?
  1. I'm NOT a Trump supporter - I accept the general consensus that Biden won the 2020 election fairly

    194 vote(s)
    67.1%
  2. I am a Trump supporter - I *refuse* Biden's presidency claim, Trump actually WON

    29 vote(s)
    10.0%
  3. I am a Trump supporter - I acknowledge that Biden won, but *THE LEFT CHEATED* so it's illegitimate

    14 vote(s)
    4.8%
  4. I'm a Trump supporter but I believe in the general consensus that Biden won the 2020 election fairly

    14 vote(s)
    4.8%
  5. Other (don't care / don't waste my time with stupid polls)

    38 vote(s)
    13.1%
  6. 289 voter(s)
  1. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,475
    Country:
    Laos
    Lets make the US oligopoly? Part more palpable. :)

    Who of you thinks, that Pete Buttigieg got into his position because of 'best ideas' filtered through an 'educated populous'?

    Who of you thinks that Pete Buttigieg got to meet Scarlett Johanson, because of 'political importance' and political accolades?


    Who of you thinks, that Pete Buttigieg will make a great UN ambassador, because he speaks 'multiple languages'?

    Who of you thinks, that dropping out coordinatedly against Sanders, after fundraising meetups with 35 billionairs ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/michel...acking-pete-buttigiegs-presidential-campaign/) was coincidental?

    Who of you thinks, that fundraising 14 billion USD for an election campaign is democratic?
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/2020-election-spending-to-hit-nearly-14-billion-a-record.html

    Nothing about this is 'like the founders imagined it'. Founders fled the empire. US became the empire. Between those two outlooks, the entire system changed. Only thing that connects you to the principals of your founding fathers by now is storytelling.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    Foxi4 has a killer story about the great darwinian selection benefits of choosing your own health care plan - and the savings you can get because of that to tell. Go tell them. :)

    edit: Fixed forbes link.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Nov 19, 2020
    smf likes this.
  2. Xzi

    Xzi GBAtemp's Resident Plok Expert
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    11,377
    Country:
    United States
    The result ends up the same because you're suggesting we task state government with oversight of corporations that are bigger than the federal government. Obviously they'll fail in that task, and corporations then oppress and exploit their workers to any degree they want.

    Federal government should provide oversight for corporations, and voters should provide oversight for federal government. That's the way it's meant to work.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Nov 18, 2020
    ZeusX, smf and IncredulousP like this.
  3. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,171
    Country:
    Poland
    Corporations have no power to legislate. If you believe that your representatives are corrupt and vote for hand-outs from Big Wal-Mart, I have a fool-proof solution - hang them. It's been working fine for centuries, but the 20th century made politics far more polite than they need to be.
     
  4. Xzi

    Xzi GBAtemp's Resident Plok Expert
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    11,377
    Country:
    United States
    No direct power, but they do have armies of very persuasive lobbyists.

    We know this is the case for Republicans, the 2017 tax bill they passed helped corporations exponentially more than any individual, and it has a provision in it set to cause taxes to go up for anyone making less than 100k in 2021. Unfortunately, the secret service wouldn't let me bring my guillotine on my tour of the White House last year, even though I knew you'd approve and I told them as much.
     
    Friendsxix and IncredulousP like this.
  5. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,475
    Country:
    Laos
    How about reduce (limit) the amounts of election spending and allow more than two parties to compete?

    To check viability you could then have a central auditing authority check their programs for 'feasability' - before they are able to run.

    You know on policy - not on fundraising?

    Also how about forbidding attack ads, and actually starting to educate your public?

    Ohoo... I kid of course... As US is the empire, most US gains (public and private) are produced outside of country. So for inside the US, you just need a population that says nothing on perpetual war, and never gets any choice on foreign policy.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Nov 18, 2020
  6. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,737
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I'm not talking about support, I'm arguing here for the change and you're arguing that it wouldn't be as fair. Nothing that happens on this board will change anything.

    I am still waiting for a coherent argument for why the current system is fairer than using the popular vote, if you don't have one then please stop posting your misinformation.
     
    Last edited by smf, Nov 18, 2020
  7. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,171
    Country:
    Poland
    If I understand correctly, you're upset that the tax cuts allowed you to save money, but save slightly less than somebody else. That's great, I agree - taxation is theft. :P
     
  8. Xzi

    Xzi GBAtemp's Resident Plok Expert
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    11,377
    Country:
    United States
    Nah dawg, anybody making less than 100k is gonna be paying back more than what little they made from the temporary tax cut. Basically it was a trap, and if anyone spent that money, even on essentials, they're gonna be hurting next year. Just another scam to take from the poor and give to the rich, like trickle-down economics.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Nov 18, 2020
    IncredulousP likes this.
  9. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,171
    Country:
    Poland
    I invited you to read the constitution, but you didn't, so instead I'll just explain how it works. The number of electors is directly tied to the size of the state in the overall union. States receive two electoral votes based on their two senators, plus one vote per representative in the House of Representatives, which in turn is relative to the state's population. In the apartment analogy that's your "rent" - each household gets two votes because it's part of the apartment building, and additional votes based on size because rent is not equal, and neither is their financial contribution to any repairs that need to be made. That's the "popular" element of the vote, in case this is unclear. It's rather fairly balanced.
     
  10. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,737
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    That is why they voted against Trump as president, but he is good at lying and is still pretending that he won.

    Confirmation bias, you think it's clear because you agree with it. The electoral college votes don't appear to be fairly balanced. Your rent analogy is just hand waiving.

    It would be better to just count votes. Please give a coherent argument for why that shouldn't happen. Why is popular vote unfair? What are the benefits of the electoral college?

    I find it easy to explain why electoral college is unfair and popular vote is fair, if it's hard for you then maybe it's because you're wrong. You wouldn't keep going off on tangents and avoiding the question if you could answer it.
     
    Last edited by smf, Nov 18, 2020
    IncredulousP likes this.
  11. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,171
    Country:
    Poland
    I've already explained, in an exhaustive manner, why a federation of independently governed states has agreed to pick the head of the federal government in this way - to balance their interest in the union. You just refuse to accept that explanation and pretend that one wasn't given when it was. Removing the electoral college from the equation nullifies any influence less populous states have in the process and deepens the division between middle America and coastal states. The dissonance occurs because you treat the United States as a whole whereas I treat it as what it is - a union of states. If said states do not have the representation in accordance to the rules they negotiated and ratified when the electoral college was put in place, they should immediately secede from the union.
     
    gregory-samba likes this.
  12. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,737
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You haven't explained why

    I am not pretending.

    Removing the electoral college gives every person in every state an equal influence. Why would that deepen division? Are you saying there will be people who be unhappy if they don't have more of a say?

    Just under half the voters in a state and just under half the electoral votes will have no influence in the choosing of the president as you can't have half a president. The way the numbers work out doesn't even meet the objective, because in the example you gave it was the more populated state that had more influence. The less populated state had much less influence than it would with the popular vote.

    The individual states influence is in the senate and congress.

    Why can't you have state senators and congressmen elected as they are now and have the federal president elected by a popular vote of everyone in the country? Why should you immediately secede the union? Surely they can just ratify new rules.
     
    Last edited by smf, Nov 19, 2020
    ZeusX and IncredulousP like this.
  13. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,475
    Country:
    Laos
  14. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,171
    Country:
    Poland
    To be honest, I don't even know where to start with this comment because it exposes a complete lack of understanding how the U.S. government structures work. Should I start with explaining what representative democracy is? Should I explain how every vote in every state counts exactly the same, just not in the way you think it does? Or how the U.S. is divided into individual states and is not a uniform construct, nor was it ever intended to be besides very specific purposes? I really don't know, this is all covered in the constitution - you don't even need to read the whole thing, you can just read Article 2, that's enough to grasp the concept.

    Contrary to what people with no understanding of how the federal republic works, the "popular vote" is a completely useless metric that we only started paying attention to in fairly recent history. The way the U.S. was set up, a Texan is first and foremost a Texan, and an American second. People vote for their representatives within their state, the vote for the President is entirely advisory - the President is selected by the state legislatures by the proxy of electors. This is by design - the ruling body over a citizen is the local state government, not the federal government. The fed was designed to fulfil an oversight function over the states, so in a way, your state representatives represent *you* and the states are represented by the federal government. Every vote has the value of 1 in the state it was cast in - the legislatures then interpret the result of the vote via a prism of their election procedures and send electors accordingly to represent the interests of their constituents.

    The U.S. is a fairly unique construct in this sense, the closest analogues would be the European Union, where each member state has their own governments and local elections. They also select their representatives in the Europarliment, but the *President of the European Parliament* is not chosen by popular vote in member states, they're selected by the members of the Parliament. Similarly, in the United Kingdom each individual state, Wales, England, Ireland and Scotland, have their own local assemblies, however the Prime Minister is not selected by popular vote, nor is there any reason for them to be elected in that manner.

    The people elect those who legislate in the U.S. - they do not elect the chief executive. The role of chief executive is to execute the legislation that the state representatives have passed. There's a good reason why it's set up in this way - people are meant to elect representatives that will forward the interests of the state as a whole. States then convene and elect a President that oversees the operation of the federal government. Some states have higher stakes than others, and as such they hold different sway, but the system is set in place to calculate exactly how much - it's not set in stone and can change fluidly over time.

    I hope that resolves the confusion a bit, because I'm not going to draw a graph. I understand that people are increasingly forgetting about state rights in favour of identifying with an "American Hodgepodge", but in this case the President works on behalf of states as collectives, not on behalf of *you*, that's not their job, and never has been.

    What I mean by division is the fact that costal states, that are very few, but large in terms of population, would end up nullifying the voting power of all the states in-between should the popular vote replace the Electoral College. You would end up in a situation where a handful of states can select a candidate they want while the rest have no say at all in the matter. Since the President is selected on behalf of states, that setup makes very little sense.

    Take it or leave it, but read the actual constitution before querying me about the basics - if you're not really familiar with the system, no amount of "explaining" will help. If you don't know how the system works, it's pointless trying to explain why it is the way it is. Once again, the United States are not a uniform state in and out of itself, it's a union of federated states. It's a prime example of representative democracy, not a direct democracy. "Why not make it more direct" is an argument with no defined boundaries to it. Why elect anyone at all, why can't we all just vote on policy 24/7 with no government at all, thus directly representing the interests of the smallest autonomous unit - an individual? We have the Internet, after all - it's not like it can't be done. Congress as a whole is a "relict of the past", politicians are obsolete, we can run polls on anything and everything 24/7, right? I'm sure that'll be more efficient.
     
  15. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,737
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You don't seem able to do that, because clearly every citizens vote doesn't count the same & you think that is a good idea.

    The president does things that affect the citizen, therefore he rules over them.
    If he doesn't then why do you care who the president is?

    But the only interest the electoral college forwards is the count of the vote & they do it in an undemocratic way (some states are worse than others). So why is that a good reason?

    You've repeatedly failed to give a justification for it other than it's how it's always been done and hand waving.
     
    ZeusX and IncredulousP like this.
  16. SG854

    SG854 I'm Evolving
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,668
    Country:
    Comoros
    Basically people are looking to federal government when they should look at state gov instead to take care of their specific state need.

    Each state has different needs. And electoral college stops giving too much power to bigger urban areas which have different needs then smaller rural areas, and stops creating legislation/laws that will benefit bigger areas but screw over smaller areas.

    Electoral college gives those smaller areas a bigger voice to be heard, so that their specific needs aren't overlooked and ignored. People that live in bigger urban areas don't think about what its like to live in a smaller rural area and don't care to learn. They only think about their own needs. But electoral college let's those smaller voices be heard.
     
    Last edited by SG854, Nov 19, 2020
    Foxi4 likes this.
  17. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,171
    Country:
    Poland
    This is incorrect based on the parameters laid out in the constitution. The popular vote doesn't decide who becomes President - state legislatures do via their electors. The population in individual states choose their legislatures based on their interests, and those legislatures in turn choose electors to cast a vote on behalf of the population. In the same way, an EU country elects representatives to the European Parliament who then elect the President who, as the name implies, presides over the government.
    We should rectify that mistake by reducing the size and scope of the federal government, as it was always the intention, from the inception of the country. The gradual creep of power does not excuse itself - it must be corrected. I laid down why already - the president is beholden to the states and as such should be elected based on the support of a majority of the states, or rather, their weighted say in the matter.
    False.
    Your failure to grasp unfamiliar political concepts is not a failure of the system put in place in the United States, it is yours and yours only. The U.S. is one of the most stable republics on the planet - besides the Civil War it has been peaceful and operated without interruption for well over a century. The U.S. grew in influence and power while European states were squabbling over scraps of land in not one, but two world wars which eventually initiated a United States response. It is foolish to assume that the United States should emulate them in any way instead of the opposite. You're also equating "democratic" with "good" - I don't, democracy is the tyranny of the stupid. Not only that, it's a graduated scale, not a binary definition. By the standard of Athenian democracy there are no democratic states on the planet, and even Athenian democracy didn't include *everyone* in decision-making processes - au contraire, it was rather restrictive.

    See? It's not that hard. He gets it.
     
  18. smf

    smf GBAtemp Psycho!
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,737
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Obviously getting rid of the electoral college would require changing the constitution.

    What is written in there now is irrelevant.

    You seem to have completely misunderstood what this discussion is about.
     
    ZeusX likes this.
  19. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,171
    Country:
    Poland
    You on the other hand completely misunderstand what the Electoral College is for, so I will give you an example from your own home turf. In the mid-1980's Margaret Thatcher dismantled the Welsh mining industry during her fight against trade unions, in spite of large scale protest. This was in the interest of England, but not in the interest of Wales, eventually leading to wide-spread poverty in the region that lasted for decades and in many ways can still be felt today. In 1983 there were 174 active pits in Britain - by the end of 2015 they were all closed as a result of policies enacted in that period. This is what we call "an outsized influence of Westminster on Welsh business". The Electoral College enables less populous areas to have a bigger influence on national policy, which is in part executed by the chief executive. The U.S. President has the power of veto as well as the option to enact executive orders - handy in times when the interests of some states don't necessarily align with the interests of others. It's one extra road block that can prevent an unintentional capsizing.

    As I said, you have to educate yourself a bit on how the system works, why it works the way it does and what are the historical reasons for it. Without that framework this conversation is a fruitless waste of time. You continue to apply the metric of a singular state voting as one for their leader when that is not at all what a U.S. president is and not at all what U.S. elections are about. I might indulge you some more once you do your homework, otherwise you're arguing points that are inapplicable to the political system in question, in any shape or form.
     
  20. jimbo13

    jimbo13 Terry Crews #1 Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    706
    Country:
    United States
    This poll is as rigged as the election, you don't condense all of the Biden support in to one option with a leading declaration then split the Trump support 3 ways.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - election, really, Trump