2020 US Election mega thread

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't believe every state on that list already had a policy in place to give all their votes to the winning candidate (some do, some don't), so this is an improvement as it guarantees all the votes to the popular vote candidate rather than giving them to the electoral college winner. For the states that may not have given all their votes to the electoral college winner by default, those votes now all go to the popular vote winner.

Colorado is also a perennial swing state and they joined.

It's still an improvement that affects change depending on whether or not the particular state used to give all their votes (regardless of rep. or dem.) to the college winner, which often is not the popular vote winner.

It's at least a step in the right direction towards making each person's vote count, where currently it very much does not. The republicans vehemently oppose anything brought forward to improve election fairness as they rarely win the popular vote.

It actually makes everyones vote count less though, and puts them in the same predicament Canada struggles with that you should be very familiar with. The whole point of the electoral college, is to prevent LA, New York, Chicago, and Houston from determining the whole election and making everyone elses vote worthless, which is how it works with popular vote.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Joe's obviously not paying enough taxes if he has a billion dollars. Get him boys!

That's the beauty of being able to control tax dollars. You ain't gotta earn them honestly, and they can't tax you on them.

[tonytiger55]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wow not sure how I missed this NPVIC thing. Could be a big deal. Could finally break the electoral college.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm an electoral reform honk, so that's Neato to me.

Interesting. But I am a bit lost. Is NPVIC part of the constitution? It does not involve the federal government. I don't think it is.
I thought the electoral college was part of the constitution that elected the president?
Would that even survive a court challenge?

[ExtraSlow]

There are some big downsides to popular vote.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Interesting. But I am a bit lost. Is NPVIC part of the constitution? It does not involve the federal government. I don't think it is.
I thought the electoral college was part of the constitution that elected the president?
Would that even survive a court challenge?

The electoral college means that the states get to determine how the votes are used. They do not all follow the same formula, and are able to change it.

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hunter introducing Joe to the Ukranian diplomat that Joe was then busted red handed on a recorded phone call with, bribing him for a billion dollars to fire the prosecutor looking into him. That part is corruption.

This theory has been debunked. The prosecutor was not looking into Burisma at the time and he was fired because he was corrupt himself. There was pressure from a lot of groups such as IMF, EU, Republican-led congress, etc to fire him - not just by Joe Biden/Obama Admin.

Do you really think financial authorities wouldn't notice a random billion dollar payment to an ex VP and Presidential candidate? Barr's Justice Department would have found it by now, no question about it.

Just more baseless conspiracy theories from Giuliani. The guy is getting played like a fiddle by all his foreign "sources" and it's almost sad to watch a guy who was once beloved by America unravel like this.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Interesting. But I am a bit lost. Is NPVIC part of the constitution? It does not involve the federal government. I don't think it is.
I thought the electoral college was part of the constitution that elected the president?
Would that even survive a court challenge?

To the best of my knowledge, there are 3 ways the states can handle their college votes:

1) All of the college votes go to the winner of the state election (regardless of national popular vote), so states that aren't swing states become fairly predictably all red or all blue
2) Maine and Nebraska award one vote to the winner in each congressional district and two electoral votes to the state-wide winner
3) All of the college votes to go the winner of the popular national vote across all 50 states (NPVIC members listed above)

#3 is a small step towards making every person's vote have equal weight. Right now there are only a handful of states that even matter in any US election because the rest are heavily blue or red and will vote that way no matter what, which is why Presidential candidates only bother campaigning in those few battleground states. IMO there should be no scenario where a presidential candidate loses by millions of votes and still becomes president, but currently that is easy to do. It's pretty much the most messed up voting system short of an actual dictatorship.

In fact, the way the college is structured and gerrymandered right now, a Presidential candidate can technically win an election with only ~23% of the popular vote

[tonytiger55]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

To the best of my knowledge, there are 3 ways the states can handle their college votes:

1) All of the college votes go to the winner of the state election (regardless of national popular vote), so states that aren't swing states become fairly predictably all red or all blue
2) Maine and Nebraska award one vote to the winner in each congressional district and two electoral votes to the state-wide winner
3) All of the college votes to go the winner of the popular national vote across all 50 states (NPVIC members listed above)

#3 is a small step towards making every person's vote have equal weight. Right now there are only a handful of states that even matter in any US election because the rest are heavily blue or red and will vote that way no matter what, which is why Presidential candidates only bother campaigning in those few battleground states. IMO there should be no scenario where a presidential candidate loses by millions of votes and still becomes president, but currently that is easy to do. It's pretty much the most messed up voting system short of an actual dictatorship.

In fact, the way the college is structured and gerrymandered right now, a Presidential candidate can technically win an election with only ~23% of the popular vote

Interesting. I guess if one side wants to do that. Then there is nothing stopping the other side doing the same.

If we move to a system where the majority vote counts and not a electoral college. Then how do issues that belong to states with small populations get represented in congress? Then what is the point of being part of the 'United' states.

Also a popular vote has its issues too. Take Brexit. That was the majority vote. Yet you had a government opposition, leader of the house of commons, media, and members of the public who vehemently would not accept that and would try at all costs to dither and delay to get a legitimate vote changed.
Will this election be a starting point that leads to a breakup of the United States?

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Interesting. I guess if one side wants to do that. Then there is nothing stopping the other side doing the same.

If we move to a system where the majority vote counts and not a electoral college. Then how do issues that belong to states with small populations get represented in congress? Then what is the point of being part of the 'United' states.

A compromise would be to leave senate as-is (two senators per state regardless of size), but change the executive branch to be popular vote. That way smaller states still have a significant voice in Congress while allowing the presidency to be decided with all votes being completely equal

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Interesting. I guess if one side wants to do that. Then there is nothing stopping the other side doing the same.

If we move to a system where the majority vote counts and not a electoral college. Then how do issues that belong to states with small populations get represented in congress? Then what is the point of being part of the 'United' states.

Also a popular vote has its issues too. Take Brexit. That was the majority vote. Yet you had a government opposition, leader of the house of commons, media, and members of the public who vehemently would not accept that and would try at all costs to dither and delay to get a legitimate vote changed.
Will this election be a starting point that leads to a breakup of the United States?

"Red" states do not participate because historically, most republican presidential victories do not have the popular vote. The GOP are also by far the worst gerrymanderers, and have also opposed every single election bill that would bolster the mutual fairness of any given election (including election security bills). The more fair or secure an election gets, the less chance they have of winning, which is why you see almost entirely blue states on the NPVIC.

An objectively perfect way to vote is the ranked choice system, I think Australia uses it along with a handful of other countries. Ranked choice voting has also been shot down by the GOP.

The US Election system is so complicated and messed up, I have no idea what will happen to it over time haha.

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

, and have also opposed every single election bill that would bolster the mutual fairness

Sounds a lot like "waaaaaah, the rules of the game are rigged against me!" But ok.

Republicans are all for making voting more secure. In person voting, mandatory gov ID.

[max_boost]

lol popular vote, give all illegals citizenship, the Republicans will NEVER win another election lol

The Dems so hurt over ACB but can't do anything about it lol

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"Red" states do not participate because historically, most republican presidential victories do not have the popular vote. The GOP are also by far the worst gerrymanderers, and have also opposed every single election bill that would bolster the mutual fairness of any given election (including election security bills). The more fair or secure an election gets, the less chance they have of winning, which is why you see almost entirely blue states on the NPVIC.

An objectively perfect way to vote is the ranked choice system, I think Australia uses it along with a handful of other countries. Ranked choice voting has also been shot down by the GOP.

The US Election system is so complicated and messed up, I have no idea what will happen to it over time haha.

If they changed all of these factors, do you think that the US would become a one-party state with the Democrats the only remaining party?

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they changed all of these factors, do you think that the US would become a one-party state with the Democrats the only remaining party?

Im trying to figure out how any of this is different than gerrymandering

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they changed all of these factors, do you think that the US would become a one-party state with the Democrats the only remaining party?

Definitely not, but it would ensure representation is as fair for both parties as it could reasonably be with regards to the public's wishes. An extreme example, but nobody should be able to win an election with ~23% of the popular vote.

The biggest problem IMO is how deeply rooted and divided the 2 party system is, to the point that people don't even care who or what they are voting for.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This theory has been debunked. The prosecutor was not looking into Burisma at the time and he was fired because he was corrupt himself. There was pressure from a lot of groups such as IMF, EU, Republican-led congress, etc to fire him - not just by Joe Biden/Obama Admin.

Do you really think financial authorities wouldn't notice a random billion dollar payment to an ex VP and Presidential candidate? Barr's Justice Department would have found it by now, no question about it.

Just more baseless conspiracy theories from Giuliani. The guy is getting played like a fiddle by all his foreign "sources" and it's almost sad to watch a guy who was once beloved by America unravel like this.

Ok so which billion dollars is it that Biden is talking about in regards to getting rid of the prosecutor, on the phone call that you can listen to yourself? The phone call is not a conspiracy when any one of us can go on the internet and listen to the damn thing. I'm wide open to other rational theories about what this call means and is about, but I certainly haven't heard any.

[Buster]

Did people seriously think that Biden was less corrupt than Trump or Hillary?

[The_Rural_Juror]

The most corrupt person of the last few administrations is Michelle Obama. I heard she tried to claim tax write-offs for her vegetable garden and she was probably in the pockets of the quinoa cartel.

[Power_Of_Rotary]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did people seriously think that Biden was less corrupt than Trump or Hillary?

Word... I honestly dont think trump is "corrupt". If he was, he would not go against China. Instead, he could just take billions and let China continue to bribe their way to world domination.

[Misterman]

So speaking of corruption. There is a waterfall of information coming out against just how bad Biden really is. Hunters business partner has flipped and is giving them 26,000 emails, they found a 2nd laptop now, etc. This is getting awful close to election, how bad is this going to hurt Biden? Twitter is doing their best to hide this information, which ironically is making it a huge news story now. With Biden dropping in the polls in 6 key states things already do not look good for him. Is everyone else seeing as much news on this Biden corruption as I am? I know our newsfeeds all look different based on what the social platform algos think we want to see.

[dirtsniffer]

Apparently that was a Russia plant

[The_Rural_Juror]

Nonsense. Old Rudy would never fall for that. Besides. Rusher promised not to influence the election.