Republicans did not grow their base, Democrats lost voters

So it is just the current form of tyranny that are against, but you are fine with the tyranny of large urban centers over the rest of the country? Why is one form of tyranny better than another?

I believe Robert's basic premise to the thread is demonstrably false. The recent election continued a long-term steady rise in Republican majorities in state Lergislatures and Governorships. If I'm not mistaken all but 125 of our 50 stated have Republican governors. The transformations that have occurred in Wisconsin ( the birthplace of the American Progressive movement) under Sacott Walker and in Michigan, the former birthplace of Walter Reuther;s CIO, which under a Republicaqn Governor is now a right to work state are indicative of a wider trend. The Fact that Trump and other Republican candidated carried Pennsylvanias, Ohio, Michigasn, and Wisconsin (plus Indians which was no surprise) suggests a pervasive shift in the U.S. political landscape.

One consequence is that the foundation of the Republican Party for the development of new political leaders and candidates Has over the past decade become much stronger than that of Democrats. It is noteworthy that the only viable competition for Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primary was from the unelectable far left in the form of an oddball socialist from Vermont. This is a stuation somewhat like that of the UK Labor party now in the hands of its far left wing unelectable fringe.

Robert appears to be whistling in the dark.

Basic arithmetic demonstrably disagrees. Republicans did not grow their base, fewer voted Republican in this election than the last ones. The political gains are a result of Democrats losing voters relative to the last elections.

You seem to be confusing the difference between political gains and mathematical gains.

I am not in favor of any special treatment for votes. I do not actually think there is any real concern of the tyranny of urban centers like is always trotted out and whatever the case it is not a defense against such tyranny, just particular ones while causing others. By causing other tyrannies of the majority it argues against its own existence.

I have always been in favor of one man one vote and letting the chips fall where they may.

I agree, one person, one vote, period. I've expressed that before, somewhere on a2k.

On the matter of possible future democrat party populism, the link in the Guardian points to five people.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/11/democrats-2020-election-elizabeth-warren-cory-booker

Sherrod Brown, described in the article, has new interest for me, being from the rust belt.

Clip -
The pro-labor senator hails from the key battleground state of Ohio, a state no Republican has won the presidency without capturing. His blue-collar appeal would help win back voters in the rust belt, a bloc that thrilled to Trump and upset Clinton’s path to the presidency. His seat on the Senate banking committee offers plenty of opportunities to take on Wall Street reform and issues related to economic inequality, which is a top priority for the leftwing faction of the Democratic party. As a plus, his wife Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer prize-winning feminist columnist.

It's certainly valid to question the value of the Electoral College but to charge it's operation with "gaming" the election is absurd and the whining of a sore loser.

And I do not actually think there is any real concern that the Electoral College makes a sham of our elections.

So 1-1

If the people agree with you in sufficient numbers the system can be changed.

Personally, I marvel almost every day about how brilliant the Founding Fathers were.

Freedom and tyranny are not concepts that change with the times.

The bottom line is that it's operation was gamed in that the electoral vote overrode the popular vote. It undermines the ideal of "one person, one vote." There's no two way about it.

Your premise may be true mathematically, but in terms of elections, political gains are far more important than mathematical ones.

If, for whatever reason, Democrats sat out this election, that was an undeniable gain by Republicans.

I get that people disappointed by the results of this election are attempting to find solace wherever they can, but your premise is meager solace.

As george noted, it is indisputable that Republicans have a clear advantage on all levels across the country.

Now I know that disappointed Democrats will argue it's because the Republicans have rigged the system, but that's just a crybaby response.

It may or may not be that there is a majority of US citizens who want to see progressive politicians in power, but if they don't care enough to get off their asses and vote for them, whose fault is that?

Better that our governments (at all levels) are run by the choices of citizens who actually care.

It's ironic because progressives reliably charge Republican voters with ignorance, and yet if your premise is true, Republicans are winning because Republican voters are more interested and engaged than their Democrat counterparts.

Cynical stoners, and ignorant recipients of Federal largess don't win elections.

Nonsense

It is a system that has been in place for over 200 years.

Nothing was "gamed"

The age of the system is irrelevant. It was gamed in that it thwarted the popular vote.

You are using the word 'gamed' incorrectly.

The system was developed to assure that the president was not elected solely on the basis of raw popular vote. Presidents have lost the popular vote 5 times in our history (including this election) and I'm sure in each case the supporters of the candidate who won the popular vote but lost the election cried foul.

It's our system and it worked as it was intended to.

As it is a system, it can't be guilty of "gaming" anything, and there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone "gamed" the election, by somehow misusing the Electoral College.

You simply wish to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's victory.

Sorry but he won fair and square and in accordance with our system that has been in place, unchanged, for over 200 hundred years.

If you don't like the system, fine, try and have it changed, but be careful of what you wish for. It is not written in stone that American voters will be voting Democrat for hundreds of years in the future. There may come a time when you decry the tyranny of the majority.

The system was manipulated in a way that circumvented the popular vote. That's an example of gaming.

The same arithmetic is used to calculate votes and the number of elected governors and state legislators, so your use of the term "mathematical gains" is meaningless. It appears that you, a priori, attach more significance to variations in voter turnout than to the number of elected offices held or gained. That's OK with me, however you have not explained your reasoning for this value judgment and its merits are very far from clear.

Republicans have been gaining an increasingly large majority in state governments, both legislatures and Governorships, steadily for almost two decades. That is a steady, long-term trend, that has obvious implications for the future. Voter turnout is a relatively more ephemeral phenomenon affecting both parties and many croscutting voter segments in highly variable ways.

The system was not developed to assure that the president was not elected solely on the basis of raw popular vote. It was developed in an attempt to appease states with lower populations of freemen with large populations of slaves. James Madison's argument wasn't only against, "an interested and overbearing majority," but also "the mischiefs of faction," "amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." In this regard, the latter prevailed against the design of the electoral college in this election. The system did not work as it was intended.

The system is not guilty of gaming. The system is guilty of being gameable and being gamed against the intent of the system itself.

Trump won by the system. The system is flawed.

Repeating the time that the system has been around does not negate the fact that it is flawed.

The argument isn't about any political party, it's about the flawed system.

That is one of those things that go without saying. And things that go without saying should.

This thread is not comparing the two. It's a statistical observation for folks who care to know on that level why things happen.

This thread has no deeper meaning other than simple post-election analysis on what happened (for people who care about knowing such things). It is not any criticism of the way that Republicans won in any way.

That the Republican political gains were had without growing their base was a surprise to me and I found this data relevant. I am not trying to say any of the things you are imagining. Just noting that this victory was due to Democrats losing votes not Republicans gaining votes. I have no interest at all in the hyper-partisan sport of twisting that into some kind of dumb partisan argument.

Its interesting. How many of those Dems voted Repub, or just stayed home? The republicans have stayed pretty consistent according to the graph.

I don't have that data in front of me but it seems pretty obvious that the biggest difference was people staying home. The population grew, the voters did not. More people stayed home this time.