Situational vs Principled

Published by

Clarissa

December 9, 2016

When I observe passionate discussions about the wrongness of the electoral college model and the importance of the popular vote, I wonder whether the participants would be making the sane argument just as passionately if the situation was reversed and their candidate won the college and lost the popular count. I don’t believe that they would. Their anger and conviction seem situational rather than principled.

I know I wouldn’t be clamoring to give the victory to Trump had he lost the college and won the popular vote even by 10 million votes. Which is why I don’t wear the cloak of righteous outrage about the college right now.

And it’s the same with Big Business subverting governmental policy. You can’t be against it when you don’t like the nature of the subversion and then forget all about that principle when Big Business turns against the admittedly ridiculous RFRA and toilet bills.

Or just admit that you don’t have any principles and only care about winning no matter what. That’s a position that is deeply immoral but I’d respect it more than the hypocritical situational outrage.

Rate this:

9 responses to “Situational vs Principled”

Shakti

December 9, 2016

Most people don’t hold principles in absolute. Or rather they hold some principles over others. If I have to choose between violating Principle A and violating Principle B but either way a principle gets violated, which one predominates? If violating principle A means I don’t end up violating principle C, D,E to Z ad infinitum as a result of events that flow from that (not violating Principle A) later on to survive, should I not violate Principle A?

What I find super damning for the partisans is that there was no such outcry after Gore lost the electoral college and the recount in Florida was stopped. There was no concerted effort to change this, AFAIK. Did they think it was a fluke? It clearly and obviously disadvantages them.

I am for the recounts and audit on principle however. I think there are huge questions about how the election was conducted that should be resolved and examined.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  December 9, 2016
  
  The question I asked is very simple. Would the people who are right now arguing that Trump’s election was unfair be saying the same thing if the situation were reversed? If he won the popular vote and lost the College? It’s not a rhetorical question. I very much want to hear what they tell to themselves on this subject.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Shakti
    
    December 9, 2016
    
    Would the people who are right now arguing that Trump’s election was unfair be saying the same thing if the situation were reversed? If he won the popular vote and lost the College? It’s not a rhetorical question.
    
    Which specific principle do you think such people are violating besides consistency?
    
    It is a rhetorical question. Saying something is unfair is different than futilely attempting to do something (Hail Mary faithless elector pass, changing the electoral college) about it. It is a rhetorical question when you know that even when a Democratic president wins the popular vote and the electoral college twice without complications, people will spend eight years baselessly screeching about his illegitimacy to be President, Trump being one of them.
    
    I would suspect that people who would not say the same thing if Trump won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College (unlikely because of 1) the weight the Electoral College gives to less populous rural states and 2) the way state legislatures have established rules for voter id, weekend and early voting, gerrymandered districts.)
    
    If they thought about it, they would give some version of my initial post.
    
    Further, they might say:
    
    1)There is no point in holding to that consistency when your opponent is not playing the same game or by the same rules but will use that consistency as a cudgel to beat you over the head with it.
    
    2) There is an unspoken and uncodified norm, that one shouldn’t try to monkey with the Electoral College after Election Night. However there is a LOT of uncodified norms that have been broken and that will be further smashed to smithereens. Should I list some of them for you? Why should someone who has shown he has no respect for these unspoken and uncodified norms and has signalled he has no intention of respecting them ever be afforded the benefit of them so he can have power?
    
    3) There is precedent for the winner of the popular vote (Tilden, Gore) to lose the electoral college and the Presidency. Both times, tremendous damage has flowed from those events (the end of Reconstruction, 9/11).
    
    To be clear, I think it’s tactically stupid and I don’t support it. I do not think they have thought beyond not having Trump in office, or what that would mean for the person in his place, and their ability to govern.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
David Gendron

December 9, 2016

Electoral college sucks ass, and it sucked ass before Trump.

LikeLike

Reply
David Gendron

December 9, 2016

Statism is (generally) not a principled position.

LikeLike

Reply
Dreidel

December 9, 2016

“The question I asked is very simple. Would the people who are right now arguing that Trump’s election was unfair be saying the same thing if the situation were reversed?”

That simple question doesn’t need a dissertation. It can be answered in exactly three words: OF COURSE NOT!

LikeLike

Reply
cliff arroyo

December 10, 2016

“I wonder whether the participants would be making the sane argument just as passionately if the situation was reversed”

My assumption is that a large majority of them would not. There was plenty of time to start to change the electoral college system after 2000. One analysis I’ve seen was that Democrats didn’t want to challenge things because they thought they could make it work for them in 2004 (or 2008).

The results are what they are. If they want to cange to a single popular vote then the population of about half the states would have no incentive to vote at all.

I’m open to proposals for changing the current system but only apart from the context of any particular election.

LikeLike

Reply
Dreidel

December 10, 2016

I’ve already stated the facts clearly about the U.S. electoral college, but I don’t remimd repeating myself for slow learners:

The United States is NOT a direct democracy. It’s a federated republic composed of 50 states and a few odd territories, and the people in each of those seperate geographical locations have as much right to help determine the Preisdent as the residents in overstuffed cities in California, New York, And Texas.

The electoral college allows the voters of every U.S. state, no matter how small. to have a say in the choice of the next President. Go to a purely popular vote, and the election could literally be decided by the total population of the four or five largest states, even if EVERYBODY in all 45 or 46 other states chose otherwise.

In any case, the electoral college system will NEVER be repealed, because that would require a constitutional amendent to be approved by the majority of all state legislatures, including the legislators of the many small states whose constituients will never be stupid enough to allow their influence on Presidential elections to be thrown away.

LikeLike

Reply
Shakti

December 10, 2016

I wonder whether the participants would be making the sane argument
Best typo!

That’s why it feels wrong. Despite the stated purpose of the electoral college, people want the popular vote and the electoral vote to produce the same result. And for the most part that’s what happens: the electoral vote and the popular vote result match. It’s a such a norm that DT felt the need for these this tweet:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664

I don’t know why he decided to imply people illegally voted if he likes the results. It’s a dog whistle, of course, about “those people”. Rather subtle for him, of course.

LikeLike

Reply