American Presidential Election Talk

[Beketov 9,041]

6 minutes ago, GrittyIsKing09 said:

This just became a grievances thread about US democracy.

 

This is so much more civil then I expected

The forum is a much more civil place than discord

[Prout 373]

Ok I’m gonna say it. Fuck politics and only way it should actually be voted as is who has the most votes and I’m a Canadian but my god this system both Canada and the States are using are trash. Should just be what the people vote for and whoever has most votes wins.

[Banackock 8,073]

2 hours ago, GrittyIsKing09 said:

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.

Yes. Biden needs 2, Trump 4. 

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

1 hour 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.

 

That's an incredibly selfish way to look at things imho.

 

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

[Beketov 9,041]

13 minutes ago, Prout said:

Ok I’m gonna say it. Fuck politics and only way it should actually be voted as is who has the most votes and I’m a Canadian but my god this system both Canada and the States are using are trash. Should just be what the people vote for and whoever has most votes wins.

It can’t be that simple though, unless you want a few select places to dictate the elections for everyone. Take Canada for example. The cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary alone have a population of ~6 million people. The entire country has ~37 million. So by your metric 3 cities would control 1/6th of the entire country. It disproportionately represents people in large areas because those would be the only places politicians would care about. Why bother going to the province of NB (population ~776k)to campaign when you could go to just the city of Montreal and reach ~1 million MORE voters. The US would be even more harsh. The state of California alone has over 10% of the country’s population. One state shouldn’t be able to dictate that much realistically.

 

Breaking it up by location is important to ensure that everyone at least gets some say instead of just the major cities getting all the campaigning and focus.

[Banackock 8,073]

Uh @GustavMattias while he may have done good by you (I’m curious how it leans to good overall when you pile it all together), have you not seen what he has said, done, tweeted etc? You called Biden a pedo (I do believe) just because of a video, that albeit comes off weird, of him going in to smooch a persons younger daughter. If I was a young girl, that would creep me out in any situation. Could it of been taken out of context to some point? Likely. He’s probably trying to come off like every other old grandpa. Likeable. Soft. Nice. Charming. They also didn’t include the other 300 people he kissed and hugged that same day. Just the one bad thing. What about the massive list of women who have come out against Trump? the comments about being powerful enough to grab women in the pussy? Or hanging out with his buddy Epstein and pointing out women. Down valuing the virus and protection and responsibilities people need to take. Disregarding health officials, leading infectious disease researchers, science etc. I just don’t think he’s very fit to lead an entire nation. The list could go on and on but looking at his Twitter youd think the man smokes rock with Charlie Sheen back in the day but even Sheen had to give it up.
 

The man is a pathological liar/narcissist that gets his facts from some sketchy websites on the internet or the back of a cereal box. Half his stats don’t even make sense and 90% of the time he’s blowing stuff out his ass, hah. 
 

Also, if he was for Americans, would his stance to Covid be more appropriate? “Making us wear masks are controlling our liberties”... what about helmet? Clothes? Seat belts?  (Cell phones, Facebook, laws) Lol come on.. At the very least, when Putin and Russia had a bounty on American soldiers, should he not have done... anything? Did he even say.. anything? or did he not take accountability? “I take accountability for our pandemic response... BUT it’s all china’s fault”.

 

How Trump acts and goes about doing  anything is good enough reason for him to not be qualified for the position. If any CEO acted like that, or tweeted how he does etc, they’d be removed. Watching him makes me a very, very, very proud Canadian and a very fearful neighbour that only wishes and wants the best, happiness and peace for the USA. 

Edited November 4, 2020 by Banackock

[mediocrepony 1,216]

4 minutes ago, Beketov said:

 

 

Breaking it up by location is important to ensure that everyone at least gets some say instead of just the major cities getting all the campaigning and focus.

But then with the idiotic Electoral Votes, in which ONLY swing states matter. if you live in a ble state and are a republican, your vote does not matter, and vice versa. Only 1/3 of the pop matters

 

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

3 minutes ago, Banackock said:

Uh @GustavMattias while he may have done good by you (I’m curious how it leans to good overall when you pile it all together), have you not seen what he has said, done, tweeted etc? You called Biden a pedo (I do believe) just because of a video, that albeit comes off weird, of him going in to smooch a persons younger daughter. If I was a young girl, that would creep me out in any situation. Could it of been taken out of context to some point? Likely. He’s probably trying to come off like every other old grandpa. Likeable. Soft. Nice. Charming. They also didn’t include the other 300 people he kissed and hugged that same day. Just the one bad thing. What about the massive list of women who have come out against Trump? the comments about being powerful enough to grab women in the pussy? Or hanging out with his buddy Epstein and pointing out women. Down valuing the virus and protection and responsibilities people need to take. Disregarding health officials, leading infectious disease researchers, science etc. I just don’t think he’s very fit to lead an entire nation. The list could go on and on but looking at his Twitter youd think the man smokes rock with Charlie Sheen back in the day but even Sheen had to give it up.
 

The man is a pathological liar/narcissist that gets his facts from some sketchy websites on the internet or the back of a cereal box. Half his stats don’t even make sense and 90% of the time he’s blowing stuff out his ass, hah. 
 

Also, if he was for Americans, would his stance to Covid be more appropriate? “Making us wear masks are controlling our liberties”... what about helmet? Clothes? Seat belts?  (Cell phones, Facebook, laws) Lol come on.. At the very least, when Putin and Russia had a bounty on American soldiers, should he not have done... anything? Did he even say.. anything? or did he not take accountability? “I take accountability for our pandemic response... BUT it’s all china’s fault”.

 

How Trump acts and goes about doing  anything is good enough reason for him to not be qualified for the position. If any CEO acted like that, or tweeted how he does etc, they’d be removed. Watching him makes me a very, very, very proud Canadian and a very fearful neighbour that only wishes and wants the best, happiness and peace for the USA. 

 

You realize he's not talking about his own perspective, but about the perspective of someone who might have voted for Trump?

 

And he's right, IMO - especially white non-urban voters.

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

For me personally this basically comes down to the very simple litmus test of if you are okay with Trump's character or not. To me he is just so immoral and reprehensible as a person, he personifies so many of the traits that I hate in people and also in myself sometimes, he is just the anti-thesis of a good, decent human being which is reflected in the way he does politics. You can't separate someones personality from the way he does politics because one is clearly reflected in the other.

 

If you don't care enough about all that to try and vote him out (and voting third party counts as not trying to vote him out) then that says a lot about your character. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are as bad as him but that you are opportunistic enough to be fine with all  that as long as it only affects other people negatively and not yourself.  And his character is only one part of the problem, it doesn't stop at his personal flaws but there are a million other issues, above all else his clear anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies that seem to become stronger and are probably only kept in check somewhat by his incompetence and lack of impulse control.

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

11 minutes ago, Beketov said:

It can’t be that simple though, unless you want a few select places to dictate the elections for everyone. Take Canada for example. The cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary alone have a population of ~6 million people. The entire country has ~37 million. So by your metric 3 cities would control 1/6th of the entire country. It disproportionately represents people in large areas because those would be the only places politicians would care about. Why bother going to the province of NB (population ~776k)to campaign when you could go to just the city of Montreal and reach ~1 million MORE voters.

 

Breaking it up by location is important to ensure that everyone at least gets some say instead of just the major cities getting all the campaigning and focus.

 

What is wrong about 1/6 of a countries population having 1/6 of the influence?

Edited November 4, 2020 by RomanesEuntDomus

[Banackock 8,073]

Just now, flyersfan1453 said:

 

You realize he's not talking about his own perspective, but about the perspective of someone who might have voted for Trump?

 

And he's right, IMO - especially white non-urban voters.

Mostly. I just can’t wrap my head around who or why someone would vote for him. I’m not saying he’s wrong. All you need to do is looks at the maps, the voting percentages and amounts to see it. Also listen to people or log into Facebook. 

 

I watched a video yesterday of someone interviewing Trump supporters and understood a bit better though. 

 

“I won’t live under a socialist leader. If Biden wins, I’ll move”, to which he asked where and they responded: Costa Rica. They have universal healthcare, which is socialism. 
 

Even the guys at work are bad. I just can’t wrap my head around it. I was conservative but learned to accept Trudeau and look away from blue and red and see that he does care and wish to protect Canadians. Trump, I just can’t find a way to accept lol. 

[Banackock 8,073]

Awesome and honest way to put it. @RomanesEuntDomus

[mediocrepony 1,216]

this is the most people ive seen on a thread at one time

[Will 4,660]

Just now, RomanesEuntDomus said:

For me personally this basically comes down to the very simple litmus test of if you are okay with Trump's character or not. To me he is just so immoral and reprehensible as a person, he personifies so many of the traits that I hate in people and also in myself sometimes, he is just the anti-thesis of a good, decent human being which is reflected in the way he does politics. You can't separate someones personality from the way he does politics because one is clearly reflected in the other.

 

If you don't care enough about all that to try and vote him out (and voting third party counts as not trying to vote him out) then that says a lot about your character. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are as bad as him but that you are opportunistic enough to be fine with all  that as long as it only affects other people negatively and not yourself.  And his character is only one part of the problem, it doesn't stop at his personal flaws but there are a million other issues, above all else his clear anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies that seem to become stronger and are probably only kept in check somewhat by his incompetence and lack of impulse control.

To me it seems it mostly comes down to his base being largely uneducated (And a conservative news media that preys on that fact). They really don’t care about foreign affairs or the ramifications of his anti-democratic tendencies and attacks on institutions. All they care about is their short term, domestic wants - conservative judges, guns, destruction of planned parenthood, FREEDOM, etc. 

 

I don’t think they really grasp or care about the greater impacts his presidency has on the US or the world in the long term.

[Devise 4,475]

9 minutes ago, flyersfan1453 said:

 

You realize he's not talking about his own perspective, but about the perspective of someone who might have voted for Trump?

 

And he's right, IMO - especially white non-urban voters.

 

I don't disagree with Gus's assertion that there are people out there with good enough positions foolish enough to think Trump (or really, any single one person in politics) is the reason they have those positions.

 

I think for me, the big thing, the heartbreaking thing is the lack of intelligence and I'm saying this, in the American people. It isn't that Trump is "evil, and narcissistic" and you could keep going on and on. It's that TRUMP IS FAKE. He's a troll. He has zero interest in the betterment of any people, forget the idea of him just being evil or racist. He's using EVERYTHING in bad faith. How can large groups of people across America not plainly see this?

 

Trump came out and blatantly called the election rigged before it was even election day. He churned his supporters to drive people off the road and engage in voter suppression, literally criminal behavior. Even after the election night, when he was claiming it was rigged and they stole it his own VP Pence wouldn't confirm that was the case and spoke like an actual politician would. Pretty much every action Trump takes is an action from someone who doesn't give a flying fuck if he ever is in politics again. Notice how NOBODY ELSE on his own side does that? Because they want jobs in politics in the future. And making people distrust the very system you work in, isn't exactly a way to ensure job security. Hell Fox News isn't even jumping on the Trump bandwagon here, and claiming it's rigged. Everything Trump does is in bad faith and for attention.

 

At some point in like ten years after he's fled to another Country and releases countless books there is going to maybe be a movement in America of people who realize they were duped into believing Trump had any legitimate interest in politics. It's been a game this entire time, and I don't know why people can't get that. Mostly because, it's so left vs right that the candidates don't matter. It could be a toaster vs Jello and your still going to get hardcore turnouts because they say "Democrat and Republican" on the ballots. 

 

So yeah I'd say the heatbreak to me is that the American public is so damn ignorant they can't determine difference between "reality TV" and the real thing anymore. It's fucking sad. 

[mediocrepony 1,216]

the fate of america and the world cold be decided soon cuz of climate change. Trump still says it is a hoax and is stripping environmental regulations.

Edited November 4, 2020 by GrittyIsKing09

[Beketov 9,041]

55 minutes ago, GrittyIsKing09 said:

But then with the idiotic Electoral Votes, in which ONLY swing states matter. if you live in a ble state and are a republican, your vote does not matter, and vice versa. Only 1/3 of the pop matters

 

As I stated elsewhere in here the electoral college is far from perfect because of that “all or nothing” issue. It’s a bit less apparent with FPTP because we have regional representatives so the people we vote for are actually the ones representing us. 
 

In theory however the electoral college could work but it’s numbers need to be re-aligned to current populations. You do need to give a certain amount of votes to less populated states because their vote needs to matter as well but currently some states have far more control than their population dictates they should have.

 

49 minutes ago, RomanesEuntDomus said:

 

What is wrong about 1/6 of a countries population having 1/6 of the influence?

On paper: nothing. In practice, plenty. I don’t have the numbers but probably 50% of Canadians love in Ontario and BC. So in theory you could win an election only by looking at the needs of Ontario and BC. On paper that’s fair, they have the population, but in practice it means that the other 11 provinces and territories needs could be completely ignored because they don’t have the population to make an impact. Do you think any politician would ever care about what the farmer’s of PEI need? They can get more than that entire province by hanging out in just Quebec City for a day.

 

That’s the inevitable problem. Larger places automatically get representation while smaller places get completely ignored. There’s a balance that must be struck (which Canada is closer to than the US but still not great) but you can’t purely say “popular vote wins” or else people who live away from the main population centres get 0 representation.

[rory 1,924]

i told y'all dumb dumbs last night to put a fiver on biden when his odds were like +500, smfh

[Banackock 8,073]

Wisconsin to Biden fo now... recount in bound. Unless Trump wins, he’s gonna cry and scream CHEATER CHEATER! FRAUD! RUSSIA! I won’t let anyone but me cheat!  
 

idk mate. Let’s ask Melania  (legit almost wrote Ivanka and it still probably would of be ok) who the cheater is

 

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

49 minutes ago, Beketov said:

As I stated elsewhere in here the electoral college is far from perfect because of that “all or nothing” issue. It’s a bit less apparent with FPTP because we have regional representatives so the people we vote for are actually the ones representing us. 
 

In theory however the electoral college could work but it’s numbers need to be re-aligned to current populations. You do need to give a certain amount of votes to less populated states because their vote needs to matter as well but currently some states have far more control than their population dictates they should have.

 

On paper: nothing. In practice, plenty. I don’t have the numbers but probably 50% of Canadians love in Ontario and BC. So in theory you could win an election only by looking at the needs of Ontario and BC. On paper that’s fair, they have the population, but in practice it means that the other 11 provinces and territories needs could be completely ignored because they don’t have the population to make an impact. Do you think any politician would ever care about what the farmer’s of PEI need? They can get more than that entire province by hanging out in just Quebec City for a day.

 

That’s the inevitable problem. Larger places automatically get representation while smaller places get completely ignored. There’s a balance that must be struck (which Canada is closer to than the US but still not great) but you can’t purely say “popular vote wins” or else people who live away from the main population centres get 0 representation.

 

A simple "popular vote wins" system isn't really in place anywhere in Western democracies anyway, at least to my knowledge, they all have some sort of system to assure regional representation, be it through the parliament, party lists, regional seating etc... It's not like getting rid of the Electoral College would mean that the total nation-wide number of votes would suddenly be all that matters.

 

At the end of the day, an electoral college or similar system, even if adjusted for today's demographics as you describe, would mean that the vote of someone who lives in the city would be worth less than the vote of someone from a rural area. And that just strikes me as deeply undemocratic.

 

You have painted the grim picture that certain populous cities/states would completely dominate the political landscape if there was no electoral college, but right now basically the opposite is the case with low population-density regions being disproportinately powerful at the expense of high population-density regions.

 

And that doesn't even take into account the issues with the "winner takes it all" approach that makes it that only a fraction of the votes from battleground states really count anway, another fatal flaw of an electoral college sort of system. You talk about the people from less populous province not having their voices heard but hell, what about the 5 million Texans who voted for Biden and whose votes go straight to the trash or the 4 million Californians or 3 Million New Yorkers who voted for Trump? And it's the same for every other state, big or small, where someone can win with a 51% margin which means that the voices of 49% of the people will not be heard because their votes don't serve to strengthen some kind of opposition in the parliament or elsewhere but go straight to the bin instead.

Edited November 4, 2020 by RomanesEuntDomus

[Victor 10,971]

14 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

My life in particular in the US is just fine--I'm doing very well for myself and I've been blessed with a lot. There's nowhere else I personally would rather live, because the American Dream is very achievable for me and I'm on track to live fairly comfortably between scholarships/lack of student debt and my field of study. But, I hate the current political system and I realize that there's a lot that's going to need to fundamentally change to give everyone that chance.

 

Two parties who work to keep each other in power isn't going to cut it. That's stupid and will remain stupid as long as it exists, no matter which ideologies those parties represent. I guess that's it; glad to see this thread has been fairly civil so far and I hope it stays that way.

Very much this for me in the UK (and I've lived in Canada, spent some time in Australia and NZ, plus am actually Eastern European). The US and the UK remain in the very short list of places where I could do my job, earn however much I earn, and not fear for my life.

 

But the political system in the western world is trash. I think there's just not been change for longer than ever before - it's not healthy for there to be the exact same parties consolidated power everywhere. There's a few examples of newcomers in (usually struggling) European nations but it's not enough. The majority of politicians have no real distinguishing characteristics.

 

2 hours ago, Beketov said:

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.

That said, as Bek says here, US takes it to another level. A system where 1 extra vote in the right place in Florida could in theory sweep its entire 29 "points" or whatever they are... that is deeply flawed. It really turns election into a sporting event and you can see it in the language ("taken the early lead", "mounting a comeback", wtf guys, it's not happened live, the voting happened). It's all very toxic.

 

2 hours ago, 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.

Yup, similar here - the majority of my colleagues, being white collar, in finance, and pretty well off, will vote Conservative because they will guarantee the rich stay richer. That is enough for a lot of people and the risk caused by helping someone else isn't worth it.

 

2 hours ago, Beketov said:

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.

This is quite interesting and I will look to read up more on this. I know that not just in Russia, but many African countries and other "failed democracies", the systems set up are probably better than in the west purely on the basis they were written with the experience of the UK, US, etc in mind. But is that just theory? Ultimately these countries went back to their ways largely because the political elite never wanted democracy or the ones who did lost power very quickly after their revolution/independence/dissolution of the Soviet Union/etc. So they were never gonna prove their system actually could have worked.

 

1 hour ago, Will said:

To me it seems it mostly comes down to his base being largely uneducated (And a conservative news media that preys on that fact). They really don’t care about foreign affairs or the ramifications of his anti-democratic tendencies and attacks on institutions. All they care about is their short term, domestic wants - conservative judges, guns, destruction of planned parenthood, FREEDOM, etc. 

 

I don’t think they really grasp or care about the greater impacts his presidency has on the US or the world in the long term.

I want to think this but it is simplistic. It's the same argument that I made and still sometimes generalise over here with Brexit voters. Ultimately that's where the left falls down, by insulting the intelligence of the opposition. Yeah some of them are dumb thugs, probably on both sides, but the most influential are the people who truly would rather kill the poor and the blacks and whatever else. And just rich people.

 

1 hour ago, Devise said:

 

I don't disagree with Gus's assertion that there are people out there with good enough positions foolish enough to think Trump (or really, any single one person in politics) is the reason they have those positions.

 

I think for me, the big thing, the heartbreaking thing is the lack of intelligence and I'm saying this, in the American people. It isn't that Trump is "evil, and narcissistic" and you could keep going on and on. It's that TRUMP IS FAKE. He's a troll. He has zero interest in the betterment of any people, forget the idea of him just being evil or racist. He's using EVERYTHING in bad faith. How can large groups of people across America not plainly see this?

 

Trump came out and blatantly called the election rigged before it was even election day. He churned his supporters to drive people off the road and engage in voter suppression, literally criminal behavior. Even after the election night, when he was claiming it was rigged and they stole it his own VP Pence wouldn't confirm that was the case and spoke like an actual politician would. Pretty much every action Trump takes is an action from someone who doesn't give a flying fuck if he ever is in politics again. Notice how NOBODY ELSE on his own side does that? Because they want jobs in politics in the future. And making people distrust the very system you work in, isn't exactly a way to ensure job security. Hell Fox News isn't even jumping on the Trump bandwagon here, and claiming it's rigged. Everything Trump does is in bad faith and for attention.

 

At some point in like ten years after he's fled to another Country and releases countless books there is going to maybe be a movement in America of people who realize they were duped into believing Trump had any legitimate interest in politics. It's been a game this entire time, and I don't know why people can't get that. Mostly because, it's so left vs right that the candidates don't matter. It could be a toaster vs Jello and your still going to get hardcore turnouts because they say "Democrat and Republican" on the ballots. 

 

So yeah I'd say the heatbreak to me is that the American public is so damn ignorant they can't determine difference between "reality TV" and the real thing anymore. It's fucking sad. 

Yeah, ultimately though, I understand why people vote for the right. And in most countries you vote for a party, not a person. But the US president is pretty much a separate entity. And people vote for that sleazeball? He is a disgusting human being (a fun Halloween costume but a disgusting human being).

[Beketov 9,041]

11 minutes ago, RomanesEuntDomus said:

 

A simple "popular vote wins" system isn't really in place anywhere in Western democracies anyway, at least to my knowledge, they all have some sort of system to assure regional representation, be it through the parliament, party lists, regional seating etc... It's not like getting rid of the Electoral College would mean that the total nation-wide number of votes would suddenly be all that matters.

 

At the end of the day, an electoral college or similar system, even if adjusted for today's demographics as you describe, would mean that the vote of someone who lives in the city would be worth less than the vote of someone from a rural area. And that just strikes me as deeply undemocratic.

 

You have painted the grim picture that certain populous cities/states would completely dominate the political landscape if there was no electoral college, but right now basically the opposite is the case with low population-density regions being disproportinately powerful at the expense of high population-density regions.

 

And that doesn't even take into account the issues with the "winner takes it all" approach that makes it that only a fraction of the votes from battleground states really count anway, another fatal flaw of an electoral college sort of system. You talk about the people from less populous province not having their voices heard but hell, what about the 5 million Texans who voted for Biden and whose votes go straight to the trash or the 4 million Californians or 3 Million New Yorkers who voted for Trump? And it's the same for every other state, big or small, where someone can win with a 51% margin which means that the voices of 49% of the people will not be heard because their votes don't serve to strengthen some kind of opposition in the parliament or elsewhere but go straight to the bin instead.

Have you read my other comments or just the responses to you? I’ve touched my n more or less all of this. The original one that got us down this path was in response to someone directly stating a “popular vote wins” method which is why I started stating that it was problematic. I’ve also said several times that the winner takes all approach of the electoral college is severely flawed and that the numbers need to be adjusted to more accurately represent populations without going too far the other way.

[Beketov 9,041]

12 minutes ago, Victor said:

This is quite interesting and I will look to read up more on this. I know that not just in Russia, but many African countries and other "failed democracies", the systems set up are probably better than in the west purely on the basis they were written with the experience of the UK, US, etc in mind. But is that just theory? Ultimately these countries went back to their ways largely because the political elite never wanted democracy or the ones who did lost power very quickly after their revolution/independence/dissolution of the Soviet Union/etc. So they were never gonna prove their system actually could have worked.

Putin hasn’t actually turned it into the dictatorship that it feels like but he has taken advantage of the fact that Russia has a Prime Minister and a President by being both and using the power of each to extend the term for the other. So basically when he was PM he extended the Presidential term then he became president and extended the PM’s term, then he became PM again. Something like that. He’s basically gaming the system to remain in power but the system as it’s designed would function very well in the US. The president has actually very little authority, the “house” and “senate” control the country with the “senate” being made up entirely by representatives of the provinces, with each one getting 2. So there’s never a senate flip or anything, they just all have to work together because their numbers will always be the same and they don’t align to a specific party.

 

I don’t remember all the details but it’s actually a pretty solid system of government. Takes the best parts of the US system with the best parts of FPTP.

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

1 minute ago, Beketov said:

Have you read my other comments or just the responses to you? I’ve touched my n more or less all of this. The original one that got us down this path was in response to someone directly stating a “popular vote wins” method which is why I started stating that it was problematic. I’ve also said several times that the winner takes all approach of the electoral college is severely flawed and that the numbers need to be adjusted to more accurately represent populations without going too far the other way.

 

I did read them but you are dodging the central question. What I read in your posts is that you would be fine with one segment of the population being underrepresented in terms of political influence as long as this segment is urban voters, but it would be a travesty if those underrepresented where rural voters. You might not mean it this way but this is what an electoral college system boils down to, It undermines the one man, one vote principle so that a vote by someone from a populous region is worth less than a vote by someone from a rural region.

[Victor 10,971]

1 minute ago, Beketov said:

Putin hasn’t actually turned it into the dictatorship that it feels like but he has taken advantage of the fact that Russia has a Prime Minister and a President by being both and using the power of each to extend the term for the other. So basically when he was PM he extended the Presidential term then he became president and extended the PM’s term, then he became PM again. Something like that.

Yeah but my point is that the country's democratic institutions never developed enough to prevent him from becoming PM in 1999 (when he was a nobody but the pick of a part of a conservative/oligarch wing). What he's done is separate to the fact that Russia only ever legitimately tried using the system for 8 years if that.