2020 US Election (Part One)

[Estebonrober]

I'm only one guy but I see Warren and Bernie as interchangeable candidates. I voted for Warren but if she hadn't been on the ballot it would have been Bernie.

I second this.

 

[Traitorfish]

Please quit pretending that a plurality means that Sanders would be "due" anything and that not giving it to him is thus "denying" something.

Democrats in 2016: "The Electoral College is an archaic institution, the popular vote should decide who wins elections."
Democrats in 2020: "We should let a councillor of wise elders pick our leaders, the electorate would just mess it up."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Democrats in 2016: "The Electoral College is an archaic institution, the popular vote should decide who wins elections."
Democrats in 2020: "We should let a councillor of wise elders pick our leaders, the electorate would just mess it up."

WTH? Did you not see the word "plurality" there, or are you choosing to ignore it in your desperation to misrepresent the point? The popular vote should indeed decide...but nowhere has anyone except a random Greek and a Scotsman taken that to imply anything about pluralities instead of majorities. There is no electoral process anywhere in the US where a final decision is reached via plurality.

 

[Traitorfish]

WTH? Did you not see the word "plurality" there, or are you choosing to ignore it in your desperation to misrepresent the point? The popular vote should indeed decide...but nowhere has anyone except a random Greek and a Scotsman taken that to imply anything about pluralities instead of majorities. There is no electoral process anywhere in the US where a final decision is reached via plurality.

Clinton didn't win a majority of the popular vote in 2016.

 

[Camikaze]

There are plenty of places in the US where plurality wins. e.g. Clinton in 1992. It's the nature of first past the post. But FPTP is a crappy system, clearly inferior to preferential voting.

 

[Lexicus]

The EC does not allow for a plurality to win. Yes, Presidents have won with a minority or plurality of the popular vote, but unfortunately that doesn't count on it's own.

Still, that only underscores the point. If the convention is contested and a candidate who isn't Sanders ends up with the majority of delegates while having received less votes than Sanders, it will be the same sort of outcome as Trump winning an electoral college majority with fewer votes than someone else.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah I don't want to get involved in this argument which is why I deleted the post you quoted.

I thought I was quick enough to have deleted it before it got read but damn you're fast.

Edit: but I got involved anyways one post later lmao

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Clinton didn't win a majority of the popular vote in 2016.

Clinton won the primaries 55 to 45. Facts may not travel well, but surely they reach Europe in under four years.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Clinton didn't win a majority of the popular vote in 2016.

Wait actually which election are you talking about? The general or the primary? Pretty sure she actually did win the popular votes in both of those elections.

 

[Camikaze]

She 'only' won 48.2% of the popular vote in 2016, which is a plurality not a majority.

The electoral college critique is usually framed in terms of more people voting for Clinton. A FPTP mentality. Really the critique should be a majority of people did not prefer Trump, which assumes something about preferences but I've not heard an argument that Trump was preferred to Clinton by more third-party voters. Likewise, I'm not convinced that Sanders should be entitled to the nomination by sheer virtue of getting more votes or delegates than any other candidate, as distinct from being able to command the preferences of a sufficient number of delegates to attain a majority. The lack of legitimacy comes with e.g. superdelegates voting on the second round to sway the result away from the popular vote outcome.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wait actually which election are you talking about? The general or the primary? Pretty sure she actually did win the popular votes in both of those elections.

She did, although in the "Bernie was wobbed" nursery those facts don't always penetrate.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

She 'only' won 48.2% of the popular vote in 2016, which is a plurality not a majority.

My bad!

 

[Sommerswerd]

My bad!

According to the all-knowing, infallible Wikipedia, the major parties combined for 94.27% of the vote and the Libertarians got 3.28% and the Greens took 1.07%. It still doesn't add up to 100% though, even including the two other minor parties' percentages

It seems like in races with only two significant candidates, the two major party candidates, the winner usually manages to get a majority of the vote... at least in the more recent elections (as in during my lifetime).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

According to the all-knowing, infallible Wikipedia, the major parties combined for 94.27% of the vote and the Libertarians got 3.28% and the Greens took 1.07%. It still doesn't add up to 100% though, even including the two other minor parties' percentages

And I guess in any case, because of the EC it doesn't matter so much. She did win the primary 55 to 43 though. Even that's probably not a straight comparison either because of the way the primaries are stretched out. Towards the final elections when it's all but a done deal, I'm sure that doesn't help with turnout.

 

[Estebonrober]

Sanders rulz Hillary drulz #BernieBrosforever!

/s

I have to say I think Tim is misunderstanding the moment in multiple threads. I could be wrong, but I think the more a progressive candidate explains the perks to their plans the better shot they have.

I would like to see another clear presidential winner. Let’s get sanders with a den senate and house. Disband the filibuster and pass every damn thing the country has mulled over the past four years.

 

[Farm Boy]

According to the all-knowing, infallible Wikipedia, the major parties combined for 94.27% of the vote and the Libertarians got 3.28% and the Greens took 1.07%. It still doesn't add up to 100% though, even including the two other minor parties' percentages

It seems like in races with only two significant candidates, the two major party candidates, the winner usually manages to get a majority of the vote... at least in the more recent elections (as in during my lifetime).

When I'm uninspired by a race I will occasionally foul an entry on the ballot by writing in my high school world history teacher. I imagine there is some percentage of dogs and squirrels that get votes too.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I don't know about all 'Sanders was robbed' people, but I feel the 'superdelegate' count tilted the election far more in Hillary's favor. Superdelegates aren't supposed to vote until the convention, but here the media was reporting how these superdelegates were going to be voting, giving Hillary a far larger lead than she had in the non-superdelegate vote count as each state voted. Thus, that may have cost him some states as the later elections as some voters felt "Well, Hillary's going to win this anyways, I'll just vote for her".

 

[Hrothbern]

When Billionaires like Trump and Bloomberg are in US mainstream newsmedia. based on polls, considered "fit" to become POTUS...

there is I think in the mainstreams of the political parties, regarding political program content, a serious case of anemia

 

[cardgame]

Moving the DNC convention, if one is necessary, to ranked or preferential voting would eliminate all the elitist superdelegates deciding everything unless it still somehow comes up short of a majority. I'm not sure if that's mathematically possible, but maybe with enough candidates still in the field it could be, so the SDs could still exist just not unduly influence and undermine democratic principles.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Moving the DNC convention, if one is necessary, to ranked or preferential voting would eliminate all the elitist superdelegates deciding everything unless it still somehow comes up short of a majority. I'm not sure if that's mathematically possible, but maybe with enough candidates still in the field it could be, so the SDs could still exist just not unduly influence and undermine democratic principles.

Not saying this is about you, because I respect you for understanding the nuances yourself...but the whole rap from the Bernie world about "super delegates are just a scam to steal the nomination from the one true God, St Bernie" is another irritant. Super delegates are given the input in the process that they are given because they are going to be on the ticket with the nominee. A whole lot of down ballot races are won or lost at the top of the ticket with no real chance for the candidate for down ballot office to have any control over their own results. So, yeah, they are entitled to an opinion regarding who to have at the top who would be helpful to them.

Maybe the balance between super delegates and regular delegates was tipped too far, and maybe the super delegates should have kept their mouths shut until the primaries were completed...but MAYBE if the former independent from Vermont didn't look like death on a stick from the down ballot perspective, or had tried in any way to put up a front that he actually wasn't death on a stick, he'd have won the nomination.