2020 US Presidential Election Discussion (primary & general)

[Ithekro]

The system was designed, on purpose, to need an overwhelming majority of Congress to change the system. 66% in many cases, or 75% of the states in a few others. The rules are in the Constitution, which require such measures to change it. That is by design so that a simple 51% majority can't just change things every election. There has to be more weight behind such changes, especially when it come to things like the Bill of Rights. The limits on what the government can do to its population, and what it leaves in the hands of the states.

The Senate is so each state, regardless of population, has two votes. The House of Representatives, the lesser house, has representation based on the Census and the number of chairs they can still fit in that room, rather than building a new building to fit all the new chairs they might need as the population keeps expanding. This was again designed to allow the smaller states a say in what happens to them in Congress. Otherwise several states would have one representative, who would usually have no say in anything, while the large states could basically dictate laws to the rest of the country without any way to effectively counter them outside of regional alliances, which given their small sizes, might not even be enough to counter one large state.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

This isn't a democracy. This is a constitutional republic. The system is designed because it does not wish to be a democracy were 51% of the population can make all the rules.

There is nothing wrong with the senate. Switzerland has the exact same model as well and it works just fine. However arguing that the US does not wish to be a democracy when it's basically governed by democratic principles and that the majority dictates all the rules shows a general lack of understanding of how democracies work.

The problem is rather that the two party system fails when the parties are diametrically opposed to each other and that the EC is a system where 49% of the votes in a state don't matter if 51% vote for the other candidate.

[Sheba]

Wow, must be awesome to live in a big city, in one of the poorer areas of the town, trying to make an honest living, and being told that your vote count for 1/4 of a farm boy who live in the middle of the countryside because country guys were so afraid to be bullied by the demographics of your big city.

Imagine if they did that to French people, living in Seine-Saint Denis, one of the more populated areas that so happens to also have some of the poorest?

Stop looking for excuses, there is NONE. I am sick and tired of those excuses. Maybe the Dems are not the only party in need of soul searching, GOP is also needing one if they are so afraid of losing for the 20 next years that they had to rig the system.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Key Board

Ideology matters

maybe it's a choice between "some regulation for the wealthy" and "no regulation for the wealthy"

but it's still an important choice to make.

especially since some politicians are trying to promote "being american = love unrestricted corporate capitalism. (except when China does a better job than us"

It's a stern ideological disagreement in whether the U.S. government operates as corporate ass kissers or corporate prostitutes

Originally Posted by Magin

Actually, it's better to compare it to Nebraska or Iowa. You might have more people on the coasts of California or along New York/The Tri-State area... but you don't have land. Land remains an INCREDIBLY valuable resource. Not just for building and real estate, but for food production. If someone in a rural area ultimately feels like they're getting fucked over, they can choose to simply destroy their crops, or at least hold on to just enough for themselves and their families. In fact, I'm already hearing about dairy farmers dumping their milk because of prices. And this happens more frequently than you might realize

Originally Posted by Sheba

Wow, must be awesome to live in a big city, in one of the poorer areas of the town, trying to make an honest living, and being told that your vote count for 1/4 of a farm boy who live in the middle of the countryside because country guys were so afraid to be bullied by the demographics of your big city

It's a little disconcerting we're hitting the nail on the head despite the disagreement

A liberal greasy spoon restaurant worker in downtown Manhattan has a lot more in common with a Kansas conservative farmhand than they do with the wall street executive a few blocks down. The U.S. operates as an oligarchy and doesn't represent the interest of its voters. Congress' voting record across both parties lead to privatized profits and socialized losses. In the middle of a global pandemic, the multinationals received $4t at the snap of a finger while regular people had to jump through hoops for a 1-time payment of $1.2k. Corruption is not ideology, and people wonder why U.S. citizens either become apathetic to voting or are willing to roll the dice on a reality star moron

The democratic establishment and the GOP talk a fiery distraction about the culture war, and unfortunately it works. They're friends behind closed doors while the real pressure is put on the few uncorrupted politicians to bend the knee. It's a big club, and you ain't in it

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by GDB

Literally the only valid point in that article is that "liberals" suck at marketing/propaganda. It may be accurate in terms of how rural voters feel, but that doesn't make the points its trying to make valid.

You know what's the saddest about the article? While it paint liberals as sneering assholes who fetishize the poor and the non-caucasians as unicorn-pandas and will kiss the ground on which those walk on, it act like the sneering conservatives dont exist, like "look guys we are totally innocent here! Its YOU who MUST work to understand." I am going to lash out at every fucking single asshole who try to talk down to me, yes I am talking about the smug conservatives, just as much as the screeching rainbow-haired horde.

[Eisdrache]

Yes the 'I don't give a shit about your reality bubble, forget about your worries because they're all wrong and you're stupid to not understand it" attitude is so much better than the "I'm the permanent victim being abused by the left/foreigners/jews/people with higher education/deep state/blablabla".

It's like people must either be radical centrist because left does not exist in the US or radical right. There is no middle ground. Both sides will not budge until the other one is eradicated. The few moderates that still exist are bullied until they conform to the extremists.

The fracture that runs through the country is arguably worse on the republican side than on the democrat one but it is upheld by both of them together. Nancy Pelosi said many disputable things but her line that the US needs to work together absolutely stands true even if people made fun of her here.

[Key Board]

Obama didn't win by being a centrist
He won by pretending to be hope and change.

But yeah, the overton window is so distorted that things that make sense in other countries seem "far left" here.

Also, things are already fracturing now because of Biden
He never had the young people vote.
and now this Tara Reade thing is NOT going to go away

//

[Anh_Minh]

"If something happens to me, I'm a victim and the government must redress this injustice. If something happens to you, you just need to suck it up."

[ramlaen]

People need a civics lesson on why the USA is called United States.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Imagine if they did that to French people, living in Seine-Saint Denis, one of the more populated areas that so happens to also have some of the poorest?

Your analogy is disingenuous, as what you are really asking for is the vote of everyone outside of Seine-Saint Denis to be irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Sheba

You know what's the saddest about the article?

That instead of reflecting on what the article talks about your reaction is "yeah but what about the other guy".

[Sheba]

Wow just what we need, lose that sneering attitude a little, will you?

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Wow just what we need, lose that sneering attitude a little, will you?

Please practice what you preach, unless you meant your post as a for thee but not for me.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Your analogy is disingenuous, as what you are really asking for is the vote of everyone outside of Seine-Saint Denis to be irrelevant.

I am asking for the vote of EVERYONE from EVERYWHERE to count. 1 guy = 1 vote.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I am asking for the vote of EVERYONE from EVERYWHERE to count. 1 guy = 1 vote.

Everyones vote in all 50 states count, 1 guy = 1 vote. The part so many need a civics lesson on is that the US doesn't have a national vote, each state has separate votes. This is why Trump won in 2016 as he won the popular vote in more states.

[Ithekro]

Which is why I made an analogy that the United States is not a smaller republic like France, its more on the scale of the European Union, with 50 states that are formed into one union of a country, rather than just an extended economic supernation that's still not considered a country.

Each state still exert some power in and of themselves. The Constitution was designed to define what the Federal Government is allowed to do and restrict what it cannot do to its citizens. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution basically gives the states control of things not covered in the Constitution. Each state generally has its one state constitution to define what it can do and cannot do to its citizens that are already not covered by the US Constitution.

Because state laws can vary greatly, voting is different on a state by state basis, with some rules and guidelines provided by Amendments to the US Constitution and Legal President. Each state has its own means of voting with a variety of machines of different levels of technology. This is why back in 2000, Florida was using a kind of punch card system while California was using a kind of scantron form.

Every vote is counted. The votes determine who wins per state. That result is what is presented to the Electoral College, who vote in the President and Vice President. How the electors are chosen is up to the states, and there have been proposals to change how the electors vote based on the national level of popular vote, but that movement does not have enough backing to swing the vote, since it would require enough states to make 270 electors to be chosen this way to make the concept work. After that would likely be a legal/constitutional battle on if the idea is legal at all.

There have been proposed amendments to the US Constitution to either remove the Electoral College, or change how it is works. Some have nearly worked, with one not passing by two Senatorial votes, since such a change requires a 66% majority to be enacted. Or it would need to be passed by 75% of the states, which given what happened with the ERA in the 70s and 80s, could be difficult.

[Guardian Enzo]

The best chance to rid the U.S. of the atrocity that is the Electoral College is the Popular Vote Compact. But even that's a longshot, because short-sighted Republicans will kill it in enough statehouses in the mistaken belief that the EC inherently favors Republicans (it doesn't - it's just awful generally). Despite large majorities of voters wanting to see it abolished, the EC will likely continue to throttle American democracy for decades to come.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

[...]

You're endlessly blabbing about the existence of something whilst completely neglecting to look into the pros and cons of it. One electoral vote in Wyoming was roughly equal to 3.6 electoral votes in California in 2016. Every vote not belonging to the majority in each state is discarded which is why the one person = one vote claim is shaky at best. Furthermore the fact that the possibility exists that someone can get elected with a minority of cast votes is ridiculous.

[Ithekro]

The pros and cons are irrelevant when explaining what is and how it can be changed.

The fact of an elector from Wyoming casts has significantly less population behind their vote than an elector from California is a known since Wyoming was added as a state in 1890, and the 1892 election. At that point in time, California had 9 electors to Wyoming's 3. Yet the total number of people that voted in California was about 16 times larger than in Wyoming. This is a known thing, and part of the system of the Electoral College intentionally. Remember that it was deigned to give the smaller states a larger say. That's what it was for. Because the concept is that things function on the State level, rather than the National level.

It should be noted that the states do not have to have all their electors vote for the overall winner of their state. It is up to each state to determine how their electors are picked. Most have fallen on the concept of winner takes all. But in the past, and in Maine and Nebraska, the electors can be selected based on who wins various districts, or proportional to how the state voted. If this was emplimented (as oppose to the current change concept of the states agreeing to select their electors based on who's winning nationally), than you could get a result where the electors are picked based on the amount of population that voted for that candidate. And every vote would count...more or less.

The thing is, I think I tried to run those numbers for 2016, and I think Trump still won with that one due to the third party votes effectively removing enough electors by percentages to drag Clinton's votes down to just under Trump. It would be a lot closer in the Electoral College, but some splits would be up to the number of electors available in said states to divide the percentage of votes. That or both were below the needed 270 electors and it would have needed to be run past Congress, who at that time, would have likely voted in Trump early in 2017.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The pros and cons are irrelevant when explaining what is and how it can be changed.

We know what it is and how it works. We have long moved on from the basic information to how it should be changed, to which the advantages and disadvantages are literally the deciding factor. As much as you want to pat your back for explaining how it worked in 1892 you missed that the date has changed to 2020. It may have worked then but it is horribly outdated now and it is the present which we should focus on.

[Magin]

Of course, for all the change people want... Let's see if they keep this noise up when the EC benefits their candidate. The Democrats are screaming about it because Trump won in 2016, but correct me if I'm wrong when i say that back in 2008 when Barack won (and then 2012), the Democrats didn't make a peep?

So to reiterate: each side (okay, usually Democrats more than Republicans) only complain about the EC when their candidate loses because of it, and hence it's never really going to be changed.

Now this is beyond any of us here on the Internet, but the big question is this, and the reason why the EC (at least partially) remains: how do you address the disparage created by the fact that far fewer but not insignificant amount of people that live in rural areas will always have their votes overridden by the far more populous amount of people in cities? The needs of cities and the needs of country areas can be very, very different.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Magin

Of course, for all the change people want... Let's see if they keep this noise up when the EC benefits their candidate. The Democrats are screaming about it because Trump won in 2016, but correct me if I'm wrong when i say that back in 2008 when Barack won (and then 2012), the Democrats didn't make a peep?

Obama also won the popular vote. The EC didn't "benefit" him, it just didn't steal his victory from him.

Yes, underneath the system was just as flawed then as it is now. But at least it crapped out the right result. (And in case it wasn't clear, I didn't mean "right" as Democrat, but as in the one with the most votes.)

So to reiterate: each side (okay, usually Democrats more than Republicans) only complain about the EC when their candidate loses because of it, and hence it's never really going to be changed.

Now this is beyond any of us here on the Internet, but the big question is this, and the reason why the EC (at least partially) remains: how do you address the disparage created by the fact that far fewer but not insignificant amount of people that live in rural areas will always have their votes overridden by the far more populous amount of people in cities? The needs of cities and the needs of country areas can be very, very different.

So what? It's a problem every country has to deal with. And not just for the urban/rural divide. There's a wide assortment of solutions if you look for them.

But the US made the novel choice (for a democratic regime, anyway) to screw over the majority.