scrap the electoral college, USA?

 

[Lambtron]

Isn't it time to scrap the electoral college, USA?

It was 16 fucking years ago.

 

[Breads]

The denial is getting a bit ridiculous now. It is painfully obvious that both candidates made huge efforts to win swing states / battleground states and what have you. You know, specifically aligning their strategies to get the electoral votes, and not the popular vote. So let it go, it's comforting to know that she has the majority of votes, but it has no meaning at all for determining the rightful winner in an electoral system.

This is equally asinine. People don't vote based on getting tricked by a campaign. Believe it or not there are principled people out there who are aware of the stakes before some panacea peddler comes to butter them up.

 

[D.Lo]

This is equally asinine. People don't vote based on getting tricked by a campaign. Believe it or not there are principled people out there who are aware of the stakes before some panacea peddler comes to butter them up.

millions of people didn't vote because they knew their vote was practically meaningless because they live in a non-swing state.

Many of them would have voted if their vote mattered because it was a national popular vote.

A bunch of people voted for Clinton in NY/CA etc and ran up the totals even though they knew their vote was essentially meaningless. That has a certain level of value worth analysing, enough people hated trump or liked Clinton in those places to vote even when they knew it would not change the outcome.

But you are making a massive assumption to try and say that had any overall meaning nationally.

 

[Breads]

millions of people didn't vote because they knew their vote was practically meaningless because they live in a non-swing state.

Many of them would have voted if their vote mattered because it was a national popular vote.

A bunch of people voted for Clinton in NY/CA etc and ran up the totals even though they knew their vote was essentially meaningless.

But you are making a massive assumption...

I know you don't see the irony in the bolded but whatever. There is nothing wrong with cheerleading. I'm just letting you know though that I am I am dismissing this for the following reasons.

- As a culture we aren't sold on the virtues of voting while factoring the EC. We are sold on it through "DEMOCRACY! Every vote counts.". The EC rarely to kick in to defy it. Also ballot measures are still worth showing up to vote for even if your state is 99% one way or the other.

- The assertion that people don't show up because it isn't a direct democracy is ridiculous and not based on a factual assessment. You don't know why people refused to vote. What we do know is that the average follows historical trends and that votes are based on who voted, not theoretical strawmen.

- You definitely can't say that people intentionally "ran up the vote despite their votes being meaningless". I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. What was their intention in doing this? Did they know how the numbers would play out ahead of time? etc etc.

 

[D.Lo]

I am making no assumptions, I'm saying we cannot know what a popular result would have been because a popular vote election did not happen. That is not an assumption it is a fact.

 

[klaus]

This is equally asinine. People don't vote based on getting tricked by a campaign. Believe it or not there are principled people out there who are aware of the stakes before some panacea peddler comes to butter them up.

Campaigns are not primarily meant to persuade (or "trick" if you will) people. Candidates don't win by winning over people that prefer the other side, but by mobilizing the greatest amount of people to actually vote for them instead of just rooting for them (or being indecisive).

And here is the crux of the thing: if you are running for presidency in an electoral system, you will (in your best interest) focus on states that are a close call. There is no point in going to fight for a state that is extremely unlikely to switch side - say if without your extra effort you only get 35% of the votes in a given state, but with it, you get 45%. Congratulations, you have just wasted a lot of time / energy / money for no net gain whatsoever.

Were it a run for the popular vote on the other hand, you would certainly go for states where you have the most to win, since every vote counts for the end result.

Of course this is a simplified example, but the point should be clear: there is a quite different goal to reach depending on the voting system, so it is ueseless to focus on the popular vote in hindsight.

 

[Dr.Acula]

millions of people didn't vote because they knew their vote was practically meaningless because they live in a non-swing state.

Many of them would have voted if their vote mattered because it was a national popular vote.

A bunch of people voted for Clinton in NY/CA etc and ran up the totals even though they knew their vote was essentially meaningless. That has a certain level of value worth analysing, enough people hated trump or liked Clinton in those places to vote even when they knew it would not change the outcome.

But you are making a massive assumption to try and say that had any overall meaning nationally.

Trump made states swing. Clinton lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, places that have been solid blue since the first Clinton administration. Anyone who didn't vote there because they thought it wouldn't matter was proven dramatically wrong.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Isn't it time to scrap the electoral college, USA?

You'd think Obama and dems would have tried after we got fucked with Bush for 8 years. I guess it wasn't important enough then.

 

[FyreWulff]

You'd think Obama and dems would have tried after we got fucked with Bush for 8 years. I guess it wasn't important enough then.

They never had the numbers or offices to push through such an amendment

 

[Dash_Riprock]

You'd think Obama and dems would have tried after we got fucked with Bush for 8 years. I guess it wasn't important enough then.

Obama slaughtered McCain and Romney thanks to the EC. The party only hates it when it doesn't benefit them.

 

[blame space]

THat's nice. Is it supposed to have something to do with my post?

Stop shitposting. At least the person you're quoting is adding some context to his posts and a casual observer can figure out what he/she is saying. You're just posting irrelevant truisms also known as shitposts.

DP

i said goddamn

 

[Particle Physicist]

Trump made states swing. Clinton lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, places that have been solid blue since the first Clinton administration. Anyone who didn't vote there because they thought it wouldn't matter was proven dramatically wrong.

Um. Those are all swing states.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state

 

[FyreWulff]

Obama slaughtered McCain and Romney thanks to the EC. The party only hates it when it doesn't benefit them.

+ 10 million over McCain in the PV.
+ 5 million over Romney in the PV

the EC was irrelevant

also the EC has literally only ever benefitted Republican candidates

 

[Finalizer]

So Cook's spreadsheet has her at over 2.5m over Trump now, and less than a million to Obama 2012's total.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

Obama slaughtered McCain and Romney thanks to the EC. The party only hates it when it doesn't benefit them.

But Obama also had a massive popular vote margin both times...?

 

[Breads]

Obama slaughtered McCain and Romney thanks to the EC. The party only hates it when it doesn't benefit them.

When was the last time it benefited them.

 

[Mr. Crow]

So Cook's spreadsheet has her at over 2.5m over Trump now, and less than a million to Obama 2012's total.

The most popular presidential candidate of history after Obama can't be a president! lol

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Obama slaughtered McCain and Romney thanks to the EC. The party only hates it when it doesn't benefit them.

He slaughtered them by every measurement.

 

[wildfire]

The most popular presidential candidate of history after Obama can't be a president! lol

Trump got 62 million votes. That's disgusting.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Trump got 62 million votes. That's disgusting.

It really is.

 

[Haines]

Trump got 62 million votes. That's disgusting.

So much hate from both sides. Your post reflects this.

Instead of bashing. Try understanding.

 

[Balphon]

When was the last time it benefited them.

Democrats are 0-5 in these elections if you count Jackson.

 

[RinsFury]

Trump got 62 million votes. That's disgusting.

Unreal. Makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[BigDes]

So much hate from both sides. Your post reflects this.

Instead of bashing. Try understanding.

I understand the reasons why.

I still think it's disgusting.

Stop with the both sides nonsense.

 

[kinoki]

So much hate from both sides. Your post reflects this.

Instead of bashing. Try understanding.

I think the reason he thinks it's disgusting is that he understands it.

Also, "both sides" is nonsense.

 

[demon]

So much hate from both sides. Your post reflects this.

Instead of bashing. Try understanding.

Trump is a demonstrably vile human being who shouldn't be within 100 miles of the oval office let alone sitting in it. The fact that over 60 million Americans voted for him absolutely is disgusting and depressing.

 

[RinsFury]

I know to stop reading whenever I see "both sides". Only one side represents hatred and white supremacy.

 

[MUnited83]

The denial is getting a bit ridiculous now. It is painfully obvious that both candidates made huge efforts to win swing states / battleground states and what have you. You know, specifically aligning their strategies to get the electoral votes, and not the popular vote. So let it go, it's comforting to know that she has the majority of votes, but it has no meaning at all for determining the rightful winner in an electoral system.

It means the will of the people isn't Trump, no matter how absolutely shitty and broken the electoral system is.

Obama slaughtered McCain and Romney thanks to the EC. The party only hates it when it doesn't benefit them.

He slaughtered them in popular vote too. In fact, the last time a democract actually benefited from the EC was a long, long time ago. It's a system that benefits Republicans by default.

 

[Night Angel]

I know to stop reading whenever I see "both sides". Only one side represents hatred and white supremacy.

That's a great strategy in bizzaro world.

These kinds of discussions are about nuanced topics. Just because one side is obviously worse than the other doesn't mean we can't discuss flaws with the better side.

This "both sides" shitposting is driving me fucking nuts. Not every statement that "people in both camps do x" is trying to paint a picture where both sides are exactly the same.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It means the will of the people isn't Trump, no matter how absolutely shitty and broken the electoral system is.


He slaughtered them in popular vote too. In fact, the last time a democract actually benefited from the EC was a long, long time ago. It's a system that benefits Republicans by default.

The last time a Democrat benefited from the EC was when they were the Democratic-Republican Party

The guy who got screwed out of the presidency would later become the first president from the Democratic Party

Now granted, the parties were so different the first three times this has happened it's not a totally useful comparison but the 2000 election certainly applies here.

 

[Breads]

Democrats are 0-5 in these elections if you count Jackson.

I appreciate your contribution but I want the post truth cheerleaders to say it.