Moreover, you have used these silly visual hypotheticals with vast swaths of red and tiny bits of blue. If not to display “Red America”, what is the point of displaying them? What substantive point are you, Lewis and others trying to make? It’s a fatuous prop.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @yeselson
You may have me confused with someone else. I've typically worked with actual election results (eg, 1888, 1860) or a state-by-state hypothetical where the Democrat loses 48 states by identical 54-46 margins using 2016 turnout. My argument doesn't depend on county results.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
But you have indeed reproduced that silly map asked who would win such an election. I’ve engaged on it! Others did. Maybe you regret that, but you have done it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank
Ok, right maybe you did the 54-46 silly hypothetical instead. Which is a marginally more sophisticated version of the same fatuous (il)logic, to which the answer is, “All votes should be equally weighted and the candidate with the most votes wins.”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
1888 remains a neat illustration. Cleveland won a narrow plurality, on the strength of winning the (white) South 61-37. The EC contained the effect of that, so he lost bc he won only NJ & CT outside the old slave states.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
That’s interesting as a matter of political history, but it doesn’t change the normative point. In a presidential system (as opposed to a parliamentary one), votes should be weighted the same. Change the rules and it’s hard to know who would have gotten the most votes in such a
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
A page of political history is worth a volume of normative logic.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
You would find anybody on twitter more sympathetic to historical logic or scholarship than me—people here mock me for it. But the I’ll stand by the normative logic of “majority rules” and “all votes should be equally weighted.”
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank
Sometimes mathematical majoritarianism doesn’t work, which is why power-sharing was necessary in Northern Ireland.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichaelMcGough3 @baseballcrank
But that example actually makes my point. That was a definitionally anomalous situation: an imposed settlement of a long running religious-nationalist war, not a constitutionally mandated protocol for every national presidential election.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
We...have such history here, too.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.