The vote

[John F]

Early voting isn't an option in New York State, except for absentee ballots which have to be applied for with justification, but 37 states and the District of Columbia have early voting in some form, and at least 41,000,000 votes have already been cast - probably more that haven't been counted yet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... were-cast/

[John F]

Speaking of early voting:

Clinton wins Dixville Notch, N.H., with 4 votes to Trump’s 2
By Fred Barbash
November 8, 2016

The first actual results of the 2016 presidential election are in: Voters in Dixville Notch, N.H., cast 4 votes for Democrat Hillary Clinton, 2 for Republican Donald Trump and one for the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson. Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, got a single write-in vote in the country’s “First in the Nation” balloting.

Two other New Hampshire towns claiming “First” status, Hart’s Location and Millsfield, cast and counted their ballots after midnight Tuesday as well. The grand total for all three gave Trump a 32-to-25 edge over Clinton. Clinton got 4 votes in Dixville to Trump’s 2; 17 in Hart’s Location to Trump’s 14; and 4 in Millsfield to Trump’s 16...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... -trumps-2/

[John F]

Here in New York City, the Board of Elections is again upholding its reputation for incompetence. Electronic voting here is done by marking a paper ballot, then running it through a scanner. At least a dozen polling places have all but one or two scanners not working, resulting in people waiting hours to complete their votes. There are said to be licensed repairmen for these scanners, but they take their time getting there. And at least one polling place was provided with the voter lists for other districts and not its own, so people had to wait hours until the BoE got this straightened out.

The membership of the board is essentially political patronage and election after election, needless screw-ups occur.

My plan is to vote a little later, hoping that everything will finally be running smoothly and the crowds of people leaving work won't yet have arrived. This year my polling place was moved from a couple of blocks from home to two bus rides and a couple of blocks away, and the buses don't run that often; if there's much of a wait at the polling place, with prolonged standing around, I may not be able to take it physically. Well, I'm determined to vote in this election, even if my candidates will win this district without me. In 2018 I think I'll apply for an absentee ballot and vote from home.

P.S. As it turned out, 4pm was the perfect time - nobody queued up at the table for my district so I was in and out in 10 minutes. Total time including travel, less than an hour. But I still like the idea of an absentee ballot, since my condition isn't likely to get better in two years, and I'll look into it.

[John F]

Clearly I was wrong, and so were all the polls - and Lenny and others were right to be worried. Donald Trump will be the next president, and it looks like the hard-line Republicans will continue to control the Senate and the House, though with slightly smaller majorities, and therefore the Supreme Court. God help America.

I didn't believe that Trump, master con-man though he is, could con the American people, but a gullible majority - over 57,000,000 of them - have heedlessly bought what he's been selling. But then, I've always been an optimist, and a believer in the power of reason and good sense. The more fool I.

All will not be sweetness and light between President Trump and Congress. Quite a few Senators and Congressmen condemned much of what he's said and refused to endorse or vote for him, and quite a few positions he's taken in the campaign will find no support in the so-called Freedom Caucus which dominates the House. But nothing now prevents them from, for example, repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), as both have promised to do. What they will do to Social Security and Medicare, I don't want to think about.

This political year, full of possibility, has revved me up, as my numerous posts about the election made obvious. But now I'll stop it, discontinue my Washington Post online subscription, and focus on music and other such topics instead - at least until 2018.

[jserraglio]

May turn out to be the most transformative election since 1932. Watch the financial markets. It will be ugly for a while.
The scrappy Indians losing the WS in the 10th inning of game 7. That's upsetting. This I can live with.

[jbuck919]

Clearly I was wrong, and so were all the polls - and Lenny and others were right to be worried. Donald Trump will be the next president, and it looks like the hard-line Republicans will continue to control the Senate and the House, though with slightly smaller majorities, and therefore the Supreme Court. God help America.

I didn't believe that Trump, master con-man though he is, could con the American people, but a gullible majority - over 57,000,000 of them - have heedlessly bought what he's been selling. But then, I've always been an optimist, and a believer in the power of reason and good sense. The more fool I.

All will not be sweetness and light between President Trump and Congress. Quite a few Senators and Congressmen condemned much of what he's said and refused to endorse or vote for him, and quite a few positions he's taken in the campaign will find no support in the so-called Freedom Caucus which dominates the House. But nothing now prevents them from, for example, repealing the Affordable Careoo Act (Obamacare), as both have promised to do. What they will do to Social Security and Medicare, I don't want to think about.

This political year, full of possibility, has revved me up, as my numerous posts about the election made obvious. But now I'll stop it, discontinue my Washington Post online subscription, and focus on music and other such topics instead - at least until 2018.

Be thankful you are closer to death (probably) than I am, and ignore the fact that this does not apply to any generation younger than ourselves. I must be cruel only to be kind, except that at best I am on the border of those who are potential victims of cruelty, as is not my father. I may never speak to him again for being a Floridian who failed to support Clinton.

[lennygoran]

Here in New York City, the Board of Elections is again upholding its reputation for incompetence.

Our polling place here in the boondocks was very crowded but the machines seemed to work perfectly-they were very well organized--it was even hard to find parking spaces in the municipal building's parking area-first time ever. Regards, Len

[lennygoran]

have heedlessly bought what he's been selling.

The NY Times said that too in their editorial-how sad and scary-and the way the loss came upon those watching-Pa had been ahead for hours and then suddenly late in the evening switched to Trump-it reminded me of when I was growing up following the NY Knicks-they'd be ahead and then suddenly the Celtics would destroy them in the last 6 minutes of the game-I'd start crying--things had been looking a little up when Va. finally moved for her in the results-then Wisconsin and Michigan out of nowhere. Regards, Len



The Opinion Pages | Editorial
Donald Trump’s Revolt

NOV. 9, 2016


President Donald Trump. Three words that were unthinkable to tens of millions of Americans — and much of the rest of the world — have now become the future of the United States.

Having confounded Republican elites in the primaries, Mr. Trump did the same to the Democrats in the general election, repeating the judo move of turning the weight of a complacent establishment against it. His victory is a humbling blow to the news media, the pollsters and the Clinton-dominated Democratic leadership.

The candidates appeared neck-in-neck in the popular vote, but Mr. Trump bested Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College.

So who is the man who will be the 45th president?

After a year and a half of erratic tweets and rambling speeches, we can’t be certain. We don’t know how Mr. Trump would carry out basic functions of the executive. We don’t know what financial conflicts he might have, since he never released his tax returns, breaking with 40 years of tradition in both parties. We don’t know if he has the capacity to focus on any issue and arrive at a rational conclusion. We don’t know if he has any idea what it means to control the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Here is what we do know: We know Mr. Trump is the most unprepared president-elect in modern history. We know that by words and actions, he has shown himself to be temperamentally unfit to lead a diverse nation of 320 million people. We know he has threatened to prosecute and jail his political opponents, and he has said he would curtail the freedom of the press. We know he lies without compunction.


He has said he intends to cut taxes for the wealthy and to withdraw the health care protection of the Affordable Care Act from tens of millions of Americans. He has insulted women and threatened Muslims and immigrants, and he has recruited as his allies a dark combination of racists, white supremacists and anti-Semites. Given the importance of the alt-right to Mr. Trump’s rise, it is perhaps time to drop the “alt.” David Duke celebrated Mr. Trump’s victory on Tuesday night, tweeting, “It’s time to TAKE AMERICA BACK!!!”

When Mr. Trump has looked beyond our borders, he has said that he would tear up the agreement to prevent Iran from building nuclear arms and that he would do away with the North American Free Trade Agreement. He has said that he would repudiate last December’s Paris agreement on climate change, thereby abandoning America’s leadership role in addressing the biggest long-term threat to humanity. He has also threatened to abandon NATO allies and start a trade war with China.

We know that, with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, Mr. Trump would be able to restore a right-wing majority by filling the Supreme Court seat that Republican senators have held hostage for nine months.

Republicans will soon control every branch of the federal government, in addition to a majority of governorships and statehouses. There is no obvious check on Mr. Trump’s vengeful impulses. Other Republican leaders, including his running mate, Mike Pence, have largely made excuses for his most extreme behavior.

By challenging every norm of American politics, Mr. Trump upended first the Republican Party and now the Democratic Party, which attempted a Clinton restoration at a moment when the nation was impatient to escape the status quo. Misogyny and racism played their part in his rise, but so did a fierce and even heedless desire for change.

That change has now placed the United States on a precipice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/opini ... abc-region

[Ricordanza]

Clearly I was wrong, and so were all the polls - and Lenny and others were right to be worried. Donald Trump will be the next president, and it looks like the hard-line Republicans will continue to control the Senate and the House, though with slightly smaller majorities, and therefore the Supreme Court. God help America.

I didn't believe that Trump, master con-man though he is, could con the American people, but a gullible majority - over 57,000,000 of them - have heedlessly bought what he's been selling. But then, I've always been an optimist, and a believer in the power of reason and good sense. The more fool I.

All will not be sweetness and light between President Trump and Congress. Quite a few Senators and Congressmen condemned much of what he's said and refused to endorse or vote for him, and quite a few positions he's taken in the campaign will find no support in the so-called Freedom Caucus which dominates the House. But nothing now prevents them from, for example, repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), as both have promised to do. What they will do to Social Security and Medicare, I don't want to think about.

I was also one of the worriers, but took false comfort in the fact that almost all the polls pointed to a Clinton victory. I'm not talking about nation-wide polls, which are meaningless in an electoral college system, but state-by-state polls, such as Pennsylvania. How could they all be so wrong? One explanation I heard is that many people thought it would be socially unacceptable to say they supported Trump, so they misreported their preference to the pollsters. That sounds plausible, but one would think that the polling organizations would have the sophistication to deal with that phenomenon.

The bottom line is that America has fallen for a demagogue. What Sinclair Lewis wrote about in "It Can't Happen Here" has come to pass. I'm fearful for the future of this country.

[John F]

It's happened again. As of now, with most if not all votes counted, Hillary Clinton's popular vote total is 59,164,747, larger than Trump's 59,029,252. Without the electoral college system, which is biased toward low-population states, she would be president.

In a rational world, my vote would count for exactly as much as a vote cast in Wyoming or Idaho. But it doesn't and it never will. If that's the price I pay for living in New York City, so be it.

Since Republicans have also lost seats in the Senate and House, they can't rightly claim to have a mandate for whatever they do. But of course they will.

[jbuck919]

[quote="John F"]It's happened again. As of now, with most if not all votes counted, Hillary Clinton's popular vote total is 59,164,747, larger than Trump's 59,029,252. Without the electoral college system, which is biased toward low-population states, she would be president.

In a rational world, my vote would count for exactly as much as a vote cast in Wyoming or Idaho. But it doesn't and it never will. If that's the price I pay for living in New York City, so be it.

Since Republicans have also lost seats in the Senate and House, they can't rightly claim to have a mandate for whatever they do. But of course they will.[/quotewer ]

That's probably within the margin of error, as was Bush v. Gore IOW for practical purposes a tie, but it does not answer the question of why all our presidential elections are so close. (The last "landslide" was Reagan v. Carter. That was still not that close in terms of national popular vote, was 36 years ago, and is easily explained by the ABC principle.) No one has ever really explained this phenomenon, but people like Paul Krugman are pretty good at explaining its consequences, and they are dire.

[jserraglio]

Tried logging on to Canada site to check about emigration. Site jammed.

[John F]

That's probably within the margin of error, as was Bush v. Gore IOW for practical purposes a tie.

"For practical purposes" it is definitely not a tie - elections are not decided by margin of error, which applies only to statistical sampling such as polls, but by actually counting all the votes.

Another way to mitigate the electoral college's unfairness could be adopted by state legislatures without amending the federal constitution: divide a state's electors proportionally according to the popular vote, instead of awarding them all to the candidate with a simple majority, no matter how small. The small-population states would have no apparent reason to adopt this but two have, I learned yesterday: Maine and Nebraska.

http://www.270towin.com/content/split-e ... d-nebraska

[jbuck919]

That's probably within the margin of error, as was Bush v. Gore IOW for practical purposes a tie.

"For practical purposes" it is definitely not a tie - elections are not decided by margin of error, which applies only to statistical sampling such as polls, but by actually counting all the votes.

http://www.270towin.com/content/split-e ... d-nebraska

No, John, you are wrong. Among tens of millions of votes it is all but impossible for such a small difference statistically to be decisive, because of inevitable error in counting votes. Take it from someone who used to teach AP Statistics.

[Chalkperson]

I learned a new word for trumps supporters.

"The Leaners"

They lean over the bar/counter/table, and say quietly...

"I'm actually thinking of voting for a Trump"

That was his silent majority, they didn't admit to their support publicly, so they were ignored, they all switched from Obama to Trump.

Clinton also relied on her base to be there for her, it's the old Clinton arrogance, she never visited Wisconsin after the Primaries, meanwhile the Republicans spent four years working quietly in Michigan and Wisconsin establishing their offices etc.

I'm like others here, I said nobody could actually predict the outcome, and the wild card won.

[jserraglio]

In a rational world, my vote would count for exactly as much as a vote cast in Wyoming or Idaho. But it doesn't and it never will. If that's the price I pay for living in New York City, so be it..

We don't live in a rational world, thank god. It's a republic, which accords the minority (even if they live in fly-over states) certain protections from the will of the majority (even if they happen to reside in beautiful NYC). For all of its faults, and much as I despise what Trump and his minions have been advocating, I strongly support the electoral system over a pure democracy. Tinker with it, fine, but don't replace it. Clinton didn't lose b/c of the electoral college, she lost b/c she failed to give 5 million voters from 2012 a reason to show up again and vote.

[jbuck919]

I learned a new word for trumps supporters.

"The Leaners"

They lean over the bar/counter/table, and say quietly...

"I'm actually thinking of voting for a Trump"

That was his silent majority, they didn't admit to their support publicly, so they were ignored, they all switched from Obama to Trump.

Clinton also relied on her base to be there for her, it's the old Clinton arrogance, she never visited Wisconsin after the Primaries, meanwhile the Republicans spent four years working quietly in Michigan and Wisconsin establishing their offices etc.

I'm like others here, I said nobody could actually predict the outcome, and the wild card won.

Silent oligarchy you mean, and you are not like others here. Also, Trump is not a wild card, which means a third-place entry unlikely to win. What I want to know is why you don't move back to the UK, unless things are still even worse there.

[John F]

We don't live in a rational world, thank god.

What's so great about living in an irrational world?

It's a republic, which accords the minority (even if they live in fly-over states) certain protections from the will of the majority (even if they happen to reside in beautiful NYC).

The opposite is true. The electoral college suppresses the minority, state by state. In Ohio, your state, 2,771,984 people voted for Trump, 2,317,001 for Clinton; the electoral vote count is 18 for Trump, zero for Clinton. More than two million Ohioans have been disenfranchised - their votes don't count. To me, that's blatantly unjust. If nonetheless you still "strongly support the electoral system over a pure democracy" when it comes to electing the president - alone among all the offices in government at all levels - do you have a better reason?

The electoral college is a vestigial remnant of the founders' concept of federalism, treating the states as if they were sovereign nations and the United States an alliance or confederation among them. That's the significance of the 10th amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It's also why each state regardless of its population has two senators. But that concept is now an anachronism, killed by the Civil War, in which the Southern states asserted their right to independence from the United States, and the Union fought a long and terrible war to overrule those states' rights. The electoral college system is at least 150 years out of date.

Clinton didn't lose b/c of the electoral college

Yes she did, that's exactly what happened - the numbers don't lie. If not for the electoral college, she would now be our president-elect. Clinton's campaign strategy might perhaps have been better, though to foresee and avert what happened on Tuesday they would have had to be clairvoyant. Anyway, that's no reason to support the electoral college. Not in my rational world, anyway.

[jserraglio]

We don't live in a rational world, thank god.

What's so great about living in an irrational world?

It makes life much more interesting, since you asked. Anyway, like it or not, the irrational is what on now. Sit back and take in the show. I seem to recall an earlier incarnation of Donald Trump blasting the electoral college when its results were not to his liking. So to hell with direct democracy, I'll stick with what the founding fathers gave us, a republic, even though the system failed in this one instance to block a demagogic blackguard. We have the brilliant Kellyanne Conway to thank for that. As for winner-take-all in the EC being unfair at the state level, it depends on your POV. The Civil War notwithstanding, from a federal perspective it makes a lot of sense to mandate a state like Ohio to speak with one voice as one state among equals, despite its electorate being divided, just as we must now do the right thing and recognize Trump's legitimacy in spite of a 50/50 divide. So vestigial or not, I vote to keep that EC appendix away from the slicers and dicers, the butchers and surgeons who would further their partisan interests. Yes, I'm for keeping the EC for the Presidency, alone among all the other offices in our government. The President of the United States is not County Prosecutor. Yet. Check again in four years but not yet.

[John F]

One thing you've said is absolutely true: "the irrational is what on now." And I'm afraid that's what I think of what you've said, it just doesn't make sense, so I'll leave it at that.

[lennygoran]

I think reform is needed-liked what the NY Times says. I do give credit to Hillary for not raising the issue right now to help smooth a transition which will be hard enough as it is--I don't need electors interpreting how I voted. "Average Americans would lack enough information about the candidates to make intelligent choices. So informed “electors” would stand in for them." Regards, Len


The Electoral College Is Hated by Many. So Why Does It Endure?

By JONATHAN MAHLER and STEVE EDERNOV. 10, 2016


In November 2000, as the Florida recount gripped the nation, a newly elected Democratic senator from New York took a break from an upstate victory tour to address the possibility that Al Gore could wind up winning the popular vote but losing the presidential election.

She was unequivocal. “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people,” Hillary Clinton said, “and to me that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

Sixteen years later, the Electoral College is still standing, and Mrs. Clinton has followed Mr. Gore as the second Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to be defeated by a Republican who earned fewer votes, in his case by George W. Bush.

In her concession speech on Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton did not mention the popular vote, an omission that seemed to signal her desire to encourage a smooth and civil transition of power after such a divisive election. But her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, wasted little time highlighting her higher vote total than Donald J. Trump’s in introducing her.

And the disparity left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Democrats, whose party won the country’s national popular vote for the third consecutive election but no longer controls any branch of government.

“If we really subscribe to the notion that ‘majority rules,’ then why do we deny the majority their chosen candidate?” said Jennifer M. Granholm, a former governor of Michigan.


Mr. Trump himself has been critical of the Electoral College in the past. On the eve of the 2012 election, he called it “a disaster for a democracy” in a Twitter post. Now, after months of railing against what he called a “rigged” election, he has become the unlikely beneficiary of an electoral system that allows a candidate to win the race without winning over the most voters.

None of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters have gone so far as to suggest that the popular vote tally should delegitimize Mr. Trump’s victory, and the popular vote margin in Tuesday’s election was in fact narrower than the one that separated Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore in 2000.

But the results are already renewing calls for electoral reform. “I personally would like to see the Electoral College eliminated entirely,” said David Boies, who represented Mr. Gore in the Florida recount in 2000. “I think it’s a historical anomaly.”

Defenders of the system argue that it reduces the chances of daunting nationwide recounts in close races, a scenario that Gary L. Gregg II, an Electoral College expert at the University of Louisville, said would be a “national nightmare.”

A variety of factors informed the creation of the Electoral College, which apportions a fixed number of votes to different states based on the size of their populations. The founding fathers sought to ensure that residents in states with smaller populations were not ignored. And in an era that predated mass media and even political parties, they were concerned that average Americans would lack enough information about the candidates to make intelligent choices. So informed “electors” would stand in for them.

Above all, some historians point to the critical role that slavery played in the formation of the system. Southern delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, most prominently James Madison of Virginia, were concerned that their constituents would be outnumbered by Northerners. The Three-Fifths Compromise, however, allowed states to count each slave as three-fifths of a person — enough, at the time, to ensure a Southern majority in presidential races.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/po ... abc-region

[John F]

Of course that justification does not apply today. Average Americans do not lack enough information about the candidates, they're deluged with information and misinformation and dysinformation from all sides, in print and on TV, and the electors - anonymous hacks who in most if not all states are legally bound to vote according to the majority popular vote - are not supposed to exercise their personal judgments, for better or worse. Like I said, the electoral college is obsolete, and twice in the last 16 years the system it has thwarted the will of a majority of the people. Away with it.

[jserraglio]

One thing you've said is absolutely true: "the irrational is what on now." And I'm afraid that's what I think of what you've said, it just doesn't make sense, so I'll leave it at that.

When one wins, stick with the system. When one loses, change the rules. I wonder if the injustice you complain about would have troubled you so much if the shoe were on the other foot and Trump had lost the college but won the popular vote.

[lennygoran]

Like I said, the electoral college is obsolete, and twice in the last 16 years the system it has thwarted the will of a majority of the people. Away with it.

Yep I agree with you. Regards, Len

[Chalkperson]

The popular vote is only the voice of those who voted.

47% of eligible voters did not vote.

Many Democrats did not vote because 'their' candidate was not the nominee.

If the vote had been for a Party, not an individual, what would the result look like?

It's an outdated system, the Electoral College, but to reform it would require the trust of the voters in the redrawn system, the level of corruption and manipulation in and by both parties makes me wonder.

The Democrats lost because they were split, and by the Third party spoilers who knew, like Ralph Nader that they were causing the Republicans to win.

Trump triumphed because he's famous, a celebrity, and because his base was uneducated white folk, who, like sheep, followed him to their slaughter.

The personal allegations matttered not a whit, Bill Clinton's refusal to quit over a sexual scandal started the downhill slide where the morals of the candidate mattered less and less.

The media made money promoting Trump, they didn't care, the FBI Director delivered the final blow, he didn't care either.

Politics is a dirty game, and with Giuliani in play it's as dirty as it gets.

Like the UK and Brexit, the people voted, well, half the people voted.

Now we must deal with that.

[jserraglio]

Like I said, the electoral college is obsolete, and twice in the last 16 years the system it has thwarted the will of a majority of the people. Away with it.

Sounds lofty but how would such "majority worship" work out in practice? Would a winner's mere plurality of votes bother you in a 3, 4, or 5-party election? Okay, then steel yourself for a runoff followed by a recount, then a recount of the recount and court challenges from all parties to that outcome. And while we are dismantling the "undemocratic" Electoral College, we may as well rid ourselves of the even more undemocratic Senate for thwarting the will of the majority. Are we ready to do that?

Judge Richard A. Posner, US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, has defended the electoral college on pragmatic grounds: ". . . the argument that it [the Electoral College] is undemocratic falls flat. No form of representative democracy, as distinct from direct democracy, is or aspires to be perfectly democratic."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... llege.html

[living_stradivarius]

The Democrats lost because they were split, and by the Third party spoilers who knew, like Ralph Nader that they were causing the Republicans to win.

"Trump cruised to victory in Des Moines County — a Mississippi River county encompassing the old industrial city of Burlington that Obama won by better than 18 points in 2012. It was a similar story in Jasper County, a blue-collar county that Obama carried by more than 7 percentage points."

[John F]

Here's the big picture, and while typical of American elections, it's depressing nonetheless:

25.6% voted for Clinton
25.5% voted for Trump
1.7% voted for Johnson
46.9% didn't vote

Source: United States Election Project

[jserraglio]

The popular vote is only the voice of those who voted.47% of eligible voters did not vote.[snip]

The glass is more than half full. I would worry, if something like 85-90% of the electorate voted, that the govt had devolved into tyranny. But give it time, that may come yet.

[John F]

Like I said, the electoral college is obsolete, and twice in the last 16 years the system it has thwarted the will of a majority of the people. Away with it.

Sounds lofty but how would such "majority worship" work out in practice? Would a winner's mere plurality of votes bother you in a 3, 4, or 5-party election?

As a practical matter, during my lifetime, the winner's plurality has been as low as 43% (Nixon 1968, Clinton 1992), but the margin of victory has been wide enough that there were no complaints about the electoral college. In other countries, a second round of voting for the top two vote-getters is promptly held if none of the candidates wins an absolute majority on election day. But in a two-major-party country such as ours, that's not necessary. A plurality would satisfy me and, I think, most Americans. After all, it's how we decide every other elective office in the nation, except for the presidency.

A special case is the election of 1824. Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular vote and the electoral college too, but since none of the four "finalists" (all members of the same party!) had an electoral college majority, the House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams. It's a complicated story well told in the Wikipedia article. The circumstances were unique and have not been nor will ever be repeated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_1824

And while we are dismantling the "undemocratic" Electoral College, we may as well rid ourselves of the even more undemocratic Senate for thwarting the will of the majority. Are we ready to do that?

Our topic is the election of the president, not the structure of the legislature. The Senate is what it is because of the founders' concern about states' rights, which as I've said did not survive the Civil War. Let's stick to the point.

Judge Richard A. Posner, US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, has defended the electoral college on pragmatic grounds: ". . . the argument that it [the Electoral College] is undemocratic falls flat. No form of representative democracy, as distinct from direct democracy, is or aspires to be perfectly democratic."

That's a straw man. My argument isn't merely that the electoral college is undemocratic but that it is unjust, as shown by the "election" of George W. Bush and Donald Trump against the will of the people as expressed in a majority their votes. Does Judge Posner have anything to say about that? Do you?

[jserraglio]

Let's stick to the point. ....That's a straw man.

Two more rhetorical tricks to add to your other trick of labeling an opinion you do not agree with as irrational. Saying so does not make it so. The point is and we are very much on point here, that retaining the electoral college is a perfectly defensible position and that sweeping it away could be unworkable and maybe dangerous. Judge Posner has stated 5 pragmatic reasons for keeping it. So far as I can tell, he has not been answered. If Clinton had somehow won the election while losing the popular vote, I really wonder whether we would be hearing talk of an "unjust" system. To me it's all so much special pleading. So let's "leave it at that", as you are fond of saying, and agree to disagree.

[lennygoran]

Judge Posner has stated 5 pragmatic reasons for keeping it.

I'm having trouble understanding Posner's arguments-let me ask this-in an ideal situation shouldn't majority rule always apply-for example 10 people are deciding on two restaurants to go to-what's wrong with going to the one the majority decides to go to-can't the pragmatic concerns be worked on so we can just use the majority rules concept? Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

Judge Posner has stated 5 pragmatic reasons for keeping it.

I'm having trouble understanding Posner's arguments-let me ask this-in an ideal situation shouldn't majority rule always apply-for example 10 people are deciding on two restaurants to go to-what's wrong with going to the one the majority decides to go to-can't the pragmatic concerns be worked on so we can just use the majority rules concept? Regards, Len

I too had to struggle to understand Posner's arguments, but think I am persuaded by Posner's suggestion that the electoral college by limiting majority rule paradoxically has enhanced majority rule and made the electoral system work reasonably well overall thru most of our history. For example by avoiding majority regional coalitions that might game the system. The founders, rightly or wrongly, feared the tyranny of the majority and sought to guarantee the ability of smaller states to have a proportionally larger voice in presidential elections. They considered and explicitly rejected election of the president by direct popular vote. It seems to me they were right by and large, even though we are now stuck with Donald Trump.

[lennygoran]

I too had to struggle to understand Posner's arguments, but think I am persuaded by Posner's suggestion that the electoral college by limiting majority rule paradoxically has enhanced majority rule and made the electoral system work reasonably well overall thru most of our history.

Thanks but I just don't understand-could you translate this to my choice of restaurant example. Another thought-take the positions of Senate and Governor-isn't that majority rule-every person who votes gets one vote and the majority rules-how is this different from what I'm thinking should go on at the Federal level? Would you agree that from an ideal point of view shouldn't that be the case whenever it's possible. Regards, Len

[Ricordanza]

The popular vote is only the voice of those who voted.47% of eligible voters did not vote.[snip]

The glass is more than half full. I would worry, if something like 85-90% of the electorate voted, that the govt had devolved into tyranny. But give it time, that may come yet.

I have to disagree. Here are some voter turnout percentages from an article in the Washington Post, all of them vibrant democracies:

Belgium 87%
Sweden 83%
Denmark 80%

[jbuck919]

Judge Posner has stated 5 pragmatic reasons for keeping it.

I'm having trouble understanding Posner's arguments-let me ask this-in an ideal situation shouldn't majority rule always apply-for example 10 people are deciding on two restaurants to go to-what's wrong with going to the one the majority decides to go to-can't the pragmatic concerns be worked on so we can just use the majority rules concept? Regards, Len

I've read some Posner, and he is an intelligent right-wing fool, fully capable of taking Antonin Scalia's place, except that he is still not far enough to the right for Trump and a Senate Republican majority. Never let judges or justices impress you over much. In spite of their credentials, they can be and often are, in a moral sense, as wrong as wrong gets.

[lennygoran]

Here are some voter turnout percentages from an article in the Washington Post, all of them vibrant democracies:

Henry I decided to see if I could find other countries-kind of surprised by some of the stats on this site--we're ahead of Japan? Regards, Len

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... countries/

[lennygoran]

I've read some Posner, and he is an intelligent right-wing fool, fully capable of taking Antonin Scalia's place, except that he is still not far enough to the right for Trump and a Senate Republican majority.

I suppose in other threads there'll be plenty to say about Trump's Supreme Court picks and what the Democrats will try to do and of course the gossip about Trump's cabinet doesn't make me too happy--Giuliani, Gingrich, Christie. Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

Would you agree that from an ideal point of view shouldn't that be the case whenever it's possible. Regards, Len

I would agree in general, so long as minority rights are protected, but the POTUS in a federal system may be a special case, so argues Judge Posner, who whatever his detractors say, is apparently considered to be an eminent jurist. I wouldn't know, I had never even heard of him till I read his article. Eminent or not, I haven't heard anyone counter the arguments Posner made in favor of retaining our present presidential electoral system. I suspect the "abolitionists" would never have raised the issue if somehow Trump had been the one who lost the electoral vote but won the popular vote.

[lennygoran]

I would agree in general, so long as minority rights are protected, but the POTUS in a federal system may be a special case,

This is where I'm having trouble-is there a need to protect a minority with my restaurant example-I'm trying to imagine if there might be a need for a minority right for the one who didn't want to go to that restaurant--I realize it's a very different example than voting for president but in principle what would make the presidency vote unique-for that matter why is majority rule for the Senate election okay but not for the Presidency? Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

I would agree in general, so long as minority rights are protected, but the POTUS in a federal system may be a special case,

This is where I'm having trouble-is there a need to protect a minority with my restaurant example-I'm trying to imagine if there might be a need for a minority right for the one who didn't want to go to that restaurant--I realize it's a very different example than voting for president but in principle what would make the presidency vote unique-for that matter why is majority rule for the Senate election okay but not for the Presidency? Regards, Len

As I understand Posner's argument, it is not a matter of principle, like the principle of one man one vote but practicality and workability. He argues that the present system, imperfect though it is, avoids many of the pitfalls and dangers of direct popular election and creates an incentive for us to unite behind the winner as "our President", whatever we may think of him/her politically. I only wish the radical Republicans had honored that tradition with President Obama, as he is now honoring it with Trump.

[jserraglio]

The popular vote is only the voice of those who voted.47% of eligible voters did not vote.[snip]

The glass is more than half full. I would worry, if something like 85-90% of the electorate voted, that the govt had devolved into tyranny. But give it time, that may come yet.

I have to disagree. Here are some voter turnout percentages from an article in the Washington Post, all of them vibrant democracies:

Belgium 87%
Sweden 83%
Denmark 80%

Great to know. I hope we get there someday ourselves. Thanks.

[lennygoran]

As I understand Posner's argument, it is not a matter of principle, like the principle of one man one vote but practicality and workability. He argues that the present system, imperfect though it is, avoids many of the pitfalls and dangers of direct popular election and creates an incentive for us to unite behind the winner as "our President"

But right now the news is showing lots of demonstrations in the streets-I even heard a riot was declared in one city-I would guess many of these people feel cheated-doesn't the fact that Hillary got more votes than Trump give them something to justify that feeling? What pitfalls are listed that we couldn't find a way to solve? I do realize the chance of changing our system is probably a long way off but it's hard for me to justify it. Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

As I understand Posner's argument, it is not a matter of principle, like the principle of one man one vote but practicality and workability. He argues that the present system, imperfect though it is, avoids many of the pitfalls and dangers of direct popular election and creates an incentive for us to unite behind the winner as "our President"

But right now the news is showing lots of demonstrations in the streets-I even heard a riot was declared in one city-I would guess many of these people feel cheated-doesn't the fact that Hillary got more votes than Trump give them something to justify that feeling? What pitfalls are listed that we couldn't find a way to solve? I do realize the chance of changing our system is probably a long way off but it's hard for me to justify it. Regards, Len

It is upsetting to me that so many young folks feel cheated. Trump folks would have probably felt that way too had the positions been reversed. That's why I think people should follow Obama's example and recognize the president-elect's legitimacy. As for changing the system, fine, but it is incumbent on the advocates for change to answer for the problems and dangers their proposal might result in. Sloganeering about majority rule and injustice just doesn't suffice in my view. It sounds to me much too much like self-serving partisanship.

[lennygoran]

>It is upsetting to me that so many young folks feel cheated. Trump folks would have probably felt that way too had the positions been reversed. That's why I think people should follow Obama's example and recognize the president-elect's legitimacy. As for changing the system, fine, but it is incumbent on the advocates for change to answer for the problems and dangers their proposal might result in. Sloganeering about majority rule and injustice just doesn't suffice in my view. It sounds to me much too much like self-serving partisanship.

A few points though. First I would question and have questioned for some time the electoral college-it's not just because Hillary lost the election and won the majority vote this time around. Second lets say Trump lost both the popular vote and the electoral college-he seemed to indicate that even then he might not accept the voters decision-now otoh if Hillary lost both votes I believe the demonstrators would have to feel less cheated although maybe some would still be acting up? I still am having trouble seeing what dangers and problems couldn't somehow be fixed if we abandoned the electoral college. I guess I'm just a firm believer in majority rules. Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

A few points though. First I would question and have questioned for some time the electoral college-it's not just because Hillary lost the election and won the majority vote this time around. Second lets say Trump lost both the popular vote and the electoral college-he seemed to indicate that even then he might not accept the voters decision-now otoh if Hillary lost both votes I believe the demonstrators would have to feel less cheated although maybe some would still be acting up? I still am having trouble seeing what dangers and problems couldn't somehow be fixed if we abandoned the electoral college. I guess I'm just a firm believer in majority rules. Regards, Len

To me the electoral college is not sacrosanct, but direct election might run the risk of even further dividing the country in a bitterly fought, close election like 2016's; of causing the proliferation of political parties, contested elections, runoffs and recounts; of raising the specter in contested elections such as 2000 of numerous recounts in states where a candidate had already won in hopes of adding more votes towards a majority or a plurality; and of incentivizing candidates to form permanent regional coalitions to game the system and effectively disenfranchise other regions of the country. Frankly, I never considered any of these possible scenarios before I looked at Posner. So I am not about to support a change in our electoral system unless those who advocate it can show either that these risks are illusory or that they can be addressed.

The young demonstrators of the past couple days, I believe, would do well to emulate President Obama and abide by the electoral system that was in place before this election. Those rules were published and clear, whether the kids really knew how they could work to their disadvantage, or not. I empathize with them but truth to tell we Clintonites got outmaneuvered, outfoxed and just plain hammered, fair and square. The current situation of mismatched popular and electoral college votes is not ideal, but it is not unjust, if one measures justice by the law, and direct election might make it worse.

To your point about Trump, yes, most likely he and his minions would have rejected even a indisputable voter decision not to their liking and taken to the streets. Not unexpected, right? Trump and some of his followers strike me as unreconstructed proto-fascists. I despise what Trump stands for, but I am not about to sell my birthright simply because I am unhappy with the election outcome. I going to take my cue from the President, swallow hard and embrace Donald Trump as my legitimately elected president.

[lennygoran]

>but truth to tell we Clintonites got outmaneuvered, outfoxed and just plain hammered, fair and square. <

Still the Comey release wasn't so fair and square imo--might have made a difference?

>I despise what Trump stands for, but I am not about to sell my birthright simply because I am unhappy with the election outcome. I going to take my cue from the President, swallow hard and embrace Donald Trump as my legitimately elected president.<

No I won't be embracing Trump for sure and I don't think Obama will be doing that either-Obama has handled the situation with great dignity-he makes me feel proud! Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

>but truth to tell we Clintonites got outmaneuvered, outfoxed and just plain hammered, fair and square. <

Still the Comey release wasn't so fair and square imo--might have made a difference?

>I despise what Trump stands for, but I am not about to sell my birthright simply because I am unhappy with the election outcome. I going to take my cue from the President, swallow hard and embrace Donald Trump as my legitimately elected president.<

No I won't be embracing Trump for sure and I don't think Obama will be doing that either-Obama has handled the situation with great dignity-he makes me feel proud! Regards, Len

I am disappointed too. My wife took Clinton's defeat hard. On Wed. morning, I had to tell her what had happened overnight. Not fun. I blame myself for not working actively for Hillary. I do accept Trump's legitimacy, but that's as far as it goes. I think that Kellyanne Conway and Lance Priebus "cleaned our clock", they clobbered us, and deserve credit for doing so. I fear the Democratic Party may do a reverse Tea Party now and move to the extreme left. I am also fearful, wrongly I hope, that we are feeling the first tremors of what might turn into Civil War II.

[Ricordanza]

Here are some voter turnout percentages from an article in the Washington Post, all of them vibrant democracies:

Henry I decided to see if I could find other countries-kind of surprised by some of the stats on this site--we're ahead of Japan? Regards, Len

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... countries/

Len, thanks for this link. The article below the graph helps to explain some of the differences between countries. But even with these differences in systems, voter turnout is comparatively low in the United States. And, as the article explains, this low turnout cannot be attributed to a particular choice of candidates:

However measured, U.S. turnout rates have been fairly consistent over the past several decades, despite some election-to-election variation.

[lennygoran]

I am disappointed too. ...I am also fearful, wrongly I hope, that we are feeling the first tremors of what might turn into Civil War II.[/quote]

I'm concerned but don't feel Civil War 2 coming on-this Bernie Sanders editorial piece from the NY Times made me feel better and also what Trump said about some concessions to Obamacare-we'll just have to see-btw glad Christie got demoted with Pence now in charge! Regards, Len

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor
Bernie Sanders Where the Democrats Go From Here

By BERNIE SANDERS NOV. 11, 2016


Millions of Americans registered a protest vote on Tuesday, expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own. I strongly supported Hillary Clinton,

campaigned hard on her behalf, and believed she was the right choice on Election Day. But Donald J. Trump won the White House because his campaign rhetoric successfully tapped into a very real and justified anger, an anger that many

traditional Democrats feel.

I am saddened, but not surprised, by the outcome. It is no shock to me that millions of people who voted for Mr. Trump did so because they are sick and tired of the economic, political and media status quo.

Working families watch as politicians get campaign financial support from billionaires and corporate interests — and then ignore the needs of ordinary Americans. Over the last 30 years, too many Americans were sold out by their

corporate bosses. They work longer hours for lower wages as they see decent paying jobs go to China, Mexico or some other low-wage country. They are tired of having chief executives make 300 times what they do, while 52 percent of all

new income goes to the top 1 percent. Many of their once beautiful rural towns have depopulated, their downtown stores are shuttered, and their kids are leaving home because there are no jobs — all while corporations suck the wealth out

of their communities and stuff them into offshore accounts.

Working Americans can’t afford decent, quality child care for their children. They can’t send their kids to college, and they have nothing in the bank as they head into retirement. In many parts of the country they can’t find affordable

housing, and they find the cost of health insurance much too high. Too many families exist in despair as drugs, alcohol and suicide cut life short for a growing number of people.

President-elect Trump is right: The American people want change. But what kind of change will he be offering them? Will he have the courage to stand up to the most powerful people in this country who are responsible for the economic

pain that so many working families feel, or will he turn the anger of the majority against minorities, immigrants, the poor and the helpless?

Will he have the courage to stand up to Wall Street, work to break up the “too big to fail” financial institutions and demand that big banks invest in small businesses and create jobs in rural America and inner cities? Or, will he

appoint another Wall Street banker to run the Treasury Department and continue business as usual? Will he, as he promised during the campaign, really take on the pharmaceutical industry and lower the price of prescription drugs?


I am deeply distressed to hear stories of Americans being intimidated and harassed in the wake of Mr. Trump’s victory, and I hear the cries of families who are living in fear of being torn apart. We have come too far as a country in

combating discrimination. We are not going back. Rest assured, there is no compromise on racism, bigotry, xenophobia and sexism. We will fight it in all its forms, whenever and wherever it re-emerges.

I will keep an open mind to see what ideas Mr. Trump offers and when and how we can work together. Having lost the nationwide popular vote, however, he would do well to heed the views of progressives. If the president-elect is serious

about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families, I’m going to present some very real opportunities for him to earn my support.

Let’s rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create millions of well-paying jobs. Let’s raise the minimum wage to a living wage, help students afford to go to college, provide paid family and medical leave and expand Social Security.

Let’s reform an economic system that enables billionaires like Mr. Trump not to pay a nickel in federal income taxes. And most important, let’s end the ability of wealthy campaign contributors to buy elections.

In the coming days, I will also provide a series of reforms to reinvigorate the Democratic Party. I believe strongly that the party must break loose from its corporate establishment ties and, once again, become a grass-roots party of

working people, the elderly and the poor. We must open the doors of the party to welcome in the idealism and energy of young people and all Americans who are fighting for economic, social, racial and environmental justice. We must have

the courage to take on the greed and power of Wall Street, the drug companies, the insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry.

When my presidential campaign came to an end, I pledged to my supporters that the political revolution would continue. And now, more than ever, that must happen. We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. When we stand

together and don’t let demagogues divide us up by race, gender or national origin, there is nothing we cannot accomplish. We must go forward, not backward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/opini ... opinion-c-

col-right-region&_r=0