The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[PocketZeven]

Really hoping at this point that someone good runs as a Green or Libertarian party candidate. Though the first results in a google search for 2020 third party candidates is a bunch scare articles about the odds of third parties getting Trump elected again in 2020

The electoral college makes it extremely hard for any third candidate to win. Within a winner takes all system a third candidate would only hurt the chances of one of the 2 biggest parties.

 

[Joey D]

Really hoping at this point that someone good runs as a Green or Libertarian party candidate. Though the first results in a google search for 2020 third party candidates is a bunch scare articles about the odds of third parties getting Trump elected again in 2020

Someone good runs in those parties every election cycle. It's just that people are told third parties can't be elected so people don't vote for them despite agreeing with what those parties stand for. As a result, those parties don't get many votes, which leads to the conversation that people from those parties can't be elected. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Danoff]

The electoral college makes it extremely hard for any third candidate to win. Within a winner takes all system a third candidate would only hurt the chances of one of the 2 biggest parties.

I don't base my vote on my assessment of how other people are going to vote.

 

[longshot1314]

Isn't it either only 5 or 15 percent of the vote that's required to secure federal funding for the party though? They don't necessarily have to win right away, just secure enough of the vote for funding and more legitimacy. The other issue with the argument of third party votes stealing votes from the top 2 is that it fails to mention the fact that a lot of third party voters wouldn't vote period if they didn't have that option.

 

[Danoff]

Isn't it either only 5 or 15 percent of the vote that's required to secure federal funding for the party though? They don't necessarily have to win right away, just secure enough of the vote for funding and more legitimacy. The other issue with the argument of third party votes stealing votes from the top 2 is that it fails to mention the fact that a lot of third party voters wouldn't vote period if they didn't have that option.

"Stealing" votes implies that the vote naturally belonged to one of the top two. If someone votes third party, their vote never belonged to the Republicans or the Democrats. Both parties failed to win that vote. It wasn't ever theirs.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't base my vote on my assessment of how other people are going to vote.

I know, but when I think about it. The best vote if you want to vote independant is to vote for the largest chance of ending the electoral college. You can vote what you believe in and that is what we do in europe most of the time (in stead of voting for the least worst candidate). But with the electoral college any third party candidate do not have a fair chance.

Isn't it either only 5 or 15 percent of the vote that's required to secure federal funding for the party though? They don't necessarily have to win right away, just secure enough of the vote for funding and more legitimacy. The other issue with the argument of third party votes stealing votes from the top 2 is that it fails to mention the fact that a lot of third party voters wouldn't vote period if they didn't have that option.

Abolish the electoral college and a third candidate would have more chance to win.

 

[Danoff]

I know, but when I think about it. The best vote if you want to vote independant is to vote for the largest chance of ending the electoral college. You can vote what you believe in and that is what we do in europe most of the time (in stead of voting for the least worst candidate). But with the electoral college any third party candidate do not have a fair chance.

You want me to make the EC a single determinative issue in my voting. It's not that for me though. I have other issues, issues I feel more strongly about.

 

[PocketZeven]

You want me to make the EC a single determinative issue in my voting. It's not that for me though. I have other issues, issues I feel more strongly about.

It should though. It prevents your favorite candidate to have an actual chance to win the presidency.

 

[Dotini]

It should though. It prevents your favorite candidate to have an actual chance to win the presidency.

IMHO, it's more important to strictly preserve the Constitution than it is for my favored candidate to have a better chance of winning. I firmly believe the Constitution is our greatest virtue, our greatest strength, and our best guarantor against corruption and tyranny.

 

[PocketZeven]

IMHO, it's more important to strictly preserve the Constitution than it is for my favored candidate to have a better chance of winning. I firmly believe the Constitution is our greatest virtue, our greatest strength, and our best guarantor against corruption and tyranny.

It is great groundwork what the writers did, but not every document is without fault. And proclaiming your consititution as a some kind of holy document is a bit of a exaggeration. Many countries have constitutions, where many "update" them periodically to modern times.

Heck even the US updated it with amendments. Some flaws in the Constitution:
- in the the electoral college a candidate can win the presidency with just 23% of the popular vote
- The US senate is amazingly undemocratic, Wyoming has 2 senate seats just as California, but 67 times less population
- Since the amendment for voting rights for women (which had already been won in most states anyway) in 1920, there have been no real changes. Even though times have changed.
- Federal judges are appointed for life by an undemocratic Senate.

I would even argue the constitution was deliberately designed to keep the elite in power. Which is not neccesarily a bad thing, but definately has a lot of faults.

What is your argument against the popular vote? (without using "it being unconstitutional" as an argument)

 

[Dotini]

It is great groundwork what the writers did, but not every document is without fault. And proclaiming your consititution as a some kind of holy document is a bit of a exaggeration. Many countries have constitutions, where many "update" them periodically to modern times.

Heck even the US updated it with amendments. Some flaws in the Constitution:
- in the the electoral college a candidate can win the presidency with just 23% of the popular vote
- The US senate is amazingly undemocratic, Wyoming has 2 senate seats just as California, but 67 times less population
- Since the amendment for voting rights for women (which had already been won in most states anyway) in 1920, there have been no real changes. Even though times have changed.
- Federal judges are appointed for life by an undemocratic Senate.

I would even argue the constitution was deliberately designed to keep the elite in power. Which is not neccesarily a bad thing, but definately has a lot of faults.

What is your argument against the popular vote? (without using "it being unconstitutional" as an argument)

I believe the EC is a bulwark against the tyranny of the popular majority. That is exactly and only why it exists.

I don't believe the Constitution is a holy document, but I believe it is the work of temporally inspired genius. The founders were Deists, Freemasons, and devoted acolytes of the Enlightenment. Since then, I believe the morality, integrity and holistic intelligence of the American male, both average and elite, has devolved seriously.

 

[ryzno]

The US senate is amazingly undemocratic, Wyoming has 2 senate seats just as California, but 67 times less population

Every state has 2. The house is by population.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So your okay with the status quo?

Surely you have some issues with how things are run...

To be honest, the pre-Trump status quo worked well enough for me. Whats important to me is having a president with ethical and honest character who will approach the issues Americans face with sober and genuine care. Things that worry me going forward that should be addressed:

-Corporate America incentive structures (see my post about Boeing)
-Housing crunch (see my ramblings in the economics thread)
-Environmental issues and scientific progress (lets get Fusion working, eh?)
-Cooperative rather than combative foreign policy

I believe, personally, that having a president with strong moral character will go along way towards healing some of our internal societal issues. But I also don't believe that is a top-down issue to solve. I think we need to save capitalism from itself - I think ending the accommodation of mass share repurchasing will go a long way to fixing a myriad of problems.

All of these things point me towards more centrist candidates. Mayor Pete's platform is the closest one for me to get behind and I think he has a strong and positive character. Andrew Yang is a bit too Silicon Valley for me to feel comfortable with, but I believe he is ethical and positive despite his doomsday prognostications. I appreciate Warren's deep suspicion of corporate America / wall street, but I think she takes it too far into unworkable territory.

 

[PocketZeven]

I believe the EC is a bulwark against the tyranny of the popular majority. That is exactly and only why it exists.

I don't believe the Constitution is a holy document, but I believe it is the work of temporally inspired genius. The founders were Deists, Freemasons, and devoted acolytes of the Enlightenment. Since then, I believe the morality, integrity and holistic intelligence of the American male, both average and elite, has devolved seriously.

No it never has been. There are many good things in the constitution, but suggesting that the electoral college was intended as a fight against tyranny of the popular majority is idiotic. The empowerment of the few is anti democratic, the popular majority in power is what democracy all is about. Tyranny is not prevented by the electoral college, the seperation of powers does.

edit:
Any system where the vote of one citizen of a certain city counts more then the vote of a citizen of another city is broken.

Every state has 2. The house is by population.

Is that logical to you that the senate is represented immensely undemocratic? There are postives to the system, but democratic it is not.

 

[Biggles]

I believe the EC is a bulwark against the tyranny of the popular majority. That is exactly and only why it exists.

That makes no sense at all. How does granting disproportionate electoral power to random states act as a meaningful "bulwark against the tyranny of the popular majority"? You might just as well have a lottery system that assigns hundreds or thousands of extra votes to random individuals - that would also work as a bulwark against the tyranny of the popular majority - but how would that be a good thing?

Protection against the tyranny of the majority needs to be enshrined in the law .. & possibly in states rights ... not in lop-sided electoral power.

 

[ryzno]

Is that logical to you that the senate is represented immensely undemocratic?

I don't see how. Every state is equally represented. GA is Republican and we have 2 senators that are Republican that represent the state.
We have14 representatives, Democratic and Republican based off population that represent the population.

 

[Dotini]

Protection against the tyranny of the majority needs to be enshrined in the law .. & possibly in states rights

Fixed that for you. The EC is states rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't see how. Every state is equally represented. GA is Republican and we have 2 senators that are Republican that represent the state.
We have14 representatives, Democratic and Republican based off population that represent the population.

A state with 67 times the population of another both have 2 senators is democratic?

edit:
Imagine if your city has 67000 citizens and the next town 1000 citizens and both have the same amount of votes in important lawmaking decisions. Is that democratic?

 

[Dotini]

A state with 67 times the population of another both have 2 senators is democratic?

Yes. There are 50 states in the union. We have a bicameral Congress. Each state gets two Senators. That is democratic. Each state gets Representatives proportional to population. That is democratic.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes. There are 50 states in the union. We have a bicameral Congress. Each state gets two Senators. That is democratic. Each state gets Representatives proportional to population. That is democratic.

I disagree with the first. Agree with the second. However gerrymandering does again make the system corrupt.

edit:
It would be somewhat democratic if states were not bound to federal law and had freedoms like individual countries have.

 

[ryzno]

A state with 67 times the population of another both have 2 senators is democratic?

Yes, cause the people(population) are represented in the house. The 2 Senators are voted for by the people and represent the state on the people's behalf.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes, cause the people(population) are represented in the house. The 2 Senators are voted for by the people and represent the state on the people's behalf.

Are you even listening to what you are saying? Within the senate a state with 67 times less population has equal say in federal laws that affect all citizens in both states.

 

[ryzno]

Are you even listening to what you are saying?

Yes. I told you the house represents the people(population)and the senate represents the state. They are all voted for. I don't get how you don't see that as Democratic. The house and senate check and balance each other. Rather simple.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Yes. I told you the house represents the people(population)and the senate represents the state. They are all voted for. I don't get how you don't see that as Democratic. The house and senate check and balance each other. Rather simple.

That's not how it works.

The Senate has the sole authority to confirm the entire federal Judiciary in addition to the executive cabinet, powers that the house cannot match.

Therefore, smaller states have vastly more power, ultimately, when it comes to Executive Branch (via Electoral College), Congress (via the Senate), and the Judiciary (via the Executive and Senate).

 

[Dotini]

The House has several powers assigned exclusively to it, including the power to initiate revenue bills (taxation)*, impeach federal officials, and elect the President in the case of an electoral college tie. Also, the Speaker of the House is 2nd in line to the Presidency after the Vice President.

*That's why we exist, why we revolted against the ****ing British King and his ****ing Parliament; No ****ing taxation without representation!!
The House of Representatives is the heart and soul of our democracy. Got it?

PS: The Representatives make the appointments to Annapolis, West Point and the USAF Academy. I should know; I received one.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The House has several powers assigned exclusively to it, including the power to initiate revenue bills (taxation)*, impeach federal officials, and elect the President in the case of an electoral college tie. Also, the Speaker of the House is 2nd in line to the Presidency after the Vice President.

*That's why we exist, why we revolted against the ****ing British King and his ****ing Parliament; No ****ing taxation without representation!!
The House of Representatives is the heart and soul of our democracy. Got it?

PS: The Representatives make the appointments to Annapolis, West Point and the USAF Academy. I should know; I received one.

On balance, I think its plain to see that the Senate is the more powerful of the two institutions. Most of the "powers" that the House has require input from the Senate. But even still...

If we agree that the House has roughly equal representation for all US citizens
and if we agree that the Senate's representation largely favors small states...

Those two do not equal out. Citizens of smaller states, ultimately, have proportionally more power than Citizens of larger states.

 

[Danoff]

On balance, I think its plain to see that the Senate is the more powerful of the two institutions. Most of the "powers" that the House has require input from the Senate. But even still...

If we agree that the House has roughly equal representation for all US citizens
and if we agree that the Senate's representation largely favors small states...

Those two do not equal out. Citizens of smaller states, ultimately, have proportionally more power than Citizens of larger states.

It's an inescapable conclusion that citizens of smaller (population) states have more voting power, and it's intentional by-design in the US government. The Senate is a huge amount of state power. The fact that Wyoming and Montana have the same number of votes in the Senate as California and Texas is almost unbelievable. The fact that the Senate exists makes it very hard to say with a straight face the small states are under-served in the absence of the EC. The EC is absolutely not needed to make sure that small states don't get trampled.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes. I told you the house represents the people(population)and the senate represents the state. They are all voted for. I don't get how you don't see that as Democratic. The house and senate check and balance each other. Rather simple.

Both the house and the senate represent their states. Thats why the people vote for their representative per state/region. A person living in a less populated state has much more influence (by voting) in the senate then someone from a more populated state. That isnt democratic,

If you think all states in the US should have equal say in important decisions regardless of population, then you are right. Wyoming has just as much say about an lifetime appointment to the supreme court as California. Does not sound democratic to me. It would even make sense to divide california in smaller states to make sure they are represented properly in the senate.

edit:

It's an inescapable conclusion that citizens of smaller (population) states have more voting power, and it's intentional by-design in the US government. The Senate is a huge amount of state power. The fact that Wyoming and Montana have the same number of votes in the Senate as California and Texas is almost unbelievable. The fact that the Senate exists makes it very hard to say with a straight face the small states are under-served in the absence of the EC. The EC is absolutely not needed to make sure that small states don't get trampled.

From that perspective I would agree. Abolish the EC and keep the senate seems to balance it correctly and prevent any tyranny of the majority. But keeping both give some states disproportionally power.

 

[Dotini]

There is no way to abolish the EC without a constitutional amendment. To get a constitutional amendment takes a supermajority of the states. So anybody calling to abolish the EC is merely preening and pissing into the wind, an inescapably miserable exercise in futility.

 

[Danoff]

There is no way to abolish the EC without a constitutional amendment. To get a constitutional amendment takes a supermajority of the states. So anybody calling to abolish the EC is merely preening and pissing into the wind, an inescapably miserable exercise in futility.

Haven't we done this before?