2020 Election Thoughts

[StrangeSox]

8 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Once you start unraveling the premise of United *States* you have to rewrite the constitution. That federalism is core to the principals of our Constitution.

I can't imagine the fights over election results. Every election will be a repeat of Bush - Gore only nationally as every precinct gets recounted. 

It also prevents one or two major cases of election fraud from changing the results. Now you would need to coordinate in many states you make a difference.

Again, it also forces candidates to at least make a token attempt at covering all 50 states.

 

The odds of the full national election being close enough to be Florida 2000 all over are much less than it coming down to a single contested state again, as it could do this year in Pennsylvania or another close state.

 

Candidates absolutely do not make a token attempt to all 50 states as it is now. They focus almost exclusively on the handful of "Battleground" states while tens of millions get no attention at all. Large swaths are written off as unwinnable by each campaign from the start, or others are such a lock that it's not worth your time going there.

 

 

e: Trump has pretty explicitly written off all the people that live in "blue states" and frequently threatens to withhold federal assistance for disasters or COVID. Because these are "blue states," even if they have millions of conservatives, he won't suffer any electoral consequences from it.

 

 

You can do federalism without an electoral college or Senate. Germany manages pretty well! So does Canada, Sweden and a bunch of others.

Edited November 3, 2020 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

12 minutes ago, Tony said:

I don't believe you would have to go to that far of an extreme, but I can at least understand that side of the argument, about not wanting to make a drastic change to the 12th Amendment. But I guess I'm someone that believes in fixing things when they are outdated/broken, and I believe as a country we've absolutely grown out of the electoral college. The main reasons why it was created and implemented don't apply today, yet we continue to do them simply because "That's the way we've always done them."

I don't accept that. I want change, I want to get better a country, not status quo. And for this issue, I want every vote to truly matter and make an impact. And it's hard to fathom arguing against that. 

Every vote does matter, just like every senator and member of congress matters. It's a representative democracy. 

I'm not certain direct popular vote will create a better country. But if you want to give more power to Texas citizens I guess I should be happy.

If the electoral college is flawed isn't the Senate flawed for the same reason? 

[poppysox]

4 minutes ago, Tony said:

No no no. You aren't getting out of this with that response. It's only pointless to argue politics when you don't have an answer. 

How do I want highly populated states to pick the President? Explain that to me. I want every single vote, if you are in Chicago, Little Rock or Bumfuck Idaho to count exactly the same. The person with the most votes wins. Explain to me why that makes LESS sense than the electoral college system, which boils down the entire election to 3-4 states. In 2020, Florida and Pennsylvania will decide this election...for the entire country. Why do those two states get to have so much power, by my vote in Illinois can basically be thrown away because we always vote one way. Why vote then if my vote doesn't mean anything? If you lived in Florida, why is your vote more important than mine? That doesn't seem right, does it? 

I don't want to hear about who you voted for, I don't care. I want you to explain why you support the current system and so far you have given me ZERO REASONS WHY.  

There are 538 electors which means to win the Presidency you need 270.  States have a number of votes commensurate with their population.  What's unfair about that?  On the other hand...if the popular vote was the only consideration urban areas would get all the candidate attention while rural areas would have no visits.  Candidates would get away with promising things that urban areas want to hear and go unchallenged by the counter-argument.  A candidate might tell one area they were for fracking and another that they are against fracking, etc..  A candidate might bring up a minimum wage of $15.00 which doesn't sound high in New York so the candidate says yeah...they favor a $15.00 minimum wage.  Low and behold that wage in Little Rock would be ruinous to small business in Arkansas.  If it weren't for the electoral college...Joe Biden would never visit Delaware.

[poppysox]

22 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Clinton and Hunter Biden arent running for office in case you weren't aware.  While we are on the subject of being compromised along with a relative, how is it that Ivanka goes to China with her dad and comes back with 40+ Patent approvals by the Chinese government and let's also talk about the undisclosed Trump Chinese bank account that he withdrew 15 million from?

it's weird how you keep talking about these people who aren't running for office but you never talk about the one in office  

Trump has never committed a crime while in office that I am aware of.  Biden and Clinton were in office when their "indiscretions" happened.

[caulfield12]

3 minutes ago, poppysox said:

There are 538 electors which means to win the Presidency you need 270.  States have a number of votes commensurate with their population.  What's unfair about that?  On the other hand...if the popular vote was the only consideration urban areas would get all the candidate attention while rural areas would have no visits.  Candidates would get away with promising things that urban areas want to hear and go unchallenged by the counter-argument.  A candidate might tell one area they were for fracking and another that they are against fracking, etc..  A candidate might bring up a minimum wage of $15.00 which doesn't sound high in New York so the candidate says yeah...they favor a $15.00 minimum wage.  Low and behold that wage in Little Rock would be ruinous to small business in Arkansas.  If it weren't for the electoral college...Joe Biden would never visit Delaware.

Except for the fact he lives there 29% of the year.

[Chicago White Sox]

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

I agree that Trump can step over the line with the Sleepy Joe and Pocahontas stuff.  He would be better off to simply accuse Biden of treason and leave the name-calling out of it.  I guess after enduring a fake impeachment he has taken off the kid gloves.  When you make accusations of rape you simply have gone beyond political rhetoric.

Treason?  WTF...

[caulfield12]

2 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Trump has never committed a crime while in office that I am aware of.  Biden and Clinton were in office when their "indiscretions" happened.

Did you, per chance, work as a researcher on any of Peter Schweizer’s books...?

[poppysox]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Treason?  WTF...

Just wait...It's coming. 

[StrangeSox]

9 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Every vote does matter, just like every senator and member of congress matters. It's a representative democracy. 

I'm not certain direct popular vote will create a better country. But if you want to give more power to Texas citizens I guess I should be happy.

The Electoral College and the Senate aren't what make us a representative democracy, though. Lots of representative democracies around the world, none have our EC.

I think Texas residents should have the exact same federal power as someone from Wyoming or Illinois or Alaska or Pennsylvania.

9 minutes ago, poppysox said:

There are 538 electors which means to win the Presidency you need 270.  States have a number of votes commensurate with their population.  What's unfair about that?  On the other hand...if the popular vote was the only consideration urban areas would get all the candidate attention while rural areas would have no visits.  Candidates would get away with promising things that urban areas want to hear and go unchallenged by the counter-argument.  A candidate might tell one area they were for fracking and another that they are against fracking, etc..  A candidate might bring up a minimum wage of $15.00 which doesn't sound high in New York so the candidate says yeah...they favor a $15.00 minimum wage.  Low and behold that wage in Little Rock would be ruinous to small business in Arkansas.  If it weren't for the electoral college...Joe Biden would never visit Delaware.

Smaller states have more EV's per capita than larger states. They also have more Senators and Reps per capita.

Rural areas and states are already ignored by Presidential campaigns. Instead, 5-10 states get all the attention, and generally large or mid-sized cities in those states.

Edited November 3, 2020 by StrangeSox

[Kyyle23]

I feel like someone in this thread very much believed in a Comet Ping Pong theory

[poppysox]

Just now, caulfield12 said:

Did you, per chance, work as a researcher on any of Peter Schweizer’s books...?

Nope.  I've heard of him.  Do you like his work?

[Chicago White Sox]

51 minutes ago, Texsox said:

And you're not bothered by some of the senators and their hypocrisy? 

Let’s be honest, dude wants government to fall back on it’s “Christian roots” but then supports all sort of shitty immoral behavior by the politicians in his party.  He’s part of the hypocrisy.

[Chicago White Sox]

46 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Joe is certainly in a compromised position with any deals where he makes trade deals with the Chinese.  Time will tell if his actions were treason or not.  A biased press does not help get to the bottom of these revelations but they will come out eventually.  On a side note...why do you suppose contributions to the Clinton Foundation dried up after she lost her bid for the Presidency?  Maybe the Chinese were hoping to have access to Joe Biden.  Crooks!

How many hours of Fox News do you watch a day out of curiosity?

[Texsox]

There is always plenty of hypocrisy to go around. 

I did not criticize Trump and Republicans now for doing what I expected them to do four years ago. That is to do their jobs and confirm a SCOTUS nominee. I did criticize them then and I criticize them now for hiding behind some grand philosophy of allowing the voters to decide. We knew it was bullshit then, they just confirmed it now, and their supporters allow it. 

Our Constitution and country have withstood worse crisises than this. 

[Chicago White Sox]

35 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

People really need to stop watching cable "news."

Especially the olds.

It’s truly amazing the impact Fox News has on a sizable portion of this country.  It’s truly sad that people buy into that bullshit.

[StrangeSox]

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

There is always plenty of hypocrisy to go around. 

I did not criticize Trump and Republicans now for doing what I expected them to do four years ago. That is to do their jobs and confirm a SCOTUS nominee. I did criticize them then and I criticize them now for hiding behind some grand philosophy of allowing the voters to decide. We knew it was bullshit then, they just confirmed it now, and their supporters allow it. 

Our Constitution and country have withstood worse crisises than this. 

Pretty much. And there's a perfectly normal and Constitutional way for Democrats to rectify this if they regain Senate/WH. Pass HR1, admit DC and PR (if PR wants it), expand the federal courts to handle the ever-increasing workload.

[poppysox]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

How many hours of Fox News do you watch a day out of curiosity?

 

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

How many hours of Fox News do you watch a day out of curiosity?

Probably 2 hours in bits and pieces when the Sox aren't playing.?  I would watch CNN and MSNBC but their bias is over the top.  You might want to consider that Hannity and Ingram warn you that they are commentators, not news reporters.  The same cannot be said for CNN and MSNBC commentators.

[Texsox]

Just now, StrangeSox said:

Pretty much. And there's a perfectly normal and Constitutional way for Democrats to rectify this if they regain Senate/WH. Pass HR1, admit DC and PR (if PR wants it), expand the federal courts to handle the ever-increasing workload.

It's crazy to think that there probably isn't a poster here who was alive the last time we added a state. Prior to Alaska and Hawaii it was a regular occurrence.

[StrangeSox]

3 minutes ago, poppysox said:

 

Probably 2 hours in bits and pieces when the Sox aren't playing.?  I would watch CNN and MSNBC but their bias is over the top.  You might want to consider that Hannity and Ingram warn you that they are commentators, not news reporters.  The same cannot be said for CNN and MSNBC commentators.

All cable news causes severe brain rot.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Once Texas turns blue, which will happen within the next 10ish years, you will start to hear the narrative on "you can't change the way we elect!!!" change from the Republicans.

One thing I will never ever understand about this country is it's sworn allegiance to a document written 250 years ago and it's insistence that it absolutely should not change despite the fact that it was written under the exact premise that things would need to be changed over time... via these things called amendments.

Someone needs to tell the "originalists" that the founding fathers they swear by would be so confused by their views.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Ducksnort]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Once Texas turns blue, which will happen within the next 10ish years, you will start to hear the narrative on "you can't change the way we elect!!!" change from the Republicans.

One thing I will never ever understand about this country is it's sworn allegiance to a document written 250 years ago and it's insistence that it absolutely should not change despite the fact that it was written under the exact premise that things would need to be changed over time... via these things called amendments.

The founding fathers were architectural geniuses

[StrangeSox]

There were some election machine problems in one or two counties, but so far....that seems to be it nationwide as far as problems. No reports of intimidation, widespread failures. Thanks to so many early votes, not even the absurd hour+ lines that get treated as a good thing rather than a failure to have adequate voting infrastructure.

 

So pretty good, so far.

[poppysox]

6 minutes ago, Tony said:

So then I await your response to this:

Two-thirds (273 of 399) of the general-election campaign events in the 2016 presidential race were in just 6 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan).   

94% of the 2016 events (375 of the 399) were in 12 states (the 11 states identified in early 2016 as "battleground" states by Politico and The Hill plus Arizona).  This fact validates the statement by former presidential candidate and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin on September 2, 2015, that “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president.  Twelve states are.” 

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Deleware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mass, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming were never visited...

I'll accept your data because I have no interest in trying to find counter figures.  I think both candidates fix on those states they think are in-play.  After all...that is the current rules of the game.  It has helped your candidate more than mine since Trump obviously has the energy to visit each and every state 3 times if called on to do it.  Pretty sure the six states you mention would be Joe's limit.  Just kidding.?

[michelangelosmonkey]

The problem with arguing about the electoral college is it was like arguing about the White Sox signing Gerrit Cole last year.  It may be fun or get passions burning...but it's not going to happen.  To amend the constitution requires 3/4 of the states to agree.  You want to change the system where the bottom 1/3 of the states lose power...but they have to vote to agree to give up power??  Why would they do that?  Sure some might but you'd need 38 out of 50 states.  I'm pretty sure I can find 13 states that won't vote yes to this in 100 years.  

[poppysox]

5 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

All cable news causes severe brain rot.

So does watching WS baseball but it never stops me.?