USA 2024 presidential election

hometruths · 13-09-2024 04:48PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612822#Comment_122612822

So are we supposed to be angry that the citizens of California and New York don't get to sway the result for the rest of the country?

And closer to home how angry are we about the fact the party who got the largest share of vote in the 2020 is not one of the three parties in government?

L1011 · 13-09-2024 05:14PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612971#Comment_122612971

There is no comparison between getting an outright majority but losing on a baffling 18th century calculation system; and not getting within an asses roar of a majority and being unable to convince anyone else to support you.

Sam Russell · 13-09-2024 05:35PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612971#Comment_122612971

The system of voting here is PR-STV which is not related to the much quoted figure of first preference votes achieved.

If a candidate gets elected on the first or ninth count they are just as qualified to be a TD. Who got the bragging rights by getting a higher first preference vote is irrelevant. For example, being transfer toxic might get a high first preference vote but no seats.

hometruths · 13-09-2024 05:37PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613054#Comment_122613054

Well obviously if you're counting less than 50% of the vote as an outright majority, it is a lot easier to attain in the US election than the Irish.

In both SF's case and Clinton's case a better strategy based on the electoral system they were contesting would have affected the outcome in their favour.

SF underestimated their appeal where it mattered, Clinton overestimated hers.

No point crying about it after the event.

hometruths · 13-09-2024 05:55PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613088#Comment_122613088

Who got the bragging rights by getting a higher first preference vote is irrelevant.

Totally agree. And in the US who got the bragging rights by getting a higher share of the popular vote is irrelevant.

eire4 · 13-09-2024 07:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612971#Comment_122612971

No, anger or other emotions thats your call, but if the US was a full democracy the person who gets the most votes would win the election not the person who got the second most votes. It is part of why the US is only a partial democracy.

As for the citizens of California and New York swaying the rest of the country well I assume you mention them because they generally mostly vote Democratic. However the other big population states of Florida and Texas mostly vote Republican and equally the votes of the people who live there largely don't count due to the anti democratic electoral college.

eire4 · 13-09-2024 07:21PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612932#Comment_122612932

Well she actually did win the election because she got the most votes for president finishing roughly 2% ahead. I am well aware that the US uses the anti democratic electoral college to choose who becomes president because as we all know the electoral college overturned the democratic wishes of the majority of the voters. That is one of the big reasons as to why the US is at best only a partial democracy.

Flaneur OBrien · 13-09-2024 08:02PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613347#Comment_122613347

There's different forms of democracy. The EC form of America is just one of many. It's still democratic.

And she didn't win "the election" or she would have been president.

ilkhanid · 13-09-2024 08:24PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612971#Comment_122612971

Why not? It's certainly preferable to a situation where the citizens of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin get to sway the result for the rest of the country.

Governments are formed on which party OR PARTIES has the largest share of the electorate not on which single party has the most votes. That's the idea of coalitions. If one doesn't like that there's always 'First past the post' UK style. How does that work out?

hometruths · 13-09-2024 08:42PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613329#Comment_122613329

Only five times in America's history has the loser won the popular vote. And never has any candidate with an outright majority in the popular vote lost an election. So whilst it may have flaws, like any electoral system, it doesn't seem fatally flawed.

I am no keener on the big cities in Florida and Texas deciding the election than I am on California deciding. No system is perfect by an advantage of the electoral college system is it forces candidates to try and attract support across the country.

Clinton lost the election because she did not appeal to the voters she needed to win the election. She lost voters Obama won comfortably.

You can either say that was Hillary's fault for running a poor campaign or Trump's success for being a more appealing candidate. Either way it doesn't really matter. By definition she was the poorer candidate. That is as undisputable as the fact Trump was the poorer candidate in 2020.

StringerBell · 13-09-2024 09:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122604202#Comment_122604202

Very possibly

eire4 · 13-09-2024 09:59PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613478#Comment_122613478

Yes there are different levels and or types of democracy and the fact that the US uses an anti democratic system to choose their president is one of the reasons they are not considered a full democracy. But are rather a flawed democracy according to the Democracy Index.

We will just have to agree to disagree on what we call winning. Personally IMHO I consider a person who won with the voters by roughly 2% the winner when it comes to being a full democracy. But obviously the US is not a full democracy and so the voters wishes were overturned in that case by the anti democratic electoral college. But again clearly you see things differently and from my point to your point there is clearly no basis for consensus so we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

eire4 · 13-09-2024 10:09PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613598#Comment_122613598

There is no question Clinton was a dreadful candidate. It was sheer hubris on the Democrats part that they thought they would win anyway because just look how bad the opponent was which seemed to be their mentality.

You are correct that the winner of the most votes has only failed to be elected 5 times. However that has happened now twice in modern times in 2000 and more recently in 2016 so the issue of the anti democratic nature of the electoral college has really had more focus on it given how in this current election the potential for this to happen is very real once again.

The electoral college does the very opposite of forcing candidates to try and get support all over the country. In this current election only 7 states out of 50 really matter and thus the voters of many states California and Texas among them are utterly irrelevant and paid very little attention. The only states and voters that are getting paid any real attention are those in just those 7 states out of 50.

Podge_irl · 14-09-2024 02:40AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613598#Comment_122613598

Why is Pennsylvania deciding somehow better than California deciding?

hometruths · 14-09-2024 07:46AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614094#Comment_122614094

Trump only got 30% of the vote in California, Clinton carried it by over 4 million votes. She won the popular vote by less than 3.

Across the rest of the country, not just the swing states, the results were much closer - eg in Texas Clinton got 43% and there was less than 1 million votes in it.

California is an oversized outlier.

As to what is better my view on this is against the whingeing after the event.

Both candidates knew exactly how the electoral college system worked and campaigned accordingly. Trump targetted his campaign where it mattered better than Clinton did.

Neither were campaigning to win the popular vote, and if they were they would have campaigned differently.

To say the US election is undemocratic because Clinton won a race that her opponent was not trying to win is a bit absurd TBH.

Bass Reeves · 14-09-2024 08:12AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122610240#Comment_122610240

I would not rate Obama as a great President. He slipped up on Ukraine. He shouldvm have insisted Nato put troops into Ukraine as the first invasion happened. We would not have the mess in Ukraine if he had. He shat the bed and blinked for Putin.

I would consider Harrus a much better candidate than him not as popular but I think she will make a great president if elected.

However I would not bet the house on it as it tight in the battle ground states

Bass Reeves · 14-09-2024 08:18AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122612481#Comment_122612481

Clinton problem was she concentrated on trying to win Florida instead of the blue collar mid west states which she took for granted

Brussels Sprout · 14-09-2024 01:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122613347#Comment_122613347

It's puerile to say that she won the election and frankly sounds quite Trumpian.

Is the electoral college undemocratic? Yes, I believe so. However everyone knows that that is how American presidents are elected - including the two main parties going in to 2016. That therefore determines strategies such as media buys, where the candidates held rallies etc.

Under those rules she lost, quite decisively, in the only place that matters, the electoral college, 304 votes to 227.

Saying that she won, just under a different rule set, is akin to a child declaring that they won a chess game because they had more captured pieces when their king got check-mated.

Podge_irl · 14-09-2024 04:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122614227#Comment_122614227

To say the US election is undemocratic because Clinton won a race that her opponent was not trying to win is a bit absurd TBH.

Indeed that would be silly, but I never said this. Clinton lost the election that was run, and her campaign was quite silly about it.

The electoral college is an indefensibly stupid system however which is where I take issue with your post. You claim the electoral college forces the candidates to try and attract support across the country when it does the exact opposite. In a popular vote election the denizens of California etc wouldn't have anywhere near the power that Pennsylvania or North Carolina has today. In fact it would mean the 12 million or so Republican voters in California would no longer be completely ignored. A popular vote election would in fact be the one that forces you to attract as broad a support as possible.

hometruths · 14-09-2024 04:41PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122615862#Comment_122615862

Indeed that would be silly, but I never said this. Clinton lost the election that was run, and her campaign was quite silly about it.

No but the exchange you interjected into was about exactly this silly claim.

Podge_irl · 14-09-2024 04:50PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122615939#Comment_122615939

It was but your further claim that you don't want California deciding the election and the electoral college forces politicians to gather broad support is fundamentally flawed. That is what I was referring to.

hometruths · 14-09-2024 05:12PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122615961#Comment_122615961

The claim about California was not a further claim - it was specifically, in conjunction with NY, in reference to the 2016 election with the benefit of hindsight. Clinton won these two states by about 6 million votes, but she lost the popular vote by less than 3 million votes.

The claim you took issue with is my claim that the electoral college "forces candidates to try and attract support across the country".

What I meant that is if you're a candidate with a 6 million surplus from principally urban voters in two states, you can't just rest on your laurels. You have to try and appeal beyond your geographic base, and also the urban rural divide.

That's true of both parties. Neither can win the election simply because of the strength of their geographic base. They are forced to win over voters who will not automatically vote for them irrespective of their character or policies.

That was Clinton's downfall - she was great at preaching to the choir, but did a terrible job with everybody else.

You and I are obviously not the first to disagree on this, it's a well worn debate in the US, but tellingly the electoral college system remains so it must have some benefits.

As noted above no candidate has ever won an outright majority in the popular vote and lost the electoral college.

It appears that we agree on the important point. Calling the result undemocratic in hindsight is absurd. Can we leave it at that?

duploelabs · 15-09-2024 08:13AM

Donald Trump may or may not be a white supremacist, but he's the #1 candidate for white supremacists

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/14/trump-ally-laura-loomer-audio

Quin_Dub · 15-09-2024 09:14AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122616013#Comment_122616013

Which is why I think the idea of a "bounty" for the popular vote is the best balance.

Each State still has its EC votes and therfore influence but by maximizing the vote Nationwide you can win a bonus of maybe 25 EC votes on top.

So all those "minority party" voters in the non swing states become much more meaningful without diluting the value of the States in general.

Essentially make the popular vote another "State" to win.

briany · 15-09-2024 09:30AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122617166#Comment_122617166

Laura Loomer wouldn't be considered 'white' by white supremacists, which is the ironic thing, being that she's Jewish.

Although considering that she once used to have a flirtation with a fairly prominent (for that space) internet troll, neo-Nazi, 'Baked Alaska' after he sent her a gas chamber meme via Twitter, I can't discount the idea that she gets some kind of twisted pleasure from these people hating her also.

But Loomer represents the one-upmanship that's prevalent within MAGA. It's all about how crazy and extreme can you be because that gets attention and eyeballs upon you. It can't be from one to a hundred, though, because that might be too much of a shock to maintain popularity, so it's been incremental from Sarah Palin to Lauren Boebert to Marjorie Taylor Greene and now to Laura Loomer. What would come next?