American Presidential Election Talk

[mediocrepony 1,216]

My after election prediction:
THE DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA
https://ibb.co/qmByyv9

[mediocrepony 1,216]

But Seriously. 

at this point biden has presumably won.

he will presumably win Nevada and Wisconsin, and then biden needs only 16 electoral votes to win. 3 of the 4 remaining undecided states have 16 or more electoral votes, the other has 15. If he wins NONE of the 16+ states, and wins North Carolina(15), the house decides, cuz its a tie. Democrats have control of the house.

Edited November 4, 2020 by GrittyIsKing09

[fishy 1,757]

38 minutes ago, GrittyIsKing09 said:

But Seriously. 

at this point biden has virtually won.

he will presumably win Nevada and Wisconsin, and then biden needs only 16 electoral votes to win. 3 of the 4 remaining undecided states have 16 or more electoral votes, the other has 15. If he wins NONE of the 16+ states, and wins North Carolina(15), the hose decides, cuz its a tie. Democrats have control of the hose.

nothing is guaranteed nothing is guaranteed nothing is guaranteed

[fishy 1,757]

not over 'til it's over

[mediocrepony 1,216]

3 minutes ago, fishy said:

nothing is guaranteed nothing is guaranteed nothing is guaranteed

true. nevada is worrying

[thadthrasher 1,692]

This is certainly interesting. I like hearing what people outside of the US think about our election. I was listening to a theologian (N.T. Wright) talk about how much of an impact the US presidency has on the rest of the world. I don't think most Americans realize that truth.

[fishy 1,757]

30 minutes ago, thadthrasher said:

This is certainly interesting. I like hearing what people outside of the US think about our election. I was listening to a theologian (N.T. Wright) talk about how much of an impact the US presidency has on the rest of the world. I don't think most Americans realize that truth.

~colonialism~

 

[thadthrasher 1,692]

1 minute ago, fishy said:

~colonialism~

 

We don't know what that is in the USA! When we came here there was absolutely no one else here...

 

[mediocrepony 1,216]

i dont get how any americans can look at the last few years and say, "hey, that was nice! Let's do it again!"

Edited November 4, 2020 by GrittyIsKing09

[Gustav 6,433]

2 minutes ago, GrittyIsKing09 said:

i dont get how any americans can look at the last few years and say, "hey, that was nice! Let's do it again!"

 

A professor of mine once said something to the effect of "I hate everything about conservatism, but I understand it as a political need and I can see why people are drawn to it."

 

For a lot of people it comes down to what the deal is in their life in particular. I personally haven't been negatively affected by anything that's happened under Trump. I'm talking about myself and only myself. If I voted based on that alone, sure, I might end up voting for Trump. It's sticking with what I know hasn't negatively affected me in particular. Every president has a different economic plan, too, so people who were given jobs or who have seen their job field do better under Trump would actually be able to point to something that's directly affected their life in a positive way.

 

I personally didn't vote for Trump because I don't like him overall and I think that for the people as a whole, he's done a lot of harm. But, I can understand why someone might like him and think he's done a good job, based on how their own life in particular has or has not changed over the past four years. I hope that's at least a fair perspective.

[Beketov 9,033]

11 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

my strongest political opinion is that the two-party system is bullshit and my vote in this election reflected that. That's all I'll say as far as that's concerned.

It’s not just an issue with the 2 party system but how your system runs in general. First past the post that we have in Canada is not perfect by any stretch but at least you have a better shot at representation because you are voting for your local representative. My province has I think 13 seats so there’s no guarantee all of those will go to the same party, this would be the case even if we had only two parties. With the electoral college, however, majority in the state gets the entire state so what’s good for an individual county doesn’t necessarily get represented. You see this in stuff like Austen, TX that tends to lean blue but the state always goes red or Northern California that’s the opposite. The “all or nothing” mentality of the electoral college is more of a problem than just having two parties to vote for.

[mediocrepony 1,216]

Yeah, everyone needs ranked choice voting

 

(Just in case some people dont know what that is)https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

[thadthrasher 1,692]

Just now, GustavMattias said:

 

A professor of mine once said something to the effect of "I hate everything about conservatism, but I understand it as a political need and I can see why people are drawn to it."

 

For a lot of people it comes down to what the deal is in their life in particular. I personally haven't been negatively affected by anything that's happened under Trump. I'm talking about myself and only myself. If I voted based on that alone, sure, I might end up voting for Trump. It's sticking with what I know hasn't negatively affected me in particular. Every president has a different economic plan, too, so people who were given jobs or who have seen their job field do better under Trump would actually be able to point to something that's directly affected their life in a positive way.

 

I personally didn't vote for Trump because I don't like him overall and I think that for the people as a whole, he's done a lot of harm. But, I can understand why someone might like him and think he's done a good job, based on how their own life in particular has or has not changed over the past four years. I hope that's at least a fair perspective.

That's a fair point. In 2016 I voted for Clinton, I really just didn't want Trump to win. I was under the impression that Trump winning would lead to the end of the world and that WWIII would occur. Like you, though, nothing negative has happened to me over the last 4 years. However, I'm one of those tedious "centrists" who see value in both parties and particular policies. 

I decided for this election that I wanted to have my displeasure with the bi-partisan circus voiced with my vote, so I went with Jo Jorgenson. Not that I thought she would win, but because I wanted to have it be known that I, among many others, are tired of only have 2 options. 

Now, there are some who would say that I threw away my vote, or they say, "If you vote 3rd party that's a vote for [insert name of opposing politician]." But, that's what has led us into this mess we are currently in. Limiting people's voices because you don't like them is anti-American.

[Beketov 9,033]

4 minutes ago, GustavMattias said:

 

A professor of mine once said something to the effect of "I hate everything about conservatism, but I understand it as a political need and I can see why people are drawn to it."

 

For a lot of people it comes down to what the deal is in their life in particular. I personally haven't been negatively affected by anything that's happened under Trump. I'm talking about myself and only myself. If I voted based on that alone, sure, I might end up voting for Trump. It's sticking with what I know hasn't negatively affected me in particular. Every president has a different economic plan, too, so people who were given jobs or who have seen their job field do better under Trump would actually be able to point to something that's directly affected their life in a positive way.

 

I personally didn't vote for Trump because I don't like him overall and I think that for the people as a whole, he's done a lot of harm. But, I can understand why someone might like him and think he's done a good job, based on how their own life in particular has or has not changed over the past four years. I hope that's at least a fair perspective.

As an oversimplification of left and right politically I’ve always looked at it as Liberal leaning people are more likely to consider the experiences of others and conservative leaning people are more likely to consider only their own experiences. This is not strictly true all the time but is often how things end up going.

 

For example, all the conservatives who will for Republican across the board every time because they are in the “pro life” camp. To them personally it doesn’t matter if abortion access is legal because they never plan to have one, so they will vote with their belief that it shouldn’t be allowed. The other side has plenty of people who don’t believe in abortion themselves, IE they would never choose to have one, but they are a ale to consider that someone else might require one and therefore should have that right.

[Beketov 9,033]

2 minutes ago, GrittyIsKing09 said:

Yeah, everyone needs ranked choice voting

 

(Just in case some people dont know what that is)https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

Tbh ranked choice has its own set of problems. The main one being that basically no one gets what they want. People on either side will always put the candidate they like as #1 and the guy in the other side at the bottom. This splits both ways and ends up with everyone getting, at best, their second choice. Sounds fine on paper but ultimately means no one is happy with the choice, everyone just settles.

[mediocrepony 1,216]

 Have people seen the Jordan Klepper vid where a trump supporter said that Biden was a socialist and if he wins, she's moving to Costa Rica, and then Klepper said they have Universal Healthcare there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfMUn1U3aSk&t=28s

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by GrittyIsKing09

[mediocrepony 1,216]

3 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Tbh ranked choice has its own set of problems. The main one being that basically no one gets what they want. People on either side will always put the candidate they like as #1 and the guy in the other side at the bottom. This splits both ways and ends up with everyone getting, at best, their second choice. Sounds fine on paper but ultimately means no one is happy with the choice, everyone just settles.

fair enough. but if a candidate loses, WITH the popular vote on his/her side, fewer people get what they want

[Gustav 6,433]

16 minutes ago, Beketov said:

As an oversimplification of left and right politically I’ve always looked at it as Liberal leaning people are more likely to consider the experiences of others and conservative leaning people are more likely to consider only their own experiences. This is not strictly true all the time but is often how things end up going.

 

For example, all the conservatives who will for Republican across the board every time because they are in the “pro life” camp. To them personally it doesn’t matter if abortion access is legal because they never plan to have one, so they will vote with their belief that it shouldn’t be allowed. The other side has plenty of people who don’t believe in abortion themselves, IE they would never choose to have one, but they are a ale to consider that someone else might require one and therefore should have that right.

 

That is a big generalization, but it is why I'm not on the right. It will very likely ALWAYS be in my own best interest to vote Republican, but I dislike a lot of right-wing policies and such. So I don't consider myself aligned with them and very likely never will.

[Beketov 9,033]

7 minutes ago, GrittyIsKing09 said:

fair enough. but if a candidate loses, WITH the popular vote on his/her side, fewer people get what they want

Oh 100%, the current system isn’t perfect either, no system is. I just personally have never found ranked choice to be better. It just ends up with a middle ground and honestly middle ground politicians tend not to do much while they try to please everyone.

 

My wife actually has a political science degree and I asked her one day what electoral and government system she’d put into place in the US if it was just about efficiency and no one would push back. Her response was Russia’s ironically enough. You should take a look at how their government is set up, it actually would work very well for the US.

[mediocrepony 1,216]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Oh 100%, the current system isn’t perfect either, no system is. I just personally have never found ranked choice to be better. It just ends up with a middle ground and honestly middle ground politicians tend not to do much while they try to please everyone.

 

My wife actually has a political science degree and I asked her one day what electoral and government system she’d put into place in the US if it was just about efficiency and no one would push back. Her response was Russia’s ironically enough. You should take a look at how their government is set up, it actually would work very well for the US.

Dictatorship?

[Beketov 9,033]

Just now, GustavMattias said:

 

That is a big generalization, but it is why I'm not on the right. It will very likely ALWAYS be in my own best interest to vote Republican, but I dislike a lot of right-wing policies and such. So I don't consider myself aligned with them and very likely never will.

Oh it completely is a generalization, I don’t disagree with that. I even said it was an oversimplification. My point though is that even if Republican voting would be your best interest you aren’t voting for them. Why? Because you are considering the ramifications of what their policies do that don’t directly affect you. So in this sample size of 1 my oversimplification is correct.

 

There are 100% outliers but it has often been what I’ve seen.

[Beketov 9,033]

Just now, GrittyIsKing09 said:

Dictatorship?

That was my response haha. Ignore what Putin has more or less turned it into and look at how it’s meant to run, with a president and a prime minister. It’s quite functional in theory.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

The bigger problem, IMO, is that under-populated areas have a disproportionate effect  on the election since the house of representatives is capped at 435 seats. This number hasn't been increased since 1930 even though the population of the country has obviously dramatically increased.

 

As a result, the share of reps/electoral college votes is disproportionate to rural areas and metro/more populated areas are underrepresented.

 

https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/recommendation-1-1 explains it better than I can.

[mediocrepony 1,216]

5 minutes ago, flyersfan1453 said:

The bigger problem, IMO, is that under-populated areas have a disproportionate effect  on the election since the house of representatives is capped at 435 seats. This number hasn't been increased since 1930 even though the population of the country has obviously dramatically increased.

 

As a result, the share of reps/electoral college votes is disproportionate to rural areas and metro/more populated areas are underrepresented.

 

https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/recommendation-1-1 explains it better than I can.

YYYYEEEESSS I FORGOT ABOUT THIS.... This srsly needs to change

and not just in the house the presidency too. And how is 2 candidates per state for the senate accurately representing the US???

Edited November 4, 2020 by GrittyIsKing09

[mediocrepony 1,216]

This just became a grievances thread about US democracy.

 

This is so much more civil then I expected

Edited November 4, 2020 by GrittyIsKing09