Thursday, October 06, 2016

A Vote For anybody but Donald Trump is a vote for Hillary Clinton

As early voting get's underway I wanted to try and address a few subjects that have been sitting in my mind since Senator Cruz nearly ended his national career ambitions at the GOP convention. I've taken so long to address those subjects that Senator Cruz has had time to honor his pledge to endorse the GOP Nominee; as well for the number of scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton to increase. Perhaps the most relevant event to what I want to talk about concerns statements from Palmer Luckey of Facebook's Oculus division.

The short version is that an event occurred that attached Palmer Luckey to support of Donald Trump. Kotaku, in following with the political mandate set by Gawker and apparently continued under Univision owership; launched a few attacks against Mr. Luckey. Then Mr. Luckey said something that he probably shouldn't have; saying he was going to vote independent. Which comes down to voting for Hillary Clinton.

For those unfamiliar with the claims made about Mr. Luckey's intelligence, he supposedly solved critical issues with Virtual Reality displays in his back garage. ZeniMax/Bethesda has quite a different view; stating in an ongoing lawsuit that the critical issues with Virtual Reality displays were solved by IDSoftware and that John Carmack stole those technological solutions and gave them to Palmer Luckey's Oculus company. The ongoing court-case between ZeniMax/Bethesda and the current owner of Oculus, which is Facebook, is likely going to result in courtroom shenanigans making the SCO vs. IBM and Oracle vs. Google cases look polite and well mannered. That being said, Mr. Luckey's political commentary lends credence to the ZeniMax/Bethesda position that Mr. Luckey isn't the genius he's been made out to be.

The outstanding point to be addressed here is the a number of people ranging from Republicans with long standing party associations; aka the quote/unquote #NeverTrump crowd; and others such as Mr. Luckey continue to suggest that voters look at an independent candidate rather than one of the two main political party candidates. For some it's seen as voting for a protest candidate; but under the current election system for the Office of the President of the United States; Protest Candidates Do Not Exist.

More critically: under the current election system for the Office of the President of the United States; a vote for any candidate other than the Republican Nominee is always a vote for the Democratic Nominee.

Confused? Let me try and explain.

Brace For Generalized Maths


There are multiple aspects as to exactly why a vote against one candidate is a vote for a different candidate; even if the vote was cast for a third candidate. The first aspect I will address is that of the population ratio.

Typically speaking in terms of United States History in regards to national level elections; 22%~29% of the public registered to vote will always vote for the same party; with the exact percentage largely only affected buy voter enthusiasm. If the Party is fired up it is likely that the higher end 29% figure will be out in force. If the Party is depressed it is likely that the lower end 22% figure will be in play.

The obvious average data-point then is that roughly 44% to 58% of the public registered to vote is exempt from the promotional cycles.  This leaves anywhere from 42% to 56% of the population registered to vote actually being open to vote for a different candidate. Many independent candidates come across these numbers and then think they have a chance to win a national level seat; since an average rough half US citizens who are registered to vote could be available.

It's not that simple.

The Difference Between Registered to Vote; And Voting


The key point to be made here is that party ideologues with a vested interest in the winner of an election are more likely to turn out to vote than the 42% to 56% that could be swung either way on any given election. In plain terms; think of it this way:

  • 30% of the population that actually votes will always vote Democrat
  • 30% of the population that actually votes will always vote Republican
  • 60% of the population vote is already sewn up before the first ballot is cast.

This is the key point as to why an independent candidate never stands a plausible chance of a victory on a national level. Only 40% of the population that actually votes is likely to step outside party lines. Most elections require that a candidate receive over 50% of the vote in order to qualify as the winner; although many elections may only require a simple majority.

  • The Democrat Candidate only needs to convince 21% of the undecided population
  • The Republican Candidate only needs to convince 21% of the undecided population 
  • The Independent needs 35% of the undecided population for a guaranteed tie

The math here isn't that complex. If an Independent does not carry at least 35% of the undecided vote; then the opposing parties would each only need that remaining unclaimed 5% to reach a tie; 30% + 5% being 35%.  Even if the Independent got 34.99% of the vote; the 5.01% unclaimed vote would be enough to give another party the edge in a simple majority election.

This is why candidates not affiliated with major parties can win at a local, state, or even parliamentary level as in the case with the Pirate Party. Independently aligned candidates fare better where local issues are the defining aspect of a race. Against larger party competition; the problem quickly scales out of a reasonable perspective. Compared to the major party candidates; the independently aligned candidate has to openly appeal to nearly twice as many voters who will actually vote.

While candidates have successfully run on single-issue platforms for various offices; higher-level national offices typically require more than just single-issue candidates. The candidates have to address a wide spectrum of issues; which in turn decreases the viability of a single-issue candidate.

This is an aspect of the problem the GOP has run into in past elections. As the election race for the office of the President of the United States draws towards it's ballot box date the GOP candidates have typically raced for a middle-road political position; leaving no real differences in policies or platforms compared to the competition.

Independents trying to court votes on a wider scale typically run into the problem that for the most part; they don't actually have that many policies or platforms that are radically different; if different at all; from a candidate in a major party. Appealing to nearly twice the number of voters that a major party candidate has to appeal to means having to make greater compromises on positions and ideologies. This means that not only does a candidate have to work to gain more votes than a major party competitor; a candidate also has to do that work while trying to be different enough from either major party competitor to stand out; while also adopting enough of each parties major platform points in order to attract the voters who would lean closer towards chosing a major political party candidate.

Bringing Trump Back In


The problem of numerical statistics is even greater for Donald Trump. Donald Trump is probably the first candidate in a long time nominated to the candidacy position where various party members with timeline seniority have no intention of supporting the party candidate.

Roughly speaking; 10% of the active and enthused Republican Base might not vote for Donald Trump. For reference that figure is largely obtained through the analysis of voter activity over the course of the 2016 Presidential Primaries as NeverTrumpers slowly shifted percentage ratios to candidates that were not Donald Trump. The actual number is probably far smaller; but the point of keeping the math simple; the generalized maths probably go something like this:

  • 30% of the voting population will vote Hillary Clinton no matter what happens.
  • 20% of the voting population will vote Donald Trump no matter what happens.
  • 10% of the voting population will NOT vote Donald trump regardless of what happens
  • 40% of the voting population could still be swayed one direction or another.

Since most State races require a simple 50% majority; Donald Trump has the unfortunate position of having to attract at least 31% of the unclaimed 40% in order to win a general election; while Hillary Clinton only has to attract 21% of that unclaimed 40% to carry victory.

That's a pretty tall order.  It's made more complex by:

That Electoral College


On paper and in conception the Electoral College was a brilliant stroke of government design. The Founding Fathers of the United States had come from a country where the city born Barons, Dukes, Kings, Queens, and other associated members of royalty dictated life outside their walls; without a clue as to what people outside those walls actually did. The disconnect between city life and those who tilled the land itself is a largely under-accredited aspect of the events highlighted at the Boston Tea Party. For those who studied history in a US School through the 1990s or into the 2000's, the Boston Tea Party was not actually a social event where US and British Sailors got into a slap fight.

It was a protest against the British royalty raising taxes without any representation from those on whom the taxes where levied. In other words; the British Royalty decreed that the colonists would simply hand over more money; even though they didn't do a single thing to make that money. If that sounds familiar to the DNC's line of "RAISE TAXES!"  ... congrats. You are officially smarter than Hillary Clinton.

The initial construction of the US Voting System thus tied voting rights to Men who actually owned real estate. This insured that whoever voted; and in turn whoever actually participated in politics; had a very real stake in the effects of their decisions.

However; the Founding Fathers likely did  envision a day when maybe the framework wouldn't be so tightly tied to whoever actually owned land. The Electoral College then is a solution to decoupling the direct stake each voter has in each election; an in turn leveraging other factors; such as economic conditions or local culture; have a greater factor in a chosen candidate.

At it's core; the Electoral College is supposed to function under the same tenants as Congress itself. The basic flow chart kind of looks like this:




In local elections the voter directly casts their vote for a candidate. In larger elections; such as the election for the Office of the President of the United States; the vote is used to determine the Elector of the candidate. The Elector then represents the interests of those who voted and casts their Electoral Vote on the basis of what the constituents voted for.  This follows the same rough model of Congress is helping to shape a majority represented opinion on legislation.

This was an ideal solution to the growing nature of the United States when the primary method of travel involved a horse. It made much more sense for a single rider to carry the representation of their city, county, or state in the form of a cast vote. Such a system would also scale with size; the electoral process itself helping to distill a wide range of potential candidates for a single political position.

However; the system has never really been readjusted for modern times. The election process for the office of the President Of the United States still awards the totality of the electoral college vote on the basis of whoever carries the total population of a state. In states like California the vast majority by land might vote Republican; but since Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland are hotbeds of liberal democrat ideology; just roughly 4 cities dictate the economic and social consequences for the rest of the state.

This distillation of the population vote into a representative vote is the very process that completely eliminates protest votes or non major party candidates 

Of course; the Democrats don't want the system to be updated. Even a cursory glance at voting percentages by land over the 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 elections show that a Democrat would likely never again be able to hold a national level office if the Electoral College was shifted to use a district system that more closely followed the intent of the Electoral College. Right now it's just politically expedient to award the entire electoral college of a state to whoever carries the population vote; regardless of the real economic and social repercussions.

What this means for Your Own Personal Vote

or: Why You Should Vote for Donald Trump


Under the current system of election for the Office of the President of the United States the only purpose a vote for a third party candidate is to deny either Major Party Candidate a population vote. Or in simpler terms: It Means That A Voter Did Not Want Their Vote To Count

I understand a lot of the fear, uncertainty, and even doubt that surrounds Donald Trump. I've dealt with such F.U.D. from Microsoft for literal decades now. Politically speaking Donald Trump is not my ideal candidate; but he has been making almost all of the correct maneuvers. Donald Trump has been seeking out the advice of all the people I would go to to seek out advice. I might not like all of his policies; but I can envision and understand them.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is most certainly the candidate nobody wants. The Democratic National Party turned her down for a shot at the Presidential Nomination in 2004 when it was decided she didn't have enough support to run at all; in 2008 when she did run against the no-name Barack Obama; and again in 2012 when she ran against one of the worst sitting Presidents in the history of the United States.

As of this posting Hillary Clinton has become the poster child for Open Corruption. Her husband openly meets with the Director of the Department of Justice for the United States during a criminal investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation for the United States destroys evidence under subpoena from both Congress and a Federal Judge; while granting limited immunity to prosecution outside the legal constraints of a Sitting Grand Jury. The FBI Director also openly admits that a criminal investigation failed to address evidence uncovered by Congress or uncovered in other ongoing Federal cases. The same FBI Director that also confirmed Hillary's confessions of various crimes then declining to recommend prosecution in the same breath.

The Obama Administration is no longer bothering to hide it's open stonewalling of Congressional Investigations or ongoing Federal Level Lawsuits. Involved parties are being told that evidence under subpoena will not be made available. The FBI refused to provide Congress with unredacted reports; forcing a dramatic showdown on Broadcast Television.

On top of all of the legal scandals, Hillary Clinton openly insults anybody who holds opposing viewpoints. Need I say more than Basket of Deplorables.

Despite all of the legal issues; trust issues; health issues; and absolute lack of interest; a significant number of Print and Broadcast Media Organizations would have voters believe that Hillary Clinton still holds an electoral edge. To just try and put this in perspective:

In the wake of the first Presidential Debate of 2016 the vast majority of responses in the 48 hours after the debate showed Donald Trump as the winner with a 2:1 ratio.  In other words; out of about every 100 people that would vote in a trackable poll over who won the debate; Donald Trump had 66% to 67% of the vote versus Hillary Clinton's 33% to 34%.

Yet; polls trying to determine who would win the election if the election were held ahead of time showed Hillary Clinton gaining a bump in her poll numbers while Donald Trump's numbers dipped.

Pardon my Russian for a moment: Какого черта!, Черт возьми!, Ради бога! Это не логично. 

This would mark the first time in modern polling history where a candidate won a Presidential Debate and had their numbers drop; while the loser had their numbers bump. It defies belief and comprehension.

What Hillary Has:


The only thing Hillary has left is an infrastructure. There are a massive number of fiscally vested parties involved with Hillary's campaign; ranging from bought-off labor unions to openly corrupt local, if not state, governments. The vast voting base that always votes for the Democratic Candidate is not going to go away. There are a large of number of US Citizens who are under a perceived, if not possibly realistic, pressure to vote for Hillary or lose their livelihood.

The Democratic National Party might not be enthused about voting for Hillary; but they'll show up at the polls. The DNC will also cheat; committing every single little bit of voter fraud the DNC and it's affiliates can get away with.

Proving Voter Fraud though is notoriously difficult. In states that are bastions for members of the DNC it can be nigh-on impossible to do something as simple and sane as ask for a Drivers License or other proof of identification before voting. Record numbers of illegal aliens will also find their way into the voting polls due to the efforts of DNC members.

It's this infrastructure of illegal votes, coerced votes, and legal votes that still give Hillary Clinton the potential capability to carry the 2016 election. It doesn't matter how nasty her campaign is; how many crimes she is known to have committed;  or anything else.

The Solution:


 The solution is a simple one. Do not throw a vote away. Do not cast a meaningless symbol that is discarded by the in-place system. There are better, and more accurate, methods of national elections that can follow the framework the Founding Fathers of the United States laid out. The system can be fixed; but it requires taking steps to get to a point where the system can be fixed.

A vote for a third party candidate is not a solution. It just simply means one less vote towards a solution. If Mr. Palmer Luckey were really the genius he's been made out to be; he'd have an innate understanding of the electoral system and would have never suggested voting for a third party candidate.

Right now that step towards solving the breaks in the Election System; the step towards ending the Open Corruption of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton is this: Vote For Donald Trump.

That's it. It's just that simple.
Post a Comment