Poll

Select your preferred candidate(s) for U.S. President

Donald Trump
1 (4.8%)
Some other Republican
1 (4.8%)
Third Party
1 (4.8%)
Joe Biden
1 (4.8%)
Elizabeth Warren
5 (23.8%)
Bernie Sanders
1 (4.8%)
Pete Buttigieg
2 (9.5%)
Kamala Harris
2 (9.5%)
Andrew Yang
1 (4.8%)
Some other Dem candidate (e.g. Klobuchar, Booker, Castro, etc)
3 (14.3%)
Some other Dem not yet in the race (e.g. Clinton, Bloomberg, Abrams, etc)
0 (0%)
A literal pile of rotting meat
2 (9.5%)
Jake/Pence 2020
1 (4.8%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closes: November 03, 2020, 02:48:43 PM

Author Topic: Election 2020  (Read 1280 times)

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8554
  • Karma: +83/-17
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2019, 10:39:22 PM »
Without the electoral college less populous states will not matter at all. States without a large metropolitan area will not matter.
IL is a perfect example of this fact. Only the immidiate counties around Chicago (and Peoria if I remember correctly) voted Democrat; the rest of the state votes Republican. But because majority of the population is in these counties, what the rest of the state does, does not matter....I don't want that for America
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

ober

  • Ashton Shagger
  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 14487
  • Karma: +72/-789
  • mini-ober is taking over
    • Windy Hill Web Solutions
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2019, 11:58:46 PM »
That's a flawed argument that I am tired of hearing.  I don't give a shit where the people live.  If more people vote for one person, that person should win.  Why does it matter where anyone lives?  One person, one vote.  The EC actually gives more weight to the less populated areas which is equally if not more unfair. 

Your argument is one from the republican side.  You like the EC because it works in your favor when the GOP has a half decent candidate that people get behind.  Why does 'the rest of the state' matter more than the metropolitan areas?  That's like saying people in cities don't count.

Your argument for 'less populous states won't matter' doesn't stand up either.  Removing the EC completely removes the need to care about states at all!  If the whole thing is based on popular vote then the only thing that matters are how many people vote regardless of location.

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8554
  • Karma: +83/-17
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2019, 12:08:32 AM »
It matters tremendously where people live! People in rural areas care about different things than the people in the cities...and vice versa. And you can't argue with the fact that more people live in major cities than not. I also don't think you can argue that people from cities "know best" what's good for the country folks (and vice versa, again). It is two very different worlds with very different needs.

Because most people live in metropolitan areas and most metropolitan areas vote Democrat, I could say your argument to remove the ec is a purely democratic one.

You have to care about the states. Again, a state like Wyoming, or Montana, or South Dakota, will have significantly different needs than California or New York
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8554
  • Karma: +83/-17
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2019, 12:18:42 AM »
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8554
  • Karma: +83/-17
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2019, 12:24:48 AM »
I could possibly support the abolishment of the ec if we got rid of the two party system
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

Mike

  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 12137
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2019, 12:41:13 AM »
Why would they visit a state which they know will not swing? Something in IL - I don't think either candidate visited last time around.
I answered that in my post.

ober

  • Ashton Shagger
  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 14487
  • Karma: +72/-789
  • mini-ober is taking over
    • Windy Hill Web Solutions
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2019, 10:56:21 PM »
It matters tremendously where people live! People in rural areas care about different things than the people in the cities...and vice versa. And you can't argue with the fact that more people live in major cities than not. I also don't think you can argue that people from cities "know best" what's good for the country folks (and vice versa, again). It is two very different worlds with very different needs.

Because most people live in metropolitan areas and most metropolitan areas vote Democrat, I could say your argument to remove the ec is a purely democratic one.

You have to care about the states. Again, a state like Wyoming, or Montana, or South Dakota, will have significantly different needs than California or New York
Again, you're saying that one group's concerns about who runs the country outweighs another just because of where they live.  While the President does influence general policy, the whole point of electing representatives and senators is to care about what happens in the state or district.  We don't use an EC equivalent for those positions which are technically far more important than the President to local policy.

We technically do not have a 2 party system.  If the other parties had the funding or the candidates of the main 2 parties we might be having a different discussion.  It's not like a 3rd party candidate has never taken a large chunk of the vote, although it's very rare.  There's just very little chance that most people will vote for those parties because a lot of them are extreme and the candidates that come out of those parties are a little nuts.

Mike

  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 12137
  • Karma: +168/-32
  • Ex Asshole - a better and more caring person.
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2019, 08:55:17 AM »
We technically do not have a 2 party system.  If the other parties had the funding or the candidates of the main 2 parties we might be having a different discussion.  It's not like a 3rd party candidate has never taken a large chunk of the vote, although it's very rare.  There's just very little chance that most people will vote for those parties because a lot of them are extreme and the candidates that come out of those parties are a little nuts.

The first past the post voting reenforces a two party system.  Voting for a 3rd party candidate with whom you strongly align could result in the candidate that you want the least getting the spot because of the split.  Something as simple as ranked choice voting would help eliminate that.i

ober

  • Ashton Shagger
  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 14487
  • Karma: +72/-789
  • mini-ober is taking over
    • Windy Hill Web Solutions
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2019, 09:16:09 AM »
I would be on board with ranked choice voting.  I think it's a really interesting approach.

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8554
  • Karma: +83/-17
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2019, 10:07:37 AM »
have not heard about ranked choice voting before. Watched this video: https://youtu.be/P10PFuBFVL8

interesting...but I have to think about it.
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

KnuckleBuckett

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 9733
  • Karma: +26/-259
  • [url=http://google.com]I search a lot[/url]
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2019, 10:32:41 AM »
There is a vast portion of this country that is not represented in spirit by either party and this is on the increase.  If the lack of representation is not solved this country will not remain united and we will very likely face civil unrest not seen since the late 1800s.  Maybe new parties could be developed solely by the locations of the population.  Urban party, Suburban Party, and Rural party perhaps.  Yes. I understand that any one of you may not want that to occur because it may benefit a portion(s) of the population that you do not share values with.  Good.  Me too by the way, but those people need a real voice in the system.

Leave the electoral college alone.  It was put in place to avoid historical true democracy pitfalls, essentially avoiding peoples trends of the times, heated emotion, political disinformation, and resulting tyranny.  Pure democracies as a form of rule just never worked out and became worse with the size and power of the nation.  They have a place in a representative democracy, just like many socialist structures do, but are unwise as a determining portion of the election of a major political office.  Before you argue this read up on the failures of similar institutions throughout history when this was employed.  The EC allows for in effect a capacitance of outcome at the end of elections.  In essence it was a way to tweak in some basic form if stoicism into an election known for a distinct lack of it. The other option is to do a priority weighted average based system that is -- just deleted -- yes it is essentially the ranked choice voting as noted by Mike.  This might really muddy and or fragment the system. What I see in current elections is that when you listen to the top say twenty or so of the candidates of either party including the odd non democrat or republican, the most reasonable policies with the most likelihood of improving our nation for the better are always the first ones eliminated by said parties.  This is a large portion of why our current crisis of extremism has happened and will continue to do so.  None of the above addresses this.  The real question is, how does reasonable obtain a voice? 


I think all of our ruling political offices need significant overhaul.  Say a single six or eight year term per office without the ability to ever run for any other national or state political office afterwards.  Including president.  Serve your term as president, representative, or senator and move on.  No more dynasties and overpowered mini-empires. Yet enough time in office to make foreign powers play ball.
 The supreme court might consider mandatory retirement at a reasonable age say 70 and be elected by each party in turn without congressional oversight to the current extent.  Pay, benefits, and retirement would be based solely on the national average.  Domestic protection details would have the same limitations as that of any law abiding citizen.

This is where Charlie pukes on me.  Let the beatings begin!

charlie

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8535
  • Karma: +84/-53
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2019, 12:03:48 PM »
Nah, I don't have much problem with anything you said there, Knuck. I'm not as concerned about civil unrest, and I definitely think there's a major problem with term limits leading to lobbyists effectively running the government, but otherwise I appreciate your entirely reasonable perspective. I tend to only speak up when I think things are based on wrong factual information or understanding.

Like Jake's Warren/Electoral college take. ;)

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8554
  • Karma: +83/-17
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

ober

  • Ashton Shagger
  • Ass Wipe
  • Posts: 14487
  • Karma: +72/-789
  • mini-ober is taking over
    • Windy Hill Web Solutions
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2019, 05:21:08 PM »
It's a shame he can't run again.

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8554
  • Karma: +83/-17
Re: Election 2020
« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2019, 11:36:16 AM »
I don't think Warren stands a chance. I think if she will be the dem candidate that's like giving the win to Trump. She leans left too much, and independents will not vote for her (they just might stay home). From what I see now, the only way that Dems stand a chance is with Biden....
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.