Hamilton Electors
What fresh new hell is this?
I'm not American. But I do live less than 100mi from the US though, I'm effectively employed by Americans, the US is our largest trade partner and we share the longest continuous border in the world. I have a right to comment on this. Disclaimer done.
Anyway... seriously?! I don't fucking understand voters (not US specific complaint). First, in many key states Clinton lost by margins FAR smaller than those who voted for third parties or (of all things, write-ins). And now, from everything I hear about these so called faithless electors, they are about to do the same damn thing.
Firstly, based on what I read on Twitter prior to the election, I highly doubt that even the 1-ish % of American's who voted for Jill Stein actually wanted her to win. In fact, I think they would have preferred either of the front runners. And that is two problems in one. The first is, you should never vote for someone you don't want to win. And secondly, you can't vote against someone. If you cast a vote, it was cast FOR someone. The chance exists that even if you chose a long shot, that they could win and your vote would have given them that. Trump won because more people voted FOR him where it mattered. End of story.
PS - Yes, I consider CHOOSING NOT to vote to be a better idea than voting "against" candidates. If everyone thought like you, you'd wake to a strange world. Consequently, I also believe that those who don't vote still have a right to complain. Though, generally, I think note voting should be a conscious choice made. It is a decision which basically empowers everyone else's vote by a tiny bit.
Your chance to stop Trump (if that is your will) effectively ended then. You don't deserve to feel regret if you threw away your vote.
Now... The US system has some oddities, the electoral college being one of them. So, many are pinning hopes on this changing things. But, again, what I read is that HILARIOUSLY, some democrats want to vote against Hillary and some Republicans want to vote for some other Republican.
Which is another twofold problem. Clinton doesn't have a chance in the electoral college if ANY of her own electors want to bail. Remember, she is already behind by a rather large margin. But secondly... what the hell are these faithless Republican electors thinking? If all dems stayed with Clinton and close to 40 republicans switched, she could win. But, if they can even muster than many defectors and they vote for some other Republican (which is the plan for all but 1 defector I've read about) ... what do you think will actually happen? THEY WILL STILL CHOOSE TO INSTALL TRUMP.
You ask "why"? Well, firstly, he legitimately won those votes in the first place. Second, he will almost definitely still hold the single largest number of votes by a wide margin (even if DOUBLE the rumored number defected, he would still have more votes than Clinton AND more 2/3 of what is required). Third, he already has his team selected, which as you have experienced can be a lengthy process. Fourth, he has a largely Republican friendly agenda. Fifth, he has shown himself to open to change (to the point of basically dropping every campaign promise). Sixth, he has installed Republican friendly people to every advisory and cabinet position. And seventh, and perhaps most importantly... if they don't like him, they could probably throw something together to impeach him over in a heart beat.
Thus, while it sure as shit isn't going to happen. The "most viable" way I can see that the electoral college could change the outcome is if close to 40 people defect from Trump to Clinton. And all these idiots claiming they'll vote for another Republican are just solidifying for the others that it won't happen.
Call it "applied Occam's Razor". Occam's Razor states that given explanations for an occurrence, and assuming all other elements are equal, then the simplest solution is most likely the correct solution. Extrapolating from that, if you take a supposed occurrence, like "the electoral college voting in such a way that Trump doesn't become president" and examine possible paths to such an outcome, the simplest way to achieve such an outcome would also be the most likely to produce it.
Given electors are basically representatives of the parties they are expected to vote for, and historically "faithless" ones have never succeeded in changing the outcome of an election. Also, some are legally obliged to vote as expected. Coupled with the above on why it is unlikely Republicans would choose someone else and we end up with the simplest way to achieve a non-Trump victory is the one which requires the fewest number of defectors possible. That boils down to the bare minimum number switching from Trump to Clinton. For the reasons above, despite being the simplest way to reach those ends, this seems incredibly unlikely.
Expanding my applications of Occam's Razor even further. Now, say we have another related occurrence which we get by adding "Trump is elected by the electoral college" to the mix. The simplest path to this outcome is for the EC to simply do what it has done from its inception. With a few exceptions, everyone votes as dictated by the national vote. You could come up with countless variations that are all quite feasible.
Occam's Razor can basically be used to tell us that it is highly likely Trump will formally win the presidency tomorrow (or I guess today now).
While I know this isn't technically/classically and example of Occam's Razor, it is frequently used because nature (which we are a part of) seeks to solve problems in the simplest ways. As a result, it tends to be true more often than not. And, ever increasingly complex explanations are increasingly unlikely, just as increasingly simple explanations are also increasingly more likely. Thus, when presented with one outcome where the simplest path is highly complicated and another outcome to the same situation where the simplest path is trivial, as we have in our case, the true outcome is most likely to be the one which contains that trivial path.
In my opinion, those two outcomes are so far apart that no margin for error or anomalous data is likely to swing the result to any path with a Clinton victory.
I guess I don't have much else to add here. Not trying to favor one outcome or the other here. In fact, I think it is a foregone conclusion. Even if enough electors defect to take away his majority, I don't think enough will vote for the other party and I likewise don't think that if Republican's win without a candidate with a majority that it will change who ultimately wins. And of course the final implausible outcome is that 271 (or whatever the magic number is) ALL defect from Trump to the SAME Republican alternate, thus negating the need to worry about who Republicans would choose.
I'm not American. But I do live less than 100mi from the US though, I'm effectively employed by Americans, the US is our largest trade partner and we share the longest continuous border in the world. I have a right to comment on this. Disclaimer done.
Anyway... seriously?! I don't fucking understand voters (not US specific complaint). First, in many key states Clinton lost by margins FAR smaller than those who voted for third parties or (of all things, write-ins). And now, from everything I hear about these so called faithless electors, they are about to do the same damn thing.
Firstly, based on what I read on Twitter prior to the election, I highly doubt that even the 1-ish % of American's who voted for Jill Stein actually wanted her to win. In fact, I think they would have preferred either of the front runners. And that is two problems in one. The first is, you should never vote for someone you don't want to win. And secondly, you can't vote against someone. If you cast a vote, it was cast FOR someone. The chance exists that even if you chose a long shot, that they could win and your vote would have given them that. Trump won because more people voted FOR him where it mattered. End of story.
PS - Yes, I consider CHOOSING NOT to vote to be a better idea than voting "against" candidates. If everyone thought like you, you'd wake to a strange world. Consequently, I also believe that those who don't vote still have a right to complain. Though, generally, I think note voting should be a conscious choice made. It is a decision which basically empowers everyone else's vote by a tiny bit.
Your chance to stop Trump (if that is your will) effectively ended then. You don't deserve to feel regret if you threw away your vote.
Now... The US system has some oddities, the electoral college being one of them. So, many are pinning hopes on this changing things. But, again, what I read is that HILARIOUSLY, some democrats want to vote against Hillary and some Republicans want to vote for some other Republican.
Which is another twofold problem. Clinton doesn't have a chance in the electoral college if ANY of her own electors want to bail. Remember, she is already behind by a rather large margin. But secondly... what the hell are these faithless Republican electors thinking? If all dems stayed with Clinton and close to 40 republicans switched, she could win. But, if they can even muster than many defectors and they vote for some other Republican (which is the plan for all but 1 defector I've read about) ... what do you think will actually happen? THEY WILL STILL CHOOSE TO INSTALL TRUMP.
You ask "why"? Well, firstly, he legitimately won those votes in the first place. Second, he will almost definitely still hold the single largest number of votes by a wide margin (even if DOUBLE the rumored number defected, he would still have more votes than Clinton AND more 2/3 of what is required). Third, he already has his team selected, which as you have experienced can be a lengthy process. Fourth, he has a largely Republican friendly agenda. Fifth, he has shown himself to open to change (to the point of basically dropping every campaign promise). Sixth, he has installed Republican friendly people to every advisory and cabinet position. And seventh, and perhaps most importantly... if they don't like him, they could probably throw something together to impeach him over in a heart beat.
Thus, while it sure as shit isn't going to happen. The "most viable" way I can see that the electoral college could change the outcome is if close to 40 people defect from Trump to Clinton. And all these idiots claiming they'll vote for another Republican are just solidifying for the others that it won't happen.
Call it "applied Occam's Razor". Occam's Razor states that given explanations for an occurrence, and assuming all other elements are equal, then the simplest solution is most likely the correct solution. Extrapolating from that, if you take a supposed occurrence, like "the electoral college voting in such a way that Trump doesn't become president" and examine possible paths to such an outcome, the simplest way to achieve such an outcome would also be the most likely to produce it.
Given electors are basically representatives of the parties they are expected to vote for, and historically "faithless" ones have never succeeded in changing the outcome of an election. Also, some are legally obliged to vote as expected. Coupled with the above on why it is unlikely Republicans would choose someone else and we end up with the simplest way to achieve a non-Trump victory is the one which requires the fewest number of defectors possible. That boils down to the bare minimum number switching from Trump to Clinton. For the reasons above, despite being the simplest way to reach those ends, this seems incredibly unlikely.
Expanding my applications of Occam's Razor even further. Now, say we have another related occurrence which we get by adding "Trump is elected by the electoral college" to the mix. The simplest path to this outcome is for the EC to simply do what it has done from its inception. With a few exceptions, everyone votes as dictated by the national vote. You could come up with countless variations that are all quite feasible.
Occam's Razor can basically be used to tell us that it is highly likely Trump will formally win the presidency tomorrow (or I guess today now).
While I know this isn't technically/classically and example of Occam's Razor, it is frequently used because nature (which we are a part of) seeks to solve problems in the simplest ways. As a result, it tends to be true more often than not. And, ever increasingly complex explanations are increasingly unlikely, just as increasingly simple explanations are also increasingly more likely. Thus, when presented with one outcome where the simplest path is highly complicated and another outcome to the same situation where the simplest path is trivial, as we have in our case, the true outcome is most likely to be the one which contains that trivial path.
In my opinion, those two outcomes are so far apart that no margin for error or anomalous data is likely to swing the result to any path with a Clinton victory.
I guess I don't have much else to add here. Not trying to favor one outcome or the other here. In fact, I think it is a foregone conclusion. Even if enough electors defect to take away his majority, I don't think enough will vote for the other party and I likewise don't think that if Republican's win without a candidate with a majority that it will change who ultimately wins. And of course the final implausible outcome is that 271 (or whatever the magic number is) ALL defect from Trump to the SAME Republican alternate, thus negating the need to worry about who Republicans would choose.
Comments
Post a Comment