Election 2020 The Final Countdown v. Nov. 3rd

[birdup.snaildown]

That's kinda dubious.

It was a direct response to Trump banning traffic from China. The context seemed pretty clear to me. The USA is the hardest country in the world to contain COVID because it has so many internal borders and the constitution doesn't lend itself to dictatorial restrictions. Biden is going to have trouble forcing his citizens to comply.

New Zealand, by contrast, is much easier. No internal borders. No states to co-ordinate and a population that isn't radically anti government.

The UK fucked up as much as the USA and it should have been easier for them to co-ordinate for many reasons... I'm just not convinced that Biden would have somehow magically kept the virus contained. I think it was basically an impossible task in the US. He has a lot of work to do (in terms of living up to his word) when he becomes president.

 

[Anonymous Dissident]

Biden is up over 4 million popular votes as of now. That should really mean something.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Democrats have won every popular vote since 1988 because blue states have higher populations. The population of California alone is 12% of the USA. The electoral college system is more balanced than basing elections on popular vote, which is why it exists.

 

[Anonymous Dissident]

Biden just took the lead in Georgia, but only by a couple hundred votes so don't get too celebratory just yet. Still, that's good goddamn news!

 

[December Flower]

Fascinating how absolutely unable Third Parties are to ever gain any footing.
Has one ever gotten a single electoral vote?
In Germany we do have 2 leading parties as well, but since the people vote directly, our Third Parties, like Green Party for example, have pretty high voting rates, considering they are only minor parties: 8,9% for the Green Party last Bundestagswahl.
And the party that won, won with only 32%.
What I'm getting at is: this electoral voting system just doesn't make any sense to me. Why include Third Parties in the first place, if they don't even have a chance of winning? Is there any reason explained why this archaic excuse for a voting system is being used, or do people just accept it because "it's always been like that"?
Just go ahead and say: Blue or Red, or go fuck yourself.

edit: Even weirder is the relation of electoral votes. Why does Texas have only 38, when California has 55 votes. Texas had 11.1 mio votes, and California 12.5 mio votes, but Texas votes are worth only 69% of what California votes are worth, although they have 88% as many votes as California did. 2.1 mio votes just for the garbage can. So your vote is just worth less if you live in certain regions that have a lower amount of people but higher amount of voters..?! Fucking cavemen voting system.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Two senators are independent so far in the 2020 US election. They caucus with the democrats. Most countries essentially have two party systems. In New Zealand, the Greens typically form a coalition with Labour.

How would you suggest the US system changes?

 

[December Flower]

Two senators are independent so far in the 2020 US election. They caucus with the democrats. Most countries essentially have two party systems. In New Zealand, the Greens typically form a coalition with Labour.

How would you suggest the US system changes?

Well direct voting for one. I can understand why so many Americans just don't vote now, following this election.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

If there was direct voting rather than electoral colleges, it would essentially be a one party system because democratic states outweigh republican states population-wise... The red states wouldn't be happy about this because they would feel unrepresented. The lowest population states like Wyoming and Alaska would have basically no say in the federal election. Wyoming has 0.17% of the population. They get 3/538 electoral college votes, which amounts to 0.55% of the EC vote. Whereas California has 12% of the population and gets 10% of the vote. To me, this makes sense.

 

[mal3volent]

Our third parties are a joke here because we don't have public financing in our elections. Corporations and special interests pour money into the Republican and Democratic parties...they're able to use that to buy ads and campaign early...third party gets left in the dust and excluded from the televised debates which are also rigged.

As for the electoral system...no one has a good defense of it. Up until the sixties it was only openly racist segregationists who defended it. At some point the Republicans started feeding school children with propaganda about how it protects smaller states from being bullied by bigger states...that it somehow makes our system more fair. When the obvious truth of the matter is 1 vote should equal 1 vote no matter where you live geographically.

It's just...Republicans would never win an election ever again without it. So that's why we still have it.

 

[December Flower]

If there was direct voting rather than electoral colleges, it would essentially be a one party system because democratic states outweigh republican states population-wise... The red states wouldn't be happy about this because they would feel unrepresented. The lowest population states like Wyoming and Alaska would have basically no say in the federal election. Wyoming has 0.17% of the population. They get 3/538 electoral college votes, which amounts to 0.55% of the EC vote. Whereas California has 12% of the population and gets 10% of the vote. To me, this makes sense.

But why should one vote be worth less or more than another? 1 vote = 1 vote
One human being. So what if they'd only choose one party then, their votes would be worth as much as anyone else's vote. That's fair in my eyes, and nothing else.
Also you're forgetting about 3rd parties. They could become a much bigger player if a vote for them meant ANYTHING.

Don't the parties get financed by the government too? Only by corporations? Isn't that kind of a direct oligarchy?!

 

[December Flower]

As for the electoral system...no one has a good defense of it. Up until the sixties it was only openly racist segregationists who defended it. At some point the Republicans started feeding school children with propaganda about how it protects smaller states from being bullied by bigger states...that it somehow makes our system more fair. When the obvious truth of the matter is 1 vote should equal 1 vote no matter where you live geographically.

It's just...Republicans would never win an election ever again without it. So that's why we still have it.

Well that's sort of how it works in many other countries. Here it's Christian Democrats versus Social Democrats :D But the Third Parties are getting stronger every year.
I think direct voting just helps a country evolve directly with the spirit of its people. New parties might take its place, the Democrat party might splinter, there's many ways of how this could go. The Republicans might change their "gunslinger"-act to gain favour with the people.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

But why should one vote be worth less or more than another?

Why should California have so much power over the other 49 states?

The argument that "there should be more than two parties so we should implement a system that forces a one party system" makes no sense to me...?

 

[JessFR]

Democrats have won every popular vote since 1988 because blue states have higher populations. The population of California alone is 12% of the USA. The electoral college system is more balanced than basing elections on popular vote, which is why it exists.

Uhh, bush 04?

 

[BK38]

Man, I did not expect that to happen, I guess it really is coming down to Atlanta!

"In battleground state of Georgia, Biden overtakes Trump by 917 votes"

Source

 

[December Flower]

Why should California have so much power over the other 49 states?

Because it has more people? Why should your vote be worth any less, just because you live in a certain state? Why are millions of votes thrown into the garbage can every year just because another party "won your state". If your opposing party wins your state your vote is garbage. Great outlook.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Uhh, bush 04?

Okay, I didn't realise there is one exception to what I said and it was close so my point still stands.

Because it has more people?

So Wyoming has no voice and Alaska has no voice and California (which is not representative of most of the country) essentially decides the election?

 

[BK38]

I get what he's saying, but I'm not sure such attacks are going to do anything productive for the democratic process when coming from a main anchor of one of the primary US news outlets. Such attacks belong here on BL, not CNN. Can't we just say he's realizing that he's on the brink and not handling the pressure on him well? That's a bit more civil than Cooper's take IME. We just need Trump gone, not further angered and in a "burn it all down" mindset during his lame duck session, though I'm afraid there's nothing any of us can do about that particular scenario.

Yeah, as funny as it is, I don't think that kind of ad hominem attack is necessary.

 

[novaveritas]

Well direct voting for one. I can understand why so many Americans just don't vote now, following this election.

how?
The USA is not one State, it is Union of States a bit like the European Union is not one State. The USA 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, via the swamp monsters of DC to the populous 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 executive branch power but there are still some checks and balances left.

The electoral college could be abolished but then the USA is no longer a Constitutional Republic or a Union of States and the smaller states would ultimately secede from the Union, Otherwise the population of the smaller states would have no voice at all, their voice drowned out by the clamor of the multitudinous hordes in the coastal states.

to quote creepy Joe
Democracy is sometimes messy, so sometimes it requires a little patience. But that patience has been rewarded now for more than 240 years with a system of governance that has been the envy of the world.

240 years with only a few minor issues: one civil war, at least 3 stolen presdiential elections Kennedy, LBJ, Bush routine disenfranchisement of voters, The world is indeed truly envious of the uncallenged ease with which American poiliticans spew out this crap.

Eventually, if they survive, people will come to realise that less government not ever expanding government is the solution to the problems of over reliance on government. These changes tend to be brutal. It is still not too late to meet in the middle.

 

[December Flower]

So Wyoming has no voice and Alaska has no voice and California (which is not representative of most of the country) essentially decides the election?

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?

 

[JessFR]

Okay, I didn't realise there is one exception to what I said and it was close so my point still stands.



So Wyoming has no voice and Alaska has no voice and California (which is not representative of most of the country) essentially decides the election?

Alaska has no voice anyway let's be real.

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).