Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I can’t say I agree with that mate, having seen towns in Northern England with barely any investment, closed shops, fewer jobs, run down housing etc.
I don't agree with you on very much but I do think your points on the EC are important to consider. I believe the proportionate EC weightings are poor -- hence the disconnect between the popular vote and the EC vote (i.e. CA should be weighted higher, so should TX and FL as examples) -- but complaints about the overall system now miss historic shifts in colo(u)r from red to blue and vice versa as demographics and politics change.

This is why there is a secession movement and has been in rural California from the rest of the state (obviously we don't elect a governor via an EC) -- because Sacramento interests are dominated by those of the urban areas. Now maybe that's as it should be, but I can see the other side of the argument too.
 
It’s right to point that out. Would a change to the popular vote change that? I don’t think it would. I don’t agree with you @Gaudion M, if these people’s votes don’t mean anything, which would be the case if the US switched to the popular vote, they would be damned to eternal poverty. You might disagree with their politics, but the only way to turn any of these states blue is to care for your fellow man.
This is totally false. Poverty is in the big cities. A popular vote puts all votes on an equal standing where as the collage system gives some more weight than others. I'd be interested on any data but I'm 100% confident that the rural states are far wealthier per person than the coastal states with dense population and large inner cities.
 
“A key takeaway. Trump polled at least 3 million more votes in 2020 than 2016. His vote share has increased. Time to bury the idea his 2016 victory was a historical accident. A large swathe of the USA has read the fine print & clicked on the terms and conditions of his presidency.”

He's pulled more votes because the turnout has been much higher. He's still 2% behind the Democratic popular vote, just like in 2016 and he's still 3m shy, which is expected to grow as the mail in ballots come in.
 
“A key takeaway. Trump polled at least 3 million more votes in 2020 than 2016. His vote share has increased. Time to bury the idea his 2016 victory was a historical accident. A large swathe of the USA has read the fine print & clicked on the terms and conditions of his presidency.”
I guess a large percentage like what he has done with their economy, employment and wages especially for the low paid? All of which have improved under him. I guess many are also prepared to excuse his extreme character traits, my guess is if he wasn't such a colossal egotistical pillock he would have walked this election.
 
Well, that was some night. Yesterday if someone offered getting rid of Trump in exchange for the Senate I would've taken it in a heartbeat and barring a big surprise that's what we'll get. So I'm not happy, but also not despondent either.
 
I’m not saying one is better than the other, but my simplistic understanding is that if the popular vote is the decider, surely candidates would just pander to the large coastal cities and ignore middle America. When in power, they’d surely put more resources in to the large coastal cities as they are the deciders for re-election. Am I wrong in this?

Possibly but it isn't all one-sided. The big cities are represented poorly in the Senate, as an example, as every state gets 2, regardless of population. It's a bit of a hodge-podge really.

At least you can tell where a state starts and ends - the House seats are gerrymandered into oblivion with some ridiculous maps drawn.
 
Biden is now ahead in all the states he needs to get 270.

So with only mail in ballots left to go, there would need to be a surprise for him to lose now.

Pennsylvania is also miles inside the margin needed for the predicted blue postal ballots to swing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top