2018 Presidential Election
- Thread starter Marky Bunny
- Start date
I don't think so, maybe use F**** get it across if people really don't like the full word
Thursday August 11th, 2022
Most Americans now support using the popular vote or run-off elections to decide Presidential Elections
Most Americans support using the popular vote or run-off ballot and not the electoral college vote to select a president, according to new exclusive polling carried out for NBS by Yougov.About 63% of Americans support using the popular vote, compared to 35% who would rather keep the electoral college system. Using a run-off system such as used in France is supported 57% to 39%. Approval for the popular vote is up from January 2021, when 55% of Americans said they back the change; 43% supported keeping the electoral college at that time. Opinions on the systems varied sharply according to political party affiliation. 80% of Democrats approve of moving to some version of the popular vote system, while 42% of Republicans support the move. Though, many more Republicans support using the popular vote system now than after the 2018 election, when support was at 27%. There is also an age divide: 7 out of 10 Americans from ages 18 to 29 support using the popular vote, compared to 56% in Americans over 65 years old.
There have been four presidents who won the electoral vote, but not the popular vote — John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and Matthew Santos in 2006. Since Santos win the following three elections in 2010, 2014 and 2018 all produced close results where just a few votes in key battleground states would have resulted in the winner winning in the electoral college but not the popular vote.
There are 538 electors, one for each U.S. senator and U.S. representative, plus three for Washington, D.C., which gets three electoral votes in the presidential election even though it has no voting representation in Congress. The number of electors has changed through history as the number of elected members of Congress has changed with the country's expansion and population growth. How electors get picked varies by state but in general state parties file slates of names for who the electors will be. They include people with ties to those state parties, like current and former party officials, state lawmakers and party activists. They're selected either at state party conventions or by party central committees.
The Yougov polling was conducted from June 27th to August 4th of this year.
Last edited:
The system of electing President's while not perfect, and may have design flaws! But overall it has worked pretty well since 1789. It embodies the federal system and ensures that large states like California, Texas or Florida while state's with smaller population's would end up being ignored under what the proposed reforms would encompass. Polling data cannot be dependable enough, as the survey design is based on whatever conclusion the pollster wants. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The American system while it may have flaws, is unique and do we really want to be like France 🇫🇷 or other countries with similar run-off systems? The best suggestion is to leave well enough alone!
Thursday August 11th, 2022
The popularity of Prime Ministers / living former Prime Ministers
| Prime-Minister | Fav Rating | Not Fav Rating | Overall Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Richard Samuels | +51% | -15% | +36% |
| Andrew Carter | +32% | -22% | +10% |
| Henry Reed | +29% | -21% | +8% |
| Michael Duggan | +30% | -28% | +2% |
| John Green | +18% | -40% | -22% |
| Maureen Graty | +15% | -50% | -35% |
The state of Georgia would like to have a word with you. They manage it when it happens.
Is being unique really a good qualification for choosing a system of government? Say what you want about the French electoral system (and as a Frenchman, I have plenty to say about it), but we get the candidate who the majority of voters vote for. And by the logic of 'leaving well enough alone', the US wouldn't even exist today, and the colonies would still be governed by a far-away parliament it wouldn't be allowed to vote for.
To use Professor Lessig's words in the show, 'the ´{constitution} is only the beginning.'
OOC: The Electoral college may have worked at one point, but there have been enough elections recently where the person who ended up as President was not the person the majority of the country voted for to suggest it needs reviewing
You bump the election forward a few weeks.
True, about Lessig view, but the American system has worked perfectly well, apart from the 1876,1888, 2000 and 2016 anomalies in RL and the 2006 in this thread. 4 elections out of 59 elections in total! It appears that there is a few on this thread have the view that a participation prize is required! If so, why? In the American system, there has been a winner in both the popular and electoral vote on 54 separate occasions and of course a runner-up; okay there were issues in 1800 and 1824, but all told 52 times out of 59 isn't too shabby!
Your argument is based entirely on the premise of "if it's not broke, don't fix it". Yet, there are multiple times where the results of the electoral college didn't correspond with the results of the popular vote, as you have pointed out yourself. That's a clear example of a system that doesn't work as it should, which means it is broken and should be fixed.
In addition, no one here is talking about giving the losers a participation prize. No one here is disputing that if you lose an election, you aren't entitled to any position of leadership, no matter how close you were to getting in first place.
Last edited:
Even one time is a complete failure for democracy in my opinion, seven is absurd.
As for timing, if it was a runoff election, I would keep the current November date for the final round and hold the first round in September or October. The presidential campaign season is already too long, might as well put it in before November instead of after it. This would also get rid of the December Electoral College date.
Last edited:
Please refer to the four times in which I cite the ONLY four occasions in which the electoral vote winner didn't didn't correspond to the popular vote winner, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016! The way you say it, suggests that these anomalies occur quite regularly! In fact the system we have has worked quite well on the 55 other occasions! These things are bound to occur when you have state's like California, Illinois and New York voting by disportionate numbers for one candidate over another. That factor alone is argument enough for keeping the system we have. Imagine if you will, what would occur if the electoral college was disbanded. Do you honestly think for one minute that candidates would bother visiting state's with smaller voting population centers? Places like Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Nevada would be rendered fly over country in favor of larger population centers like California, Texas, New York and Florida for example. The electoral vote system forces candidates to visit those state's with smaller electoral vote numbers, as the electoral vote count, is an accurate metric of who's actually winning and losing. Remember in 2016, because of its 10 electoral votes, Wisconsin became a battle ground and Trump decided to all but take up residency there, while Hillary basically ignored it, along with Pennsylvania and Michigan and incorrectly concluded that she was ahead. Her mistake, and we got the result I think no one really wanted! But thems the breaks!
Another factor that needs to be considered is that the popular vote outcome is a back-up the electoral vote result and it could be argued vice versa and as such this effectively validates the eventual outcome. Try and argue with someone from Delaware or Idaho that you want to eliminate there electoral votes and they'd think you are mad! That's the problem with folks living in California or New York, thinking that an idea they think is awesome is pretty okay with smaller state's. Also no state would seriously consider passing such a measure through their state legislatures, not unless the anti-electoral element gained control! Maybe the largest state's would! Thankfully the federal system would protect itself from such frivolous suggestions and we can render such an idea to the purely theoretical.
Last edited:
Can we keep the discussion to the thread time line rather Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton please.
Friday August 12th, 2022
Duke called Tyler "I had nothing to do with Rockford sketch"
The Seaborn campaign has announced that the Republican nominee Alan Duke called Bobby Tyler yesterday evening personally ensure the Governor that he "had nothing to do with the Rockford sketch" which appeared on the right-wing shock jock Nash Rockford podcast on Wednesday.
"Senator Duke called Governor Tyler to ensure him that he nothing to with the sketch" and that the Governor "accepted his statement" in a brief statement sent out via e-mail from the Seaborn campaign, The Duke campaign also confirmed the call had taken place "Senator Duke wanted to make it clear that he had in part in this and that it had personally offended him".
Independent Republican Presidential candidate Andrew Long said that Duke calling out Rockford's behavior was "rank hypocrisy" adding "all his life Duke has used dog whistles, he has helped enable people like Rockford, now he wants us to believe he suddenly condemns it" adding "I don't agree with Governor Tyler much on policy, but he is a good public servant, and his personal story is one all Americans can be proud of".
Seaborn continues wide lead over Duke, Long in presidential poll
Friday, August 12th, 2022
President Sam Seaborn (D) continues to hold a large lead over Republican nominee Alan Duke and independent candidate Andrew Long, according to the latest NBS/YouGov poll.
Polling shows Seaborn holding strong as the choice of 42 percent of likely voters, with Duke coming in second at 27 percent and Long at 20. In a poll grading the four presidential candidates' vice presidential selections, independent or swing voters said they most approved of Seaborn's choice of former governor of Virginia Bobby Tyler (36%), followed by Long's pick of former Indiana governor Emily Rudden (33%). Only 15 percent of independent say they most approved of retired general Lloyd Pendleton (R)'s selection, only slightly higher than the 14 percent who did not know or who ranked two selections equally (the choice of Green Party candidate Anderson Gerald was named as the best by only two percent of independent respondents).
Presidential Election Polling
Seaborn (D): 42% (±0)
Duke (R): 27% (+2)
Long (I): 20% (±0)
Buckner: 3% (-1)
Undecided: 8% (-1)
Seaborn (D): 42% (±0)
Duke (R): 27% (+2)
Long (I): 20% (±0)
Buckner: 3% (-1)
Undecided: 8% (-1)
You're missing my point. The fact that anomalies (defined as something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected) have occured, as you have said before, means that the system isn't working as it should. Unless you are suggesting that anomalies are fine and that the ideal system is one where the person who doesn't win the most votes can become president.
I've heard of the argument that the electoral college prevents smaller states from being ignored and prevents bigger states like California and Texas from being dominant. It's wrong because:
1. The electoral college makes it so that an election hinges around a couple of swing states. Smaller states that have a strong partisan lean, such as Idaho or Delaware, get ignored as there isn't much incentive to campaign in states that barely have a chance of being flipped. The only thing that prevents smaller states from being ignored is if they don't have much of a partisan lean. Thus, a lot of smaller states are still ignored under the electoral college.
2. Bigger states like California and Texas wouldn't actually be dominant if the electoral college was removed because under the electoral college, the smaller states are dominant. An electoral vote in a smaller state like Wyoming, is worth much more than an electoral vote from a bigger state like California. In 2020, Wyoming had a population of 581,348 and 3 electoral votes. California had a population of 39.35 million and 55 electoral votes. After doing the math, in 2020, Wyoming had one electoral vote per 193782.67 people (rounded to the hundredth place) and California had one electoral vote per 715454.55 people (rounded to the hundredth place). I don't think it's very fair for 1 person in Wyoming to have the same amount of political power as 3.69 (rounded to the hundredth place) people in California. Why should one's vote be worth more based on where one lives? 1 person should equal 1 vote. Getting rid of the electoral college would even the playing field.
Lastly, how can the popular vote be considered a backup for the electoral college and visa-versa when the electoral college is the only one that matters, as you have said before. A candidate needs at least 270 electoral votes to win, but there is no such requirement for the popular vote.
Last edited:
All right, let's move on from the arguments over the Electoral College.
If you really want to continue arguing about it, go to Chat.
If you really want to continue arguing about it, go to Chat.
> Mfw I *just* miss the discussion on the electoral college and can't drop my banger argument
Anyway, I've been wondering for a while, around what time were IRL members of the House phased out completely and replaced entirely with members from TTL?
Anyway, I've been wondering for a while, around what time were IRL members of the House phased out completely and replaced entirely with members from TTL?