USA Election Day 2016

[squ1d]

Divided into two? The half that vote and the half that don't? Nearly half of America didn't vote, and of the other half most voted for Clinton but she lost. Pretty interesting democracy that is.

Every time I read something in the media or on Facebook I wonder if that person voted.

[SciFi Chick]

Divided into two? The half that vote and the half that don't? Nearly half of America didn't vote, and of the other half most voted for Clinton but she lost. Pretty interesting democracy that is.

Every time I read something in the media or on Facebook I wonder if that person voted.

All the supporters of the Electoral College babble on about how we aren't a democracy, and that's a good thing, because democracy is mob rule. We're a Constitutional Republic, blah, blah, blah. I want to get rid of the Electoral College, and I would say the same thing if Trump had gotten the popular vote and Clinton had won.

[vendic]

The US system was never designed for democracy for the people. iirc originally only land owners could vote. The minions were not represented. Women were not represented, native Americans were not represented, slaves were obviously not represented. It was a democracy for the ruling oligarchy then and still is today.
This has been shown scientifically recently, but few people are even interested in acknowledging it and even when they do they continue like each individuals contribution makes a world of difference and blame the people that didn't vote or those that voted for the other side as the problem. Which they aren't. The problem is that there is no democracy for the people. End of story. This blaming the people themselves is ludicrous. They never had a voice and still don't.
By personal belief is you can't fix a system unless you acknowledge the problems. When much of the country thinks it's as good as it can be, it will not change.

[Swift]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment vendic. Sure, there are undemocratic flaws in our system, there is a concentration of power among the rich and powerful, but the way you describe it, it sounds like a complete dictatorship, and I don't believe it. And no, I don't wish for you to convince me otherwise; if that makes me part of the problem as you see it, so be it. If you think I'm delusional, fine; I just wish my delusions were better.

I was going to write some thoughts from some stuff I read about why Midwestern, blue collar workers who voted for Obama in 2008 and 12, now voted for Trump, about what this election was really about for them, and how the Democrats missed that... but fuck it. I'm tired of politics. I don't think anyone is rational about this any longer. I think both sides are fucking nuts and are acting crazy.

[vendic]

There is a huge difference between an oligarchy and a dictatorship.

[Rommie]

There is, but I suspect swift's statement that we do not live in one would stand. Honestly, I'll agree because while I feel we are heading in the wrong direction in recent years, your statements kinda smack me as someone shouting "you can't fire me, I quit!" As in, this new direction isn't that distressing to me, it was always that way!

I don't have time to go into detail, but saying for example the proof that women didn't have the right to vote when the USA was founded and similar things is what makes it sound like that to me. People literally did not think women at the time were on equal footing with men, and thus should not vote. That doesn't mean ergo that we've always lived in an oligarchy/dictatorship/ insert whatever non-republic you want here.

[geonuc]

The US system was never designed for democracy for the people.

Sorry, I also don't agree. Never designed? The right to vote is mentioned in the constitution more than any other right. As Swift stated, there certainly is too much power concentrated in the rich and powerful and Citizens United essentially wrote that into law. But oligarchy? No.

[SciFi Chick]

I'll just leave this here in case you can see it even if you aren't a member of Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/vi ... 190359668/

[geonuc]

I'll just leave this here in case you can see it even if you aren't a member of Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/vi ... 190359668/

Seen it. I don't agree with that guy, either.

[SciFi Chick]

Well, the fact that you, and several others on FWIS just shut vendic down every time he tries to have an opinion, and you do it in a rude fashion, and you're not even willing to discuss it, and several of you are downright condescending, as though he's just some uneducated buffoon is what people like the man in that video are trying to speak about. I mean, everyone here that slams vendic, has actually met him in person, and I cannot imagine you would actually speak to him the way you write to him, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

[SciFi Chick]

People literally did not think women at the time were on equal footing with men, and thus should not vote. That doesn't mean ergo that we've always lived in an oligarchy/dictatorship/ insert whatever non-republic you want here.

I'm a little confused. People were literally wrong. It's not a democracy if everyone can't vote, so excluding women and slaves and anyone who didn't own land means we didn't start out as a democracy.

Hell, everyone that defends the Electoral College does so by saying we aren't a democracy, so maybe we need to define some terms here.

[geonuc]

Well, the fact that you, and several others on FWIS just shut vendic down every time he tries to have an opinion, and you do it in a rude fashion, and you're not even willing to discuss it, and several of you are downright condescending, as though he's just some uneducated buffoon is what people like the man in that video are trying to speak about. I mean, everyone here that slams vendic, has actually met him in person, and I cannot imagine you would actually speak to him the way you write to him, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

I said I didn't agree with him. How is that rude? I didn't do any of those things you just wrote.

I don't agree with his view on this subject.

[SciFiFisher]

People literally did not think women at the time were on equal footing with men, and thus should not vote. That doesn't mean ergo that we've always lived in an oligarchy/dictatorship/ insert whatever non-republic you want here.

I'm a little confused. People were literally wrong. It's not a democracy if everyone can't vote, so excluding women and slaves and anyone who didn't own land means we didn't start out as a democracy.

Hell, everyone that defends the Electoral College does so by saying we aren't a democracy, so maybe we need to define some terms here.

By your definition we do not live in a democracy. And we did not ever live in one. Because "everyone" will never be able to vote. The dictionary definition of a democracy is

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:

The key is the words "eligible members". By that definition most people believe that we have lived in a democracy since the founding of the U.S. We have re-defined eligible voter several times along the way. And may have room for improvement.

When most people say "democracy" they think they are talking about a society in which every eligible (or what they believe is every eligible) voter is allowed to vote. And that the popular vote i.e. a majority vote wins the election and gets what it wants. That is not what we have in the U.S., and in fact, most democracies in the world.

We live in a hybrid democracy. On the local level it is pretty much a straight up majority rules democracy. Want to run for dog catcher? Get more votes than your opponent(s). You win. This pretty much works although the way up to the congressional level. Except even then it's not a "true democracy". Because if it were every time a decision had to be made then everyone would vote and the popular opinion would decide. Instead, we elect people to represent us and/or perform a job and then we let them make all the day to day decisions. If we like the decisions they made we re-elect them.


Until we get to the president election. And then the founders added a clause to the constitution that talked about electors. The electoral college was created to satisfy the intent of this clause. It created proportional democracy. It was quite frankly an attempt to prevent dictatorship of the majority. It took approx 2/3 of the states to cast their electoral votes for Trump to defeat the 1/3 of the states who wanted Hilary. Most people don't "get it" because they really are thinking about more votes = winner. Unless you count the "states votes" which is what the electoral college does.

And now we get to the slippery part. Because you, Zee, and everyone else who claims we live in an oligarchy are right. And everyone who claims we live in a democratic republic is also right.

The dictionary definition of an oligarchy:

a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
"the ruling oligarchy of military men around the president"

Wall street, the major corporations, and the 1% in the U.S. don't appear to directly control the country per se but their out sized influence cannot be denied.

The dictionary definition of a democratic republic:

A democratic republic is, strictly speaking, a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens, and the government itself is run through elected officials.

It would not be accurate to deny that the people vote and that they elect officials who run the government.

Are you confused yet? How can this be? We live in a hybrid democracy that is an oligarchic democratic republic!?!?!? Is this really what the founding fathers intended? Honestly I cannot tell you what they were thinking. I wasn't there. We do have a lot of published articles and papers though that suggest that many of them did envision something along these lines. I think they feared something happening similar to what happened in France. A pure democracy is a rule of the mob. A pure oligarchy is a dictatorship by committee. I think they feared a pure form of any form government because of the ease with which they can become a form of dictatorship.

There you have it. We live in a Democratic Oligarchic Representative Republic. We just argue a lot about who gets to pick the representatives.

[Cyborg Girl]

@geonuc - I already linked these on Facebook, but I might as well link them here too...

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/s ... king-class
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... king-class

I don't think the populism can be so easily separated from the racism. Partly because voting for a guy this violently racist is, well... racist. Trump being massively more popular with white people underscores that.

There's also another part, which nobody seems to talk much about: Trump's supposed idea of helping the working class is basically rooted in racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism. The talk about an international conspiracy of banking elite? That's a classic anti-Semitic dogwhistle. His supporters' rants against metrosexual hipsters? His fans view queer people as de facto members of the new global elite. From what I've seen, many don't even consider the possibility of LGBTQ folks being economically oppressed.

This isn't hippy socialist populism, it's the populism of Hitler and Stalin. It says that, if you're one of the Chosen - i.e. white, straight, and conforming to certain ideas of gender - you deserve a fair deal... But otherwise, not only do you not deserve a fair deal, you must not have a fair deal, because your existence is disgusting.

In other words, IMO, It's exclusionary populism, in much the same way that TERF ideologies are exclusionary feminism.

Edit: also, I should mention that, if there were an international banking conspiracy, Trump would be in on it. Many of his pool of appointees come from companies like Goldman-Sachs. So at least he doesn't believe all of his own bullshit yet.

[SciFi Chick]

I said I didn't agree with him. How is that rude? I didn't do any of those things you just wrote.

I don't agree with his view on this subject.

Sorry. I'm not just referring to this thread, and I shouldn't be ranting in here anyway. Just forget I said that please.

FYI - you've known me awhile. I tend to get more emotional when things aren't going well. I try to be rational, but it's hard.

[Cyborg Girl]

@SFC, while we're at it, sorry about the confrontational stuff on Facebook. I've been terrified and low on caffeine lately, some people in my family have been in full-on denial mode, etc. I like you a lot, just... I've been feeling like I would puke if I saw another "it was actually about the economy" post. And just feeling like I would puke in general.

I'll try to be less prickly, though I won't be altering my message.

And don't worry about ranting and being rational. Every person I've talked to since the election is still processing stuff.

[SciFiFisher]

I don't think the populism can be so easily separated from the racism. Partly because voting for a guy this violently racist is, well... racist. Trump being massively more popular with white people underscores that.

And the majority of them are screaming all over FB that they are NOT racist. NOT. NOT. NOT. They voted for CHANGE just like everyone did in 2008 and 2012 for Obama. And Trump will lead the way.

[Cyborg Girl]

I voted for change in 2012? Huh, didn't notice. Too busy voting against Sarah Palin and her party of holier-than-thou science deniers.

Those were more innocent days.

[geonuc]

I said I didn't agree with him. How is that rude? I didn't do any of those things you just wrote.

I don't agree with his view on this subject.

Sorry. I'm not just referring to this thread, and I shouldn't be ranting in here anyway. Just forget I said that please.

FYI - you've known me awhile. I tend to get more emotional when things aren't going well. I try to be rational, but it's hard.

Not sure what you're getting at, then. The only other forum where I'm active politically is Facebook and no one has been rude to Z on FB in quite while, given he isn't on FB anymore.

I'm not exactly in a stable frame of mind myself. I'm pissed and will remain pissed for a long time. And frankly, it pisses me off even more to read about how the Democrats are at fault, the Electoral College is at fault, the Russians are at fault, the FBI Director is at fault and now the US oligarchy is at fault. I know who I blame and isn't any of the above. It's the fucking racist misogynist, evil assholes that currently comprise the Republican party.

[vendic]

Two words. Kim Beasley.
I posted here back in March this year that I was worried it might happen here in the USA. It did.
The US just had their version of it and they had to go above and beyond the Australian experience.
For the record I'm not upset about anyone's posts here. I expected the responses but I am not offended by them. We all think differently.

[vendic]

The electoral college was created to satisfy the intent of this clause. It created proportional democracy. It was quite frankly an attempt to prevent dictatorship of the majority.

They didn't allow the majority to vote to begin with. Remove women, remove the native Americans, remove the slaves etc and you are left with a minority ruling the majority. What do you call a system that has a minority ruling the majority?

For the record, voting doesn't mean representation.
This was highlighted by the Princeton study. The lobbyists and the mega rich have representation, the average person, even the rich (as opposed to mega rich) don't. When you have representation for only the mega rich and powerful, it's an oligarchy. Call it by any name you like, if it works like one, it is one.

I'm old enough to remember voting in Yugoslavia. They claimed they had fair elections and represented the people. While the US is nowhere like it, they are similar in that they both claim they work one way but in reality, they work differently to that claim.

[Swift]

Well, the fact that you, and several others on FWIS just shut vendic down every time he tries to have an opinion, and you do it in a rude fashion, and you're not even willing to discuss it, and several of you are downright condescending, as though he's just some uneducated buffoon is what people like the man in that video are trying to speak about. I mean, everyone here that slams vendic, has actually met him in person, and I cannot imagine you would actually speak to him the way you write to him, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

I'm sorry if anything I've said could be conceived as rude, it wasn't meant that way (though I guess, since I've never met him in person, I must not be among the slammers ). In any case, I'm tired of talking about politics.

[SciFi Chick]

I'm sorry if anything I've said could be conceived as rude, it wasn't meant that way (though I guess, since I've never met him in person, I must not be among the slammers ). In any case, I'm tired of talking about politics.

I could not agree more. I thought we'd be able to move on after the election. Yet another thing, I was apparently wrong about.

[vendic]

There is, but I suspect swift's statement that we do not live in one would stand. Honestly, I'll agree because while I feel we are heading in the wrong direction in recent years, your statements kinda smack me as someone shouting "you can't fire me, I quit!" As in, this new direction isn't that distressing to me, it was always that way!

Far from it. I point it out because as I keep repeating, if people won't even acknowledge the problem then there will never be a solution. I'm literally doing the exact opposite of calling it quits. I'm actively trying to highlight the problem.

People literally did not think women at the time were on equal footing with men, and thus should not vote. That doesn't mean ergo that we've always lived in an oligarchy/dictatorship/ insert whatever non-republic you want here.

Isn't that exactly how an oligarchy works?
They don't think we are on equal footing with them. If you look at what they think they are entitled to and what they think the average person is, it really comes across pretty clearly. That's how they justify wage cuts for workers (low minimum wages etc) and give themselves bonuses while getting ridiculous benefits and salaries. That's how a handful of people can have more wealth than half the country. I can provide plenty of examples of such behaviour from our leaders to the big corporate heads and I'm sure anyone can. It's so common many find it perfectly acceptable and normal. You, I and tens of thousands of others can protest and it will make no impact. Yet a few key people can go have a chat and have policy changed to suit them.

[squ1d]

I blame the millions and millions that don't care enough to vote.