About That Popular Vote...

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I mentioned this in another thread but thought it would get lost. Simple math is involved.

If Hillary had eked out the win, what would the Trump supporters be saying about Gary Johnson?

Jill Stein barely got 1% of the popular vote. Even if all Jill voters had voted for Hillary, Hillary still loses in the Electoral College. I presented those number in another thread a while back.

But Gary got over 3%. If Hillary ekes it out, Johnson voters become a pretty obvious target. And lets not forget, every Trump voter has an average of 9.7 guns and 543 rounds of ammo. So when you are their target, you'd better take precautions. [I just made up those gun and ammo numbers, but would you be all that surprised if they were close?]

In case you are wondering, if Trump got all of Johnson's votes, he would have beaten Hillary in the popular vote by 1.62 million. Even if you give Hillary all of Jill's 1.46 million votes, Trump wins the popular vote.

There were other minor party candidates, as well. The 2 that got the most votes - independent McMullin and the Constitution Party's Castle - combined for 932K votes. It's reasonable to throw those votes to Trump, as well, considering their positions on issues. That would give Trump a final lead over Clinton of 2,552,612 votes.

Now of course some of Jill's voters wouldn't have voted for Hillary. And some of those who voted for Gary, McMullin or Castle wouldn't have voted for Trump. So you can't state that 2,522,612 Trump lead as fact. Nevertheless, it's pretty safe to say that without 3rd parties, this nation would actually have elected Trump by popular vote as well as by electoral vote.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I find this analysis disturbing.

Like lots of liberals, I have been consoling myself with the "knowledge" that Hillary won the popular vote - meaning the nation isn't really crazy enough to elect Trump.

But apparently it is.

 

[naturalmwa]

You make a good argument for instant runoff, ranked voting. I'd certainly feel better if Trump actually had majority support.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Eliminating the Electoral College doesn't fix this.

Still a good idea. That would fix a significantly undemocratic part of our electoral process. But it won't fix stupid.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You make a good argument for instant runoff, ranked voting. I'd certainly feel better if Trump actually had majority support.

Better in the sense that we'd know Trump was true choice of voters but worse in that we'd be faced with proof that we live in a dangerously demented nation. A nation where the majority has crossed the line.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You make a good argument for instant runoff, ranked voting. I'd certainly feel better if Trump actually had majority support.

Needless to say, I agree on IRV.

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

What happens when you take out California? Trump wins by 1.4 million. Which is why the electoral college does it's job and must stay!

 

[*33*]

Needless to say, I agree on IRV.

http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html

 

[naturalmwa]

What happens when you take out California? Trump wins by 1.4 million. Which is why the electoral college does it's job and must stay!

If a CA resident kills you, it would be justified by this position you adopted. You are advocating their enslavement. It's a deplorable position that needs to be called out in the most severe terms.

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

If a CA resident kills you, it would be justified by this position you adopted. You are advocating their enslavement. It's a deplorable position that needs to be called out in the most severe terms.

They have a lot of say as it is with 55 electoral votes. Heck, they'll probably have 56 or 57 come the 2020 census cycle.

 

[naturalmwa]

They have a lot of say as it is with 55 electoral votes. Heck, they'll probably have 56 or 57 come the 2020 census cycle.

The slaves gave their states a lot of electoral votes too. Fix your thinking. Every person should get an equal vote.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html

Can you summarize? Give me his point and I'll think it over.

This is sort of like a long article with the heading

Health: Looks Good - But Look Again

or

Sanity: Looks Good - But Look Again

I'm not inclined to waste time reading such articles unless I have some reason to think there's something of value in them.

 

[*33*]

The slaves gave their states a lot of electoral votes too. Fix your thinking. Every person should get an equal vote.

They do. Or do you mean every state should get an equal vote?

 

[86Hawkeye]

I mentioned this in another thread but thought it would get lost. Simple math is involved.

If Hillary had eked out the win, what would the Trump supporters be saying about Gary Johnson?

Jill Stein barely got 1% of the popular vote. Even if all Jill voters had voted for Hillary, Hillary still loses in the Electoral College. I presented those number in another thread a while back.

But Gary got over 3%. If Hillary ekes it out, Johnson voters become a pretty obvious target. And lets not forget, every Trump voter has an average of 9.7 guns and 543 rounds of ammo. So when you are their target, you'd better take precautions. [I just made up those gun and ammo numbers, but would you be all that surprised if they were close?]

In case you are wondering, if Trump got all of Johnson's votes, he would have beaten Hillary in the popular vote by 1.62 million. Even if you give Hillary all of Jill's 1.46 million votes, Trump wins the popular vote.

There were other minor party candidates, as well. The 2 that got the most votes - independent McMullin and the Constitution Party's Castle - combined for 932K votes. It's reasonable to throw those votes to Trump, as well, considering their positions on issues. That would give Trump a final lead over Clinton of 2,552,612 votes.

Now of course some of Jill's voters wouldn't have voted for Hillary. And some of those who voted for Gary, McMullin or Castle wouldn't have voted for Trump. So you can't state that 2,522,612 Trump lead as fact. Nevertheless, it's pretty safe to say that without 3rd parties, this nation would actually have elected Trump by popular vote as well as by electoral vote.

I can only speak for myself, but I would not complain.

I voted for Gary Johnson.

 

[*33*]

Can you summarize? Give me his point and I'll think it over.

This is sort of like a long article with the heading

Health: Looks Good - But Look Again

or

Sanity: Looks Good - But Look Again

I'm not inclined to waste time reading such articles unless I have some reason to think there's something of value in them.

I'd just skim down to the examples. Demonstrates with numbers some negative outcomes of IRV. Don't know if those negatives are worse than our current system, but makes me question whether it is better and why I still support the EC.

 

[naturalmwa]

They do. Or do you mean every state should get an equal vote?

I mean people and there vote for POTUS is not equal today.

 

[DrVenkman]

What happens when you take out California? Trump wins by 1.4 million. Which is why the electoral college does it's job and must stay!

The electoral college does not do its job in this case...

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

This clearly did not happen in this election. the electoral was supposed to keep clinically insane and mentally disabled people out of office. It didn't work.

 

[artradley]

I mentioned this in another thread but thought it would get lost. Simple math is involved.

If Hillary had eked out the win, what would the Trump supporters be saying about Gary Johnson?

Jill Stein barely got 1% of the popular vote. Even if all Jill voters had voted for Hillary, Hillary still loses in the Electoral College. I presented those number in another thread a while back.

But Gary got over 3%. If Hillary ekes it out, Johnson voters become a pretty obvious target. And lets not forget, every Trump voter has an average of 9.7 guns and 543 rounds of ammo. So when you are their target, you'd better take precautions. [I just made up those gun and ammo numbers, but would you be all that surprised if they were close?]

In case you are wondering, if Trump got all of Johnson's votes, he would have beaten Hillary in the popular vote by 1.62 million. Even if you give Hillary all of Jill's 1.46 million votes, Trump wins the popular vote.

There were other minor party candidates, as well. The 2 that got the most votes - independent McMullin and the Constitution Party's Castle - combined for 932K votes. It's reasonable to throw those votes to Trump, as well, considering their positions on issues. That would give Trump a final lead over Clinton of 2,552,612 votes.

Now of course some of Jill's voters wouldn't have voted for Hillary. And some of those who voted for Gary, McMullin or Castle wouldn't have voted for Trump. So you can't state that 2,522,612 Trump lead as fact. Nevertheless, it's pretty safe to say that without 3rd parties, this nation would actually have elected Trump by popular vote as well as by electoral vote.

I think the vast majority of Johnson voters would not have voted for Trump. I don't think it's reasonable to assume any of the 3rd party votes would have gone to Trump.

 

[cigaretteman]

The electoral college does not do its job in this case...

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

This clearly did not happen in this election. the electoral was supposed to keep clinically insane and mentally disabled people out of office. It didn't work.

This. The electors did not do their jobs, and bowed to political pressures and were too cowardly to protect the nation from electing an unqualified and unfit mentally ill person as they were supposed to have done.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'd just skim down to the examples. Demonstrates with numbers some negative outcomes of IRV. Don't know if those negatives are worse than our current system, but makes me question whether it is better and why I still support the EC.

OK, I looked at this example - the one first under "Electoral Surprises."

Example 3.

4 CAB 4 CB
3 BAC ----------> 3 BC ----> C wins
2 ACB drop A 2 CB

In the first round, A is eliminated. C, second choice of A supporters, gets 2 more votes in round-2 and therefore beats B 6-3. But notice that 6 of the 9 voters placed A ahead of B and 5 voters placed A ahead of C. So, altho A would have beaten both rivals in 2-candidate elections, C comes out on top in this 3-candidate race. Putting it another way, if there had been a 2-candidate election between A and C, A would have won, but the entry of B into the race mysteriously makes C the winner. Not good!

I like it but I don't really buy it as an argument that IRV is worse than teh "winner take all" system we have now. And I could quibble with his logic if I want to. For example...

We don't actually know that A would have beaten both rivals in 2-candidate elections. People are not machines. The calculus can change depending on whether there are 2 or 3 choices. Moreover the tactics of the candidates is likely to change. So the outcome he derives from his simple example is not foregone.

Even if A would have beaten each of the other candidates in a 2-way race, why does how they would have fared in a 2-person race make C's win "not good"? Circular argument (the only reason it's not good is because we think A would have won in a 2-way race).

Moreover, that's just one way to spin things. I could just as easily look at those numbers and say "clearly the least liked candidate is B" - because B comes in last in 6 of the 9 ballots. "So we should toss out all ballots listing B first" - which leaves us with C as the most popular candidate by 4-2. Picking A over C in that case is "not good." Just as circular, but with a different outcome.

We could probably tweak the IRV approach, but would that really be better? I don't know. I'm certainly open to improvements.

Some would say that the Approval method gets around this. In that scheme, people only vote for people they approve of. The candidate with the most approvals get the job. Guaranteeing that the winner is someone a majority approves of. Which we don't have in our current system. Of course IRV is supposed to sort of work that way - because people won't rank candidates they hate.

Ask yourself this:

If the ballot looks like this and you are to rank order them, how do you do it?

A. Trump
B. Clinton
C. Johnson
D. Stein

For me, my ballot looks like this:

D - B
or maybe just D

Point being that my vote NEVER rolls over to Trump or Johnson.

I'm guessing that most people wouldn't rank all 4 because at least 1 of them is unacceptable to them.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think the vast majority of Johnson voters would not have voted for Trump. I don't think it's reasonable to assume any of the 3rd party votes would have gone to Trump.

I think you are wrong. Maybe one day we'll have a study answering this question.

I do think that a lot of Johnson and Stein voters would have stayed home (either literally or by refraining from voting for president). But think about the conversations we have here. Most of those who said they were thinking about voting for Johnson - which was a larger number than how many actually did vote for Johnson, you can be sure - were unhappy with Trump but much unhappier with Clinton. They wanted more deregulation than Trump, for example. Even lower taxes. They may not have liked Trump's hate rhetoric but probably liked his immigration policies more than Hillary's. Ditto for guns, states rights and a lot of other things. Without Gary, they may not want to vote for Trump, but they will vote against Clinton.

I did not like Clinton. Stein was better on nearly every issue - and all of the ones I cared about the most. And Hillary was downright unacceptable on several. But without Jill on the ticket, I very likely would have pulled the lever for Hillary. Can't swear to it, but probably.

 

[artradley]

I think you are wrong. Maybe one day we'll have a study answering this question.

I do think that a lot of Johnson and Stein voters would have stayed home (either literally or by refraining from voting for president). But think about the conversations we have here. Most of those who said they were thinking about voting for Johnson - which was a larger number than how many actually did vote for Johnson, you can be sure - were unhappy with Trump but much unhappier with Clinton. They wanted more deregulation than Trump, for example. Even lower taxes. They may not have liked Trump's hate rhetoric but probably liked his immigration policies more than Hillary's. Ditto for guns, states rights and a lot of other things. Without Gary, they may not want to vote for Trump, but they will vote against Clinton.

I did not like Clinton. Stein was better on nearly every issue - and all of the ones I cared about the most. And Hillary was downright unacceptable on several. But without Jill on the ticket, I very likely would have pulled the lever for Hillary. Can't swear to it, but probably.

I'm not sure I follow the logic. I think the conservatives who voted for Johnson did so specifically because they could not in good conscious vote for Trump. They know Trump is unstable and horrible for the country. I don't see why they would have pulled the handle for Trump if Johnson hadn't been on the ballot.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Just to add in a data point, I voted for Johnson, however if I was in a battleground state I would have voted for Hillary.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I did not like Clinton. Stein was better on nearly every issue - and all of the ones I cared about the most. And Hillary was downright unacceptable on several. But without Jill on the ticket, I very likely would have pulled the lever for Hillary. Can't swear to it, but probably.

No offense, but Jill Stein is a waste. A physician who doesn't outright denounce anti-vaxxers isn't worth the title "doctor". She doesn't understand reality and she doesn't understand policy.

 

[naturalmwa]

This. The electors did not do their jobs, and bowed to political pressures and were too cowardly to protect the nation from electing an unqualified and unfit mentally ill person as they were supposed to have done.

You've shortened this.

 

[timinatoria]

I mentioned this in another thread but thought it would get lost. Simple math is involved.

If Hillary had eked out the win, what would the Trump supporters be saying about Gary Johnson?

Jill Stein barely got 1% of the popular vote. Even if all Jill voters had voted for Hillary, Hillary still loses in the Electoral College. I presented those number in another thread a while back.

But Gary got over 3%. If Hillary ekes it out, Johnson voters become a pretty obvious target. And lets not forget, every Trump voter has an average of 9.7 guns and 543 rounds of ammo. So when you are their target, you'd better take precautions. [I just made up those gun and ammo numbers, but would you be all that surprised if they were close?]

In case you are wondering, if Trump got all of Johnson's votes, he would have beaten Hillary in the popular vote by 1.62 million. Even if you give Hillary all of Jill's 1.46 million votes, Trump wins the popular vote.

There were other minor party candidates, as well. The 2 that got the most votes - independent McMullin and the Constitution Party's Castle - combined for 932K votes. It's reasonable to throw those votes to Trump, as well, considering their positions on issues. That would give Trump a final lead over Clinton of 2,552,612 votes.

Now of course some of Jill's voters wouldn't have voted for Hillary. And some of those who voted for Gary, McMullin or Castle wouldn't have voted for Trump. So you can't state that 2,522,612 Trump lead as fact. Nevertheless, it's pretty safe to say that without 3rd parties, this nation would actually have elected Trump by popular vote as well as by electoral vote.

Just an FYI, of the friends and family Who I know voted for Trump, the majority don't own a single gun,

Also, Trump won the white female demographic I believe. I doubt the majority of white females own guns.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Just an FYI, of the friends and family Who I know voted for Trump, the majority don't own a single gun,

Also, Trump won the white female demographic I believe. I doubt the majority of white females own guns.

The gun comments were for fun. The part about the popular vote was serious.

 

[timinatoria]

The gun comments were for fun. The part about the popular vote was serious.

Yeah, interesting info regardless. Thanks.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No offense, but Jill Stein is a waste. A physician who doesn't outright denounce anti-vaxxers isn't worth the title "doctor". She doesn't understand reality and she doesn't understand policy.

Why is it that this is pretty much the only thing pro-Hillary liberals (and those who get their info from the same sources) have to say negative about Jill? And as far as I can tell this misunderstanding comes almost entirely from a badly handled live question she answered on Reddit and doesn't actually reflect her thinking on vaccinations.

So, yes, she blew that response to vaccinations. But she favors vaccinations. Her campaign is not about vaccinations. She has no policy to reduce vaccinations or to support vaxxers opting out.

She's also too even-handed in her approach to the Israel-Palestine issue - which many go bonkers over.

So that's 2 things. One which misrepresents her position and one which reflects a rather serious bias here in America that she and sensible people don't share - including many in Israel.

That's it.

Let's assume she is actually wrong on both of those - which is not factual, but let's assume it. That still leaves her MUCH BETTER than Trump, Hillary, or Gary on pretty much everything else.

Yet my liberal friends here and in real life just can't help themselves - calling her batshit crazy, or, as you did, a waste, or worse.

Shame on you.

Like Ralph Nader before her, Jill stood for practically every positive, progressive, liberal Democratic position that the Democratic party has been shedding for the last few decades. But you and too many here would rather have war-mongering, fracking, corporatists like Hillary. So you have to struggle to find ways to demean folks like Bernie and Jill who actually stand for the things you say you stand for.

As I said, shame on you.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Why is it that this is pretty much the only thing pro-Hillary liberals (and those who get their info from the same sources) have to say negative about Jill? And as far as I can tell this misunderstanding comes almost entirely from a badly handled live question she answered on Reddit and doesn't actually reflect her thinking on vaccinations.

So, yes, she blew that response to vaccinations. But she favors vaccinations. Her campaign is not about vaccinations. She has no policy to reduce vaccinations or to support vaxxers opting out.

She's also too even-handed in her approach to the Israel-Palestine issue - which many go bonkers over.

So that's 2 things. One which misrepresents her position and one which reflects a rather serious bias here in America that she and sensible people don't share - including many in Israel.

That's it.

Let's assume she is actually wrong on both of those - which is not factual, but let's assume it. That still leaves her MUCH BETTER than Trump, Hillary, or Gary on pretty much everything else.

Yet my liberal friends here and in real life just can't help themselves - calling her batshit crazy, or, as you did, a waste, or worse.

Shame on you.

Like Ralph Nader before her, Jill stood for practically every positive, progressive, liberal Democratic position that the Democratic party has been shedding for the last few decades. But you and too many here would rather have war-mongering, fracking, corporatists like Hillary. So you have to struggle to find ways to demean folks like Bernie and Jill who actually stand for the things you say you stand for.

As I said, shame on you.

Well...she hasn't a clue what quantitative easing was or how it worked. She thinks we can be fossil fuel free by 2030 without nuclear power. She's wrong on GMO's. The Green Party platform supports “teaching, funding, and practice” of quackery like naturopathy and homeopathy. She opposed raising the debt ceiling (closet GOPpie?) and attacked Obama for austerity then proposed dealing with the deficit by raising taxes and cutting spending - the very definition of austerity.

She doesn't understand policy. She, at best, panders on issues of science. And most importantly, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever sniffing the WH. By that measure alone, she's a far worse candidate than Clinton unless you like going to the racetrack and dropping a ton of money on a broken down horse but feeling good about the "support' you rendered.

BTW dumbass, I supported Sanders with both time and money as I have repeatedly stated but Stein was not and never will be a substitute. If you voted for Stein, you voted for Trump...period. Own it.

 

[thewop]

I find this analysis disturbing.

Like lots of liberals, I have been consoling myself with the "knowledge" that Hillary won the popular vote - meaning the nation isn't really crazy enough to elect Trump.

But apparently it is.

This discussion is interesting, because there's no doubt Gary Johnson voters would be a target had Trump lost close. I don't think a reasonable person can believe that more than 80% of his votes would have gone to Trump though. Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

I personally believe the "guns" you reference don't really come into play. Even gun nuts don't go shooting people over political beliefs (you'd have had one or two for sure though). Fear of killings en mass of liberals over election results are unfounded and silly. In fact, what we've seen unfold through Trump protests is probably about as bad as it gets. The march for life is about the only time you see masses of cons out in the streets, and the tone of that rally was nothing like the women's rally the week before.

Having been on both sides and seen both sides react, it's fascinating how people on the losing side always find something to cling to, and then convince themselves that the winning side is just less intelligent, and if only they would listen to them, they'd see the light. People are people, and they may disagree vehemently on an issue here or there, but attempts to insult the intelligence of others because they disagree about how to fix the world's problems are ignorant at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst. I'm not saying there aren't idiots, but both sides have'em in similar numbers.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

She ... proposed dealing with the deficit by raising taxes and cutting spending - the very definition of austerity.

You don't actually understand what austerity is, do you?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This discussion is interesting, because there's no doubt Gary Johnson voters would be a target had Trump lost close. I don't think a reasonable person can believe that more than 80% of his votes would have gone to Trump though. Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

I personally believe the "guns" you reference don't really come into play. Even gun nuts don't go shooting people over political beliefs (you'd have had one or two for sure though). Fear of killings en mass of liberals over election results are unfounded and silly. In fact, what we've seen unfold through Trump protests is probably about as bad as it gets. The march for life is about the only time you see masses of cons out in the streets, and the tone of that rally was nothing like the women's rally the week before.

Having been on both sides and seen both sides react, it's fascinating how people on the losing side always find something to cling to, and then convince themselves that the winning side is just less intelligent, and if only they would listen to them, they'd see the light. People are people, and they may disagree vehemently on an issue here or there, but attempts to insult the intelligence of others because they disagree about how to fix the world's problems are ignorant at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst. I'm not saying there aren't idiots, but both sides have'em in similar numbers.

One more time: the gun comment was a joke.

A failed joke, apparently, but a joke, nonetheless.

 

[B1GDeal]

I think presidential voting should just be a grand tally of individual votes... Doesn't matter where you live... just tally vote and there's your winner. Then for state and local representatives you vote on local ballot where it is a tally of all local voters with winner the one with most votes.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Trump won bigly

 

[BelemNole]

What happens when you take out California? Trump wins by 1.4 million. Which is why the electoral college does it's job and must stay!

So tired of this stupid. What happens if you take out Texas? Hillary wins the EC. But that's a stupid argument! Yeah, just like the CA one....

As for the OP, I disagree with your conclusion that without 3rd party candidates trump would likely have won the popular vote. I think what would have happened is that you'd have had less voters. Those people vote for 3rd party candidates because they refuse to vote for either of the 2 main party candidates - they're not going to suddenly go out and vote for one just because you remove the 3rd party choice. They'll stay home like the other 100 million or so voters.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

So tired of this stupid. What happens if you take out Texas? Hillary wins the EC. But that's a stupid argument! Yeah, just like the CA one....

As for the OP, I disagree with your conclusion that without 3rd party candidates trump would likely have won the popular vote. I think what would have happened is that you'd have had less voters. Those people vote for 3rd party candidates because they refuse to vote for either of the 2 main party candidates - they're not going to suddenly go out and vote for one just because you remove the 3rd party choice. They'll stay home like the other 100 million or so voters.

Pretty sure I said all that.

And yet I suspect most of them would have voted. Maybe just against the worst candidate. But people were very worked up this time. Even more than usual.

I say that as a 3rd party voter, although that doesn't necessarily apply to all 3rd party voters.

 

[BelemNole]

Did you? You ended with it "pretty safe to say" trump would have won.
Many of the 3rd party people were Berners. They would either vote 3rd party, Hillary, or not at all. I can't see those votes going for Trump in any way. The reps running from Trump to Johnson likely would have stayed home. They weren't voting for something but against everything.

 

[naturalmwa]

Trump won bigly

You lost your way

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You don't actually understand what austerity is, do you?

Why yes...yes, I do. It generally means raising taxes and/or cutting spending. What do you think it means?

According to The Financial Times:

Definition of austerity measure:

Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.

Feel free to argue with them.