3 ms·

The Election Wasn't a Realignment or a "Mandate"

8 points by mdp2021 2y ago

mdp2021 2y ago
I submit this piece because of the matter of reliability in reporting. From and around November 6, a recurring keyword seems to have been "landslide"¹ - also definitely stuck with many people. It puzzles me a few days later to read, on Volokh and from Somin: > When all votes are fully counted, it looks like Trump will have won the popular vote by 1.5 points and have 1-4 point margins in the 7 swing states. That's not the kind of large margin of victory typically associated with realignment elections in which large blocs of voters shift from one party to another (e.g. 1932 or 1980). It's actually a narrower victory than Bush won in 2004 or Obama in 2012. Few would argue either of those wins was a realignment or a mandate. Biden in 2020 won the popular vote by a bigger margin (about 4.5 points) and had nearly the same electoral vote margin (306 for Biden in 2020; 312 for Trump this year). For those keeping score, I wrote at the time that Biden didn't have a mandate either. Trump's popular vote margin may actually be a little smaller than Hillary Clinton's was in 2016 (yes, obviously, she lost the electoral college). // House and Senate results are consistent with the above. The GOP will have only a narrow House majority (probably about 220-215). The Republicans gained only 4 seats in the Senate, despite a very favorable map, and actually lost 4 of 5 swing-state Senate races, despite Trump winning all five of those states on the top of the ballot. // [...] It is true there has been a bigger shift in the Hispanic vote than elsewhere. Exit polls suggest Trump lost it by only about 53-45 (some polling data shows a weaker performance for Trump). However, that means he got about the same share of the Hispanic vote as….. George W. Bush in 2004—the last time the GOP ran a presidential campaign with this highly favorable background conditions The general quality of the press still has an issue. The problem of acquiring information reliably and efficiently remains important in all senses, including encumbrance. (¹I am reading the news as I post this, and 10 minutes later already I am in front of a «won in a landslide» on some minor outlet.)
- dustingetz 2y ago
  why is the popular vote even measured (other than narrative construction)? it’s not a target, it is not optimized for, therefore it seems to me that it is meaningless: there is no possible relevant conclusion that can be derived from its analysis
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    I'd say the opposite: with a parties system you should count the popular vote because what people are doing is voting for a part; if people were voting for electors (which is a more adherent to fact possibility in other systems) then you should focus on data reflecting that - but it does not seem the case in this context. The «relevant conclusion that can be derived» from the popular vote is "more people voted for this part rather than the other, and how much". It seems indicative. That it may not reflect the "electoral vote" is actually a "problem" of Political Science.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    The popular vote is the most important metric to gauge the democratic choice of the people, that's the most relevant conclusion that may be in an election. In most democracies that would be it, but it so happens that the quirks of the US system mean that it is not what matters to elect the President.
    - Arnt 2y ago
      Personally, I only know about one democracy where the popular vote is used to determine the outcome of elections. The others I know all use something moderately different. My home, for example, has two kinds of weighing, one for regional balance and the other is too complicated to explain now. Various kinds of regional balance are common, I think.
      - mytailorisrich 2y ago
        Off the top of my head I can't think of another democracy in which the executive can be appointed with fewer votes that the other parties/candidates, either systemically or realistically. In the US this has happened several times in living memory. But that's not the point. The point is that in general and in terms of democracy and democratic mandate obviously the popular vote is the most important metric. That's the point of democratic elections.
        Arnt 2y ago
- mdp2021 2y ago
  Moderation, again and again I present a point and it gets stealthily attacked with no arguments and no apparent valid reason. You will have to realize this practice is vile and stop promoting it. The guidelines need a review.
BMc2020 2y ago
Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation, with the tagline "Free Minds and Free Markets". The magazine aims to produce independent journalism that is "outside of the left/right echo chamber." The magazine has a circulation of around 50,000.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  Consistently with my point above, during these times I suggest to pick your sources according to the apparent quality of the writer - not stuck in the idea of editorial boards such as the historic one from The Economist. Today the better technique seems to be "I will give my time to that author".
  - BMc2020 2y ago
    "The problem of acquiring information reliably and efficiently remains important in all senses, including encumbrance." I don't understand what that sentence means. None of the uses at wikepedia seem to fit either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encumbrance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encumbrance "An encumbrance is a claim made against a property by someone other than the current titleholder." Perhaps you meant the sixth sense, clairvoyance, not encumbrance?
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      It was "encumbrance" as "burden": I wrote "the problem remains important", i.e. it is "massively" significant, and also a "massive burden"; "important" as in "with priority" and as in "of uneasy volume". ("Important" contains an idea of "carrying something big".)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

8 points by mdp2021 2y ago

mdp2021 2y ago

I submit this piece because of the matter of reliability in reporting. From and around November 6, a recurring keyword seems to have been "landslide"¹ - also definitely stuck with many people. It puzzles me a few days later to read, on Volokh and from Somin: > When all votes are fully counted, it looks like Trump will have won the popular vote by 1.5 points and have 1-4 point margins in the 7 swing states. That's not the kind of large margin of victory typically associated with realignment elections in which large blocs of voters shift from one party to another (e.g. 1932 or 1980). It's actually a narrower victory than Bush won in 2004 or Obama in 2012. Few would argue either of those wins was a realignment or a mandate. Biden in 2020 won the popular vote by a bigger margin (about 4.5 points) and had nearly the same electoral vote margin (306 for Biden in 2020; 312 for Trump this year). For those keeping score, I wrote at the time that Biden didn't have a mandate either. Trump's popular vote margin may actually be a little smaller than Hillary Clinton's was in 2016 (yes, obviously, she lost the electoral college). // House and Senate results are consistent with the above. The GOP will have only a narrow House majority (probably about 220-215). The Republicans gained only 4 seats in the Senate, despite a very favorable map, and actually lost 4 of 5 swing-state Senate races, despite Trump winning all five of those states on the top of the ballot. // [...] It is true there has been a bigger shift in the Hispanic vote than elsewhere. Exit polls suggest Trump lost it by only about 53-45 (some polling data shows a weaker performance for Trump). However, that means he got about the same share of the Hispanic vote as….. George W. Bush in 2004—the last time the GOP ran a presidential campaign with this highly favorable background conditions The general quality of the press still has an issue. The problem of acquiring information reliably and efficiently remains important in all senses, including encumbrance. (¹I am reading the news as I post this, and 10 minutes later already I am in front of a «won in a landslide» on some minor outlet.)

dustingetz 2y ago
why is the popular vote even measured (other than narrative construction)? it’s not a target, it is not optimized for, therefore it seems to me that it is meaningless: there is no possible relevant conclusion that can be derived from its analysis
- mdp2021 2y ago
  I'd say the opposite: with a parties system you should count the popular vote because what people are doing is voting for a part; if people were voting for electors (which is a more adherent to fact possibility in other systems) then you should focus on data reflecting that - but it does not seem the case in this context. The «relevant conclusion that can be derived» from the popular vote is "more people voted for this part rather than the other, and how much". It seems indicative. That it may not reflect the "electoral vote" is actually a "problem" of Political Science.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  The popular vote is the most important metric to gauge the democratic choice of the people, that's the most relevant conclusion that may be in an election. In most democracies that would be it, but it so happens that the quirks of the US system mean that it is not what matters to elect the President.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    Personally, I only know about one democracy where the popular vote is used to determine the outcome of elections. The others I know all use something moderately different. My home, for example, has two kinds of weighing, one for regional balance and the other is too complicated to explain now. Various kinds of regional balance are common, I think.
    - mytailorisrich 2y ago
      Off the top of my head I can't think of another democracy in which the executive can be appointed with fewer votes that the other parties/candidates, either systemically or realistically. In the US this has happened several times in living memory. But that's not the point. The point is that in general and in terms of democracy and democratic mandate obviously the popular vote is the most important metric. That's the point of democratic elections.
      - Arnt 2y ago
mdp2021 2y ago
Moderation, again and again I present a point and it gets stealthily attacked with no arguments and no apparent valid reason. You will have to realize this practice is vile and stop promoting it. The guidelines need a review.

BMc2020 2y ago

Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation, with the tagline "Free Minds and Free Markets". The magazine aims to produce independent journalism that is "outside of the left/right echo chamber." The magazine has a circulation of around 50,000.

mdp2021 2y ago
Consistently with my point above, during these times I suggest to pick your sources according to the apparent quality of the writer - not stuck in the idea of editorial boards such as the historic one from The Economist. Today the better technique seems to be "I will give my time to that author".
- BMc2020 2y ago
  "The problem of acquiring information reliably and efficiently remains important in all senses, including encumbrance." I don't understand what that sentence means. None of the uses at wikepedia seem to fit either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encumbrance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encumbrance "An encumbrance is a claim made against a property by someone other than the current titleholder." Perhaps you meant the sixth sense, clairvoyance, not encumbrance?
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    It was "encumbrance" as "burden": I wrote "the problem remains important", i.e. it is "massively" significant, and also a "massive burden"; "important" as in "with priority" and as in "of uneasy volume". ("Important" contains an idea of "carrying something big".)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]