Poll: did Trump really win the 2020 election?

[Foxi4]

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.

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.

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.

That movement does sadden me, I'm not going to lie. The EC is an excellent institution that should be emulated by other countries, not rejected. It makes perfect sense in the context of multiple states, each with their own diverse legislatures, coming together to federate under one federal government. It's a step backwards, not forwards, and will result in mob rule over middle America, the antithesis of democracy as it was practiced in Greek city states.

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.

The interests of rural states like Alabama do not align with the interests of heavily urbanised ones like New York. I've explored this already and feel no need to elaborate on that concept - if you think that day to day life looks the same in California as it does in Alaska, you're the one who should substantiate that because it's ridiculous. All those diverse populations with vastly different living conditions, social structures and local legislation have very different interests and should have an equal right in terms of choosing the one person who represents the entire nation. If you find that "incoherent", that's fine - I'm under no obligation to walk you through it, you can just read the constitution in your spare time. The apartment argument perfectly illustrates why a household with 10 residents shouldn't have an outsized influence compared to a household with only 1, the same applies to states. Each apartment operates as a legal institution of 1 and pays 1 rent - they get 1 vote regardless of the number of residents. The same principle applies directly to states. Should the Electoral College ever be overruled by states that wish to exert outsized influence on the rest of the republic, I will be the first to advocate for secession as the EC is the only institution that keeps the balance of power in check in terms of selecting the president. I always find it funny that Democrats accuse Trump of undermining the country when they're the ones openly attacking the country's constitutionally enshrined institutions.

 

[Xzi]

mob rule

AKA majority rule. AKA democracy. Again, if you're in the position of fearing that democracy might ultimately be the downfall of your political party in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, ya dun fucked up more than a few hundred times along the way.

I can't fix the Republican party for them, and Republicans seem to have no interest in fixing the party for themselves, either. If their only candidates from here on out are D-list celebrities utilizing a brute force version of the Southern Strategy, good luck to them ever winning another presidential election, electoral college or no. That's a big part of why I'd prefer we abolish it ASAP, though: you can't have only one fully-functioning, policy-based political party of adults in a democracy. Switching to popular vote might be the only thing we can do to try to jar them out of this haze of stupidity. Well, that or start forming some new political parties to strip away Republican support from here on out little by little, but that seems far less likely given how much both Ds and Rs continue to benefit from a two-party system.

 

[Foxi4]

AKA majority rule. AKA democracy. Again, if you're in the position of fearing that democracy might ultimately be the downfall of your political party in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, ya dun fucked up more than a few hundred times along the way.

I can't fix the Republican party for them, and Republicans seem to have no interest in fixing the party for themselves, either. If their only candidates from here on out are D-list celebrities utilizing a brute force version of the Southern Strategy, good luck to them ever winning another presidential election, electoral college or no. That's a big part of why I'd prefer we abolish it ASAP, though: you can't have only one fully-functioning, policy-based political party of adults in a democracy. Switching to popular vote might be the only thing we can do to try to jar them out of this haze of stupidity. Well, that or start forming some new political parties to strip away Republican support from here on out little by little, but that seems far less likely given how much both Ds and Rs continue to benefit from a two-party system.

Uhh... I'm not a Republican. In fact, I'm not even an American. It just so happens that a Republican candidate represented my interests this time around - I was a big fan of Bill Clinton and the policy under his watch, and I wasn't interested in how many times he was blown in the oval office. To be fair though, if Clinton ran today he's be considered a moderate Republican, but that's another subject entirely. I'm not at all worried about the GOP - their substantial wins in the House and Senate in spite of projections that the Democrats will sweep both houses show that the rest of your country doesn't resonate with the radical policy that's being put forward and on show by contemporary Democrats. This election was a referendum on Trump, "Trump hating" won against "Trump loving", but the remainder of the votes down the ballot are evidence that the country is still on its way to normalcy, and that course isn't going to change even in the absence of the EC, should the Democrats somehow manage to amend the constitution or circumvent it. I think it's hilarious that you support a compact that, by design, is meant to overrule the voice of a given state's constituents in favour of the national popular vote, directly overriding what the constituents have voted for. I hope the state legislatures that sign onto it will have their feet put to the fire for betraying the trust of the people they were elected to represent.

 

[Taleweaver]

You may very well be right. Link

(didn't have time to properly reply earlier)

Okay...there's only so much bullshit I tend to believe. It's very similar with republicans: if there is voter fraud, the general idea of the fraudeurs is to AT LEAST TRY AND HIDE IT! I already made fun of that anonymous poll worker that claimed to see voter ballots being ripped up in a van DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE POLLING STATION, clearly labeled BIDEN-HARRIS. Life isn't some sixties batman episode where you can instantly recognize bank robbers because they are the only one within a state radius wearing skimasks on a sunny day and carrying bags with dollar signs on their back.

So my bullshit radar went through the roof with that link. I hear all this credo's of "safest elections ever", "everyone was allowed to check everything" and "look...you could even watch our webcam stream of election day!" that thoroughly erode all the fanclub claims of corruption(1). I mean...what's the count now? 17 lost Trump cases to zero? 19? Yeah...if it wasn't the closest watched election day in history then, it is certainly on it's way now.


...but somehow this independent English site wants me to believe that in the next-door US election, some yahoo just planted a fake name on the ballot with the intention to mislead voters because he had the same name as the democratic nominee? Yeah...must be British humor. I already envision their news studio:

"I'd say, Owen. With all these US stories of ballots getting both "found" and "mysteriously lost", wouldn't it be easy to cheat in an unforeseen way that's so obvious that nobody thought of it?"
"Why what do you mean, dear Harry? Like telling people to vote for Donald G. Trump Donald J. Trump ?"
"Why yes, that's an even better idea! That way, it would create confusion to those not too familiar, and thus would effectively lose votes!"
"Well...but it would be absolutely ridiculous, right?"
"exactly! I'll make an article for it for our april fool's joke issue."
"Wouldn't that be too late?"
"Not the way they're dragging things along, mate. Those blokes'll be going 'at it for some time more, I tell ya."
"Well...okay. Write ahead. But make sure to mark it not for publishing."
"Why certainly, luv."

<*two days later*>

"...how come my joke article was printed as real news? "



...but I totally digress. The thing is: I didn't believe that article for a second. So the race is THIRTYONE votes different between the major candidates, but a plant that literally HAS NOT CAMPAIGNED, doesn't reply and (from the looks of it) DOESN'T EVEN EXIST got 6'300 votes? Yeah...it doesn't take a genius that at least half (and I'm VERY generous here) wanted to vote for Rodriguez but weren't sure of his first name. But really: why would this guy be on the fucking ballot in the first place? I mean...can I really just register as Mitch Connell in Kentucky and steal exercise American freedom to just leech off people's popularity(2)?

You can probably guess why I'm ranting here, can you? It's because oh, yeah...once you dig in local newspapers, the article's reported all right.

So congratulations, USA. Just when foreigners thought things couldn't get any dumber, you put down your beer and dug somewhat deeper.



(1): okay, I'm not really honest with that insult there. I've heard that story of the Texan ambassador promising a million dollars to anyone who can prove election fraud. Fuck...if I was a poll worker on election day, I'd fabricate bullshit as well. It may be against my best interest, any form of ethics I have and would make me a huge hypocrite...but with one million dollars I don't mind trying to disprove reality. So those that are trying might not like Trump any more than the average American...but at least I can't blame 'em.
(2): admitted: I have no idea WHY Mitch is popular. The guy makes Jaba The Hutt look energized and understandable

 

[Gedi223]

Your survey is flawed. There should be an option "I am not a Trump supporter, but believe there is enough doubt that the election results need an independent review."

 

[Xzi]

Uhh... I'm not a Republican. In fact, I'm not even an American. It just so happens that a Republican candidate represented my interests this time around - I was a big fan of Bill Clinton and the policy under his watch, and I wasn't interested in how many times he was blown in the oval office.

I know you aren't, you're more of a libertarian in the global sense (calling you an American libertarian would be an insult since most of them just want to diddle kids). A number of your talking points do align closely with American Republicans nonetheless.

I'm not at all worried about the GOP - their substantial wins in the House and Senate in spite of projections that the Democrats will sweep both houses show that the rest of your country doesn't resonate with the radical policy that's being put forward and on show by contemporary Democrats.

Only one problem: Biden is center-right. Which means Trump lost this election by being outflanked from all directions, and the small number of actual American leftists was barely a factor at all. The closest thing to "radical" in the Democratic party is Medicare-for-all, and every single proponent of that won reelection, even those running in deep red areas of the country.

Regardless, my point stands: we need at LEAST two parties putting up a worthwhile platform every election cycle for democracy to continue functioning. If a Republican somehow manages to get elected while the party is still acting like a toddler born in the 1890s, that can only do even more damage and accelerate the collapse of this country as a whole. One of two major political parties huffing paint 24/7 quickly becomes a problem for everybody in the country, even when they're the minority party.

 

[smf]

The interests of rural states like Alabama do not align with the interests of heavily urbanised ones like New York.

Electoral college is worse for your argument.

Alabama have 9 electoral college votes for a population of 4.903 million
New York has 29 electoral college votes for a population of 19.45 million

If 51% of New York (9.9195 million) vote democrat they have 3.2 times the representation in the electoral college than even if 100% of Alabama (4.903 million) vote republican. While the new york republicans (9.5305 million) don't get any representation in the college at all.

I agree with 2012 Trump, it's anti democratic.

And your argument is incoherent because what you're suggesting doesn't meet the objectives you want. Using the popular vote does achieve the objectives. You either need to stop supporting the electoral college or change the argument why you say the US should continue using the electoral college.

Some arguments for the electoral college:
1. last time we won the presidency even though we lost the popular vote and maybe we can do that again.
2. it's how we've always done it and I don't like change.

 

[Foxi4]

Electoral college is worse for your argument.

Alabama have 9 electoral college votes for a population of 4.903 million
New York has 29 electoral college votes for a population of 19.45 million

If 51% of New York (9.9195 million) vote democrat they have 3.2 times the representation in the electoral college than even if 100% of Alabama (4.903 million) vote republican.

I agree with 2012 Trump, it's anti democratic.

Nobody said the states should have the exact same amount of votes, influence in this sense is weighted, based on the rules outlined in the constitution.

I know you aren't, you're more of a libertarian in the global sense (calling you an American libertarian would be an insult since most of them just want to diddle kids). A number of your talking points do align closely with American Republicans nonetheless.


Only one problem: Biden is center-right. Which means Trump lost this election by being outflanked from all directions, and the small number of actual American leftists was barely a factor at all. The closest thing to "radical" in the Democratic party is Medicare-for-all, and every single proponent of that won reelection, even those running in deep red areas of the country.

Regardless, my point stands: we need at LEAST two parties putting up a worthwhile platform every election cycle for democracy to continue functioning. If a Republican somehow manages to get elected while the party is still acting like a toddler born in the 1890s, that can only do even more damage and accelerate the collapse of this country as a whole. One of two major political parties huffing paint 24/7 quickly becomes a problem for everybody in the country, even when they're the minority party.

I am all for both parties putting forward worthwhile platforms, competition is always good. Where we differ is in the evaluation of those platforms - the Democratic party spent the last four years throwing screeching tantrums and undermining the country's institutions. Both the Democratic party and the Republican party are awful, they just happen to be the biggest. It's always a choice between two evils, balancing which one seems lesser, when in a healthy democracy the voter should be focused on the platforms offered to them. I also disagree with the assertion that the Libertarian Party wants to overwhelmingly diddle kids - put kids in indentured servitude rolling American cigars, or in canneries, maybe, but not necessarily molest. They are a laughing stock though, McAfee 2024.

 

[smf]

Nobody said the states should have the exact same amount of votes, influence in this sense is weighted, based on the rules outlined in the constitution.

I see you went for my option "it's how we've always done it and I don't like change....."

because earlier you said....

"All those diverse populations with vastly different living conditions, social structures and local legislation have very different interests and should have an equal right in terms of choosing the one person who represents the entire nation."

So you're taking that back? Do you see now why your argument is incoherent?

How are weighted votes democratic?

And how is 51% of the voters in a state getting all of the electoral votes democratic?

Republicans are obsessed with mail in ballots nullifying their votes, but it's the electoral college that disenfranchises them.

 

[Foxi4]

I see you went for my option "it's how we've always done it and I don't like change....."

because earlier you said....

"All those diverse populations with vastly different living conditions, social structures and local legislation have very different interests and should have an equal right in terms of choosing the one person who represents the entire nation."

So you're taking that back? Do you see now why your argument is incoherent?

How are weighted votes democratic?

Because it was democratically negotiated at the time of writing and ratified. You do make a valid point, I wouldn't necessarily be against giving each state one electoral vote, but I have a feeling Democrats wouldn't want that as they may as well disband entirely if that was the case.

 

[notimp]

Now explain why the relative population of the state makes anything unfair. Go...

I can do that.

There is a huge difference in how people live in cities, compared to rural populations. In many countries of the western world, living outside cities, and outside an industrial belt, has to be subsidized. Because lets say major source of income is farming, farming products arent competitive with world market prices - but if farmers would 'die out', so would the entire rural economy. Farmers just picked as one example, not 'the example'.

Lawmakers have almost no connection to that world. If they'd make laws going by what they experience as reference - there would be a bias towards structural investment in large cities and industry - feedback loops would be about large city life and industry. People in rural areas would be overlooked.

As they have a tendency to be overlooked in any case - and as 'not being connected to any major driver of economic activity' they actually can serve as a good 'early indicator' of aspects in your economy that might be wrongly weighted, without spiking into one direction because of direct involvement.

They are 'a better subset to gage peoples satisfaction levels on'.than people in large cities. (If you are optimizing for best 'average'.)

Also - if those people are upset enough that they revolt, they take the cities down with them. (US depends on their belts.)

If you get out of your head, that this is a fight between two camps (dems, reps), you might find, that it has benefits.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Because it was democratically negotiated at the time of writing and ratified.

PR.

You dont even know how laws are argued at that level. You think that its pathos. How cute.

Its because 'american people' and history, and chance.. No its not.

 

[smf]

Because it was democratically negotiated at the time of writing and ratified.

Why do you keep holding elections then? If democracy is decided the first time you make a choice then you don't need to keep doing it. You should scrap all amendments too, because the constitution was ratified.

If you had a vote to deny votes from a minority and it passed, then the result wouldn't be democratic even though a majority voted for it. By definition it's undemocratic.

I am still waiting for a coherent argument for why the electoral college should continue rather than using the popular vote. You can't just say that they need to be weighted, you need to provide an argument for why they need to be weighted. Why a person in one state should have more of a say than a person in another state. The past is not an argument for it, I've proved that the status quo is undemocratic with maths.

Only with a coherent argument can you actually persuade me, because I don't have a mad man on twitter telling me what to think.

 

[Xzi]

Where we differ is in the evaluation of those platforms - the Democratic party spent the last four years throwing screeching tantrums and undermining the country's institutions

Where we differ then is in our observation of reality, because forget undermining them, Trump literally dismantled every government and government-adjacent institution he possibly could. State department, CDC, intelligence agencies, take your pick. "Shrink government down to the size you can drown in it in a bathtub," remember? I'm sure you know that's their goal as well as I, Republicans want total corporate rule over the US. And if someone like Putin or Xinnie the Pooh wants to then step in to fill that leadership gap: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I also disagree with the assertion that the Libertarian Party wants to overwhelmingly diddle kids

Functionally there is no libertarian party in the US any more, at least not one that holds any real positions of power. Rand Paul was the last congressman to claim to be libertarian, and he's the biggest neocon of all. The scattered few who do still identify as libertarian only care about two issues, or one of the two: lowering age of consent and/or legalizing various drugs. At least, that's the running joke...seems pretty accurate in my experience.

 

[Foxi4]

Why do you keep holding elections then? If democracy is decided the first time you make a choice then you don't need to keep doing it.

You should scrap all amendments too, because the constitution was written and decided on.

Your arguments are so surface level they're exhausting to reply to. The constitution has built-in mechanisms that allow amending it, and those amendments also need to be ratified by states until a consensus is reached. There are four paths to amending the constitution:

• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures

With the last path being used most commonly. If you believe that it should be modernised or adjusted, all you need is support. If you can't find this support, perhaps your amendment isn't as popular as you think it is. It's not rocket science, the framers have accounted for this when they wrote the document.

 

[notimp]

Better versions:


(Conservative leaning.)

 

[Foxi4]

Where we differ then is in our observation of reality, because forget undermining them, Trump literally dismantled every government and government-adjacent institution he possibly could. State department, CDC, intelligence agencies, take your pick. "Shrink government down to the size you can drown in it in a bathtub," remember?

That's the dream. We should be so lucky.

 

[notimp]

Your arguments are so surface level they're exhausting to reply to. The constitution has built-in mechanisms that allow amending it, and those amendments also need to be ratified by states until a consensus is reached. There are four paths to amending the constitution:

• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures

With the last path being used most commonly. If you believe that it should be modernised or adjusted, all you need is support. If you can't find this support, perhaps your amendment isn't as popular as you think it is. It's not rocket science, the framers have accounted for this when they wrote the document.

But by glorifying the 'historical quality' of the system in fact seeing it as perfect as is, you purposefully neglect the changes in electorate, and voting districts that got through, over time.

F.e. It was never expected for the US to have a two party system only (afair - could be wrong). And it was never expected to have elections that are this completely void of any policy proposals.

(Current election was won on - "I will not kill you - as your president")

Also it was never expected that that much money has to flow to hold elections.

As a result, america turned from a democracy to an oligopoly.

So by focusing on the great balancing act all those hundreds of years ago - you hide, what might have gone wrong in the meantime.

Thats probably the reason, why you focus so many people on 'the constitution'. Because in the current political system - the constitution doesnt matter (as in almost never will get changed or ratified without a decades long consensus of both parties, of two...)

 

[Xzi]

That's the dream. We should be so lucky.

Yes, everybody should be so lucky as to have Wal-Mart plan out every waking minute of their day. /s

It's a libertarian FANTASY for a reason. Having no federal government might have been workable before corporations were allowed to outgrow government, now they'd simply become government. And an invasive, dictatorial government at that.

 

[Deleted User]

no.

 

[Foxi4]

Yes, everybody should be so lucky as to have Wal-Mart plan out every waking minute of their day. /s

It's a libertarian FANTASY for a reason. Having no federal government might have been workable before corporations were allowed to outgrow government, now they'd simply become government. And an invasive, dictatorial government at that.

Nobody's advocating for *no* federal government, just decreasing its size and scope, as well as its influence on the individual states. As far as I'm concerned, the fed has three primary functions - national defense (from internal and external threats), creating an environment which facilitates commerce (interstate and international) and representing the states in international diplomatic relations. Nearly all other functions should he fulfilled by state governments. The federal government was designed as a hammer, and attempting to expand it into areas where it has no business being is taking that hammer and starting to hit things with it. Sometimes you hit a nail, sometimes you hit a child.