Election 2020 Democrat Nightmare Scenario Trump Loses by 5+ Million and still wins

[The Original Sixth]

Horrors upon horrors...

How Trump could lose by 5 million votes and still win in 2020

Analysis: The nation's two most populous states, California and Texas, are at the heart of Democrats' geography problem.

www.nbcnews.com

The Democrats seem to realize how the Electoral Map works and now it seems that three years into it, the worst case scenario for America--is Trump gets four more years. It seems some on the left are unable to grasp the concept that smaller states don't want to be dominated by larger states whose geographical needs may not match up to their own.

 

[Big Steve]

Because they don't think of it in terms of states but people. To them the majority of Americans should decide the Presidency period, so whenever the system sees a President elected against the popular vote because of how the Electoral College works, it's a sign of how our system is flawed, out-of-date, etc. The argument I've seen is "why should the votes of rural people be worth more than those from the cities?" (which usually means "why should their votes have more weight than mine?").

If you think about it, it's a conflict that's been around since the Constitution was written. But it's taken on a new, sharper edge given the cultural divide between many American urban areas and the rural areas. The latter are overwhelmingly Christian and religious, they disapprove of progressive ideas like gay marriage and transgender rights, they oppose a lot of government regulation, are pro-military, etc. (And in some cases can be parochial and disdainful of those outside their communities). Urbanites tend to favor government action in the economy with regulation, support GLBT rights, are less religious and/or have more non-Christians in proportion to the population, and are more likely to have anti-military sentiments (I say that because pro-military behavior does seem to be wider than most other things, with only the most radical being fully anti-military). (And in some cases... they can also be parochial and disdainful of those outside their communities, because such behavior isn't limited to "backwoods hicks").

This is a cultural divide that exacerbates the traditional division of rural vs. urban. And honestly I don't think it'll ever be healed, only reduced from the simmering boil that various factors have brought it to. Over a few generations some social things may change - gay marriage can become more universally accepted, for instance - but the classic division will probably remain.

I still agree this is a nightmare scenario because you're going to push more and more people, especially Democrats, into opposition to the Electoral College. IIRC there's already several states with laws on the books that state that if a majority of states undo the "winner take all" aspect, they'll switch to proportional division, effectively nullifying the Electoral College's intent by making it a full expression of democratic choice. And there are a lot of people who will consider this to be condemning them to be a perpetual minority in all elections.

Edit: You may now make fun of me as stating the obvious.

 

[Tyzuris]

I do find the whole winner takes all electoral votes of a state somewhat spurious. Like let's say a state votes 40% for one party and 60% for the other. It basically leaves a lot of people's voices silenced and in states with strong leaning to one party it can disinsentivize people because of the fatalist train of thought that my vote means nothing. I mean like for a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas voting in Presidential election probably feels futile because their vote won't chance a thing because the electoral votes will most assuredly go to the other party.

 

[Big Steve]

It made sense in the 19th Century, since each state had a stronger identity back then, and the system operated under the logic that each state was acting as its own sovereign entity in deciding who it felt should be President. The entire Southern construct of "state sovereignty" was tied up in this view, that the states were the primary sovereigns of the land, the federal government a contracted entity, which justified secession in their eyes (while avoiding the pesky issues raised if one relied on the "consent of the governed" argument since it could be applied in ways they didn't like, such as Eastern Tennessee or West Virginia counter-seceding, or slaves withdrawing consent from their owners).

Whether it makes as much sense today is more open to debate. The national identity of Americans across states is more common (and the fact so many Americans will move between states in their lifetimes). OTOH, regional distinctions do still exist and there is an advantage to maintaining a more federal structure.

Now, as a Whig, I naturally wish to help solve this problem by weakening the Presidency in favor of Congress. A lot of our current issues is because the Presidency has become so powerful it dominates the political efforts of all sides.

 

[7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise]

TL;DR: The mob wants to use raw numbers to run everyone's lives, people who aren't the mob don't like that, the mob screeches in fury at being thwarted for over two centuries by the Framers.

 

[S'task]

that the states were the primary sovereigns of the land, the federal government a contracted entity,

Err, that's not just a 19th century view, that's quite literally how our Constitution is constructed even to this day. When push comes to shove, only the States have an absolute "I win" button when it comes to our system as outlined in the Constitution: a Constitutional Convention.

No, seriously, the States are quite literally the only group that can simply nearly unilaterally alter the Constitutional order of the country, which would include entirely throwing out the Constitution and ending the United States. A note there, if the US just ends... the States would persist, because, well... under all the theory and legal construction of our Constitution they ARE the Sovereigns of the land, not the Federal Government.

How can you tell this? Again, look at how you have to go about altering the Constitution. In order for an Amendment to be passed normally you have to have both Congress and the States agree to the alteration, if the alteration originates with Congress. If the alteration originates with the States via a Constitutional Convention, so long as a supermajority of the States agree with the change: it happens. Congress nor any other part of the Federal government gets a say in the matter.

Now, culturally many people have forgotten this (and that's not a good thing, it's one of the major reasons WHY we have such an Imperial Presidency), but when you look at the legal structure of the United States... the States are indeed Sovereign even over the Federal Government.

 

[Big Steve]

You're right in that it was how the nation was constructed, and legally, the States are still an entity that can collectively abolish the Constitution or alter it as they choose. But culturally a large number of Americans don't see it that way anymore. For good or for ill, they see us as one nation divided into local divisions, some with their unique laws or quirks, but still just divisions of one whole nation, indivisible. And we have to account for that perception.

Although I'm not sure that alone is why we have the Imperial Presidency. The World Wars and Cold War encouraged the growth of Presidential power, particularly the latter with the perceived need for immediate executive action in the event of a Soviet attack or other crisis. After all, there was still a concept of a common American identity present in the 19th Century as well, it was just more nebulous, and had a countervailing factor in the identities of the states. The change in America's geopolitical position is a necessary ingredient for what's come about.

When it comes to recognizing the States' sovereignty within the system, I also think there's a problem in that the perception of the states having rights and identities outside of the American national identity is tainted by the association with the Confederate cause in the Civil War and the Southern states' later attempts to protect their racist law codes from outside intervention. There is now an immediate suspicion about "state's rights" as a fancy way of saying "we want to be able to be bigots and keep those liberals from Washington from interfering". It would be nice to change this. Hell, it would be interesting if a Trump victory and GOP success prompts "liberal" states to start asserting their state authority more often. It might start undermining this perception. Not sure the cost of increased sectionalism based on the "red state/blue state" divide is worth it...

 

[Unhappy Anchovy]

Because they don't think of it in terms of states but people. To them the majority of Americans should decide the Presidency period, so whenever the system sees a President elected against the popular vote because of how the Electoral College works, it's a sign of how our system is flawed, out-of-date, etc. The argument I've seen is "why should the votes of rural people be worth more than those from the cities?" (which usually means "why should their votes have more weight than mine?").

For what it's worth, I'd argue that is a perfectly reasonable argument to make and I think I agree with it.

It's no doubt true that the United States needs to have some counter-majoritarian institutions in order to stop the most populous areas of the country overriding the interests of other regions. Thus the senate, non-democratic institutions like the judiciary, and indeed the entire principle of federalism and the independent state legislatures and governorships. There is no risk of the US losing its counter-majoritarian institutions. It is, however, still valid to ask whether the presidency should be one of those institutions, or whether the electoral college is the best way to ensure the president takes seriously the concerns of all states.

I do find the whole winner takes all electoral votes of a state somewhat spurious. Like let's say a state votes 40% for one party and 60% for the other. It basically leaves a lot of people's voices silenced and in states with strong leaning to one party it can disinsentivize people because of the fatalist train of thought that my vote means nothing. I mean like for a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas voting in Presidential election probably feels futile because their vote won't chance a thing because the electoral votes will most assuredly go to the other party.

I agree with you that ideally state electoral votes would be allocated proportionally to the way the population of that stated voted, but at the same time I don't think it can plausibly happen. It's a coordination problem, and humans are really bad at coordination problems.

That is, suppose our state goes 60-40 for one party: if we shift from WTA to proportional, we make it less likely that the more popular candidate in our state wins the federal election. This is actively bad for the majority of voters in the state. Suppose California shifts to proportional, but Texas doesn't - that's a huge national swing to the Republicans. Or suppose Texas goes proportional but California stays WTA - huge swing to the Democrats. If a state switches to proportional, it screws over the majority-preferred candidate. No one is going to do that. California has 55 electoral college votes, and the California popular vote is reliably 60+% Democratic. Imagine you ask the people of California to vote on whether they want to take 20 of their 55 votes and give them to the Republican candidate instead. Of course they won't do it: that Democratic-voting 60% is all going to vote against it. The same thing in Texas: ask the people of Texas if they want to give 15 of their 36 votes to the Democrat, and the Republican majority in Texas will throw it out.

So to effect a switch to proportional, you'd need every state to do it at once. How are you going to coordinate something like that? The only institution with the power to impose something like that is, well, the federal government - and the whole point of federalism is that the federal government isn't allowed to. The states get to decide this for themselves.

I'd argue it's a terrible and unsatisfactory situation, but the problem is that the United States has no plausible pathway to reform on this issue. I understand the importance of checks and balances, but sometimes I really think the US has gone too far with them. You have so many checks and balances that needed reforms can't happen, which results in large portions of the country feeling disenchanted, irrelevant, and unheard. That leads to polarisation, fractiousness, and potentially much worse.

 

[Revan]

The Democrats have no unifying message for all of America. Their message is socialism, and for their party that seems to not be a real winner. Then there is intersectionality and a host of others that get even more unpopular. President Trump is getting more popular with the average voter by the day simply because he's less insane than the Democrats are. He's also delivering on his campaign promises and is actively pushing back against the madness.

 

[S'task]

Hell, it would be interesting if a Trump victory and GOP success prompts "liberal" states to start asserting their state authority more often.

Err... it already has? The entire concept of "Sanctuary States" in response to heightened illegal immigration enforcement and such is firmly grounded in the idea of State Sovereignty (arguably it's actually directly tied to the questionable relative of "States Rights", "Nullification"). Heck, it was even happening under the Obama administration with Colorado and other state with Marijuana laws. The entire "tainted by association with the Confederacy and Jim Crow" only is true if the political issues are on the Conservative side of the divide, mostly pushed by Democrats and unquestioned by the media, meanwhile, when the Democrats do it nobody makes the association (even though... uhh... the Jim Crow laws were all passed and supported by Democrats as was the Civil War not the Republicans).

And while I do agree, people do not see the US culturally as multiple sovereign states, that's a failure of our education system to properly teach civics. This is an endemic problem in the US, where we overly focus on the Federal as the solution to all the problems rather than one influencing the States.

 

[Unhappy Anchovy]

And while I do agree, people do not see the US culturally as multiple sovereign states, that's a failure of our education system to properly teach civics. This is an endemic problem in the US, where we overly focus on the Federal as the solution to all the problems rather than one influencing the States.

Is that holding up an ideal against, well, the actual on-the-ground reality? If the great majority of people see the United States as a single country and the states as just administrative subdivisions, rather than sovereign states in their own right, does it make sense to say that they're all wrong? Surely their beliefs are what shape the reality, to a significant extent?

 

[Deleted member 1]

To be quite honest, nobody talks about it except me, perhaps because they are afraid, but we are in the middle of a War of Laws thanks to liberal states and municipalities asserting themselves against the federal government. That is far more dangerous than anything else going on right now.

 

[Big Steve]

Err... it already has? The entire concept of "Sanctuary States" in response to heightened illegal immigration enforcement and such is firmly grounded in the idea of State Sovereignty (arguably it's actually directly tied to the questionable relative of "States Rights", "Nullification"). Heck, it was even happening under the Obama administration with Colorado and other state with Marijuana laws. The entire "tainted by association with the Confederacy and Jim Crow" only is true if the political issues are on the Conservative side of the divide, mostly pushed by Democrats and unquestioned by the media, meanwhile, when the Democrats do it nobody makes the association (even though... uhh... the Jim Crow laws were all passed and supported by Democrats as was the Civil War not the Republicans).

And while I do agree, people do not see the US culturally as multiple sovereign states, that's a failure of our education system to properly teach civics. This is an endemic problem in the US, where we overly focus on the Federal as the solution to all the problems rather than one influencing the States.

I thought the sanctuary thing was only happening at city level, my apologies. Anyway, you're right that they're using those rights, but generally when you bring up the issue I've found people usually associate it with the "Southern" issues. Much as people forget that in the antebellum period it was the South usually employing federal authority, through their ability to strongly influence the majority party, while the North passed things like Personal Liberty Laws that were meant to restrict and suppress slave-hunters and such.

Actually I think that's the issue here. You're arguing what's actually true, I'm concerned with what people "know" to be true, and how that makes them view various things. (I could also easily point out it's what they "feel" to be true more often than actual knowing).

Heh, I'm surprised some people haven't tried to connect the Sanctuary laws with the Personal Liberty laws as signs of states resisting "evil" or "wrong" federal laws. (I'm using quotes out of a metaphorical sense, since I regard slavery as inherently evil and any law aiding it is also thus evil.)

The Democrats have no unifying message for all of America. Their message is socialism, and for their party that seems to not be a real winner. Then there is intersectionality and a host of others that get even more unpopular. President Trump is getting more popular with the average voter by the day simply because he's less insane than the Democrats are. He's also delivering on his campaign promises and is actively pushing back against the madness.

What gets me is that you don't need socialism to restrain the worst excesses of capitalism any more than you need to rip the engine out of a car to keep it from going over a cliff. As I've said elsewhere, I consider myself a modern day Whig. I'm all for government-financed infrastructure improvement, common-sense regulation, and government involvement in the economy on matters of importance to the nation. Obviously it won't be perfect, but nothing ever is. It would still work. Going all-out socialist only makes things worse.

Granted, another problem is that there are people who'd say I was being socialist for saying this, which helps actual socialists since it means people start dismissing the charge as exaggeration (much like how the Outrage Mob has steadily eroded the term "fascist" and "Nazi", two very terrible things indeed).

Although don't underestimate the message. I think there's a real crisis with the younger generation, people my age and younger. They don't believe in capitalism because it looks like a rigged game to them, something older people promote so they can continue to enjoy life while the younger generation's struggling to get into the work force and actually be able to afford homes, etc.. This makes them susceptible to arguments about implementing democratic socialist programs, usually twinned with compliments about Europe's various systems. The battle of hearts and minds is being lost on this matter.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I would add that broadly, in response to Steve's comments, I think that the political situation in the United States today comes from the opposite direction--an intentional effort of the elites to break down State identity. This effort manifested in the true worst supreme court decision ever rendered, Reynolds v. Sims. Essentially it banned the ability of states to do anything except "harmonise" their state representatives and senators around districts of equal population, rendering the existence of state Senates moot and placing states completely at the whim of their large cities. It guaranteed that states with large cities in them would inexorably become liberal because their rural areas could no longer exert a restraining influence on policy.

A few years ago there was an attempt by Texas voters to fight back against them by taking the doctrine to its logical conclusion -- in which apportionment should be based on registered voters, not on total population, for state legislatures. Leftists were of course horrified and angry that non-registered voters and non-citizens should no longer count for apportionment (even though by the logic of Sims this actually makes the votes of rural denizens count less because as a proportion to the number of voting citizens your vote actually counts more in an urban area currently!). The Supreme Court unfortunately decided that the logic of Sims should only benefit urban dwellers; it ruled to say that states could not be forced to draw districts to only include registered voters in Evenwel v. Abbott.

I consider this to be the most important political issue of the times. What is unresolved is whether or not states can voluntarily adopt this form of districting. However, that doesn't really help urban-state rural areas since they clearly will not do so. A voting citizen should (obviously) matter more than a noncitizen in a Republic, that's one of the fundamental propositions of the very concept of a Republic. As it is right now, what has happened is that having a large group of felons and noncitizens around you increases your political power.

Let me illustrate: Say there are 1,950,000 people in your urban area and you are a liberal elitist. Your urban area divides into about three congressional districts. However, 15% of the population are aliens, and 10% are felons, and about 20% haven't registered to vote, for whatever reason. This is relatively typical of a city. What that actually means when you ignore liberal propaganda is that your vote is now 80% more effective in determining the electoral fate of the district than it would be if your district was entirely a population of registered voting citizens. More realistically about 90% of the 650,000 people in the rural district around you will be registered voting citizens (even if the voting rate is much lower, particularly among youths). That means your vote is 62% more effective than that of the people in the rural district around you. This then applies for the state legislature as well--where it is essentially more dramatic. Essentially, the current system of districting in the United States guarantees that the votes of liberal city elites matter more than the votes of rural dwellers. For the US legislature it is directly based off Southern Slavery, too. Explicitly. For States? That's a 1960s innovation.

So the next time some leftist complains about the Electoral College and about each State having exactly two Senators, remind them that they have in fact structurally rigged our laws to turn poor black criminals and both legal and illegal aliens into a Roman-style clientage network which increases their political power in factual terms. This is not a political charge, this is objective fact! At the State Level they intentionally did this in the 1960s, and at the federal level they're running off the legacy of slavery.

In that context, Gerrymandering is just a Republican attempt to compensate for the fact that leftists have, by setting up a system in which states are forced to assign districts based on total population without regard to citizenship, actually established a Roman clientage system in which as a point of fact, liberal elites derive more actual, legal political power and their votes count more than rural dwellers' votes do because they have established a chattel class in the cities of felons and aliens. The leftist response when this is brought up is to claim that representatives should represent "everyone" in their districts. But this was only ever true at the federal level because of slavery, and they implemented it in the 1960s to perpetuate government practices established during the antebellum for their own political advantage--what kind of fool does one have to be to seriously believe that anyone except voting citizen donors actually counts for the political leverage of a congressperson?

 

[Big Steve]

What about the legislature is based off slavery? Are you referring to the 3/5ths clause?

 

[7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise]

What about the legislature is based off slavery? Are you referring to the 3/5ths clause?

Seems like it:

Let me illustrate: Say there are 1,950,000 people in your urban area and you are a liberal elitist. Your urban area divides into about three congressional districts. However, 15% of the population are aliens, and 10% are felons, and about 20% haven't registered to vote, for whatever reason. This is relatively typical of a city. What that actually means when you ignore liberal propaganda is that your vote is now 80% more effective in determining the electoral fate of the district than it would be if your district was entirely a population of registered voting citizens. More realistically about 90% of the 650,000 people in the rural district around you will be registered voting citizens (even if the voting rate is much lower, particularly among youths). That means your vote is 62% more effective than that of the people in the rural district around you. This then applies for the state legislature as well--where it is essentially more dramatic. Essentially, the current system of districting in the United States guarantees that the votes of liberal city elites matter more than the votes of rural dwellers. For the US legislature it is directly based off Southern Slavery, too. Explicitly. For States? That's a 1960s innovation.

 

[Laskar]

For what it's worth, I'd argue that is a perfectly reasonable argument to make and I think I agree with it.

It's no doubt true that the United States needs to have some counter-majoritarian institutions in order to stop the most populous areas of the country overriding the interests of other regions. Thus the senate, non-democratic institutions like the judiciary, and indeed the entire principle of federalism and the independent state legislatures and governorships. There is no risk of the US losing its counter-majoritarian institutions. It is, however, still valid to ask whether the presidency should be one of those institutions, or whether the electoral college is the best way to ensure the president takes seriously the concerns of all states.

I think the presidency has to be counter-majoritarian, simply because I think the natural tendency is for power to concentrate into the hands of one man.

We developed an imperial presidency because in a time of crisis, it is easier for one man to take action than it is for a committee. But there is always a crisis that needs a strong central figure to combat. First it was the Great War, then the Great Depression, then it was World War Two and the Cold War and then Islamic Terror. In the future, the crisis will be the Cartels or the Debt crisis. Power will continue to concentrate until all American politics are devoted to four-year cycles of struggle to take command of the Presidency, followed by campaigns to undermine the guy in the office until you can get your man in there.

Sounds like the America of today? What comes after is worse, I assure you.

I think that keeping the office of the presidency counter-majoritarian incentivizes people to devolve power back to the Congress, or at least puts the brakes on turning the presidency into an elected dictatorship.

 

[CurtisLemay]

I would state that if any changes are made, they are made with an idea towards a) Not dismantling the republican (small r) ideals which the nation was founded on (to me, a pure democracy can have its own perils). And, b) that we consider the rights of smaller states. To me, a pure popular vote decision is tantamount to telling presidential canidates to ignore everything but urban centers. Which, I dare say, is exactly what certain parties want.

 

[clancyphile]

I would add that broadly, in response to Steve's comments, I think that the political situation in the United States today comes from the opposite direction--an intentional effort of the elites to break down State identity. This effort manifested in the true worst supreme court decision ever rendered, Reynolds v. Sims. Essentially it banned the ability of states to do anything except "harmonise" their state representatives and senators around districts of equal population, rendering the existence of state Senates moot and placing states completely at the whim of their large cities. It guaranteed that states with large cities in them would inexorably become liberal because their rural areas could no longer exert a restraining influence on policy.

A few years ago there was an attempt by Texas voters to fight back against them by taking the doctrine to its logical conclusion -- in which apportionment should be based on registered voters, not on total population, for state legislatures. Leftists were of course horrified and angry that non-registered voters and non-citizens should no longer count for apportionment (even though by the logic of Sims this actually makes the votes of rural denizens count less because as a proportion to the number of voting citizens your vote actually counts more in an urban area currently!). The Supreme Court unfortunately decided that the logic of Sims should only benefit urban dwellers; it ruled to say that states could not be forced to draw districts to only include registered voters in Evenwel v. Abbott.

I consider this to be the most important political issue of the times. What is unresolved is whether or not states can voluntarily adopt this form of districting. However, that doesn't really help urban-state rural areas since they clearly will not do so. A voting citizen should (obviously) matter more than a noncitizen in a Republic, that's one of the fundamental propositions of the very concept of a Republic. As it is right now, what has happened is that having a large group of felons and noncitizens around you increases your political power.

Let me illustrate: Say there are 1,950,000 people in your urban area and you are a liberal elitist. Your urban area divides into about three congressional districts. However, 15% of the population are aliens, and 10% are felons, and about 20% haven't registered to vote, for whatever reason. This is relatively typical of a city. What that actually means when you ignore liberal propaganda is that your vote is now 80% more effective in determining the electoral fate of the district than it would be if your district was entirely a population of registered voting citizens. More realistically about 90% of the 650,000 people in the rural district around you will be registered voting citizens (even if the voting rate is much lower, particularly among youths). That means your vote is 62% more effective than that of the people in the rural district around you. This then applies for the state legislature as well--where it is essentially more dramatic. Essentially, the current system of districting in the United States guarantees that the votes of liberal city elites matter more than the votes of rural dwellers. For the US legislature it is directly based off Southern Slavery, too. Explicitly. For States? That's a 1960s innovation.

So the next time some leftist complains about the Electoral College and about each State having exactly two Senators, remind them that they have in fact structurally rigged our laws to turn poor black criminals and both legal and illegal aliens into a Roman-style clientage network which increases their political power in factual terms. This is not a political charge, this is objective fact! At the State Level they intentionally did this in the 1960s, and at the federal level they're running off the legacy of slavery.

In that context, Gerrymandering is just a Republican attempt to compensate for the fact that leftists have, by setting up a system in which states are forced to assign districts based on total population without regard to citizenship, actually established a Roman clientage system in which as a point of fact, liberal elites derive more actual, legal political power and their votes count more than rural dwellers' votes do because they have established a chattel class in the cities of felons and aliens. The leftist response when this is brought up is to claim that representatives should represent "everyone" in their districts. But this was only ever true at the federal level because of slavery, and they implemented it in the 1960s to perpetuate government practices established during the antebellum for their own political advantage--what kind of fool does one have to be to seriously believe that anyone except voting citizen donors actually counts for the political leverage of a congressperson?

I agree that we need to overturn Reynolds v. Sims. State senates need to mimic the approach of the United States Senate. To wit, equal representation among counties and cities. States need to also come up with an electoral college system for statewide races.

Here's why: Right now, in a number of states across the country (Washington, Illinois, Nevada, New York), large metropolitan areas (Seattle, Chicago, Las Vegas, NYC) so dominate the rest of the state that the outlying areas are - for all intents and purposes - voiceless. Andrew Cuomo won re-election and lost a supermajority of the counties in New York, largely because he cleaned up in New York City.

This is a recipe for an eventual rural insurgency, and all that would come with it.

 

[Deleted member 1]

What about the legislature is based off slavery? Are you referring to the 3/5ths clause?

I am referring to the fact that US House Districts are apportioned based on total population, not registered voting population. This is a result of language enabling the 3/5ths clause to be meaningful that remained in force when the 3/5ths clause was itself struck down.