Al Sharpton: The process that elected Trump was ‘not legitimate'
83 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51686861]I could be wrong here, but I don't think that voter density is proportional to population density.[/QUOTE]
why not?
and additionally even if it was, the top 34 cities represent less than 10% of the total population. even if voting registration was extremely skewed so that urban voters registered and voted on a basis much more than that of republicans (from what i've been told its traditionally the opposite), you would still have the overwhelming majority of the voting population hailing from smaller towns and cities (i.e less than 500,000)
like even if we assume that cities are monolithic and vote for republicans every time (they aren't, and don't), and that they have perfect rates of registration with people always turning up to vote (they don't, and less so than rural areas), it still represents a tiny figure
the original argument is that the voices of the states would be drowned out by the handful of big cities (NYC or LA for instance). this isn't true. the bulk of the american population is concentrated in medium-small cities down into village/small town sized entities spread out over the entire country.
it's a bullshit argument created postfacto to defend an institution trumpists would be complaining bitterly about had trump lost
Everything is illegal and illegitimate when it doesn't go your way. These people doesn't want democratic elections since they themselves should be in charge of course.
Democracy is all fine and dandy until they themselves loose - then we need to "rethink" democracy.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51686859]But that's how the dominoes fell last November, and like it or not, [i]he is president.[/i][/QUOTE]
technically yes, but he lack legitimacy
there's a difference between the law and the perception, and usually the law is used to help bolster the legitimacy of a president
but if the entire system that determines who is to rule suffers from a lack of legitimacy it can be said that trump and his entire government lack confidence and therefore you are justified in opposing it and its actions
i mean, you have the second amendment people. they can do something to stop trump
[editline]18th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51686932]Everything is illegal and illegitimate when it doesn't go your way. These people doesn't want democratic elections since they themselves should be in charge of course.
Democracy is all fine and dandy until they themselves loose - then we need to "rethink" democracy.[/QUOTE]
america isn't a democracy it's a republic or something
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51686932]Everything is illegal and illegitimate when it doesn't go your way. These people doesn't want democratic elections since they themselves should be in charge of course.
Democracy is all fine and dandy until they themselves loose - then we need to "rethink" democracy.[/QUOTE]
Another meaningless yet presumptuous statement from Lord M.
Electoral college was an unpopular system when it was introduced, with efforts to eliminate it dating back to [url=http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/11/close-election-causes-another-electoral-college-debate/]1940[/url].
[editline]18th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51686942]technically yes, but he lack legitimacy
there's a difference between the law and the perception, and usually the law is used to help bolster the legitimacy of a president
but if the entire system that determines who is to rule suffers from a lack of legitimacy it can be said that trump and his entire government lack confidence and therefore you are justified in opposing it and its actions[/QUOTE]
This is an important point which a lot of people are glossing over. It's pretty justified to have no faith in an elected president who lost by 3 million votes.
A net deficit of 3 million would be like if a prime minister of the country I live in being elected, yet every single member of the voting population (plus another 600k to make it 3 million) didn't vote for him.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;51686981]Another meaningless yet presumptuous statement from Lord M.
Electoral college was an unpopular system when it was introduced, with efforts to eliminate it dating back to [url=http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/11/close-election-causes-another-electoral-college-debate/]1940[/url].
[editline]18th January 2017[/editline]
This is an important point which a lot of people are glossing over. It's pretty justified to have no faith in an elected president who lost by 3 million votes.
A net deficit of 3 million would be like if a prime minister of the country I live in being elected, yet every single member of the voting population (plus another 600k to make it 3 million) didn't vote for him.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe you are the right one to call someone elses statement neither presumptuous or meaningless, Samiam22. I don't think anyone was complaining about the electoral college when Obama won 2012. Right? It is only now when the democratic party lost that it became a problem. Otherwise it has been fine and dandy all these years up until now. It is nothing but hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51687027]I don't believe you are the right one to call someone elses statement neither presumptuous or meaningless, Samiam22. [B]I don't think anyone was complaining about the electoral college when Obama won 2012[/B]. Right? It is only now when the democratic party lost that it became a problem. Otherwise it has been fine and dandy all these years up until now. It is nothing but hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]
Are you serious?
[img]https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-11/9/9/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane02/sub-buzz-18862-1478703148-1.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Samiam22;51687033]Are you serious?
[img]https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-11/9/9/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane02/sub-buzz-18862-1478703148-1.png[/img][/QUOTE]
I think you are on purpose misinterpreting what I am talking about, as usual. You KNOW I was talking about the democratic party - easily understood when I used the word hypocrisy and how I in previous post talked about the democratic party. I mean, are you serious?
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51687027]I don't believe you are the right one to call someone elses statement neither presumptuous or meaningless, Samiam22. I don't think anyone was complaining about the electoral college when Obama won 2012. Right? It is only now when the democratic party lost that it became a problem. Otherwise it has been fine and dandy all these years up until now. It is nothing but hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]
First off: Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012 in both the popular vote and the EC. There was no issue then (except with Republicans, more importantly with Trump-- whose tweet has already been mentioned) since Obama decisively defeated Romney by almost 5 million votes in the national popular vote and was the preferred candidate among the American people.
Second: it's an issue because Clinton actually defeated Trump in the national popular vote by almost 2.9 million votes and was the preferred candidate between the two of them, but the EC stepped in and handed the election to Trump anyway in spite of this fact (and other facts that make him unfit for office, such as his conflicts of interest). It was also an issue in 2000 when Gore defeated Bush by more than 543,000 votes in the national popular vote but-- again-- the EC handed the election to Bush anyway.
It's almost like you don't actually know what you're talking about and the EC is in fact a massive pile of archaic bullshit that needs to be done away with because this keeps happening. This isn't a new topic either; people have wanted rid of the EC for decades now. I've wanted rid of it since I was a kid and lived to see what happened with Gore. I will never forget that and will always wonder what might have been.
People have been complaining about the electoral college for fucking years, what are you on about.
The electoral college is never going away, Democrats will stop complaining about it and forget this election when/if they win in the coming elections. after all that's precisely what happened after we got bush.
[QUOTE=Durandal;51687130]The electoral college is never going away, Democrats will stop complaining about it and forget this election when/if they win in the coming elections. after all that's precisely what happened after we got bush.[/QUOTE]
for what its worth, hillary won the popular vote by a way way way larger margin than gore did
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51687076]I think you are on purpose misinterpreting what I am talking about, as usual. You KNOW I was talking about the democratic party - easily understood when I used the word hypocrisy and how I in previous post talked about the democratic party. I mean, are you serious?[/QUOTE]
I didn't know, actually, because you said "anyone". When I gave you an example, you then changed what you meant to "democratic party". Unfortunately, I am not a mind reader. If you didn't want to be proved wrong so easily then perhaps you should have asked a better question rather than use a rhetorical question that only you seem to have understood.
[QUOTE=Durandal;51687130]The electoral college is never going away, Democrats will stop complaining about it and forget this election when/if they win in the coming elections. after all that's precisely what happened after we got bush.[/QUOTE]
There have been an estimated 700 attempts to get rid of the electoral college and cases where the president wins from the electoral college but not the popular vote have happened only 5 times (out of 56 total elections). This didn't happen at all during the 20th century, yet most of the attempts at the congress level to get rid of the EC happened during this time.
People claiming that "the democrats" only get upset at the EC when their candidate loses need to stop. This is simply not true.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;51687180]I didn't know, actually, because you said "anyone". When I gave you an example, you then changed what you meant to "democratic party". Unfortunately, I am not a mind reader. If you didn't want to be proved wrong so easily then perhaps you should have asked a better question rather than use a rhetorical question that only you seem to have understood.
There have been an estimated 700 attempts to get rid of the electoral college and cases where the president wins from the electoral college but not the popular vote have happened only 5 times (out of 56 total elections). This didn't happen at all during the 20th century, yet most of the attempts at the congress level to get rid of the EC happened during this time.
People claiming that "the democrats" only get upset at the EC when their candidate loses need to stop. This is simply not true.[/QUOTE]
Why didn't they attempt to at the very least fix the institution during the two years they had a majority in both legislators while also holding the white house? I can't help but be cynical about it when there was opportunity for those in power that experienced this exact situation before that are now complaining but didnt
[QUOTE=Durandal;51687506]Why didn't they attempt to at the very least fix the institution during the two years they had a majority in both legislators while also holding the white house? I can't help but be cynical about it when there was opportunity for those in power that experienced this exact situation before that are now complaining but didnt[/QUOTE]
Well they might have had other priorities, like fixing the economy.
No matter what sort of democracy we have, the fact that Trump even made it to a debate is abhorrent. To appropriate a phrase from Terry Pratchett, it's not that we have the wrong sort of government- it's that we have the wrong sort of people.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51684712]Couldnt this have been raised before the Electoral College vote?
I really really dont want Trump to be elected but ya'll had the time for action, so unless ya want him impeached and replaced by Pence i dont see the point.[/QUOTE]
If he wasn't elected legitimately neither was Pence.
Not that I think it was illegitimate, unfortunately.
[QUOTE=Durandal;51687506]Why didn't they attempt to at the very least fix the institution during the two years they had a majority in both legislators while also holding the white house? I can't help but be cynical about it when there was opportunity for those in power that experienced this exact situation before that are now complaining but didnt[/QUOTE]
Because it's not the people in power complaining about the EC. It's the people voting.
Not only that, any move to actually change the EC process would have to be done with pretty much unanimous agreement (which is going to be impossible), and any proposed change would be met with huge amounts of criticism and challenge. It would also take a significant amount of effort and resources to actually manage to change all the states and the mindset of all the voters to properly reflect a completely democratic system. Consider how much sway the "it's to give people in rural areas a voice" argument has, even though it isn't really true. It's been difficult enough trying to persuade people that vaccines don't cause autism.
[QUOTE=TheLonelyDonu;51684916]
an unqualified, [B]irresponsible[/B], [B]lying[/B], [B]self-serving[/B],[B] shifty[/B], [B]conniving[/B], racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic [B]corporatist pawn[/B] and Reagan-era capitalist.
[/QUOTE]
And Clinton is the other side of the same coin
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51684906]You let informed politicians instead of the people vote for the president of the united states and that is bad.
You let the people instead of informed politicians vote for Britain leaving the EU and that is bad.
How do you want your democracy? When your option loses, you want to repeat the election process till your option wins?
Instead of whining about the results, what is important is to make the best out of it.[/QUOTE]
Don't ever call the electoral college a representative voting system. It's an objectively unfair system that gives more weight to votes from red states.
I want my democracy such that retards like trump arent elected by huge numbers of strategically placed retards voting for him, and such that the destiny of the entire country doesnt come down to idiots voting to drink battery acid like brexit did.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51686932]Everything is illegal and illegitimate when it doesn't go your way.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty good coming from a trumpeteer. I recall this big thing about a rigged election and "second amendment people" being able to "do something" about supreme court justices.
[QUOTE=nox;51692203]trumpeteer.[/QUOTE]
stahp
[QUOTE=nox;51692203]That's pretty good coming from a trumpeteer.[/QUOTE]
Trying too hard..
Anyways the way Trump got elected was legitimate according to the election process, however I do agree that the way it is right now is really stupid
[QUOTE=EcksDee;51688391]Don't ever call the electoral college a representative voting system. It's an objectively unfair system that gives more weight to votes from red states.
I want my democracy such that retards like trump arent elected by huge numbers of strategically placed retards voting for him, and such that the destiny of the entire country doesnt come down to idiots voting to drink battery acid like brexit did.[/QUOTE]
The electoral college [I]should be[/I] a proportionally representative system. Representative doesn't necessarily imply "elected representative." We fucked it up a hundred years ago and are just now feeling the effects.
The problem is that in 1911 we created the Apportionment Act that capped the number of federal representatives in Congress to 435. Guess what defines the number of Electoral College voters for each state? The number of federal representatives that state has. This one law changed how we apportioned representatives, shifting it from adding new representatives proportional to population, to capping it off and only shifting a few seats around every few years. In 1792, we outlined how congressional seats would be apportioned, by population, and we adjusted a few times with different remainder methods until 1911. Now, because of this [I]single fucking law[/I], a voter in Wyoming has [I]three times[/I] the representative voting power than someone in California.
The second problem, arguably even bigger, is redistricting and gerrymandering driving seats to extremes by making them so absolutely safe from any competition - except from further to the right. This has driven political polarization for a long while, and become pretty standard in our country. Mitch McConnell won't lose his seat to anyone but a literal fascist Christian far-far-far-right extremist, because he's gerrymandered in strong enough that his only threat is to his right - driving his positions further and further right to appease the tiny, [I]tiny[/I], [I][B]TINY[/B][/I] fraction of voters he's competing for.
There's a reason the Electoral College tended to work for over a hundred years without too much issue - we didn't fuck it up with arbitrary non-population-proportional laws and we didn't redistrict ourselves into corners where we only had to even think about losing our jobs from people more extreme than us. We need algorithmic gerrymandering vetted and voted on by citizen review boards in every states, and we need to uncap the number of representatives. As a bonus, to make it more accurate, federally eliminate FPTP and make it state-proportional so that all votes actually matter - even Republicans in California - bringing it closer to a popular vote but retaining the ideal illusion of a protection against tyranny of the majority.
[editline]19th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=RedBaronFlyer;51692373]Trying too hard..
Anyways the way Trump got elected was legitimate according to the election process, however I do agree that the way it is right now is really stupid[/QUOTE]
In a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)"]political sense[/URL], "legitimacy" just means that the people accept their government's authority.
Trump has a far shakier claim to legitimacy than almost any other former president. He lost the popular vote, there's widespread accusation of foreign meddling, he has the lowest approval ratings of any president-elect since approval ratings started being recorded, etc. But "legitimacy" doesn't mean "we followed the process right so it's all good." Legitimacy is 100% the consent of the governed - and Trump is seeing some significant resistance and blowback from the citizens he's supposed to be serving.
It's unbelievably unlikely that a crisis of legitimacy could actually cause Trump (or, more broadly, the US government) to lose the consent of the governed - like a borderline impossibility in this day and age - but his [I]claim[/I] to legitimacy is far weaker than almost every other former president.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.