Jump to content

U.S. Presidential Election 2020


U.S. Presidential Election 2020  

125 members have voted

  1. 1. Who wins?



Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Yes, I mean our system is not great but at least all consitutency have roughly the same population. There has been a recent guardian article about this and it says that California has 1 electoral college vote per 718,000 people, Wyoming has 1 electoral college vote per 193,000 people. It is insane.

Just one of the numerous ways in which American politics is structurally designed to provide hugely outsized influence to rural white voters. Both parties used to be fine with this, as they both had bases amongst rural whites, but as the demographic is now almost monolithically Reublican, Democrats are belatedly waking up to the enormous bias of the system, which is why system-adjustment options (abolishing the filibuster, extra states, court packing, house expansion, ditching the electoral college) are now the talk of the town. I still think they'll be too timid to do any of them, but I live in hope I suppose.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

Yes, I mean our system is not great but at least all consitutency have roughly the same population. There has been a recent guardian article about this and it says that California has 1 electoral college vote per 718,000 people, Wyoming has 1 electoral college vote per 193,000 people. It is insane.

I think system was designed that way intentionally, so the big states don’t bully the small states (though migration to the coasts has made it more extreme).

We have a similar set up in Australia for the seats in the Upper House (Senate). All states get the same number of senators allocated to them regardless of population, so all states have equal power. That means Tasmanian’s have a lot fewer people per representative than people from New South Wales. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

I think system was designed that way intentionally, so the big states don’t bully the small states (though migration to the coasts has made it more extreme).

Absolutely, that is the key essence of a federal system. As you say, internal migration has been a big factor in exacerbating the disparity between well-represented and poorly-represented states. I would also add to that, another big factor is the increasing 'nationalisation' of politics and partisan sorting that has happened in America. As local media has declined, and national issues have taken prominence over state-level ones, voters are less likely to ticket-split between presidential and senate elections, which gives a big advantage to low-population states (mostly but not entirely held by Republicans).

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

We have a similar set up in Australia for the seats in the Upper House (Senate). All states get the same number of senators allocated to them regardless of population, so all states have equal power. That means Tasmanian’s have a lot fewer people per representative than people from New South Wales. 

You're right that the federal nature of the system is the same, but probably worth pointing out that the Australian Senate is both more proportional (because of the nature of its population distribution, the size of the disparity between the best-represented and worst-represented states in America is about four times larger than the same disaparity in Australia, and because Australia uses a proportional voting system for Senate elections so there are fewer wasted votes) and somewhat less powerful than the US Senate (because it doesn't have a de facto supermajority requirement for passing legislation, and because the power to appoint Supreme Court judges is so important in the US system).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bickster said:

Has Biden said he wants to defund the Police?

That's not the question. All that matters is that Trump has said that Biden wants to defund the police. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, maqroll said:

Trump has massive support throughout state and local law enforcement. Its sort of terrifying. 

During the 90's & 2000's right wingers/fascists/nazi sympathizers would enter the US armed forces to gain access to advanced arms training. Supposedly there was a movement to have them purged from the army etc. but there is evidence that they moved into local law enforcement where they have been welcomed and nurtured.

The explosion of the internet connecting militias, fascists & gun nut owners with like minded police and other federal officers (ICE, Border Patrol etc.) has created a secret underground army of disparate nut jobs who are itching to do....... Well I don't want to think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know where Joe is?

... risky strategy to cede the media to Trump 2 weeks out. The turnout at the few events he has done is awfully similar to Hillary too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Absolutely, that is the key essence of a federal system. As you say, internal migration has been a big factor in exacerbating the disparity between well-represented and poorly-represented states. I would also add to that, another big factor is the increasing 'nationalisation' of politics and partisan sorting that has happened in America. As local media has declined, and national issues have taken prominence over state-level ones, voters are less likely to ticket-split between presidential and senate elections, which gives a big advantage to low-population states (mostly but not entirely held by Republicans).

You're right that the federal nature of the system is the same, but probably worth pointing out that the Australian Senate is both more proportional (because of the nature of its population distribution, the size of the disparity between the best-represented and worst-represented states in America is about four times larger than the same disaparity in Australia, and because Australia uses a proportional voting system for Senate elections so there are fewer wasted votes) and somewhat less powerful than the US Senate (because it doesn't have a de facto supermajority requirement for passing legislation, and because the power to appoint Supreme Court judges is so important in the US system).

This is fixable, and the power to do so lies in the hands of the US electorate, but arguing about having the most possession and ones moral superiority after they've lost is far more comforting than actually doing something to address the problem.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com

"The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Explanation. It has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes (CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA). The bill will go into effect when enacted by states with an additional 74 electoral votes."

This has been passed by the House here in MI. The Senate is being worked on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, villakram said:

This is fixable, and the power to do so lies in the hands of the US electorate, but arguing about having the most possession and ones moral superiority after they've lost is far more comforting than actually doing something to address the problem.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com

"The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Explanation. It has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes (CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA). The bill will go into effect when enacted by states with an additional 74 electoral votes."

This has been passed by the House here in MI. The Senate is being worked on.

The National Popular Vote bill you reference there is an excellent idea, but the list of states approving it should demonstrate the problem with it, which is that it is essentially only states with Democrat governors, and in many cases, Democrat trifectas. 196 electoral votes is also a long way short of 270, and they don't look like getting many more states in the near future.

I'm also a bit confused why you're talking about this as a fix for Senate malapportionment, a problem it does absolutely nothing about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LondonLax said:

I think system was designed that way intentionally, so the big states don’t bully the small states (though migration to the coasts has made it more extreme).

We have a similar set up in Australia for the seats in the Upper House (Senate). All states get the same number of senators allocated to them regardless of population, so all states have equal power. That means Tasmanian’s have a lot fewer people per representative than people from New South Wales. 

I kind of understand that in the Senate but not for the president who is supposed to represent the entire country. California is the 5th largest economy  in the world on its own and surely it is reasonable to suggest that their voting habits should be treated as equally as the sparsely populated states.

Edited by The Fun Factory
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone staying up for the final debate tomorrow night / Friday morning? I am. It's pure **** Hollywood. 

Just hope Biden is able to be Presidential whilst Trump goes nuts.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

New Borat movie might be fun. Wonder if Giuliani was in Eppsteins black book?

Quote

Rudy Giuliani was tricked by Sacha Baron Cohen into going to hotel room with 'Borat's daughter' and is shown lying back with his hand down his pants before actor bursts in on them

  • President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani appears in the forthcoming 'Borat Subsequent Moviefilm' 
  • The Guardian reported Wednesday that Giuliani is interviewd by 'Borat's daughter' Tutar, who poses as a conservative news reporter 
  • After she removes his mic, he is seen reclining on a bed and putting his hand down his pants, only to be interrupted by Cohen's Borat character 
  • 'She's 15. She's too old for you,' the actor screams, waving the former New York City mayor off his 'daughter,' played by actress Maria Bakalova 
  • The incident occurred in July and Giuliani had talked about it with The New York Post, telling Page Six that he had called the cops on the strange man  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8864821/Giuliani-caught-Borats-daughter-hand-pants.html

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The National Popular Vote bill you reference there is an excellent idea, but the list of states approving it should demonstrate the problem with it, which is that it is essentially only states with Democrat governors, and in many cases, Democrat trifectas. 196 electoral votes is also a long way short of 270, and they don't look like getting many more states in the near future.

I'm also a bit confused why you're talking about this as a fix for Senate malapportionment, a problem it does absolutely nothing about?

This was related to the electoral college. I guess my issue with this is from hearing 'liberals' in my locality moan, but then be completely unaware of this real political movement. It is also interesting how the R/D's see this and is pretty nuanced, as we are all aware of the recent R electoral minority wins. However, Kerry was very close to winning Ohio in '04 and in that case would have saved us from a second Bush the dumber term via a minority win.

I am not as convinced that the senate is as much of an issue as made out. The US is afterall a federal union. Certain states having more power than others would not necessarily be better, though it's clear why the economic powerhouse states like NY/Cali are unhappy with the current arrangement much like Manure and Plop in the UK I suppose. Remember, the House already apportions representation roughly on the basis of population.

One can compare with the European parliament vs the European commission to a degree, and I know I would not like both bodies to be ruled on the basis of population.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, villakram said:

I am not as convinced that the senate is as much of an issue as made out. The US is afterall a federal union. Certain states having more power than others would not necessarily be better, though it's clear why the economic powerhouse states like NY/Cali are unhappy with the current arrangement much like Manure and Plop in the UK I suppose. Remember, the House already apportions representation roughly on the basis of population.

Sure, it's a federal country, and that's the system you've got, so whether it's 'much of an issue' depends partly on how invested you are in federalism. However, malapportionment is not the only institutional problem the chamber has; the de facto supermajority requirement has little to do with malapportionment, but it prevents ≈all legislation from passing. I think both points are bad, but other opinions are available.

That the House is largely proportional - though still of course with a huge amount of gerrymandering in district boundaries - is less important than anything to do with the Senate, because the US is unique in advanced democracies in having a federally-based upper chamber that is far more powerful than the lower one.

EDIT: Should probably add that comparing how democratic a legislative chamber is to *the European Commission*, which is entirely appointed, is really setting the lowest of barriers to crawl over.

Edited by HanoiVillan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Genie said:

I just saw this on Facebook, apparently he was ticking his shirt in after removing recording equipment... it’s out tomorrow on Amazon Prime.

Wanted to watch it tomorrow after work but there's a bloody game on or something.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2020 at 18:38, rayk said:

And if he loses then it’s well a ‘heroic fail’ for him.

He won't win and it will finish him.  His Ego is all he has when you strip everything else away,  he's just a lucky loser in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • NurembergVillan changed the title to U.S. Presidential Election 2020
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â