SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[Ralin]

So, Electoral College apologists: tell me again why its so essential that tiny majorities in six states should be able to dictate the future of the entire country. Tell me how that's just.

Because the residents of those states are entitled to that degree of representation and no one has given a convincing reason to change it that doesn't boil down to them liking the popular vote more (which is a very suspect motive, given that this supposedly 'fair' procedural change would disproportionately benefit the Democratic Party). Stripping them of that representation without amending the Constitution would violate their rights, and most people have made it clear they don't support that by electing state and Congressional representatives who won't do so.

It is just that a candidate who wins the support of the majority of the electoral votes wins.

Duh.

[bilateralrope]

Because the residents of those states are entitled to that degree of representation

Why are they entitled to have their votes count for more than anyone else in the country ?

[The Romulan Republic]

So, Electoral College apologists: tell me again why its so essential that tiny majorities in six states should be able to dictate the future of the entire country. Tell me how that's just.

Because the residents of those states are entitled to that degree of representation

This is an assertion, not an argument.

WHY? Why are they entitled to more representation than the people of other states? Why are citizens of Wisconsin or Ohio or Florida or Colorado worth more than California or New York or Wyoming or Vermont natives? And don't give me that "it protects smaller states" crap- as I just noted, a Wyoming or Vermont voter's ballot is worth just about jack and shit under the current system.

Or is your argument simply "They're entitled to it because its the law"? Because yeah, no shit, its the law, but I can give you a long list of examples which call into question the notion that something is right simply because it is legal, starting with the Fugitive Slave Act.

and no one has given a convincing reason to change it that doesn't boil down to them liking the popular vote more (which is a very suspect motive, given that this supposedly 'fair' procedural change would disproportionately benefit the Democratic Party).

No one has given a convincing reason for it other than the fact that it would mean our elections actually represented the choice of the voters, rather than being glorified opinion polls? Remember that the Electors don't actually have to vote the way their states voted- they can literally ignore the voters of their states as well as the nation-wide popular vote, and appoint whoever they want. Our President is picked by an un-elected committee.

Hmm, how about the fact that it would actually likely increase voter turnout and confidence in the fairness of our elections by ensuring that every vote counted, not just the votes of people in swing states? Or that it would give candidates incentive to campaign for votes across the whole country, not just in a few key "battleground states"?

As to your insinuation that opponents of the Electoral College just want to make it easier for Democrats to win, I could just as easily turn that around and argue that the Electoral College's proponents are suspect because the Electoral College disproportionately benefits Republicans. I could also ask why, if a majority of American voters want Democratic government, they should be denied that based on the will of slim, overwhelmingly white majorities in a handful of states. Why is it okay to have a system that favors Republicans against the will of the people, but wrong to support a system that favours (for the time being) Democrats in accordance with the will of the people?

Stripping them of that representation without amending the Constitution would violate their rights, and most people have made it clear they don't support that by electing state and Congressional representatives who won't do so.

It is legally debatable whether Electors could be required to vote in accordance with the popular vote, but even if we assume that the courts rule they can't be (which I acknowledge is likely), then that still leaves open the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment, as you so helpfully pointed out.

As to the notion that the current composition of the Congress represents some sort of popular referendum on the Electoral College, its obviously absurd. By that reasoning, the public has made their will clear on literally ever single issue, supports the status quo on every single issue, and it would therefore be wrong to discuss ever changing anything, because they elected the current Congress (leaving aside for the moment that Congressional races are subject to heavy gerrymandering and voter supression in many places).

I'd absolutely welcome an actual referendum on the subject, and, funny thing, I'm going to get it. Colorado recently voted to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (which seeks to effectively nullify the Electoral College by requiring electors to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote, to take effect once states totaling at least half of all electors sign on). But it was challenged, and its going on the 2020 ballot. Which means guess what? I get to be one of the first voters in the country to vote directly on the Electoral College.

It is just that a candidate who wins the support of the majority of the electoral votes wins.

Duh.

"Its legal because its legal" is a fairly pointless argument, especially when discussing whether it should continue to be legal.

[Ralin]

Why are they entitled to have their votes count for more than anyone else in the country ?

WHY? Why are they entitled to more representation than the people of other states? Why are citizens of Wisconsin or Ohio or Florida or Colorado worth more than California or New York or Wyoming or Vermont natives? And don't give me that "it protects smaller states" crap- as I just noted, a Wyoming or Vermont voter's ballot is worth just about jack and shit under the current system.

They aren’t, which is why they don’t have it. Everyone in America receives one vote towards determining their state’s ballots in the Electoral College.

This is an assertion, not an argument.

No, it’s a fact outlined in the US Constitution.

Or is your argument simply "They're entitled to it because its the law"?

Nope.

No one has given a convincing reason for it other than the fact that it would mean our elections actually represented the choice of the voters, rather than being glorified opinion polls?

Our elections already represent the choice of the voters. Something you admitted yourself by voting in the 2016 election.

Hmm, how about the fact that it would actually likely increase voter turnout and confidence in the fairness of our elections by ensuring that every vote counted, not just the votes of people in swing states? Or that it would give candidates incentive to campaign for votes across the whole country, not just in a few key "battleground states"?

I find none of this particularly persuasive. Especially since every vote is counted in determining how that state casts their electoral ballots.

As to your insinuation that opponents of the Electoral College just want to make it easier for Democrats to win, I could just as easily turn that around and argue that the Electoral College's proponents are suspect because the Electoral College disproportionately benefits Republicans.

You could, but since one is written into the Constitution and the other isn’t the burden is on you to explain why we should change it instead of vice-versa.

I could also ask why, if a majority of American voters want Democratic government, they should be denied that based on the will of slim, overwhelmingly white majorities in a handful of states. Why is it okay to have a system that favors Republicans against the will of the people, but wrong to support a system that favours (for the time being) Democrats in accordance with the will of the people?

They shouldn’t, which is why when a Republican candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College we follow the will of the people by making them president even if the popular vote goes against them.

I'd absolutely welcome an actual referendum on the subject, and, funny thing, I'm going to get it. Colorado recently voted to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (which seeks to effectively nullify the Electoral College by requiring electors to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote, to take effect once states totaling at least half of all electors sign on). But it was challenged, and its going on the 2020 ballot. Which means guess what? I get to be one of the first voters in the country to vote directly on the Electoral College.

So basically you’re saying you’re going to vote to nullify? Good luck with that.

[bilateralrope]

They aren’t, which is why they don’t have it. Everyone in America receives one vote towards determining their state’s ballots in the Electoral College.

And those votes have different worth, depending on which state the voter is in. The closer the margin for a state, the more effect the voters in that state have. So why do voters in those swing states get to have their vote count more ?

Then you have places like Puerto Rico. Where US citizens don't get to vote at all. Why don't they get to vote for the president ?

No, it’s a fact outlined in the US Constitution.

So change the constitution to have every persons vote for president be worth the same.

Our elections already represent the choice of the voters.

How can an election represent the choice of the voters when the candidate with the most votes loses ?

They shouldn’t, which is why when a Republican candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College we follow the will of the people by making them president even if the popular vote goes against them.

More people voted for Clinton than Trump. How the fuck is that the will of the people, unless you're willing to say that some people deserve less say than others ?

You could, but since one is written into the Constitution and the other isn’t the burden is on you to explain why we should change it instead of vice-versa.

The current system gives some voters more power than other voters because of where they live. It also means that some US citizens don't get to vote at all. Do you have a problem with the idea that all votes should be equal ?

[Ziggy Stardust]

no one has given a convincing reason to change it that doesn't boil down to them liking the popular vote more

You do know this is a lie, right? Like, I realize that you're whole shtick is just being kind of a dumb troll and all, but you are aware this is just a complete fabrication? Besides the fact that on these forums we've had endless debates about the Electoral College, there is also a vast array of scholarship on the issue out there. If you aren't going to bother actually educating yourself about the issue, why should anyone listen to your whining about it? I mean, fuck, I'd be thrilled if you even took the absolute minimum amount of effort to read the Wikipedia page about it, rather than just stamping your foot and proclaiming that nobody has ever made a convincing argument against it (like the historical fact that the Electoral College system was SPECIFICALLY designed to disenfranchise slaves in southern states, but yeah surely a system whose literal purpose was to prevent black people from voting HAS to represent the will of the people, right, you dumb fuck?). I guess it's easy to be so certain in your worldview when you isolate yourself against all knowledge. I mean, based on your posts here it doesn't even seem like you know how the Electoral College even operates in the first place, nevermind its legal and moral implications.

Honestly, you might as well be supporting the 3/5 Compromise at this point, because that's also in the Constitution. Your argument is really just that stupid.

[bilateralrope]

Ralin, I have a question for you: If you have two was of calculating the winner of a vote, both taking the same votes as input, but producing different winners, how would you determine which system better represents the will of the people ?

I want to understand your thinking here.

I'm not asking any of the EC opponents to answer this question, because I'm expecting their answer to be "whichever method is closest to the popular vote".

(like the historical fact that the Electoral College system was SPECIFICALLY designed to disenfranchise slaves in southern states,

I thought they were disenfranchised by simply not being allowed to vote.
But when I look at the Electoral College combined with the 3/5 compromise, I do see a system that looks designed to boost the power of whites in slave owning states.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup, the Electoral College was created, at least in part, to advance white power, and it continues to serve its true function well.

[Ralin]

Ralin, I have a question for you: If you have two was of calculating the winner of a vote, both taking the same votes as input, but producing different winners, how would you determine which system better represents the will of the people ?

I want to understand your thinking here.

If I was designing a system from scratch I likely wouldn't come up with the Electoral College or something like it. But I'm talking about an America that did go down that route, which means that there's ample precedent that it IS the appropriate way to reflect the will of the people and that changing it without overwhelming support would violate the rights of people in states that would lose representation.

You do know this is a lie, right? Like, I realize that you're whole shtick is just being kind of a dumb troll and all,

Listen you little shit, I don't troll. Not now, not ever.

but you are aware this is just a complete fabrication? Besides the fact that on these forums we've had endless debates about the Electoral College, there is also a vast array of scholarship on the issue out there.

Let me clarify. You do realize that Rom has said many times that the Electoral College isn't just a worse method of holding presidential elections but also intrinsically unfair, right? Which implicitly means that any election that doesn't meet his personal criteria is somehow illegitimate.

[MarxII]

It's because direct democracies don't work. They just don't. It's a rule. Remember the French Revolution? That's associated with unpleasant things in my mind, therefore direct democracy is a fool's errand and we need an electoral college to prevent a gross mob from dancing a satanic orgy around the ashes of the Capitol. Both Charles Dickens and a nice man from Prager University said so.

[The Romulan Republic]

Let me clarify. You do realize that Rom has said many times that the Electoral College isn't just a worse method of holding presidential elections but also intrinsically unfair, right? Which implicitly means that any election that doesn't meet his personal criteria is somehow illegitimate.

So you respond to someone pointing out a demonstrable falsehood on your part with an flimsy straw man/ad hominem attack on a completely different poster?

Go fuck yourself.

[The Romulan Republic]

Back to general election news: Buttigieg is out as mayor- I presume to focus fully on his Presidential campaign. His chief of staff won the special election in South Bend in a landslide:

https://southbendtribune.com/news/local ... 83fac.html

Also, Buttigieg is going to have an advantage leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire, as is Biden. That being that the Senate will be holding an impeachment trial most likely early in the New Year, and that will take Sanders, Warren, Harris, and Booker, as sitting Senators, off the campaign trail to attend the trial. Meaning that Biden and Buttigieg will basically have a clear run of Iowa and New Hampshire without much competition from the other heavyweights/mid-tier candidates.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Listen you little shit, I don't troll. Not now, not ever.

Lol

Let me clarify. You do realize that Rom has said many times that the Electoral College isn't just a worse method of holding presidential elections but also intrinsically unfair, right? Which implicitly means that any election that doesn't meet his personal criteria is somehow illegitimate.

Let me clarify. You realize there's a difference between asking TRR specifically to justify his arguments and making broad sweeping generalizations that nobody has ever come up with any possible critiques of the Electoral College so we should all just live with it because it's in the Constitution, right?

[Ralin]

Let me clarify. You realize there's a difference between asking TRR specifically to justify his arguments and making broad sweeping generalizations that nobody has ever come up with any possible critiques of the Electoral College so we should all just live with it because it's in the Constitution, right?

There haven't been any reasons that I have found convincing that the Electoral College is obviously unjust and should be abolished, or that I would expect to convince people who would lose weight in presidential elections to voluntarily accept decreased representation as would be necessary to amend the Constitution to make that happy.

Happy now?

[The Romulan Republic]

Listen you little shit, I don't troll. Not now, not ever.

Lol

Let me clarify. You do realize that Rom has said many times that the Electoral College isn't just a worse method of holding presidential elections but also intrinsically unfair, right? Which implicitly means that any election that doesn't meet his personal criteria is somehow illegitimate.

Let me clarify. You realize there's a difference between asking TRR specifically to justify his arguments and making broad sweeping generalizations that nobody has ever come up with any possible critiques of the Electoral College so we should all just live with it because it's in the Constitution, right?

In any case, he's full of shit either way, as I've offered plenty of factual arguments against the Electoral College on various occassions (which he has dishonestly ignored), and his rebuttal here is basically a thinly-veiled attack on my motives which implies that one should not criticize any electoral system for being unfair, no matter how rigged it is.

[TimothyC]

Mayor Pete pulls ahead in latest Iowa poll

Pete Buttigieg has rocketed to the top of the latest Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll in the latest reshuffling of the top tier of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

Since September, Buttigieg has risen 16 percentage points among Iowa’s likely Democratic caucusgoers, with 25% now saying he is their first choice for president. For the first time in the Register’s Iowa Poll, he bests rivals Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who are now clustered in competition for second place and about 10 percentage points behind the South Bend, Indiana, mayor.

Warren, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, led the September Iowa Poll, when 22% said she was their first choice. In this poll, her support slips to 16%. Former Vice President Biden, who led the Register’s first three Iowa Polls of the 2020 caucus cycle, has continued to slide, falling 5 percentage points to 15%. Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, also garners 15% — a 4 percentage point rise.

Those four candidates began to pull away from the crowded field of Democrats and separate into a top tier of contenders in June's Iowa Poll. Biden, Warren and now Buttigieg have all taken turns atop the poll, with Sanders consistently in the top four.

This latest poll underscores that separation. The group’s next-closest competitor, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, trails well behind, at 6%.

“This is the first poll that shows Buttigieg as a stand-alone front-runner,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “There have been four candidates that have sort of jostled around in a pack together, but he has a sizable lead over the nearest contender — 9 points. So this is a new status for him.”

At 3% are U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, billionaire businessman Tom Steyer and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

Former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who moved toward a late entry into the presidential primaries last week, is at 2%.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado follows at 1%. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, former housing secretary Julián Castro and former U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania round to 0%.

Former U.S. Rep. John Delaney of Maryland and author Marianne Williamson were not named as a first choice by any poll respondents.

More respondents — 30% now, compared with 20% in September — say they have a first choice and their minds are made up. That still leaves ample opportunity for more surges and slides in the two-and-a-half months before the caucuses: 62% say they have a first choice but could still be persuaded, 1% are unsure and 7% have not made a first choice. In September, 16% of caucusgoers said they had not made a first choice.

The poll of 500 likely Democratic caucusgoers was conducted Nov. 8-13 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup.

I think its likely that Pete Buttigieg will emerge as the surprise winner in Iowa, though Biden, Bernie, and Warren will likely all get some delegates as well.

The problem is whether Buttigieg can translate that into momentum that leads to ultimate victory- this seems unlikely to me as unlike Obama (another young new comer who's unexpected victory in Iowa launched him to the nomination), Buttigieg's numbers with the black vote have been abysmal, and the black vote is important enough in a Democratic primary that its highly unlikely that he could get the nomination without massive improvement in that area.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, Harris is polling equal to Tulsi "Russian Asset" Gabbard in Iowa.

Ouch.

[Elfdart]

Harris and Clinton are both Tulsi Gabbard's best assets. At the rate they're going, she'll end up with at least a cabinet post.

[Elfdart]

Mayor Pete pulls ahead in latest Iowa poll

Pete Buttigieg looks like the Nice Guy Who's Actually Guilty in every whodunit movie of the past 100 years.

Tony Goldwyn must hate his guts.

[Darth Yan]

Back to general election news: Buttigieg is out as mayor- I presume to focus fully on his Presidential campaign. His chief of staff won the special election in South Bend in a landslide:

https://southbendtribune.com/news/local ... 83fac.html

Also, Buttigieg is going to have an advantage leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire, as is Biden. That being that the Senate will be holding an impeachment trial most likely early in the New Year, and that will take Sanders, Warren, Harris, and Booker, as sitting Senators, off the campaign trail to attend the trial. Meaning that Biden and Buttigieg will basically have a clear run of Iowa and New Hampshire without much competition from the other heavyweights/mid-tier candidates.

Might not be enough. Biden's been doing badly in general lately in the polls so I don't see him winning. It also depends on WHEN the trial is held.

[Gandalf]

I'll freely admit that I didn't see this happening. Presumably he's just the nicest vanilla of the Democratic candidates?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll freely admit that I didn't see this happening. Presumably he's just the nicest vanilla of the Democratic candidates?

He's tacked Center in the primary, and he's a white guy from the Midwest, so kinda. He does also have a few things going for him, though: he'd be the first openly-LGBT major candidate for President, he's got military experience, and he's genuinely very intelligent and articulate (like Warren, he seems to have a good grasp on the details of policy). He's also young, a newcomer, and while lack of experience could hurt him a little, he avoids two of Biden's major weaknesses (age and decades of baggage).

His main weaknesses are the aforementioned lack of experience (not that that's really a point Donald fucking Trump can use against him), more seriously, his utterly abysmal numbers with the black vote, which aren't helped by some issues with policing/black lives matter in his home town.

[His Divine Shadow]

So Warren released some specifics on her M4A plans and it seems to have backfired from what I can see, people aren't happy with this, I've personally seen several Warren supporters actually apologise for supporting Warren now.

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1195370950700732416

[The Romulan Republic]

There is always a certain amount of negotiation and compromise in any campaign. Yes, even Bernie Sanders'. Warren is still a very strong candidate with solid policies on many issues, outflanked Sanders to the Left on impeachment and immigration (but of course rule of law and civil rights are irrelevant distractions to single-issue economics or "anti-establishment" voters), and I'm betting most of the complaints are from hardline Sanders supporters who think anyone other than Bernie is No Different From the Republicans.

Edit: Note, this is not a critique of Bernie himself. He and Warren have done an admirable job of remaining respectful to one another and avoiding needlessly dividing the progressive base.