Cyber Showdown

[Pete at Home]

Highest ranking candidate with over 50% yes votes wins. If no one beats 50%, then disqualify all candidates and vote on a new slate.

Sounds hugely expensive to hold multiple votes, likely with declining voter participation in each successive one.

This Ragusa[n]?

The Republican Constitution of Ragusa was strictly aristocratic. The population was divided into three classes: nobility, citizens, and plebeians who were mainly artisans and peasants (serfs, coloni and freemen). All effective power was concentrated in the hands of aristocracy. The citizens were permitted to hold only minor offices, while plebeians had no voice in government. Marriage between members of different classes of the society was forbidden.

Hands up anyone who thought I was advocating the Ragusan social system rather than just the electoral system?

Since we get rid of the primary, costs are down.
Up/ down also encouraged candidates to argue their own merit rather than demolishing their opponent.

[Pete at Home]

BTW, kas, Ragusa offered the peasants and commoners socialized health care in the 1200s a generation after they abolished slavery.  Kids born from peasants had few public offices they could run for, but they had free education, including university if they qualified. Ragusan paid for commoners to go to Naples and Venice for medical school, architecture, etc.   

Ragusan had no med school of its own, but the free medical there was so good that many innovations such as quarantine for the black plague, originated in Ragusa

[Pete at Home]

The one aspect of the elections that I'm afraid we couldn't duplicate because it's kind of tied to the Ragusa nutritionpatrician system, is random selection of candidates. Public service was not so much a privilege of the nobility as an obligation. They were heavily fined or sometimes even exiled for refusing to accept a post that they had been elected to against their will.  I don't think we could Implement that

[TheDeamon]

Instant runoff takes care of that concern.

How is that going to work?  Revote every day or just every Tuesday until somebody wins?  Who prepares the new ballot and reprograms the voting machines?  How much paid time off from work should people be granted to go vote?  Should there be a floor on voting participation else the vote doesn't count?  Could I think of at least 3 or 4 more objections?

Instant runoff is simple, you get a list of candidates, and you rank them in your order of preference.

In the event that in the first pass a candidate gets a majority vote, no actual second "runoff" is required.

If nobody gets to 50%+1 in the first pass, then the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. The people who voted for that candidate then have their ballots re-tabulated based on their #2 pick. Rinse and repeat eliminating each successively more popular candidate(working up from the bottom) until somebody crosses the 50% threshold.

Thanks to the wonder of technology, this is something that can be computerized and automated easily enough, and still leave a paper trail behind.

Not quite sure how IR would handle an edge case where say, you have 6 candidates, and somebody only ranked 4 of them, and none of those 4 were the most popular candidates if it makes it down to the final 2 in order to cross 50%+1 vote. I'd assume a non-selection would turn their vote into a non-vote of sorts at that point. (It would still appear in the tallies for the eariler rounds, but not count towards the final round(s) should they have chosen strangely. But I have no idea if that edge case is addressed, and too lazy to check)

Although it should be noted, since I like the Electoral College, I'd only support this application on the state level.

Doing some checking against this election, it is a safe bet that Colorado would have comfortably flipped from Hillary to Trump.

Maine is admittedly questionable, but likely to have gone majority Trump under IR rules, assuming 100% of the libertarian vote went Republican before going Democrat, if it was only 98% of them who did so, Hillary would win. (Maine went for Hillary, except for 1 district which Trump carried)

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would have likely remained Trump wins. So those "upsets" would stand.

Michigan would have likely been an even more comfortable Trump win. (Trump had 47.5% of the vote, the Libertarians had 3.6% of the vote, giving a combined 51.1% of the vote. Although he'd still need just barely under 70% of Libertarian voters in Michigan to have picked him over Hillary under IR)

Minnesota is also a close one to call under an IR scenario. A combined Trump/Libertarian/McMullin IR tally would net Trump an additional 5.6% of the vote, boosting his tally to 50.5% of the vote from 44.9% assuming no "Democratic defectors" in the mix(Trump would need to keep 92% of the Libertarian&McMullin voters from selecting Hillary ahead of him. Of course, Hillary would need to likewise not suffer from the people who didn't vote for one those three options voting for Trump over her, as she only netted 46.4% herself), but it is another potential Electoral flip in Trump's favor.

Nevada would actually be an edge case for the IR system. 2.56% of the voters evidently opted for "None of these candidates" as their choice. Hillary had 47.92% of the vote, Trump had 45.50% of the vote, and the Libertarians netted 3.32% of the vote. Assuming a 100% transition from Libertarian to Trump, however unlikely that is, neither candidate would make it 50% of the vote. Although Trump would potentially have Majority support in Nevada at 48.82%.

New Mexico looks like it would likely be an edge case as well(Trump at 49.38% once combined with the Libertarians, McMullin voters could bring him to 50.11% in theory, but requires "0 defectors" to Hillary) while Hillary would hold 49.5% once combined with the Green Party), so New Mexico becomes a possible flip.

Virginia likely remains in Hillary's hands with her getting 49.75% and the Green party getting 0.69% of the vote, making an IR tally of 50.44%.

New Hampshire is a likely electoral flip, a combined Trump/Libertarian IR tally getting him 51.5% of the vote. C/o the Libertarians holding 4.2% of the popular vote there.

Arizona, Florida, and Utah would also likely remain in Trump's hands.

Before someone blinks too much at the number of states that seem to suddenly "turn red" under a potential IR scenario for this past election where "Hillary won the popular vote." Keep this in mind:

As per Wikipedia as of this writing:
Hillary: 65,844,610 votes, 48.06%
Trump: 62,979,636 votes, 45.97%
Libertarian: 4,488,912 votes, 3.28%
Green: 1,457,038 votes, 1.06%
McMullin: 725,902 votes, 0.53%   
Other: 1,549,765 votes, 1.13%

So going with the IR scenario of:
Hillary/Green we net 66,301,648 votes cast. For 49.12% of the vote.
Trump/Libertarian we net 67,468,548 votes cast. For 49.25% of the vote.
Trump/Libertarian/McMullin we net 68,194,450 votes cast. 49.78% of the vote.

Which means getting to 50% of the popular vote would require digging into the 20-someodd presidential tickets that ran across the nation and deciding which constituency would be likely to split which way, if any.

But for the Democrats bellyaching about the EC this time around, the above tally of the national polls are something to take note of. Hillary may have won a simple Plurality of the popular vote, but she didn't win a clear majority. Likewise, based on where many of the other votes went, it's highly unlikely most of the people who did vote, would have ever voted for her. The only question is if all those third party voters would have gone for Trump or Hillary if they actually had to make that choice.

[Kasandra]

You've addressed several of my concerns.  I'll think on it more.  FWIW, I'm still in favor of the EC for reasons I gave in a different thread a couple of months ago.

[TheDeamon]

The other point to be made: If the Republicans had done IR in place of the simple ballot, Trump probably wouldn't have lasted long in the primaries. Republicans splitting their votes 6+ ways helped him in a massive way as well.

You need look no further than Cruz/Rubio/Carson whose voters probably would have ranked them 1 through 4 at worst, with Trump going lower on their list.

[Kasandra]

The other point to be made: If the Republicans had done IR in place of the simple ballot, Trump probably wouldn't have lasted long in the primaries. Republicans splitting their votes 6+ ways helped him in a massive way as well.

You need look no further than Cruz/Rubio/Carson whose voters probably would have ranked them 1 through 4 at worst, with Trump going lower on their list.

Well, as bad as he is, at least he saved us from Cruz.

[DonaldD]

If IR had been in place, then there would have been no guarantee that people would have voted in the same way at all - asserting that Clinton and Trump would have garnered the same number of first choice ballots is wrong - as is the idea that Green voters would have broken for Clinton 100%, and Libertarian voters would have broken for Trump 100%.

IR would open up a completely different way of thinking about votes, so trying to extrapolate the results in this way is a waste of effort and misleading.

[Kasandra]

A good point there, too. If no parties promoted candidates it's likely that Sanders would have diluted Clinton's support even more and possibly knocked her out altogether. 

[Fenring]

Ok, pitch me the US political system without the two major parties.  As Jason asks, be specific what would replace it and how it would be more effective than what we have now.

Sorry I only got around to answering this now.

What I would suggest is banning political parties wholesale. Madison (IIRC) suggested to Jefferson that parties were inevitable, but I'm not so sure a system can't be designed to get rid of them. Just make every candidate run independently, and although PAC's for candidates would be allowed, just insert a rule where no PAC can simultaneously promote more than one candidate nation-wide. Make another rule where the same organization cannot run more than one PAC, and you're done. The rest would likely be a matter for RICO to enforce.

There are less extreme steps that could be taken as well, not that I even think that banning parties would be all that extreme a move to make. Most of what Senator Sanders proposed during his campaign would be stepping stones towards something like this, which include campaign finance reform, perhaps completely Federally funded national elections, taking Wall Street's influence down a peg (maybe even breaking up the big banks), and doing something about the lobbyist system. Basically, all of these would be designed to help clean up Washington and remove corruption from public office. That being said, while these would be a step in the correct direction I would assume that something else - a loophole if you will - would present itself and corruption would not simply go away. I think these steps, in addition to the removal of political parties, would both be needed to achieve the desired result, which is for Congressmen to represent the people of their state and have no other allegiance, and also to not be subject individually to systemic corruption. There are other steps I would recommend in order to minimize personal corruption that is not systemic but they are more fantastical than what I've proposed so far so I'll leave them out for now.

I think most Americans probably share a view that politics is mired in corruption, that the Congress doesn't do its job properly, that the parties are both a den of thieves, and that the choice of candidates in this cycle was not good. Many people buy into the scapegoat tactic that places the blame for this at the feet of the other party, but this time around at least I think a lot o Democrats have realized that their party isn't such a nice place to be either. I don't know how many people would really be that sad to see the parties go away.

[TheDeamon]

If IR had been in place, then there would have been no guarantee that people would have voted in the same way at all - asserting that Clinton and Trump would have garnered the same number of first choice ballots is wrong - as is the idea that Green voters would have broken for Clinton 100%, and Libertarian voters would have broken for Trump 100%.

IR would open up a completely different way of thinking about votes, so trying to extrapolate the results in this way is a waste of effort and misleading.

It's useful as an example, although specifics are much more variable. It's on par with the dispute over winning the popular vote rather than the Electoral College. If the race was decided by the popular vote, the campaigns would have focused on that instead.

Likewise with Instant runoff, voter behavior and campaign strategies would change accordingly.

The "other side" of instant runoff is it allows for non-binary politics and starts putting the emphasis on common ground rather than partisanship. At least when it comes to attracting voters. "Ok, we might disagree on this, but here's where we do agree so you should rank me highly."

[Pete at Home]

A good point there, too. If no parties promoted candidates it's likely that Sanders would have diluted Clinton's support even more and possibly knocked her out altogether.

But he'd not have that effect in an up/down all candidate vote. And so far the only objection to that was that Ragusan were aristocratic, which seems like a lame rebuttal to a serious proposal.

[TheDeamon]

A good point there, too. If no parties promoted candidates it's likely that Sanders would have diluted Clinton's support even more and possibly knocked her out altogether.

It is also possible that Bernie would have been a viable third party candidate and under IR, he potentially would have been able to get a majority ballot/Electoral Win under IR.

Just as a lot of Hillary voters were actually Anti-Trump voters, a lot of Trump voters were anti-Hillary votes instead.

In a 3 way race between them as the major candidates, consider that many/most of the "anti" voters in both camps would have likely ranked Bernie above either major candidate. Likewise, Green party, and a number of other people who voted 3rd party this last cycle likely would have also done an IR ranking placing Bernie above either Hillary or Trump.

From there it just becomes a question of if that would have given him enough votes to make the top 3, and once it was down to the final 3, would it have allowed him to knock one of those 2 off their respective perch. Hillary supporters would certainly break for Bernie over Trump, while Trump voters are a lot more of a wild card, but at least where the blue-collar workers are concerned(at least, those who voted Trump this time), in a Bernie vs Hillary race, Bernie wins.

[Kasandra]

What I would suggest is banning political parties wholesale. Madison (IIRC) suggested to Jefferson that parties were inevitable, but I'm not so sure a system can't be designed to get rid of them. Just make every candidate run independently, ...

I can't see how that leads to anything other than voting for charismatic leaders or strongmen, which leads to dictatorial rule.

[Fenring]

What I would suggest is banning political parties wholesale. Madison (IIRC) suggested to Jefferson that parties were inevitable, but I'm not so sure a system can't be designed to get rid of them. Just make every candidate run independently, ...

I can't see how that leads to anything other than voting for charismatic leaders or strongmen, which leads to dictatorial rule.

Dictatorial rule requires the structure for such. If people are elected to Congress running independently I don't see how that in any way translates to them becoming fascists. Perhaps you'd like to explain your reply before I risk misunderstanding it? Also please explain what you mean by "strongmen" in this context.

You are right, though, that the issue of charisma is a serious one and I would have alternate suggestions for how to try to weed that trait out of the system.

[Pete at Home]

In any system where third-party can strip away support for the most popular candidate, it's completely crap to talk about any "will of the people" being manifest

[TheDeamon]

What I would suggest is banning political parties wholesale. Madison (IIRC) suggested to Jefferson that parties were inevitable, but I'm not so sure a system can't be designed to get rid of them. Just make every candidate run independently, ...

I can't see how that leads to anything other than voting for charismatic leaders or strongmen, which leads to dictatorial rule.

Which was part of the beauty of the EC back when it was first implemented, as it required a majority vote. Although having Congress resolve it in the event of a split may be slightly less than ideal in some respects. Particularly when you consider they were having 3, 4, and sometimes 5+ way major candidate fights for the Presidency on a regular basis. If it had been a direct popular (single) vote, you'd have had potential for Presidents being elected while only netting a support rate possibly smaller than 30%.

Now yes, it is possible in theory for such a thing to happen even with the EC, but that scenario is highly unlikely, and hasn't happened yet. To the point where the EC only really starts to make itself felt when it isn't a "simple majority" that is deciding the election. Hillary failed to break 50% of the popular vote, she lost the EC. Gore failed to win 50% of the popular vote, he lost the EC.

In 1888 Cleveland failed to get 50% of the vote, he lost the EC.

1876 is the outlier in the mix, being Reconstruction era and rampant voter fraud/disenfranchisement. It is the one case of a candidate winning the Popular vote by a Majority(over 50% of the vote), but still losing the EC by 1 vote after Congress reached a compromise on how they were going to reconcile all that was going on around election day in certain states.

1824, in which Congress directly decided the Presidency, Neither JQA or Andrew Jackson held a majority of the popular vote, although some states didn't hold a direct or indirect election for electors at that time. Although that one was interesting in that Jackson held a plurality on both the Electoral and Popular vote. Congress still went with someone else. And as history later records, the country probably was better off without Jackson in office, but he still found his way in.

[TheDeamon]

In any system where third-party can strip away support for the most popular candidate, it's completely crap to talk about any "will of the people" being manifest

Which is where Instant Runoff is such a beautiful thing. Since no tally is decisive until a majority is reached, voters still get a chance to voice their ire at the more "mainstream"/popular candidate, and do so "in the only poll that matters" before ultimately going along with the herd.

[Fenring]

In any system where third-party can strip away support for the most popular candidate, it's completely crap to talk about any "will of the people" being manifest

Which is where Instant Runoff is such a beautiful thing. Since no tally is decisive until a majority is reached, voters still get a chance to voice their ire at the more "mainstream"/popular candidate, and do so "in the only poll that matters" before ultimately going along with the herd.

Is that what Pete meant by his comment, i.e. that "the will of the people" means having a President elected with something close to a literal majority of the votes? I think that's an issue for the logistics of the election process, as TheDeamon points out. Pete, if that's what you meant then I'm not sure how it implies dictatorial rule as Kasandra said it would.

[Pete at Home]

Yes, runoff seems designed to make something approaching will of the people more descriptive, than Sophie's Choice.

[TheDeamon]

In any system where third-party can strip away support for the most popular candidate, it's completely crap to talk about any "will of the people" being manifest

Which is where Instant Runoff is such a beautiful thing. Since no tally is decisive until a majority is reached, voters still get a chance to voice their ire at the more "mainstream"/popular candidate, and do so "in the only poll that matters" before ultimately going along with the herd.

Is that what Pete meant by his comment, i.e. that "the will of the people" means having a President elected with something close to a literal majority of the votes? I think that's an issue for the logistics of the election process, as TheDeamon points out. Pete, if that's what you meant then I'm not sure how it implies dictatorial rule as Kasandra said it would.

I'm under the impression he was advocating simply for the Ragusan model of "the leader" obtaining majority support in order to hold that office. How they obtain that majority is negotiable.

You could simply run a caucus until such time that 50%+1 is reached, do instant runoff, or hold an ongoing series of ballots to narrow down the electoral field.  IR just happens to be a means of doing all of the above, and potentially only need to have people vote once, and it lets them remain anonymous as to who they supported.

[Pete at Home]

Both the Ragusan and the US systems were modeled after the Roman Republic. The difference was that our founders were suffering under a delusion of Roman greatness while the Ragusan founders had just escaped a burning Roman city, so we're more inclined to fix the screwed up aspects of the Roman system. 

[TheDeamon]

Is that what Pete meant by his comment, i.e. that "the will of the people" means having a President elected with something close to a literal majority of the votes? I think that's an issue for the logistics of the election process, as TheDeamon points out. Pete, if that's what you meant then I'm not sure how it implies dictatorial rule as Kasandra said it would.

I still think there is merit to limiting the size of the field. After you cross a certain threshold, you start to over-saturate the situation, and the signal to noise ratio will get out of hand. In that respect, parties are useful as "noise filters" but at the same time, at least in the U.S. they are arguably filtering too much. So it's trying to strike the balance between "increasing the bandwidth" without also decreasing the quality of what's coming through.

Not that I'd describe either major candidate as being "quality" this time around. In this case, quantity does have a quality all of its own, and lack of competition seems to be the problem.

Instant Runoff seems to me to be the only meaningful way to try to increase the quantity of choices available in a meaningful way, while also at the same time not putting us at risk of being placed under the tyrannical control of a more coherent minority, or coalition thereof. Basically mandating that 50%+1 threshold helps reduce the risk of of a 25/20/15/10/30 type scenario where because the other groups are squabbling with each other, the 30% group walks in and takes control because they win the simple popular vote.

[Fenring]

I still think there is merit to limiting the size of the field. After you cross a certain threshold, you start to over-saturate the situation, and the signal to noise ratio will get out of hand. In that respect, parties are useful as "noise filters" but at the same time, at least in the U.S. they are arguably filtering too much. So it's trying to strike the balance between "increasing the bandwidth" without also decreasing the quality of what's coming through.

The selection process during elections is part of what disturbs me, but it's by no means limited to that. The process of governance itself it utterly undermined by having a conflict of interest between the party system and the strict duties of the office occupied. And on a completely separate note, when corruption does seep into the system, if a large party has over-arching influence amongst many candidates and interests, the corruption will automatically be systemic. Contrast with a system of independent candidates, where even if one of them 'is turned' it would not automatically infect any other cells in the network of government workers. The way it is now corruptions are pervasive and not incidental. They are baked right into the system at this point.

[Pete at Home]

Both the Ragusan and the US systems were modeled after the Roman Republic. The difference was that our founders were suffering under a delusion of Roman greatness while the Ragusan founders had just escaped a burning Roman city, so WERE more inclined to fix the screwed up aspects of the Roman system.

bloody autodestruct

[TheDeamon]

bloody autodestruct

I hadn't thought we were going to get into universal suffrage.

[Pete at Home]

The Roman system created a trilemma of global aggression, civil war, or implosion.  It couldn't not have an enemy, or the parties started fighting each other. Blood in the streets.

[cherrypoptart]

Just out of curiosity, did the Russians or whoever leaked this information have it reveal any actions that were illegal? Were any crimes committed by the DNC exposed?

Or was it all just very embarrassing?

[cherrypoptart]

On all of these different systems for elections, are we bringing them up because our own system really is fundamentally flawed?

Or are we talking about changing a perfectly good system just because it didn't work out the way we wanted this one time?

I'm just asking because I don't remember any discussions like this after the last two times Obama got elected.

[TheDeamon]

I've been a fan of Instant Runoff for some time now. Just didn't really have a reason/means to casually bring it up before now.

[Pete at Home]

On all of these different systems for elections, are we bringing them up because our own system really is fundamentally flawed?

Or are we talking about changing a perfectly good system just because it didn't work out the way we wanted this one time?

I'm just asking because I don't remember any discussions like this after the last two times Obama got elected.

I'm bringing Ragusan up since it's the first election since I looked up the history of that city that GoT uses for King's Landing.

I think it would apply better to bill Clinton's election.

First candidate to scream "but Democracy" when he lost the election, was the founder of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson.

[Kasandra]

On all of these different systems for elections, are we bringing them up because our own system really is fundamentally flawed?

Or are we talking about changing a perfectly good system just because it didn't work out the way we wanted this one time?

I'm just asking because I don't remember any discussions like this after the last two times Obama got elected.

Selective memory. We talk about the EC after every election.  I am still in favor of retaining the EC, but would like to see it returned to its original purpose, which is to take voters will into consideration but exercise a higher level of thoughtful determination as to who is the best choice.  In this election the voters made a choice overall for Clinton, but the EC made a horrible choice by validating Trump's margin in the EC.  This is a telling example that the EC needs to be reformed so that this kind of debacle never happens again.

[TheDeamon]

See, I consider Hillary's loss to be a feature, not a bug in regards to the EC.

That it was Trump she ran opposite to, or that she ran at all, was the bug. In that respect, the problem isn't with the Electoral College. The problem is with the presidential candidate selection process, neither one should have made the general election.

[TheDeamon]

And yes, that means I'm rejecting the very basis of your complaint.

As a programmer should appreciate: GIGO.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

[Kasandra]

See, I consider Hillary's loss to be a feature, not a bug in regards to the EC.

That it was Trump she ran opposite to, or that she ran at all, was the bug. In that respect, the problem isn't with the Electoral College. The problem is with the presidential candidate selection process, neither one should have made the general election.

That's not really a response but a little speechifying.  You're joining the embryonic Republican cohort that will blame Democrats for every foul, stupid and dangerous thing that Trump and the Republican Congress do because they failed -- FAILED -- to defeat the bozo the GOP put forward.  Since you make that point yourself, I will ignore any complaint you make about them.  I'm amazed that Trump won, even with all the obstacles and hindrances that Clinton had to dodge and/or carry, but he did and he's yours, so own it.

[TheDeamon]

I don't view Trump being President as a "win" I just consider it less of a loss than what Hillary would have been.

As I said to more than a few leading up to election day: "Whomever wins the election, we all lose."

So once again, the failure this year was the Dems and Republicans alike fielding pies poor general election candidates.

The EC is not at fault.

[Gaoics79]

In this election the voters made a choice overall for Clinton, but the EC made a horrible choice by validating Trump's margin in the EC.  This is a telling example that the EC needs to be reformed so that this kind of debacle never happens again.

Fancy a civil war do you? You do know the military is overwhelmingly Republican.

[Kasandra]

In this election the voters made a choice overall for Clinton, but the EC made a horrible choice by validating Trump's margin in the EC.  This is a telling example that the EC needs to be reformed so that this kind of debacle never happens again.

Fancy a civil war do you? You do know the military is overwhelmingly Republican.

You have a good imagination.  The EC is *suppposed* to reject unqualified candidates.  Do you think they did their job this time?

[Pete at Home]

The EC is designed to avoid civil war.  Separation of powered is designed to mitigate damage by unqualified presidents.

[Kasandra]

Hamilton (Federalist Papers 68):

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

[cherrypoptart]

What should have made Trump unqualified to hold office in the opinion of the electors enough that they should have overruled the results of the general election the way Martin Sheen and many other high profile celebrities took out millions of dollars in ads encouraging them to do?

I'll just put my cards on the table and reveal that the point I'd be working my way toward eventually is what is it that Trump has done or said which disqualifies him even though other Presidents have said and done far worse? Is there something about Trump that makes him worse than all the others who have actually held the office?

[TheDeamon]

He may prove to be one of the worst modern presidents, but I strongly doubt he'll clear the bar as to being the worst all-time president. There are some real clunkers in the 19th and even early 20th century.

Which isn't to mention the freak out on this seems to be on par with Reagan or Bush 43. While a 43 encore would be concerning, depending on which aspects of Reagan he may play upon, it might be a net positive. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he starts gets into the specifics of his ideas.

[Kasandra]

Giving Trump "the benefit of the doubt" is a delaying tactic until he convinces every possible supporter that he is so unqualified, lacking in knowledge and reckless that he is the worst President even they could have wished for.  Unfortunately, those people will have to be neck deep in *censored* before they'll admit that.  Can he do worse than starting two unnecessary and unwinnable wars that dragged on longer than any other wars in our nation's history and have cost over $1 trillion (so far)?  Yes, I think so and we may find out pretty quickly.

[Gaoics79]

You have a good imagination.  The EC is *suppposed* to reject unqualified candidates.  Do you think they did their job this time?

I'm not being facetious. Regardless of what you think the role of the EC is supposed to be, I believe that if they broke from the voting results and elected Clinton, your government would basically collapse. This isn't specific to Trump or Clinton mind you. I'm saying that in general, regardless of what the EC's original function might have been envisioned to be, its function now is to elect the person the individual states voted for, period.

Your society is so radically polarized at this point that the cloak of legitimacy *any* government holds, Republican or Democrat, is already hanging by a thread. We saw the start of this sort of thing after Bush in 2000, then with Obama and now it will get worse with Trump. Each successive president is going to be less "legitimate" than the last, as people become more rabidly partisan.

It's to Clinton's credit that even she didn't call for "faithless" electors to change the results. She's not an idiot. Unlike Trump (I fear), she knows not to pour kerosene and light a match in her own house.

[Pete at Home]

Giving Trump "the benefit of the doubt" is a delaying tactic until he convinces every possible supporter that he is so unqualified, lacking in knowledge and reckless that he is the worst President even they could have wished for.  Unfortunately, those people will have to be neck deep in *censored* before they'll admit that.  Can he do worse than starting two unnecessary and unwinnable wars that dragged on longer than any other wars in our nation's history and have cost over $1 trillion (so far)?  Yes, I think so and we may find out pretty quickly.

As opposed to what course of action? I'm not sure how this new flavor of birtherism mitigates that we have President Trump and VP Pence sitting in the wings

[Gaoics79]

Unfortunately, those people will have to be neck deep in *censored* before they'll admit that.

They will never admit it, period. He could literally blow up the country and they wouldn't admit it.

But before you get too smug, let me say too that Trump could resurrect the middle class and usher in a new era of American peace and prosperity, and there is equally zero chance of people like you admitting that he's anything but a disaster.

[Pete at Home]

Unfortunately, those people will have to be neck deep in *censored* before they'll admit that.

They will never admit it, period. He could literally blow up the country and they wouldn't admit it.

But before you get too smug, let me say too that Trump could resurrect the middle class and usher in a new era of American peace and prosperity, and there is equally zero chance of people like you admitting that he's anything but a disaster.

It took a few generations of sustained lefty hate (some of those jerkoffs are still babbling about "flyover states", clueless the it's that very rhetoric that elected Trump) to accomplish, but we finally have an electorate of "conservatives" who hate the left more than they love the country, and will mimic lefty tactics to "win.". I hoped I would not live to see it.

[Kasandra]

...but we finally have an electorate of "conservatives" who hate the left more than they love the country...

For me, this is the nut of it.  Liberals aren't any more perfect than non-liberals, no matter how much we admire ourselves in the mirror, but hate has never been an element of liberalism.  One thing history teaches is that the urge to hate is an almost indelible human stain.

But before you get too smug, let me say too that Trump could resurrect the middle class and usher in a new era of American peace and prosperity, and there is equally zero chance of people like you admitting that he's anything but a disaster.

I'll measure his success by that and a number of other metrics, like not blowing up the world or losing half of Europe to Russia.  Until he achieves any of them, I'll be more than skeptical.

[Pete at Home]

...but we finally have an electorate of "conservatives" who hate the left more than they love the country...

For me, this is the nut of it.  Liberals aren't any more perfect than non-liberals, no matter how much we admire ourselves in the mirror, but hate has never been an element of liberalism.

Of liberalism, agreed, but there is much illiberalism in contemporary leftism. When word like bigotry, hate crime and tolerance are redefined Pyr style to wink at some hatreds and not others, leftism became a platform for institutional hatred. People became immune, resistant. And the stage was set for Breast, Trump, Le Pen, and Darwin knows what next.

[TheDeamon]

Depending on the parts of Europe "lost to Russia" I'm not inclined to view it as much of a loss. Russia is in decline, nearly all of Europe is in decline. We won "a cold war" against an ascendant Russia/USSR which controlled half of Europe.

Do I want to see things regress to that point?

No. But the reality is, we're already on that trajectory under Obama, and I doubt Clinton would have diffused things on that front. Growing Russia's borders/zone of control is the only way Russia can delay their decline. And if anything, Clinton's probably more likely to start shooting at the Russians.

I'm more concerned about China and India.