Current Affairs The 2020 United States Presidential Election

[Blue 1]

Constituencies are far more evenly populated compared to the US though.

Yes, but the point remains. It's far less likely you'd be able to win the popular vote and still lose, but not entirely impossible. The archaic electoral college system makes it far more possible.

 

[AsiaAsia82]

Who's to blame for what?

For the opinion that the incumbent was a bad choice even though they were elected

 

[roydo]

That's what the numbers are, not individual votes, it's areas vote.



I didn't know that.

Wonder what people are on about then when they go on about labour getting more votes but losing. There was loads of it back in December.

Cos they didnt.

It is pretty unusual in the UK for any winning party to get more than 50% of the total vote, hence the calls after most elections that 60% of the country didnt vote for the winners.

Tis the system, cos technically, you vote for the person you want to represent you in your area, not the actual party.

 

[Lord Buckethead]

America!

Halloween is over, bin yer Pumpkin!

 

[davek]

lol

...not enough of them though, thank goodness.

 

[Prevenger17]

For the opinion that the incumbent was a bad choice even though they were elected

 

[AsiaAsia82]

My point was if the leader is a bad leader is it his fault or the fault of those who nominated them voted him?(again)?

 

[ChesterBlue]

Very mature attitude - was Barack any different? on the Environment, Irag/Afghan War, fighting Racism?

You’ve just came on to a generally liberal to moderate forum spouting crap about crying liberals etc, you don’t have the right to comment on maturity.

 

[gonetomorrow]

I'm watching NBC news live. It's a lot more lively than our BBC I have to say.

 

[Kenshin]

Cos they didnt.

It is pretty unusual in the UK for any winning party to get more than 50% of the total vote, hence the calls after most elections that 60% of the country didnt vote for the winners.

Tis the system, cos technically, you vote for the person you want to represent you in your area, not the actual party.

Ahh right. So anyone saying that was talking out their arse then?

I never looked into it but can tell you it was staunch Corbyn supporters saying it at the time , may have even said it last time as well. Complaining about the way the system was etc.

Looks like that isn't the case then, if every area is equal.

 

[Prevenger17]

My point was if the leader is a bad leader is it his fault or the fault of those who nominated them voted him?(again)?

You asked how it would have been different with someone else in charge. My point was that if your leader is a reality TV show host whose response to a global pandemic was to ignore it for 10 months, ignore all expert advice, tweet 70 times a day while hundreds of thousands died and advised his followers to drink bleach, then someone else being in charge probably would have made a difference to the quarter of a million corpses America has now piled up.

 

[brieverton]

Perhaps there is a mass of people who thought Trump would be tamed by the office, and the whole bureaucracy surrounding it, but clearly that has not been the case.

Everything fitted into place for him last time round, against a deeply unpopular rival candidate and he ran a very clever campaign.

He attracts very vociferous and manic support, but this is an occasion for the ordinary citizen to have their say. The sort of people that are otherwise busy paying their mortgages and rearing children to be going to rallies. Trump will retain a lot of his support, but he only needs to lose a small amount to turn individual states and I can't see very many people who didn't vote for him last time now doing so off the back of the last four years.

In that sense, I think Biden has hit the right theme calling this a battle for the soul of the nation, and whilst I think it will be closer than previously thought and a likely ugly aftermath, I still have faith that the majority of American voters in enough of the swing states will opt for Biden.

 

[Blue 1]

One for the Americans here. Why shouldn't the presidency be decided by popular vote? Seems vastly fairer.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Constituencies have roughly the same number of voters in them. Hence why they have boundary changes from time to time.

Which both parties try to manipulate to their advantage.

Suppose 7000 people, each divided evenly for preference over two parties, and to be divided evenly over seven legislative districts. In principle, you can draw districts in a way such that either party gets six of the legislative seats. Pack 1000 of the opposition's voters into one district, and divide the remaining voters evenly across the remaining six.

One of the Democrats' problems is that their voters tend to clump in urban areas, making it easy for the opposition to draw such districts without drawing the attention of the courts.

 

[roydo]

Ahh right. So anyone saying that was talking out their arse then?

I never looked into it but can tell you it was staunch Corbyn supporters saying it at the time , may have even said it last time as well. Complaining about the way the system was etc.

Looks like that isn't the case then, if every area is equal.

Labour deffo didnt get more than 50% of the popular vote. But they certainly got more than losing to an 80 seat majority would, or should, represent.