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

StringerBell · 09-11-2020 12:03AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I'm afraid I can't thrash it out any further because that last reply got me a two day ban. We'll have to leave it there.

In response to your question I was banned subsequently.

I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to civilly discuss trump in the presidency thread though? How would that get you a ban?

The second part, I wasn't referring to you in that response that you quoted.

Brussels Sprout · 09-11-2020 12:04AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

The EC isn't perfect, but it was designed to do the exact opposite of what you think is wrong with it. It's a form of proportional representation where the smaller states are supposed to be represented in a way that prevents them from being completely blown out by the big cities and states.

The system needs updating though and there are parts of the US like Puerto Rico that get no say whatsoever. Other than the popular vote of course.

Consider what the USA was like when it was conceived. In 1776 there were only 13 states. The population was only around 2.5million and they were almost exclusively rural. The largest city was Philadelphia with an estimated population of only 40,000 people. The urban population in 1790 at the time of the first census was only roughly 5%! This meant that there wasn't the same lop-sided population distribution between the states that there is today.

Not only that but the E.C. as it has become wasn't even what the Framer's had planned for it:

Not only was the creation of the Electoral College in part a political workaround for the persistence of slavery in the United States, but almost none of the Founding Fathers’ assumptions about the electoral system proved true.

For starters, there were no political parties in 1787. The drafters of the Constitution assumed that electors would vote according to their individual discretion, not the dictates of a state or national party. Today, most electors are bound to vote for their party’s candidate.

And even more important, the Constitution says nothing about how the states should allot their electoral votes. The assumption was that each elector’s vote would be counted. But over time, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) passed laws to give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote count. Any semblance of elector independence has been fully wiped out.

After the unanimous election of George Washington as the nation’s first president, the Founders figured that consequent elections would feature tons of candidates who would divide up the electoral pie into tiny chunks, giving Congress a chance to pick the winner. But as soon as national political parties formed, the number of presidential candidates shrank. Only two U.S. elections have been decided by the House and the last one was in 1824.

link

The framers showed incredible foresight in crafting the structures for a democracy that has persevered to this day but they could never have imagined what the modern USA would look like. This notion that the system as it is today is exactly what they had panned for is completely misguided.

They simply did not plan for an extremely polarised 2-party system dictating the electoral college votes in a country where more than half of the population live in just 9 of the 50 states. The fact that their system persists to this day is more to do with the fact that it's practically impossible to get rid of since it needs bi-partisan support to alter and at one time or another it usually favours one party.

I'd imagine if you could magically show them a modern American presidential election with its focus on a tiny fraction of the population of the country they'd be rightly horrified.

prawnsambo · 09-11-2020 12:05AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Well whatever way you look at it, social media (incl camera phones) has leveled things out a lot. The MSM no longer have control of the narrative like they did in the past. That's been the case for a few years now. I don't know what the Biden administration will do to reach out to the 70m Trump voters but I think Biden would be better at it than Harris and some of the more left leaning side of the party.

The media are even more vital now when 'everyone has camera phones'. So long as you have the ability to differentiate between fact and opinion.. People are too quick to believe any old crap on social media so long as it doesn't clash with their views or make them think about their positions.

StringerBell · 09-11-2020 12:05AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

When's the last time a Dem didn't get the popular vote?

NY & CA have huge populations.

Bush 04

Matter of fact, that's the only time in the last 8 or 9 elections I am pretty sure.

V8 Interceptor · 09-11-2020 12:06AM

StringerBell wrote: »

I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to civilly discuss trump in the presidency thread though? How would that get you a ban?

You responded to that post and considered it civil but the Mod didn't. I guess its his decision that counts Stringer.

Brussels Sprout · 09-11-2020 12:16AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Well whatever way you look at it, social media (incl camera phones) has leveled things out a lot. The MSM no longer have control of the narrative like they did in the past. That's been the case for a few years now.

Your spinning this as a positive but one big negative from this phenomenon is that information isn't subjected to the same (or in most cases, any) verification processes that it would be under traditional media. Put bluntly, it's easier now for a single person to spread outright lies to a wider audience then at any point in human history. Many bad actors are taking advantage of that fact and the results have not been good for society.

V8 Interceptor · 09-11-2020 12:20AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

The media are even more vital now when 'everyone has camera phones'. So long as you have the ability to differentiate between fact and opinion. People are too quick to believe any old crap on social media so long as it doesn't clash with their views or make them think about their positions.

I would look at it another way. People, traditionally, have been too quick to believe any old crap they're shoveled by the media without critical thinking. Social media has opened another window where evidence can be seen directly for someone to make a judgment themselves.

Its horrifying to think the stranglehold a select few used to have on framing and giving out the information to the population. That's gone, never to return.

StringerBell · 09-11-2020 12:21AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Well whatever way you look at it, social media (incl camera phones) has leveled things out a lot. The MSM no longer have control of the narrative like they did in the past. That's been the case for a few years now. I don't know what the Biden administration will do to reach out to the 70m Trump voters but I think Biden would be better at it than Harris and some of the more left leaning side of the party.

Fox is absolutely massive, the opinion section of the network has some of the most watched shows on mainstream media. They are actually the zenith of MSM and you are absolutely dead right in that they do not have any problem whatsoever in pushing a false narrative and conditioning the masses of loyal customers they have if it suits their need.

The fox viewer is the least informed in the US, this has been shown in studies. They are the butt of many, many jokes for the sheer insanity of what they are willing to believe but there is absolutely a lot of sympathy to be had for these people. They really do believe the lies they are fed and this is a tragedy.

I have no idea how Biden reaches out to them, but I know he will try. He isn't going to change 70 million hearts but if he can find a way to reach even 10% of them he will have done a fantastic job. Harris not so much I agree, I think she probably hurt Biden in some places if I'm honest and was on record with that opinion when she was announced. I think she will do a fine job now the election is over.

There are lessons to be learned on both sides here, the democrats did not receive a ringing endorsement here but the republicans need to be wary that these people are hugely energised and motivated by trump, and once he is gone there is going to be a drop off on enthusiasm. The GOP is finished now for a generation in my mind in terms of credibility, it's gone there's nothing there. The fact that they have either accepted and endorsed through full throated or tacit approval this utter nonsense from trump before but even more so since election night and that 15 minutes of rambling nonsense tells me everything I need to know about whether they can be turned from the path they have gone down.

Until the new blood comes through, and there are good republicans out there same as there are good and bad democrats, that party at the top is nothing but a cesspit. What goes around comes around. These people are a stain on the constitution they are supposed to uphold.

V8 Interceptor · 09-11-2020 12:27AM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Your spinning this as a positive but one big negative from this phenomenon is that information isn't subjected to the same (or in most cases, any) verification processes that it would be under traditional media. Put bluntly, it's easier now for a single person to spread outright lies to a wider audience then at any point in human history. Many bad actors are taking advantage of that fact and the results have not been good for society.

I do believe it is a positive, yes. Those MSM verification processes have been shown up time and again to be false with the advent of social media and phone devices.

I would say its the opposite. Before now a small group of people could spread lies or at the very least, biased information, depending on what narrative they wanted to create to the entire audience. The people just had to trust it with very few other avenues open to them.

Bad actors have been in place long before social media Sir.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-11-2020 01:00AM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Not only that but the E.C. as it has become wasn't even what the Framer's had planned for it:

It was to stop the Northern states gaining control by the mechanism of giving Southern states extra votes based on the number of slaves they had. Virginia got a quarter of the total votes.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/11/07/the-bizarre-world-of-the-us-electoral-system/

It was justified, irony of ironies, as an anti-populist mechanism to screen the presidential election from the vagaries of Northern-backed direct election by the ignorant masses. Crucially, in the early years representation in the college, whose numbers were determined by reference to the size of state delegations in the House of Representatives, was calculated on the basis that a slave was only three-fifths of a free man.

Not quite as complicated as electing the Doge of Venice.

Brussels Sprout · 09-11-2020 01:12AM

murpho999 wrote: »

The electoral college votes are related to population so I don't see your point.

They are proportional to population but that's not what makes them undemocratic. What makes them undemocratic is that in 48/50 states the electoral college votes are given out on a winner takes all basis. In those states whether a candidate wins by a single vote or by 5 million votes there is no difference in the amount of electoral votes they get.

To use the language of economics every vote that a candidate gets in excess of a 1-vote win is wasted. This is because any extra votes beyond that in a particular state are not helping the candidate obtain any additional electoral college votes.

A good example of this wasted excess was in 2016 where Hillary Clinton won California by 4,269,478 votes. In Electoral College terms she didn't need 4,269,477 of those votes in California that day. She would have been far better off if she could have transferred some of those votes to make up the small margins that she was losing by in Wisconsin (23k), Michigan (11k) and Pennsylvania (44k) thereby flipping those states and winning all of their Electoral Votes and not the 0 that she instead got from the three of them combined. Had she got that 78k vote that would have swung the election to her instead.

This year was similarly tight - Had Trump won something like 70k extra votes in just 4 particular states then he would have won despite Biden probably winning the popular vote by 5 million votes.

Brussels Sprout · 09-11-2020 01:16AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I do believe it is a positive, yes. Those MSM verification processes have been shown up time and again to be false with the advent of social media and phone devices.

How are you so sure that the information that you are consuming from your alternative sources is the truth and not just something that sounds about right to you?

rossie1977 · 09-11-2020 01:20AM

awec wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, Joe Biden should never mention Donald Trump again. Democrats should figure out why Trump picked up so many swing voters, and figure out what they can do to help those people while remaining true to their own values and principles. As I said, there is no way there is 70+ million right wing fanatics in the US.

20% of the US population voted for an ailing John McCain and Sarah Palin to lead the country after the disastrous 8 years of the Bush Jr regime. 22% voted for Trump this past election.

To me anyway its a clear pattern. Republicans will vote for whoever is on the ticket in large numbers. Its not about Democrats trying to court those voters but get their own voters out in similarly big numbers.

~Rebel~ · 09-11-2020 01:24AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Indeed it sounds strange when you hear it first (I first really learned about it in Bush v Gore) but there is a logic behind the electoral college.

There is a certain logic to it with regards state representation. I don't think there is any logic to it with regards the position of the Presidential election in the modern age though.

The fact that you're not voting for a President, but rather expressing your will to the states electors is a somewhat disingenuous position, as if you ask any single person in line at any polling station what they're voting on, they will tell you they're voting for President.

It would likely take a lot of uprooting to change, but imo for the decision of your prospective president, all votes across the country should be equal, and all votes should be relevant.

extra gravy · 09-11-2020 01:25AM

https://twitter.com/alaynatreene/status/1325588182382092293?s=19

Just when you thought he couldn't get any more pathetic.

V8 Interceptor · 09-11-2020 01:27AM

StringerBell wrote: »

Fox is absolutely massive, the opinion section of the network has some of the most watched shows on mainstream media. They are actually the zenith of MSM and you are absolutely dead right in that they do not have any problem whatsoever in pushing a false narrative and conditioning the masses of loyal customers they have if it suits their need.

The fox viewer is the least informed in the US, this has been shown in studies. They are the butt of many, many jokes for the sheer insanity of what they are willing to believe but there is absolutely a lot of sympathy to be had for these people. They really do believe the lies they are fed and this is a tragedy.

I would've had the same opinion of Fox when I was a liberal/lefty type but now I look at CNN and see just as much of a false narrative only in the opposite direction. And Fox has changed. A number of its anchors are Democrats eg Chris Wallace and they were the network that called Arizona for Biden remember.

All the other main networks would be liberal/Democratic in their outlook. Nothing wrong with that but I seen Rachel Maddow and Larry O'Donnell saying very strange things leading up to the election. To be fair to them I think Trump had driven a lot of them crazy by this stage.

There's also a certain haughtiness in the demeanour of a lot of those guys that doesn't make them well disposed to many working class and rural people.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

A good example of this wasted excess was in 2016 where Hillary Clinton won California by 4,269,478 votes. In Electoral College terms she didn't need 4,269,477 of those votes in California that day. She would have been far better off if she could have transferred some of those votes to make up the small margins that she was losing by in Wisconsin (23k), Michigan (11k) and Pennsylvania (44k) thereby flipping those states and winning all of their Electoral Votes and not the 0 that she instead got from the three of them combined. Had she got that 78k vote that would have swung the election to her instead.

But wouldn't that have the same outcome as a popular vote?

09-11-2020 01:33AM

When it comes to people defending the Electoral College/waxing lyrical about the amazing blueprint the Founding Fathers came up with I can't help but roll my eyes. If the Founding Fathers woke up in America today their brains would flow out their nostrils. And of course there's the fact that the Electoral College is unrecognisable from how it was set up in the first place.
It's basically Gerrymandering and for the last while (and the next while) it works in a particular party's favour. They can dance around it all they like but that's the only reason to be in favour of it.

V8 Interceptor · 09-11-2020 01:34AM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

There is a certain logic to it with regards state representation. I don't think there is any logic to it with regards the position of the Presidential election in the modern age though. The fact that you're not voting for a President, but rather expressing your will to the states electors is a somewhat disingenuous position, as if you ask any single person in line at any polling station what they're voting on, they will tell you they're voting for President. It would likely take a lot of uprooting to change, but imo for the decision of your prospective president, all votes across the country should be equal, and all votes should be relevant.

That's a fair point. I wonder is it still important regarding State's rights though. The USA is still a Union made up of 50 mini-Countries if you like and if you have a direct vote that'd dilute that somewhat.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

How are you so sure that the information that you are consuming from your alternative sources is the truth and not just something that sounds about right to you?

I'm no more sure than you are from yours Sir.

ElmoLaw · 09-11-2020 01:36AM

George Bush has Congratulated Biden https://www.businessinsider.com/george-w-bush-congatulates-president-elect-biden-vp-elect-harris-2020-11?r=US&IR=T #itsover

rossie1977 · 09-11-2020 01:42AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I'm no more sure than you are from yours Sir.

Your choice is between getting your news from sources where people spent years in journalism school and have won various prizes for their work or your news from a guy in his basement or chap whose work has been debunked by all his colleagues..

Tough choice I know..

~Rebel~ · 09-11-2020 01:43AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

That's a fair point. I wonder is it still important regarding State's rights though. The USA is still a Union made up of 50 mini-Countries if you like and if you have a direct vote that'd dilute that somewhat.
.

You're right that it takes away one aspect of a states power - but ultimately it feels like the Presidency has evolved to become a position that is the will of the people rather than the will of the distinct states.

The President used to regulate the states, which in turn had the autonomy to regulate their people - but things have changed, and the President has a far more direct relationship with the public now. And he is also their direct representative within a global market, which in the modern world of people working for multi-national businesses, and even small companies trading on a global scale, means much more than it used to. So I think the vote should change to reflect those realities.

V8 Interceptor · 09-11-2020 01:52AM

rossie1977 wrote: »

Your choice is between getting your news from sources where people spent years in journalism school and have won various prizes for their work or your news from a guy in his basement or chap whose work has been debunked by all his colleagues.Tough choice I know..

Its not Rossie. If the state of modern journalism is a barometer of the quality of journalism school then perhaps its time the schools had a makeover. I can't read the Independent or the Times these days without chuckling at some of the nonsense that's spouted.

Basement guys? I'm not sure if I have gotten news from one but there are plenty of people as intelligent and capable of breaking something down as professional journalists. I hold the latter to a large degree in contempt to tell you the truth.

Brian? · 09-11-2020 03:49AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Well whatever way you look at it, social media (incl camera phones) has leveled things out a lot. The MSM no longer have control of the narrative like they did in the past. That's been the case for a few years now. I don't know what the Biden administration will do to reach out to the 70m Trump voters but I think Biden would be better at it than Harris and some of the more left leaning side of the party.

What they’ll do is govern sensibly.

Brian? · 09-11-2020 03:52AM

StringerBell wrote: »

Bush 04

Matter of fact, that's the only time in the last 8 or 9 elections I am pretty sure.

04 and then HW Bush in 1988.

09-11-2020 04:06AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When it comes to people defending the Electoral College/waxing lyrical about the amazing blueprint the Founding Fathers came up with I can't help but roll my eyes. If the Founding Fathers woke up in America today their brains would flow out their nostrils. And of course there's the fact that the Electoral College is unrecognisable from how it was set up in the first place.
It's basically Gerrymandering and for the last while (and the next while) it works in a particular party's favour. They can dance around it all they like but that's the only reason to be in favour of it.

Do you think Ireland's power in the EU should be reduced so that it better represents its population?

09-11-2020 04:14AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Ireland's power in the EU should be reduced so that it better represents its population?

Bit different since we don't have a president with anything like the power of the US. Ironically I don't think it was intended for the US president to have the power that he does have, setting legislative agendas, selecting a cabinet with huge departments/portfolios etc., the organs of the state (national) have evolved far beyond what was originally intended.
I think the over-representation in the House is probably enough "extra" power for some of the small states to have. The outsized influence they have in the Senate is more than enough IMO.
It's not a partisan issue for me, there are blue states which are over-represented in the EC and Texas, Florida and Georgia (which will be red again soon IMO) also get a raw deal.

440Hertz · 09-11-2020 04:42AM

There are a load of issues that should be addressed, haven’t been, and unfortunately, are unlikely to be.

The blueprint left by the Founding Fathers is old and it’s also over-worshiped.

If you look issues like absolutely abusing the use of executive orders by the presidency (and not just Trump), the fact that the courts are completely politicised (a long term issue) and that effectively rides roughshod over the separation of powers.

Many of the much self-lauded checks and balances just don’t seem work very well.

You’ve a House & Senate that’s turned into a partisan mess, to the point that shutdowns of government have become a regular feature of American politics.

Then you’ve the elephant in the room : absolutely no control of lobbying and money sloshing around the political system (on both sides).

And you’d a rigid two party system that hasn’t really ever opened to other options, to the point that commentary writes off anyone who isn’t one of the two parties that seem to be almost embedded in the structures of state.

I have serious doubts that they’ll reform anything. They’re already in flag waving, go team America! mode.

The country needs a massive period of reflection and reform but it simply won’t happen. It’s impossible to get past the worship of instituons and the dogma of the whole thing. It’s almost like suggesting reforms in the Catholic Church. You’ll just be met by enormous inertia, exceptionalism and dogma.

Most of Europe reformed quite radically, mostly during the 20th century and particularly after WWII. Systems are newer, generally less fossilised and more modern, despite the culture and the history being much much longer established.

Driving serious structural reforms in the USA just isn’t easy to do.

interlocked · 09-11-2020 05:10AM

The real issue in the US is the completely archaic issue of two senators per state, the least populated four states in the US total approximately 2.5 million population, the top four approximate 120 million, yet they have the same voting power.
It's the same as giving Co Leitrim the same voting power as Co Dublin in a budget process (not necessarily a bad idea but you get the point!)

Tell me how · 09-11-2020 05:29AM

interlocked wrote: »

The real issue in the US is the completely archaic issue of two senators per state, the least populated four states in the US total approximately 2.5 million population, the top four approximate 120 million, yet they have the same voting power.
It's the same as giving Co Leitrim the same voting power as Co Dublin in a budget process (not necessarily a bad idea but you get the point!)

The american system with the House, Senate and President is a 3 tier approach to governance on a federal level.

House Representatives are allocated based on population count.
Senate are fixed per state.
President is an amalgamation of sorts between the two.

Bills have to be passed by both houses before being signed in to law by the President.

Both the house of representatives and the senate, seem to take their roles very seriously and there is intense competition for the seats within each and attention as to how they operate.

If we compare it to both the Seanad in Ireland and the House of Lords in the UK, both seem to be more of a formality than any sort of intense layer within the governmental machine and with participants largely there on the whim of certain interest groups.

In the US, smaller states would be more likely to be steam rolled if everything was done purely on a democracy level and what ever about rules affecting people (ignoring state laws actually being the biggest influence on peoples lives) I could see natural resources being pillaged from less populated states if the ability stand on a par with other states was removed.

paul71 · 09-11-2020 07:56AM

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

That's a fair point. I wonder is it still important regarding State's rights though. The USA is still a Union made up of 50 mini-Countries if you like and if you have a direct vote that'd dilute that somewhat.

I'm no more sure than you are from yours Sir.

So investigate the source, you quoted a source from James O'Keefe.

Take 5 minutes to research his history.

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

Comments