The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election






If you don't know Tyler Childers, you are missing out on a national treasure. He's an amazing songwriter whose voice only aids in the story telling and the pain in it. I know I can't put this in a status update since it's P&R related, and I don't really know where else this needs to go. But he does give a call to action to vote, so I guess here is as good of a place as any. His calls for empathy and understanding of our fellow man ring especially true to me. "Love each other, no exceptions." 

If you want some good music from him: White House Road, Charleston Girl, Dead Man's Curve, and for a fun one Ever Lovin' Hand.

 
mrandyk said:
Forgive my ignorance, but why is Omaha always the dissenting vote on the national map? Surely there are other blue districts in states that vote red. Yet those states don't split off an electoral vote or two for that district.

Regardless of the answer, I will say that I hate the electoral college.
Click to expand...


Most states have a winner-take-all approach to the Electoral College.

That's not Nebraska. You win the district, you get one of our three EC votes.

Think what you will about the Electoral College, but this is the closest we get to actual democracy in America.

In truth, the Electoral College should have been abolished a couple centuries ago. By keeping it, we tacitly endorse the idea that Americans aren't educated enough to properly choose a president. Because that's all the EC is - a buffer between the electorate and stupidity.

If we're smart enough to stand shoulder to shoulder among the elite nations of the world, then a straight up vote should elect the president.

No districts. No colleges. Just my vote and your vote and everyone else's, and from that we pick the winner.

 
knapplc said:
Most states have a winner-take-all approach to the Electoral College.

That's not Nebraska. You win the district, you get one of our three EC votes.

Think what you will about the Electoral College, but this is the closest we get to actual democracy in America.

In truth, the Electoral College should have been abolished a couple centuries ago. By keeping it, we tacitly endorse the idea that Americans aren't educated enough to properly choose a president. Because that's all the EC is - a buffer between the electorate and stupidity.

If we're smart enough to stand shoulder to shoulder among the elite nations of the world, then a straight up vote should elect the president.

No districts. No colleges. Just my vote and your vote and everyone else's, and from that we pick the winner.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to get off on an EC discussion tangent but, while I agree that would be better way to actually choose a President the problem I see is that it would disenfranchise large swaths of the country. Candidates would cater to NYC, LA, Chicago, the largest metro areas and everyone else would lose a voice. However, I am becoming more convinced that argument is getting weaker by the day. I haven’t felt well represented at any level of government for quite some time. Not sure anymore how it could get worse.
 

The sad fact of the matter is, Americans are not smart enough to properly choose a President. If you need proof of that A) look who the current President is. B) realize he has an actual shot at being re-elected. And yes, I realize this is not a glowing endorsement of the EC system.

Ha, I started out with the idea of defending the EC and talked myself out of it  :lol:

 
JJ Husker said:
I don’t want to get off on an EC discussion tangent but, while I agree that would be better way to actually choose a President the problem I see is that it would disenfranchise large swaths of the country. Candidates would cater to NYC, LA, Chicago, the largest metro areas and everyone else would lose a voice. However, I am becoming more convinced that argument is getting weaker by the day. I haven’t felt well represented at any level of government for quite some time. Not sure anymore how it could get worse.
 

The sad fact of the matter is, Americans are not smart enough to properly choose a President. If you need proof of that A) look who the current President is. B) realize he has an actual shot at being re-elected. And yes, I realize this is not a glowing endorsement of the EC system.

Ha, I started out with the idea of defending the EC and talked myself out of it  :lol:
Click to expand...


Yeah I think the EC is indefensible on the merits because it already disenfranchises people. Right now a Californian or New Yorker has comparatively much less voting power than that of a Wyomingite simply because of population differences. The only defense for why this is acceptable is a lazy one predicated almost entirely on tradition. 

 
knapplc said:
Most states have a winner-take-all approach to the Electoral College.

That's not Nebraska. You win the district, you get one of our three EC votes.

Think what you will about the Electoral College, but this is the closest we get to actual democracy in America.

In truth, the Electoral College should have been abolished a couple centuries ago. By keeping it, we tacitly endorse the idea that Americans aren't educated enough to properly choose a president. Because that's all the EC is - a buffer between the electorate and stupidity.

If we're smart enough to stand shoulder to shoulder among the elite nations of the world, then a straight up vote should elect the president.

No districts. No colleges. Just my vote and your vote and everyone else's, and from that we pick the winner.
Click to expand...


Danny Bateman said:
Yeah I think the EC is indefensible on the merits because it already disenfranchises people. Right now a Californian or New Yorker has comparatively much less voting power than that of a Wyomingite simply because of population differences. The only defense for why this is acceptable is a lazy one predicated almost entirely on tradition. 
Click to expand...


What you think is a flaw of the Electoral College is actually the careful design of Founding Fathers, the political geniuses of the modern world.  Without the EC the large wealthy cities would have all of the electoral power instead of just most of it.  And that can be very bad, when a large swatch of the country feels left out of the Presidential process. 

 
JJ Husker said:
I don’t want to get off on an EC discussion tangent but, while I agree that would be better way to actually choose a President the problem I see is that it would disenfranchise large swaths of the country. Candidates would cater to NYC, LA, Chicago, the largest metro areas and everyone else would lose a voice. However, I am becoming more convinced that argument is getting weaker by the day. I haven’t felt well represented at any level of government for quite some time. Not sure anymore how it could get worse.
 

The sad fact of the matter is, Americans are not smart enough to properly choose a President. If you need proof of that A) look who the current President is. B) realize he has an actual shot at being re-elected. And yes, I realize this is not a glowing endorsement of the EC system.

Ha, I started out with the idea of defending the EC and talked myself out of it  :lol:
Click to expand...




I say this as someone who grew up in a small town and has lots of farming relatives. I feel like people in low population areas can sometimes have a persecution complex. I hear the complaint about being overlooked in elections often but they are over represented in the Presidency, Senate, and House, and also in a lot of Republican states in their legislatures due to gerrymandering by Republicans. They'll complain about elitists but in a way I feel like the people I've known from smaller towns are more elitist, e.g. being averse to strangers or people different than they are. Or even scared of them, which I see from FB posts freaking out about this fake antifa s#!t or illegal immigrants. We hear about flyover country but some of the biggest swing states are in the midwest if you consider Minnesota and Wisconsin to be midwest (not sure on that).

I believe what would happen with a popular vote is presidential candidates would have rallies in the biggest cities of more states. But I really think that is better than what we see now. What we see now is they (typically) only have rallies in the biggest cities of a handful of swing states and I'm sure stop for some photo ops in smaller towns. I feel it will allow candidates more freedom to go where they want to try to reach voters. Right now Oklahoma doesn't matter but it would with a popular vote and they could go to Oklahoma City to get a higher voter turnout. Same thing in all other states like that. It might lead to Democrats trying harder to cater to a higher # of states.

I honestly think it would do the opposite of what people say it would do. I also believe poor people in big cities have about the same major wants as poor people in small towns. Same with middle class in both. The things we've been split on are often stupid things and it's often on purpose. I really don't think the major difference between people is in population density. I think a lot of the feeling that big city folks are a lot different than country folks is superficial.

I also see people complaining about things that are exactly what they're doing. Once again one of my farmer relatives complained about welfare recipients and I've posted on it before but she and her husband get like $20,000 per year from the government. I bet she thinks because they work they deserve the free money, but people are often required to work when they get welfare as well. She is just on farming welfare and it is called a subsidy instead.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd be for any system that kept the candidates from campaigning/advertising in whatever state I reside in  :lol:

I guess the old concern of smaller constituencies being ignored is a moot point. They only places getting attention now are swing states, and that is because of the all or nothing methods of the EC. A popular vote would probably be the closest we could come to them caring about everyone/everywhere.  Throw in some significant campaign reform and prevent sitting Presidents from shamelessly bribing key voting blocs with taxpayer money, as Trump has been doing, and we might have something that begins to make things better.

 
I could be fine with the EC if they adjusted the amount of votes each state gets to accurately reflect the populations.  This way close recounts would only have to be done state-by-state instead of a national recount.

But I'd rather just see a popular vote.  Social media and the internet make campaigns national anyway.  The buffer the EC was supposed to create was ignored in 2016, so I say screw it!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
I could be fine with the EC if they adjusted the amount of votes each state gets to accurately reflect the populations.  This way close recounts would only have to be done state-by-state instead of a national recount.

But I'd rather just see a popular vote.  Social media and the internet make campaigns national anyway.  The buffer the EC was supposed to create was ignored in 2016, so I say screw it!
Click to expand...




This is another interesting topic, kind of overall. Most people get sucked into national news now. We hear about crazy s#!t happening that is really rare which we probably wouldn’t have heard of if it was the 80s or 90s because the news was only 3-4 stations for a few hours per day. There literally wasn’t time. And newspapers have limited space. There is no limit now.

An example, and I’m not saying it’s a negative thing to shine light on it, but I don’t think think police shootings of Black people would be in the news as much because the incidence rate has actually decreased steadily for decades. But then we also have cameras everywhere now so that is a huge factor.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker said:
I'd be for any system that kept the candidates from campaigning/advertising in whatever state I reside in  :lol:

I guess the old concern of smaller constituencies being ignored is a moot point. They only places getting attention now are swing states, and that is because of the all or nothing methods of the EC. A popular vote would probably be the closest we could come to them caring about everyone/everywhere.  Throw in some significant campaign reform and prevent sitting Presidents from shamelessly bribing key voting blocs with taxpayer money, as Trump has been doing, and we might have something that begins to make things better.
Click to expand...
Tocqueville said the American Democracy will succeed until the government is able to bribe the public.  But I don't know what you are talking about because the welfare state is definitively Left wing.

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
Tocqueville said the American Democracy will succeed until the government is able to bribe the public.  But I don't know what you are talking about because the welfare state is definitively Left wing.
Click to expand...
You don't know what I'm talking about because you don't want to acknowledge it.

Trump's payroll tax vacation. Attempt to buy votes with tax dollars needed to fund social security. Absolutely no benefit to the people getting the temporary tax break as they will have to pay double first quarter next year. But it lets him tell the stupidest of his followers that he cares about them. Bulls#!t. Blatant attempt to bribe the weak-minded electorate.

His administration had a deal made with big pharma to reduce prescription costs for medicare and seniors...until he demanded drug companies send cash cards to all seniors prior to the election. Pharma refused because the saw it for what it was, and Trump scrapped the whole deal because it wouldn't give him what he really wanted. What HE wanted, not what seniors and people on Medicare actually need. He's nothing more than a two bit crook....and you love him for it. Congrats.

So now you know what I'm talking about. Time for you to ignore more facts about dear leader and turn the discussion to something completely unrelated. f#&%ing joke.

 
JJ Husker said:
You don't know what I'm talking about because you don't want to acknowledge it.

Trump's payroll tax vacation. Attempt to buy votes with tax dollars needed to fund social security. Absolutely no benefit to the people getting the temporary tax break as they will have to pay double first quarter next year. But it lets him tell the stupidest of his followers that he cares about them. Bulls#!t. Blatant attempt to bribe the weak-minded electorate.

His administration had a deal made with big pharma to reduce prescription costs for medicare and seniors...until he demanded drug companies send cash cards to all seniors prior to the election. Pharma refused because the saw it for what it was, and Trump scrapped the whole deal because it wouldn't give him what he really wanted. What HE wanted, not what seniors and people on Medicare actually need. He's nothing more than a two bit crook....and you love him for it. Congrats.

So now you know what I'm talking about. Time for you to ignore more facts about dear leader and turn the discussion to something completely unrelated. f#&%ing joke.
Click to expand...
First you need to calm down.  Second some version of tax cuts or 'stimulus' has become an expectation in times of economic crisis, endorsed by professional economists.  So if that is a 'bribe' then everyone bribes.

 
Back
Top