purplerat wrote:My apologies Thommo (and Thomas Eshuis), I was replying late last night and had the two of you and your arguments confused. I replied to you Thommo thinking I was replying to Thomas. So yes, there's no disagreement between in the points above.

It's fine, no worries.

purplerat wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
And? I fail to see how people think this is a valid counter argument.



Of which only 4 were elected undemocratically, ie with a minority of the votes.


How do you figure that non-sequitur?


If only that was my point. Alas it isn't and thus this is nothing but a straw-man.

No US President has ever been elected by popular vote.

Most were elected in a way that reflected the popular vote though.

This is a faulty assumption.

How do you figure? The vast majority of US presidents were presidents that also won the popular vote.

purplerat wrote:What we are referring to as "the popular vote" is actually a component of the electoral college and is heavily influenced by the EC. If hypothetically there had been a straight popular vote it's reasonable to think the results may have been different for any given election and for a wide variety of reasons.

No, that's what you're referring to.
What I am referring to are the votes people cast. As in, Clinton had more overall votes than Trump this election, which had nothing to do with the EC.

purplerat wrote:Pointing to the results of the popular vote as a component of the EC and assuming it accurately reflects a true popular vote is wrong.

Hence why I was not talking about that.

purplerat wrote:Which is why I said:

purplerat wrote:The long and short of it is, and I suspect you know this, that assuming the results under one set of variables would be the same under a completely different set of variables is a complete logic fail.

Aside from all that I still fail to see how you could argue that a legitimate outcome of an electoral system is somehow less legitimate simply because it's not a common outcome.

So do I. But that's a problem for someone actually making that argument.

It was down to three swing states which the Russians fixed.

@Thomas Eshuis,

I can't see how you think the popular vote is separate from the EC when it only exists as a function of the EC. It's not like the two happened separately but concurrently. And if you want to get really technical nobody casted a vote for Clinton or Trump. The votes were cast for electors who were pledged to one or the other. Saying Clinton won the popular vote is about as meaningful as saying she "won" in the pre-election polling.

You keep saying your argument isn't this or that, so what exactly did you mean by:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Except that in this case there's a valid argument to be made: Trump was not elected democratically. He was elected through a non-representative system.

If Trump wasn't elected by a democratic system then no president elected under the same system was. If the system is undemocratic then it's undemocratic. If by happy coincidence the person elected by such an undemocratic system would also have been elected by a democratic that doesn't mean they were actually elected democratically.

purplerat wrote:@Thomas Eshuis,

I can't see how you think the popular vote is separate from the EC when it only exists as a function of the EC.

Because, as I've pointed out in my response to Will's post, my case was never about the EC.
My case is about people being justified in not recognising a president as theirs (as in, not representing their values), if they did not vote for that president and even more so, if most other people in the country also did not.

purplerat wrote: It's not like the two happened separately but concurrently. And if you want to get really technical nobody casted a vote for Clinton or Trump.

They vote with the reasonable expectation that their vote will contribute to Clinton or Trump winning the EC.

purplerat wrote: The votes were cast for electors who were pledged to one or the other. Saying Clinton won the popular vote is about as meaningful as saying she "won" in the pre-election polling.

Except that it isn't. As one is not the actualy vote people cast and the other is.

purplerat wrote:
You keep saying your argument isn't this or that, so what exactly did you mean by:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Except that in this case there's a valid argument to be made: Trump was not elected democratically. He was elected through a non-representative system.

If Trump wasn't elected by a democratic system then no president elected under the same system was.

But, as I said before, there were only four results that differed from the popular vote.

purplerat wrote: If the system is undemocratic then it's undemocratic. If by happy coincidence the person elected by such an undemocratic system would also have been elected by a democratic that doesn't mean they were actually elected democratically.

Never said it did.
The point is that people have to deal with a president that was not the president they, or the majority of the country voted for.
And that, that is a valid basis to not recognise that president as their president.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It was down to three swing states which the Russians fixed.

Somehow Putin saw that persuading Clinton and her advisors to plump for Trump as the Republican candidate on the flimsy excuse that he could 'never win' was a winning strategy. Now that was a stroke of pure genius.

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hil ... -strategy/

Russian agents also made sure Clinton's candidacy consisted mostly of negative personal attacks instead of substantial issues the voters might have cared about.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ton-tv-ads

Using brainwashing techniques, they also prevented Clinton from campaigning in swing states.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ry/507203/

Don't forget how the Catherine the Great influenced the Founders (using sexual blackmail, no doubt) in the nascent United States to create the Electoral College in the first place.

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/506188169 ... -surprises

Breathlessly awaiting revelations that show it's the Russians who are behind the wetness of water, the heat of fire, and the blueness of the sky.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The point is that people have to deal with a president that was not the president they, or the majority of the country voted for.
And that, that is a valid basis to not recognise that president as their president.

Really, there is no reason for anyone to recognize as 'their' President someone they did not personally vote for.

But still, whoever gets the nod from the EC is the 'actual' President.

So people pretending that Clinton is the President will be disappointed in her performance getting things done in Washington. She seems to spend most of her time on vacation - even moreso than Trump!

The problem here seems to be a conflation of two different concepts:

The total popular vote made by people voting to choose Electoral College electors, and

The total popular vote made by people voting directly for President (NPV, or National Popular Vote, which currently doesn't happen)

There are good reasons to think that the percentages of the vote won by major party candidates under the two systems would be similar, and there are good reasons to believe that the percentages of the vote won by major party candidates under the two systems would not be the same.

History can only guide us with how well the EC vote lines up with popular-vote-under-EC-conditions, not popular-vote-under-NPV-conditions.

I would prefer to do away with the EC, but I'm not aware of any likely path to its elimination.

If the purpose was to prevent a dangerous demagogue from obtaining the highest office in the land, it has failed.

proudfootz wrote:I would prefer to do away with the EC, but I'm not aware of any likely path to its elimination.

Don't know about "likely" but this seems the best bet:

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

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

purplerat wrote:@Thomas Eshuis,

I can't see how you think the popular vote is separate from the EC when it only exists as a function of the EC.

Because, as I've pointed out in my response to Will's post, my case was never about the EC.
My case is about people being justified in not recognising a president as theirs (as in, not representing their values), if they did not vote for that president and even more so, if most other people in the country also did not.

But those people are not justified. We live in a representative democracy meaning our voices are placed in the control of elected officials and not directly in our control. I live in a conservative, predominantly Republican district for my state. My district's representative is Dave Brat, the guy who was conservative and tea-party enough to oust Eric Cantor from his House Majority Leader seat. Just because he does not align with my views, just because I did not vote for him, does not give me any leg to state that he is not my district's representative.

To do so is special pleading and borderline childish. It is akin to throwing a temper tantrum because you did not have your way.

Donald Trump is their president whether or not he reflects their views. Barack Obama did not accurately represent my views or values, George Bush did not accurately represent my views or values, no fucking President has accurately represented my views or values, does this mean I have justification in smugly saying, "Those guys were not 'my' president?" Of course not. It is again childish to do so. They were my president. Trump is my president. Whether or not I like him. And those #notmypresident people need to wake up to reality before their delusional childishness bites them on the ass.

Nothing to do with childishness so you can quit that condescension right now.

It's about disrespect. Trump sees himself as something akin to a king who deserves adulation. Having people insult his name he's so proud of is anathema to him. It's about dragging his name through the mud and denying him a legacy.

Again, like I asked purplerat, why do you have a bee in your bonnet over this? You complain about people refusing to give him recognition by insisting they should. You're doing the same in reverse.

People who refuse to recognise him think the position of "president" is rendered meaningless or made a mockery of by the likes of him. It isn't a small matter to them.

I really don't see how refusing to call Trump by his title is any different to refusing to stand for the national anthem because you think its underlying message of freedom is false, or sitting out the pledge of alliegience because it mentions a god you don't believe in.

I'm sure there are some of such people's detractors who think they're childish too and get frustrated because they won't just be reasonable.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

purplerat wrote:@Thomas Eshuis,

I can't see how you think the popular vote is separate from the EC when it only exists as a function of the EC.

Because, as I've pointed out in my response to Will's post, my case was never about the EC.
My case is about people being justified in not recognising a president as theirs (as in, not representing their values), if they did not vote for that president and even more so, if most other people in the country also did not.

purplerat wrote: It's not like the two happened separately but concurrently. And if you want to get really technical nobody casted a vote for Clinton or Trump.

They vote with the reasonable expectation that their vote will contribute to Clinton or Trump winning the EC.

purplerat wrote: The votes were cast for electors who were pledged to one or the other. Saying Clinton won the popular vote is about as meaningful as saying she "won" in the pre-election polling.

Except that it isn't. As one is not the actualy vote people cast and the other is.

purplerat wrote:
You keep saying your argument isn't this or that, so what exactly did you mean by:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Except that in this case there's a valid argument to be made: Trump was not elected democratically. He was elected through a non-representative system.

If Trump wasn't elected by a democratic system then no president elected under the same system was.

But, as I said before, there were only four results that differed from the popular vote.

purplerat wrote: If the system is undemocratic then it's undemocratic. If by happy coincidence the person elected by such an undemocratic system would also have been elected by a democratic that doesn't mean they were actually elected democratically.

Never said it did.
The point is that people have to deal with a president that was not the president they, or the majority of the country voted for.
And that, that is a valid basis to not recognise that president as their president.

What exactly is the point here? Not recognizing that he's president doesn't change that he is in fact president. Even with the complete shit show that has been his first 100 days he's still already implemented long lasting changes, first and foremost in getting his SCOTUS nominee through and on the bench.

I'm not sure exactly what people think burying their heads in the sand and pretending this is not happening is supposed to achieve. About the only thing these people are achieving is a great demonstration in why conservatives regularly mop the floor with liberals in US politics. Say what you will about the right but when shit doesn't go their way they actually go out and do something about it rather than alternating between wallowing in self-pity and pretending it just didn't happen.

Animavore wrote:
Again, like I asked purplerat, why do you have a bee in your bonnet over this? You complain about people refusing to give him recognition by insisting they should. You're doing the same in reverse.

I have a bee in my bonnet because people acting like he's not a real president are ignoring the really bad shit he's doing as president. I could give a shit what you call him or if you respect him or not but as Rachel put it:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:If he weren't president, this whole thing about him being a leader and having political power wouldn't be a problem. He is though and he does. He's president. I wouldn't refer to him as such because he's undeserving of the title and the associated respect, not because he isn't actually president.

Fucking strawman. They don't really believe he isn't president. And the left do get things done. They've been out in force protesting and storming townhalls, having Republicans on the run.

A) I am not saying someone has to call him by his title. I don't call him President Trump. I call him Trump. I have no respect for the man.

B) I don't care if you want to call him by a title either. We have the 1st amendment.

C) But sitting here and acting or saying he is not your president or "presidential" is delusional. The president is not just a title. It is an office, and unlike your conjecture that Trump lords himself like a king (I honestly don't see that and I despise the man), its an office that carries real consequences. When someone says Trump is not "my" president it is not a factual statement, unless that person is of course not from the USA.

The reason I am bothered by it is because it is as if people are hoping that if they say Trump isn't their president it would suddenly mean he'd get impeached, etc. as if they are wishing for a special solution to suddenly happen. He is the president. Saying he is not or not your president is not a factual statement and I dislike it when people don't make factual statements.

Strawman again.

Animavore wrote:Strawman again.

Like hell it is.

If someone says #notmypresident all because they don't agree with Trump and did not vote for him, they are fucking stupid. He/she is their president.

This is the same level of idiocy I had to deal with back in 08 when redneck hicks were saying notmypresident in regards to Obama. It is factually a stupid claim and statement not matter what the intent or meaning is.

willhud9 wrote:

Animavore wrote:Strawman again.

Like hell it is.

If someone says #notmypresident all because they don't agree with Trump and did not vote for him, they are fucking stupid. He/she is their president.

This is the same level of idiocy I had to deal with back in 08 when redneck hicks were saying notmypresident in regards to Obama. It is factually a stupid claim and statement not matter what the intent or meaning is.

Saying, "Not my president" is basically synonymous with saying, "He's not my guy. I didn't vote for him." I don't know one #notmypresident type who believes he's not actually the president. It's a formal protest and nothing else. You're letting pedantry get in the way.