With the US presidential elections right behind us, there’s been a lot of talk about the role platforms like Facebook and Twitter have in our modern discourse. Last week, it was revealed that teens in Macedonia earns thousands of dollars each month by posting patently false stories about the elections on Facebook and getting them to go viral. With Facebook being a major source of news for a lot of people, such false stories can certainly impact people’s voting behaviour.
In a statement to TechCrunch, Facebook responded to the criticism that the company isn’t doing enough to stop this kind of thing. The statement in full reads:
We take misinformation on Facebook very seriously. We value authentic communication, and hear consistently from those who use Facebook that they prefer not to see misinformation. In Newsfeed we use various signals based on community feedback to determine which posts are likely to contain inaccurate information, and reduce their distribution. In Trending we look at a variety of signals to help make sure the topics being shown are reflective of real-world events, and take additional steps to prevent false or misleading content from appearing. Despite these efforts we understand there’s so much more we need to do, and that is why it’s important that we keep improving our ability to detect misinformation. We’re committed to continuing to work on this issue and improve the experiences on our platform.
This is an incredibly complex issue.
First, Facebook is a private entity, and has no legal obligation to be the arbiter of truth, save for complying with court orders during, say, a defamation or libel lawsuit by a wronged party. If someone posts a false story that Clinton kicked a puppy or that Trump punched a kitten, but none of the parties involved take any steps, Facebook is under no obligation – other than perhaps one of morality – to remove or prevent such stories from being posted.
Second, what, exactly, is truth? While it’s easy to say that “the earth is flat” is false and misinformation, how do you classify stories of rape and sexual assault allegations levelled at a president-elect – and everything in between? What if you shove your false stories in a book, build a fancy building, slap a tax exempt status on it, and call it a religion? There’s countless “legitimate” ways in which people sell lies and nonsense to literally billions of people, and we deem that completely normal and acceptable. Where do you draw the line, and more importantly, who draws that line?
Third, how, exactly, do we propose handling these kinds of bans? Spreading news stories online is incredibly easy, and I doubt even Facebook itself could truly ‘stop’ a story from spreading on its platform. Is Facebook supposed to pass every post and comment through its own Department of Truth?
Fourth, isn’t spreading information – even false information – a basic human need that you can’t suppress? Each and every one of us spreads misinformation at one or more points in our lives – we gossip, we think we saw something, we misinterpreted someone’s actions, you name it. Sure, platforms like Facebook can potentially amplify said misinformation uncontrollably, but do we really want to put a blanket moratorium on “misinformation”, seeing as how difficult it it is to define the term?
We are only now coming to grips with the realities of social media elections, but as a politics nerd, I’d be remiss if I didn’t raise my hand and reminded you of an eerily similar situation the US political world found itself in in the aftermath of the 26 September, 1960 debate between sitting vice president Nixon and a relatively unknown senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy.
It was the first televised debate in US history. While people who listened to the debate on the radio declared Nixon the winner, people who watched the debate on television declared Kennedy the winner. While Nixon appeared sickly and sweaty, Kennedy looked fresh, calm, and confident. The visual impact was massive, and it changed the course of the elections. Televised debates are completely normal now, and every presidential candidate needs to be prepared for them – but up until 1960, it wasn’t a factor at all.
Social media will be no different. Four years from now, when Tulsi Gabbard heads the Democratic ticket (you heard it here first – mark my words) versus incumbent Trump, both candidates will have a far better grasp on social media and how to use them than Clinton and Trump did this year.
What is that “Facebook” you are talking of ?
Nixon was not president in 1960. He was vicepresident. Eisenhower was the president. Nixon was however presidential candidate (Rep.) in 1960.
Yup, slipped my reading check. Thanks!
UPS, FedEx, and the postal service doesn’t open and inspect what is inside the package.
Facebook, Twitter, etc. do. And will ban or suspend users for badthought.
If Facebook wants to be a “free speech platform”, fine, but they aren’t and do censor conservative and libertarian points of view. That places them in a different category.
They may not open your packages, but can you guarantee they don’t read your postcards? Anyway, social media posts are not even like that, they are more like billboard messages.
Postal services have the ability to open your packages if there’s suspicion. Especially if shipping internationally, where customs can and will open your packages at will.
tylerdurden,
Here’s a weird story about that. I sent my brother a graphic calculator in the mail, what he received was a crazy bundle of ripped cardboard and tape and…TWO graphic calculators! They were clearly opening them up, inspecting them, and evidently they somehow lost track of what belonged in each package. I feel bad for the guy who lost their calculator.
For those who didn’t know/forgot, the NSA leaks revealed the existence of an interdiction program with the carriers to intercept hardware before it reached targets. They would hack the firmware and even solder in new chips in equipment for spying, repackage it with brand new shrink wrapping and even authentic seals, and then send it on it’s way. The irony was that the Pentagon was publicly accusing the Chinese government of doing it when we learned the US was doing it too.
Great points.
For months, I also noticed tons of pro-trump propaganda on youtube as well. There’s always going to be two sides to a story, I welcome that. But some of the videos had so much bulls**t that frankly I’m surprised youtube never intervened to take it off their home page.
I’m not surprised people were creating the content, but why in the hell was youtube constantly bombarding my screen with this hateful BS? Even when I cleared my cookies, it was still there by default. I purposefully never clicked it for weeks, but google still insisted it be there. So obviously google’s algorithms tuned for generating ad revenue decided to promote these videos, but WTF google, I don’t want to see that shit, to say nothing of my kid seeing it.
Have to say, this election has energized a hate culture with the potential to undermine decades of civil progress.
These are the people that Trump refused to denounce on the campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuGp1tclr6I
Note: I purposefully linked to a documentary rather than any of their content directly.
According to our constitution, they deserve a voice, but my god did we really just elect a president who refuses to denounce this bigotry?
I have a feeling, with our new president, we’ll be invoking godwin’s law very frequently because Trump is creating a populist uprising very much in the way Hitler did when he came to power.
Edited 2016-11-11 00:30 UTC
I don’t know if there’s been a president in at least the last 20 years that hasn’t been compared to Hitler. Speaking of which:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7LWJaBFIFw
Edited 2016-11-11 02:05 UTC
WorknMan,
Yea we got plenty of “but, but, but look at crooked Hillary.” during the campaign any time they wanted to deflect the conversation. But now this is about trump and only trump, what is he going to do going forward?
Is he going to ban muslims, build up a huge domestic police force to round up tens of millions of mexicans and split up their families? This isn’t a wild conspiracy, this is what he said he would do. He’s building up these ethnicities to be scapegoats for all of our domestic problems, trying to unify us around a message of hatred.
We’ve been through numerous presidencies, both democratic and republican, but we’ve never seen a president labeling specific ethnicities as scapegoats for the rest of our problems such that we needed to cleanse them from our borders, this is unprecedented at least in my lifetime.
It would be foolish not to at least recognize the similarity with Nazi history. Remember that the Nazis were a party of social democrats and before politics Hitler is have said to have had many family dealings with Jews and also had them as friends. He turned on them as a group when he realized he could exploit them for political gain. If he didn’t start out as a monster, he became one as he gained unchecked power.
The hilter comparison is more apt to describe trump than for any other president in modern history. It should be at the very least uncomfortably similar. So far it’s all just been campaign talk, please let that be all that it was. But at the same time, WorknMan, if this “ethnic cleaning” continues as president, please tell me that you would stand up against it and won’t be an enabler.
Edited 2016-11-11 05:02 UTC
People forget that there were democrat presidents that belonged or supported the KKK, the last one Truman.
jgfenix,
So what does party affiliation have to do with his character? You think that if he were a democrat that would make a difference to me? Hell no.
Most of the people who voted for Trump probably don’t even know that he identified as a democrat and praised the democratic party as well as the Clintons, even going so far as to say the economy does better under democrats and Hilary surrounds herself with very good people.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-election-democr…
He’s only interested in power. He doesn’t actually care about republican values, he only cared that they could be easily manipulated, and he was right.
Edited 2016-11-12 04:47 UTC
He might, though perhaps they should’ve thought about the ramifications before breaking the law and coming here illegally. They should’ve been deported a long time ago.
But I’m sure you think that means he hates all brown people, right?
Edited 2016-11-11 23:01 UTC
WorknMan,
How should I know? What he says depends on who he’s around. (The David Duke incident is a perfect example of trump putting votes ahead of principal)
He was sued for racial discrimination twice when he wouldn’t allow black employees to work in visible areas of his properties, which he paid to settle.
Does that make him racist? Or was he just trying to appease racist clientele? To anyone who is for equality, the distinction shouldn’t matter.
Edited 2016-11-12 07:12 UTC
Hate and denial culture. You’re an SJW if you ever dare suggest that data shows otherwise.
I’m pretty sure I’ll agree with your take on all this. Given previous postings
But careful making statements like that one.
Just saying.
Data is data (and providing it’s accurate, has low bias and so on) then has to be taken on it’s own value. i.e. face value
but you know this
Tulsi Gabbard will be 39 in 2020. The mean age of US Presidents-elect is 55. Only 2 Presidents have been under 45.
Yet the minimum age by law is 35, so I say why not? Female, racial minority, religious minority, smart, principled, level-headed, and strong. I’d vote for her in a heartbeat, and I usually vote Libertarian or “other”.
Sadly, the US populace has always been afraid of electing a woman period (though with the number of Clinton votes maybe that tide has finally turned), and they are even more afraid of a drama-free, scandal-free, intelligent leader who can actually get shit done. There are more voters raised on reality TV than any other metric, and that spells doom for any hope for a president who isn’t planning to run the country as their own personal game show. Every even tempered, intelligent, Presidential (i.e. boring) candidate from both major parties were left behind in the primaries, leaving us with a glorified used car salesman on one side, and an experienced but scandal-ridden Pandora’s box on the other.
Of course, I give it ten months before Trump’s launch code fingers get itchy and he decides to nuke a random “commie” country just for shits and giggles, so it’s all moot anyway. The man is less stable than Francium and is the most dangerous possible person to be in charge of the military.
All the attributes you listed about her are about personal traits, they don’t tell a bit about the policies she may want to implement (economics, social, international affairs etc.), it would be wise to learn about that too before voting “in a heartbeat”
When the alternative is a misogynist, racist, elitist, lying sack of shit, you better believe I’ll vote for the one with better “personal traits”. One’s personal makeup goes a long way towards influencing their policies. Trump is actually going forward with his “build a wall” nativist nonsense. Voting for a dead parrot would be a better choice than that meat popsicle.
I’ll take the dead parrot over both of them, to be honest. Trump’s an amoral, selfish bigot and Clinton’s an amoral, selfish bully. Yep, dead parrot sure sounds good to me. Too bad even if we all wrote that in, the Electoral College would have gotten us Chump anyway.
I voted for Johnson, and even knowing he wouldn’t win I still stand behind my vote. I’m not in 100% agreement with all of Johnson’s policies but he’s the only candidate I could vote for while maintaining a clear conscience. I certainly agree with him that we need to reduce the bloat in the US government, and we need to ensure that all American residents (yes, even illegal immigrants) are treated fairly under the law regardless of color, orientation, nation of origin, or any other factor. We’re all human and we all deserve the same human rights.
My vote wasn’t wasted; it was an investment in the future. In 2012 the third parties got about 0.8% of the national vote. This time around they got nearly 5%. That’s an order of magnitude difference and it shows the people are waking up to the idea that Big Red and Big Blue aren’t the only way.
Ok, so the popular vote for third parties is up a little. Even if it hit 99.99999998%, how do you make the Electoral College uphold it without laws in most states insisting that they do so?
I realize you’re trying to invoke Duverger’s Law, but if a third party candidate truly got 99% of the popular vote and still lost the Electoral vote, the people would revolt. I know you were likely exaggerating for effect, and I get your point. The Electoral College system is a sham, but until the people ask for a better system (like, say, electing based purely on popular vote) it’s here to stay. That sucks for us Libertarians, but it’s the way of the world (or at least this fucked up nation).
I was partly going overboard for effect, yes, but I was also asking an honest question. How is your vote not wasted? I’m actually trying to understand how you come to that conclusion when you know that the system itself is a sham and won’t count your vote anyway. Is it a matter of simply going on record as standing for your ideas? I can respect that.
Unfortunately, the people never will ask for anything better. Most of them don’t even know what the Electoral College is, let alone how it works or how it shoves their vote under the table even if it is for the two big parties.
I guess the way things appear to me at this point is that any of our votes for the President are wasted no matter what we vote. If we want to make a difference, our only hope is to put all our effort into voting local and state elections, for whatever small bit that might do. Even if I absolutely loved Chump (and I don’t), I would consider my vote for him a waste just as much.
I say it’s not wasted because its effect is still seen. Once a third party gets 5% of the national vote, they get access to the same federal funding as the big two. Once they reach 15% in the polls, they get a seat at the debates. In both metrics, Johnson came within 1%, again an order of magnitude more than he did in 2012. So yes, my vote most certainly did make a difference, as did all the other voters who got him to the levels he was at in this election. If that momentum keeps up, he is poised to make it into the debates for the next term, and might actually break 10% or even 15% on election night. While my vote didn’t affect Trump’s or Clinton’s chances this election, it very much did effect the chances of a future third party win. It’s a long game, but it’s still worth playing.
I do agree with you that we should focus on local and state elections, and in those cases I always vote Libertarian if there’s a candidate running on that ticket, otherwise I choose the candidate whose platform lines up the most with my own beliefs about what is good for my community and state. Unfortunately, working for local government means I’m restricted on campaigning efforts (which is a whole other bag of worms but that’s a conversation for another day) but I do what I can to support the candidates I want to see elected.
You don’t know for sure Trump will run again in 2020
True, but assuming that he hasn’t blown up the world or done something to get him impeached or worse, it’s an educated guess that he will. It’s quite rare for an incumbent with a second term ahead of them not to run. They don’t always win, however they usually do try for their second (and final) term if they can.
I’ve read about many of Tulsi Gabbard’s positions and I like almost everything. She’s not in favor of gun control legislation though during a time where we have very clear problems & loopholes with it that need to be addressed. I don’t know where she stands on education policy and some other areas important to me as well so I don’t know enough about her to say I would vote for her. But, she’s off to a great start and should be on the list.
Gun control wouldn’t do any good. The very definition of criminal means that the people who are the problem wouldn’t give a rat’s buttock what laws you put in place. People are the problem. In the end you’ll waste billions and billions of dollars all for nothing. It’s like the “war on drugs”, absolutely pointless because the people you want to stop simply won’t listen to you. If you want the intended result of gun control, you’ll have to attack it from the other end: the criminals themselves. Better prisons, more focused on education so that people who get out aren’t going right back to what they know. More strict controls on how prisoners are treated by other prisoners and guards. Incentives to get released prisoners employed, seeing as how they effectively have a permanent employment black mark against them in this country. If we want crime to go down, that is where I believe we need to focus our efforts. It’ll take time but will be more effective in the long run.
Prisoner treatment is a problem but it’s unrelated to gun control. Prisoners are prisoners because they’ve already committed crime(s). If we want less gun crime, we need to take action against the easy flow of guns into criminal hands. If we want less crime, we need to address the bigger social issues that turn people to crime to begin with.
I’m a gun owner, and I don’t mind going through extra steps to ensure I’m fit to carry a gun. I wish we had a required gun safety and marksmanship training program here in Georgia that one must pass to obtain a carry license. That would weed out the folks who would end up winning a Darwin award with their own weapons.
I do believe in protecting the 2nd Amendment, and I’m a member of GCO which fights to eliminate Jim Crow laws and other attempts to illegally curtail carry rights, but I recognize that there are certain individuals who shouldn’t be allowed to carry, mainly violent felons and mentally disturbed people. If we can do more to keep guns out of the hands of those who will use them to attack innocent people, while still maintaining the right to bear arms for the overwhelming majority who are responsible enough to carry, I’ll be satisfied.
Unfortunately that’s a difficult balance to find and maintain.
I’m a gun owner as well and I agree with basically everything you said. I fully support putting checks in place to make sure those wanting to own firearms are responsible and have been properly trained in safety. When it comes to carry though, I don’t think it’s a great idea that people be allowed to carry everywhere they go – especially open-carry. It’s unhealthy for society when people walk around with ‘dont f..k with me’ on display.
The meaning behind the wording of the 2nd Amendment continues to be hotly debated and probably will indefinitely. When you consider when it was written and what was happening at the time, it’s hard to believe it was intended to be interpreted the way many people choose to do today. If this country ever sees another revolution – a real one, not a pretend “political” revolution – the 2nd Amendment will finally be justified for modern times.
I actually agree with you about open carry; while I’m happy that I have that right in my state and reciprocal states, I am even happier that I have the right to carry concealed, which I wish every eligible gun owner would do. Open carry is an important right but it’s an inflammatory thing to do even in a rural area like this.
The meaning behind the wording of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. It is people who do not like what it says who try to obfuscate the meaning by applying 21st century definitions to terms like “well-regulated” and “militia.”
People like to apply modern context to these terms as if to imply that the founders who had just preserved their way of life by violent means suddenly intended for a government monopoly on the use of force.
The right to self-defense was and is a fundamental right of the people in the US. The history behind limitations on the 2nd Amendment are rooted in the post Civil War era, used to prevent suddenly freed slaves from retaliating or even defending themselves from terror groups. They are part of the same Jim Crow laws that restricted voting access.
Any litmus test for restriction on “shall not be infringed” should be applied to voting rights as well, for a fair assessment on the Constitutionality of such laws.
She ticks every box for a token candidate. Just like Obama.
If by “token” you mean not an establishment candidate, then yes.
By “token” I mean selected on the basis of membership of one or more minorities.
Gabbard has been a professional politician since she was elected to the Hawaii Legislature at age 21 That is about as “Establishment” as you can get.
I guess we have different definitions of establishment then. I’ve always understood it to be the so called “old guard”, rich white Christian men who have controlled the political landscape for the past 60 or so years.
But hey, redefine it to suit your narrative, it wouldn’t be the first time. 😉
You must be incredibly naive to think that Gabbard is some sort of outsider just because she is a non-White woman. She is almost certainly in the Top 100 most powerful people in America.
You probably think Malia and Sasha Obama are underprivileged minority students who need Affirmative Action to get into a decent college.
Careful, your racism is showing again.
I suggest you read the semi-literate anti-white rant that Michelle Obama submitted as her Princeton thesis before accusing anyone of racism.
How many establishment politicians do you know that voluntarily give up a cushy elected position to serve a tour of duty in Iraq – voluntarily! – not one, but twice?
“Establishment” doesn’t just mean “career”. It’s an attitude. Sanders is a career politician too, but I wouldn’t exactly call him part of the establishment.
I guess you have never heard of Winston Churchill? He resigned from a senior ministry and spent most of WW1 as an infantry officer on the Western Front.
Tulsi Gababrd served as medic during 2004-5. There was no combat in Iraq during this period.
This is actually interesting…
She is not a “natural born citizen” by the common definition. She was born in American Somoa, the daughter of a US citizen (mother) and a native of American Somoa (father). American Somoa is one of the only US territories in which being born there does not grant US citizenship. Technically, she is a naturalized citizen, and is ineligible to run for the Presidency (she was granted citizenship at age 1).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
There was actually a Supreme Court case on the docket to change this back in June, but the court declined to hear it, so the current non-citizenship status for American Somoa stands.
The constitution would have to be amended for her to even run for president. In fact I don’t understand how she was on the write-in ballot in California as VP for Bernie – I don’t think she could have served if she had won.
Anyway, I have nothing particular against her. Just saying, I don’t see how that could even be possible…
I think Thom will be disappointed in 4 years (as usual). The likely head of the ticket will be Elizabeth Warren (you heard it here first).
EDIT: Ill leave this here so everyone can ridicule me… I misread the widipedia article. Her FATHER became a citizen at age 1, not her… So both her parents are US citizens. Therefore she is a natural born citizen and there is no issue with her running.
Edited 2016-11-11 06:10 UTC
Actually, it’s her father who became a citizen at age one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gabbard). She became a citizen at birth by virtue of her mother being a citizen (similar to McCain being born in Panama, Cruz born in Canada)
Ha – didn’t read your edit comment until after I posted
Anyone else think this is stupid? As if being born in the US–something over which a person had no control–should bar them from anything once they’re naturalized or legal. Isn’t that discrimination at the highest levels? It’s how I’ve always thought of it, and I was born here.
Nothing would make me happier than Tulsi or any politician of her caliber to be the next head of the Democratic Party.
Especially because the alternative is them doubling down like the GOP on only having a message delivery problem and having Pence be elected.
Considering how an incredible number of people here in USA regard opinion as just as good as actual, verifiable facts, I am scared for any future election, where online propaganda will just shape opinions like never before in the history of the country.
Combine a stupid voting system with lots of backward rednecks and you get a shitty president.
News at 11.
PS. Social media is not the cause you are looking for.
Stupid voting system and “rednecks” were there way before this election.
And you get a “shitty” president according to the liberal media, not the American people. Let’s give the man his 4 years and then We talk.
Remember just 8 years ago, according to the liberal media, Obama would be the next Kennedy, he even got a frikin Nobel haha! And there you have him, worst president ever. So being hated by the liberals looks like a very a good sign to me. Even Trump could be an improvement.
Oh crap.
Surely Trump will be the best president ever if you judge him by the same standard by which you call Obama the worst president ever.
That’s so far away in the realm of opinion that it’s not even worth discussing.
Nice elitist and demeaning view on fellow humans. That kind of behaviour (and Clintons well documented corruption) is why Trump won. As a scandinavian I’d prefer Bernie Sanders, but that was not to be. I am sick and tired of collegiate f–ktards* looking down on poor people and non-college educated workers. A college degree does not make you a good person or a wise one, nor does lack of it make you evil or dumb.
* and cafe latte drinking, too…
Edited 2016-11-11 10:03 UTC
+100 if I could! Although I do like lattes
, and I doubt Trump is free of scandal. I actually would have preferred Sanders myself even though I lean generally more towards Libertarian, since he had the strongest platform. Then again, that’s why he didn’t win. The Electoral College will not vote in a candidate with a strong platform. Indeed, they want the opposite: one who is easier for them (they themselves being members of congress) to manipulate or at least, one who appears to be easier to manipulate. It’s so broken, I can’t even do it justice.
In same places (like Reddit and I think Facebook did it too) they tuned the algorithm to censor Trump.
Edited 2016-11-11 08:19 UTC
1) The requirement of regular media to give their readers/watchers/listeners diverse viewpoints has been dropped in the past.
2) Poor education that makes people vulnerable to populist statements (e.g. that a wall would be a solution whilst *every* wall at any place and in any era has proven to fail in the end).
3) The lack of a legal requirement to vote. Mr/Mrs Nobody won this election. In Belgium we have a legal requirement to vote. People can still choose to make a blanc vote if they don’t like any of the options.
4) After their imprisonment, former inmates can’t vote. So, even though they served their sentence, they are not really free again as the loss of the right to vote is indefinitely.
In nordic countries there is no legal obligation to vote. And yet we have the highest rate of valid votes in any given election. What matters is having actual influence and a societal understanding of the importance of democracy.
It also helps to have the system bend over backwards to get you to vote. Plenty of time and convenient places to vote beforehand, election days on weekends, and if movement is hassle for you, the election officials come to you. None of that waiting in the line for hours on end.
In Denmark we vote on tuesdays, wednesdays or thursdays. Traditionally tuesdays but recently this custom has been relaxed. Standing in line is quite common, particularly at large voting places. And of course we use graphite pencil and good ol’ paper.
Indeed, that matters the most. See also my bullet points 1 and 2 about media and education.
However, I truly believe that when being part of a society, it is best that you are forced to vote as you otherwise will have people complaining about the results of an elections.
E.g. there was an interview on TV last week of someone in the street who was sad he didn’t go vote…because he had to work and thought it would be no big deal as Hillary would win anyways…
If people were forced to go vote, I am sure there would not be as much protests now, even if the results were the same. If you know that *everyone* in the country has voted, and the candidate you do not like wins, it will be easier for you to accept that than if you think that your candidate was not elected because those who did not vote didn’t vote as they thought your candidate would win because the polls said so.
You think a legal demand to vote would help? I want you to look up two words for me: electoral college. Then come back and tell me if a legal need to vote is really our problem, seeing as how it wouldn’t have matter one jot what we voted anyway. And then on top of that, how about look at our bullshit two-party system vs most of Europe’s more sensible, balanced system first?
There’s very little that’s right with our system but please, don’t make statements telling us what our needs are when you clearly don’t understand how our system is broken. You understand that it is broken, but not how. Learn that first.
darknexus,
This is exactly the problem. Across the spectrum, a majority agreed that neither trump nor hilary deserved the vote, either of them is a loss for the vast majority. Yet because of a flawed election process in which we’re discouraged from voting for what one wants and resort to voting against the biggest opponent, we end up being badly represented. Trump has a 60-70% disapproval among those who voted for him, and hilary was the same. This election wasn’t a vote for either of them, it was voting out the other.
The irony is that voting reform is the one thing almost everyone agrees on…until they get elected.
“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy”
– Trump 2012
He was preparing to fight the rigged system if he lost the election, but does anyone think he’ll fight it now? After all, he lost the popular vote.
He was right, the electoral college all but guaranties that 3rd party candidates get *ZERO* electoral votes at the federal level. The two most hated candidates in modern history got 100% of the electoral vote.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Even the “270 electoral votes to win” convention only exists because there’s almost no chance for a 3rd party candidate to get even a single electoral vote. This website “270towin” was used by trump’s own campain, doesn’t even show 3rd parties at all, and that was before the election.
http://www.270towin.com/
It really sucks, yet the parties that want to change it are unelectable.
I wasn’t aware of the electoral college until now. I did some reading up on it and some alternatives that have been proposed, but am I right in thinking there is almost zero chance of the electoral college being replaced?
Seeing as how we’ve had it since the founding of the US itself, I’d say there’s a pretty good chance you are absolutely right. Unfortunate, for the rest of the American people.
Athlander,
Hypothetically, if reform were on the table, I’d endorse two ideas:
1. Proportional representation based on share of votes, as they have in some countries. This means third parties could still have some representation in congress even though they haven’t haven’t won a majority. Those who do well by the electorate could get even more votes next time. Faced with viable competition, both republicans and democrats would be forced to do better or concede even more votes next time.
2. Rank-voting for presidential elections counteracts 3rd parties being deprived of votes simply because they’re unlikely to win rather than because their constituents don’t want them to win. Voting for 3rd parties when you know they can’t win a majority is a loosing strategy in our current system. The result is inflated votes for the major parties even when they are disliked.
A rank-vote ballot could have both a first choice and second choice for president. This way a primary vote for a 3rd party wouldn’t be wasted, and the ballot would switch over to the second choice. This means a vote more accurately represents what a voter wants, rather than a compromised choice between the parties already most likely to win.
You end up with crackpots. In the recent Australian election Malcolm Roberts was elected to the Senate with a mere 77 first preference votes.
The Electoral College system was one of the compromises used to get States to ratify the US Constitution. It is part of the deal and it is not going away. A lot of reform of the EC system can be handled at the State level, as the US Constitution does not dictate how the States allocate their electors, or if they are even bound to their constituents.
The media likes to make the Presidential election seem like the most important one, because they are nationalized media and it is less homework and easier talking points to discuss. But the President is the only national figure on the ballot, and even then you are only nominating the electors. State and local level representation is still the most important element to our Republic. It was designed to be ground-up; national media takes a top-down view of government out of necessity.
There is also a lot of resistance at the State level to proportional representation of EC delegates, as it would make a “winner-take-all” swing state suddenly less appealing to cater to. Currently Maine and Nebraska allocate their delegates this way. If all 50 States allocated with proportional representation, the result might mirror the overall popular vote.
A legal demand would have helped, I think, against the protests we are seeing.
PS: I personally do not see the electoral college as a problem in the US system and I actually think it is a good thing as it protects the inland states from being dominated by the bigger coastal states. However, I do agree with you that they should fix this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States
matej,
I understand many people want the electoral college, but I’d like you to clarify something for me.
1. The electoral college implicitly means that not everyone’s vote is counted equally.
2. It is also responsible for 3rd parties having zero electoral votes or close to it and effectively limits the presidency to a two party system.
Both of these statements about the EC are true, and you’ve explicitly stated your opinion that rural votes should count for more, so #1 is good. However is #2 something you consider to be important as well? Or is it a negative byproduct?
Because it’s actually very easy to fix #2 while maintaining #1. Just switch to a popular vote and give each state a different vote multiplier. I’d expect that anyone who feels that 3rd parties should have a chance would prefer this over the EC, at least if they’re being logical.
matej,
Just to clarify, I don’t agree with you on #1, but it’s unclear to me whether or not we agree on #2? What’s your opinion of the near-certain elimination of 3rd party electoral votes? I think this aspect of the electoral college is bad for democracy, but I want to hear what you think.
Edited 2016-11-12 18:44 UTC
Well, having only 2 parties that practically can win the election is not that a big issue IMO, as both the Democratic party and the Republican party consist of diverse ‘sub parties’.
matej,
A majority (60%-70%) of voters in the US didn’t like either major candidate. Independents and 3rd parties don’t even get a vote in any of the primaries. So what do you tell the people who feel that neither of the dominant parties represents them? Do you agree that it’s important to them to have a voting system that doesn’t suppress 3rd party votes?
Edited 2016-11-13 13:37 UTC
In the UK, on the day of polling it is ILLEGAL to campaign. This is why you can’t have people canvasing you at the polling station, nor can you give out flyers which would influence your voting (one way or the other).
Facebook and Twitter appear to be exempt from this. And this is where I think the danger lies in my opinion.
Take for example the brexit vote, here in the UK. Both sides were actively and vocally campaigning on social media. Is this influence acceptable?
Should the same rules apply to a candidate’s or supporters social media as it does if they do it in the “real world”? Or is social media an expression of personal views only so doesn’t apply?
The UK isn’t analogous in culture to the US, especially when it comes to elections. We aren’t even on the same page when it comes to legal protections to speech. In fact, our Bill of Rights was created expressly because the English protections for the concepts enshrined are so weak.
In the US what you’re suggesting is not only unconstitutional, but legally trying to prevent political discussions and proselytizing on voting day would cause demonstrations in the streets and we’d do it anyway.
Facebook/Twitter aren’t “exempt” because there’s no such law to say they can’t, and never will be one that stands up to Constitutional scrutiny in the US.
That said, there’s plenty of laws to protect the sanctity of the voting precinct already. In general, where intimidation has occurred it’s on isolated local levels rather than a widespread national problem. It’s also very difficult to prove. The precincts themselves are generally considered non-public governmental offices where the government has a vested interest in the smooth functioning of the office and is not a public forum. Much like entering a court house here in the US, only limited freedoms of speech apply in such places.
Generally speaking, we go in, fill in our ballot (or make our selections on a touch screen depending on what the state uses) and give it to the ballot box. Then we leave. Most of the talking that goes on inside the precinct are the poll workers giving instructions on how to do things or showing people that showed at the wrong precinct where their proper one is. I’ve never yet had a political discussion in or near a polling place. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen, it’s just that it’s generally not a problem. Most of us respect the right of our fellow citizens to vote their conscience regardless of how acrimonious the rhetoric gets.
Also consider:
Tammy Duckworth
Jason Kander
Bernie Sanders
Cory Booker
Elizabeth Warren
Julian Castro
“when Tulsi Gabbard heads the Democratic ticket (you heard it here first – mark my words) versus incumbent Trump” – I love all your confident predictions Thom,. 60% of the time, it works all the time.
IT is a nursery. Old enough to remember how easy was [and is] to ‘rig’ the ‘standard’ Internet.
Just a button as sample: Indexes worth a little trust still to be born.
It is the responsibility of the voters to educate themselves on the issues and candidates who run for elected office. You can’t just point the finger at Facebook, Twitter, etc. A voter who replies heavily on “outlets” like those, or ones which demonstrate heavy bias, is being negligent in their responsibility. With the internet comes easy access to a great pool of news worldwide. Do the homework and use your brain!
Yes, it can be hard to navigate the bullshit but there’s no excuse for blindly believing rhetoric and propaganda rather than relying on proof, evidence, and facts.
I did not expect that the contents of the article would be filled with: “should Social Media play police to memes?”.
I did expect” “Should Social Media use their power to influence an election?”.
Publicly Traded Companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook (notably) were accused killing trending topics, manipulating search results, (shadow) banning users, etc if those users/topics did not agree with the viewpoints of the respective owners/top-level management. At some point, the accusations suggested that some companies viewed their users as ideological enemy combatants.
If true and these sacred lines have been crossed… I can’t even begin to imagine what the future will look like when combined with surveillance/tracking. Today it’s them, tomorrow it’s you.
It really was !
A big failure from the media, the politics and the financial powers in place in the USA to invest so much energy, money and talk on Clinton and to loose so lamentably.
It is a real avowal of ignorance on their part. Ignorance of what constitute the American People.
Also as I say tirelessly, the American chose to sanction a real proved criminal aka Hilary Clinton and give its chances to the alleged one aka Trump.
Bonus : I hope that now the USA will really stop giving lesson and impose war on other cultures based on their supposed moral superiority.
/End of venting
I’m surprised by the level of hypocrisy some of you are showing.
You routinely rattle on about protecting free speech, but then support the idea that an entity such as Facebook should “filter” posts people make based on their own reckoning of what is the truth.
Sorry, that’s simply censorship.
Different people have different views. They accept different things as facts – and often they accept lies as factual. That’s true regardless of whether or not it is a political topic or even a hot-bed topic at all.
The only way to fight the misinformation is by speaking in the comment sections and to demonstrate the truth. The misinformation will ultimately stop spreading as more people realize the facts.
We are all responsible for investigating the posts we choose to share on a platform such as Facebook. And we should consider ourselves obligated to discuss what we perceive (or can show) to be falsehoods in those posts.
looncraz,
Mind you, I’m not on facebook, so I can’t say one way or another what I think, but I agree with what you are saying as long as it’s real people having a real debate. If it’s just political spammers, then IMHO they should cut it off just like any other spam.
In our society, when by posting falsified data it is possible to earn lot of money, data falsification should be punished as hard as money falsification. There must be multinational agreements, to bring these people to justice, who earn money on spreading lies on the Internet and get benefit from it.
I don’t believe this “what’s the truth?” stuff. By natural selection, a state will succeed or fail, partly based on whether the people fight for good or evil. There is no success to be found giving liars and fools equal share with the truth.
About half of Americans are out of their minds. Just under half. If they aren’t reigned in, pax americana will end.