US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

[...]
I may think it is weird or unfair. Well I don't live in those countries and it is their citizens who have to protest against it.
And I have not seen millions of American in the street demonstrating against the voting system they have. Markus

I am astonished that there are so much people not allowed to vote in the US, then there are completely different voting systems in the different states, and that millions of voters cannot vote because they dropped off the official list, by mistake.
But my take is most people have no real idea how their system really works, and they do not care much, also here. Otherwise, with a better understanding, there probably would be a rebellion.
On the other hand even a vast majority of voters would not lead to 'their' president being elected. Frankly i do not see a 'democracy' at work. Not there, not here, not in the UK.

"The plans were public"
Free to "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".

And now I get my towel and I'm gone...

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I am astonished that there are so much people not allowed to vote in the US, then there are completely different voting systems in the different states, and that millions of voters cannot vote because they dropped off the official list, by mistake.
But my take is most people have no real idea how their system really works, and they do not care much, also here. Otherwise, with a better understanding, there probably would be a rebellion.
On the other hand even a vast majority of voters would not lead to 'their' president being elected. Frankly i do not see a 'democracy' at work. Not there, not here, not in the UK.

Over 100,000,000 Americans did not vote in the 2016 election. Were they all prevented from voting? I doubt it. Indifference is probably one reason. But another is almost certainly the fact that no matter who you vote for, nothing changes.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Frankly i do not see a 'democracy' at work. Not there, not here, not in the UK.

Really? Care to elaborate?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by u crank

Over 100,000,000 Americans did not vote in the 2016 election. Were they all prevented from voting? I doubt it. Indifference is probably one reason. But another is almost certainly the fact that no matter who you vote for, nothing changes.

Well this is what i read, among a lot of other strange stuff, in the text further north:

"Between 2014 and 2016, 16 million voters across the United States have been removed from voter lists. Often in automated and sometimes proven faulty procedures. Sometimes all people who allegedly no longer live in the constituency are deleted. Thousands of people are being dropped, and the authorities say they are not eligible to vote because of a crime. For no apparent reason."

Thousands of voters in Brooklyn were sent back in New York's April 19, 2016 primary election because their names were no longer on voter lists. The cleanup of the lists may be fine if done correctly. And possibly also prevent electoral fraud. However, researchers at the Brennan Center for Justice have found that sometimes the cleanup itself is fraudulent in preventing unwanted voters from voting. Five states have illegally cleared their electoral roll over the past five years. And four states have enacted cleansing rules that are unlawful from the researchers' point of view. There, for example, voters are automatically deleted without informing them in advance and giving them an opportunity to object.

Of course what has become clear, if elections really changed something, they would be forbidden.

[vienna]

A lot of Americans are not aware that, for about a decade now, there has been an effort by individual states, uniting to address the inequities of the Electoral College in regards to a reflection of the popular vote, to award their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact --


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rstate_Compact


I always point back to the 1972 Presidential Election when discussing the sometimes glaring disparities in the EC system: Nixon got 60.7% of the popular vote, but got a whopping 96.8% of the EC votes...














<O>

[Platapus]

The intent of the Electoral College is to ensure that who ever is elected President/Vice President garners the majority of the votes in the majority of the states. Not just the majority of votes.

Like most aspects concerning representation, it is a compromise between the larger population states and the smaller population states.

It may be a flawed compromise, but it is one that works very well for over 200 years.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the Electoral College is a very well known process and that all candidates understand how the Electoral College works and what is needed to win the election. It is the same election system we use in all presidential elections.

I do not find anything wrong with the Electoral College at the national level. My disagreement is how each state chooses to allocate their electors. But that is entirely up to the individual states.

And I think the US is a racist state at the highest level.
Has anyone asked the "Indians"...

[Skybird]

Between how it once may have been meant by its crators, and the results it indeed creates in actual outcome, there obviously lies a whole galaxy. Its like i said i other conetxts before: the self-understanding of the (historical) US and the way it really is, is immense nowadays, or may I say: reality diverts from ideal more and more.

The article I posted said it already in the very second apragraph, at the end: "What was more astonishing, however, than the fact that the US constitution did not yield anything to it, was how long it took for the open question to finally be settled in a constitutional amendment. That was in 1967, 126 years after Harrison's death. Which says a lot about the willingness of Americans to reform when it comes to constitution and democracy." You can see this in other debates related to Constitution and Amendments as well, especially relating firearms.

I assess this eleciton reality on the gorpund of what is claimed that it should be. Whether I would agree with the meaningfulness and reasonability of how it ic claimed it should be, is something completely diffrent. My problem is the electorate itself, its fitness to handle responsibly any general, undiscriminatory right to vote. The best ideal helps nothing if there is a lack in reason to realise it. This is the fundament that critics like Jason Brennan found their broadsides against modenr understanding of dmeocracy and majority election on. In his words, democracy (modern) needs Vulcans to function, but what you have is a majority of Hobbits that allow a minority of Orcs to mob, intimidate, manipulate them, all the tiem while the Hiobbis do not care for anythign more than just watering the flowers in their garden without looking beyond the garden fence anyway.

At the very root of the problem with modern democracy is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what democracy actually really is. But I excplained the ancient Greek undersdtanding of it often enough already. Its suffice to remind of that modern democracy has nothing to do with what the old Greeks understood to be "democracy". Nothing. Our "democracy" was their oligarchic/ochlocratic tyranny. We use a more modern, shorter term for that today. We simply call it "socialism": the rule of the party and its lobbies and business supporters (oligarchy), and expropriation and redistribution of wealth (ochlocracy).


Both are at work in the growing distortion of the American (and European!) election systems as well.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

A lot of Americans are not aware that, for about a decade now, there has been an effort by individual states, uniting to address the inequities of the Electoral College in regards to a reflection of the popular vote, to award their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote:

All of the states that have so far adopted the NPVIC have consistently voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for a long time. Surprise surprise.

Originally Posted by Skybird

... expropriation and redistribution of wealth.

I think that's good, because it was simply stolen from the actual worker.
Anyone who asserts something else is also part of the parasitism of this society.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

All of the states that have so far adopted the NPVIC have consistently voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for a long time. Surprise surprise.

Yeah, the GOP states are so busy gerrymandering and stacking the deck in their favor and gaming the EC, it doesn't have the time to consider the NPVIC...


...It's just easier to practice crooked politics as usual...



..but the states that have already signed on represent 63%+ of the total EC votes and, if the mid-terms at the state level result in DEM gains in state legislatures, the goal of the NPVIC may be reached sooner than later. Then you'll see the GOP scrambling to actually get popular support outside its 'core' within those DEM states when Presidential elections roll around...














<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

Yeah, the GOP states are so busy gerrymandering and stacking the deck in their favor and gaming the EC, it doesn't have the time to consider the NPVIC...

Are you suggesting that only Republicans do this?

the goal of the NPVIC may be reached sooner than later.

As per my previous post I think the 'goal' is pretty obvious.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Are you suggesting that only Republicans do this?

...

Not at all; I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP when they do conduct themselves in unethical and, sometimes, illegal, manners and yet, when someone opposed to them does something similar against them, they rise up in outrage and indignation...

Maybe if the GOP were really, sincerely, and above all, honestly serious about such things as "draining the swamp", they'd first take care to clean up their own muck and mire. Right now, they are little better than those moralizing televangelists who so very often get caught with their pants down and/or their hands in the till. The current occupant of the Oval Office and his minions are of the highest order of offenders against the "principles" touted by the morally outraged GOP. Maybe they should start there in their crusade since its such a mess: I mean, is there no one in the Trump administration that doesn't have a connection to Russian interests, trying to sell influence to access the Oval Office, or who hasn't been ripping off the taxpayers by extravagances?...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

As per my previous post I think the 'goal' is pretty obvious.

...and they are getting very close to that goal and the GOP, by their inaction, their espousing of crap candidates like Trump, Roy Moore and other such non-starters, and their alienation of even more voters every day is making it so much easier to get to the goal...

A while back in this thread, someone posted that 79% of the voters who voted for Trump would do so now as if that was a good sign. Let's look at the numbers. The 79% percent stat actually means 21% of Trump's former voters, that's one of every five, have left the fold, not a bell-ringing endorsement. Let's go further. Trump lost the popular vote by 2,868,686 votes; a loss of 21% of the votes he got in 2016 would be 13,226,814 voters, which, when added to his deficit against Clinton, nets out at 16,095,500 voters he can't fully rely on being in his camp. that's a whopping number to overcome and, as he continues to self-destruct, it looks to only get worse. The Trumpers like to point at his anemic approval ratings as a some sort of a 'good thing' yet Trump has never risen above 50% at any point in his term and has only gained 0.9% in approval since he first took office (41.3% Day 1 versus 42.2% Today):


How popular/unpopular is Donald Trump? --

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/



If you notice, except for a very brief dip down to a 48.8% disapproval rating early on, Trump has been consistently over 50% in disapproval. When you have over 50% of the voters disliking you and your politics, that does not bode well...

Fortunately, for the GOP, things will no doubt improve when President Pence runs 2020...













<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

when someone opposed to them does something similar against them, they rise up in outrage and indignation...

Again, are you suggesting that only one side does this? Politicians are by nature hypocrites. It's in the rule book.

...I mean, is there no one in the Trump administration that doesn't have a connection to Russian interests, trying to sell influence to access the Oval Office

You mean like the Clintons and the Podestas.

Look no administration is without sin. Personally I am much more concerned about how an administration handles the rule of law. Corruption and politics are bedfellows but incompetence and political interference are inexcusable. If one of the governments agencies, for example, the FBI has its director, deputy director and one of its top agents removed from office something is wrong. Who is ultimately responsible? The guy who was responsible is strangely quiet. I see no parallel to this yet in the current administration. Yes there is lots to complain about but nothing like that.

Then there's John Brennan.

Fortunately, for the GOP, things will no doubt improve when President Pence runs 2020..

Well I am curious.... who would you suggest for the Dem candidate to run against Trump..oops.. I mean Pence.