Trump lost the popular vote

[Harry Bosch]

Thank you for the history lesson. The founding fathers also allowed for slavery. You're point? Are you trying to say that I don't have a right to ask for change? My simple point is this: there are more democrats in the country than republicans. Significantly more democrats voted than republicans. And yet the republicans control all of government.

Oh noes! Can't support a position so shout slavery! You wrote that we have a system that allows the minority party to control everything. That is demonstrably false. The parties don't own voters. I know, I know. That observation makes partisan hacks cry. Just because someone at a particular time may identify as a Dem, Rep, Green, or Purple party, doesn't mean that person lacks the capacity to think for himself. NC really is a case in point. Trump won there by 175K votes. But the Democrat challenger beat the incumbent Republican governor by 10K votes. The incumbent Democratic state auditor won by 6K votes. Obviously, people in NC did not vote down party lines. Oh the horror!

Oh please! You're being a drama queen now! I believe in change. The way our system was set up, the republicans won everything, despite having received fewer votes than the dems. I've accepted that outcome. However, I would like some form of change. I don't like one party having absolute control.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wall Street wins either way.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh noes! ...

You confuse incessant babbling with coherent argument. In the a system of first past the post elections (which the US or the UK uses), it is possible for the candidate from same party in every contest to receive less than 50% of the vote and still win the seat. Whether that is hypothetically desirable or undesirable outcome is a different question, because it is possible that a party that receives less than 50% of the votes can win every single seat. Now, I think it is hard to think of the party in such a hypothetical instance as "minority".

In my view, when people decry the outcome of this election, the underlying issues are 1) the electoral college vs complete popular vote, and 2) gerrymandering, both of which are legitimate concerns, regardless of one's ideology or philosophical outlook.

 

[skepticalbip]

Oh noes! Can't support a position so shout slavery! You wrote that we have a system that allows the minority party to control everything. That is demonstrably false. The parties don't own voters. I know, I know. That observation makes partisan hacks cry. Just because someone at a particular time may identify as a Dem, Rep, Green, or Purple party, doesn't mean that person lacks the capacity to think for himself. NC really is a case in point. Trump won there by 175K votes. But the Democrat challenger beat the incumbent Republican governor by 10K votes. The incumbent Democratic state auditor won by 6K votes. Obviously, people in NC did not vote down party lines. Oh the horror!

Oh please! You're being a drama queen now! I believe in change. The way our system was set up, the republicans won everything, despite having received fewer votes than the dems. I've accepted that outcome. However, I would like some form of change. I don't like one party having absolute control.

How is it that you have been convinced that partisan politics is what drives the voting public. Politicians run on party tickets because it is easier to get on ballots than running as an Independent. There are Republican politicians who are to the left of Democrats and Democrat politicians who are to the right of Republicans. Informed voters vote for the candidate, not the party.

ETA:
I might add that Donald Trump changed his registered party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 2009. He has changed several times but for most of his life he was a registered Democrat.

 

[laughing dog]

Informed voters vote for the candidate, not the party.

What proportion of the voters do you think are informed?

 

[skepticalbip]

Informed voters vote for the candidate, not the party.

What proportion of the voters do you think are informed?

Well 42% of voters self identify as Independents so I would assume that they look at the candidate rather than the party. I would also assume that at least some of those who self identify as either Republican or Democrat have enough sense to look at the candidates and cross vote for someone they found to be a better choice. But then, reading some of the posts on this forum, it could be fewer than I would wish.

 

[laughing dog]

What proportion of the voters do you think are informed?

Well 42% of voters self identify as Independents so I would assume that they look at the candidate rather than the party. I would also assume that at least some of those who self identify as either Republican or Democrat have enough sense to look at the candidates and cross vote for someone they found to be a better choice. But then, reading some of the posts on this forum, it could be fewer than I would wish.

I don't think that looking at a candidate necessarily makes one "informed" in any meaningful sense. I suspect that even without reading posts in this forum, the number are a lot fewer than you or I would wish.

 

[Axulus]

Oh noes! Can't support a position so shout slavery! You wrote that we have a system that allows the minority party to control everything. That is demonstrably false. The parties don't own voters. I know, I know. That observation makes partisan hacks cry. Just because someone at a particular time may identify as a Dem, Rep, Green, or Purple party, doesn't mean that person lacks the capacity to think for himself. NC really is a case in point. Trump won there by 175K votes. But the Democrat challenger beat the incumbent Republican governor by 10K votes. The incumbent Democratic state auditor won by 6K votes. Obviously, people in NC did not vote down party lines. Oh the horror!

Oh please! You're being a drama queen now! I believe in change. The way our system was set up, the republicans won everything, despite having received fewer votes than the dems. I've accepted that outcome. However, I would like some form of change. I don't like one party having absolute control.

This is a good lesson on why the federal government needs to be much more limited in power. Give that power back to the states and it will be a lot easier for us to all get along and also move to the state which has the types of policies and party in power one prefers.

It's grown into an overbearing albatross where now someone in Missisippi, with a significantly different culture, set of issues and set of preferences can vote in far too much power via the federal government to affect my life in a negative way and then pass on the cost well into future generations in this state.

 

[fast]

... by more than 2,500,000 votes.

If the presidency would have been decided by popular vote, he would have won the popular vote. His focus is on winning. Had popularity been the deciding factor, he would have factored that in.

 

[Trausti]

Oh noes! Can't support a position so shout slavery! You wrote that we have a system that allows the minority party to control everything. That is demonstrably false. The parties don't own voters. I know, I know. That observation makes partisan hacks cry. Just because someone at a particular time may identify as a Dem, Rep, Green, or Purple party, doesn't mean that person lacks the capacity to think for himself. NC really is a case in point. Trump won there by 175K votes. But the Democrat challenger beat the incumbent Republican governor by 10K votes. The incumbent Democratic state auditor won by 6K votes. Obviously, people in NC did not vote down party lines. Oh the horror!

Oh please! You're being a drama queen now! I believe in change. The way our system was set up, the republicans won everything, despite having received fewer votes than the dems. I've accepted that outcome. However, I would like some form of change. I don't like one party having absolute control.

When did 47.3% become greater than 49.9%?

And no party in the US is even close to being the majority: http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What proportion of the voters do you think are informed?

Well 42% of voters self identify as Independents so I would assume that they look at the candidate rather than the party. I would also assume that at least some of those who self identify as either Republican or Democrat have enough sense to look at the candidates and cross vote for someone they found to be a better choice. But then, reading some of the posts on this forum, it could be fewer than I would wish.

Just about every voter in this election was informed, misinformed, and uninformed. Here are some examples:
Misinformed regarding legal troubles of Clinton for email scandal;
Uninformed regarding actual tax documentation for Trump's income;
Misinformed regarding how inside the political establishment Trump actually was;
Uninformed of actual Clinton speech contents to Wall Street;
Uninformed and Misinformed as to the upside and downsides to ObamaCare, depending on party and listening echo chamber;
Informed that Trump said he would just grab women by the pussy;
Informed that Clinton switched positions on major issues but uninformed that these were switches from one nuanced view to another;
Informed regarding Bernie's position that growing income inequality is a bad thing.

I include so-called Independents in most of the above as well.

 

[Trausti]

Well 42% of voters self identify as Independents so I would assume that they look at the candidate rather than the party. I would also assume that at least some of those who self identify as either Republican or Democrat have enough sense to look at the candidates and cross vote for someone they found to be a better choice. But then, reading some of the posts on this forum, it could be fewer than I would wish.

Just about every voter in this election was informed, misinformed, and uninformed. Here are some examples:
Misinformed regarding legal troubles of Clinton for email scandal;
Uninformed regarding actual tax documentation for Trump's income;
Misinformed regarding how inside the political establishment Trump actually was;
Uninformed of actual Clinton speech contents to Wall Street;
Uninformed and Misinformed as to the upside and downsides to ObamaCare, depending on party and listening echo chamber;
Informed that Trump said he would just grab women by the pussy;
Informed that Clinton switched positions on major issues but uninformed that these were switches from one nuanced view to another;
Informed regarding Bernie's position that growing income inequality is a bad thing.

I include so-called Independents in most of the above as well.

Or more succinctly, people who voted the way I voted were informed. People who voted differently than me were uninformed. That's the gist of it, right?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Just about every voter in this election was informed, misinformed, and uninformed. Here are some examples:
Misinformed regarding legal troubles of Clinton for email scandal;
Uninformed regarding actual tax documentation for Trump's income;
Misinformed regarding how inside the political establishment Trump actually was;
Uninformed of actual Clinton speech contents to Wall Street;
Uninformed and Misinformed as to the upside and downsides to ObamaCare, depending on party and listening echo chamber;
Informed that Trump said he would just grab women by the pussy;
Informed that Clinton switched positions on major issues but uninformed that these were switches from one nuanced view to another;
Informed regarding Bernie's position that growing income inequality is a bad thing.

I include so-called Independents in most of the above as well.

Or more succinctly, people who voted the way I voted were informed. People who voted differently than me were uninformed. That's the gist of it, right?

No. Nice try.

 

[Trausti]

Or more succinctly, people who voted the way I voted were informed. People who voted differently than me were uninformed. That's the gist of it, right?

No. Nice try.

Ah, so are you claiming that you were an informed voter but all these other folks were not?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No. Nice try.

Ah, so are you claiming that you were an informed voter but all these other folks were not?

No, I did not claim that. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote and respond to the content, not the poster.

 

[Trausti]

Ah, so are you claiming that you were an informed voter but all these other folks were not?

No, I did not claim that. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote and respond to the content, not the poster.

Your whole list implies that people were uniformed on the bad aspects of Trump and uninformed on the good aspects of Obamacare and Clinton. Just trying to understand the hypocrisy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, I did not claim that. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote and respond to the content, not the poster.

You're whole lists implies that people were uniformed on the bad aspects of Trump

No it doesnt. The first thing I wrote in regard to Trump is that they were uninformed of actual tax documentation. You are ASSUMING that "actual" means "bad."

and uninformed on the good aspects of Obamacare and Clinton.

That's not what I wrote at all, especially regarding ObamaCare.

Just trying to understand the hypocrisy.

Clearly, you are claiming hypocrisy and then trying to reverse engineer it back into what I wrote, quite irrationally since it doesn't fit.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I did not claim that. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote and respond to the content, not the poster.

Your whole list implies that people were uniformed on the bad aspects of Trump and uninformed on the good aspects of Obamacare and Clinton. Just trying to understand the hypocrisy.

This

Uninformed and Misinformed as to the upside and downsides to ObamaCare, depending on party and listening echo chamber;

rebuts your entire post. Really, do try to read the post as written rather than as you imagined it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Your whole list implies that people were uniformed on the bad aspects of Trump and uninformed on the good aspects of Obamacare and Clinton. Just trying to understand the hypocrisy.

This

Uninformed and Misinformed as to the upside and downsides to ObamaCare, depending on party and listening echo chamber;

rebuts your entire post. Really, do try to read the post as written rather than as you imagined it.

I think part of his problem was that he read "informed" and "uninformed" as characteristics of voters and personalized them, getting defensive. To clarify for everyone reading, such terms to me are primarily* about whether a communication occurred or not and then if it did, was the information false or true. So, for example, Trump did not reveal his latest tax income documentation and therefore that was unavailable as a primary source of information. As a logical consequence, voters were uninformed as to the contents. Likewise, the vast majority of voters were uninformed of the contents of Clinton's speeches to Wall Street. At some point in time one or more of these may have become available on WikiLeaks yet most voters did not read the contents and therefore remained uninformed. My stating of "uninformed" is about the lack of availability and/or receipt of such primary sources of information.

I will add that misinformation has become a serious problem in this last election. When someone claims that there is some binary switch between informed voters and their opposite, I've responded we've all been exposed to information barriers and a new misinformation super highway. I've tried to give some examples that most reasonable people would agree with.

Now as to Independents being more informed, maybe they are just wishy washy. Or maybe their information is compromised between hearing both misinformation and true information. In my book, for such information where no barrier exists, that would make them both informed and misinformed.

Finally, with respect to the list, naturally it applies as much to myself as most other people since info was also unavailable to me and I also received such misinformation, like when James Comey pulled a stunt last minute--I was as much misinformed as the next guy and then later when he spoke again relaying differently framed information had a WTF moment.

I will ask Trausti not to respond again unless he removes the chip from his shoulder, detaches himself from his misinterpretation of what I intended by "uninformed" and "misinformed," and responds to content, not the messenger's alleged hypocrisy or other whatever. Thank you.

* Secondarily, whether the brain "accepts" such information or not or to what degree is another topic involving a theory of mind that I do not want to get into. I am not writing a dissertation on such theory of mind, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias etc. Suffice it to say, that receiving such information is the primary logical requirement in some kind of mental process.

 

[Juma]

... by more than 2,500,000 votes.

If the presidency would have been decided by popular vote, he would have won the popular vote. His focus is on winning. Had popularity been the deciding factor, he would have factored that in.

You make the mistake of thinking that the Trump actually had a plan how to win the election. I dont believe that at all.