2020 US Election (Part 3)

[IglooDame]

Okay, Pelosi sucks. Fauci sucks. Biden sucks. Trump sucks. And I mean that as of February-March timeframe. I understand why Fauci would have wanted to avoid mass-hoarding of masks at that particular time, however. But while Fauci, Biden, and Pelosi have each clarified their support of the sorts of policies and behaviors that will squash the pandemic since March, and displayed those behaviors themselves, Trump has doubled down on his suckage. I expect my leaders to lead by example, and Trump has done the precise opposite. Sure there were BLM demonstrations, and occasionally riots, where there was insufficient social distancing and wearing of masks, but it's one thing to support free speech while lamenting the spreading of a disease in circumstances that you can't readily control, and quite another to hold rallies where you explicitly control everyone's behavior in it, and at the rallies and everyone else (except that one time where he toured Walter Reed) fail to demonstrate the behaviors, or even via tweets and verbal comments discourage the behaviors. Even Senator McConnell noted that he wasn't visiting the White House because he was not satisfied with the pandemic precautions in the White House itself and I think it's safe to say he's not saying that in order to attack Trump.

So no, I'm not giving anyone a pass on their actions during this pandemic, but if you pretend that Trump has been no worse than anyone else in dealing with it, I'm pretty much going to assume that you're deluded, or favoring partisanship over reality, or trolling everyone, or some mix of all three.

 

[Patine]

Okay, Pelosi sucks. Fauci sucks. Biden sucks. Trump sucks. And I mean that as of February-March timeframe. I understand why Fauci would have wanted to avoid mass-hoarding of masks at that particular time, however. But while Fauci, Biden, and Pelosi have each clarified their support of the sorts of policies and behaviors that will squash the pandemic since March, and displayed those behaviors themselves, Trump has doubled down on his suckage. I expect my leaders to lead by example, and Trump has done the precise opposite. Sure there were BLM demonstrations, and occasionally riots, where there was insufficient social distancing and wearing of masks, but it's one thing to support free speech while lamenting the spreading of a disease in circumstances that you can't readily control, and quite another to hold rallies where you explicitly control everyone's behavior in it, and at the rallies and everyone else (except that one time where he toured Walter Reed) fail to demonstrate the behaviors, or even via tweets and verbal comments discourage the behaviors. Even Senator McConnell noted that he wasn't visiting the White House because he was not satisfied with the pandemic precautions in the White House itself and I think it's safe to say he's not saying that in order to attack Trump.

So no, I'm not giving anyone a pass on their actions during this pandemic, but if you pretend that Trump has been no worse than anyone else in dealing with it, I'm pretty much going to assume that you're deluded, or favoring partisanship over reality, or trolling everyone, or some mix of all three.

But it wouldn't is still be nice if you Americans had a real choice of leadership that didn't have to come from only one or the other of two of the biggest criminal cartels in the world and soft tyranny parties, and candidates who don't have a Nuremberg-calibre criminal record, save for keeping most of their crimes seditiously secret ("classified for national security purposes") and making themselves untouchable to criminal consequences with the EXACTLY same fiat alone that Third World despots do, and had an even REMOTE chance of being at all trustworthy, and not in the pockets of the will of big-money plutocrats over that of their own constituents, had even a chance of winning without being institutionally suppressed by the electoral system? Wouldn't that be great?!

 

[Colonel]

But it wouldn't is still be nice if you Americans had a real choice of leadership that didn't have to come from only one or the other of two of the biggest criminal cartels in the world and soft tyranny parties, and candidates who don't have a Nuremberg-calibre criminal record, save for keeping most of their crimes seditiously secret ("classified for national security purposes") and making themselves untouchable to criminal consequences with the EXACTLY same fiat alone that Third World despots do, and had an even REMOTE chance of being at all trustworthy, and not in the pockets of the will of big-money plutocrats over that of their own constituents, had even a chance of winning without being institutionally suppressed by the electoral system? Wouldn't that be great?!

Constantly asserting that the American two party system is somehow criminal without supporting evidence is ridiculous. Additionally, our leaders can and typically do get held to account for criminal acts, albeit usually after the fact. See President Nixon, had he not been pardoned he would have faced criminal charges via the Congress or the Courts. Although I would prefer a popular vote in lieu of the electoral college I do believe it wouldn't change our two party system. The other end of this being that the two party system ensures that normally speaking you get a President who is relatively close to the political center and that is where between 60 & 70% of the country is. If we devolved into a multi-party system you very well could have a conservative or liberal extreme. Think Hitler's party in the 20s as an example. To think someone could be elected President with only 20-30% of the populace supporting him would be counter to our democratic values. Some multi-party systems do work (see UK) however, you would have to vastly change the construct of American democracy to implement something of that nature, ie drastically changing the power and role of the executive.

 

[Patine]

Constantly asserting that the American two party system is somehow criminal without supporting evidence is ridiculous. Additionally, our leaders can and typically do get held to account for criminal acts, albeit usually after the fact. See President Nixon, had he not been pardoned he would have faced criminal charges via the Congress or the Courts. Although I would prefer a popular vote in lieu of the electoral college I do believe it wouldn't change our two party system. The other end of this being that the two party system ensures that normally speaking you get a President who is relatively close to the political center and that is where between 60 & 70% of the country is. If we devolved into a multi-party system you very well could have a conservative or liberal extreme. Think Hitler's party in the 20s as an example. To think someone could be elected President with only 20-30% of the populace supporting him would be counter to our democratic values. Some multi-party systems do work (see UK) however, you would have to vastly change the construct of American democracy to implement something of that nature, ie drastically changing the power and role of the executive.

So, electoral malfeasance, assassinations of American and foreign nationals, spending tonnes of taxpayers' money constantly with disallowance of scrutiny or oversight by said taxpayers (the "black money" budget), starting wars and other military interventions based on lies to their about the actual casus belli, taking effective and de facto bribes from big corporations and moneyed lobby groups - well there's a good start right there, but there are quite a few others - are not crimes by your reckoning, are they?

 

[Estebonrober]

So, electoral malfeasance, assassinations of American and foreign nationals, spending tonnes of taxpayers' money constantly with disallowance of scrutiny or oversight by said taxpayers (the "black money" budget), starting wars and other military interventions based on lies to their about the actual casus belli, taking effective and de facto bribes from big corporations and moneyed lobby groups - well there's a good start right there, but there are quite a few others - are not crimes by your reckoning, are they?

but enough about every empire in the history of mankind ever. . . Happy Thanksgiving (murica style) to you Patine.

 

[Patine]

but enough about every empire in the history of mankind ever. . . Happy Thanksgiving (murica style) to you Patine.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I have NEVER said these problems (or worse) were unique to the U.S. today. Trump's good friends Putin and Kim, and his trading foil Xi, are certainly not more virtuous examples - in fact they're FAR worse. And the most backward, barbaric, and Medievalist government on the planet that most of us Western nations are insultingly treaty bound to defend and fund - the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is a wretched pit of a nation that happens to be oil rich - and filthy rich. And Poland, Hungary, Romania, Portugal, and the Five Dragons have worse electoral systems and political cultures in THE FIRST WORLD! Just in case you, somehow, thought I believed the U.S. had the crappiest system out there - globally, not even close, I'll admit...

 

[Imaus]

Constantly asserting that the American two party system is somehow criminal without supporting evidence is ridiculous. Additionally, our leaders can and typically do get held to account for criminal acts, albeit usually after the fact. See President Nixon, had he not been pardoned he would have faced criminal charges via the Congress or the Courts. Although I would prefer a popular vote in lieu of the electoral college I do believe it wouldn't change our two party system. The other end of this being that the two party system ensures that normally speaking you get a President who is relatively close to the political center and that is where between 60 & 70% of the country is. If we devolved into a multi-party system you very well could have a conservative or liberal extreme. Think Hitler's party in the 20s as an example. To think someone could be elected President with only 20-30% of the populace supporting him would be counter to our democratic values. Some multi-party systems do work (see UK) however, you would have to vastly change the construct of American democracy to implement something of that nature, ie drastically changing the power and role of the executive.

Then you simply make it that a President can only win with more than 50%, if not 60%, of the votes, ala what France does with its two round elections. The first round is a free for all but consolidates for the second round. That's how Chirac got in and not Le Pen in 02. These systems aren't untested or untried.

I have my own doubts that multi-choice or runoff voting with be a 'miracle' cure but its better than what we have.

 

[Patine]

Then you simply make it that a President can only win with more than 50%, if not 60%, of the votes, ala what France does with its two round elections. The first round is a free for all but consolidates for the second round. That's how Chirac got in and not Le Pen in 02. These systems aren't untested or untried.

I have my own doubts that multi-choice or runoff voting with be a 'miracle' cure but its better than what we have.

Also, @Colonel SPECIFICALLY and SOLELY calling out the late Weimar Republic as THE cautionary example of a multi-party system smacks of a deliberately chosen scare tactic...

 

[Colonel]

So, electoral malfeasance, assassinations of American and foreign nationals, spending tonnes of taxpayers' money constantly with disallowance of scrutiny or oversight by said taxpayers (the "black money" budget), starting wars and other military interventions based on lies to their about the actual casus belli, taking effective and de facto bribes from big corporations and moneyed lobby groups - well there's a good start right there, but there are quite a few others - are not crimes by your reckoning, are they?

Electoral malfeasance: Show proof, our system operates within the confines of American law.
Assassinations of Americans: Show proof outside of the Terrorist that was killed during President Obama's era. If that's your example he was an enemy combatant engaged in hostile action against the United States.
Assassinations of Foreign Nationals: Legal under the war powers act, assuming procedures, laws, etc are followed.
Wars and Military Interventions: Legal as codified by Congress
Bribery claim: Our system may not be perfect in this regard but our elected leaders act within the confines of the law normally, those that don't face criminal charges.
Black Budget: Every nation on the planet has one of these. This is vital to a nation in the modern age.

Then you simply make it that a President can only win with more than 50%, if not 60%, of the votes, ala what France does with its two round elections. The first round is a free for all but consolidates for the second round. That's how Chirac got in and not Le Pen in 02. These systems aren't untested or untried.

I have my own doubts that multi-choice or runoff voting with be a 'miracle' cure but its better than what we have.

No canidate would ever get to 50-60% in that sort of a system in the US. You end up with some stoner from the Green party trying to have his entire Presidency revolved around peace and love, thus making the US and the world less safe.

Also, @Colonel SPECIFICALLY and SOLELY calling out the late Weimar Republic as THE cautionary example of a multi-party system smacks of a deliberately chosen scare tactic...

I was citing a prime example. The over arching problem with Democracies is that unless you have generations of established precedence you end up like Germany in the 20s, Iraq post '05, and former Soviet bloc nations. It is incredibly difficult to establish democracies in the modern age without significant nation building on the part of a larger power (See US). The only reason British Democracy works in a multi-party system is that it literally has been developing for a 1000 years. The only reason American democracy works as well as it does is that we were rooted in British system and then spent 2 centuries working on ours. Sure none of these systems are perfect but to claim the US is inherently a corrupt system based on things which either haven't happened or are completely legal given our laws is to believe in fantasy Utopian idealism.

 

[Samson]

No canidate would ever get to 50-60% in that sort of a system in the US. You end up with some stoner from the Green party trying to have his entire Presidency revolved around peace and love, thus making the US and the world less safe.

In these systems, the second round is of the top 2 of the previous round. One will always get >50% of valid votes cast. I do not think it would make any difference to the winner in the short term, but would give the space for other parties to compete without ruining it for the party to which they are closest.

 

[Patine]

Electoral malfeasance: Show proof, our system operates within the confines of American law.
Assassinations of Americans: Show proof outside of the Terrorist that was killed during President Obama's era. If that's your example he was an enemy combatant engaged in hostile action against the United States.
Assassinations of Foreign Nationals: Legal under the war powers act, assuming procedures, laws, etc are followed.
Wars and Military Interventions: Legal as codified by Congress
Bribery claim: Our system may not be perfect in this regard but our elected leaders act within the confines of the law normally, those that don't face criminal charges.
Black Budget: Every nation on the planet has one of these. This is vital to a nation in the modern age.



No canidate would ever get to 50-60% in that sort of a system in the US. You end up with some stoner from the Green party trying to have his entire Presidency revolved around peace and love, thus making the US and the world less safe.



I was citing a prime example. The over arching problem with Democracies is that unless you have generations of established precedence you end up like Germany in the 20s, Iraq post '05, and former Soviet bloc nations. It is incredibly difficult to establish democracies in the modern age without significant nation building on the part of a larger power (See US). The only reason British Democracy works in a multi-party system is that it literally has been developing for a 1000 years. The only reason American democracy works as well as it does is that we were rooted in British system and then spent 2 centuries working on ours. Sure none of these systems are perfect but to claim the US is inherently a corrupt system based on things which either haven't happened or are completely legal given our laws is to believe in fantasy Utopian idealism.

The UK is not REALLY a good example of a multi-party system. I mean, sure, more minor party members have seats in Parliament than they do in Congress, but that belies the situation. Only five parties have held the office of Prime Minister in the British Westminster tradition since it's creation in 1727 - the Tories and the Whigs - which are direct predecessors of the Conservatives and Liberals, anyways - the Conservatives and Liberals, themselves, and Labour, who just effectively supplanted the Liberals as the "other major party," to the Conservatives in the 1920's, like the Republicans supplanted the Whigs as the "other major party," to the Democrats in the 1850's. I'm not clear why THEY are your go-to example.

 

[Samson]

The UK is not REALLY a good example of a multi-party system. I mean, sure, more minor party members have seats in Parliament than they do in Congress, but that belies the situation. Only five parties have held the office of Prime Minister in the British Westminster tradition since it's creation in 1727 - the Tories and the Whigs - which are direct predecessors of the Conservatives and Liberals, anyways - the Conservatives and Liberals, themselves, and Labour, who just effectively supplanted the Liberals as the "other major party," to the Conservatives in the 1920's, like the Republicans supplanted the Whigs as the "other major party," to the Democrats in the 1850's. I'm not clear why THEY are your go-to example.

I mean we choose our head of state by having a really specific and sexist relationship to a french cum viking bastard whose main claim to executive power was being good at killing people. The electoral college is a bit archaic, but there are worse ways.

 

[Patine]

I mean we choose our head of state by having a really specific and sexist relationship to a french cum viking bastard whose main claim to executive power was being good at killing people. The electoral college is a bit archaic, but there are worse ways.

But, unlike the U.S., the UK strictly separates it's offices of head-of-state and head-of-government into two different people since, as I said, 1727, and the latter has all the REAL executive power (even if the office of PM is pure informal, but de facto binding, convention and doesn't formally Constitutionally or legally "exist," on paper). Canada is very similar, but has a Governor-General as a stand-in for the ceremonial and ritualistic role of the British Monarch and, unlike the UK, a Federal system of guaranteed division of power between national and regional governments more akin to the U.S.

 

[Arwon]

No canidate would ever get to 50-60% in that sort of a system in the US. You end up with some stoner from the Green party trying to have his entire Presidency revolved around peace and love, thus making the US and the world less safe.

This is a terrible understanding of how runoff voting works, because for the Greens to win the presidency they would need to get the most votes in a direct head to head with another candidate after finishing top 2 in the open race.

 

[Arwon]

The only reason British Democracy works in a multi-party system is that it literally has been developing for a 1000 years. The only reason American democracy works as well as it does is that we were rooted in British system and then spent 2 centuries working on ours. Sure none of these systems are perfect but to claim the US is inherently a corrupt system based on things which either haven't happened or are completely legal given our laws is to believe in fantasy Utopian idealism.

Firstly, along with Canada these are the two worst electoral systems in the western world you're talking about. They all have the same essentially indefensible "vote for the lesser evil" dilemma for voters, something which is inherent to simple plurality systems and makes them clearly the worst system other than deliberately rigged ones like Singapore's.

(of course, in practice many parts of the US rig things with voter suppression as well as already using what would be the worst system even when functioning well)

The only reason "British Democracy" even resembles a multi party system (although it basically isn't) is because they annexed Scotland and Ireland, and those nations elect different parties. But even then, the English try as hard as possible to pretend they don't exist. Instead they treat Labour and the Conservatives as the only game in town, and regard any outcome making the others relevant as a mere accident.

 

[Patine]

Firstly, along with Canada these are the two worst electoral systems in the western world you're talking about. They all have the same essentially indefensible "vote for the lesser evil" dilemma for voters, something which is inherent to simple plurality systems and makes them clearly the worst system other than deliberately rigged ones like Singapore's.

(of course, in practice many parts of the US rig things with voter suppression as well as already using what would be the worst system even when functioning well)

The only reason "British Democracy" even resembles a multi party system (although it basically isn't) is because they annexed Scotland and Ireland, and those nations elect different parties. But even then, the English try as hard as possible to pretend they don't exist. Instead they treat Labour and the Conservatives as the only game in town, and regard any outcome making the others relevant as a mere accident.

Well, to be fair, in Canada, we have three parties considered in contention, not just two (or two of three locked in a permanent coalition and might as well be one party, like in Australia), but yes, FPTP, used in the UK, Canada, India, and a bunch of other Commonwealth nations, as well as the U.S., does have significant issues and problems in and of itself, just as designed and intended by rich and elitist squires (as in big landowning freeholders, not apprentice knights) and wealthy, entrepreneurial burgesses (later powerful industrialists) who were still, however, "commons," and not, "lords," when the FPTP system was first designed in Medieval England.

 

[Arwon]

we have three parties considered in contention

There's a reason people invented the term "two and a half party system" just to pat Canadians on the head lol.

Though TBH I'm far less concerned about the party breakdown than the electoral system. If there were a Bloc Texane winning all the seats there, a labour/socialist party competing with the Democrats or seats in New England, or a Liberal Democratic party being randomly competitive in 40 very precisely demographically favourable congressional districts, the US electoral system would still be awful. Just as the Canadian and UK systems are mechanically and democratically awful even though they produce roughly that equivalent outcome.

Single member districts are bad because they create unrepresentative legislatures (cf the Australian lower house), but single member simple plurality (FPTP) is the worst because it does the one thing an electoral system should never do - forces people to vote other ways than for their genuine preferences. That denies voters free democratic expression and brings the whole informational basis of elections into doubt - you can't test the popular will and translate it into representatives with any sort of real confidence when people often feel compelled to vote for someone other than who they'd really prefer to.

All this seems far more material to me than jumping up and down about there only being two viable government parties. There are proportional systems which produce essentially a two party system (eg Malta) or a one-party predominant (eg South Africa) system but that's by people voting their genuine will.

 

[Patine]

There's a reason people invented the term "two and a half party system" just to pat Canadians on the head lol.

Though TBH I'm far less concerned about the party breakdown than the electoral system. If there were a Bloc Texane winning all the seats there, a labour/socialist party competing with the Democrats or seats in New England, or a Liberal Democratic party being randomly competitive in 40 very precisely demographically favourable congressional districts, the US electoral system would still be awful. Just as the Canadian and UK systems are mechanically and democratically awful even though they produce roughly that equivalent outcome.

Single member districts are bad because they create unrepresentative legislatures (cf the Australian lower house), but single member simple plurality (FPTP) is the worst because it does the one thing an electoral system should never do - forces people to vote other ways than for their genuine preferences. That denies voters free democratic expression and brings the whole informational basis of elections into doubt - you can't test the popular will and translate it into representatives with any sort of real confidence when people often feel compelled to vote for someone other than who they'd really prefer to.

All this seems far more material to me than jumping up and down about there only being two viable government parties. There are proportional systems which produce essentially a two party system (eg Malta) or a one-party predominant (eg South Africa) system but that's by people voting their genuine will.

Which is why American voters were told this election that just ended that a vote for the Green Party USA, the Peace and Justice Party, or the Party of Socialism and Liberation (Gloria de la Riva), despite those three parties serving huge swaths of the left-of-centre American voting demographics immensely better and as a greater priority with their platforms, MUST vote Democratic, wihch has a long history of dragging it's heels on doing anything meaningful for these self-said demographics they always court, and when they do, it's often half-hearted, a wretched compromise (Obamacare comes to mind), or a "crumbs from the table," feeling, or be considered, and lambasted, as though they deliberately voted for, and might as well be supporters of Trump. Horrid, indeed...

 

[Arwon]

It's an essentially correct view of the system, except inasmuch as not every race is close enough for it to matter. The only logical voting position in the US is Democrat in competitive races and the party you actually like in safe ones. I would vote Green in California but Democrat in Florida.

It isn't great.

 

[amadeus]

apparently God picks US presidents.

That’s awfully kind of the Lord to pick them coincidentally with electoral tallies, and to not have us a one-party state.

If He’s reading this now, I kindly ask that He not anoint me as I am grossly underqualified.