Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ZBridges]

One man one vote... but some people's votes are worth more than others.  We don't decide presidential elections by popular vote.

[dragdeler]

-

[delphonso]

I'd say a 85% chance that after review of the votes and an audit (even with the late votes being cancelled), Biden will still win. Considering that even if there is fraud (apparently there's evidence of ballot boxes being stuffed) it's probably minor and unlikely to affect the result.

The strategy wouldn't be to "remove illegitimate votes" - the strategy would be to find evidence of fraud and declare the election invalid. Then remain president effectively without election.

How all that happens is unclear to me - but I'm guessing it's something to do with Democrats laying down while Trump walks over them and quietly saying "no he can't do this".

[JoshuaFH]

And that's why I'd call it performative electoralism. A democracy derides it's power from the popular will. Having some people's vote be worth less is the equivalent sticking a well-made sign with "suggestions" written on it, on a paper shredder.

Some would say that that is the weakness of democracy, as the votes of the very ignorant are equal to the votes of the knowledgeable. The people can vote in whomever they want, but widespread appeal tends to screen out competency in practical matters.

[dragdeler]

-

[KittyTac]

I'd say a 85% chance that after review of the votes and an audit (even with the late votes being cancelled), Biden will still win. Considering that even if there is fraud (apparently there's evidence of ballot boxes being stuffed) it's probably minor and unlikely to affect the result.

The strategy wouldn't be to "remove illegitimate votes" - the strategy would be to find evidence of fraud and declare the election invalid. Then remain president effectively without election.

How all that happens is unclear to me - but I'm guessing it's something to do with Democrats laying down while Trump walks over them and quietly saying "no he can't do this".

Well here's the thing: they won't let him do that. Thus at most there will simply be a recount which is unlikely to change anything. I agree that it's a 99.99% chance of Biden winning.

Aaaand I dip into this thread that I promised to myself to ignore. Clicked it accidentally.

[delphonso]

I dunno, they didn't let his administration kill 200,000 people, but that happened.

[KittyTac]

I doubt that even Trump is stupid enough to try something like that so brazenly and probably start a civil war that he might well lose. Last time I checked the military didn't like him.

[wierd]

No, but the chain of command is being replaced.


With trump loyalists.



The pattern (to me at least), suggests a man who is hedging if he NEEDS to do a coup (to stay in), but really would prefer not to (such as through legal challenge, bribery, etc.)

[KittyTac]

Well then.

My best wishes to you all in that case.

[scriver]

One man one vote.
One man one vote.
One man one vote.
One man one vote.
One man one vote.
One man one vote.
One man one vote.
One man one vote.
One man one vote.
One man one vote.



It's not complicated at all and I'm still amazed how people can be concerned with the dillution of their voting power if the alternative is less than a democracy.

That is because you are from an imperialist country and culture who justifies their rule over other peoples with "there's more of us than there are of you" and aren't at risk of being politically dominated by people who have no relation, loyalty, or  concern for you and your laws, customs, and ways of living.

[dragdeler]

-

[MorleyDev]

The 'throwing away of all votes not for the winning party' is only a problem in first-past-the-post systems like the USA and UK have. Many other countries use alternative ways of determining how seats in their house are allocated that don't have that direct problem.

For example, the USA could allocate the House of Representatives based on the most popular in counties, the Senate based on the proportion of votes in each state, with the President going to the winner of the popular vote. This is one proposal for removing the UKs House of Lords with a democratically elected one.

Problem is, like in the UK, both main political parties have a vested interest in preventing the system to change from First Past the Post since proportional systems allow for more smaller, single issue or fringe parties to get seats and make flat-out majorities rarer (forcing the parties to actually compromise and negotiate to get their agenda through).

[JoshuaFH]

The 'throwing away of all votes not for the winning party' is only a problem in first-past-the-post systems like the USA and UK have. Many other countries use alternative ways of determining how seats in their house are allocated that don't have that direct problem.

For example, the USA could allocate the House of Representatives based on the most popular in counties, the Senate based on the proportion of votes in each state, with the President going to the winner of the popular vote. This is one proposal for removing the UKs House of Lords with a democratically elected one.

Problem is, like in the UK, both main political parties have a vested interest in preventing the system to change from First Past the Post since proportional systems allow for more smaller, single issue or fringe parties to get seats and make flat-out majorities rarer (forcing the parties to actually compromise and negotiate to get their agenda through).

God I'd love it if the FPTP system were changed to ranked or jungle or whathaveyou. It sickens me to see two parties just owning the political system, and the nation apparently considering it normal that these gangs of old, inept bastards have a stranglehold on the nation's political will and imagination.

[wierd]

coalition govt would be an amazing thing in the US.

Imagine--- the legislature *HAS* to cooperate.

It would be amazing to see.