2020 US Elections

Status
Not open for further replies.
SWP's back said:
Not the one you want.
Click to expand...
That’s democracy in action mate, I accept the result and won’t spend the next 4 years complaining. I also won’t denigrate anyone that voted Democrat.

I’m actually interested in your views re investment in small towns and why they should get a disproportionate representation, if you care to have that conversation. No worries if not.
 
SWP's back said:
You’ve spent all day thinking Trump would win, even when CNN were saying the opposite. So I’m not sure his campaign will take your advice right now Kazza my friend.
Click to expand...
Ha, i havent looked in for a few hours , i still think trump will find a way ! What happens in the states where the votes werent counted ? Will there be a recount ? Some serious law breaking going on by the reps
 
jerseyblue said:
Enlighten me then....
Click to expand...
If you aren’t getting it from my response, I am not sure this is going to make much difference, but here you are.

Shallow dive read:

www.theatlantic.com

The Electoral College’s Racist Origins

More than two centuries after it was designed to empower southern white voters, the system continues to do just that.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

Deep dive listen:



There are many books and scholarly works about this, as well as a fairly well-known legal document written by the founding leaders of your country that prominently hints at why and how the Electoral College was designed primarily to protect the influence of the southern states (where the vast majority of enslaved people counted as three fifths of full human beings “lived”), if you are interested in really researching further.

You can also read accounts from your founding leaders themselves on the subject (several of the Federalist Papers are a decent read on the topic) and have a quick look at the Electoral College outcomes for the first 18 or so presidential elections to see it in action. Though, you can still see the primary reason for the EC at work after 1860 (and to this day)... it’s especially visible for some years right after 1860.
 
domalino said:
In that case, he must think he's going to get Georgia before he talks.

He won't do what Trump has done, so he's not going to declare before 270 is guaranteed.

WI, MI, AZ is a safe bet.

Nevada, NC and Penn won't be done by tonight.

Which just leaves Georgia.
Click to expand...
Gonna be a long day.
 
@BluePhil8 said:
That’s democracy in action mate, I accept the result and won’t spend the next 4 years complaining. I also won’t denigrate anyone that voted Democrat.

I’m actually interested in your views re investment in small towns and why they should get a disproportionate representation, if you care to have that conversation. No worries if not.
Click to expand...
Maybe tomorrow. It’s been a long old day.
 
domalino said:
No one in the Trump Campaign is confident right now. We're in a seemingly inevitable slow drift to Biden victory now.
Click to expand...

Posted at 16:0516:05
Trump camp briefs the press
We're just heard from the Trump campaign, which held held a press call to say the team is "confident on our pathway" to 270 electoral college points.

They said the vote in Wisconsin could go to a recount, and they believe that Trump will "continue to overperform" among minority voters in Pennsylvania.

"We want to make sure all legally cast ballots are counted," said top campaign advisor Jason Miller.

"We also want to make sure that illegally cast ballots are not counted."
 
BlueHammer85 said:
you should complain if Biden turns into a racist narcissistic moron that does his best to divide the nation and pulls out of climate treaties.
That is your democratic right.
Click to expand...
True



This idea that it's more mature when losing an election to keep quiet for the next 4 years. Almost always by the winning team angry that the opposition continue to oppose after they've already won.
 
Damocles said:
I'll just do all of this in one.

None of this addresses the point. The point is that the US has a political system that has functioned for several hundred years. Some people are saying that they want to protect that system from somebody else who is going to subvert it. Then they say that they want to completely change that system.

Do you see how protecting a system from change and then saying you need to change it are opposite positions that cannot be held simultaneously?

And people can argue that the popular vote is less democratic in the case of the United States because the United States is not a democracy and not a country in the traditional sense but instead is a union of collective states who are all supposed to have equalised voting power. This way, having 100 million people in Texas can't decide what the rest of the Union does.



Hmm yes, "redress the balance". Fun slogan. The legally accepted candidates aren't to their liking so the way to solve this is to change the law so that they can put their own candidates on the SC. Which will definitely have no possible negative impact going forward. Setting a precedent that changing the SC numbers in order to "balance it" is definitely not something that anybody will ever use nefariously in the future. Seems like a great and totally unexploitable idea that definitely will not come back to bite the Democrats in the future in the same way that removing supermajorities for judicial candidates had zero harmful effects for them.

But again, this is besides the point. The point is that protection of a system against change and change of a system are opposites.

This is 100% true and one of the most basic things to understand possible. I'm sure that everybody with a single ounce of common sense can roundly agree with this simplistic idea and agree it's a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...
Haven’t read the original argument but if it is as you say in your first paragraph, then there is a big difference between protecting a system however flawed it may be and subverting it by nefarious means for your own gain.
A flawed system can be changed legally and constitutionally for the better without any conflict of stance.

So basically, your second paragraph should not be about protecting a system from change, but subversion.

Maybe I’m missing part of your original debate with whoever it was, but I don’t see consistency in the logic of your own argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top