URGENT NEED TO REFRAME 2016 ELECTION

[eniwetok]

How many times have you seen news reports on the 2016 election that make claims similar to "Trump was elected to be a disruptor", or "Trump was elected by angry white blue collar workers"? Worst, Trump's win is seen by some as a continuation of BREXIT when BREXIT was a vote by real voters, and the EC vote was not. These are both false narratives... yet once out there can take on a life of their own.

Leaving aside that no one group alone ever makes a difference in a normal election any more than the last run in a ballgame wins the game... everything is cumulative, these reports are making the logical error that what the antidemocratic EC did, reflects what real voters did. But those real voters REJECTED Trump by nearly 3 million votes.

The EC has no "motives". The EC is a mindless, antidemocratic, winner take all, voting scheme that has little to do with the REAL motivations REAL voters had. So say otherwise gives false moral legitimacy to the Trump Junta.

I suggest that whenever we come across such reporting we write the news source to complain and correctly reframe the 2016 election.

[randr]

1. A reminder that an additional 10m voted for neither Trump not Clinton

making twitlers loss by 13m Americans unprecedented. Not to mention that his win of the Electoral College vote can only be seen as counting votes on a curve.
A group that is constantly harping about "special privileges" for groups of Americas considers themselves so "special" that they need extra votes given to them to make up for some perceived short coming.

[eniwetok]

2. The US system is based on civic inequality

We're brought up to believe the system is fair because the states balance the People. But it's an illusion created by careful framing that conceals the fact "states" don't vote... the people in those states vote... resulting in a system where the weight of one's vote depends on one's choice of state residence. If one lives in CA and moves to WY, their effective vote for president increases by 350% and their influence in the Senate is 70x greater.

If the concept of democracy is to mean anything, it's that all votes weigh the same in terms of representation. Once votes are weighted, those representing a minority of voters... can rule. That principle is antidemocratic and yet we almost never hear a peep out of Democrats no matter how much the system disenfranchises them. Aside from Trump... if my calculations are correct, Dem Senators represent 33 million more Americans than do the GOP, yet the GOP controls the Senate as well as the presidency. Our system makes a mockery of the very concept of self-government... and I'd argue it's antidemocratic nature is making it easier for the rise of corporate personhood to rival that of of the People.

But I stray from the topic at hand.

[randr]

3. Like I said, it is graded on a curve

so that the "challenged" people can compete with the "smarter" people.

[eniwetok]

4. our system goes on even of voting rates drop to 35%

Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2017, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I was unsure what you meant since grading on a curve was a confusing analogy. Our system is more like Affirmative Action for those choosing to live in small population states. But your comment about the 13 million... I don't know what you meant. It's not as if Trump got 13 million fewer votes that, say Obama in 08... of course the population grows. But in our system those who vote for president, as a percentage of the voting age population (VAP) is only about 50-55% which is abysmal compared to nations with modern and responsive democratic systems. It could drop to 25% VAP... and someone would still be "elected" president.

The 35% reference... that's the usual VAP turn out for off-year elections.

[eniwetok]

5. In politics if one isn't on the offensive... one is losing ground

In politics if one isn't on the offensive... one is losing ground and framing issues is a vital part of being on the offensive. Once a person absorbs a frame, it determines how they see the world. That's why we are immune to FOX or Brietbart reporting... but right wingers eat it up.

And yet the lack of response to this thread suggests that grassroots liberal Dems are not willing to push back against blatantly false frames pushed even by the MSM such as the BBC and NPR... both to whom I've had to write to complain about their reporting.

And generally, I have to say I think there was more outrage in liberal circles about the illegitimate 2000 Bush election than with the more egregious installation of Trump as president even after being REJECTED by nearly 3 million voters... 6x that of Bush. Most of the outrage is about Trump personally than how he was installed, and this suggests to me that even liberal Dems really are clueless about something as basic what constitutes morally legitimate government. Our nation wasn't founded on letting minorities rule... something our federal system allows. That was simply the cynical politics of 1787... where the EC was created to magnify the votes of whites in slave states so they'd ratify the proposed Constitution.

The nation was founded on a deeper moral principle that the moral legitimacy of government was derived from the CONSENT of the governed. It's rather damning that so many liberal Dems who wear democracy on their sleeves don't even want to get back to basics and discuss just what morally legitimate government is. The US seems to be unique among advanced industrial democracies in not wanting to move to electoral and political systems that better measure and implement the will of the People.

Which brings me back to how the Trump "election" is being framed. If liberal Dems can't push back against the false framing of Trump being morally legitimate because he was "elected" for x, y, or z reasons... NO ONE WILL.

[eniwetok]

6. I consider this issue so important...

I consider this issue so important... I'm bumping it.

It's a false frame for the media to say Trump was elected for X, Y, or Z reasons... and yet the media uses it all the time.

We MUST stop the media from in ANY WAY presenting the Trump Junta as morally legitimate through this false framing.

[eniwetok]

7. it happened AGAIN

On Meet The Press Rubio claimed the voters voted for Trump and Chuck Todd REFUSED to correct him that the voters... ACTUAL VOTERS... REJECTED TRUMP.