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

Chips Lovell

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If Trump wins, it'll be the third time in 20 years that someone has won the electoral college and lost the popular vote. Questions will definitely be asked about the fairness of it, but I think the system will only change if the issue affects both parties. And right now, the Republicans have no incentive to consent to that change, since they're the ones benefiting.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

The arguments in favour of it are so obviously partisan and transparent as well. "Why should a majority rule ahead of a minority?", because apparently it's better to have a minority hold power. :rolleyes:

salmocab

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

Some people effectively have no vote, republicans in California or Hawaii democrats in Texas and so on. I’ve said before here if you were setting up a new democracy and deciding on the system and someone suggested the American model they’d be thrown out of the meeting. It’s a ludicrous set up. It encourages the candidates to only bother with limited places as every vote doesn’t count.

StringerBell

Headshot wrote: »

There's 100 thousand votes to still to be counted in Michigan

Do we know are these 100k mail in voting?

I would assume the majority are, and likely in democratic areas.

ancapailldorcha

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Nobody will ever change it but it is entirely undemocratic. And the further down the hole you go with it, the worse it looks.

Exactly. In the UK, we might have stayed in the EU if there was such a system to counter English hegemony but the UK voted as one so it's a democratic decision. Rejection should not result in victory.

breezy1985

salmocab wrote: »

Some people effectively have no vote, republicans in California or Hawaii democrats in Texas and so on. I’ve said before here if you were setting up a new democracy and deciding on the system and someone suggested the American model they’d be thrown out of the meeting. It’s a ludicrous set up. It encourages the candidates to only bother with limited places as every vote doesn’t count.

Easiest fix would be to give candidates 50% of a states EC votes if he gets 50% of the states popular vote and so on

pixelburp

The two things that'll prevent electoral reform are the industrialisation of the political system, alongside the deification of the founding fathers and their apparently immutable documents. Nothing will change while there are those that benefit from the lopsided system, or demographics positively worship their "democratic" system as essentially perfect. A Citizens Assembly ala Ireland is impossible in America. At least here we see our Constitution as an inherent work in progress, open to correction or development; the "Originalists" of America are the apotheosis of that flexibility.

BorneTobyWilde

If Biden wins you'll not see a republican president for the next 16 years. Biden won't last 8 years though, he'll have to step down in 2 probably, if he lasts two.
What happens in that scenario

Patser

Headshot wrote: »

There's 100 thousand votes to still to be counted in Michigan

Do we know are these 100k mail in voting?

This is from BBC live feed:

16:52
Michigan 'has 100,000 votes left to count'
Michigan Secretary of States Jocelyn Benson has just given an update on the state's tallies.

She began by saying she was "optimistic that by the end of the day," Michigan would be "much closer to having a full, if not a full and complete unofficial result to announce".

She estimates that “just over 100,000 or so” ballots remain to be counted.

Wayne County, the most populous in Michigan and the home of Detroit, is tallying two Biden votes for every Trump one, she says, adding that Biden is currently leading Trump by about 32,000 votes.

Anyone who wants to be sure their vote was counted can go to the state's election websites and check that it was received. Benson said that she checked to make sure her own vote was counted just before this news briefing.

seamus

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Can anyone confirm what the actual state of play in Arizona is?

I'm aware there was an error on the reporting percentage. Can we confirm what the remaining votes are likely to go in that state? I can't see anything concrete anywhere.

The error made no substantial difference to the state of play. Biden's ahead, with mostly Democrat-leaning votes left to be counted.

breezy1985

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If Biden wins you'll not see a republican president for the next 16 years. Biden won't last 8 years though, he'll have to step down in 2 probably, if he lasts two.
What happens in that scenario

They have this thing called the vice president

Quin_Dub

breezy1985 wrote: »

Easiest fix would be to give candidates 50% of a states EC votes if he gets 50% of the states popular vote and so on

I've often thought that a simpler way to do it would be to add a "Popular Vote bounty" on top - So increase the EC total by 15 or 20 votes and allocate them to the Popular vote winner.

The States all keep their influence but there is a reward for being the most popular candidate nationwide.

JazzyJ

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

The Senate gives each state an equal voice - 2 seats per state.

It's madness - I'm living in Ireland but have a vote in California which is currently essentially worthless. Moving to a swing state for 6 months would entitle me to a far more valuable vote.

Chips Lovell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

I understand the logic of it, as a federal state it's designed to allow states vote for the president rather than individuals.

It would be interesting to see the impact of a change to a popular vote. Because right now, there's a lot of states that are solidly in one camp or another, meaning there's a fair contingent of voters who may not bother voting, since they believe their vote may not make any difference.

Mr.Nice Guy

PA might be in play but looks very close.

https://twitter.com/JacobRubashkin/status/1324038759260835841

Manic Moran

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

No, we're not. We're voting as the populations of the 50 States at the same time to elect the chief executive of the United States. Note that legally, most of us aren't voting for a person, we are voting for a group of electors.

The deference to the population discrepancy is that some states have more votes than others, though legally, all are separate and equal states.

This concept is fundamental to the structure of the US, not just for elections. It's how the country works on a daily basis.

Itssoeasy

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If Biden wins you'll not see a republican president for the next 16 years. Biden won't last 8 years though, he'll have to step down in 2 probably, if he lasts two.
What happens in that scenario

I agree with the 16 years and that Biden may be a one term president but I see no reason(legitimate reason and not the trump spin) that joe Biden is not capable of serving one term at least.

Well in what I believe is a very unlikely scenario, what would happen is what LBJ and Gerald Ford did when the presidents they served could no longer carry out the duties of the office for very different reasons. The Vice President would assume the presidency under the 25 th amendment.

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

Easiest fix would be to give candidates 50% of a states EC votes if he gets 50% of the states popular vote and so on

Would still favour the minority party though. And if a state has 4 EC votes and finishes 50.1-49.9 do the votes get split 3-1?

Exclamation Marc

Biden takes Maine

L1011

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If Biden wins you'll not see a republican president for the next 16 years. Biden won't last 8 years though, he'll have to step down in 2 probably, if he lasts two.
What happens in that scenario

If he steps down in the first half of his term - Kamala takes over and is considered to have served the term, so can serve one more term if re-elected

If he steps down in the second half of his term - Kamala takes over and is not considered to have served the term, so can server two more terms if re-elected.

CruelSummer

Just checked on the latest numbers, am I right in saying that there’s less that 350 votes in the difference in Georgia?

breezy1985

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I understand the logic of it, as a federal state it's designed to allow states vote for the president rather than individuals.

It would be interesting to see the impact of a change to a popular vote. Because right now, there's a lot of states that are solidly in one camp or another, meaning there's a fair contingent of voters who may not bother voting, since they believe their vote may not make any difference.

London was the same when I lived there. I only ever lived in areas that were nailed on Labour. Always went and voted anyway but knew my side had already won before hand

Quin_Dub

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If Biden wins you'll not see a republican president for the next 16 years. Biden won't last 8 years though, he'll have to step down in 2 probably, if he lasts two.
What happens in that scenario

Not with a GOP Controlled Senate - If Biden wins, his ability to deliver any kind of structural change will be utterly hamstrung by McConnell.

salmocab

breezy1985 wrote: »

Easiest fix would be to give candidates 50% of a states EC votes if he gets 50% of the states popular vote and so on

I believe there is a movement by several states to give their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. Obviously it would take most to sign up and is unlikely to happen but it would circumvent the EC if all states signed up.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

The system would be more representative if the EC votes were awarded proportionate to the votes in each state. That alone would give a more accurate reflection of voter sentiment, and would also encourage candidates to compete in states where they might not be able to win outright.

breezy1985

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would still favour the minority party though. And if a state has 4 EC votes and finishes 50.1-49.9 do the votes get split 3-1?

Not perfect but it's an easy quick fix. Much better would be one man one vote but it's never gonna happen

Quin_Dub

CruelSummer wrote: »

Just checked on the latest numbers, am I right in saying that there’s less that 350 votes in the difference in Georgia?

No.

It's 100,344..Missing a digit there!! :-)

Biden 2,283,070
Trump 2,383,414

Manic Moran

salmocab wrote: »

I believe there is a movement by several states to give their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. Obviously it would take most to sign up and is unlikely to happen but it would circumvent the EC if all states signed up.

I don't believe any swing states have signed on for this. Only the ones which tend to vote with the popular vote in the first place. Given the natures of the states which have signed on to the compact, the chances are that they will have all voted for the popular vote winner anyway, given that it seems that's more likely than not to be a Democrat.

There is no benefit to a swing state to sign on to the compact.

sheeplover55

Can we admit polls were badly wrong again? NYT Reuters etc last pre election polls had Biden +10 and +11 in states like Wisconsin. The congressional race polling was even worse

https://twitter.com/rkylesmith/status/1324034971699466240

Blowfish

breezy1985 wrote: »

Easiest fix would be to give candidates 50% of a states EC votes if he gets 50% of the states popular vote and so on

Multiply the EC votes by 100 in each state before you do that would make sense, i.e. a minimum of 300 EC votes rather than 3 per state. Without multiplying, in the smallest states it would take a minimum of 17.6% to get an EC vote, with multiplying, it would only take 0.176%. That'd not only make it much closer to the actual proportional rate, but you'd also start seeing third parties picking up EC votes which would massively increase their visibility and (albiet slowly) erode the 2 party duopoloy.

VinLieger

salmocab wrote: »

I believe there is a movement by several states to give their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. Obviously it would take most to sign up and is unlikely to happen but it would circumvent the EC if all states signed up.

They actually only need enough states to sign up that equals to 270 in the Electoral College. Once they get that it nullfies the EC and it becomes a popular vote


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