• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Election 2020 The Final Countdown v. Nov. 3rd

Status
Not open for further replies.
how?
The USA is a Union of States, a Federation of Individual States. Direct one person one vote for the president would completely change the political structure of the country handing all the power of the Federales, into via the swamp monsters of DC to the populaous coastal states. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over minorities, actually it is the tyranny of a vocal minority pretending to represent the majority over all others. Which is why there are checks and balances, power was divided between the branches of government, this division of power in the USA has been broken by the continuous expansion exective branch power but there are still some checks and balances left.
I understand how that can be a big challenge, but it's not impossible. I'm just saying that the American political system hasn't evolved for around 180 years, and is not able to evolve in the future. How would they if Third Parties votes are just waiting to get thrown away? It's a monopoly of power-division that two parties have built, and you'll never be able to break out of it with the current system.
 
Alaska has no voice anyway let's be real. :p

Also, we've been recording the public vote for about 200 years now, that's 50 elections.

The winner lost the public vote in 6. 6 IF you count this one for trump (so hopefully really 5).
See that's where I'm getting at. It would have made a difference in only 6 cases?
That's not much of a difference, really, and it would help your Third Parties gain any kind of footing. I find it unfair that just because you live in a certain place, your vote is treated gingerly.
 
Since there's virtually no chance of it happening via a referendum, you'd probably have to bypass a referendum using the same idea the national vote concord is using.

And can I say it really is a brilliant way of using the existing system in a new way.
 
@birdup.snaildown You said it yourself: most people live on the coasts of America, and those votes are worth less. So most people that live in the USA do not have a voice, that's fair to you? Maniacs are being elected again and again in the USA, that's OK?

It's like saying you got an election, and there's 2 big cities and a small village of uneducated hicks relevant for this election, but all 3 settlements are worth exactly the same. How is that even logic?
 
December Flower said:
No. Every single person would be worth the same amount of % when it comes to a vote, no matter where you live. Your votes are not worthless just because another party won your state. How is that not fair?

It's not fair in my opinion because of the cultural diversity of the united states. The population of California is growing massively every year. Without the electoral colleges, they already have too much influence in deciding the federal government. If you look at projecting future populations, it will become increasingly unfair and the cultural identity of smaller states will cease to have any bearing on fed elections.

December Flower said:
It would have made a difference in only 6 cases?

That's 10% of all recorded elections and 2 of those occurred in a 16 year period. That's 40% of the elections this century. As I said, California is rapidly growing in population. The system the United States has implemented prevents individual states from gaining control of the federal election.

I can't really explain this any clearer. I'm kind of going in circles now.
 
December Flower said:
It's like saying you got an election, and there's 2 big cities and a small village of uneducated hicks relevant for this election, but all 3 settlements are worth exactly the same. How is that even logic?

You are contributing to the division in the United States by referring to middle America as a bunch of uneducated hicks. They aren't worth exactly the same. I didn't say that. The colleges adjust the votes to balance them somewhat. If California gets 10% of the colleges and Wyoming gets less than 1% how is that exactly the same? How is that (as you say) even logic?
 
December Flower said:
the American political system hasn't evolved for around 180 years, and is not able to evolve in the future.

It is as stagnant as the UK political system and as capable/incapable of evolution. The Commonwealth electoral process is inferior to the US electoral process, because the founding fathers learnt from the mistakes the English made. The electoral college system is a good example of this.

Even if there was direct voting, no independent is ever going to be elected president in our lifetime, just like no independent party has ever had federal control of New Zealand or Australia or the UK or basically any other country with a two party system.
 
@birdup.snaildown So you'd rather have the 4.1 million people that voted Republican in California just have no voice at all? I don't understand this logic, and I never will, sorry. No wonder people in California don't vote Republican, because it's a "Democrat State", and that means if you're a Republican in said state you can fuck off anyways. But if they were to move to Texas, their voice would mean something?

Maybe there's something I don't understand, but to my knowledge only Maine and Nebraska split electoral votes, yeah? And in other states if one Party "wins" the state they get the entire 55 votes(in California's case), that correct?
 
You are contributing to the division in the United States by referring to middle America as a bunch of uneducated hicks. They aren't worth exactly the same. I didn't say that. The colleges adjust the votes to balance them somewhat. If California gets 10% of the colleges and Wyoming gets less than 1% how is that exactly the same? How is that (as you say) even logic?
I used an extra example free of anything. I did not call anyone a yokel, except the villagers in my example :) This could be in Saudi Arabia, or North Northington by the Bridge, I don't give a rat's ass.
 
You might as well use the same logic for the Greens party in Australia... Why bother voting for the Greens if they aren't going to get the PM position? One third of people in California voted republican this year. That's not nobody. States change. Battleground states have not always been battleground states. I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it better represents the political diversity of the united states than allowing highly populated blue states to indefinitely control the white house.

December Flower said:
I don't understand this logic, and I never will, sorry.

That's okay. I'm not offended.
 
It's nice to see the numbers held up and Biden has slowly inched his way into the lead in Georgia. What are everyone's thoughts for Pennsylvania?
 
So if there was a world government, it should be decided by China and India.
No it should be decided by all people of the world. Every single person meaning as much as any other. So China and India would ofc be strong on that front, but even there the votes would differ greatly. They have many educated people, because both are very elitist cultures.
What I mean is that say 6 million people vote for A and 5 million people vote for B in one state/country, the 5 million votes for B shouldn't just become worthless.
 
It's nice to see the numbers held up and Biden has slowly inched his way into the lead in Georgia. What are everyone's thoughts for Pennsylvania?

It's within 0.3% of Biden tying things up with approx 3% of the vote still to count. I honestly have no idea, but if the current trend continues with Trump losing ground, Biden might just squeak by with the narrowest of margins. I'm not confident either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top