4 ms·

But they did appeal to enough of the electorate. Clinton received ~3% more votes, which was in line with the polling data. Unfortunately, because we have a sys

But they did appeal to enough of the electorate. Clinton received ~3% more votes, which was in line with the polling data. Unfortunately, because we have a system that makes certain Midwest and rust belt votes worth 3-10x more, Clinton lost anyway. Most of what people have been complaining about actually happened. Russia really did interfere. Facebook turned a blind eye to massive misinformation campaigns on their platform. Facebook also knew about the Cambridge Analytica breach for quite a while before making it public. A lot of the voting and ads for Trump were driven by latent (or not so latent) racism. It's not Facebook's "fault" that these things are happening any more than it's paper's fault if someone makes a racist poster. However, we can't ask paper to help us protect systems of election and governance that were invented before instant global communication. Facebook is "just a platform," but we have the unique ability to ask the platform for help ensuring against abuse. I believe we must try to do that.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
You seem to be using a metric we don’t use in this country. Trump received 304 votes compared to Clinton’s 227. People don’t vote for a president, they vote to direct whole their state votes. Each state vote is worth the same with larger states having more of them. This is the system we’ve had for 240 years. I think you know all of this.
rossdavidh 8y ago
While there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether the electoral college is good or not, it is not new, and the Democrats knew about it before the 2016 election (we hope). They surely should have noticed it after the 2000 election. In 2009 they held all the levers of power, and could have chosen to eliminate it via constitutional amendment, but did not. Regardless of your opinion on whether they should have or not, they knew that the electoral college existed, that the Rust Belt would be important, and they chose their candidate and election strategy with full knowledge. It's also the same system that elected Obama, twice, and also Bill Clinton.
394549 8y ago
> But they did appeal to enough of the electorate. Clinton received ~3% more votes, which was in line with the polling data. No, they didn't. The right and correct way to count votes isn't the method that would've given your side a victory; it's the way that was prescribed by the law as it existed at the time of the election. > Unfortunately, because we have a system that makes certain Midwest and rust belt votes worth 3-10x more This is the the result of a very old compromise. Maybe it should be reevaluated, but that's a separate issue. I agree with the rest of your post.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

You seem to be using a metric we don’t use in this country. Trump received 304 votes compared to Clinton’s 227. People don’t vote for a president, they vote to direct whole their state votes. Each state vote is worth the same with larger states having more of them. This is the system we’ve had for 240 years. I think you know all of this.

rossdavidh 8y ago

While there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether the electoral college is good or not, it is not new, and the Democrats knew about it before the 2016 election (we hope). They surely should have noticed it after the 2000 election. In 2009 they held all the levers of power, and could have chosen to eliminate it via constitutional amendment, but did not. Regardless of your opinion on whether they should have or not, they knew that the electoral college existed, that the Rust Belt would be important, and they chose their candidate and election strategy with full knowledge. It's also the same system that elected Obama, twice, and also Bill Clinton.

394549 8y ago

> But they did appeal to enough of the electorate. Clinton received ~3% more votes, which was in line with the polling data. No, they didn't. The right and correct way to count votes isn't the method that would've given your side a victory; it's the way that was prescribed by the law as it existed at the time of the election. > Unfortunately, because we have a system that makes certain Midwest and rust belt votes worth 3-10x more This is the the result of a very old compromise. Maybe it should be reevaluated, but that's a separate issue. I agree with the rest of your post.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]