[trexen]

The Trump policies are those of the democratically elected leader, which means it's the will of almost the majority of Americans that there should be such travel restrictions.

Seems a strange and disturbing choice that the US public has made but their willl should be respected.

Democracy provides for people to vote out the leadership if they don't agree, although the Google seems to suggest trump is currently looking good for reelection.

[netsharc]

Well, the conference organizers are "respecting" the "US public"'s choice by holding their conference somewhere where more people are welcome.

If the management of the Holtin Hotels said brown-haired people are no longer welcome in their hotel, would you hold your conference (which has some brown haired people attendees) there or would you hold it somewhere else?

[magduf]

>Well, the conference organizers are "respecting" the "US public"'s choice by holding their conference somewhere where more people are welcome.

Yes, exactly. You don't need the scare-quotes. The voters of the US have spoken, and their will should be respected. If they don't want to be a welcoming place, that's their right. It's the conference organizers' right to take their conference someplace more welcoming, and it isn't disrespectful for them to do this.

>If the management of the Holtin Hotels said brown-haired people are no longer welcome in their hotel, would you hold your conference (which has some brown haired people attendees) there or would you hold it somewhere else?

Exactly! There's plenty of places in the world where you can have a large tech conference.

[ihsw2]

That's not an appropriate comparison, the current administration is no more racist than the last (if anything it is less racist).

[rsynnott]

How racist or otherwise Donnie is is largely irrelevant in this case; the reality is, his policies make it more difficult for people to hold international conferences in the US, so they're beginning to go elsewhere. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this.

[krapp]

> the current administration is no more racist than the last (if anything it is less racist)

That reads like ideological boilerplate attempting to pass as fact.

Can you back it up with something objective?

[SketchySeaBeast]

The article says that guests can't attend because of the travel restrictions, so it's moving to accommodate those individuals. Are you saying that the conferences shouldn't be allowed to move because "almost the majority" of Americans made a decision? The tech industry, a very small group with specialized interests spread across a global theatre, and specifically, a particular set of conferences, an even smaller sample, is beholden to the almost will of the almost majority in one nation?

[magduf]

You totally misunderstood the intent of that comment; it looks just like a comment I would have written myself. He's correct, Trump was democratically elected, so his policies represent the will of the people. If people outside the country don't like this, it's their prerogative (and in fact their duty) to take their conference and its 25000 attendees and all the tourism dollars that entails to a location that's more welcoming. I'm sure the people who elected Trump will be more than happy to see all these foreigners not coming to the US.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Thank you for the clarification. In that case I absolutely agree. If the US and the "Will of the People" (which is largely decided through apathy it would seem) decide that they really don't want tech minds from around the world in their midst, I'm sure Canada will gladly take that on.

[lolc]

> Are you saying that the conferences shouldn't be allowed to move because "almost the majority" of Americans made a decision?

I didn't read it that way. I think the intent was to say that if anybody is to blame for this, it's the people who voted for Trump. And that their will will be respected when conferences are held somewhere else.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Yeah, I didn't get that from their statement, seemed a "well, this is the will of the people, so put up with it" sort of thing. Hopefully they'll clarify, because, yeah, I could be totally off base, and I don't want to mindlessly add to the hostility for an unwarranted reason.

[rsynnott]

> Seems a strange and disturbing choice that the US public has made but their willl should be respected.

Sure. The US has, for now, chosen to adopt hostile immigration policies, which will incentivise international conference organisers to avoid it, like they do other countries with hostile immigration policies. I'm not sure where you see a problem?

> although the Google seems to suggest trump is currently looking good for reelection

Eh? How did Google do that?

[perl4ever]

There is a certain tension between the phrases "democratically elected" and "almost the majority".

[magduf]

An overwhelming majority of American voters support the election system that resulted in Trump winning. If they didn't, they would have demanded that their leaders change this system some time in the last 225+ years. They've demanded and gotten other changes during that time, such as the Constitutional Amendment which banned alcohol, and then the one shortly after that repealed it. If Americans thought our strange voting system was such a problem, we would have gotten it changed by now.

[jhayward]

> If they didn't, they would have demanded that their leaders change this system

This is an assertion, not a fact. There are plenty of ways in which systems which are not popular persist long after a majority, not to mention an overwhelming majority, support them. In fact one of the major intents and effects of propaganda, which is being used extensively today in the US, is to raise the level of apathy in a population.

[magduf]

Propaganda is used to change peoples' opinions. Peoples' opinions are their opinions, regardless of how they were formed, and their opinions help determine their behavior, particularly at the voting booth. You seem to be attempting to claim there's some huge amount of support for changing the election system, but this is an assertion without any supporting evidence. As I've pointed out, there's no popular support for any such change, none at all.

Meanwhile, I can point to lots of popular support for other things, despite any "propaganda". Propaganda and apathy don't seem to have stopped various activists from pushing for marijuana reform, gay rights/marriage, gun law changes (in different directions), etc. Can you point me to ANY significant activist activity to change the voting laws? Any? Any at all? Can you point to any national-level candidate (or even state-level) who's made any noise about this issue?

(And before you try to claim that "propaganda" limits the choices and viability of candidates, I'll disprove that with one name: "Trump".)

[jhayward]

> Propaganda is used to change peoples' opinions

No, this is misinformation. The purpose of propaganda and disinformation is to reduce a population's ability to discern the truth. To wear down cognitive abilities until people stop trying. You can't use apathy or lack of initiative as a "fact" supporting your pet conclusion.

As for your assertion that there is "no", "none at all" support for any such change it just happens that it's a well studied question.

You should acquaint yourself with the facts that studies have obtained. For instance, Gallup[1] tracks opinion in surveys.

In the recent past as much as 62% of the population supported a constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College. After the more recent election year, 2016, it is closer - 47% vs 49%, still in favor of change.

In short, your argument is just baseless noise - just like a lot of what's being emitted by disinformationists in our current environment.

[1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/198917/americans-support-elector...

[magduf]

I invite you to show me evidence of any marches on Washington where people demanded a new electoral system.

[perl4ever]

There are a nearly infinite number of things that people ignore because they are just too numerous, too minor, and appear to hard to change. Not to mention confusion over the importance of each one. It's completely spurious logic to infer endorsement by all the people who ignore all those things.

[rsynnott]

> An overwhelming majority of American voters support the election system that resulted in Trump winning.

Eh? No they don't. See http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-e...

For the last 50 years it has been divided with a majority favouring reform. It's just not something that most people care about _much_ (except in the immediate aftermath of an election where it has a grossly obvious effect), so it never attains the sense of urgency and permanency that might actually lead to a constitutional change.

[magduf]

You're quibbling. If people really cared about this issue, they'd be demanding change. If they really cared, they would have demanded change after Gore lost in 2000, and again in 2016 when Trump won. But they don't. The ones on the losing side complain "he wasn't elected by a majority! He shouldn't pursue his agenda!" while the ones on the winning side counter with "your side lost! get over it! This is the system we all use!"

Have you seen any groundswell of movement to try to change any of the election laws? Of course not. We've seen people pushing for new gun laws (in the wakes of shootings), we've seen people pushing for marijuana legalization or decriminalization or rescheduling, we've seen people pushing for gay marriage (and winning), we've seen people pushing for higher minimum wage laws, but we have NOT seen any real push for electoral reform.

Our gun laws have seen various changes (at all levels) over the decades, MJ was only banned in the 1930s IIRC, gay marriage only became an issue in the last couple decades, yet we've had these same election laws since the founding of the nation. If we really cared about changing them, we have done so by now. I, for one, certainly haven't seen any desire to change the Electoral College system on the right, since they benefit from it; instead, they steadfastly defend the system.

So yes, a majority of Americans do support this election system.

[majewsky]

So you say "If people *really cared about the issue, they'd be demanding change." From the absence of that demand, you conclude that "a majority of Americans do support this election system", but the latter does not follow from the former. There's a huge difference between supporting something and being indifferent about something. Also:

> Have you seen any groundswell of movement to try to change any of the election laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

[perl4ever]

There's also a meaningful difference between being indifferent because something is not a priority or it appears infeasible to change, vs. being indifferent because it really doesn't matter to you were it the only thing on the agenda.

[perl4ever]

I think it clearly irrational to support/oppose a system based on the fact that you just won/lost under it, if you don't expect it to be biased in the future.

I don't think that opposing a correction to the system should even count as an opinion, because the present system was not designed; it evolved, so any appeal to a worthwhile purpose is post-hoc reasoning.

I attribute the support for the current system entirely to people who must validate their feelings that the ends of getting Bush & Trump elected justified the means. This means it is plausible that it is in nobody's interest, when we look to the future.

[magduf]

>because the present system was not designed; it evolved,

Huh? Where'd you get this from? The Electoral College did not evolve, it was specifically designed by the Framers as a compromise between the rural and urban states.

>I attribute the support for the current system entirely to people who must validate their feelings that the ends of getting Bush & Trump elected justified the means. This means it is plausible that it is in nobody's interest, when we look to the future.

You're provably wrong here: The system was specifically designed the way it was to give more power to the rural (lower population density) states. That's exactly what it's done in elections where the popular vote winner lost. The people who support it continue to support it for that same reason: it's giving them the result they want, which is disproportionate power to rural states and rural voters like them.

It's absolutely in their interest to support that: they have different values than urban voters, and they want to win elections. The EC system helps them achieve this by tipping the scale in their favor, so of course they want it to remain unaltered.

Your assertion is that it's in "nobody's interest" is plainly wrong. You only think that because you're biased in favor of your own interests, which align with urban voters (like me), and you think that your interests should be all voters' interests, or that they're correct. Rural voters don't agree with you, and they think they should have more voting power per person than urban voters, so of course the current system is in their interest, even if it is inherently unfair.

[Svip]

Wait, what are suggesting the tech conferences do? Stay in the US? Isn't it also their freedom to choose where to operate? And if operating in the US makes their conference inconvenient or impossible for some of their attendees, doesn't it make sense to move it to another country?

[lambda]

> almost the majority

Trump was not elected by a "majority of Americans". He was not even elected by a majority of Americans who voted. In fact, he did not even win by a plurality of Americans who voted.

Because of weirdness of the way the Presidential election process works in the US, it's possible to win the election with fewer votes than your opponent; you just need a majority of electors, but most states allocate electors in a winner-takes-all fashion.

> there should be such travel restrictions

Voting for someone does not mean that you agree with all of their policies. It's possible that a large number of Americans disagreed with those policies, but preferred other policies Trump held over Clinton, like lowering taxes and reducing regulations. Or that enough people were sufficiently uncomfortable with a woman as president. Or that enough people were convinced by the combination of Clinton conspiracy theories with the email scandal.

[dragonwriter]

> but most states allocate electors in a winner-takes-all fashion.

And, while there is a positive relationship between population and elector count, electors aren't even assigned proportional to population, so even if each state assigned electors proprtionately to the vote, you could still win with less votes than an opponent if your support is concentrated on low-population states.

[samfisher83]

Trump didn't get the majority of the vote. He won the electoral college.

[perl4ever]

You are responding to a more defensible statement than what was made above, as it said "Americans" and not "voters".

Turnout was 55.7% and Trump got 46.1%, which means he got about 25.7% of the possible voters. Clearly not "almost" a majority.

[dllthomas]

And of course there are plenty of Americans who aren't eligible to vote.

[perl4ever]

Yes, but I thought that interpreting "Americans" as including those not eligible to vote was too uncharitable in context and possibly in violation of the HN injunction to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of a comment.

I was going for "the strongest possible, but no stronger".

[dllthomas]

On the one hand, I think it's a relevant bit of perspective.

On the other hand, I heartily approve of the application of charity.

Maybe there was a line you could walk that does both, pointing it out as an aside rather than as direct criticism of what was presented? shrug Keep up the good commenting :)

[Larrikin]

The majority of people who voted did not vote for Trump.

[RightMillennial]

True, but Trump got the votes where they mattered. Since we're categorizing votes, a majority of people didn't vote for president at all (44.37%) when compared to Clinton (28.43%) or Trump (27.20%) [1].

[1]: https://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/

[root_axis]

As others have already alluded to, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, but even if he had won the popular vote that definitely doesn't mean his policies necessarily reflect the will of the majority of the American people (and the polls clearly demonstrate that the opposite is true)