The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Famine]

Name another country where an executive candidate can win a majority of the vote and not win the office. Because that's possible in our stupid system.

Why is it beholden on me to provide evidence of something I didn't state?

Also, special means different from what is usual. Is it ordinary for a president to die or resign from office? I'd say...no.

It's literally a double-digit percentage. And that shouldn't be a surprise - US Presidents have commonly throughout history been old men with powerful allies (and sponsors) and enemies in a public-facing job. They get ill, they get shot at, they get corrupted.

 

[Dotini]

The WSJ reports a massive surge in campaign donation to Trump.

Trump’s Online Fundraising Surges
Raises $45 million online for re-election bid in third quarter, 29% increase over prior quarter
By
Alex Leary
Updated Oct. 4, 2019 3:16 pm ET

President Trump’s 2020 re-election effort raised $45 million online in the third quarter on a surge of small-dollar donations driven by 313,000 first-time donors, campaign officials said.

Mulvaney predicts landslide, 45 states for Trump in 2020.

In numerous recent conversations with colleagues, including last week's senior staff meeting, White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has said he thinks President Trump could win 45 states in 2020 after the impeachment process — a magnitude of landslide that few if any independent pollsters would dare predict.

Between the lines: People who've heard Mulvaney make this remark say he wasn't joking or even exaggerating. He appears to genuinely believe that impeachment will have a profoundly positive effect on Trump's political fortunes, according to 3 sources who have heard Mulvaney make the 45-state prediction.

• Mulvaney also believes that the longer the impeachment process drags on, the better it is, politically, for Trump, these sources added.
• Mulvaney did not stipulate which 5 states he thought Trump would still lose when he made these comments, a source who heard them said.
• His view appears to be based more on instinct than polling data. I have seen no polling that supports his prediction, and at this early stage, responsible polling analysts are extremely wary of predicting which party will benefit more from impeachment in 2020.
• But it's possible Mulvaney is echoing the ebullience emanating from the Trump campaign. They are raising breathtaking sums online by telling supporters to give money to help Trump fight the Democrats trying to impeach him.

The big picture: Mulvaney's view is far from a consensus in Trump's orbit — some see considerable peril and downside political risk for the president as the impeachment inquiry moves forward — but his voice is one that the president hears every day and could bolster how Trump views the political dynamics of impeachment.
https://www.axios.com/mick-mulvaney...ion-c49528ca-fd8b-492e-9d25-746b8775655e.html

All I can say is (1) Tulsi is getting my money, but I'm not counting on her winning, (2) the Dems are rolling the dice with impeachment but conceivably could hit the jackpot, and (3) Bernie and Biden are looking dead in the water while Warren drifts to the top, leaving room for Hillary to reappear in the weakened field.

 

[Danoff]

(2) the Dems are rolling the dice with impeachment but conceivably could hit the jackpot

Impeachment should not be a political gamble or process. It's about determining whether the sitting president is abusing his powers, and convicting him of that abuse. That is its own end.

 

[Dotini]

Impeachment should not be a political gamble or process. It's about determining whether the sitting president is abusing his powers, and convicting him of that abuse. That is its own end.

Agreed - if stipulating Washington DC were an ideal city, a marble capital up in the clouds. Unfortunately, we live in the real world of down, dirty and calculating Machiavellian politics.

 

[mustafur]

Impeachment should not be a political gamble or process. It's about determining whether the sitting president is abusing his powers, and convicting him of that abuse. That is its own end.

Sure but it's partisan Football because that's modern politics, we all know Trump has been abusing his powers but try convince the Republican majority in the senate they will be yelling with their hands over their ears.

 

[Danoff]

Agreed - if stipulating Washington DC were an ideal city, a marble capital up in the clouds. Unfortunately, we live in the real world of down, dirty and calculating Machiavellian politics.

It's laughable given what has been admitted that trump is not guilty of an impeachable offense. The fact that he might not be removed from office is dirty/calculating Machiavellian politics. But if at least an attempt at enforcing this limitation on the president is not made, it weakens (yet again) congress and any semblance of checks on the presidency.

It's not idealist to hope that our government, as it was designed, can function. That's just hoping not to be lost to dictatorship.

In short, I'm hoping that some people are playing a longer game than 2020. I'm hoping they're playing on principle.

 

[Swagger897]

Here's an interesting thought, just to take it to a logical extreme.

Except, that's not logical at all. The number of electorates is relative to the Senators + Representatives within that state. You can't have a state like Texas with only "1 person" while still be divided into 36 different districts. Even if you had Montana, ND, SD, Wyoming, Delaware, D.C., and Alaska all combined together, you still have 21 votes to hand around.

In a state like mine, Georgia, it's completely clear that those within the Atlanta metropolitan area and the outlying suburbs, as well as every other "major" city within the state are blue, with the remaining rural outside counties red. By your logic, the "6 people" living in each of those blue neighborhoods would vote in favor for that of the democratic nominee, while at the same time, those 6 cities are only encompassed in 5 different districts (Macon and Columbus falling in the #2 district). That means you'd be leaving out 9 other districts, covering heavily diverse landscape from that of Eastman, Georgia, to that of Peachtree City.

Trump only just won the state popular vote by 210k votes, almost 2/3rd the total vote for Fulton county which voted for Clinton. I can't see the logic behind letting 200k people in a city determining a president, which only accounts for 1/3rd of the total state's area population. And yes, I've seen both the "impeach this" and "dirt doesn't vote" gotcha images representing voters and desolate areas, but that doesn't dispute the fact that logging and other agricultural commodities dominate the state's economy, more so than what can be found within those same 6 cities.

 

[Danoff]

but that doesn't dispute the fact that logging and other agricultural commodities dominate the state's economy, more so than what can be found within those same 6 cities.

We have the Senate to cover that.

 

[Dotini]

It's laughable given what has been admitted that trump is not guilty of an impeachable offense. The fact that he might not be removed from office is dirty/calculating Machiavellian politics. But if at least an attempt at enforcing this limitation on the president is not made, it weakens (yet again) congress and any semblance of checks on the presidency.

It's not idealist to hope that our government, as it was designed, can function. That's just hoping not to be lost to dictatorship.

In short, I'm hoping that some people are playing a longer game than 2020. I'm hoping they're playing on principle.

The usual way to remove people from office is to vote them out. There is a handy election next year in which to do just that. Without a majority in the Senate, impeachment is merely a divisive exercise in virtue signaling, and almost sure to provoke a backlash that could lose the election for the Dems, even against the the obviously defective Trump. Why are you so worried about dictatorship? Hoping for others to play the game of politics on principle seems a game for wishful thinkers, idealists or Pollyanna the schoolgirl. As my old friend Spence Stoddard once said, "Hope in one hand, piss in the other, and see which fills up faster."

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Except, that's not logical at all. The number of electorates is relative to the Senators + Representatives within that state. You can't have a state like Texas with only "1 person" while still be divided into 36 different districts. Even if you had Montana, ND, SD, Wyoming, Delaware, D.C., and Alaska all combined together, you still have 21 votes to hand around.

In a state like mine, Georgia, it's completely clear that those within the Atlanta metropolitan area and the outlying suburbs, as well as every other "major" city within the state are blue, with the remaining rural outside counties red. By your logic, the "6 people" living in each of those blue neighborhoods would vote in favor for that of the democratic nominee, while at the same time, those 6 cities are only encompassed in 5 different districts (Macon and Columbus falling in the #2 district). That means you'd be leaving out 9 other districts, covering heavily diverse landscape from that of Eastman, Georgia, to that of Peachtree City.

Trump only just won the state popular vote by 210k votes, almost 2/3rd the total vote for Fulton county which voted for Clinton. I can't see the logic behind letting 200k people in a city determining a president, which only accounts for 1/3rd of the total state's area population. And yes, I've seen both the "impeach this" and "dirt doesn't vote" gotcha images representing voters and desolate areas, but that doesn't dispute the fact that logging and other agricultural commodities dominate the state's economy, more so than what can be found within those same 6 cities.

Every state, regardless of population has 2 senators and 1 representative for every ~750k people, with a minimum of 1. (Montana's sole district, at 990,000+ has almost twice as many people as Rhode Island's 1st district...how's that for representation). So every state has at least 3 electoral votes, regardless of population. If you had 19 states with 1 person in each of them, you would have 3 x 19 = 57 electoral college votes.

 

[Swagger897]

At any rate... A more logical approach, and one being that of a far higher likely hood, is that as urban expansion continues to grow, cities like Chicago, L.A., New York, Seattle, etc.. hold a higher chance to elect a president than the majority of congressional districts that remain untouched by the expansion and growth of the population. At that point, why bother to vote [if you're one of the outliers] since the population has passed the threshold to take over the majority of the districts?

I'd find this far more disconcerting, and plausible, for the country to experience versus people acting as if their vote holds entitlement whilst not understanding how the system works.

We have the Senate to cover that.

Do explain, I'm drawing a blank as to the relation between my state's senate and it's economy (unless you're referring to legislation, IE: Heartbeat bill). To that my response would be "oh well." You were only attracted to come to Ga due to incentives and tax breaks, not because you liked the political stance of the state or its constituents.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

At any rate... A more logical approach, and one being that of a far higher likely hood, is that as urban expansion continues to grow, cities like Chicago, L.A., New York, Seattle, etc.. hold a higher chance to elect a president than the majority of congressional districts that remain untouched by the expansion and growth of the population. At that point, why bother to vote [if you're one of the outliers] since the population has passed the threshold to take over the majority of the districts?

I'd find this far more disconcerting, and plausible, for the country to experience versus people acting as if their vote holds entitlement whilst not understanding how the system works.

I admit I'm having a hard time understanding your post. My best guess: You're suggesting that its unfair that areas with lots of people have more voting power? It's not like people living in cities completely homogenize into a single entity. Why should an individual in Chicago or LA have less voting power than somebody in Kilgore TX? Yes, cities have more people. Yes those people are generally a lot more progressive - but that's largely the GOP's fault.

If the GOP had any long term strategy, they would see that they are getting absolutely destroyed in cities all across the US and that their voter base is shrinking and dying off. They have no clue how to reach urban voters or younger voters (generally) and they won't even try beyond troll antics. I (as an individual in the bluest blue San Francisco) would absolutely consider voting for moderate/republican candidates if their social stance wasn't set in 1886, and I know quite a few people who feel the same.

 

[Biggles]

About the same as any other nation where the leader is directly elected then. Meanwhile the public gets no vote in the leader of the UK.

It does. Within each state. Because the USA is a legal body constructed out of the cooperation of fifty small countries (or "states"). Each state says who it wants to win, and - by agreement with the other 49 - they get so many votes depending on their population. Because the USA is a legal body constructed out of the cooperation of fifty small countries (or "states").

Saying that the US system may not be any worse than the system in the UK is not a recommendation. The structure of the US system was clearly better than anything else at the time it was created, but it was formed by the particular circumstances at the time & political expediency. The United States are not remotely like what they were at the time the constitution was created but they are stuck with an amending formula that is unlikely to ever be activated.

 

[Swagger897]

I admit I'm having a hard time understanding your post. My best guess: You're suggesting that its unfair that areas with lots of people have more voting power?

You were the one to suggest that one area is essentially equivalent to 19 states having the minimum amount of delegates possible is unfair, and assuming it was logical to begin with. On the other hand, I find it completely logical that a state determines its choice of president via the majority of the district's decisions, regardless of population count between them. Do I find it unfair that areas with large populations, within a congressional district, have more voting power than a lesser populated, but larger district? No, so long as the said district covers an area of constituents within the same or similar realms.

It's not like people living in cities completely homogenize into a single entity.

Of course not, as I said in my initial post, Clinton won Fulton county by 186k votes (297k/111k). It would be foolish to think that urban areas only vote for democrats/liberal and rural areas only vote republican/conservative. It is not foolish to think however, that a hive-mind aspect doesn't overshadow these cities, which can be shown via funding statistics.

Why should an individual in Chicago or LA have less voting power than somebody in Kilgore TX?

A better example would be the relation between someone within Chicago and someone within Springfield, IL. Two different congressional districts within the state, and at the same time having a Democrat and a Republic represent them respectively. Why should the representative in Chicago, who controls an area far less than that of the individual in control of the Springfield area, have any larger of a voting power? Within the "area" of Chicago and it's outlying cities, there are nearly 8-9 different districts who see over roughly the same type of geographical features, but varying economical contributors. For people living so close together, is there really that much of a change between a 45 minute drive into four different districts? If anyone wants to blame the EC, blame it on this reason alone for population density being the sole factor, and not a correlation of economical drives, and geographical necessities.

but that's largely the GOP's fault.

If the GOP had any long term strategy, they would see that they are getting absolutely destroyed in cities all across the US and that their voter base is shrinking and dying off. They have no clue how to reach urban voters or younger voters (generally) and they won't even try beyond troll antics.

I couldn't really care for what a party's stance is on issues, but rather the individual themselves and likable factors (including that of policy (which yes, may follow that of the party but at it's core, and especially with Trump, is subject to change a moment's notice)).

As far as reaching to a more broad, including younger audience, I'd be forced to say that the vocal majority is predominantly democratic, but that does not mean that they are the voting majority. I'm not well versed in the voting demographics of those aged between 18-30 statistically wise, and considering my more conservative leaning myself (and falling within that age demographic), I notice more people around me conservative leaning than I do with whom I associate those who do not. That may be because bringing up the conversation in a public matter tends to divide (Why is beyond me... It's like saying one color of grey is too black, or the other is too white) these days rather than taking a form of an intellectual approach and properly understanding both sides of an argument.

Me personally, this election I see being handed to Trump, or as it were from the onset of debates and formal discussion between democratic candidates. Their proposals were illogical to me, and simply do not benefit my overall well-being or interests. Some of their history is questionable at best (and with this Ukraine debacle it becomes even more of a comedic disappointment every day as some suggest it is unfair to investigate an opponent during an election, while on the other hand the opposition was being prevented from coming to office) and their attitude does not put out an appealing image. They have no clear leader within the party of those in the election, and even now within the elected officials. With each investigation brought to the surface that ends in failure, they treat it as a smear campaign against those individuals while myself I see it as a waste of time, money, and a disappointment to those who actually voted for these individuals. This impeachment inquiry is now the pinnacle of democratic politics and if it fails, they'll have no alternative as far as removing Trump for the next 5 years, and preventing their own party to collapse with from within.

Of course, all that means is 5 more years of Trump's nudes potentially being leaked from some Ukrainian comedians to Adam Schiff...

 

[Danoff]

The usual way to remove people from office is to vote them out. There is a handy election next year in which to do just that. Without a majority in the Senate, impeachment is merely a divisive exercise in virtue signaling, and almost sure to provoke a backlash that could lose the election for the Dems, even against the the obviously defective Trump. Why are you so worried about dictatorship? Hoping for others to play the game of politics on principle seems a game for wishful thinkers, idealists or Pollyanna the schoolgirl. As my old friend Spence Stoddard once said, "Hope in one hand, piss in the other, and see which fills up faster."

Yes, I'm aware that you consider anything other than the most cynical manipulative politics to be idealism and wishful thinking. Forgoing the system of checks and balances between congress and the executive branch (co-equal branches of government) in favor of an election is precisely the way to strengthen the executive branch (which leans more and more dictatorial with each passing decade). Why should Congress care about convicting the President of abuse of power when they could let the people vote? Because that is their job. It is what they are paid to do. It is their accepted duty. And it is their job and duty precisely because the US system of government depends upon it.

Edit:

You seem to be of the opinion that the best the democrats can accomplish here is to put someone with a D next to their name in office. I'll remind you that I don't care which team has their person in office, they're all terrible. I need the process to function as it was designed to function in order to keep them under control. That way when I hate what my politicians have to say (which is always), I have some measure of protection.

Do explain,

In the context of the presidential election, the senate disproportionately represents region while the house represents population. We don't also need to represent region with the electoral college.

Your state's senators should represent the entire state, while your state's representatives should represent their districts.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

A better example would be the relation between someone within Chicago and someone within Springfield, IL. Two different congressional districts within the state, and at the same time having a Democrat and a Republic represent them respectively. Why should the representative in Chicago, who controls an area far less than that of the individual in control of the Springfield area, have any larger of a voting power?

First: How does the representative from Chicago have more voting power? Outside of some special committee assignment, all US representatives have the same amount of power - their vote.

Second: What does land area have to do with anything? Representatives represent people, not property.

Within the "area" of Chicago and it's outlying cities, there are nearly 8-9 different districts who see over roughly the same type of geographical features, but varying economical contributors. For people living so close together, is there really that much of a change between a 45 minute drive into four different districts?

What does this even mean? Have you been to Chicago? There's probably more cultural & economic diversity in a single district there than in the entire rest of the state. That's what happens in cities. But that's even beside the point. The point is that there are a lot of people there and they need representation in congress. It's fundamental to the idea of a republic.

If anyone wants to blame the EC, blame it on this reason alone for population density being the sole factor, and not a correlation of economical drives, and geographical necessities.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[mustafur]

The land lives and breathes man..

 

[Famine]

Saying that the US system may not be any worse than the system in the UK is not a recommendation.

Cool. Who did either of those things?

 

[Swagger897]

First: How does the representative from Chicago have more voting power?

It's not the individual but the number of individuals within the same relative location that all share the same political values (I wouldn't reply to this until you've read the entire post by the way). What's the point in dividing the area into 10 different districts if one would encompass all of it no differently (An extreme point but with regards towards the conversation of the EC, relative).

Second: What does land area have to do with anything? Representatives represent people, not property.

The size of the district per the change in value (population) in relation to the amount of other similar districts who share the same ideals was the point. As mentioned, there are 8-9 districts within a defined area that will nearly always vote the same manner, which I find unnecessary. This also lead into my next point that you seemed stumped on that was in relation to my entire post.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

If the districts are only changed after every census and the changes take place only until the next cycle, why should district changes not be able to shrink and combine? If the same 9 districts continue to always vote in one manner, why should they not be consolidated into 4-5 larger districts that are based upon other factors aside from total headcount?

What does this even mean? Have you been to Chicago? There's probably more cultural & economic diversity in a single district there than in the entire rest of the state. That's what happens in cities. But that's even beside the point. The point is that there are a lot of people there and they need representation in congress. It's fundamental to the idea of a republic.

Just about every major city in every state defines the cultural and economic drivers of that society. It's not just limited to Illinois. It is especially exacerbated however by the fact that nearly half of Illinois' population lives within one county as well. While the point of a republic is to have fair representation, is the point of fair electoral representation needed to be divided among so many districts when fewer could equally serve the same interests? That was the question you initially asked in your hyperbole. 40 million people being represented somehow should factor more than 19 other states akin to that of Montana. Which brought me to my explanation of Chicago. If those 40 million people of one state all vote the same, why should they have 53 representatives if their needs are clearly the same being reflected upon who they chose to vote? Even if not all 40 million people vote the same, say 21M overall, the other 19M do what with their needs? Sit on their hands and follow a society in which they didn't chose to become?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It's not the individual but the number of individuals within the same relative location that all share the same political values (I wouldn't reply to this until you've read the entire post by the way). What's the point in dividing the area into 10 different districts if one would encompass all of it no differently (An extreme point but with regards towards the conversation of the EC, relative).


The size of the district per the change in value (population) in relation to the amount of other similar districts who share the same ideals was the point. As mentioned, there are 8-9 districts within a defined area that will nearly always vote the same manner, which I find unnecessary. This also lead into my next point that you seemed stumped on that was in relation to my entire post.


If the districts are only changed after every census and the changes take place only until the next cycle, why should district changes not be able to shrink and combine? If the same 9 districts continue to always vote in one manner, why should they not be consolidated into 4-5 larger districts that are based upon other factors aside from total headcount?


Just about every major city in every state defines the cultural and economic drivers of that society. It's not just limited to Illinois. It is especially exacerbated however by the fact that nearly half of Illinois' population lives within one county as well. While the point of a republic is to have fair representation, is the point of fair electoral representation needed to be divided among so many districts when fewer could equally serve the same interests? That was the question you initially asked in your hyperbole. 40 million people being represented somehow should factor more than 19 other states akin to that of Montana. Which brought me to my explanation of Chicago. If those 40 million people of one state all vote the same, why should they have 53 representatives if their needs are clearly the same being reflected upon who they chose to vote? Even if not all 40 million people vote the same, say 21M overall, the other 19M do what with their needs? Sit on their hands and follow a society in which they didn't chose to become?

Ohh, I see now. You want to disenfranchise democrats. I got it.

 

[Biggles]

Cool. Who did either of those things?

About the same as any other nation where the leader is directly elected then. Meanwhile the public gets no vote in the leader of the UK.

Cool. So what's the relevance of meanwhile-ing what happens in the UK?

 

[PocketZeven]

Why are you adding qualifiers to what I said? I didn't say anything about a two-candidate situation - and wouldn't have because the US Presidential Election isn't one either.

Which I didn't do either.

Don't fall back into these habits please.

One in every nine Presidents is not elected to the office of President. Doesn't seem "special".

I am not adding sir. The premise was an american president can win with 23% of the popular vote. Americans vote largely in a two party situation.

Just let bygones be bygones.

Death of a president during office is quite special or how should I correctly address it?

 

[Famine]

Cool. So what's the relevance of meanwhile-ing what happens in the UK?

No relevance in particular - although the party leader who becomes Prime Minister can also be elected (indirectly) to the position by such a small vote share. And often does - Theresa May's Conservatives won in 2017 with 29%, and that was an increase compared to the 24.5% for Cameron's Conservatives in 2015.

I am not adding sir. The premise was an american president can win with 23% of the popular vote.

And I said that wasn't particularly different from any other nation. You then requested I provide an example of a nation where a leader can win with 23% of the popular vote... in a two-candidate situation. That was an additional qualifer to what I said. I never said anything about a two-candidate situation. And wouldn't because, as noted below, it's wrong to claim the US Presidential election is a two-candidate situation. Check it out:

One can win the presidency with only 23% of the popular vote in the USA. That isnt my idea of democracy.

About the same as any other nation where the leader is directly elected then. Meanwhile the public gets no vote in the leader of the UK.

Also one can become President without ever facing a public vote. That's in the Constitution too.

Please explain?

In many other countries where a leader is directly elected, they can do so with about the same proportion of the popular vote as in the USA.

I am curious which leaders were elected with 23% in a 2 candidate situation?

Whoosh, in comes the extra piece of detail at the end there which wasn't in at the start.

This is what's called moving the goalposts - you've added more detail after the fact, in order to try change the original conditions.

Americans vote largely in a two party situation.

"Largely"?

In the last election, all fifty states and DC had three candidates for President. DC had four. 48 states had five. 40 states had six. That's 80% of states (less DC) with six candidates for President, including write-ins.

Just let bygones be bygones.

Literally no idea what you mean here.

Death of a president during office is quite special or how should I correctly address it?

Four of 45 Presidents have died in office. A fifth resigned. Essentially it's more unusual to have a February during a year that for a President to leave office mid-term and be replaced by someone not elected as President. If one more does it, it'll be about as unusual as a Tuesday.

 

[Danoff]

Four of 45 Presidents have died in office. A fifth resigned. Essentially it's more unusual to have a February during a year that for a President to leave office mid-term and be replaced by someone not elected as President. If one more does it, it'll be about as unusual as a Tuesday.

I think it's slightly more fair to count by terms. There have been 58 presidential elections, we should drop the last one because the term is not over. So 57 elections. With 5 terms ended prematurely, that's 9%. Still more common than February.

 

[PocketZeven]

No relevance in particular - although the party leader who becomes Prime Minister can also be elected (indirectly) to the position by such a small vote share. And often does - Theresa May's Conservatives won in 2017 with 29%, and that was an increase compared to the 24.5% for Cameron's Conservatives in 2015.

And I said that wasn't particularly different from any other nation. You then requested I provide an example of a nation where a leader can win with 23% of the popular vote... in a two-candidate situation. That was an additional qualifer to what I said. I never said anything about a two-candidate situation. And wouldn't because, as noted below, it's wrong to claim the US Presidential election is a two-candidate situation.

This is what's called moving the goalposts - you've added more detail after the fact, in order to try change the original conditions.

"Largely"?

In the last election, all fifty states and DC had three candidates for President. DC had four. 48 states had five. 40 states had six. That's 80% of states (less DC) with six candidates for President, including write-ins.

Literally no idea what you mean here.

Four of 45 Presidents have died in office. A fifth resigned. Essentially it's more unusual to have a February during a year that for a President to leave office mid-term and be replaced by someone not elected as President. If one more does it, it'll be about as unusual as a Tuesday.

Lets say your completely right. Which leader has one an election with 23%?

That said. To further explain my original statement I will try to use another hypothetical. In the US hypothetically a candidate can win with just 23% of the vote in a 2 candidate situation. That is one of my biggest criticism of the electoral college.

Most elections in the US have ultimately been between 2 candidates receiving the majority of the votes.

You are the one referring to imaginary habits I supposedly have. Get a life and leave it alone man.

Dying or resigning are not normal circumstances. You are just arguing for arguments sake. Normal is being elected to office. abnormal is when one becomes president because of a death or resignation. Should I refer to it as abnormal then?

I think it's slightly more fair to count by terms. There have been 58 presidential elections, we should drop the last one because the term is not over. So 57 elections. With 5 terms ended prematurely, that's 9%. Still more common than February.

I didnt state it was less common then february though, but then again would you consider a sitting president dying or killed as more common then february ignoring the statitics and leap year?

 

[Danoff]

Lets say your completely right. Which leader has one an election with 23%?

Since the US example is hypothetical, I think the fair comparison would be "which other countries could hypothetically have a leader elected with 23%".

 

[PocketZeven]

Since the US example is hypothetical, I think the fair comparison would be "which other countries could hypothetically have a leader elected with 23%".

Correct. I have to add a 2 candidatie situation. edit: to that hypotetical

But I also havent recieved an example of an presidential election won with 23% popular vote.

 

[Famine]

Lets say your completely right. Which leader has one an election with 23%?

Which US leader has won an election with 23% of the vote?

Incidentally, you did just quote me saying David Cameron became Prime Minister (on his own this time) after winning 24.5% of the vote in 2015, right? Seems "about the same" to me. But, if you're so bothered, the election before was the Conservatives (and Cameron) winning with 23.5%. Before that it was Labour on 21.6%. These aren't unusual numbers here - and the UK is effectively a two-party system (Conservative, Labour) even though it's possible to vote for dozens of other parties.

You are the one referring to imaginary habits I supposedly have. Get a life and leave it alone man.

I've not referred to any imaginary habits. You moved the goalposts. You got caught moving them. There's nothing imaginary about it. If you don't want to be caught doing these things, don't do them.

As for "get a life", if you can't discuss things without insulting other users, you don't belong here. Don't do that again.

Dying or resigning are not normal circumstances.

Dying is literally the most normal circumstance of all. And 1 in 9 Presidents has vacated their position before the end of their tenure.

You are just arguing for arguments sake.

No, I'm discussing for discussion's sakes.

It doesn't help discussion to employ hyperbole to describe a situation that comes up 1 in 10 times as if it's exceptionally rare, nor to continue to beat on a hypothetical situation that has come up no times simply because it is conceptually possible*. Nor does shifting the goalposts.


Viewing a discussion as a combative argument, with winners and losers, is not helpful - and rather conducive to the mindset of misrepresenting information, pretending it doesn't exist to suit, employing bankrupt debating tactics and deploying fallacies. I'd rather everyone, of any view, has a nice discussion where everyone learns.

*In principle, in the UK. you can become Prime Minister with 326 votes while your nearest rival gets 24 million. It's never happened, and never will.

 

[PocketZeven]

Which US leader has won an election with 23% of the vote?

Incidentally, you did just quote me saying David Cameron became Prime Minister (on his own this time) after winning 24.5% of the vote in 2015, right? Seems "about the same" to me. But, if you're so bothered, the election before was the Conservatives (and Cameron) winning with 23.5%. Before that it was Labour on 21.6%. These aren't unusual numbers here - and the UK is effectively a two-party system (Conservative, Labour) even though it's possible to vote for dozens of other parties.

You accuse me of moving goalsposts instead of asking me to explain the statement. A US candidate can win the presidency with 23% popular vote, but the majority (50,2%) of electoral votes. Yes its an hypothetical and no I wasnt trying to move goalsposts.



That is not similar to winning a US election with 23%.. Its election of a president is not comparable to the US. In the Uk it would have been not possible for a private citizen like Trump to become prime minister.

 

[Famine]

You accuse me of moving goalsposts instead of asking me to explain the statement.

I haven't accused you - you literally did it! I quoted you doing it, and showed you where you did it. You added a further qualifier to try to change the initial conditions after I had responded to the original post. This is what you did...

... and I did in fact ask why you did it as the very first sentence of my very first response after you did so.

A US candidate can win the presidency with 23% popular vote, but the majority of electoral votes.

Great. To reiterate, that's not exactly unusual in world politics. A UK party leader can become Prime Minister with 0.0013% of the votes cast, and 0.0004% of the possible votes. That's never happened either.

That is not similar to winning a US election with 23%.. Its election of a president is not comparable to the US. In the Uk it would have been not possible for a private citizen like Trump to become prime minister.

Assuming your first "US" should be "UK" (otherwise that's gibberish), this is why I made the point - in two posts - that in the UK we do not directly elect the leader. In fact our head of state is actually unelected - but again, electing a leader with 23% of the popular vote isn't exactly an unusual thing.

As for private citizens becoming PM... there's quite a big concern in the UK right now that Nigel Farage could soon occupy a seat of power despite never having been in the House of Commons. Farage has never been an MP - although he has been an MEP - yet could conceptually be PM in the next five years.

Since you like hypotheticals you could indeed become Prime Minister from being an ordinary citizen for as little as £500. It's unlikely, but possible.


And again, the US isn't a two-candidate system. At the last election 80% of states could choose between six candidates, both registered and as write-ins, while 100% of states plus DC could choose between three.