4 ms·

I mean there are many many differences between complaints about the 2016 election and the 2020 election: * The Republican presidential candidate won in 2016 de

I mean there are many many differences between complaints about the 2016 election and the 2020 election: * The Republican presidential candidate won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by a huge margin * There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election, while there was no evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2020 election * The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms, and the protests were peaceful, while the people who complained about a 'stolen' election in 2020 were pushing for a violent overthrow of the democratic process, and there was subsequently an attempt to violently overthrow the democratic process. I say all this as someone who is a cynic at heart, and I do my best to avoid hyperbolic media from either extreme on the political spectrum (and opinion pieces altogether), and to pay for and consume media that challenges my biases: Not everything is equal. Sometimes one of the options is worse than the other.

rayiner 6y ago
> The Republican presidential candidate won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by a huge margin The 2 point margin between Trump and Clinton was less than the margin between Bush and Kerry in 2004. Neither candidate cleared 50%. Clinton “won” the popular vote with a lower total percentage than Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004. Also, these counter-factual are irrelevant. The popular vote doesn’t matter because nobody is trying to win the popular vote. That’s why Clinton didn’t campaign in Wisconsin (where Obama had racked up a huge margin in 2008 and 2012.) And that’s why Trump didn’t campaign in California. Changing the voting system would change how people campaign, so the popular vote tells you nothing. Also, if we moved to a “modern” voting system, we would use a run-off, like other countries have. Trump still might have won without the large libertarian vote eliminated. > * There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election, while there was no evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2020 election Not in 2017 there wasn’t. > * The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms So were many of the people objecting to the 2020 election. With a Democratic House the objections were futile. They were symbolic.
- hairofadog 6y ago
  > Clinton “won” the popular vote with a lower total percentage than Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004. I sincerely don't understand why "won" is in quotation marks – I think you meant to say "the popular vote isn't something that can be won since we have the electoral college" – and if that's the case, let me clarify that what I mean is that she received a significantly higher number of votes than Trump did. > The 2 point margin between Trump and Clinton was less than the margin between Bush and Kerry in 2004. I don't understand the point you're making here. >> There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election > Not in 2017 there wasn’t. Russian hacking was discussed prominently during the presidential debates in 2016, so I have to disagree with you on that point. >> The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms > So were many of the people objecting to the 2020 election That may be true, but I haven't yet heard a good-faith argument for reforms (or in fact any argument for reforms) from people objecting to the 2020 election, nor any sense of what those reforms would be aside from things that could also be described as voter suppression and demands to reverse the outcome of the presidential, but not the down-ballot, elections. Maybe my sources are bad.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    > I sincerely don't understand why "won" is in quotation marks – I think you meant to say "the popular vote isn't something that can be won since we have the electoral college" – and if that's the case, let me clarify that what I mean is that she received a significantly higher number of votes than Trump did. Yes. It's like "winning" the first 100m of a 400m race. If the runners were in a 100m race, they would run differently. > I don't understand the point you're making here. The point is that there was a significant third-party vote in 2016, so it's not like Clinton had a particularly large vote share overall. The same vote share "lost" the popular vote in 2004, where third parties were less significant. > Russian hacking was discussed prominently during the presidential debates in 2016, so I have to disagree with you on that point. Of email servers. Not election systems. > That may be true, but I haven't yet heard a good-faith argument for reforms (or in fact any argument for reforms) from people objecting to the 2020 election, nor any sense of what those reforms would be aside from things that could also be described as voter suppression The fact that Democrats can describe something as "voter suppression" doesn't mean anything. Many things Democrats object to, such as Voter ID laws or signature matching, are prevalent in European countries. In Switzerland, mail-in voting has strict signature matching requirements. In Pennsylvania, it was the subject of a civil rights lawsuit. Mail in voting is, in general, discouraged in most of Europe. France had it, then abandoned it in the 1970s, due to voter fraud. Other countries don't run elections like we do: with a flurry of last-minute lawsuits trying to chip away at any sort of rules or deadlines. That's not a healthy way to run an election system.

rayiner 6y ago

> The Republican presidential candidate won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by a huge margin The 2 point margin between Trump and Clinton was less than the margin between Bush and Kerry in 2004. Neither candidate cleared 50%. Clinton “won” the popular vote with a lower total percentage than Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004. Also, these counter-factual are irrelevant. The popular vote doesn’t matter because nobody is trying to win the popular vote. That’s why Clinton didn’t campaign in Wisconsin (where Obama had racked up a huge margin in 2008 and 2012.) And that’s why Trump didn’t campaign in California. Changing the voting system would change how people campaign, so the popular vote tells you nothing. Also, if we moved to a “modern” voting system, we would use a run-off, like other countries have. Trump still might have won without the large libertarian vote eliminated. > * There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election, while there was no evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2020 election Not in 2017 there wasn’t. > * The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms So were many of the people objecting to the 2020 election. With a Democratic House the objections were futile. They were symbolic.

hairofadog 6y ago
> Clinton “won” the popular vote with a lower total percentage than Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004. I sincerely don't understand why "won" is in quotation marks – I think you meant to say "the popular vote isn't something that can be won since we have the electoral college" – and if that's the case, let me clarify that what I mean is that she received a significantly higher number of votes than Trump did. > The 2 point margin between Trump and Clinton was less than the margin between Bush and Kerry in 2004. I don't understand the point you're making here. >> There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election > Not in 2017 there wasn’t. Russian hacking was discussed prominently during the presidential debates in 2016, so I have to disagree with you on that point. >> The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms > So were many of the people objecting to the 2020 election That may be true, but I haven't yet heard a good-faith argument for reforms (or in fact any argument for reforms) from people objecting to the 2020 election, nor any sense of what those reforms would be aside from things that could also be described as voter suppression and demands to reverse the outcome of the presidential, but not the down-ballot, elections. Maybe my sources are bad.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > I sincerely don't understand why "won" is in quotation marks – I think you meant to say "the popular vote isn't something that can be won since we have the electoral college" – and if that's the case, let me clarify that what I mean is that she received a significantly higher number of votes than Trump did. Yes. It's like "winning" the first 100m of a 400m race. If the runners were in a 100m race, they would run differently. > I don't understand the point you're making here. The point is that there was a significant third-party vote in 2016, so it's not like Clinton had a particularly large vote share overall. The same vote share "lost" the popular vote in 2004, where third parties were less significant. > Russian hacking was discussed prominently during the presidential debates in 2016, so I have to disagree with you on that point. Of email servers. Not election systems. > That may be true, but I haven't yet heard a good-faith argument for reforms (or in fact any argument for reforms) from people objecting to the 2020 election, nor any sense of what those reforms would be aside from things that could also be described as voter suppression The fact that Democrats can describe something as "voter suppression" doesn't mean anything. Many things Democrats object to, such as Voter ID laws or signature matching, are prevalent in European countries. In Switzerland, mail-in voting has strict signature matching requirements. In Pennsylvania, it was the subject of a civil rights lawsuit. Mail in voting is, in general, discouraged in most of Europe. France had it, then abandoned it in the 1970s, due to voter fraud. Other countries don't run elections like we do: with a flurry of last-minute lawsuits trying to chip away at any sort of rules or deadlines. That's not a healthy way to run an election system.