• 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.
birdup.snaildown said:
States change.
Click to expand...
This. Also Parties themselves change. Look at how much the Republican party LOVES to talk about how racist the Democrats were during the times we had slavery...hello? That was hundreds of years ago! It's meaningless to what the party stands for today.

My biggest problem with the voting system are things like gerrymandering, which arguably could be done away with if we got rid of the electoral college but that really is beside the point. Representation is important.
 
mal3volent said:
Biden will win Pennsylvania.

Looking like Biden will have 300+ electoral votes.
Click to expand...

Big if true. Much better than the 3 electoral votes I thought it could come down to. A definitive rebuke of Trump is needed (though with him gaining so much of the popular vote anyway, it's still cause for concern).
 
BK38 said:
Big if true. Much better than the 3 electoral votes I thought it could come down to. A definitive rebuke of Trump is needed (though with him gaining so much of the popular vote anyway, it's still cause for concern).
Click to expand...

Winning to between 0-2 electoral votes would be terrible. It would put the risk of a faithless elector killing it extremely high.

But if Biden wins Georgia Nevada and either Arizona or Philadelphia. That would be a lot stronger and shouldn't be at risk of faithless elector shenanigans.

If he won all 4 that would be a very respectable 306.
 
mal3volent said:
Biden will win Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

He might even win North Carolina.

December Flower said:
No it should be decided by all people of the world.
Click to expand...

It should be decided by all the countries of the world. I don't believe you think China and India should decide a world government.
 
birdup.snaildown said:
It should be decided by all the countries of the world. I don't believe you think China and India should decide a world government.
Click to expand...
This again. Why are Chinese and Indians worth less to you? Ofc their voices should matter just as much as mine or yours. Every single voice.
 
December Flower said:
Why are Chinese and Indians worth less to you?
Click to expand...

They're not worth less to me. New Zealand is a tiny country with a tiny population relative to China. If the world government was decided per capita, New Zealand would have no say in the election. The world government would be decided according to Chinese values. That's not balanced. It doesn't mean I'm racist, if that's what you're implying. To the contrary, I believe New Zealanders and Chinese people deserve to have some influence over this hypothetical world government... in the same way that Wyoming deserves to have a voice in the federal US election.

With all due respect, you're not thinking this through clearly. I don't believe you really think two countries should decide the world government. That makes no sense. The world government analogy perfectly exemplifies why the electoral college system makes sense as a safeguard against highly populous US states. If you fail to understand that, there's not much else I can say to convince you. I can't explain it to you any clearer.

(I guess you also think the UN should be run on a per capita basis?)
 
birdup.snaildown said:
They're not worth less to me. New Zealand is a tiny country with a tiny population relative to China. If the world government was decided per capita, New Zealand would have no say in the election. The world government would be decided according to Chinese values. That's not balanced. It doesn't mean I'm racist, if that's what you're implying. To the contrary, I believe New Zealanders and Chinese people deserve to have some influence over this hypothetical world government... in the same way that Wyoming deserves to have a voice in the federal US election.

With all due respect, you're not thinking this through clearly. I don't believe you really think two countries should decide the world government. That makes no sense. The world government analogy perfectly exemplifies why the electoral college system makes sense as a safeguard against highly populous US states. If you fail to understand that, there's not much else I can say to convince you. I can't explain it to you any clearer.

(I guess you also think the UN should be run on a per capita basis?)
Click to expand...
Again, though I'm starting to repeat myself: Even in India and China votes differentiate. You keep thinking in borders, that's why you think they should be drawn. I'm saying every person should mean the same in that hypothetical. If you think China is just some brainwashed country you have fallen under the effect of propaganda, sorry. Every human being is worth the same, and their voices should mean the same.

Sorry, but this is the last time I'm replying to you. I'm not going to accept your point, and you're not going to accept mine. Just fuck it, please? I keep answering 'cause I think it would be rude not to.

edit: also your "solution" could just be tempered with. Say by Saudi Arabia splitting up into 6.000 different countries :) 6000 new votes for slavery and surpression of women. Great idea
 
December Flower said:
If you think China is just some brainwashed country you have fallen under the effect of propaganda, sorry.
Click to expand...

That made me laugh. I didn't say anything of the sort.

You don't have to respond. No need to apologize.

What you're saying doesn't make sense. You haven't thought it through properly.

I believe a world government should be run like the UN or any other world/multi-national governing body and you've presented no sensible argument to the contrary. That doesn't mean I think China is brainwashed or Indian people are worth less than New Zealanders. Your efforts to "ad hom" me are cute.

December Flower said:
edit: also your "solution" could just be tempered with. Say by Saudi Arabia splitting up into 6.000 different countries :) 6000 new votes for slavery and surpression of women. Great idea
Click to expand...

It's not my system. We are talking about the US electoral college system via an analogy about a hypothetical world government. Both the UN and the electoral college system has that covered, believe it or not. US states can't just split themselves into tiny states and increase their EC. It doesn't work that way.
 
Last edited:
birdup.snaildown said:
That made me laugh. I didn't say anything of the sort.

You don't have to respond. No need to apologize.

What you're saying doesn't make sense. You haven't thought it through properly.

I believe a world government should be run like the UN or any other world/multi-national governing body and you've presented no sensible argument to the contrary. That doesn't mean I think China is brainwashed or Indian people are worth less than New Zealanders. Your efforts to "ad hom" me are cute.
Click to expand...
I give up. I presented a billion arguments.
In your scenario land mass would win. Since countries with a large land mass could just split up into 6 million countries to win elections. (Minimum size of a country discussion, bla bla, end up with Angorra or Liechtenstein, land mass still wins.)
I think you're the one who hasn't thought something through here.
You're so scared of large countries deciding too much, that you oversee that their population are just people too. People of any kinds of beliefs. At least my system couldn't be exploited. Why should 49% of Chinese votes be for the GARBAGE CAN if 51% voted for something else? I give up. I can't even ..

Actually in your scenario China would just split up into 5 million countries that all weigh the same as New Zealand as small countries should mean the same as big ones, right? :D
 
^ There will never be a World government, the world is too diverse and too unequal, therefore how the voting for a wolrld government will work is not important.

China will be controlled by the Chinese, India by the Indians and Nigeria by Nigerians, California by Californians unless it split into half. Maybe democracy will evolve to become more local and deal with the local needs and wishes of local people rather than one size fits all from above, or the tyrants will seize everything and screw the little people. Judging by history the latter is more likely than the centralized statists voluntarily giving up control.
 
novaveritas said:
There will never be a World government, the world is too diverse and too unequal, therefore how the voting for a wolrld government will work is not important.
Click to expand...

It is an analogy for the US electoral college system.

December Flower said:
I give up. I presented a billion arguments.
Click to expand...

I thought you said you weren't going to keep responding? :)

You didn't present a single sensible argument throughout the discussion.

birdup.snaildown said:
December Flower said:
edit: also your "solution" could just be tempered with. Say by Saudi Arabia splitting up into 6.000 different countries :) 6000 new votes for slavery and surpression of women. Great idea
Click to expand...

It's not my system. We are talking about the US electoral college system via an analogy about a hypothetical world government. Both the UN and the electoral college system has that covered, believe it or not. US states can't just split themselves into tiny states and increase their EC. It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about land mass.

You're not thinking clearly. Omega-3? ;)
 
Before you get personal? You said I think Chinese people are brainwashed and suggested that I believe Indian people are worth less than people in other countries. You also described middle Americans as uneducated hicks. The omega-3 thing was a joke. I'm genuinely sorry if I offended you. I assumed you had thick skin, since you were laying it on pretty thick.

For the record, I wouldn't "make" anything illegal. It's not my solution we're talking about. We are talking (via an analogy) about the US electoral process. You can't just split Wyoming into three dozen states and multiply the EC vote by 36. It doesn't work that way. This discussion is positively bananas. I will stop responding to you now.

It's almost three in the morning here. I'm going to go to sleep.

I won't respond to your political posts any more.

Have a good one. (y)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top