Summations Only

I'm surprised that this misunderstanding has persisted undetected for so long. The way you phrase it doesn't even make sense to me. If they were protesting by not voting for Clinton even though they wanted Clinton, why on earth would they vote against someone they wanted? And if it wasn't Clinton they were protesting, then what was it? How was it not obvious from all the discussion about "too many" disliking Clinton that it was Clinton as the Democratic nominee they were protesting? And I repeated my statement about the irony so many times that you even noted that I was overdoing it. So there's more irony for you - despite the number of times I said it, I apparently never said it well enough or often enough to be understood as I intended.But I'll say it again, differently this time. There were those in the general political vicinity of the Democrats who wanted a Democrat elected, but not Clinton. That Clinton *would* be elected regardless of how they voted seemed a foregone conclusion because of all the polls showing Clinton with a healthy lead. Even though they would have liked a different Democratic candidate than Clinton, they preferred Clinton to Trump by an extreme degree for obvious reasons. Clinton was a Democrat, Trump was a Republican. Clinton had elected and appointed government experience, Trump didn't. Clinton was sane, Trump was not. A Clinton presidency would be "okay", a Trump presidency would be a disaster. Believing a Clinton election assured they felt safe in registering their objection to Clinton by voting for someone else like Stein or Johnson or Sanders, or by not voting at all. The irony is that their protest contributed (we don't know by how much) to the election of the candidate they detested and viewed as an apostasy against responsible government. There's a big difference between, on the one hand, settling for Clinton when the alternative is Trump, and on the other hand wanting Clinton over all others. That they didn't want Clinton is why they used their vote to protest Clinton. The irony, again, is that their protest contributed to the election of the candidate they loathed when they could have had a candidate who they weren't happy about but who would have been just fine because Clinton shared most of their political views, and wasn't deranged. I think you're referring to a different group than I am. Those in the general political region of the Democrats did not vote for Trump in anything approaching "a large percentage". About equal. The polls leading up the election gave everyone the impression that Clinton's election was assured. That Trump won came as a great surprise. Because of the misunderstanding I can't be sure how you're defining the group "'principled' protest voters", and so I can't respond meaningfully. But for the way I've defined this group of Clinton protest voters I will say that it would be difficult to ever know for sure. That's why I said these protest votes contributed to the election of Trump, not caused it. But that they may have swung the election was never my point. My point was merely highlighting the irony of registering an innocent protest vote to make a small point that in the end may have contributed to the election of a monstrosity.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

And vote tampering, as Jill Stein was finding out in Michigan when they stopped her investigation.Enjoy

You are explicitly referencing the electorate in making your point. You're not talking about the electorate. It contributes, not decides. I think we agree. It is this opinion that we're talking about and that I've referring to. I think your opinions may be influenced by the particulars of the 2016 election, and that your opinions may be different if 2016 election had come out differently. No one's trying to produce evidence to force you to recant. I'm sure a high proportion of people are in favor of improved candidate selection methods were there solid evidence of their superiority. I just can't help but feel that your favoring of approval voting has more to do with your belief that it would have selected Sanders over Clinton than anything else. But it *is* different in a crucial way, which I get to next. Interesting. It seems obvious to me that the opposite is true, that ranking candidates provides better information about the potential for protest voting. Ranking candidate A 1 and candidate B 2 is a different message from ranking candidate A 1 and not ranking candidate B at all. In the first case you're saying that you prefer candidate A, but candidate B is okay, too. In the second case you're saying that you prefer candidate A and you reject candidate B. Yes, you did already agree with this, and I figured you'd remember that, so I didn't mention it. But in retrospect it seems unlikely that you would have realized that was what I was referring to, so when you replied, "That's right...and?" I filled in the blank just to remove the ambiguity. It's not anything complicated. I was only making the point that having an election for delegates to a convention who then cast their votes for candidates, rather than a direct popular vote, is the same vulnerability as the electoral college. Even worse, after the first ballot the delegates are freed from their commitment to their candidate, further removing the connection to the popular vote. So you see approval voting or IRV in the primaries as an improvement in the election of delegates to the convention, but bypassing the delegates altogether you don't see as an improvement. This is self evidently true, but it doesn't address the issue of better reflecting at the convention level the will of the people. I just find it inconsistent that you want improvements in the election of delegates to the convention, but that's as far as your desire for improvements will go. You don't want to project those improvements forward into the convention.Of course, there is the problem of how you hold a convention with no delegates. Certainly wouldn't make good television. --Percy

So you say. And I say otherwise. I mean obviously anything that happens can influence opinions. The point I raise here is because of the 2016 particulars, because that's what we're talking about. I am saying the selection process may be one of the reasons for the Democrats not winning this election. That opinion wouldn't exist had they won, for obvious reasons. But I'd still agree that the selection process is flawed. No. It's quite possible it wouldn't have. If it would have, however, one can argue he would have been a better pick. Maybe so, but it's weak. The second place votes are not considered if one candidate gets over 50% - in a two person race this is almost inevitable. This being the case, the fact that someone didn't pick a second preference might be explained as a function of it being futile to do so with regards to the results rather than a expression of them disliking them so much they wouldn't vote for them for President. OK. I said no such thing. I haven't mentioned the delegates in any detail until you brought up the fact that the delegate split was wider than the vote split. I brought up the primary voters vote split to show that its closeness indicates 2016 is an interesting example case to discuss for alternate selection processes to detect protest voters, and to take their existence into account.But yes, by all means let's add the delegate system to the list of systemic issues that might be possible issues. This is certainly an area where not living in the USA puts me at a disadvantage. What would be the actual problem with removing the delegates? In what way do they provide 'entertainment'? Is this down to the controversial nature where they change their views?To give a British perspective, one you will almost certainly be unaware of - the Labour Party leader nomination process. Unlike with Presidential elections, the Party leader is chosen whenever it is needed. It might not happen for 15 years (for instance the Conservatives nominated Thatcher for leader in 1975 and another one didn't happen until 1989), or it might happen once a year (there was another Conservative leadership election 1990 - Thatcher won all three).It used to be a sort of electoral college system. The voters were split: 1/3 of the power were parliamentary members, 1/3 to Labour members {like Registered Democrats or what have you} and 1/3 to trade unions.This system was recently changed so that it is one member one vote so an MP had the same vote power as any other member. This system gave Corbyn the leadership - both times it was triggered. In the General Election he did better than anticipated by the MPs, suggestive of it being a better system - but not conclusive. He got 40% of the popular vote compared with May's 42%. Compared with the previous Labour's showing of 30% to 37%There are many differences with the UK, but I don't see how a change to the delegate system would ultimately be a problem to put into practice.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

They wanted Clinton over Trump, but they didn't like Clinton so they voted third party to protest the Clinton nomination because they thought it wouldn't impact the vote because Clinton was going to win anyway. I thought that was the type of people you were describing. They want Democrats to win, think they will win, want to protest Clinton and thus vote third party expecting Clinton to still win. It *is* obvious. They protest Clinton being nominated by voting third party..possibly even Trump. That's what we're talking about right? OK. Got it. They wanted a Democrat win but not a Clinton win. Right they expected Clinton would win. They expected the Democrats to win. OK, so, to use my quote, 'they wanted Clinton to win' - given the alternative. Using my quote again , 'there were a bunch of people that voted for someone other Clinton as a protest [though they wanted Clinton to win] and thought that a protest vote was safe because they expected her to' win.'I'm pretty sure what I said basically captures what you were saying doesn't it? OK, so the 'principled' protest voters (those that have voted for someone other than Clinton regardless of how 'safe' her election seemed to be or not be) were a significant factor, then. Right?I mean, if you agree that those that voted against her just because they'd have preferred say, Sanders - but would overall prefer her to Trump were significant, and they are of about equal size.... Well I was referring to the time when that was your point, conditionally.

quote:

---

If that's the reason Clinton lost, that she's responsible for the fact that too many voters, in effect, threw a tantrum, picked up their votes and went home, then I think we have to blame the voters.

---

Message 1355My response to this was basically 'maybe we could, but we could also blame the system for selecting Clinton as the Democrat candidate'. My point to you regarding the alternate selection processes has primarily been relying on this hypothetical situation where protest voters were significant.

So you think. All psychological evidence says that people know their own minds much less well than they think. Important decisions are often influenced by the smallest things. We tend to work backwards from our current opinion toward rationalizations of them. Of course, we can never know the true inner workings of the human mind. Was your opinion about approval voting shaped by the outcome of the 2016 election, or would you truly hold it regardless? Who knows, including you. But your belief that approval voting would have resulted in your preferred candidate being nominated seems more than coincidence to me. Say what? Doesn't this contradict your previous paragraph that you would have held the same opinion that "the selection process is flawed" regardless of election outcome?Honestly, the more you explain your opinions, the more I despair of ever understanding them. It's not weak if the results feed directly forward into the nominating conventions instead of resulting in delegates. And of course there's the additional advantages when there are more than two candidates. Sure you did. Not in the same words I did, but words that definitely did not endorse the idea of changing the process at the convention level. Read the part that starts with you saying, "My point was that there wasn't much in it..." I included it in the quote chain above. Okay, great. This leaves me puzzled over the "I said no such thing" objection that seemed to be expressing disagreement, but okay. The smilie I included was to indicate that I wasn't raising a serious point, just noting that the thought brought a humorous image to mind. The people you see in the audience on televised coverage of the nominating conventions? They're the delegates and associated hangers on. Here's an image from the 2016 Republican National Convention: Without delegates the convention halls would be mostly empty and the conventions could be held in large conference rooms. Over the years I've been able to divine the broad outlines of the British election process from news coverage. For example, this past summer there was a lot of coverage here in the US about whether the PM, May, might have made a tactical error when she called for elections earlier this year.--Percy

Well yes, I'm aware of that. But I think I know my own mind better than you do. Feel free to believe what you want about what I'm thinking, but it doesn't get us anywhere. I championed changing the UK General Election for some time. I voted 'yes' when the issue came up for a referendum some years back. No, you don't explain what you think the contradiction is so it makes it difficult for me to help explain.I think the selection process is flawed.
If a different selection method selected Sanders, one could argue he was a better pick.Where's the contradiction? OK. For more than two candidates it does help overcome the spoiler effect, it does result in its own problems. I've spoken of them in a dedicated thread but one issue with IRV is its possible that voting your preferences lessens their chances compared with not voting at all.See Voting -- a better system for more on that. I really didn't. They didn't endorse funding space exploration either. It doesn't mean I'm against it. Yes, I was trying to explain my point in raising the numbers. That isn't me saying 'we shouldn't reform the delegate system' - sounds like a reasonable idea, as I've said. So the fact that I am all for discussing that possibility should lay this issue to rest. Because I didn't say it wouldn't be an improvement - when you said that was my position. I know it wasn't serious - I was honestly perplexed what the imagery was that would be missing. I understand a little more as to what you are referring. It'd look like UK elections instead I'd imagine. Less grand visually, perhaps, but still televised. The UK party leadership nominations themselves aren't televised at all over here. It's just people voting and a result. The result is discussed, the vote is discussed in the news beforehand - but people casting their votes? No, not really. A call of no-confidence would likely be televised, but not to a big audience. I don't doubt - it's more about the leader selection process rather than the election process. That's something many Brits don't follow so I'd be surprised if many folks over there know about how the trade unions until very recently, used to hold 1/3 of the vote for the Labour leadership

No, and I'll take another swing at explaining why. Here's you're original phrasing from your Message 1454 of what you thought I was saying: They're "voting for someone other than Clinton while wanting Clinton to win" makes no sense. It leaves out too much. I could only assent to agreement to that phrasing if the couple small changes I suggested are made: "Yes, we agree that voting for someone other than Clinton while *expecting* Clinton would win *anyway* resulted in ironic consequences for those people who did this."Probably the part of your phrasing I disagree with most is where you describe these people as "wanting Clinton to win." It's highly misleading. It's not true that they wanted a Clinton win, else they would have voted for her. What is probably much more accurately descriptive of these people is that they were willing to settle for a Clinton win, given the alternative, but there's no hint of this in your phrasing. Or if you really insist on using the word "wanted" then you could say they wanted a Sanders or Stein or Johnson win over a Clinton win, but they wanted a Clinton win over a Trump win, but there's no hint of this either in your phrasing. Bottom line: to say they straight-out wanted Clinton to win leaves out a lot and communicates nothing about their conflicted feelings. I don't see how your conclusion follows from the statements you quoted. If by "significant" you mean numbers great enough to swing the election, I don't know. I think I've said a couple times now that I don't know that those who preferred Sanders to Clinton but Clinton to Trump and who registered protest votes were a significant number, and I particularly don't know if they were a significant number in the key states. I can see that you're arguing we do have sufficient information to draw this conclusion, but I don't see it myself. You're ignoring the key word "if". I said "if that's the reason Clinton lost". And when I said that I was already in the middle of a hypothetical, because in that message I began by saying, "For the sake of discussion let's just accept all the criticisms you just laid out." And you know it was a hypothetical, one proposed not by me but by Diomedes, because you next say: Right. Basically I said if the protest votes were significant then I think we have to blame the voters. But that the protest votes were significant was a hypothetical. I never tried to argue they were significant. I can see that *you* are, or given the number of times I've misinterpreted what you've said maybe I should say that it feels to me like you are, but I remain unconvinced that it's been demonstrated. Note I'm not saying that it isn't possibly true, just that it hasn't been demonstrated, and was certainly never something I was arguing.--Percy

Your phrasing leaves out too much too. It includes many Trump supporters. The irony doesn't really apply to them. You know, if we're going to be pedantic about specific wordings of specific phrases. That's why its ironic. If they didn't want Clinton to win, the consequence of Clinton not winning would not be ironic would it? I thought that 'given the alternative' was kind of obvious. The voters did, after all, know who the alternative was when they voted. But I did explain that's my meaning. So if you want to say 'I explained the people I was referring to were Democrat leaning....' then we're basically even on this. If someone's desire was for Clinton to win the Presidential election over Trump, but they voted for someone other than Clinton in protest - believing it safe to do so as a Clinton win was believed to be assured, but the result was Clinton losing, an irony exists. Sometimes even agreeing with you can feel like pulling teeth! I think, given the context of the discussion, and the fact that they were protest voting, gives their conflicted feelings away doesn't it? No I'm not. That's why I said:

quote:

---

Well I was referring to the time when that was your point, conditionally.

---

and

quote:

---

My point to you regarding the alternate selection processes has primarily been relying on this hypothetical situation where protest voters were significant.

---

I've only argued that they could have been significant and IF they were, alternate selection methods may have detected this, and taken it into account...in response to your 'if they were significant we should blame the voters' argument. Perhaps instead of the voters being to blame, its the system that gave the voters the options that it did resulting in them behaving as they did.I mean, you said that 'blame' might not be an appropriate phrase for the reasons for the loss - hence the subtitle was changed and has remained 'the attribution'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That's true of some things, not of others. The way other people react to what we say and do can serve as a measure of how well we're assessing our own thinking. I know there was a change, but I don't know the details. Are you saying they changed to approval voting? Oh. Looks like I got it wrong. You used a lot of pronouns, and I thought some of your several "it"'s referred to things other than what you intended. Great.--Percy

No, there was a referendum to switch our General Election to AV or IRV, but the result was a 'No'.

"Given the alternative" was part of your later explanation of what you really meant. It wasn't part of your original phrasing. Adding that now we get: "Yes, we agree that voting for someone other than Clinton while wanting Clinton to win given the alternative resulted in ironic consequences for those people who did this."Yeah, sure, that's fine.Regarding the rest about the "conditional" and the "hypothetical" and the "could have been" and "blame the voters" and so forth, it left me feeling like we've been talking at cross purposes for a long time. Except for that post to Diomedes, I haven't been talking hypothetically or about blaming the voters.--Percy

Bob Mueller Goes Big With Charges for Ex-Trump Campaign Boss Paul Manafort

quote:

---

Paul Manafort, the former chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, his longtime protg Rick Gates, and a foreign policy advisor, became the first three Trump associates charged as a result of special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

---

quote:

---

The charges, which include conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, and false and misleading statements, among others, were unsealed on Monday morning.

---

quote:

---

George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor, to the Trump campaign has also been charged, and pleaded guilty. Mueller says he lied about his relationship with figures in Russia while working for Trump. The indictment, which was unsealed on Monday, claims that he had regular contact with Russians who had high-level access in Moscow.

---

quote:

---

Trump’s administration and congressional allies have engaged in a furious effort over the past week to change the subject to alleged Democratic misdeeds.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, has accused Hillary Clinton’s campaign of colluding with Russia on the basis that a Clinton campaign attorney partially financed the firm Fusion GPS’s opposition-research project that led to an anti-Trump dossier. Trump ally Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the chairman of the House intelligence committee, announced Tuesday an investigation into an Obama-era uranium deal with Russia that other Trump allies have portrayed as a conspiracy to enrich the Clinton Foundation. Some Republicans, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and pro-Trump publications, have called for Mueller’s resignation.

---

Wow I am so glad this investigation finally feels like it has enough evidence to move forwards with charges.It will be a long and difficult road to be sure to see this thing through.I'd love to be a fly on the wall to hear how the white house is dealing with this.Full Steam ahead!!!

quote:

---

*Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. Winston Churchill

---

Edited by 1.61803, : *add Churchhill quote

quote:

---

Trump’s administration and congressional allies have engaged in a furious effort over the past week to change the subject to alleged Democratic misdeeds.

---

The absolute surest sign that something that the heat is on; panicking deflecting using Obama and Hillary. The Trump administration is characterizing Papadopoulos as a "volunteer". If I were George, I would read that as "No pardon coming! Save yourself!" But there is some reporting from the Washington Post and others, that other, more connected folks in the Trump campaign were not onboard with Papadopoulos efforts to make Russian contacts. While that would seem to be a point in Trump's favor, one would have to ask why the information about George going rogue was not offered up by the Trump administration.