Hillary graciously absolving herself of any responsibility

[Gilrandir]

That's completely irrelevant, the people who decided the election didn't chose her.

People who decided the election (we both mean electoral college, right?) didn't CHOOSE ANYONE. According to the rules of the game they performed their duty - disregarded the will of the people who voted for Clinton in their states. And those people were more numerous in the whole country.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

People who decided the election (we both mean electoral college, right?) didn't CHOOSE ANYONE. According to the rules of the game they performed their duty - disregarded the will of the people who voted for Clinton in their states. And those people were more numerous in the whole country.

We have never had a direct democracy. For the most part, our founders did not want such as it engenders demagoguery and even more pandering to the public than already occurs. With two exceptions, the EC is first past the post by state.

It really was supposed to be a collection of states working together on key issues and not one collective.

[Gilrandir]

We have never had a direct democracy. For the most part, our founders did not want such as it engenders demagoguery and even more pandering to the public than already occurs. With two exceptions, the EC is first past the post by state.

It really was supposed to be a collection of states working together on key issues and not one collective.

Don't you think that in view of the nation having evolved into what it is now the laws should try to keep pace with the reality?

[Husar]

People who decided the election (we both mean electoral college, right?) didn't CHOOSE ANYONE. According to the rules of the game they performed their duty - disregarded the will of the people who voted for Clinton in their states. And those people were more numerous in the whole country.

No, I meant the voters in those states like Michigan, who gave Trump the electoral college votes that made him win.

We have never had a direct democracy. For the most part, our founders did not want such as it engenders demagoguery and even more pandering to the public than already occurs. With two exceptions, the EC is first past the post by state.

It really was supposed to be a collection of states working together on key issues and not one collective.

Yeah, it's more like a direct oligarchy either way, amirite? FPTP is a terrible system anyway, a lot of votes are just retroactively nullified when they might deserve at least a minority representation. And that's just the beginning of the complicated topic of how every citizen of the US somehow has a different weight applied to their political vote despite all the blabla of "we're all equals".
Perhaps rich Germans are more influential in everyday political life, but I do know that when it comes to elections, my vote is worth just as much as theirs or that of a Bavarian. And I will get some political representation even if the party of my choice doesn't win, perhaps even government representation instead of just opposition.

I don't hate your founding fathers, but the system they designed doesn't seem to work as intended or just doesn't work well anymore despite perhaps the best intentions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

However, a full and unrestrained democracy would place all of the political power in about 20 metro areas....

Given the voting pattern of those 20 metro areas, we would be a full socialist democracy in 15 years. That may well appeal to you and Gil, but not to me.

[Montmorency]

Given the voting pattern of those 20 metro areas, we would be a full socialist democracy in 15 years. That may well appeal to you and Gil, but not to me.

If the public outcry for "socialism" is so strong as to, unrestrained, transform America utterly in less than a generation, and is only restrained by anti-democratic political maneuvering, then wouldn't recalcitrance be unjust?

I don't think this is the narrative to rely on.

[Sarmatian]

However, a full and unrestrained democracy would place all of the political power in about 20 metro areas....

Given the voting pattern of those 20 metro areas, we would be a full socialist democracy in 15 years. That may well appeal to you and Gil, but not to me.

I'm not sure that this is what would happen, but surely you must agree that a system that allows Republicans to completely ignore a state like California is not a good system.

[Sir Moody]

I don't hate your founding fathers, but the system they designed doesn't seem to work as intended or just doesn't work well anymore despite perhaps the best intentions.

Arguably the system they designed is still doing what it was meant to do - FPTP was designed to more or less maintain a stable line of succession since it sidelines smaller groups in favour of the status quo (its either A or B and C, D and E need not apply).

[Husar]

However, a full and unrestrained democracy would place all of the political power in about 20 metro areas....

Given the voting pattern of those 20 metro areas, we would be a full socialist democracy in 15 years. That may well appeal to you and Gil, but not to me.

You're basically saying that you are okay with turning millions of citizens into second class citizens whose opinions count for less just so you can have your way. That's a very dictatorial line of thought and not democratic at all. This turns your "democracy" into some kind of oligarchic farce.

Arguably the system they designed is still doing what it was meant to do - FPTP was designed to more or less maintain a stable line of succession since it sidelines smaller groups in favour of the status quo (its either A or B and C, D and E need not apply).

So I should have said it never worked well? I was trying to be nice.

[Gilrandir]

However, a full and unrestrained democracy would place all of the political power in about 20 metro areas....

Given the voting pattern of those 20 metro areas, we would be a full socialist democracy in 15 years. That may well appeal to you and Gil, but not to me.

Somehow you don't mind TWO parties ruling the nation intermittently for hundreds of years, but are afraid of TWENTY areas which might take a lead if any changes are introduced into the voting system.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Somehow you don't mind TWO parties ruling the nation intermittently for hundreds of years, but are afraid of TWENTY areas which might take a lead if any changes are introduced into the voting system.

Left wing (US def) politics markets better than conservatism. It is easy to feel that the little gal is being "wronged" by corporations, by the moneyed class who gets any opportunity they desire, by fate etc. The US political left plays staunchly to this style of voter, and offers policies to protect and better their lot by taking the money from those who have more and using it to fund government safety, support, and welfare programs. You can feel good emotionally about "helping" by voting for such an agenda.

This approach has put the DEMs into commanding leads -- sometimes approaching 85% of the votes -- in all of our major urban areas.

Conservatism virtually always loses a national popularity contest because -- save immediately after a crisis when jingoism is 'in' -- it simply isn't "sexy." So, if we have a completely unrestricted vote that works as one national popularity contest, the conservative side of the GOP is done. There will be the Democrats, who will absorb some of the GOPs elements and morph into a more or less classic Social Democrat style party in Euro terms, and then we will have political growth on the farther left and probably end up with a socialist party and a green party. But the conservatives will be reduced to an 'arm' of the Dems that is listened to but seldom in political affairs.

I have never viewed the social democrat economic model as capable of sustaining the lifestyle to which Americans are accustomed, certainly not without punitive level taxation.

So pardon me if I don't get all "warm and fuzzy" over near absolute democracies. I find the flaws too high a price for the ideals being sought.


Franklin is reputed to have said to one citizen that our government was "A republic, if you can keep it."

The electoral college, FPTP, and other aspects of our Constitution seek to do just that. However flawed it may be in some ways, our founders revered free speech, but feared total democracy.

[Montmorency]

Conservatism virtually always loses a national popularity contest because -- save immediately after a crisis when jingoism is 'in' -- it simply isn't "sexy." So, if we have a completely unrestricted vote that works as one national popularity contest, the conservative side of the GOP is done. There will be the Democrats, who will absorb some of the GOPs elements and morph into a more or less classic Social Democrat style party in Euro terms, and then we will have political growth on the farther left and probably end up with a socialist party and a green party. But the conservatives will be reduced to an 'arm' of the Dems that is listened to but seldom in political affairs.

Alternatively, a conservative party will coalesce around the rebalanced political spectrum, and will have an easier time attracting urban moderates and Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities.

Much of the country has gone into the diamond-hard right in recent history, and between them and liberals you don't get USSRA. It's only like that if you are ruthlessly protective of the legacy GOP institution, which demands ever-increasing polarization to shore up the philosophical and political deficiencies of the party.

I have never viewed the social democrat economic model as capable of sustaining the lifestyle to which Americans are accustomed, certainly not without punitive level taxation.

Over many threads on the Org haven't we come to the conclusion that no act of politics can maintain the customary lifestyle in the long-term? It's a historical aberration and it's unsustainable.

The electoral college, FPTP, and other aspects of our Constitution seek to do just that. However flawed it may be in some ways, our founders revered free speech, but feared total democracy.

I wonder if you would be willing to exchange the EC for another arrangement, one equally undemocratic but less fixated on state-level demarcations. Or are you only in favor of limited democracy when it's more damaging to the opposition?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alternatively, a conservative party will coalesce around the rebalanced political spectrum, and will have an easier time attracting urban moderates and Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities.

It would take a systemic and cultural change that begat at least three viable parties, then conservatism, mugwumps, and liberals could truly each have a home. Urban moderates are mostly moved out to the ruburbs and suburbs, as you are aware. I would DEARLY love to see race drop into the dustbin of history though.

Much of the country has gone into the diamond-hard right in recent history, and between them and liberals you don't get USSRA. It's only like that if you are ruthlessly protective of the legacy GOP institution, which demands ever-increasing polarization to shore up the philosophical and political deficiencies of the party.

The 'big tent' has made for some odd curlicues that do NOT meet anyone's needs readily. And parties seem to think of party first and state second -- even, as Russia shows us, when the party IS the state. Our Constitution is written absent party, (however unrealistic that Washingtonian hope), and it's flaws are plainest when party clashes with government convention. Both parties tend to act extra-constitutionally and by agreement not attack the edifice they create. Some of this is practical and needful (the Constitution was NOT the laws enacted, but their ultimate source of mutually accepted authority), some are nothing but bureaucratic empire-building or party protection tools. Far too much of the later persists.

Personally, I blame that fornicating bastard¹ Hamilton. Wrote beautiful prose in service of a limited federal government that was needful to coordinate the efforts of the separate states. Within ten years, he'd completely suborned the system to enhance federal power as embodied in a political party rather than a government. We'd have been better served as a nation if his argument with Burr had concluded about 8 years earlier.

Over many threads on the Org haven't we come to the conclusion that no act of politics can maintain the customary lifestyle in the long-term? It's a historical aberration and it's unsustainable.

I have never fully agreed with that theme, though I acknowledge that it is considered by many (most?) to be accurate and inevitable. I even agree, if you are referring to our standard of living in terms of comparison to the rest of the planet's societies. The idea that it is doomed to diminishment is too reflective of zero-sum economic thinking (and tends to presume that our standard of living success was only an act of exploitation, which is simplistic).

I wonder if you would be willing to exchange the EC for another arrangement, one equally undemocratic but less fixated on state-level demarcations. Or are you only in favor of limited democracy when it's more damaging to the opposition?

I am enough of a traditionalist to prefer the "several states" but I admit that is not the only way to arrange things to limit the power of an electorate to demolish its future to feel good about themselves in the present. Certainly other arrangements could be conceived to meet these ends, and a proper education/cultural emphasis on participating in the system are part of that. Currently, we have the latter without the former in all too many cases.

My fear is that someone will convoke another Constitutional convention -- the only real means of effecting a shift from states and the EC to different arrangements -- and that that new Constitution will attempt to be a "Homeowner's Association Covenant" version of government. God save us from that.

¹While I use these terms with a snarky tone, it should be noted that they are in Hamilton's case, simple description.

[Montmorency]

I have never fully agreed with that theme, though I acknowledge that it is considered by many (most?) to be accurate and inevitable. I even agree, if you are referring to our standard of living in terms of comparison to the rest of the planet's societies. The idea that it is doomed to diminishment is too reflective of zero-sum economic thinking (and tends to presume that our standard of living success was only an act of exploitation, which is simplistic).

At least, you have to be careful to separate a "standard" of living and the practices and relations by which that standard is achieved.

When we speculate on the end of the post-industrial reinforcing cycle of consumption, and the international capitalist organizations that form its tracks, it doesn't mean we are speculating on a return to subsistence agriculture. (Though I believe some libertarians and syndicalists, especially traditionalist ones like our Rhyfelwyr, look forward to that 18th-century dream.)

Personally, I blame that fornicating bastard1 Hamilton. Wrote beautiful prose in service of a limited federal government that was needful to coordinate the efforts of the separate states. Within ten years, he'd completely suborned the system to enhance federal power as embodied in a political party rather than a government. We'd have been better served as a nation if his argument with Burr had concluded about 8 years earlier.

The ideas don't begin or end with Hamilton. The Founders generally were tempered by experience of government.

I think throughout modernity we have to admit that the best principle of government is determination of needs and ways by locality or subdivision; arbitration, expertise, and investment of means by central government. I just also think that central government should be plenipotentiary.

the power of an electorate to demolish its future to feel good about themselves in the present.

But that's what we've been indulging in! Capital invariably beats labor; that game has ended.

My fear is that someone will convoke another Constitutional convention -- the only real means of effecting a shift from states and the EC to different arrangements -- and that that new Constitution will attempt to be a "Homeowner's Association Covenant" version of government. God save us from that.

That seems to be the plan, presumably to affix Christian white male supremacy as the order of the land.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

At least, you have to be careful to separate a "standard" of living and the practices and relations by which that standard is achieved.

When we speculate on the end of the post-industrial reinforcing cycle of consumption, and the international capitalist organizations that form its tracks, it doesn't mean we are speculating on a return to subsistence agriculture. (Though I believe some libertarians and syndicalists, especially traditionalist ones like our Rhyfelwyr, look forward to that 18th-century dream.)



The ideas don't begin or end with Hamilton. The Founders generally were tempered by experience of government.

I think throughout modernity we have to admit that the best principle of government is determination of needs and ways by locality or subdivision; arbitration, expertise, and investment of means by central government. I just also think that central government should be plenipotentiary.



But that's what we've been indulging in! Capital invariably beats labor; that game has ended.



That seems to be the plan, presumably to affix Christian white male supremacy as the order of the land.

Nice response. I am inclined to more restriction of the central government, but in general you frame the concept well.

As to the 'stale-pale-male-proddy' ascendency thing, I suspect I look forward to such a development almost EXACTLY as much as you do yourself.

[Gilrandir]

So, if we have a completely unrestricted vote that works as one national popularity contest, the conservative side of the GOP is done. There will be the Democrats, who will absorb some of the GOPs elements and morph into a more or less classic Social Democrat style party in Euro terms, and then we will have political growth on the farther left and probably end up with a socialist party and a green party. But the conservatives will be reduced to an 'arm' of the Dems that is listened to but seldom in political affairs.

So, basically, the current system is meant to keep conservatism (embodied in the GOP) afloat? I thought that political systems have other objectives than keep sustaining a part of it which is not viable should the rules of the game change.

I have never viewed the social democrat economic model as capable of sustaining the lifestyle to which Americans are accustomed, certainly not without punitive level taxation.

Then Americans would vote it out and choose the one they like more.

[HopAlongBunny]

This is an outgrowth of the democratic system.
Sure "parties" might start bright eyed and bushy tailed, pursuing ideological goals, pushing visions of social justice and the like; they all end up as brands.
They have a clientele or market and they sell power. The market is secondary; the primary focus is keeping power because that is their "good" for exchange.
It is almost a perfect reflection of the capitalist market (not free market); bureaucratic control, planning, marketing etc. It is, in the final analysis, a self interested corporation.
In the pursuit of power, what is more useful: money, ideas, vision? (the People? Lol )

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, basically, the current system is meant to keep conservatism (embodied in the GOP) afloat? I thought that political systems have other objectives than keep sustaining a part of it which is not viable should the rules of the game change.

All healthy republics/democracies must have some means to maintain some political power in the hands of the minority. Unrestrained democracies do not and beget tyranny of the majority. That's the whole point.

Then Americans would vote it out and choose the one they like more.

They like that model, mostly, as long as they can be convinced someone else will pay more than they do. In general, the more ignorant an American is of politics (and that can be shockingly near to complete ignorance) the more likely they are to be socialist in their thinking or painfully reactionary in their thinking (this latter is the smaller wedge of the pie).

[Gilrandir]

All healthy republics/democracies must have some means to maintain some political power in the hands of the minority. Unrestrained democracies do not and beget tyranny of the majority. That's the whole point.

And this minority must neccessarily include the Republican Party? Otherwise the USA will become a tyranny? Then I would suggest a motto for the next Republican election campaign: "It is either us or Kim".

They like that model, mostly, as long as they can be convinced someone else will pay more than they do. In general, the more ignorant an American is of politics (and that can be shockingly near to complete ignorance) the more likely they are to be socialist in their thinking or painfully reactionary in their thinking (this latter is the smaller wedge of the pie).

Thus, the ignorance of Americans combined with the current political system has brought Trump to power? Then there is even more need to change either of them (or both). Definitely, to change the latter will take less time and effort.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And this minority must neccessarily include the Republican Party? Otherwise the USA will become a tyranny? Then I would suggest a motto for the next Republican election campaign: "It is either us or Kim".

Not at all. Parties come and go. At their founding, the Republican Party was the "liberal" party and the Democrats were the "conservatives." The capacity to represent the minority and avoid the majority over-reaching is needful, not any party. Kim lacks the gravitas to be an appropriate evil Emperor anyway -- he doesn't even wear a cowl or wield lightning.

Thus, the ignorance of Americans combined with the current political system has brought Trump to power? Then there is even more need to change either of them (or both). Definitely, to change the latter will take less time and effort.

Voter ignorance is, sadly, an ongoing concern where any polity votes for its leadership. As near as I can tell from the polls, however, a goodly number of Trump's supporters chose him BECAUSE he was so different from our political norm and they liked his brashness and "in-your-face" attitude. Myself, I believe him to be something of an asshat, as I have noted before.

Regardless, he is only the current occupant. We have survived Presidencies that were worse. This too shall pass, as the old Solomonic story reminds us.

[Pannonian]

All healthy republics/democracies must have some means to maintain some political power in the hands of the minority. Unrestrained democracies do not and beget tyranny of the majority. That's the whole point.

See the case of the UK, where 52% is deemed to merit an irreversible revolution, and any naysayers are dubbed traitors. Particularly notable as polls indicate that any current vote would see the figures reverse. At least your president, having been democratically elected, is working within your constitutional restraints. Our government, working in service of said 52%, has accrued all power to the executive, with outside regulatory powers dismissed in said service.

[Gilrandir]

Voter ignorance is, sadly, an ongoing concern where any polity votes for its leadership.

Voter ignorance is not endemic to the US only. Yet other countries complaining of it aren't afraid to entrust their citizens with the right to elect their leader directly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

See the case of the UK, where 52% is deemed to merit an irreversible revolution, and any naysayers are dubbed traitors. Particularly notable as polls indicate that any current vote would see the figures reverse. At least your president, having been democratically elected, is working within your constitutional restraints. Our government, working in service of said 52%, has accrued all power to the executive, with outside regulatory powers dismissed in said service.

That is a potential problem in unicameral (functionally at least) parliament systems. The majority party/coalition can govern almost as it pleases unless its behavior is so heinous that it loses enough of its own numbers for the government to risk falling. It is a question of how far they can go before their own supporters think it "isn't cricket."

[Sarmatian]

Just seen Hillary on Colbert's show.

She mentions how she made mistakes, but doesn't name one and then goes into details about everyone else. No lesson learned, it's all Putin's fault. America is the greatest country on Earth and he can't stand it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just seen Hillary on Colbert's show.

She mentions how she made mistakes, but doesn't name one and then goes into details about everyone else. No lesson learned, it's all Putin's fault. America is the greatest country on Earth and he can't stand it.

I believe it to be, but I admit to a certain bias. Vlad's opinion thereof is neither here nor there to me.

But NEVER underestimate a politician's ability to subordinate facts to their view of what should be. 'Alternative facts' may have earned its sobriquet under our current asshat occupant of the office, he did NOT invent the concept.

[Sarmatian]

I believe it to be, but I admit to a certain bias. Vlad's opinion thereof is neither here nor there to me.

But NEVER underestimate a politician's ability to subordinate facts to their view of what should be. 'Alternative facts' may have earned its sobriquet under our current asshat occupant of the office, he did NOT invent the concept.

That's their usual modus operandi, true, but it's somehow worse with her. At least, that's how she appears. She's the archetype of a two-faced, career politician.

I started watching The Sopranos recently. I know it's not exactly current, but I never got around to it before. There's an episode where mobster wives talk about their cheating husbands and Lewinsky scandal gets mentioned. Even they conclude what a hypocrite she is, standing there with a fake smile.

Yes, it's a tv show, but that's pretty much how people saw her. She presents herself as a champion of the people, while everyone knows she's in bed with Wall Street. Empowerment of women, all that, and she stays with her cheating husband. Because a divorce is bad for a political career. Let us assume that accusations of rape were just about seeking attention, and leave them aside.

And then, she goes on how she's not a career politician, and all the mistakes she might have made were because she can't really fit into political arena easily, but she's ready to make that sacrifice for the American people. She's a freakin' textbook definition of a career politician.

After all that, she couldn't make a single direct answer during the campaign. That was never gonna work, not with her baggage. I've said it already and I stand by it - any half decent GOP candidate would have wiped the floor with her. The only reason she did so well was because she was opposed by a narcissistic buffoon. She was a household name and she almost lost to a 70-year old unknown independent who isn't on speaking terms with his comb.

I'm glad when people like her lose. Okay, if I were an American citizen, I probably would have voted for her against Trump but I would have to sit on my own hand for two hours before doing it, so that it would feel numb while I'm doing the voting.

[HopAlongBunny]

On the other hand, she's largely right.
Trump's got far more coverage for buffoonery than she did for policy.
The one note rejoinder of the Trump camp: "...but the emails..."; was consistently the only Hillary story you heard.
That the media has not been roundly lambasted for their coverage, is mainly the result of them handling the coverage of the coverage.
Really, the U.S. media covered itself in napalm and lit a match; but no one was there to cover it

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-why-she-lost/

[Sarmatian]

She actually isn't. Sure, the media had a field day with her emails and gave Trump a lot of coverage, but was he portrayed positively by the mainstream media? He was practically made fun of. That excuse goes out the window immediately.

Almost all of her excuses are lacking.

1) Interference by the Kremlin? Bollox. 99% of media coverage was about the fact that Russia was supposedly behind it, rather than the content of hacked emails.
2) Comey interference? Actually the only one that makes sense.
3) Media portrayed her emails as the most important story? Maybe most important in regards to her, but not overall. Trump got as much negative coverage.
4) Deep currents of anger and resentment flowing through our culture? Hard to figure out what exactly she meant with this but if we assume that she meant people being ****** off about status quo, and didn't think she was the person to change it, I agree. And again, she doesn't accept responsibility for being a poor candidate, or at least for having a bad campaign, but blames it on society.
5) The media gave [Trump] free wall-to-wall coverage? True, but she's complaining about negative coverage about her, but ignores that most of the coverage of Trump was negative. So, bollox once more.
6) Maybe it’s because I’m a woman, and we’re not used to women running for president? Impossible to quantify. Probably had an influence but I certainly don't think it was even remotely decisive.
7) Exceedingly difficult for either party to hold onto the White House for more than eight years in a row? Hard to quantify again. True for the last few presidents. If you're looking for a trend in the last 200 years, it paints a different picture. Ultimately pointless because it doesn't address anything else but party affiliation. Quality of candidates, situation at home and abroad etc... Correlation, not causation. Completely silly excuse.
8) Clinton fatigue? Silly. It's basically blaming her husband, who's seen positively in general, for her loss. Hillary Clinton fatigue is possible, but that's her fault.

She still isn't taking responsibility. The only valid excuse is Comey. Everything else is bollox.

[Montmorency]

I'm glad when people like her lose.

So, does watching politics give you a lot of joy? It's technically a parade of people much like her losing, because other people like her are beating them.

It's understandable if you hate American (and hey, maybe your own) political institutions, but in that case you don't have much call to favor a Sanders over a Clinton. If the system is rotten, then differentiating on the basis of perceived sincerity just means you got sucked in. If the system is not rotten, then you ought to temper your distaste for someone playing the game properly.

She actually isn't. Sure, the media had a field day with her emails and gave Trump a lot of coverage, but was he portrayed positively by the mainstream media? He was practically made fun of. That excuse goes out the window immediately.

I'm sure we just covered these points, but let me note one more thing:

Coverage of Trump was not as negative, in that it presented his own words as he spoke them. We interpret it as negative, but that's how he gained his base - they saw it positively. His unvarnished speech had a lot of exposure.
(From what I gather of news networks this year, they're still obsessed with publicizing and breaking down Trump's words, sentence by sentence, with copious video accompaniment.)
Clinton coverage on the other hand had little to do with her own statements or positions, being rather about items related to her.
It's pre-existing flaws that Trump was able to take advantage of, but you measure by the process not by alleged intentions.

[Gilrandir]

she stays with her cheating husband. Because a divorce is bad for a political career.

So, you believe that this was her only motif in desire to keep the family from falling apart? How about "thou shall not demonize" stuff?