2020 US election - It Came from Washington DC

[Labster]

We're already at the point where both sides are claiming victory.  That happened fast.  Trump is alleging fraud as expected.  Biden took a more conciliary tone, saying that the Republicans are not the enemy.  When the leftist cable news commentators cut back in, one was quick to assert that Republicans are, in fact, the enemy.

The most likely scenario right now looks like Biden wins the presidency while Republicans hold onto the Senate.  Which means another four years of bitterly divided government.

I'm at the point that whoever wins, I think it's time for states to call a Constitutional Convention under Article V.

[robkelk]

So... I just heard about the other 2020 U.S. vote

What's the word on the street about the referendum regarding statehood for Puerto Rico? Does anybody who's reading this thread know?

From what I have gathered in conversation with my family on the island the last poll published two days ago puts the result at around 50% pro statehood.

So, same as last time, then.

Do you think Congress will let it go through this time if the vote is yes?

I don’t know. Maybe if DC is made a state as well, judging by past precedent.

True that. It could happen - nothing in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution says what form of government the District can or cannot have (and DC obviously isn't restricted to being completely governed by Congress because it has a mayor). And Brazil has already set the precedent of its federal district having all of the rights and responsibilities of a state.

If DC was to get statehood and PR wasn't, there's be an uproar because of unequal treatment under the law. EDIT: Assuming the referendum ended up with a "yes" vote, of course. I haven't had a chance to go looking for the results of that vote...

[classicdrogn]

Well suffice to say I am very glad to have been wrong, but that CBC results aggregator was at the time reading 283 electors for the Cheeto. Now the question becomes how sore a loser he is (we already know he's as likely to be a gracious in defeat as he is humble in victory, which is not at all,) how many things he breaks out of spite instead of simple incompetence, how many more people die needlessly, etc. And if he maintains that GOP battle streak by starting a civil war rather than sending the boys on a foreign adventure.

I am really, honestly worried about that, because no end of a gun is the right one when I'm looking across it at my own usually sensible sister. My nephew. My youngest niece, currently pregnant. I held her. I came one phone call away from technically kidnapping her if her asshole dad didn't put her and her sister back on the bus to their mother when the summer visit was supposed to be over. And probable jail time for it, regardless of how an actual custody suit would have gone, with the states involved.

And at the fact that keeping the antipresident from throwing out the Constitution still would be the morally correct choice despite having been more ashamed than proud to be an American for at least twenty years. If I believed gods were anything more than outdated superstition, I'd be shouting damnation at him for bringing it to the point it even seems remotely plausible.

So don't make that offer unless you're willing to back it up, Rob.

[Foxboy]

Basically, I think it's all going to depend on Nevada, unless a raft of mail-in ballots changes Pennsylvania. Politico has a map showing how things stand currently, and taking the current leads as "wins"... The election hinges on Nevada finishing the counting of its votes. (Like it's REALLY stupid close at ~60% of the votes counted.)

Yup, checked it: Any of the remaining states calling for Biden wins it, but the one most likely to flip that way is Nevada.

That said, the rest of the states that have not yet called the race favor Trump. So, yeah, it all depends on Nevada.

[Dartz]

The Downfall has begun. He's really starting to squeal like a bold child that's been introduced to the wooden spoon for the first time.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...0141082624

Speaking of the Downfall. This didn't take long.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1324113616786743296

[GethN7]

At this point, I've resigned myself to either possibility. Whatever happens, happens.

I just recommend anyone still panicking to calm down, the world will continue to revolve around the sun no matter what. I wanted Trump to win, but I'll accept a Biden win if it happens. Either way, I've resolved to let whatever is, be what it is.

[Foxboy]

Biden's win, should it happen, will have at least one benefit: the damn Late-night comics will have to come up with new material.

Honestly, I expect them to keep coasting on "covfefe" at least until April.

[nemonowan]

Biden's win, should it happen, will have at least one benefit: the damn Late-night comics will have to come up with new material.

Honestly, I expect them to keep coasting on "covfefe" at least until April.

Oh, don't worry.

Between all the deliberate damage that Trump will do before Biden's assumption, the Senate that will still be led by Mitch McConnell, and Biden himself who is not really a prize, they will have no trouble finding stuff to mock.

[GethN7]

I just want to bring up a possibility here, just out of intellectual honesty.

Let's say there is fraud on one or both sides with the votes. I doubt either Trump or Biden personally would be foolish enough to soil their hands with such skullduggery directly, even Nixon was not that idiotic during Watergate, but let's say there were operatives on one or the other side who decided they were so not willing to risk losing they cheated for their superiors without their knowledge.

If that proves true for either or even both sides, I'd rather the matter be exposed to the light of day so there is no question as to the legitimacy of the votes. If either Trump or Biden wins, I want both men to win or lose by virtue of the truth alone. I would pull an Alexander Hamilton and choose the candidate I didn't prefer to avoid an even worse outcome like civil war if I had to, but I also would not be comfortable letting someone who won by fraud have power either, even if it was done without their knowledge.

[hazard]

Were you comfortable with the 2000 election of George Bush Jr?

Because IIRC, the votes were eventually tallied and showed an electoral victory for Al Gore. It's just that by that time George Bush had been president for quite some time already. Not president apparent, president. Something that, most likely, would not have happened if a judicial order to cease counting hadn't happened.

[classicdrogn]

Bush in 2000 was also a problematic case, to be sure. To paraphrase The Capitol Steps at the time since I don't remember well enough for an exact quote, "This is not how a modern democratic country runs an election. (beat) This is how Florida runs an election!"

Then 2020 said, "Oyeh? Hold mah beer."

[robkelk]

So... Just looked at the not-yet-obvious states - all five of them.

The incumbent has to take all of them to be re-elected. He's leading in four of them. The challenger needs six more electoral College votes to win, which is how many are up for grabs in the one state where he's leading.

Assuming, of curse, that all of the Electoral College delegates vote the way they're instructed to by their states' voters. If the current projections are accurate and it comes down to being one elector away from a tie, and that one elector ignores his or her instructions and votes for the other guy, then you've got a deadlock. You won't know the Presidential results until January 6. (Honestly, it's as if your Founding Fathers purposefully designed a system that's inherently broken. Are you sure you don't want to switch to the Parliamentary system, or a system of direct election of the head of government? All it would take is a Constitutional Convention.)

As for your Senate... the numbers are evenly split (since the independents caucus with the Dems), with four seats still not announced. All four are in states that are currently leaning toward the GOP in the Presidential election.

[GethN7]

So... Just looked at the not-yet-obvious states - all five of them.

The incumbent has to take all of them to be re-elected. He's leading in four of them. The challenger needs six more electoral College votes to win, which is how many are up for grabs in the one state where he's leading.

Assuming, of curse, that all of the Electoral College delegates vote the way they're instructed to by their states' voters. If the current projections are accurate and it comes down to being one elector away from a tie, and that one elector ignores his or her instructions and votes for the other guy, then you've got a deadlock. You won't know the Presidential results until January 6. (Honestly, it's as if your Founding Fathers purposefully designed a system that's inherently broken. Are you sure you don't want to switch to the Parliamentary system, or a system of direct election of the head of government? All it would take is a Constitutional Convention.)

As for your Senate... the numbers are evenly split (since the independents caucus with the Dems), with four seats still not announced. All four are in states that are currently leaning toward the GOP in the Presidential election.

The Founders feared "the imprudence of (direct) democracy" because they feared it would be even rifer with the potential for fraud. It's also why we have a bicameral legislature, and electors are chosen after assessing the popular votes.

The system of American government is designed, at the legislative level, to pass through at least two different checkpoints before it's signed off on, and if a discrepancy is detected between either level, it was intended to let this serve as a political tripwire to root out potential abuses so they can be corrected.

I agree it's still flawed, but I consider not as bad as some of the potential alternatives.

[Dartz]

The idea behind the electoral college is sound - it is supposed to stop the big states dominating.

The winner-takes-all implimentation almost everyone has settled on is fairly bollocks though. It makes a few states super important. It also means you can get a result way out of line of the popular vote and you can only do that so many times, or to such a degree, before you risk public ructions.

Surely a few clever 'safe' states might consider to earn themselves some extra promises by offering to split the vote in proportion.

----

We use a PR system for our presidency, with candidates proposed by a mix of local authority and political party nominations. It's a lot more stable.

---

Has there ever been a faithless elector? Aren't these just a formality?

It's amusing. The desire for, and fear of, faithless electors trades hands depending on whose in the lead.

EDIT: Oh wow - it's actually reasonably common. Mostly as a protest of some sort rather than actually overturning the result.

[Rajvik]

Dartz, you ask if there has ever been a "Faithless elector" and the answer is arguably yes.

In the 1802 election between Adams and Jefferson the electoral college was tied, after about five or so go throughs where both sides tied with the exact same number. finally one elector, to break the tie, changed his vote giving Jefferson the election.

[nocarename]

Or for a more recent case where it didn't change the outcome Federally:

https://apnews.com/article/65eb7dd495484...f101eb049a

Four members of the Electoral College in Washington state cast their votes for a candidate other than Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the state’s popular vote.

The 21st century has been weird sometimes.

[Labster]

So... Just looked at the not-yet-obvious states - all five of them.

The incumbent has to take all of them to be re-elected. He's leading in four of them. The challenger needs six more electoral College votes to win, which is how many are up for grabs in the one state where he's leading.

Assuming, of curse, that all of the Electoral College delegates vote the way they're instructed to by their states' voters. If the current projections are accurate and it comes down to being one elector away from a tie, and that one elector ignores his or her instructions and votes for the other guy, then you've got a deadlock. You won't know the Presidential results until January 6. (Honestly, it's as if your Founding Fathers purposefully designed a system that's inherently broken. Are you sure you don't want to switch to the Parliamentary system, or a system of direct election of the head of government? All it would take is a Constitutional Convention.)

As for your Senate... the numbers are evenly split (since the independents caucus with the Dems), with four seats still not announced. All four are in states that are currently leaning toward the GOP in the Presidential election.

The Founders feared "the imprudence of (direct) democracy" because they feared it would be even rifer with the potential for fraud. It's also why we have a bicameral legislature, and electors are chosen after assessing the popular votes.

The system of American government is designed, at the legislative level, to pass through at least two different checkpoints before it's signed off on, and if a discrepancy is detected between either level, it was intended to let this serve as a political tripwire to root out potential abuses so they can be corrected.

I agree it's still flawed, but I consider not as bad as some of the potential alternatives.

But it didn't achieve the goal of preventing abuses.  Look at the Tilden v. Hayes election in 1876.  States used their powers to create enough electoral votes to ensure Hayes would be elected with unlikely support in the South.  Then a commission that wasn't described in the constitution was created to resolve the issues of multiple state officials certifying different results.  This commission made a party-line vote, even with one-third being members of the Supreme Court, and essentially made a corrupt bargain that Hayes would get the presidency in exchange for the end of Reconstruction in the South.

In 2000, the Supreme Court intervened to end the recount in Florida.  Had it continued, Al Gore would have been elected President.  But the electoral college played no process in ensuring abuses were checked -- in fact, it allowed the abuse to happen.

Functionally, it's just another system that can be gamed, exploited, and corrupted.  The Electoral College does not meet the design goal of preventing abuse, and never has.  It did meet the design goal of upholding slavery for a long time, and it continues to empower the agrarian South.

And it looks like the history of a partisan Supreme Court goes back pretty far.  Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided on a 7-2 party line vote.  Democratic justices voted that blacks could not be citizens, Whig justices voted in favor of Dred Scott's freedom.

[hazard]

The entire US election system is designed to be broken in a specific way.

History has shown that a first past the post system is the voting system that is most suited to exploitation. Not least of which because of how it makes it impossible for there to be more than 2 parties that matter.

[GethN7]

So... Just looked at the not-yet-obvious states - all five of them.

The incumbent has to take all of them to be re-elected. He's leading in four of them. The challenger needs six more electoral College votes to win, which is how many are up for grabs in the one state where he's leading.

Assuming, of curse, that all of the Electoral College delegates vote the way they're instructed to by their states' voters. If the current projections are accurate and it comes down to being one elector away from a tie, and that one elector ignores his or her instructions and votes for the other guy, then you've got a deadlock. You won't know the Presidential results until January 6. (Honestly, it's as if your Founding Fathers purposefully designed a system that's inherently broken. Are you sure you don't want to switch to the Parliamentary system, or a system of direct election of the head of government? All it would take is a Constitutional Convention.)

As for your Senate... the numbers are evenly split (since the independents caucus with the Dems), with four seats still not announced. All four are in states that are currently leaning toward the GOP in the Presidential election.

The Founders feared "the imprudence of (direct) democracy" because they feared it would be even rifer with the potential for fraud. It's also why we have a bicameral legislature, and electors are chosen after assessing the popular votes.

The system of American government is designed, at the legislative level, to pass through at least two different checkpoints before it's signed off on, and if a discrepancy is detected between either level, it was intended to let this serve as a political tripwire to root out potential abuses so they can be corrected.

I agree it's still flawed, but I consider not as bad as some of the potential alternatives.

But it didn't achieve the goal of preventing abuses.  Look at the Tilden v. Hayes election in 1876.  States used their powers to create enough electoral votes to ensure Hayes would be elected with unlikely support in the South.  Then a commission that wasn't described in the constitution was created to resolve the issues of multiple state officials certifying different results.  This commission made a party-line vote, even with one-third being members of the Supreme Court, and essentially made a corrupt bargain that Hayes would get the presidency in exchange for the end of Reconstruction in the South.

In 2000, the Supreme Court intervened to end the recount in Florida.  Had it continued, Al Gore would have been elected President.  But the electoral college played no process in ensuring abuses were checked -- in fact, it allowed the abuse to happen.

Functionally, it's just another system that can be gamed, exploited, and corrupted.  The Electoral College does not meet the design goal of preventing abuse, and never has.  It did meet the design goal of upholding slavery for a long time, and it continues to empower the agrarian South.

And it looks like the history of a partisan Supreme Court goes back pretty far.  Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided on a 7-2 party line vote.  Democratic justices voted that blacks could not be citizens, Whig justices voted in favor of Dred Scott's freedom.

Granted, both are good points. The EC process sounds simple enough on paper, but yeah, as you pointed out, situations that were never anticipated left some really questionable wiggle room that is very questionable even to this day.

In election news, looks like Biden may possibility prove, assuming no sudden upsets or sudden reversals under murky means like you pointed out, to win legitimately even if you winnow out any possible cheating. If so, I will be the first to accept it.

[classicdrogn]

At the moment, it looks like Biden's pulled ahead in Georgia of all places, which (again assuming no sudden surprises or skulduggery) makes for a comfortable margin in the Electoral College even if a handful of electors were to go with Trump instead of following the popular vote results. It's by barely a thousand votes as currently reported, but still. Georgia. Wow.

[Pyeknu]

I wonder if the fact that a former Democratic president who lives in the Peach State had something to do with it.

[GethN7]

I've been doing some thinking about if Biden wins, and to be frank, I'm not optimistic.

Assuming any voting suspicions are legally cleared up and Biden does squeak through with legit votes, he will enter office with a cloud over his and Democrats heads, much like Hayes did when he won, in which their legitimacy and credibility will be at a nadir, and if Biden and the Democrats cannot get much done (especially with a hostile judicary and a bitterly divided Congress), or worse, prove so poor at changing things they make Trump look better in hindsight like Grover Cleveland did for Benjamin Harrison, then long-term a Biden win could be a bad thing.

Of course, I could be wrong, he could prove to be competent, the Democrats could turn things around, and the next four years under a notional Biden term could actually work, the above is just speculation based on prior precedent that may not ring true this time. If so, I will be pleasantly surprised.

[hazard]

Part of it will in that case depend on the question of whether or not the Democrats can successfully blame the Republicans for stalling or outright denying widely popular legislation.

[robkelk]

At the moment, it looks like Biden's pulled ahead in Georgia of all places, which (again assuming no sudden surprises or skulduggery) makes for a comfortable margin in the Electoral College even if a handful of electors were to go with Trump instead of following the popular vote results. It's by barely a thousand votes as currently reported, but still. Georgia. Wow.

Wow. And Georgia is electing two senators this time around. If they were to go Dem as well, and the other two who haven't been announced go GOP, then the Senate will be split 50-50 and the Vice-President will have a fair amount of spotlight time for two years whenever a tie needs to be broken.

[Jinx999]

And Pennsylvania has also gone over to Biden.

As far as I can tell, unless California was to go Republican, there is now no one single state where a change in the result would affect the overall race. Possibly no two.

There's going to be recounts in the closer states and a bunch of lawyers making some big bucks, but it looks like the election is settled.
.
.
.
It also looks like Trump has cast himself as the last hero, trying to hold back the bolshevek hordes from overwhelming civilisation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTru...9996397575