2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

So if the majority of people in a particular state, or states, wished to leave the union do you believe that this democratic will should be ignored and/or quelled?
If a majority of Liverpool or Manchester wish to leave England, or a majority of Victoria or New South Wales wish to leave Australia, should they be accommodated?

It’s not about what I believe, if I have my way there will be no nation state and people can freely move and settle wherever they wish, it’s about what a nation state would do to protect its sovereignty, territorial integrity and economic interests. In the case of the US, it has been definitively decided, states sovereignty do not supersede federal sovereignty. Washington, Jackson and Lincoln all quelled insurrections/secession. And nobody ever since has tried to test that case again, because everybody knows the response and consequences.

Which will often equate to a president who isn’t representative of the majority of voters.
So no worse than what we have now. And nobody took much issue with Lincoln not winning a majority in 1860, or Bill Clinton not winning a majority in 1992, they still got the most votes. And btw, at least since 1910 or so, no actual president can claim to have the support of the ‘vast majority of people’, because around 40% of the eligible voting population don’t participate.

Now imagine a 3 party system. ;)

You can do 10 and it would be the same. If you can’t stomach voting for any other party and leave your 2nd choice blank, it’s on you, seems fair to me. Same with sitting out.
 
I’ve no dog in the fight here but it seems obvious to me that changing the electoral system increases (significantly) the chances that the United States in its current form would no longer exist at some point. The choice therefore involves a decision on whether that’s an acceptable trade off.


The current British government won 33.7% of the vote. Is that more reasonable?

Yes, because it's a different system. Parlamentary, where people decide on their local authorities and the PM is indirectly elected as a subproduct of that process. Due to that it can also change before 4 years have passed if they are doing a really poor job. It has happened several times lately.

Do you really believe that a secession is a more likely scenario than parties simply adjusting their electoral offer to what their voters want? Which is what happens in local elections?

Someone argued that some territorial representation should be included in the mix, and that's correct. But that's literally the role of the Senate, which (unlike the UK) already has a considerable veto power over the House and therefore controls most of the Legislative branch.

If you add that territorial bias to the presidential election (Executive branch) that also designates members of the Supreme Court (Judiciary branch), in a two party system where there's a high probability of the POTUS also controlling the Senate (and let's remember that the VP is the tiebreaker), the system is evidently overcompensating. Which leads to elections where popular vote doesn't matter, and 43 states out of 50 (and that's not Even talking about the people that live in Columbia district, Puerto Rico, American Samoa etc) don't get any real attention.
 
If a majority of Liverpool or Manchester wish to leave England, or a majority of Victoria or New South Wales wish to leave Australia, should they be accommodated?
English cities aren’t the equivalent of American States. The apt comparison here is with the constituent parts of the current UK, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and NI.

Scotland has already had an independence referendum, with another possible in the future. NI has a border poll baked into it own constitutional settlement. Wales…forget Wales. And England effectively is the UK writ large (apologies non-English British people).

It’s not about what I believe, if I have my way there will be no nation state and people can freely move and settle wherever they wish,
Okayyyy.

it’s about what a nation state would do to protect its sovereignty, territorial integrity and economic interests. In the case of the US, it has been definitively decided, states sovereignty do not supersede federal sovereignty. Washington, Jackson and Lincoln all quelled insurrections/secession.
Conditions change and laws change. Indeed the presidents you cite each presided over much smaller countries than current incumbents.

And nobody ever since has tried to test that case again, because everybody knows the response and consequences.
The consequence being imprisonment or death in this context?

So no worse than what we have now.
It could indeed be worse because at least the margin of difference is small now.

And nobody took much issue with Lincoln not winning a majority in 1860, or Bill Clinton not winning a majority in 1992, they still got the most votes. And btw, at least since 1910 or so, no actual president can claim to have the support of the ‘vast majority of people’, because around 40% of the eligible voting population don’t participate.
I didn’t refer to the vast majority of people, I referred to the vast majority of voters, by which I mean those who voted.
 
Who you elect is a consequence of how you elect them so...yes.
Right, so your view is that how we elect our president should be by a system that currently, and historically, is by design, weighted towards white christians because they should have preference in choosing who is president since they might throw a tantrum if they don’t get their way.
 
English cities aren’t the equivalent of American States. The apt comparison here is with the constituent parts of the current UK, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and NI.

Scotland has already had an independence referendum, with another possible in the future. NI has a border poll baked into it own constitutional settlement. Wales…forget Wales. And England effectively is the UK writ large (apologies non-English British people).
Scotland, Wales and NI arent apt either, merely by the fact that they get to have the possibility of that referendum. US states, for all intents and purposes, are much closer to provinces, despite what they may say. They dont have sovereignty, not in the sense of an actual nation state.
Thanks for your valuable input.
Conditions change and laws change. Indeed the presidents you cite each presided over much smaller countries than current incumbents.
Some change, some don't. The land mass that Lincoln presided over is the same as mainland USA today. And the principle was made clear, one nation, under God, indivisible. Nation, not states.

The consequence being imprisonment or death in this context?

Imprisonment for ringleaders, most likely. Revocation of voting rights for any referendum signee, to be restored by a request for pardon and taking the Pledge of Allegiance again. If Bobby Lee and Davis weren't hanged, death isn't on the menu.

It could indeed be worse because at least the margin of difference is small now.
The margin of difference now is millions of votes.
I didn’t refer to the vast majority of people, I referred to the vast majority of voters, by which I mean those who voted.
And the vast majority of voters would be able to prevent that outcome by voting for one candidate, if the winner is so unpalatable for them. And the only difference between 'voters' and 'eligible to vote' in your argument is whether they participate, so by not participating they effectively made the same choice as the 'vast majority of voters'.

Frankly speaking, this discussion is pointless, because despite not being well versed yourself with the history of the EC as well as the Civil War, you are not prepared to cede any ground based on this nebulous idea of 'states may leave if they dont like the democratic process', which, while reasonable as a standalone idea, is completely at odds with US history and legal tradition, as well as the actual modern day demographic composition of these potential seditious states. Nearly half of Mississipi, for example, are black people, you think they would countenance an attempt to secede? Even the majority white, rural, flyover states rely heavily on federal military installation for jobs, or farm subsidies, they would starve themselves literally in the name of 'freedom' if they were to secede. It's a fantasy.
 
How does a small margin of difference makes secession less likely? I really don't understand this logic. Why is secession even in discussion? It's a very random suggestion. There are probably dozens of more likely outcomes to an electoral reform.
 
Americans love their conspiracy theory.

untitled-design-1-2024-09-1b88d45f131dfd769370e88b88d2767d.png
 
If ... a majority of Victoria or New South Wales wish to leave Australia, should they be accommodated?
WA and North Queensland often have some noise about seceding from the Commonwealth or becomeing a state (NQ) and the answer is always "No feck off". Partly because they are stupid ideas and WA could never survive alone and NQ doesn't have anywhere near the population or industry to be a state.

NQ could become a new state but as it would require all State governments passing supporting legislation it is incredibly unlikely and in the case of WA trying to seceed to become a country that is almost impossible as there is no provision for this in the constitution. WA even had a referendum on this in 1933 where they voted for this. The British Government just ignored them and made sure that it never happened.

Something tells me breaking up the US would be equally hard. It would probably take a full on civil war.
 
I thought I was a positive that Trump didn't trail off or freeze up like Biden has done.
His performance would have been vastly improved if he had frozen before he rambled on about immigrants eating pets, Harris aborting babies after they are born, and various other nonsenses that he vomited up.
 
maybe, just maybe, the Republican party will have to change in order to win a popular vote, rather than take their ball and go home.

They are what they are today because of a skewed electoral system and Gerrymandering that gives disproportionate power to a minority, which is itself undemocratic.
 
Oh right, that makes sense.
The funny thing is, that has a kernel of truth in it. Harris's 2019 primary platform included a provision for providing transition care for detained immigrants, which is a humane position, but would be pretty unpopular with the public at large. His campaign managed to dig it up, prepped him to use it, then he botched it on stage by essentially saying 'she wants to make illegal aliens trans' instead of 'she wants to waste tax payer money on providing transgender surgery to illegal aliens'.
 
Right, so your view is that how we elect our president should be by a system that currently, and historically, is by design, weighted towards white christians because they should have preference in choosing who is president since they might throw a tantrum if they don’t get their way.

...no. I think your system, whatever it is, should take account of every area of your country somehow, not just the pure number of votes. You could argue that is done through senators or governors or some other means though, in which case fair enough.
 
maybe, just maybe, the Republican party will have to change in order to win a popular vote, rather than take their ball and go home.

They are what they are today because of a skewed electoral system and Gerrymandering that gives disproportionate power to a minority, which is itself undemocratic.

Yes. It will be interesting to see what direction they go in after Trump - if they continue to go down the extremist route then surely the party will self-destruct and not stand a chance in any general election.
 
2-party democracy. You are stuck with supporting one and opposing the other, however unhinged the person your party has picked.
Is it really that way?
Being German I have the feeling the party doesn't play such an important role. Americans are much more person driven on who will be the president. You always hear, Harris should come up with "her" plans on the economy, immigration...or the questions are will she continue Biden's policies. It's much less about the policies of the democratic party.
In Germany it's the party which sets the policies and the voters know which agenda and plans each party will try to implement, if elected.
Who will be chancellor play some role but much less than in the US , where is all about the presidential candidate. The primary are another example, they all about the candidates.
 
The persistence of the EC is a stain.
Is the electoral college really the big problem or is it the simple majority gets all the electors?
If the electors were distributed via proportional representation like in most other democracies today, the problem would be solved. Isn't it?
 
Is the electoral college really the big problem or is it the simple majority gets all the electors?
If the electors were distributed via proportional representation like in most other democracies today, the problem would be solved. Isn't it?
the problem is representation differs arbitrarily between states.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-house-got-stuck-at-435-seats/

Take the smallest and largest states with only one representative: Wyoming and Delaware, respectively. Wyoming, with just under 578,000 people, winds up overrepresented because it’s guaranteed a seat despite falling well short of that 760,000 national average. Conversely, Delaware has nearly 991,000 people, which leaves it underrepresented because it isn’t quite large enough to earn a second seat. Meanwhile, Montana has only about 95,000 more people than Delaware, but that’s enough for the apportionment formula to eke out a second seat, meaning Montana will have two districts to Delaware’s one and an average district size of just over 542,000, making its constituents the most represented in the country.

And the fact that 100 electors = 100 senate seats, and the Senate itself leans towards rural area, you will end up with a permanent skew regardless. Uncapping the House and adding 100+ seats can largely alleviate this problem, but its still an imperfect solution.

One of the biggest irony is a lot of the current red states were granted stateshood as a ploy by the Radical Republicans of the 19th century to maintain control of congress (gaining new Senators from the newly admitted states), after the South was readmitted politically in the post-bellum era, and push through progressive legislations of the time, and now they've become the biggest barrier to progress.
 
the problem is representation differs arbitrarily between states.
I was referring to presidential election only.
The disparity in the senate should/could be addressed separately. That California and Wyoming both got two senator seats doesn't look very democratic.
 
I was referring to presidential election only.
The disparity in the senate should/could be addressed separately. That California and Wyoming both got two senator seats doesn't look very democratic.
But that's the point, proportional representation with the current number of seats doesnt solve the issue because 1) the number of electors correlating with Senate seats skew Republicans and 2) house seats in red states represent less people on average, so they still get more voting power, due to the 1929 Permanent Reapportionment Act. So without uncapping the House to get more seats/electors to offset the inherent skew in the Senate, you still end up at possible EC/popular vote split.
 
I was referring to presidential election only.
The disparity in the senate should/could be addressed separately. That California and Wyoming both got two senator seats doesn't look very democratic.
What about Malta and Germany both getting one vote in the council of European Union? Or that tiny counties in European Union have vetoes that can block everything?

I know that the US gets all the shit for their seemingly absurd political system, but there are analogies (often far worse) all over Europe. We just had labour winning 75% of MPs despite winning less than 40% of the votes. Or the party with most votes in France somehow ending third when it comes to numbers of senators.

There is no perfect system and there are trade offs everywhere. The US system for most part has worked ok for the last 250 years, and no amount of Europeans moaning about it will change that.
 
What about Malta and Germany both getting one vote in the council of European Union? Or that tiny counties in European Union have vetoes that can block everything?

I know that the US gets all the shit for their seemingly absurd political system, but there are analogies (often far worse) all over Europe. We just had labour winning 75% of MPs despite winning less than 40% of the votes. Or the party with most votes in France somehow ending third when it comes to numbers of senators.

There is no perfect system and there are trade offs everywhere. The US system for most part has worked ok for the last 250 years, and no amount of Europeans moaning about it will change that.

What? I believe it is a common assumption in the US that the EC is outdated and undemocratic? Polls have, to the best of my knowledge, shown a consistent public support for a direct election as opposed to the EC.

It's also worth reading up on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - which is a very interesting project, although I sadly have my doubts about its viability.
 
What about Malta and Germany both getting one vote in the council of European Union? Or that tiny counties in European Union have vetoes that can block everything?

I know that the US gets all the shit for their seemingly absurd political system, but there are analogies (often far worse) all over Europe. We just had labour winning 75% of MPs despite winning less than 40% of the votes. Or the party with most votes in France somehow ending third when it comes to numbers of senators.

There is no perfect system and there are trade offs everywhere. The US system for most part has worked ok for the last 250 years, and no amount of Europeans moaning about it will change that.
You think that's bad? Look at the Rugby Premier League... The team that comes top has to go in to a 4 way play off with the other top 4 teams and whoever wins that is the actual League winner. How the feck does that make sense?

Jokes aside, every political voting system is flawed or corrupt or has loopholes that can be exploited. I personally think the UK's system is a lot fairer than that of the USA, but it's far from perfect. The electoral collage system is outdated but it's unlikely to be scrapped or even altered seeing as it's really the only way Republicans can get elected and any changes to make it more representative would undoubtedly just be seen as helping the Democrats.
 
But that's the point, proportional representation with the current number of seats doesnt solve the issue because 1) the number of electors correlating with Senate seats skew Republicans and 2) house seats in red states represent less people on average, so they still get more voting power, due to the 1929 Permanent Reapportionment Act. So without uncapping the House to get more seats/electors to offset the inherent skew in the Senate, you still end up at possible EC/popular vote split.
Didn't say it's perfect but believe it would be a big step in the right direction.
I personally believe it's very undemocratic, if in close race, like 51:49, the minority doesn't get a single elector.
 
What about Malta and Germany both getting one vote in the council of European Union? Or that tiny counties in European Union have vetoes that can block everything?
You are right, but I doesn't make the American system any better.
A lot of people criticize aha aren't happy with status quo. I also believe that the unity vote, all 26 members need to agree, is outdated and often delays important decisions unnecessarily. It should be changed to a majority vote.
 
You are right, but I doesn't make the American system any better.
A lot of people criticize aha aren't happy with status quo. I also believe that the unity vote, all 26 members need to agree, is outdated and often delays important decisions unnecessarily. It should be changed to a majority vote.

For something that affects so many diverse interests I think a majority vote would be silly (52-48 and all that). Perhaps an 80% threshold or something like that would be more sensible.
 
For something that affects so many diverse interests I think a majority vote would be silly (52-48 and all that). Perhaps an 80% threshold or something like that would be more sensible.
That's why I didn't write simple majority.. Like 2/3 or in some important decisions 80% as you suggest is fine.
It's so frustrating that autocrats like Orban can simply block any meaningfully progress in the EU with their veto.
 
That's why I didn't write simple majority.. Like 2/3 or in some important decisions 80% as you suggest is fine.
It's so frustrating that autocrats like Orban can simply block any meaningfully progress in the EU with their veto.

Fair enough.