US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

V8 Interceptor

~Rebel~ wrote: »

There is a certain logic to it with regards state representation. I don't think there is any logic to it with regards the position of the Presidential election in the modern age though. The fact that you're not voting for a President, but rather expressing your will to the states electors is a somewhat disingenuous position, as if you ask any single person in line at any polling station what they're voting on, they will tell you they're voting for President. It would likely take a lot of uprooting to change, but imo for the decision of your prospective president, all votes across the country should be equal, and all votes should be relevant.

That's a fair point. I wonder is it still important regarding State's rights though. The USA is still a Union made up of 50 mini-Countries if you like and if you have a direct vote that'd dilute that somewhat.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

How are you so sure that the information that you are consuming from your alternative sources is the truth and not just something that sounds about right to you?

I'm no more sure than you are from yours Sir.

ElmoLaw

George Bush has Congratulated Biden https://www.businessinsider.com/george-w-bush-congatulates-president-elect-biden-vp-elect-harris-2020-11?r=US&IR=T #itsover

rossie1977

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I'm no more sure than you are from yours Sir.

Your choice is between getting your news from sources where people spent years in journalism school and have won various prizes for their work or your news from a guy in his basement or chap whose work has been debunked by all his colleagues..

Tough choice I know..

~Rebel~

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

That's a fair point. I wonder is it still important regarding State's rights though. The USA is still a Union made up of 50 mini-Countries if you like and if you have a direct vote that'd dilute that somewhat.
.

You're right that it takes away one aspect of a states power - but ultimately it feels like the Presidency has evolved to become a position that is the will of the people rather than the will of the distinct states.

The President used to regulate the states, which in turn had the autonomy to regulate their people - but things have changed, and the President has a far more direct relationship with the public now. And he is also their direct representative within a global market, which in the modern world of people working for multi-national businesses, and even small companies trading on a global scale, means much more than it used to. So I think the vote should change to reflect those realities.

V8 Interceptor

rossie1977 wrote: »

Your choice is between getting your news from sources where people spent years in journalism school and have won various prizes for their work or your news from a guy in his basement or chap whose work has been debunked by all his colleagues.Tough choice I know..

Its not Rossie. If the state of modern journalism is a barometer of the quality of journalism school then perhaps its time the schools had a makeover. I can't read the Independent or the Times these days without chuckling at some of the nonsense that's spouted.

Basement guys? I'm not sure if I have gotten news from one but there are plenty of people as intelligent and capable of breaking something down as professional journalists. I hold the latter to a large degree in contempt to tell you the truth.

Brian?

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Well whatever way you look at it, social media (incl camera phones) has leveled things out a lot. The MSM no longer have control of the narrative like they did in the past. That's been the case for a few years now. I don't know what the Biden administration will do to reach out to the 70m Trump voters but I think Biden would be better at it than Harris and some of the more left leaning side of the party.

What they’ll do is govern sensibly.

Brian?

StringerBell wrote: »

Bush 04

Matter of fact, that's the only time in the last 8 or 9 elections I am pretty sure.

04 and then HW Bush in 1988.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When it comes to people defending the Electoral College/waxing lyrical about the amazing blueprint the Founding Fathers came up with I can't help but roll my eyes. If the Founding Fathers woke up in America today their brains would flow out their nostrils. And of course there's the fact that the Electoral College is unrecognisable from how it was set up in the first place.
It's basically Gerrymandering and for the last while (and the next while) it works in a particular party's favour. They can dance around it all they like but that's the only reason to be in favour of it.

Do you think Ireland's power in the EU should be reduced so that it better represents its population?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Ireland's power in the EU should be reduced so that it better represents its population?

Bit different since we don't have a president with anything like the power of the US. Ironically I don't think it was intended for the US president to have the power that he does have, setting legislative agendas, selecting a cabinet with huge departments/portfolios etc., the organs of the state (national) have evolved far beyond what was originally intended.
I think the over-representation in the House is probably enough "extra" power for some of the small states to have. The outsized influence they have in the Senate is more than enough IMO.
It's not a partisan issue for me, there are blue states which are over-represented in the EC and Texas, Florida and Georgia (which will be red again soon IMO) also get a raw deal.

440Hertz

There are a load of issues that should be addressed, haven’t been, and unfortunately, are unlikely to be.

The blueprint left by the Founding Fathers is old and it’s also over-worshiped.

If you look issues like absolutely abusing the use of executive orders by the presidency (and not just Trump), the fact that the courts are completely politicised (a long term issue) and that effectively rides roughshod over the separation of powers.

Many of the much self-lauded checks and balances just don’t seem work very well.

You’ve a House & Senate that’s turned into a partisan mess, to the point that shutdowns of government have become a regular feature of American politics.

Then you’ve the elephant in the room : absolutely no control of lobbying and money sloshing around the political system (on both sides).

And you’d a rigid two party system that hasn’t really ever opened to other options, to the point that commentary writes off anyone who isn’t one of the two parties that seem to be almost embedded in the structures of state.

I have serious doubts that they’ll reform anything. They’re already in flag waving, go team America! mode.

The country needs a massive period of reflection and reform but it simply won’t happen. It’s impossible to get past the worship of instituons and the dogma of the whole thing. It’s almost like suggesting reforms in the Catholic Church. You’ll just be met by enormous inertia, exceptionalism and dogma.

Most of Europe reformed quite radically, mostly during the 20th century and particularly after WWII. Systems are newer, generally less fossilised and more modern, despite the culture and the history being much much longer established.

Driving serious structural reforms in the USA just isn’t easy to do.

interlocked

The real issue in the US is the completely archaic issue of two senators per state, the least populated four states in the US total approximately 2.5 million population, the top four approximate 120 million, yet they have the same voting power.
It's the same as giving Co Leitrim the same voting power as Co Dublin in a budget process (not necessarily a bad idea but you get the point!)

Tell me how

interlocked wrote: »

The real issue in the US is the completely archaic issue of two senators per state, the least populated four states in the US total approximately 2.5 million population, the top four approximate 120 million, yet they have the same voting power.
It's the same as giving Co Leitrim the same voting power as Co Dublin in a budget process (not necessarily a bad idea but you get the point!)

The american system with the House, Senate and President is a 3 tier approach to governance on a federal level.

House Representatives are allocated based on population count.
Senate are fixed per state.
President is an amalgamation of sorts between the two.

Bills have to be passed by both houses before being signed in to law by the President.

Both the house of representatives and the senate, seem to take their roles very seriously and there is intense competition for the seats within each and attention as to how they operate.

If we compare it to both the Seanad in Ireland and the House of Lords in the UK, both seem to be more of a formality than any sort of intense layer within the governmental machine and with participants largely there on the whim of certain interest groups.

In the US, smaller states would be more likely to be steam rolled if everything was done purely on a democracy level and what ever about rules affecting people (ignoring state laws actually being the biggest influence on peoples lives) I could see natural resources being pillaged from less populated states if the ability stand on a par with other states was removed.

paul71

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

That's a fair point. I wonder is it still important regarding State's rights though. The USA is still a Union made up of 50 mini-Countries if you like and if you have a direct vote that'd dilute that somewhat.



I'm no more sure than you are from yours Sir.

So investigate the source, you quoted a source from James O'Keefe.

Take 5 minutes to research his history.

20silkcut

prawnsambo wrote: »

The EC isn't perfect, but it was designed to do the exact opposite of what you think is wrong with it. It's a form of proportional representation where the smaller states are supposed to be represented in a way that prevents them from being completely blown out by the big cities and states.

The system needs updating though and there are parts of the US like Puerto Rico that get no say whatsoever. Other than the popular vote of course.

Yes people here quick to diss the electoral college but I think it’s actually a fine system.
Without it politicians would just concentrate on the big cities and populous areas creating resentment and greater potential for instability arising from neglected areas. It may need a few tweaks but like it it or not, it does in my opinion , create tighter political engagement and unity of purpose across an entire huge continent.
In my opinion , a straight popular vote would lead to widespread disengagement from politics in huge geographical swathes of the states which would never have a hope of identifying with any candidate. Keeping the states United is the ultimate goal. They have the relatively recent memory of a savage civil war to remind them of that.

Christy42

20silkcut wrote: »

Yes people here quick to diss the electoral college but I think it’s actually a fine system.
Without it politicians would just concentrate on the big cities and populous areas creating resentment and greater potential for instability arising from neglected areas. It may need a few tweaks but like it it or not, it does in my opinion , create tighter political engagement and unity of purpose across an entire huge continent.
In my opinion , a straight popular vote would lead to widespread disengagement from politics in huge geographical swathes of the states which would never have a hope of identifying with any candidate. Keeping the states United is the ultimate goal. They have the relatively recent memory of a savage civil war to remind them of that.

It still means a large swathe of states have little hope of identifying with a candidate. Did Trump connect with Kansas or did they just hate Biden more. The reverse for California. Neither had to campaign in either really because neither are near the 50% mark.

I think if states gave votes proportionally it might help. Or some sort of pr system to help 3rd parties. Certainly the last 2 elections have been defined by who people hate more than they like. It would be interesting to see how greens or a socialist candidate would do if it wasn't a wasted vote.

everlast75

An update on the election results pending;

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1325639421396455424?s=19

spacecoyote

I still reckon a proportionally represented electoral college would be the best compromise in the US.

It would force both parties to look at pick ups of votes in all states as they could take a chunk of electoral college votes and removes the issue of winner takes all over a single vote margin

harr

What are peoples opinions of a possible spilt in the Republican Party ?
Seems to be a good number still backing trump and have his ideology and then you have the more conservative Republicans . Will the more extreme members fall back in line once trump is gone.

prawnsambo

harr wrote: »

What are peoples opinions of a possible spilt in the Republican Party ?
Seems to be a good number still backing trump and have his ideology and then you have the more conservative Republicans . Will the more extreme members fall back in line once trump is gone.

There was a similar fear at the time that the Tea Party started to gather strength. In some ways, Trumpism is a continuation of that. Basically, that danger seems to be always present and the GOP have struggled to contain those elements within. They will probably continue to do that now, note how quiet they are about the outcome of the election.

BobbyMalone

harr wrote: »

What are peoples opinions of a possible spilt in the Republican Party ?
Seems to be a good number still backing trump and have his ideology and then you have the more conservative Republicans . Will the more extreme members fall back in line once trump is gone.

There have been some call outs from Donald Jr over Republicans failing to row in behind the president, and some big names slowly came out in support. I imagine most of them are biding their time, waiting to see what way the wind blows.


Interestingly, it's not just the Republicans. The Guardian (and many others) are reporting an end of the truce between the progressive (or hardline communists, according to some) and the moderates: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party



The Lincoln Project are also firmly setting the progressives in their sites as well:


https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1325305143395553281

Blowfish

spacecoyote wrote: »

I still reckon a proportionally represented electoral college would be the best compromise in the US.

It would force both parties to look at pick ups of votes in all states as they could take a chunk of electoral college votes and removes the issue of winner takes all over a single vote margin

It would, but you'd need to expand the number of EC votes so that third parties can get involved. 3 as the minimum per state is too little as it requires a minimum of 17.7% of the vote to get one. Multiplying the number of EC votes by 10 or 100 would allow third parties to start winning some as there'd be a much smaller barrier to entry.

breezy1985

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

They are proportional to population but that's not what makes them undemocratic. What makes them undemocratic is that in 48/50 states the electoral college votes are given out on a winner takes all basis. In those states whether a candidate wins by a single vote or by 5 million votes there is no difference in the amount of electoral votes they get.

To use the language of economics every vote that a candidate gets in excess of a 1-vote win is wasted. This is because any extra votes beyond that in a particular state are not helping the candidate obtain any additional electoral college votes.

A good example of this wasted excess was in 2016 where Hillary Clinton won California by 4,269,478 votes. In Electoral College terms she didn't need 4,269,477 of those votes in California that day. She would have been far better off if she could have transferred some of those votes to make up the small margins that she was losing by in Wisconsin (23k), Michigan (11k) and Pennsylvania (44k) thereby flipping those states and winning all of their Electoral Votes and not the 0 that she instead got from the three of them combined. Had she got that 78k vote that would have swung the election to her instead.

This year was similarly tight - Had Trump won something like 70k extra votes in just 4 particular states then he would have won despite Biden probably winning the popular vote by 5 million votes.

Splitting the EC votes in every state based on that states popular vote is the simple obvious fixand doesn't require massive structural change

listermint

BobbyMalone wrote: »

There have been some call outs from Donald Jr over Republicans failing to row in behind the president, and some big names slowly came out in support. I imagine most of them are biding their time, waiting to see what way the wind blows.


Interestingly, it's not just the Republicans. The Guardian (and many others) are reporting an end of the truce between the progressive (or hardline communists, according to some) and the moderates: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party



The Lincoln Project are also firmly setting the progressives in their sites as well:


https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1325305143395553281

But none of that has anything to do with AOC. Members of the democrats who had lost seats shouted down an open phonecall between Dems about the socialists within the party.

It wasn't AOC and I watched her interview on CNN when asked to respond to it she didn't want a lurch to the left. This is more fabrication from the same usual sources that spread the lies and fear in the first place. Amplification of these lies is the problem no having a progressive section within the Dems. The Dems should be proud of the broad church and not seek to emulate the republicans. Similar thing happened to labour in the UK and look how that's left them.

looksee

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I would look at it another way. People, traditionally, have been too quick to believe any old crap they're shoveled by the media without critical thinking. Social media has opened another window where evidence can be seen directly for someone to make a judgment themselves.

Its horrifying to think the stranglehold a select few used to have on framing and giving out the information to the population. That's gone, never to return.

'People, traditionally, have been too quick to believe any old crap they're shoveled by the media' - but social media can use this kind of emotive language to sway public opinion? You are offering here an opinion unaided by any facts. It is in itself 'crap'.

Anyone can listen to Trump's actual words at a press conference or rally and hear what he is saying without interpretation by MSM. Half the people listening hear glorious oration, the other half hear rambling nonsense. Nothing to do with MSM.

People with phone cameras can catch bits of video from, say, a riot, and publish it to prove whatever they want. If MSM films a riot they generally have to show context and background or other MSM will be quick to show that they are being dishonest.

Why would you take a bit of film with no context, published by an unknown, unidentified person with an unidentified agenda over a formalised, identifiable organisation that may well have an agenda, but at least it is in the open.

The conspiracy theorist approach that all MSM is a single malignant body promoting ideas controlled by a single higher power is as nonsensical as the idea that any individual with a social media account, a chip on their shoulder and a complete inability to engage in critical analysis is worth listening to for information about how the world is working.

L1011

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I would look at it another way. People, traditionally, have been too quick to believe any old crap they're shoveled by the media without critical thinking. Social media has opened another window where evidence can be seen directly for someone to make a judgment themselves.

Its opened a window to get vastly more old crap to accept without critical thinking; based on the absolute gubbins that people now seem to believe.

ThunbergsAreGo

L1011 wrote: »

Its opened a window to get vastly more old crap to accept without critical thinking; based on the absolute gubbins that people now seem to believe.

Critical thinking is dead

BobbyMalone

listermint wrote: »

But none of that has anything to do with AOC. Members of the democrats who had lost seats shouted down an open phonecall between Dems about the socialists within the party.

It wasn't AOC and I watched her interview on CNN when asked to respond to it she didn't want a lurch to the left. This is more fabrication from the same usual sources that spread the lies and fear in the first place. Amplification of these lies is the problem no having a progressive section within the Dems. The Dems should be proud of the broad church and not seek to emulate the republicans. Similar thing happened to labour in the UK and look how that's left them.

Oh, I absolutely agree. I think a lot of what they try to sling at AOC has little to do with AOC.

BlitzKrieg

BobbyMalone wrote: »

The Lincoln Project are also firmly setting the progressives in their sites as well:


https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1325305143395553281

I'd be careful as the dems to assume kneecapping progressives or vice versa is the answer so soon before the nature of Georgia's vote is looked at.

Considering how close it was in Georgia and the numbers that came out it might be the progressives that pushed the dems over the top there (judging by who they're giving most of the credit to). We've yet to see how much actual influence the Lincoln Project has actually had on the election vs progressives.

Stacey Adams is credited for getting the democrats out to vote and from what I've read she primarily got out young black voters, so rolling back on progressive policies between now and the senate race could end up alienating them so soon after finally engaging them.

In contrast the republican base did no sleep in Georgia they did come out to vote, It is safe to assume beyond Trump making such a show of himself between now and the senate vote that they'll be back out to vote in the same numbers.

It may end up being the wrong image to send to blame progressives for losses in other states when they are who the dems will be relying on to get Georgia back out in the same numbers in January.

ancapailldorcha

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

You responded to that post and considered it civil but the Mod didn't. I guess its his decision that counts Stringer.

Stop discussing moderation please. Thanks.

StringerBell

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I would've had the same opinion of Fox when I was a liberal/lefty type but now I look at CNN and see just as much of a false narrative only in the opposite direction. And Fox has changed. A number of its anchors are Democrats eg Chris Wallace and they were the network that called Arizona for Biden remember.

All the other main networks would be liberal/Democratic in their outlook. Nothing wrong with that but I seen Rachel Maddow and Larry O'Donnell saying very strange things leading up to the election. To be fair to them I think Trump had driven a lot of them crazy by this stage.

This is why I made the distinction to the opinion segment of Fox. It is about as big as you get. I guess when you are mentioning Maddow or O Donnell you are also referring to the opinion sections of the media which are not the news sections.

What is the point you are making though?