nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Quin_Dub

Continuation thread from here

All existing rules still stand.

Everyone will want to be active in this thread over the next few days , but there will be zero tolerance for Forum rule breaches.

Keep it Sensible , Civil and Polite please.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Christy42

everlast75 wrote: »

Wisconsin called for Biden by 20,697 votes

I just get results soon when I search. Who is reporting this?

Hurrache

Christy42 wrote: »

I just get results soon when I search. Who is reporting this?

Wisconsin.

GLaDOS

If Biden holds Michigan, claims that "it's over" may actually be accurate.

Chips Lovell

10000maniacs wrote: »

Anybody who leads the popular vote by 2.6 million and loses has to ask questions about the fairness of the system.
Although I think he will do it now.

If Trump wins, it'll be the third time in 20 years that someone has won the electoral college and lost the popular vote. Questions will definitely be asked about the fairness of it, but I think the system will only change if the issue affects both parties. And right now, the Republicans have no incentive to consent to that change, since they're the ones benefiting.

Kalyke

Clareemigrant wrote: »

Must be first time ever that a Mayo team snatch victory from the jaws of defeat

Slow down with all the posting there Ted!!!

Manic Moran

MJohnston wrote: »

To me it’s utterly insane that this isn’t the case nationally. I mean I know *why* that is, but the gerrymandering situation combined with the ridiculous Senate seat-population, and the undemocratic Electoral College really underscore an ugly truth about Republicans

And Democrats. We had a very similar proposition in California, to remove the power of redistricting from the (Democrat) legislature (I can't recall if they were a supermajority at the time or not) to a citizen's redistricting commission.

You'll never guess which party opposed this. (And lost, by about a 2:1 ratio of the voters). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_11

ddarcy wrote: »

Or you could give DC back to Maryland where it came from. The original idea of DC is now flawed, but it shouldn’t be its own state. PR can go through statehood. It does have support on both sides in reality if they want it. They don’t currently don’t.

Why is also what happened to Virginia, and why the county of Alexandria, which used to be part of DC, is now helping turn the State blue.

All_in_Flynn

Can anyone confirm what the actual state of play in Arizona is?

I'm aware there was an error on the reporting percentage. Can we confirm what the remaining votes are likely to go in that state? I can't see anything concrete anywhere.

Christy42

Hurrache wrote: »

Wisconsin.

I will admit they seem like a source who would know. Great news. Now onto Michigan and getting AZ and NV confirmed.

Rjd2

One small thing for both sides, they need to be better with spending their money on viral candidates .,,,examples?

Amy Mc Grath and James Harrison in the senate, while the GOP base yet again looks like have splashed to much money on hopeless candidates who have some viral fame.

Itssoeasy

Nbc News is calling Maine for Biden.

timeToLive

Retr0gamer wrote: »

They did accept he won. It was just hard to understand how it happened.

Remember #notmypresident?

Looks like this race is down to Nevada - unless Arizona goes Red

breezy1985

timeToLive wrote: »

Remember #notmypresident?

Looks like this race is down to Nevada - unless Arizona goes Red

Nothing wrong with saying his views don't represent yours.

Trump is trying to declare the election illegal

ancapailldorcha

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If Trump wins, it'll be the third time in 20 years that someone has won the electoral college and lost the popular vote. Questions will definitely be asked about the fairness of it, but I think the system will only change if the issue affects both parties. And right now, the Republicans have no incentive to consent to that change, since they're the ones benefiting.

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

Headshot

There's 100 thousand votes to still to be counted in Michigan

Do we know are these 100k mail in voting?

The Iron Giant

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

Nobody will ever change it but it is entirely undemocratic. And the further down the hole you go with it, the worse it looks.

[Deleted User]

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If Trump wins, it'll be the third time in 20 years that someone has won the electoral college and lost the popular vote. Questions will definitely be asked about the fairness of it, but I think the system will only change if the issue affects both parties. And right now, the Republicans have no incentive to consent to that change, since they're the ones benefiting.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

The arguments in favour of it are so obviously partisan and transparent as well. "Why should a majority rule ahead of a minority?", because apparently it's better to have a minority hold power. :rolleyes:

salmocab

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

Some people effectively have no vote, republicans in California or Hawaii democrats in Texas and so on. I’ve said before here if you were setting up a new democracy and deciding on the system and someone suggested the American model they’d be thrown out of the meeting. It’s a ludicrous set up. It encourages the candidates to only bother with limited places as every vote doesn’t count.

StringerBell

Headshot wrote: »

There's 100 thousand votes to still to be counted in Michigan

Do we know are these 100k mail in voting?

I would assume the majority are, and likely in democratic areas.

ancapailldorcha

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Nobody will ever change it but it is entirely undemocratic. And the further down the hole you go with it, the worse it looks.

Exactly. In the UK, we might have stayed in the EU if there was such a system to counter English hegemony but the UK voted as one so it's a democratic decision. Rejection should not result in victory.

breezy1985

salmocab wrote: »

Some people effectively have no vote, republicans in California or Hawaii democrats in Texas and so on. I’ve said before here if you were setting up a new democracy and deciding on the system and someone suggested the American model they’d be thrown out of the meeting. It’s a ludicrous set up. It encourages the candidates to only bother with limited places as every vote doesn’t count.

Easiest fix would be to give candidates 50% of a states EC votes if he gets 50% of the states popular vote and so on

pixelburp

The two things that'll prevent electoral reform are the industrialisation of the political system, alongside the deification of the founding fathers and their apparently immutable documents. Nothing will change while there are those that benefit from the lopsided system, or demographics positively worship their "democratic" system as essentially perfect. A Citizens Assembly ala Ireland is impossible in America. At least here we see our Constitution as an inherent work in progress, open to correction or development; the "Originalists" of America are the apotheosis of that flexibility.

BorneTobyWilde

If Biden wins you'll not see a republican president for the next 16 years. Biden won't last 8 years though, he'll have to step down in 2 probably, if he lasts two.
What happens in that scenario

Patser

Headshot wrote: »

There's 100 thousand votes to still to be counted in Michigan

Do we know are these 100k mail in voting?

This is from BBC live feed:

16:52
Michigan 'has 100,000 votes left to count'
Michigan Secretary of States Jocelyn Benson has just given an update on the state's tallies.

She began by saying she was "optimistic that by the end of the day," Michigan would be "much closer to having a full, if not a full and complete unofficial result to announce".

She estimates that “just over 100,000 or so” ballots remain to be counted.

Wayne County, the most populous in Michigan and the home of Detroit, is tallying two Biden votes for every Trump one, she says, adding that Biden is currently leading Trump by about 32,000 votes.

Anyone who wants to be sure their vote was counted can go to the state's election websites and check that it was received. Benson said that she checked to make sure her own vote was counted just before this news briefing.

seamus

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Can anyone confirm what the actual state of play in Arizona is?

I'm aware there was an error on the reporting percentage. Can we confirm what the remaining votes are likely to go in that state? I can't see anything concrete anywhere.

The error made no substantial difference to the state of play. Biden's ahead, with mostly Democrat-leaning votes left to be counted.

breezy1985

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If Biden wins you'll not see a republican president for the next 16 years. Biden won't last 8 years though, he'll have to step down in 2 probably, if he lasts two.
What happens in that scenario

They have this thing called the vice president

Quin_Dub

breezy1985 wrote: »

Easiest fix would be to give candidates 50% of a states EC votes if he gets 50% of the states popular vote and so on

I've often thought that a simpler way to do it would be to add a "Popular Vote bounty" on top - So increase the EC total by 15 or 20 votes and allocate them to the Popular vote winner.

The States all keep their influence but there is a reward for being the most popular candidate nationwide.

JazzyJ

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

The Senate gives each state an equal voice - 2 seats per state.

It's madness - I'm living in Ireland but have a vote in California which is currently essentially worthless. Moving to a swing state for 6 months would entitle me to a far more valuable vote.

Chips Lovell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

I understand the logic of it, as a federal state it's designed to allow states vote for the president rather than individuals.

It would be interesting to see the impact of a change to a popular vote. Because right now, there's a lot of states that are solidly in one camp or another, meaning there's a fair contingent of voters who may not bother voting, since they believe their vote may not make any difference.

Mr.Nice Guy

PA might be in play but looks very close.

https://twitter.com/JacobRubashkin/status/1324038759260835841

Manic Moran

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The more I think about it the more undemocratic and suppressive a practice it seems to be. Americans are voting as one nation to fill the role of head of state. I could accept an electoral college for something like the House of Representatives to balance out the disparity between states but all it does here is to diminish the voices of some Americans based on where they live.

No, we're not. We're voting as the populations of the 50 States at the same time to elect the chief executive of the United States. Note that legally, most of us aren't voting for a person, we are voting for a group of electors.

The deference to the population discrepancy is that some states have more votes than others, though legally, all are separate and equal states.

This concept is fundamental to the structure of the US, not just for elections. It's how the country works on a daily basis.