Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > MacNN Exit Poll: 2016 Presidential Election

View Poll Results: Presidential Picks?
Poll Options:
Clinton/Kaine 7 votes (53.85%)
Johnson/Weld 3 votes (23.08%)
Stein/that guy, you know, that guy? 0 votes (0%)
Trump/Pence 3 votes (23.08%)
Bernie 0 votes (0%)
Mitt Romney 0 votes (0%)
Jeb Bush, W Bush, HW Bush, any Bush 0 votes (0%)
Vermin Supreme / free ponies 0 votes (0%)
Beyonce / Streisand 0 votes (0%)
Mickey Mouse / Donald Duck Disney ticket 0 votes (0%)
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll
MacNN Exit Poll: 2016 Presidential Election (Page 2)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 02:43 PM
 
Let me put it this way: Where does it say it's supposed to represent their value?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Let me put it this way: Where does it say it's supposed to represent their value?
Let me put it this way to it being put that way.

It's supposed to represent something other than straight population, otherwise there wouldn't be a plus two.

We can debate exactly what that's supposed to represent. I chose the term value because I can't see the thought process behind including the plus two other than believing states have value not in proportion to their population.

I would say one can point to the composition of the Senate as evidence this is how the FF felt.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 03:19 PM
 
It's supposed to represent states and their populations. That's it. Just like congress.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 03:36 PM
 
Because the states have value independent of how many people live in them.

I apologize if this is a frustrating response. I promise it is not intended as such, but I'm not sure what else to say.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Not, it isn't, but nice try. The only reason NH was in play is because of the EC and it being a swing state, so you made my point for me.
You stated "Yeah, let all the huge population centers control all the states, no matter how illogical that sounds. It's already heavily pitched towards the more populous states, candidates already ignore any state with fewer than 6 electoral votes.". I provided a counter-example - NH - and showed how the biggest states are currently mostly ignored (exception is of course Florida).

Without the EC, any regional focus in the election would be on large population centers and highly elastic areas, but more importantly, regional focus stops making sense. You need to tailor your politics to the entire country, which I would consider a win.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That still doesn't explain the need for the EC, and why it matters for a diverse country comprised of sovereign states. A footnote doesn't represent the whole argument, or it's reason for existing, it's just another minor point. IF we were as homogenous and small as, say, Sweden, you'd have a point, but we aren't.
First, you stated that the EC existed long before the Three-Fifths compromise. That was incorrect. Can we agree on that, at least?

Second, it goes through a number of reasons for it. As far as I can see, it doesn't talk about a rural-urban divide that needs to be bridged. Can you point me to where it says that?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No Red state will sign that compact, only the Blue ones, because it will strip what little power they have, making it moot. It's the same reason why an amendment will never pass.
Perhaps. It makes sense for deeply red states to sign it to get a little bit more attention in federal elections, but it may be that politicians in such states see the EC as an advantage for Republicans. I predict that it would take a single election where the popular-EC vote split was the other way around - and it could have been in 2012, with slightly worse numbers for Obama - to bring that issue to the forefront.

There is also the ballot initiative option. Not sure how many red states have that possibility.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
You stated "Yeah, let all the huge population centers control all the states, no matter how illogical that sounds. It's already heavily pitched towards the more populous states, candidates already ignore any state with fewer than 6 electoral votes.". I provided a counter-example - NH - and showed how the biggest states are currently mostly ignored (exception is of course Florida).

Without the EC, any regional focus in the election would be on large population centers and highly elastic areas, but more importantly, regional focus stops making sense. You need to tailor your politics to the entire country, which I would consider a win.
It would only need to be tailored to the parts of the country with large population centers.

Regional focus would make as much sense as it did before, it's just shuffling the regions.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Because the states have value independent of how many people live in them.

I apologize if this is a frustrating response. I promise it is not intended as such, but I'm not sure what else to say.
Yes, that independence is represented by their two senators and two electoral votes regardless of population. It has nothing to do with what they do or produce.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, that independence is represented by their two senators and two electoral votes regardless of population. It has nothing to do with what they do or produce.
Three is the minimum EC vote
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Three is the minimum EC vote
I didn't say anything to the contrary.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
These are all good points, but it seems to me there's an intentional large state/small state thumb on the scales going on, or the representation wouldn't be population dependent plus two.
But the facts don't back your feelings and impressions up. The big vs. small state problem was dealt with in the Legislature, the Great Compromise, but we are talking about the Presidency here. The motivations for going with an Electoral College were very different. The initial plan was for Congress to elect the President, and while Madison preferred a simple popular vote, this was not acceptable to the Southern states as the latter were concerned they couldn't control what their slaves voted for. If any divide played a role, it was North vs. South.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 06:19 PM
 
Slaves could vote?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Slaves could vote?
Yes, that was the concern of the Southern states, that a federally controlled Presidential election might lead to slaves themselves being able to cast votes rather than their masters. Of course this proposal was rejected and slaves never were able to vote. I don't think the reasons for going with the Electoral College haven't aged well. Technology obviates the first. The second, that the polulace is not informed enough to be trusted with such important matters, is condescending. And slavery, yeah. Of course you can make an argument for keeping the EC, but I wouldn't use history.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 08:04 PM
 
Do politicians ever change party in the US? Can a sitting president change party? What would happen if Trump did?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 08:56 PM
 
Well Trump is looking to nominate John Bolton as Secretary of State. So I think the chance of Trump becoming a Democrat now are negligible. Bur seriously, John Bolton?!? So far Trump's picks seem like a Best of GOP from 1997?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 02:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
These are all good points, but it seems to me there's an intentional large state/small state thumb on the scales going on, or the representation wouldn't be population dependent plus two.
Just for illustration, have a look at this video and its two updates. They specifically address the small vs. big state issue.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 03:11 AM
 
I'm not saying its likely, I just wondered. An interesting hypothetical.

MPs here do change party from time to time. I'm guessing if the PM did it s/he would no longer be PM and his/her old party would elect a new one. S/He'd have to quit as PM first I expect, then as a party member but you guys vote for the president so can a winner hand power to the minority party by switching sides?

While I'm asking questions, if someone is referred to as Congressman/woman, does that mean they are a member of the house of representatives or is it also used for senators?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 03:29 AM
 
Congressman/woman = generic title, could be either house.
Senator - member of Senate.
Representative - member of House of Representatives.

If the President switched parties, nothing happens in a legal sense. The person was elected. The party put him before the electorate, but the people still elected him to office - not his party. In a practical sense, it would change his negotiations with Congress quite a bit.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 03:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not saying its likely, I just wondered. An interesting hypothetical.
Ah, ok, I misread that.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
MPs here do change party from time to time. I'm guessing if the PM did it s/he would no longer be PM and his/her old party would elect a new one. S/He'd have to quit as PM first I expect, then as a party member but you guys vote for the president so can a winner hand power to the minority party by switching sides?
The office of the US President was created without the reference to any party. (Although, strictly speaking the President hasn't been elected yet, Trump will be elected in December by the Electoral College.) That means after he is elected in December* he can change party affiliation all he wants. (* Of course, in a whacky universe where Trump did change party affiliation, he could do that also in between now and when the Electoral College actually casts votes, but I reckon that'd diminish his chances of getting elected.) From a practical perspective that'd make that person's life really hard — unless he switches to the party which has a majority in both chambers. In Trump's case that'd be political suicide as the GOP controls the House and the Senate.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
While I'm asking questions, if someone is referred to as Congressman/woman, does that mean they are a member of the house of representatives or is it also used for senators?
Technically speaking Congressman/woman refers to people who sit either in the House or the Senate (because in aggregate they are known as Congress), but practically it usually implies that person is a member of the House. I haven't really seen cases where Senators where referred to as Congressmen/women. On the other hand, members of the House are frequently called Congressperson instead of the more precise Representative.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 03:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
You stated "Yeah, let all the huge population centers control all the states, no matter how illogical that sounds. It's already heavily pitched towards the more populous states, candidates already ignore any state with fewer than 6 electoral votes.". I provided a counter-example - NH - and showed how the biggest states are currently mostly ignored (exception is of course Florida).
and Michigan, and Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, none being small states by any reckoning. If California and New York are extremely to the Left, that just means THEY are to the Left, same goes for those to the Right (Texas is damned huge and Red). We're too large and diverse to live by mob rule, unlike the much smaller Euro states.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 03:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Slaves could vote?
Nope. Their masters used their numbers to wrangle votes out of elections, which was wrong on so many levels it's unreal, if you look at past data Maryland, Georgia, and New York greatly manipulated the system with this.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 04:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
First, you stated that the EC existed long before the Three-Fifths compromise. That was incorrect. Can we agree on that, at least?
No, it isn't incorrect, it was simply different after, it still existed.

Second, it goes through a number of reasons for it. As far as I can see, it doesn't talk about a rural-urban divide that needs to be bridged. Can you point me to where it says that?
It's wrong, and a good reason why you shouldn't get your information from such grossly partisan sources (as the Wikipedia article does). It was a device to balance rural and urban power within a constitutional republic, they knew the dangers of mob rule (see the riots going on now, some people still apparently need to be reigned in because they can't act like decent adults).

Perhaps. It makes sense for deeply red states to sign it to get a little bit more attention in federal elections, but it may be that politicians in such states see the EC as an advantage for Republicans.

I predict that it would take a single election where the popular-EC vote split was the other way around - and it could have been in 2012, with slightly worse numbers for Obama - to bring that issue to the forefront.
It makes sense for them to sign something that takes away their added apportionment? Really?

No, it wouldn't, because some people, while they may still grumble and grouse, don't act like petulant fools when things don't go their way.

There is also the ballot initiative option. Not sure how many red states have that possibility.
Again, there's no evidence any Red state would agree to such a thing.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 05:48 AM
 
Given the juvenile, petulant reactions, I can understand why we don't adhere to mob rule and why we aren't a democracy (we're a constitutional republic).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Slaves could vote?
No slaves could not vote. But they were counted as part of the population for the purposes of House of Repesentatives and Electoral College apportionment on the basis of the Three-Fifths Compromise. All of which was established at the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention.

When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.”

During that same speech on Thursday, July 19, Madison instead proposed a prototype for the same Electoral College system the country uses today. Each state has a number of electoral votes roughly proportioned to population and the candidate who wins the majority of votes wins the election.
Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves, who comprised about 40 percent of its population.

During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison said that with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

Madison knew that the North would outnumber the South, despite there being more than half a million slaves in the South who were their economic vitality, but could not vote. His proposition for the Electoral College included the “three-fifths compromise,” where black people could be counted as three-fifths of a person, instead of a whole. This clause garnered the state 12 out of 91 electoral votes, more than a quarter of what a president needed to win.

“None of this is about slaves voting,”
said Finkelman, who wrote a paper on the origins of the Electoral College for a symposium after Gore lost. “The debates are in part about political power and also the fundamental immorality of counting slaves for the purpose of giving political power to the master class.”

He said the Electoral College’s three-fifths clause enabled Thomas Jefferson, who owned more than a hundred slaves, to beat out in 1800 John Adams, who was opposed to slavery, since the South had a stronghold.
Electoral College is 'vestige' of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars | PBS NewsHour

Professor Akhil Reed Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University. A specialist in constitutional law, Amar is among America’s five most-cited legal scholars under the age of 60.

He’s also written extensively about the origins and utility of the Electoral College, most recently in his new book, The Constitution Today.
Originally Posted by Professor Akhil Reed Amar
There are several standard stories that I learned in school, and then there's an emerging story that I find more explanatory. I learned in school that it was a balance between big and small states. But the real divisions in America have never been big and small states; they're between North and South, and between coasts and the center.

The House versus Senate is big versus small state, but from the beginning big states have almost always prevailed in the Electoral College. We've only had three small state presidents in American history: Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, and Bill Clinton. All of the early presidents came from big states. So that theory isn't particularly explanatory.

Then there's the theory that the framers really didn't believe in democracy. But they put the Constitution to a vote, they created a House of Representatives that was directly elected, they believed in direct election of governors, and there are all sorts of other democratic features in the Constitution. So that theory isn't so explanatory.

There is an idea that democracy doesn't work continentally because there are informational problems. How are people on one part of the continent supposed to know how good someone is on another part of the continent? But once political parties appear on the scene, they have platforms. And ordinary people know what they stand for, and presidential candidates are linked to local slates of politicians. So that problem is solved.

So what's the real answer? In my view, it's slavery. In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidents come from Virginia (the most populous state at the time).

This pro-slavery compromise was not clear to everyone when the Constitution was adopted, but it was clearly evident to everyone when the Electoral College was amended after the Jefferson-Adams contest of 1796 and 1800. These elections were decided, in large part, by the extra electoral votes created by slavery. Without the 13 extra electoral votes created by Southern slavery, John Adams would've won even in 1800, and every federalist knows that after the election.

And yet when the Constitution is amended, the slavery bias is preserved.
The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states | Vox.com

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Nov 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 03:41 PM
 
I say this realising that it would be unprecedented, but what are the rules around the electoral college actually electing the president? I know its supposed to be a formality but I presume from the petition for them to elect Hillary that that is an option for them legally, if not without personal legal consequences in some states. Are they limited to the two nominees though? Or can they write in someone else if they want to?

I guess I'm wondering that with Trump already appearing to flip on many of his key campaign promises on Obamacare, the Iran deal and sucking up to Wall Street with the bank deregulation, could the college vote for Pence instead?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 05:30 PM
 
^^^

Some states have punishments for "faithless electors" in the form of fines. But TMK none involve jail time or anything like that. It is entirely conceivable that the Electoral College could elect Clinton instead. And it would be entirely constitutional. Just like it is constitutional for Trump to be elected even though he lost the popular vote. The political consequences of such a move would be quite significant for sure.

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^

Some states have punishments for "faithless electors" in the form of fines. But TMK none involve jail time or anything like that. It is entirely conceivable that the Electoral College could elect Clinton instead. And it would be entirely constitutional. Just like it is constitutional for Trump to be elected even though he lost the popular vote. The political consequences of such a move would be quite significant for sure.

OAW
Are those two their only options though? Could they elect someone else if they wanted to?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2016, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Are those two their only options though? Could they elect someone else if they wanted to?
Yep. But the same consequences would apply.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2016, 12:50 AM
 
They'd be living on borrowed time. You think things are bad now? There would be open civil war if the EC vote is stolen, and I'd understand it. In our system the popular vote is meaningless for president, and the EC electing someone else would be seen as an attempted coup.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:58 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,