2020 US Election (Part Two)

[hobbsyoyo]

I totally made up the 90% number but yeah, pretty much the entirety of our federal system exists as a workaround to allow our great sin.

 

[Patine]

Generally fretting about the electoral college and red, blue, and purple states can be resolved by recognizing the simple truth that blue states won't always be blue states, and red states won't always be red states. Politics breeds this desire for instantaneous change, but it never provides it. Movement is glacial, but never fear, it does happen.

This is true, and it may be hard for many people today to think that, at the beginning of the 20th Century, Vermont and Massachusetts were Deep Red and Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina were Deep Blue, but the parties themselves weren't the same back then, and, before Reagan was elected, there actually used to be a faction of Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats who were not denounced as RINO's and DINO's. It may seem gobsmacking, especially to younger people.

 

[Zardnaar]

I wish I could remember the details but @Lexicus and I once had a debate about why the EC was set up. The podcast guy I just listened on it said it was basically 90% about slavery, which was I believe what I told Lex at the time, but I honestly don't remember much so I don


Yes it got through several red state government committees and houses but none managed to completely pass before 2018. Then they all backed off. I don't have the list, sorry.

edit:
There seems to be a general understanding within the GOP party cadre that the EC as constituted is grossly unfair and violates the 'one person, one vote' ethos of modern Democracy. Unfortunately that sense is completely overridden by the desire to win at all costs.

It will eventually swing against them ontbe next decade or so.

Trump and Covid might accelerate that progress.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is true, and it may be hard for many people today to think that, at the beginning of the 20th Century, Vermont and Massachusetts were Deep Red and Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina were Deep Blue, but the parties themselves weren't the same back then, and, before Reagan was elected, there actually used to be a faction of Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats who were not denounced as RINO's and DINO's. It may seem gobsmacking, especially to younger people.

The Rockefeller Republicans?

Generally extinct with a few remnants in the NE states of older voters.

Clinton carried some red states in 1992. They seem to be drifting blue though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is true, and it may be hard for many people today to think that, at the beginning of the 20th Century, Vermont and Massachusetts were Deep Red and Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina were Deep Blue, but the parties themselves weren't the same back then, and, before Reagan was elected, there actually used to be a faction of Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats who were not denounced as RINO's and DINO's. It may seem gobsmacking, especially to younger people.

Not even going back that far; in 1976 Carter was elected by a unified blue south over the protests of the deep red west coast.

 

[Takhisis]

I know you are a child of the internet,

I finished high-school without broadband Internet, man.

but there used to be this thing called television. In the US there are these people who still watch it, and despite the tremendous effectiveness of posting videos on YouTube and other social media for reaching young people that don't vote the PAC making these ads is actually dumping them out the old fashioned way.

But since you are you I'll see what I can find.

So, found anything?

Public polling tends to support his claim. A Gallup survey from last May, for example, revealed that a majority of Americans (58 percent)
(…)
I mean it goes on and on and on and on. Left wing policies are popular. Period.

Besides Tim's comments on how people agree in general and then don't whenever it's explained how it works:

"The wealth tax" is broadly popular? Which one? Increased property taxes? That is the only wealth based tax that we currently have, and it is grossly unpopular. One of the few big popular cheers that D'ump has achieved was his effort to kill the inheritance tax. A survey on three words "what do you think of 'a wealth tax'?" may come up broadly popular, but as soon as you start fleshing out what you mean that support collapses.

I also have to point out that since its very founding the US has had electoral disenfranchisement that has meant that its electorate does not match its population. Simply put, you have opinions popular with the general population and -other?- opinions popular with those who vote.

But, in the modern socio-political and economic climate of the United States, such a representative leader is frankly impossible except as a legal fabrication and Constitutional fiat. A decentralized, committee-style head-of-state office, like Switzerland's Federation Council, would be more honestly workable as the United States and it's population stand now.

That might be (or not) but you're arguing in terms of better for the ruled rather than for the rulers.

And this, my friends, is how abusers get the benefit of the doubt and move on to abuse others.

I've seen it first hand. Disgusting.

Please, don't ever take Narz' advice on anything regarding sexuality. Ever.

 

[Patine]

There's no such thing as the "Electoral self-interests" of a state. The electoral self interests of the parties in control of individual states are served very well by the current system, which is why the prospects of reforming that system seem so dim today.

That theory breaks down in theocracies and absolute monarchies, but for the most part it is pretty solid all around.

 

[cardgame]

And that's another problem with the Electoral College. If they had any grasp of the situation of how thoroughly it screwed them over and irrelevated them and their meaningful input and say, EVERY Deep Red AND Deep Blue State (far more than enough to ratify an amendment) SHOULD, if they valued their own Electoral self-interests, want to abolish, or seriously reform the Electoral College, that is currently set up so only Purple States matter in the GE, are campaigned in seriously in the GE, and DECIDE the GE, the Deep Red and Deep Blue just get taken for granted. Interesting perspective, eh?

That problem is too complicated, can't we just blame the mexicans?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I also have to point out that since its very founding the US has had electoral disenfranchisement that has meant that its electorate does not match its population. Simply put, you have opinions popular with the general population and -other?- opinions popular with those who vote.

Historically (barring slavery issues and subsequent failures) that has been more about apathy than disenfranchisement. Even now the battle is more about making it hard so people won't vote than actual disenfranchisement where they can't vote.

 

[Lexicus]

I wish I could remember the details but @Lexicus and I once had a debate about why the EC was set up. The podcast guy I just listened on it said it was basically 90% about slavery, which was I believe what I told Lex at the time, but I honestly don't remember much

If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

James Madison, July 19 1787

 

[Patine]

That problem is too complicated, can't we just blame the mexicans?

They have their own corrupt parties rigging elections and difficulties between their own Federal and State Governments (and a Federal Capital District that, unlike the U.S., has a greater population than each of 30 of 31 of the component Mexican States). I think they're too mired and swamped in their own politics to be the cause of the problems of the American system. And, they almost certainly are STILL not going to pay for Trump's wall.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

James Madison, July 19 1787

My podcast guy actually quoted a snippet of this, and a bunch of other founding fathers!

 

[Takhisis]

Historically (barring slavery issues and subsequent failures) that has been more about apathy than disenfranchisement. Even now the battle is more about making it hard so people won't vote than actual disenfranchisement where they can't vote.

You are arguing methodology rather than end goals and results.

 

[Patine]

If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

James Madison, July 19 1787

So he hates Parliamentary Responsible Government, and believes in Populism, but is terrified of African-Americans having a say in that Populism, is what I'm reading. I've never liked Madison. I've always found him slimy, two-faced, disingenuous, and untrustworthy. And he was the ONLY American President that us Canadians had as a wartime enemy - and we BURNT HIS HOUSE DOWN - and didn't yield a single scrap of land!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You are arguing methodology rather than end goals and results.

Well, yeah. There's no question that every political faction approves of making it harder to vote for their opposition, so the end goal never changes.

 

[cardgame]

They have their own corrupt parties rigging elections and difficulties between their own Federal and State Governments (and a Federal Capital District that, unlike the U.S., has a greater population than each of 30 of 31 of the component Mexican States). I think they're too mired and swamped in their own politics to be the cause of the problems of the American system. And, they almost certainly are STILL not going to pay for Trump's wall.

I see you still don't get sarcasm.

 

[Patine]

I see you still don't get sarcasm.

No, I get sarcasm. You obviously don't grasp "extending the joke." But maybe that went out of mainstream vogue with Abbott and Costello.

 

[Narz]

I believe Biden's accusers

You only have to look at how creepy he already is wrt touching women and kids and not understanding why they get upset, demonstrating in public for all to see that he doesn't understand consent, and combine that with being one of the most powerful people in the country (a member of the U.S. Senate at the time, no?)

Giving inappropriate hugs & generally having poor understanding of boundaries and being a rapist are on the same spectrum but pretty damn far from each other.

Biden is an arrogant, unlikable, low-self-control, easily trigger PoS and it's super sad that he's the likely Democratic candidate (Trump is already dunking on him super hard, they basically have the same personality except Trump is better at trolling). Maybe he's a rapist but no way I could say that based on the him hugging some lady for an awkwardly long time.

This jumping to conclusions reminds me of how quickly kids would believe rumors in school about some awkward kid.

 

[Lexicus]

My podcast guy actually quoted a snippet of this, and a bunch of other founding fathers!

This is the, I dunno, between 5th and 10th time I'm quoting it on this website yet many posters keep repeating, like robots, that the Electoral College is about giving small states a say. It's pretty amazing tbh.

 

[Patine]

This is the, I dunno, between 5th and 10th time I'm quoting it on this website yet many posters keep repeating, like robots, that the Electoral College is about giving small states a say. It's pretty amazing tbh.

I don't recall ever saying that. I know damn well it's because of Madison's view of a Whites only electorate backed by a generous fraction of Black population that couldn't vote in it's EV (and consequently, House seats) total, as well as Alexander Hamilton wanting a vehicle to keep any sort of populist or demagogue out of the White House, because his aristocratic contempt for the competence of the common voter (failure there in 2016).