Election Day/Night Open Thread

[vnatale]

How does it compare to Hillary's 2016?

Hillary received 65,853,514 votes in 2016, according to Wikipedia. Last number I have shows Trump with 67,317,893 this year so far.

Still a goal is to get more votes than your opponent since there is a strong correlation between the popular vote and the electoral college. He would have been declared the winner last night if he'd, for once, been able to get the popular vote. Therefore, the popular votes he's received is nothing to crow about.

Vinny

Just answering a question you asked.

Thanks for answering and correcting my incorrect assumption.

Vinny

[vnatale]

Looks like Biden has pulled ahead.

You know this election is something else when our non-political, Canadian representative jumps in!

Vinny

[ahhrunforthehills]

Anybody familiar with the Electoral Count Act?

At 1 p.m. on Jan. 6, the newly seated 117th Congress will count the electoral votes during a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives to certify the Electoral College tally. During this session, the president of the Senate — Vice President Mike Pence — will open and present the certificates of the electoral votes from each state and the District of Columbia. As each certificate is read, at least one senator and one representative would have to join together to object to the votes.

If this happens, both chambers would meet separately to debate and vote on the objection. If the chambers disagree, the votes cast by the slate of electors certified by the governor prevails, according to the Electoral Count Act. But if states send contested slates of electors, the Electoral Count Act also allows Congress to discard both slates of electors, throwing out the state’s electoral votes.

The Electoral College is made up of 538 electors. It is not clear whether the U.S. Constitution requires a presidential candidate to secure at least 270 electoral votes or a majority of the electoral votes if Congress deems fewer than 538 electoral votes valid, making it impossible for either candidate to achieve 270 votes. In that case, it’s also possible that neither candidate secures a majority of the electoral votes cast either.

The House would then vote on the final outcome with each state’s congressional delegation casting one vote. In this case, the outcome would be determined not by the political party that holds a majority of seats in the new Congress but by the political party to which a majority of each state’s members of Congress belong. The presidential candidate who wins a majority of the votes cast by each state’s delegation becomes the next president. Michigan’s delegation — prior to Tuesday’s election — was composed of seven Democrats, six Republicans and one Libertarian. That could change when the new Congress is seated.

The Senate would vote on the vice president.

A number of other hypothetical scenarios could play out that could destabilize the outcome, leaving the nation without a clear president-elect or acting president.

Source: https://www.sentinel-standard.com/news/ ... ontested/1

When it comes to challenging a state's electoral votes, it appears that you basically need states with a Republican state legislature and Democratic governor (or vice-versus) to be able to have the electoral votes tossed out.

If that is correct, look at the states at risk (in grey): https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_a ... _trifectas

Looks like a lot of the stated Biden needs

[vnatale]

Capture.JPG (73.16 KiB) Viewed 4581 times

[I Shrugged]

Could anyone explain to me why the centre part of the USA is Republican?
Has it always been this way?

Here is the 2016 map by voting precinct.
The short answer to your question is the blue is mostly cities and non-whites. Many states' results are determined by their dominant city, such as Chicago.

[Ad Orientem]

The whole thing is really so sad.

I remember watching Jo Jorgensen (libertarian) being interviewed on Fox a couple hours before the last Trump/Biden debate.

They asked her how she felt about not being able to participate in the debate because she didn't have enough votes in the necessary polls.

She replied that they refused to let her name even appear on those polls.

2 party system = 1 party system

We all lose.

I don't like the way our political system is set up. We really need a constitutional rewrite.

Abolishing the electoral college would solve 90% of our election problems.

Yeah, sure, if you want the Dems to control the White House forever.

History has shown that to be most unlikely. I don't understand the hostility of so many conservatives to the idea of the President of the United States being elected by the American people. We preach democracy to the rest of the world while defending minority rule at home. If the EC goes away then the GOP will have to adapt to the new reality, which means they will not be able to continue as the party of white rural America if they want to win national elections. From my perspective that's a good thing. It would also give conservatives with little reason to vote in many states a motive to do so. A Republican in New York City or almost anywhere in California might as well stay home and watch Netflix on election day. Under the current system their vote is more or less meaningless. And I suspect a lot of them do. But get rid of the EC and suddenly California Republicans have a reason to vote again.

[doodle]

The whole thing is really so sad.

I remember watching Jo Jorgensen (libertarian) being interviewed on Fox a couple hours before the last Trump/Biden debate.

They asked her how she felt about not being able to participate in the debate because she didn't have enough votes in the necessary polls.

She replied that they refused to let her name even appear on those polls.

2 party system = 1 party system

We all lose.

I don't like the way our political system is set up. We really need a constitutional rewrite.

Abolishing the electoral college would solve 90% of our election problems.

Yeah, sure, if you want the Dems to control the White House forever.

History has shown that to be most unlikely. I don't understand the hostility of so many conservatives to the idea of the President of the United States being elected by the American people. We preach democracy to the rest of the world while defending minority rule at home. If the EC goes away then the GOP will have to adapt to the new reality, which means they will not be able to continue as the party of white rural America if they want to win national elections. From my perspective that's a good thing. It would also give conservatives with little reason to vote in many states a motive to do so. A Republican in New York City or almost anywhere in California might as well stay home and watch Netflix on election day. Under the current system their vote is more or less meaningless. And I suspect a lot of them do. But get rid of the EC and suddenly California Republicans have a reason to vote again.

Seems to me like a positive step away from extreme partisanship

[Xan]

The Electoral College is the bargain that was struck to get the smaller states to go along with this new Constitution thing. Their interests would have been, and would be today, completely ignored in a nationwide popular vote.

[pp4me]

I don't understand the hostility of so many conservatives to the idea of the President of the United States being elected by the American people.

That's the kind of statement that makes me think what you have to say is not to be taken seriously.

Do you really believe this is what conservatives think?

[doodle]

The Electoral College is the bargain that was struck to get the smaller states to go along with this new Constitution thing. Their interests would have been, and would be today, completely ignored in a nationwide popular vote.

They kind of already are ignored by one party or the other.

[doodle]

After having to change my title and registration and insurance both health and car insurance three times this year already...and trying to compute my taxes on income earned in three states....I'm kind of feeling a bit more Hamiltonian of late...a little more federalism might be a good thing.

[vnatale]

After having to change my title and registration and insurance both health and car insurance three times this year already...and trying to compute my taxes on income earned in three states....I'm kind of feeling a bit more Hamiltonian of late...a little more federalism might be a good thing.

Do you mean the opposite? Federalism for me has always been one of the words that means the opposite of what one assumes it means.

Vinny

[vnatale]

Capture.JPG (121.75 KiB) Viewed 4694 times

[Ad Orientem]

It's almost over.

[doodle]

Trumpkin is suing to stop vote counting? like toss democracy out the window...that's his strategy?

i am not paying attention so i have Zero idea what was said but "toss democracy" is the dead last interpretation i would jump to...
maybe he was saying stop counting till we have secure counting or observed counting, but "toss democracy" not likely..

[Mountaineer]

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/04/ye ... nsylvania/

Very interesting. Might help untwist a few twisted knickers about “stopping “ vote counts, or not.

[ahhrunforthehills]

Trumpkin is suing to stop vote counting? like toss democracy out the window...that's his strategy?

Welcome to a world that has trillions of regulations.

If a poll worker has a Trump or Biden mask... "voter intimidation". Poll "inspector" not allowed to see the polls... "suspected fraud".

Thanks to Democrats and Republicans the definition of "democracy" is now decided by who has the better lawyers... not "the people".

[glennds]

The Electoral College is the bargain that was struck to get the smaller states to go along with this new Constitution thing. Their interests would have been, and would be today, completely ignored in a nationwide popular vote.

The alternative is to artificially influence the playing field through the EC such that one American's vote becomes less influential than another's.
When you think about it, the EC is a form of alternative action. Decidedly un-Libertarian IMO.

Now that I think about it, it would be interesting to see a state by state ratio of eligible voter/Electoral vote. It would reveal how much relative dilution is occurring and where.

[Xan]

The article Mountaineer posted identifies very specific issues, none of which are ticky-tack violations.

[Xan]

The Electoral College is the bargain that was struck to get the smaller states to go along with this new Constitution thing. Their interests would have been, and would be today, completely ignored in a nationwide popular vote.

The alternative is to artificially influence the playing field through the EC such that one American's vote becomes less influential than another's.
When you think about it, the EC is a form of alternative action. Decidedly un-Libertarian IMO.

Now that I think about it, it would be interesting to see a state by state ratio of eligible voter/Electoral vote. It would reveal how much relative dilution is occurring and where.

You're assuming that we're a single nation, rather than a confederation of sovereign states.

Suppose Europe decided to merge their militaries into one and elect a Commander-in-Chief, with one vote from each country. Would you say that it's un-European for an individual German's opinion to count less than an Albanian's? Or is that just the way they want to construct their international agreement?

[glennds]

The Electoral College is the bargain that was struck to get the smaller states to go along with this new Constitution thing. Their interests would have been, and would be today, completely ignored in a nationwide popular vote.

The alternative is to artificially influence the playing field through the EC such that one American's vote becomes less influential than another's.
When you think about it, the EC is a form of alternative action. Decidedly un-Libertarian IMO.

Now that I think about it, it would be interesting to see a state by state ratio of eligible voter/Electoral vote. It would reveal how much relative dilution is occurring and where.

You're assuming that we're a single nation, rather than a confederation of sovereign states.

Ah, therein lies the tug of war. I realize different people have different opinions of how sovereign is sovereign when it comes to the dividing lines between state independence (sovereignty if you like) and a single nation.
But I'm sure you would agree that unlike Congress, the Office of President is a "single nation" office. Why should it not be elected as such?

[Xan]

The Electoral College is the bargain that was struck to get the smaller states to go along with this new Constitution thing. Their interests would have been, and would be today, completely ignored in a nationwide popular vote.

The alternative is to artificially influence the playing field through the EC such that one American's vote becomes less influential than another's.
When you think about it, the EC is a form of alternative action. Decidedly un-Libertarian IMO.

Now that I think about it, it would be interesting to see a state by state ratio of eligible voter/Electoral vote. It would reveal how much relative dilution is occurring and where.

You're assuming that we're a single nation, rather than a confederation of sovereign states.

Ah, therein lies the tug of war. I realize different people have different opinions of how sovereign is sovereign when it comes to the dividing lines between state independence (sovereignty if you like) and a single nation.
But I'm sure you would agree that unlike Congress, the Office of President is a "single nation" office. Why should it not be elected as such?

Primarily because the small states would never have agreed to create the federal government if that were how it worked.

[glennds]

The Electoral College is the bargain that was struck to get the smaller states to go along with this new Constitution thing. Their interests would have been, and would be today, completely ignored in a nationwide popular vote.

The alternative is to artificially influence the playing field through the EC such that one American's vote becomes less influential than another's.
When you think about it, the EC is a form of alternative action. Decidedly un-Libertarian IMO.

Now that I think about it, it would be interesting to see a state by state ratio of eligible voter/Electoral vote. It would reveal how much relative dilution is occurring and where.

You're assuming that we're a single nation, rather than a confederation of sovereign states.

Ah, therein lies the tug of war. I realize different people have different opinions of how sovereign is sovereign when it comes to the dividing lines between state independence (sovereignty if you like) and a single nation.
But I'm sure you would agree that unlike Congress, the Office of President is a "single nation" office. Why should it not be elected as such?

Primarily because the small states would never have agreed to create the federal government if that were how it worked.

That historical fact doesn't make it an equitable system in today's environment. The Southern states required the 3/5ths compromise using slave count for representation or they wouldn't have agreed to create the federal government.

[doodle]

After having to change my title and registration and insurance both health and car insurance three times this year already...and trying to compute my taxes on income earned in three states....I'm kind of feeling a bit more Hamiltonian of late...a little more federalism might be a good thing.

Do you mean the opposite? Federalism for me has always been one of the words that means the opposite of what one assumes it means.

Vinny

Yeah, I forget that hamilton's 'radical federalist ideas' are pretty much what we have instituted today....in response to confederation basically not functioning...I wouldn't mind centralizing things a bit more. Like I said, changing health insurance, car registration, title, license plates, unemployment benefits, taxes...such a pain when going state to state.

[Hal]

Capture.JPG

Some of us just slept through it all last night

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=611y2uV-bcs