4 ms·

Partially correct. He’s in power because the left didn’t vote as much as they could’ve, but he’s also in power because his party’s constituents overwhelmingly s

• anewdirection 6y ago
  I often hear it stated as "We disliked Hillary so much, we voted for someone worse".
  • pavlov 6y ago
    The American voters’ approach to government often reduces to “cutting off the nose to spite the face.”
  • bcrosby95 6y ago
    You can phrase it that way. But it's a deceptive statement. For the most part, people don't switch parties they vote for. They just choose not to vote instead. So taken in aggregate, you could say "we disliked Hillary so we voted for someone worse". But the more accurate statement is that some groups of people decided not to vote at all because they disliked Hillary, and other groups of people decided to show up and vote.
    • ComputerGuru 6y ago
      > way. But it's a deceptive statement. For the most part, people don't switch parties they vote for. You are forgetting that most Americans are self-proclaimed independents and not sworn to support either of the two parties.
      • bdcravens 6y ago
        Not "most": it's a plurality, not a majority (31/37/28 D/I/R) https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx If you look at the week by week numbers, you see variance; I suspect most independents lean one way or another, but their willingness to commit in a poll varies based on various affairs.
      • jcranmer 6y ago
        Most independents reliably vote one party or the other. The number of "true" independents, who will frequently switch the party they vote for, is about 10%.
• the_gastropod 6y ago
  And just to beat this dead horse slightly more: The US does not have democratic elections. Clinton won by that measure. Trump won because we value some people’s votes more than others.
  • colejohnson66 6y ago
    You’re right with regard to your first point: we don’t have directly democratic elections; We have representative (indirect) elections (a la the Electoral College). With regards to your other point: Hillary did not win the election, no matter how you spin it. She won the popular vote, but that means nothing in terms of who becomes President (read: who wins). We also don’t “value some people’s votes more than others.” The Electoral College votes based on the way that state’s populace votes, and every electorate’s vote is equal. However, each state can have their own rules regarding how those votes are distributed: some states are winner-takes-all at the state level, while Maine and Nebraska are winner-take-all at the district level. One can argue whether the Electoral College should exist at all, but it’s worth keeping in mind why it was created: we are a union of states (United States of America), not a homogenous unit (United America?).
    • the_gastropod 6y ago
      > Hillary did not win the election, no matter how you spin it. I didn't say she did. I said she won the democratic election, which you call the popular vote. It's the same thing. > We also don’t “value some people’s votes more than others.” This is another tomato tomahhto splitting of hairs. A Nebraskan voter's vote is worth about 3.4 Californian votes. If you don't consider that as "counting some people's votes more than others", I don't know what to tell you. We can argue about whether you think that is a good idea (aka have the electoral college debate). But there should be no debate whether we do systematically prefer some voters over others.
    • couchand 6y ago
      > We also don’t “value some people’s votes more than others.” This stance just ignores the facts of electoral college vote allocation as well as the related and probably much more important existence and power of the Senate. The rules that define the federal government intentionally discount the contributions of millions in the most populous states. It's a crime that would have been rectified decades ago were it not explicitly written into the Constitution (see Baker v. Carr).