American Presidential Election Talk

[Beketov 9,090]

2 minutes ago, RomanesEuntDomus said:

 

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.

I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the system needs to be better balanced. It can’t just be “popular vote wins” because that’s purely urban controlled and it can’t be balanced as it is now because that’s purely Rural controlled. There’s definitely a balance point to be had where control is a bit more urban than it is now but not overboard.

 

First Past the Post that we have in Canada helps as well because within the provinces we can still get representation. In the US if 1 urban area votes one way but the rest of the rural areas vote another that urban area tends to get screwed because it’s all or nothing. In FPTP you would have a representative for that urban area and then other representatives for the rural areas. So to keep it simple it the electoral college votes in a state are 10 right now you get all 10 or 0. Assuming a straight conversation of EC votes to FPTP seats you could get all 10 but you could also get 4 or 6 or anything. It helps to balance things.

[Will 4,662]

 

 

1 minute ago, Victor said:

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.

That’s a fair point and I thought about editing my post to say it’s obviously not true of every supporter. I do think it’s mostly true for the people that seem to come out of the woodwork and drive up his turnout. But your definitely right that the influential ones, also the ones who are actually riling up these masses of people with dog whistles and ‘alternative facts’, obviously have more...nefarious motives. 

[Devise 4,475]

14 minutes ago, Victor said:

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).

 

Yeah, I understand why people who feel like they may be in a dog eat dog type of economic situation to be very protective of the supposed push for a "continued" stable economic situation. I just don't think the people who voted for him out of ignorance or party loyalty totally understand the broader situation.

 

It isn't just that he's a sleaze or a bad human being, that he is so overtly fake but widely supported has lead to far more unstableness in all of the United States. The perfect cocktail happened to hit with a Global Pandemic we haven't seen in 100 years to only add fuel to it, but presidents like Trump breed anarchy. I do not mean this to offend any Americans, but this years election cycle was not a First World Country election cycle. The tactics, the conduct, the terminology and as Victor even laid out above the sporting event style are all things commonly found in elections in countries with less stable governments. Which leads me, finally to my point, an unstable government doesn't benefit anyone. Regardless of economic situation. You can be rich with a dollar that goes bottom up in value. Companies that once existed can go under. I feel like this year in particular has shown a decent amount of logical people that the purpose, regardless of party or political affiliation of maintaining a standard line on politicians is to keep the crazy anarchy to as minimal of a population as possible. It turns out, fueling and breeding misinformation leads to people entirely distrusting any and all systems of government. Again I don't see how that helps anybody in a good situation or otherwise. 

 

For comparisons sake while I don't think the Canadian system is perfect but just to prove what I mean about a standard line, if PM Justin Trudeau came out and stated that "COVID is fake news" literally just those words in a public speech, you would be able to count the days until he is no longer Prime Minister. Their would instantly be a vote of no confidence and a coalition formed between the Conservatives and the other three main parties. Obviously we don't have a two party system like the US does, so this allows for this to happen. But on top of that, we also don't allow blatant spread of misinformation. It doesn't get elected, it doesn't get seats, it's shunned. Whatever party your on you can't allow yourself to blindly support candidates who have no business in politics and blatantly ignore the things you'd shun and remove others for just to get elected. America refuses to learn this lesson. Politicians need to be held accountable for what they say, lest you incite the masses to madness. 

[Beketov 9,090]

5 minutes ago, Victor said:

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.

Arguably they are still using it, just annoyingly they’ve had the same guy at the top multiple times. The system isn’t completely broken really, it would work fine if Putin’s political opponents didn’t keep turning up dead.

[Beketov 9,090]

2 minutes ago, Devise said:

I mean about a standard line, if PM Justin Trudeau came out and stated that "COVID is fake news" literally just those words in a public speech, you would be able to count the days until he is no longer Prime Minister.

It also helps that he’s technically just another MP. Prime Minister just means leader of the governing party so they could toss him out of the party and someone else would just be PM. It’s not like requiring a full impeachment or anything, it’s the party’s choice and if the party doesn’t make it, like you said, the others can.

 

The president being his own branch of government definitely makes things a little more complicated.

[Devise 4,475]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

It also helps that he’s technically just another MP. Prime Minister just means leader of the governing party so they could toss him out of the party and someone else would just be PM. It’s not like requiring a full impeachment or anything, it’s the party’s choice and if the party doesn’t make it, like you said, the others can.

 

The president being his own branch of government definitely makes things a little more complicated.

 

That's a fair point. I think too it's important to note the distinction that even if Justin had the full party support over his illogical actions (he wouldn't) but even if you assume he would for the hypothetical, the fact is the other parties would do it without question. I don't know what the distinction is among voters but for whatever reason here ethics among politicians IS the thing they fight over. They are always searching for violations as reasons to justify criticism of each other, so despite similar levels of misinformation it's usually targeted and not broad. Nobody would ever dare openly flaunt the types of things you see from a Trump here, it'd be career suicide. Whether that means we are "intentionally" better or not is obviously up for debate; but at the end of the day the system here is designed where those roots get pulled by the very aspect of our own political competition. 

[mediocrepony 1,216]

Vic is writing fricking media spots here

[Victor 10,992]

1 minute ago, GrittyIsKing09 said:

Vic is writing fricking media spots here

I think my post was still shorter than either of Devise's.

 

21 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Arguably they are still using it, just annoyingly they’ve had the same guy at the top multiple times. The system isn’t completely broken really, it would work fine if Putin’s political opponents didn’t keep turning up dead.

yeah I don't disagree. I think it's just one of those where it's great on paper which you said early on, but annoyingly there's just no evidence because it's fallen through for a variety of societal and individual factors. Which then makes you think, hmm, maybe it's not such a good system then if it is so easily abused. But we won't know unless it's tried somewhere and ultimately I think political reform has stagnated decades ago in the west.

 

That said, Hitler came to power in a very progressive political system in 1920s/30s Germany so if there's will, there's a way...

 

24 minutes ago, Devise said:

if PM Justin Trudeau came out and stated that "COVID is fake news" literally just those words in a public speech, you would be able to count the days until he is no longer Prime Minister. Their would instantly be a vote of no confidence and a coalition formed between the Conservatives and the other three main parties.

You say that but have you seen what Boris has been up to in the last year? And I think we have pretty much identical systems. There's a two-pronged crisis of 1) lack of public care about anything and 2) increasing lack of principled politicians

 

And yeah, the UK and Canada, and others have more than 2 parties in the House of Commons or equivalent, but how many countries have had a PM from a "third" party in the last 50 years? Coalitions yes but it's one step away from being 2-party.

[Beketov 9,090]

2 minutes ago, Victor said:

how many countries have had a PM from a "third" party in the last 50 years

My hunch says none. NDP being official opposition in 2013 is likely the closest we’ve had.

[mediocrepony 1,216]

@Devise is writing fricking media spots in here

[Devise 4,475]

1 minute ago, Victor said:

You say that but have you seen what Boris has been up to in the last year? And I think we have pretty much identical systems. There's a two-pronged crisis of 1) lack of public care about anything and 2) increasing lack of principled politicians

 

And yeah, the UK and Canada, and others have more than 2 parties in the House of Commons or equivalent, but how many countries have had a PM from a "third" party in the last 50 years? Coalitions yes but it's one step away from being 2-party.

 

Totally, like I said it's hardly perfect. Ultimately as you said we likewise fall into a situation where it's always one of the two parties who gets elected and the other parties always serve as a buffer to keep the controlling party from being too outlandish. I think it's safe to say while that alone may make it a "safer" system than Americas it's basically like saying we are in the middle ages and they are in the stone age.

 

All of them are rather outdated and as Beks has outlined in some of his posts as to why; relatively unfairly determined in terms of population vs seat count. I've always supported some sort of proportional representation system where the parties just get seats based on their overall voter count. But I know we do a lot more local political work and people obviously elect individuals here as opposed to a leader. It still winds up often being party determined, but ridings are basically determined entirely by the majority demographic. Which leads to a lot of wasted votes one way or the other in specific areas. Liberal votes in Alberta, Conservative votes out East. Proportional representation isn't an ideal solution either, as obviously at that point popular vote pretty much determines who wins. I wouldn't mind though if they determined a total number of seats per province and destroyed the riding line, and then used per province proportional representation to determine the number of seats each party wins in each province. Then you'd just need to fairly allocate a number of seats to the provinces based on the population count, and unlike the Electoral College one party wouldn't just win out a Provinces seats by having more votes, you'd get seats dolled out based on the percentage of votes per party per Province. 

[BOOM 8,806]

To everyone that has taken the time to think about and write detailed, considered and informative replies... 

 

THANK YOU. 

[Beketov 9,090]

1 minute ago, BOOM™ said:

To everyone that has taken the time to think about and write detailed, considered and informative replies... 

 

THANK YOU. 

No Boom, Thank you.

[Victor 10,992]

2 minutes ago, Devise said:

Then you'd just need to fairly allocate a number of seats to the provinces based on the population count, and unlike the Electoral College one party wouldn't just win out a Provinces seats by having more votes, you'd get seats dolled out based on the percentage of votes per party per Province. 

Sounds like what's done in the EU elections actually. Germany, France,. (formerly) UK have maybe 80 seats each, with each party getting a percentage equal to the percentage of their vote, all the way down to say 7-8 seats from an Estonia or Malta.

 

Shame no one gives a shit about the EU Parliament.

[mediocrepony 1,216]

                  America's popular vote has gone blue 4 of the last five elections( presumably again this year). Republicans have won 3/5 elections with Obama being the only democrat elected to president in the 21st century. Something wrong? Yeah. yeah definitely. America has such a range of options, like FPTP, ranked choice or simply popular vote, but it's not gonna change anytime soon because I believe to make a constitutional amendment, i think you need 2/3 of the in the house or senate, not sure which. Republicans will almost always have at least 1/3, unless radical change happens. They are not going to want to change, since it the electoral college benefits them so much. So, if 2/3 of the seats ever are democratic, likely, the country will be so far into democratic government that the electoral college is not going to change any results.

i dunno just my thoughts

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by GrittyIsKing09

[Beketov 9,090]

20 minutes ago, GrittyIsKing09 said:

blue 4 of the last five elections

6 out of the last 

[Beketov 9,090]

35 minutes ago, GrittyIsKing09 said:

blue 4 of the last five elections

6 out of the last 7 if I’m not mistaken actually.

[BOOM 8,806]

Good job Michigan. 

[Jayrad28 397]

With Michigan going blue Biden needs one more state to win.

[BOOM 8,806]

I don't know how trusted it is, but I've been following Politico for results and scenarios. 

[Beketov 9,090]

5 minutes ago, Jayrad28 said:

With Michigan going blue Biden needs one more state to win.

Two unless it’s Pennsylvania. Or did he get Arizona?

[MexicanCow123 915]

I don't know what he just got, but it's all up to Nevada.

[BOOM 8,806]

Come on Joe! 

[BOOM 8,806]

2 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Two unless it’s Pennsylvania. Or did he get Arizona?

 

Yes, Arizona is blue. 

[Victor 10,992]

1 minute ago, MexicanCow123 said:

I don't know what he just got, but it's all up to Nevada.

Vegas best not choke like they did against Miami eh @Spartan