Poll: did Trump really win the 2020 election?

[Foxi4]

This can essentially be shortened to, "I want fewer people to vote and/or have access to voting." I've touched on this subject before, and when your party needs to rely on voter suppression tactics to even have an outside shot at winning, that's a bad position to be in. The only chance we might have of saving the Republican party from itself is abolishing the electoral college, so that they can finally come to grips with just how outdated and irrelevant their current platform is and make the necessary adjustments.

Oh, if that was your question then I would've answered it more directly - I absolutely want less people to vote. I'm not a huge fan of the democratic process - it's a shitty system, it just happens to be the best system we've come up with so far. I'm not ashamed that - I've held this opinion for as long as I can remember and wear it as a badge of honor. I find the fact that a successful individual who contributes to society both economically and socially has the same voting right as a bum smoking crack on a street corner unconscionable. There are voters all across the globe whose pattern of bad life decisions makes them ineligible to own a firearm or operate a motor vehicle, but they can pull the trigger on elections and steer the direction of the country - a cynic such as myself finds that curious, to say the least. It's not a particularly popular opinion, but I've never been bothered by that. Sadly it's not a problem we can fix easily.

In regards to the EC, it is a quintessential institution that serves to balance the power of individual states. The United States of America are not homogenous - the country is divided into states with very different socio-economic structures and legislatures, and they all have to have a balanced say in how the country is ran on a federal level. Not only do I not want it gone - I hope against hope that similar mechanisms will be implemented in other countries where more populous urban areas dictate what kind of regulation should affect less populous rural areas in spite of the fact that the lives they live are very different.

 

[tatripp]

I'm not sure who really won the election.
1) I do not trust the main stream media. They have proven many times that they are biased against Trump. They have compared him to Hitler many times. I believe that many people believe that Trump is just like Hitler and will be willing to cheat. Even now, they are ignoring what are voting irregularities at the best and fraud at the worst.
2) There is definitely fraud- The Heritage Foundation has been documenting fraud for a long time, and you can even get specific information about the particulars of each case. There is definitely fraud on both sides of the aisle? Is there enough fraud to overturn what looks to be a Joe Biden win? I don't know.
3) There is a lot of fake news right now from the main stream media as well as from conservative outlets. There is a ton of selection bias on both sides. The right is pointing to everything as fraud even when they clearly aren't. The left is ignoring actual sketchy issues (fraud or irregularities) by pretending like they don't exist at all.
4) Trump's legal team is making big claims. If they don't provide better evidence than they already have, I am not buying that there is a lot of widespread fraud. At this point, they better have something huge (yuge?) or else they will lose all credibility.
5) Everyone is a stupid idiot. People aren't thinking clearly and are seeking evidence to substantiate their prior beliefs.
6) I will accept the Biden/Harris victory if the courts substantiate it.

If I had to guess (without much evidence), Joe Biden probably won the election. I wouldn't be surprised if there was substantial fraud which helped Joe Biden. I also wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of the fraud claims are just misunderstandings of the process and are not actually fraud.

 

[gregory-samba]

I don't mind the electoral college because it prevents a bunch of perverted dope fiends from LA, NY or Denver from deciding who represents the rest of the country. Popular vote might work if there weren't 50 separate states.

I also love the anti-Conservative logic coming from the Liberals. It's the same logic used when attacking anything Trump does or says, regardless if the decision helped or didn't help citizens of our country. The Conservatives claim there is voter fraud so the Liberals auto-default to there was no voter fraud at all. What's even more hilarious is that we're discussing this on a site decided to finding and exploiting electronics. Remind me again, are the voting machines electronic? Heh.

I also want to remind everyone again that Biden has not officially won. The Electoral College still has to cast their vote. Biden being "projected" to win by the Liberal media isn't the same thing as Biden actually winning.

 

[djpannda]

I don't mind the electoral college because it prevents a bunch of perverted dope fiends from LA, NY or Denver from deciding who represents the rest of the country. Popular vote might work if there weren't 50 separate states.

I also love the anti-Conservative logic coming from the Liberals. It's the same logic used when attacking anything Trump does or says, regardless if the decision helped or didn't help citizens of our country. The Conservatives claim there is voter fraud so the Liberals auto-default to there was no voter fraud at all. What's even more hilarious is that we're discussing this on a site decided to finding and exploiting electronics. Remind me again, are the voting machines electronic? Heh.

I also want to remind everyone again that Biden has not officially won. The Electoral College still has to cast their vote. Biden being "projected" to win by the Liberal media isn't the same thing as Biden actually winning.

yes because WE AMERICANS BELIEVE 25,000 voters from IADHO, are worth more then 16million in CA ..because you know CA full of those COLOReds folks

 

[Foxi4]

yes because WE AMERICANS BELIEVE 25,000 voters from IADHO, are worth more then 16million in CA ..because you know CA full of those COLOReds folks

It has less to do with the total numbers and more to do with Idaho having the same right to influence national policy as Colorado, as collectives and wholly different legal entities. Every state is different and should have equal footing in representing their interests on the national stage.

Also, a bit racist with the capitalisation there, but I'll let it slide - I assume you're making some kind of commentary on racism rather than disparaging different ethnicities.

 

[Xzi]

Oh, if that was your question then I would've answered it more directly - I absolutely want less people to vote. I'm not a huge fan of the democratic process - it's a shitty system, it just happens to be the best system we've come up with so far. I'm not ashamed that - I've held this opinion for as long as I can remember and wear it as a badge of honor. I find the fact that a successful individual who contributes to society both economically and socially has the same voting right as a bum smoking crack on a street corner unconscionable. There are voters all across the globe whose pattern of bad life decisions makes them ineligible to own a firearm or operate a motor vehicle, but they can pull the trigger on elections and steer the direction of the country - a cynic such as myself finds that curious, to say the least. It's not a particularly popular opinion, but I've never been bothered by that. Sadly it's not a problem we can fix easily.

I take far less issue with a crackhead voting than I do with a crackhead being elected president. Nobody denies GWB's "extracurriculars" during his college years, and Trump's signature *SNIFF* is also unmistakable for someone who has destroyed the lining of their nostrils. If Republicans can't even pick a president who isn't a total joke, I'm not sure why you'd have any faith in them to pick a dictator for life. We'd probably end up nuking ourselves within a year of him taking power.

In regards to the EC, it is a quintessential institution that serves to balance the power of individual states. The United States of America are not homogenous - the country is divided into states with very different socio-economic structures and legislatures, and they all have to have a balanced say in how the country is ran on a federal level. Not only do I not want it gone - I hope against hope that similar mechanisms will be implemented in other countries where more populous urban areas dictate what kind of regulation should affect less populous rural areas in spite of the fact that the lives they live are very different.

The president doesn't micromanage every rural farm in America, that's what state and local government is there for. That's also why majority rule is the only thing that makes sense on the federal level. Should the nightmare scenario come to pass where a candidate wins with only around 30% of the popular vote, that's a recipe for instant civil war. Abolishing the electoral college would be the easiest and most correct thing to do, but short of that, at the very least we need to update the EC value for each state to better reflect their current populations.

 

[Foxi4]

The president doesn't micromanage every rural farm in America, that's what state and local government is there for. That's also why majority rule is the only thing that makes sense on the federal level. Should the nightmare scenario come to pass where a candidate wins with only around 30% of the popular vote, that's a recipe for instant civil war. Abolishing the electoral college would be the easiest and most correct thing to do, but short of that, at the very least we need to update the EC value for each state to better reflect their current populations.

The president presides over the country as chief executive and the commander-in-chief. A popular vote makes sense on a state level where state representatives are selected to represent their individual constituents - on a national level the president represents *all* of the states and as such each individual state has the exact same vested interest in making the right choice. The level or scope of power is irrelevant here, it's a unique position when compared to other positions in the federal government. The EC is necessary for electing the president for the same reason why it would be unacceptable when electing a congressman - a congressman represents *their* state and other states should have no say in the selection process, the president represents all states and all states should have an equal, weighted say. I would treat any other setup as inherently unfair to less populous states that would instantly lose their say in the selection process.

 

[gregory-samba]

What I find amusing about the Liberals disdain for the Electoral College is the fact they were and are fine with it when their candidate wins. Most Liberals online now are claiming Biden got the most Electoral College votes so he won. That would be true if the Electoral College voted already, but they haven't. However, the overall mood from the Left has changed once again because after all - it's their candidate who is most likely going to win.

 

[Xzi]

I would treat any other setup as inherently unfair to less populous states that would instantly lose their say in the selection process.

One person = one vote is as fair as it gets. As things stand now with FPTP, votes from the minority party in any given state are essentially thrown out. Meaning that if you're a Democrat in a solid red state or a Republican in a solid blue state, you never had a say in the selection process to begin with.

 

[smf]

Why does the poll only have the option for not supporting Trump but thinking Biden won?

What about people who hate Trump but believe what he's saying about voter fraud???

What I find amusing about the Liberals disdain for the Electoral College is the fact they were and are fine with it when their candidate wins.

I find this amusing.

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

....just the large States - the Cities would end up running the Country. Smaller States & the entire Midwest would end up losing all power - & we can’t let that happen. I used to like the idea of the Popular Vote, but now realize the Electoral College is far better for the U.S.A.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2019

Although Donald Trump does seem to have missed that the larger states do have more control with the electoral college. Which makes me think he defended it because he won electoral college last time while losing the popular vote.

 

[Xzi]

What about people who hate Trump but believe what he's saying about voter fraud???

Lol, all five of 'em around the globe?

 

[Foxi4]

One person = one vote is as fair as it gets. As things stand now with FPTP, votes from the minority party in any given state are essentially thrown out. Meaning that if you're a Democrat in a solid red state or a Republican in a solid blue state, you never had a say in the selection process to begin with.

All the more reason to keep it around - if a solid red state automatically gets a blue representative because the blue state on the other side of the country has a higher population, that's inherently unfair. Things would be different if the United States were a homogenous country, but they're not - the plural isn't just there for laughs, it is a union of states. Moreover, you're saying this during an election season where Georgia selected a Democratic candidate for the first time since 1992 - *clearly* voting trends change over time and things work out in the end.

I tend to use the apartment analogy in arguments like this. If you own a flat in a building of 10 flats, each flat should have 1 vote in terms of decisions that affect all residents. Even if you live by yourself and the family in flat 8 has 10 kids and the grandparents still living there, they do not and should not have an outsized influence on whether or not the roof gets repaired - there are 10 apartments and 10 votes on the matter.

 

[djpannda]

All the more reason to keep it around - if a solid red state automatically gets a blue representative because the blue state on the other side of the country has a higher population, that's inherently unfair. Things would be different if the United States were a homogenous country, but they're not - the plural isn't just there for laughs, it is a union of states. Moreover, you're saying this during an election season where Georgia selected a Democratic candidate for the first time since 1992 - *clearly* voting trends change over time and things work out in the end.

I tend to use the apartment analogy in arguments like this. If you own a flat in a building of 10 flats, each flat should have one vote in terms of decisions that affect all residents. Even if you live by yourself and the family in flat 8 has ten kids and the grandparents still living there, they do not and should not have an outsized influence on whether or not the roof gets repaired - there are 10 apartments and 10 votes on the matter.

yes.. but some of those Liberals would say at what limit do we allow a 3 states with 2-3% of the population hinder the country?
I guess they don't realized that the only voters that matter are the 2-3% of real Americans

 

[smf]

Lol, all five of 'em around the globe?

are you trying to disenfranchise them????
#stopthesteal

 

[Foxi4]

yes.. but some of those Liberals would say at what limit do we allow a 3 states with 2-3% of the population hinder the country?
I guess they don't realized that the only voters that matter are the 2-3% of real Americans

Does that matter? A state is a legal entity of 1. It is the state that picks electors, the popular vote in the state is entirely advisory. You're not choosing the president, the state does based on its election-related legislation. It is entirely possible for a state to choose electors independently of the popular vote if their legislation permits doing so, it's also permissible for electors to override the popular vote if they are empowered to do so. This is covered under Article II of the Constitution.

 

[Naxster]

Short answer: No, no he didn't...

 

[smf]

Does that matter? A state is a legal entity of 1. It is the state that picks electors, the popular vote in the state is entirely advisory. You're not choosing the president, the state does based on its election-related legislation.

Make all the voters the electors. You only need to count the popular vote.

 

[Foxi4]

Can you explain what you mean? In the president election, why is it unfair if they use the popular vote? What does it have to do with the population of each state?

I just explained it. Twice, in fact.

 

[smf]

I just explained it. Twice, in fact.

Not in any coherent way. So you get rid of the electoral college & use popular vote. Now explain why the relative population of the state makes anything unfair. Go...

The electoral college is a relic left over from a time before fast communications. You only need to send one person with one piece of information. It's just overhead now.

 

[Xzi]

All the more reason to keep it around - if a solid red state automatically gets a blue representative because the blue state on the other side of the country has a higher population, that's inherently unfair.

If there's one thing to be learned from the last four years and this election, it's that Republicans will find a way to play the victim no matter what. They might see it as unfair, but frankly that's simply because they're too stupid to think outside the box and be able to recognize how the current system is suppressing or altogether disregarding their vote.

Moreover, you're saying this during an election season where Georgia selected a Democratic candidate for the first time since 1992 - *clearly* voting trends change over time and things work out in the end.

My views on this subject are consistent regardless of who won where. Georgia flipping blue doesn't mean fewer votes get ignored, it just means a different set of votes gets ignored in that state.

I tend to use the apartment analogy in arguments like this. If you own a flat in a building of 10 flats, each flat should have one vote in terms of decisions that affect all residents. Even if you live by yourself and the family in flat 8 has ten kids and the grandparents still living there, they do not and should not have an outsized influence on whether or not the roof gets repaired - there are 10 apartments and 10 votes on the matter.

Well, perhaps we'll call to consult you if we're ever looking to be oppressed by a monarchy or dictatorship, which is all minority rule amounts to in the end. For the moment at least, democracy did its job by ousting a hateful and divisive dullard. Just because we barely staved off the apocalypse for another four years doesn't mean we should simply sit on our hands now, though. There are plenty of improvements to be made to the electoral college, assuming we're going to keep it at all. We're getting awfully close to 270 EC votes already in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.