Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:51 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 248 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9813
Location: Indiana
Who: The President!
What: Leader of the Free World!
Where: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
When: In the thread title dumbasses, November 3rd!
Why: well...that's actually a good question

Kidding aside. I know there's a Democrat and a Trump thread, but this thread can discuss results for both parties in the runup to November and I also want to highlight our more colorful no-hoper candidates and parties that will have some ballot access come November.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4208
Trump by 12.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2566
Looking forward to this one. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9813
Location: Indiana
To start off reviewing our colorful candidates, let’s start with Rocky De La Fuente. Reason I start with him is on the New Hampshire ballot today, there’s a Rocky De La Fuente Jr. (the subject of this writeup) on the Republican primary ballot and a Rocky De La Fuente III on the Democratic primary ballot.

Image

De La Fuente is a San Diego area multimillionaire businessman. Per Wikipedia, he was born in San Diego, grew up across the border in Tijuana, Mexico, and was also educated in Mexico. He took over a lot of his father’s auto dealer franchises in the San Diego area as the source of his wealth. San Diego County had to pay him millions of dollars in a settlement as far as land use for building a prison on their land and some other items. He owns businesses and properties in Mexico, the U.S., and Uruguay.

De La Fuente first came on the national 3rd party political scene in 2016. He originally ran in the Democratic primaries but found very little support – getting over 1% in only the American Samoa caucus (5.9% - 14 votes) and in the Delaware primary (1.1% - 1024 votes). He then switched to running for president as a 3rd party candidate under the banner of the party he founded, the American Delta Party. Using his personal wealth and the court system to fight against state ballot access laws (something typical the more organized 3rd parties have to do), he got the American Delta Party on the ballot in 13 states, as well as running as an independent in 6 more, was the nominee of the Florida Reform Party, and official write-in status in 9 more states, so votes counted for him in 29 of the 51 elections held Election Day 2016. He received 33,136 votes (0.024%, or ~ 1 out of 4000) to take 8th place. In what I hope to be a contribution to the field of political science and paying homage to baseball’s Mendoza Line, I call this “The De La Fuente Line”: the bare minimum number of votes a candidate can get for putting in a heavy effort and money toward maximizing their ballot access. His best performance was vote-wise getting 9,108 on the Florida Reform ballot line, percentage-wise getting 0.39% in Alaska.

He tried to run in 2017 for New York City Mayor but was thrown out due to lack of valid signatures on his petition. In 2018, he ran in the primaries in 9 different states for the U.S. Senate. His best performance was 12% in Rhode Island’s Republican primary.

In 2020, he is running as a Republican for their presidential nomination. So far he has qualified for 16 state primary ballots. As of his September 2019 FEC filing, he has raised $6,735 from outside sources and loaned his campaign $10.8 million of his own money. His son with the same name is running in the Democratic primaries and has qualified for 6 state primary ballots. De La Fuente Jr. is also running for a U.S. House seat from California’s 21st district because California doesn’t have a “name listed only once on ballot” law. I imagine if it comes to pass he does not win the Republican presidential nomination or advance in California's 21st, the American Delta Party just might nominate De La Fuente for president again.


Last edited by Flyin Ryan on Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Venue: Washington DC:

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27705
It's weird that Trump's Approval is at 49%, his best, Over 4 years he's gain popularity somehow. But then the economy is good and he's avoided unpopular wars. The increase appears to be due to republicans and independents (Dems not changing their opinion) which at least sounds like it's a harder job to beat him this time, than in 2016. Trump will likely be far better funded as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:08 am
Posts: 1779
This will be a thumping victory for the Donald.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
eldanielfire wrote:
It's weird that Trump's Approval is at 49%, his best, Over 4 years he's gain popularity somehow. But then the economy is good and he's avoided unpopular wars. The increase appears to be due to republicans and independents (Dems not changing their opinion) which at least sounds like it's a harder job to beat him this time, than in 2016. Trump will likely be far better funded as well.


Most importantly the idea of him being President is not completely insane, only medium insane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Venue: Washington DC:

Spoiler: show
Image


Interesting - I always pictured it wetter with more fan boats and gators


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2566
Seneca of the Night wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
It's weird that Trump's Approval is at 49%, his best, Over 4 years he's gain popularity somehow. But then the economy is good and he's avoided unpopular wars. The increase appears to be due to republicans and independents (Dems not changing their opinion) which at least sounds like it's a harder job to beat him this time, than in 2016. Trump will likely be far better funded as well.


Most importantly the idea of him being President is not completely insane, only medium insane.

Like the Donald himself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2731
Location: Terenure, Dublin 6, Ireland
Unless he messes up between now and November, this will be Trump coronation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
Derwyn wrote:
This will be a thumping victory for the Donald.


I don't disagree - Greenday were right


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15678
The leftist backlash will happen but he may survive another four years before it does. :(

Purely through his cult of personality.


Last edited by AND-y on Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27705
AND-y wrote:
The leftist backlash will happen but he may survive another four years before it does. :(


Didn't that start before Trump became president?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15678
eldanielfire wrote:
AND-y wrote:
The leftist backlash will happen but he may survive another four years before it does. :(


Didn't that start before Trump became president?

Yeah and Trump was a backlash to that, the pendulum is going faster!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2566
AND-y wrote:
The leftist backlash will happen but he may survive another four years before it does. :(

Purely through his cnut of personality.


Fixed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9813
Location: Indiana
eldanielfire wrote:
It's weird that Trump's Approval is at 49%, his best, Over 4 years he's gain popularity somehow. But then the economy is good and he's avoided unpopular wars. The increase appears to be due to republicans and independents (Dems not changing their opinion) which at least sounds like it's a harder job to beat him this time, than in 2016. Trump will likely be far better funded as well.


Good economy (although the Chinese virus could wreck that) and I think a lot of conservative never Trumper/protest voters have come home to the GOP looking ahead to 2020, which means a lot of those Gary Johnson/Evan McMullin votes from 2016 are probably going to be back in the GOP column. That's more than 5 million votes just from those 2 candidates in 2016. In a normal election there's no McMullin equivalent and the Libertarians are a million plus or minus. I've seen no signs McMullin or allies are considering a 2020 candidacy because I donated money to him in 2016 and the routine emails I get mention nothing. So even keeping all the R and D votes from 2016 the exact same, you're looking at 4 million more conservative-leaning votes there up for grabs. I doubt they're voting for Sanders or Warren.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2566
I think I have to agree with the people on here who say Trump will win. The economy is the hook, and the lack of a convincing opponent is the sell. Tonight my TV news cut from Joe Biden shaking hands to Trump fulminating and it was like the difference between Earl Gray tea and crystal meth. Who the fcuk wants a nice cup of tea when there's three lines of ice on the table?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9813
Location: Indiana
6.Jones wrote:
I think I have to agree with the people on here who say Trump will win. The economy is the hook, and the lack of a convincing opponent is the sell. Tonight my TV news cut from Joe Biden shaking hands to Trump fulminating and it was like the difference between Earl Gray tea and crystal meth. Who the fcuk wants a nice cup of tea when there's three lines of ice on the table?


I'm not going to say he's going to win. 9 months is a long time, the race can completely flip based on who the Democrats nominate as they to me appear to have 2 paths they could go down, and who knows what Trump will do. But I think Trump has a better chance now than he did say 4 months ago, most of that being the impeachment a strategic miscalculation by Pelosi as it has solidified Republicans/the right behind Trump where they weren't as much before (same thing Clinton's did in the '98 mid-terms). Also economy, USMCA, Soleimani. Solidifying more of the right behind him where they weren't in 2016 also like I said earlier brings more votes under his tent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2566
Flyin Ryan wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
I think I have to agree with the people on here who say Trump will win. The economy is the hook, and the lack of a convincing opponent is the sell. Tonight my TV news cut from Joe Biden shaking hands to Trump fulminating and it was like the difference between Earl Gray tea and crystal meth. Who the fcuk wants a nice cup of tea when there's three lines of ice on the table?


I'm not going to say he's going to win. 9 months is a long time, the race can completely flip based on who the Democrats nominate as they to me appear to have 2 paths they could go down, and who knows what Trump will do. But I think Trump has a better chance now than he did say 4 months ago, most of that being the impeachment a strategic miscalculation by Pelosi as it has solidified Republicans/the right behind Trump where they weren't as much before (same thing Clinton's did in the '98 mid-terms). Also economy, USMCA, Soleimani.

The effect of impeachment is the numerical relationship between the unhappy impeachers versus the unhappy impeached. Given that Trump is consistently less than 50% popular that should favor his opponent. There are simply more in the anti bucket. You can see this in poll numbers. A majority of Americans in almost all polls wanted to see him impeached.

The wildcard is conservatives, who may have voted for Trump, but agree with Romney.

Impeachment is meh. It's only the economy that matters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9813
Location: Indiana
6.Jones wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
I think I have to agree with the people on here who say Trump will win. The economy is the hook, and the lack of a convincing opponent is the sell. Tonight my TV news cut from Joe Biden shaking hands to Trump fulminating and it was like the difference between Earl Gray tea and crystal meth. Who the fcuk wants a nice cup of tea when there's three lines of ice on the table?


I'm not going to say he's going to win. 9 months is a long time, the race can completely flip based on who the Democrats nominate as they to me appear to have 2 paths they could go down, and who knows what Trump will do. But I think Trump has a better chance now than he did say 4 months ago, most of that being the impeachment a strategic miscalculation by Pelosi as it has solidified Republicans/the right behind Trump where they weren't as much before (same thing Clinton's did in the '98 mid-terms). Also economy, USMCA, Soleimani.

The effect of impeachment is the numerical relationship between the unhappy impeachers versus the unhappy impeached. Given that Trump is consistently less than 50% popular that should favor his opponent. There are simply more in the anti bucket. You can see this in poll numbers. A majority of Americans in almost all polls wanted to see him impeached.

The wildcard is conservatives, who may have voted for Trump, but agree with Romney.


A Lawfare podcast from end of year I listened to (so post-impeachment, pre-Senate trial) had a pollster on who in a public forum said the whole thing based on his numbers had literally not changed anyone's minds and had in fact solidified them into their side. There were no Republicans for the impeachment process, there were no Democrats against the impeachment process, and those numbers were pretty much equal from the beginning of October. You only got slight change in opinion from independents. So the whole impeachment process in the House - listening to witnesses, depositions, debate, votes - accomplished nothing if the goal was shifting public opinion.

You could look at the results from 2016 and surmise from the impeachment public polls that a lot of the Republicans in 2016 that as a protest against Trump voted for Johnson, McMullin, Darrell Castle, wrote in a name, didn't vote at all, etc. are probably now behind the president. That's a significant net plus for him in terms of raw votes which keeping all other 2016 results the same would probably turn a couple states in his favor.

The agree with Romney brigade I don't think voted for Trump in 2016 to start with. McMullin got 21% in Utah (Romney's state) and Trump still won, albeit with just a plurality in what is a very conservative state politically. The "agree with Romney" conservatives are largely never Trumpers, therefore they didn't vote for him in 2016, because I can't imagine another group backing it. The two plusses for Romney is his state likely has more never Trumpers than anywhere else in the country, and he won't be on the ballot again til 2024.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2566
Flyin Ryan wrote:
The agree with Romney brigade I don't think voted for Trump in 2016 to start with.

Do you think they voted for Clinton? It's hard to see staunch conservatives voting for such a liberal candidate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6148
All hail Emperor Trump! Whoever the Dems pick, there'll be enough disgruntled Dems whose candidate didn't make it who won't show up on game day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9813
Location: Indiana
6.Jones wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
The agree with Romney brigade I don't think voted for Trump in 2016 to start with.

Do you think they voted for Clinton? It's hard to see staunch conservatives voting for such a liberal candidate.


No.

699k votes were cast for write-ins where they weren't even credited to a candidate. These are your "Mickey Mouse", "George Washington", "Michael Jordan", etc. votes.

Evan McMullin was by definition an anti-Trump reactionary conservative campaign. He only had ballot access in 12 states, had write-in status in a further 23, and received 732k votes. I can't prove this, but I think his 222k write-in votes is a record number for a presidential candidate ever. I would have voted for McMullin but he was not on the ballot in my state and his write-in votes would not have counted, so I voted for Gary Johnson.

As far as Johnson, let's look at the presidential election history of the Libertarian Party:

Quote:
1972-John Hospers - 3674 votes (<0.01%)
1976-Roger MacBride - 173k votes (0.21%)
1980-Ed Clark - 921k votes (1.06%)
1984-David Bergland - 228k votes (0.25%)
1988-Ron Paul - 432k votes (0.47%)
1992-Andre Marrou - 290k votes (0.28%)
1996-Harry Browne - 486k votes (0.50%)
2000-Harry Browne - 384k votes (0.36%)
2004-Michael Badnarik - 397k votes (0.32%)
2008-Bob Barr - 524k votes (0.40%)
2012-Gary Johnson - 1.28 million votes (0.99%)
2016-Gary Johnson - 4.49 million votes (3.29%)


Johnson got more votes in 2016 than the preceding 8 Libertarian presidential tickets combined.

There is some consideration of "some of these are more naturally Democratic voters, we shouldn't just assume they're angry Republicans/conservatives", which is fair, but I'd think those people would be more likely to vote for the Green Party candidate than the Libertarian. And while the Libertarians had universal ballot access in 2016 and the Greens did not, Jill Stein was on the ballot in 45 of the 51.

2016 in short due to the non-choice most people felt they had between Trump and Clinton was a gigantic successful election for 3rd party candidates, and that's without having a candidate that got any big media attention like a Perot or Anderson. The two main parties' combined vote total declined 4.0% from 2012 (Clinton -3.3% from Obama, Trump -0.7% from Romney, Johnson +2.3% from 2012, Stein +0.7% from 2012, "Other" +1.0%)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5106
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Because of the Electoral College and the first past the post nature of most of the states' assignment of votes to electors in it, along with the unequal representation that goes with the number of states' representatives being capped, most/many voters in the presidential election will have their votes 'wasted'.

In a few battleground states an individual voter will have an influence out of all proportion. The electoral system is fucked. I can quite see that Individual1 will lose the popular vote by an even greater margin than last time and still be returned to office.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4208
usermame wrote:
Because of the Electoral College and the first past the post nature of most of the states' assignment of votes to electors in it, along with the unequal representation that goes with the number of states' representatives being capped, most/many voters in the presidential election will have their votes 'wasted'.

In a few battleground states an individual voter will have an influence out of all proportion. The electoral system is fucked. I can quite see that Individual1 will lose the popular vote by an even greater margin than last time and still be returned to office.


I like FPTP.

I understand it has its flaws but at least it means all parts of the country get represented, not just the large metropolitan areas. It's definitely not perfect but I prefer it to proportional representation personally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18914
AND-y wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
AND-y wrote:
The leftist backlash will happen but he may survive another four years before it does. :(


Didn't that start before Trump became president?

Yeah and Trump was a backlash to that, the pendulum is going faster!


That's my not-so hot take. As the middle classes get squeezed from all sides, they are looking for someone, anyone, who can save them from rising house prices/cost of living and stagnating wages...and are wildly flailing about voting for whoever promises them the most (but invariably, not someone who looks like the last guy).

If that is true (and it is, because I said it), the worry isn't this elevation, but the next couple after. If, for instance, there's a violent swing to the left to pick Bernie...then does the next swing back leave us with someone goose-stepping their way into the White House on the back of a severely nationalistic, protectionist platform?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:58 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28172
Location: Chickenrunning...
Imagine the candidates are each taking a shot at goal at Murrayfield. Trump is getting far less booing than he was 6 months ago. The Dem kickers are all getting bottles thrown at them.

Game over. 4 more years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27705
New guy wrote:
usermame wrote:
Because of the Electoral College and the first past the post nature of most of the states' assignment of votes to electors in it, along with the unequal representation that goes with the number of states' representatives being capped, most/many voters in the presidential election will have their votes 'wasted'.

In a few battleground states an individual voter will have an influence out of all proportion. The electoral system is fucked. I can quite see that Individual1 will lose the popular vote by an even greater margin than last time and still be returned to office.


I like FPTP.

I understand it has its flaws but at least it means all parts of the country get represented, not just the large metropolitan areas. It's definitely not perfect but I prefer it to proportional representation personally.


Indeed. I hate when they sat FPTP is undemocratic, I mean your local area gets to directly their representative. Every system has it's flaws and good points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15425
Location: South Oxfordshire
eldanielfire wrote:
New guy wrote:
usermame wrote:
Because of the Electoral College and the first past the post nature of most of the states' assignment of votes to electors in it, along with the unequal representation that goes with the number of states' representatives being capped, most/many voters in the presidential election will have their votes 'wasted'.

In a few battleground states an individual voter will have an influence out of all proportion. The electoral system is fucked. I can quite see that Individual1 will lose the popular vote by an even greater margin than last time and still be returned to office.


I like FPTP.

I understand it has its flaws but at least it means all parts of the country get represented, not just the large metropolitan areas. It's definitely not perfect but I prefer it to proportional representation personally.


Indeed. I hate when they sat FPTP is undemocratic, I mean your local area gets to directly their representative. Every system has it's flaws and good points.


The issue with FPTP today is that with modern polling and data sampling it's very simple to work out where votes (and c therefore campaigning, and national policies) matter. So everything gets focused on an increasingly small number of voters, and while everyone gets representation very few get genuine influence


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5106
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Saint wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
New guy wrote:
usermame wrote:
Because of the Electoral College and the first past the post nature of most of the states' assignment of votes to electors in it, along with the unequal representation that goes with the number of states' representatives being capped, most/many voters in the presidential election will have their votes 'wasted'.

In a few battleground states an individual voter will have an influence out of all proportion. The electoral system is fucked. I can quite see that Individual1 will lose the popular vote by an even greater margin than last time and still be returned to office.


I like FPTP.

I understand it has its flaws but at least it means all parts of the country get represented, not just the large metropolitan areas. It's definitely not perfect but I prefer it to proportional representation personally.


Indeed. I hate when they sat FPTP is undemocratic, I mean your local area gets to directly their representative. Every system has it's flaws and good points.


The issue with FPTP today is that with modern polling and data sampling it's very simple to work out where votes (and c therefore campaigning, and national policies) matter. So everything gets focused on an increasingly small number of voters, and while everyone gets representation very few get genuine influence

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5106
Location: Te Ika a Maui
eldanielfire wrote:
Indeed. I hate when they sat FPTP is undemocratic, I mean your local area gets to directly their representative. Every system has it's flaws and good points.

Yet democracy has taken a hit when a loser of the popular vote gets to form a government.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3076
usermame wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Indeed. I hate when they sat FPTP is undemocratic, I mean your local area gets to directly their representative. Every system has it's flaws and good points.

Yet democracy has taken a hit when a loser of the popular vote gets to form a government.

It must happen often in a parliamentary system when the party with fewer votes gets the higher number of seats. It happened in South Africa in about 1948, and not that long ago in the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4208
Saint wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
New guy wrote:
usermame wrote:
Because of the Electoral College and the first past the post nature of most of the states' assignment of votes to electors in it, along with the unequal representation that goes with the number of states' representatives being capped, most/many voters in the presidential election will have their votes 'wasted'.

In a few battleground states an individual voter will have an influence out of all proportion. The electoral system is fucked. I can quite see that Individual1 will lose the popular vote by an even greater margin than last time and still be returned to office.


I like FPTP.

I understand it has its flaws but at least it means all parts of the country get represented, not just the large metropolitan areas. It's definitely not perfect but I prefer it to proportional representation personally.


Indeed. I hate when they sat FPTP is undemocratic, I mean your local area gets to directly their representative. Every system has it's flaws and good points.


The issue with FPTP today is that with modern polling and data sampling it's very simple to work out where votes (and c therefore campaigning, and national policies) matter. So everything gets focused on an increasingly small number of voters, and while everyone gets representation very few get genuine influence


It's even easier to work out who to target with PR; London. Birmingham. Manchester.

Wales? Scotland? The west country? Nah, fudge that, just give the cities what they want to win elections.

I fully accept FPTP is far from perfect, I just prefer it to the alternatives.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5106
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Fangle wrote:
usermame wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Indeed. I hate when they sat FPTP is undemocratic, I mean your local area gets to directly their representative. Every system has it's flaws and good points.

Yet democracy has taken a hit when a loser of the popular vote gets to form a government.

It must happen often in a parliamentary system when the party with fewer votes gets the higher number of seats. It happened in South Africa in about 1948, and not that long ago in the UK.

Exactly. The fatal flaw in FPTP. At one stage here under FPTP a party got 20% of the popular vote and one seat in Parliament. I suppose that 20% of the electorate was represented. That was the catalyst for proportional representation. The most rational way for a democracy to be structured.

The US, with the added imbalance of unequal representation in the Electoral College is under further handicap to realistic representation of its populace, leading to the entrenched bitterness we see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5106
Location: Te Ika a Maui
New guy wrote:
It's even easier to work out who to target with PR; London. Birmingham. Manchester.

Wales? Scotland? The west country? Nah, fudge that, just give the cities what they want to win elections.

I fully accept FPTP is far from perfect, I just prefer it to the alternatives.
And London, Birmingham and Manchester are not targeted at the moment? Someone must be slacking.

The Mixed Member Proportional system has direct representation of localities, it also adjusts a party's total seats to its total votes. Give or take.

Btw, what alternatives have you considered?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 3335
Location: Boston
6.Jones wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
The agree with Romney brigade I don't think voted for Trump in 2016 to start with.

Do you think they voted for Clinton? It's hard to see staunch conservatives voting for such a liberal candidate.


There definitely was a subset of centrist Republicans who actually did come out and overtly support Clinton, for instance, the NYT's go-to "Good Republican" David Brooks. The major papers of traditionally-conservative areas like Phoenix, Dallas, Houston etc. also endorsed Clinton, which for many of them would have been the first time they had ever backed a Democrat. So they do exist: high income, well-educated, white collar, likely still have the Romney-Ryan sticker on their bumper (or would if they hadn't bought that new BMW), etc. It's also worth mentioning that the agree-with-Romney-brigade are not what you'd describe as staunch conservatives; these types are invariably centrists and moderates, so voting for someone whose tagline was essentially "continue Obama's presidency" wasn't asking terribly much of them.

As FR said though, most probably went Libertarian, McMullin, etc. And this relates to what I think is ultimately going to decide the election in Trump's favor:

Quote:
A lot of the Republicans in 2016 that as a protest against Trump voted for Johnson, McMullin, Darrell Castle, wrote in a name, didn't vote at all, etc. are probably now behind the president. That's a significant net plus for him in terms of raw votes which keeping all other 2016 results the same would probably turn a couple states in his favor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15425
Location: South Oxfordshire
New guy wrote:
Saint wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
New guy wrote:
usermame wrote:
Because of the Electoral College and the first past the post nature of most of the states' assignment of votes to electors in it, along with the unequal representation that goes with the number of states' representatives being capped, most/many voters in the presidential election will have their votes 'wasted'.

In a few battleground states an individual voter will have an influence out of all proportion. The electoral system is fucked. I can quite see that Individual1 will lose the popular vote by an even greater margin than last time and still be returned to office.


I like FPTP.

I understand it has its flaws but at least it means all parts of the country get represented, not just the large metropolitan areas. It's definitely not perfect but I prefer it to proportional representation personally.


Indeed. I hate when they sat FPTP is undemocratic, I mean your local area gets to directly their representative. Every system has it's flaws and good points.


The issue with FPTP today is that with modern polling and data sampling it's very simple to work out where votes (and c therefore campaigning, and national policies) matter. So everything gets focused on an increasingly small number of voters, and while everyone gets representation very few get genuine influence


It's even easier to work out who to target with PR; London. Birmingham. Manchester.

Wales? Scotland? The west country? Nah, fudge that, just give the cities what they want to win elections.

I fully accept FPTP is far from perfect, I just prefer it to the alternatives.


I agree completely that there are other issues with alternative voting systems - but I'm not going to pretend that everyone getting some sort of direct representation means that their views ever get considered is a positive of FPTP.

You just need to look at today's Labour party (and to a lesser extent the Tory party) to see that - the majority will tend to be ignored


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4086
usermame wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Indeed. I hate when they sat FPTP is undemocratic, I mean your local area gets to directly their representative. Every system has it's flaws and good points.

Yet democracy has taken a hit when a loser of the popular vote gets to form a government.



No candidate campaigns in a general popular election, no voter votes in a general popular election. We have no idea how many people could be gotten out to vote in Texas or New York if they were really needed.

Therefore the popular vote is an irrelevant statistic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15425
Location: South Oxfordshire
Sonny Blount wrote:
usermame wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Indeed. I hate when they sat FPTP is undemocratic, I mean your local area gets to directly their representative. Every system has it's flaws and good points.

Yet democracy has taken a hit when a loser of the popular vote gets to form a government.



No candidate campaigns in a general popular election, no voter votes in a general popular election. We have no idea how many people could be gotten out to vote in Texas or New York if they were really needed.

Therefore the popular vote is an irrelevant statistic.


There's a perception risk. At the end if the day, democracies only sustain themselves as long as the populace is prepared to accept that they're getting the government they voted for overall.

One of the biggest single issues of Trump is that he's gone out if his way to suggest that voting is fraudulent - such as busloads of voters being brought into NH to vote for Hillary that were illegitimate in some way.

The longer that keeps up, the more faith in voting is erodes- to the point where you could get a minority vote President leading to civil unrest


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 248 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: booji boy, Conn, dpedin, feckwanker, I like haggis, Insane_Homer, KnuckleDragger, koroke hangareka, Lenny, Monkey Magic, mr bungle, Mullet 2, MungoMan, Muttonbirds, number6, Raggs, Rinkals, Risteard, Sandstorm, Sefton, Sensible Stephen and 84 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group