US Elections 2020

[fred41]

If I were a conservative, how would I respond to the President calling the media the enemy of the people and claiming he has total power over the states, then calling for Virginians to protect their second amendment rights through civil unrest during a pandemic? Or if a Democrat did similar things, would I vote for the Democrat because they're pro-choice and support gay marriage? I think I wouldn't and it may be tribalism but I haven't seen a Democrat show such a flagrant disregard for institutions and people as Trump.

If you were a true establishment Republican (affiliate and/or voter) I would imagine you would hate him. If you’re one of the extreme wingers, most likely Tea Party and/or Libertarian types, you’d probably be okay with him. The extreme wings of both parties tend to be filled with a lot of bomb throwing types , who are just happy when others are miserable (I didn’t say ALL mind you, but you know who you are). They like when Trump calls people names and makes people uncomfortable (It’s him sticking it to the Establishment man! ..). The Green Party doesn’t have any out and out boors that I know of...and Bernie is pretty polite, but probably to a fault - if you listen to some of his most ardent supporters...which leads me to believe that if he was as crude as Trump...he’d still have their support, perhaps more so.

I’ve been a registered Democrat - but mostly to vote in local elections - the Democratic Party is so strong in NYC, it’s usually said you have to be a Democrat to vote, because quite often the Democratic Primary is the real election. I’ve became a registered Republican when I decided I didn’t want to be a hypocrite since I tended to vote conservative. Now I’m unaffiliated (President Trump being a strong contributing factor to that decision)...my beliefs straddle me almost dead center. I share little with both extremes of the two party platforms. I voted Clinton last election, because I figured she’d be better at actually running and understanding the job (and she doesn’t flout the rules of etiquette and common decency the way no one besides Trump does)...But I’m not an anyone other than Trump voter. If Bernie had won the primary I would have voted Trump. I believe Bernie is a very decent man and I also believe he’s one of the most honest, non corrupt politicians out there. But I don’t like his past love fest of embracing left wing totalitarian regimes...and I cannot go along with his economic policy views. Just screaming out that everything he supports is a basic human right, doesn’t make it so. I’m living on a decent pension with money attached to the market also. I understand that, even if he were to win the Presidency, there’s fat chance many of his issues would get past even people in the Democratic Party, but I’m not gambling on that.

[filghy2]

Because I can literally picture the same event in reverse - with the concerned party (Kavanaugh) having a reliably liberal ideology and submitted by Democrats...and you (or another poster), writing that whether or not it’s a criminal hearing or a “job interview”...western civilizations generally operate under the principle of Innocent until proven Guilty and blah, blah blah.

Presumption of innocence doesn't generally apply to job applicants though. There have been many past instances where nominations for official positions were withdrawn when something came up that cast a cloud over the nominee. Regular people often miss out on jobs for lesser reasons without due process - eg the interviewer just didn't like something about their manner or a previous employer made a negative comment and they were given no chance to respond. And how many of the myriads Trump has sacked received any due process?

At the end of the day it's a political decision and I think they decided to go ahead for political reasons because sticking it to liberals and the 'me too' movement appealed to the party base.

Aside from the rape allegation, there were good reasons to reject Kavanaugh in terms of judicial philosophy, notably his past support for an expansive interpretation of executive privilege. That may turn out to be critical at some future time.

[filghy2]

I can see how this becomes a very difficult moral dilemma.

I'm not sure it's such a moral dilemma when we are talking about possible harm to one individual in the past versus the likelihood of harming the future well-being of hundreds of millions of people as well as seriously undermining democratic institutions. Even if the Republican candidate was someone squeaky clean would that outweigh the fact that he supports a policy that would leave millions more without health cover, to cite just one example?

I think a candidate's private conduct is relevant only for what it indicates about how they would behave in office. Bill Clinton's sexual behaviour was clearly not good but there is no evidence that this character flaw had any effect on the way he conducted himself as President. Trump, on the other, had a long history of dishonesty and lack of empathy for other people, and that has clearly carried over to his conduct as President. I don't see any equivalence between Republicans' willingness to overlook Trump's malignant narcissism and lack of moral scruples on any matter and Democrats' willingness to overlook sexual misconduct by Clinton and possibly Biden.

[broncofan]

I'm not sure it's such a moral dilemma when we are talking about possible harm to one individual in the past versus the likelihood of harming the future well-being of hundreds of millions of people as well as seriously undermining democratic institutions. Even if the Republican candidate was someone squeaky clean would that outweigh the fact that he supports a policy that would leave millions more without health cover, to cite just one example?

Perhaps we always choose the action that leads to the most utility but doesn't that make us vulnerable to ignoring and not deterring behavior that in the long run is harmful? I think you hit on the reason that I would have difficulty ever voting against even a morally reprehensible Democratic candidate.

But I suppose the dilemma is that on the one hand you're tempted to choose the option that leads to the best aggregate outcome but on the other hand there is injustice at the level of the individual, even if the bad act has already occurred.

I agree that Trump's character problems provide an entirely separate and much greater level of threat than anything else because of how it affects everything he does.

[fred41]

I'm not sure it's such a moral dilemma...

It obviously becomes a tougher dilemma if you change the characters and the crime one has possibly committed (or any other circumstances of wrong doing). So, in the event this argument gets carried further, in either this, or possibly another thread in this section...there’s going to have to be a caveat - I’m going to invoke the “cute puppy, with a gun to it’s head, behind a curtain rule”...to make sure that the ONLY choices one has, is to vote on the two candidates (a Democrat and a Republican).abstaining is not an available option.

P.S. In the event you’re not a dog lover - replace the puppy with your cute baby brother Aloysius.

[Stavros]

A symmetry of the unexpected might be unfolding in the UK and the USA. By Christmas, the President and Prime Minister could be different people from the men they are today.

In the UK, Boris Johnson has one month in which to make a criitical decision: if as a result of Covid 19 there has been such disruption to the negotiations on trade with the EU they cannot be concluded, he must seek an extension of the December deadline before the end of June. The original timetable had March as the onset of trade negotiations, with November the end date of the first phase to enable member states to consider the agreemet before a December signing. If that is not possible, and if Johnson does not seek an extension, and if there is no agreement by November, the UK will leave without a deal. In the past Johnson has welcomed this, but in the precise context of a country in a medical and economic crisis, is this not the worst time to be leaving the EU without a deal to rely solely on the WTO?

But if Johnson does what is right for the UK to seek an extension for another year, then, along with internal criticism of his mangement of the Covid 19 crisis, he could face a leadership contest, perhaps in December. It doesn't look likely, but then in the UK we have got used to the unxpected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399

Meanwhile, and I admit I don't know the precise mechanics of this, it seems to me that the US is being set up, or the President and his party are trying to set up a contested election in which, if it happens in November -and I think there is still a possibilty that he will at least try to postpone it- the controversy over 'mail in' votes, allegations of vote rigging, fraud etc, could mean that three or more States cannot offer a defiinitive count, or the losers will take the vote to Court and delay the outcome -even if the vote is not close. I think the calculation will be on the Electoral College votes and whether contested results in States can change the outcome of the election.

The man don't like losing, I think he will take everyone on, because in addition it will further weaken and divide the USA as a country.

Two hypotheticals, but are they so remote from reality?

[Stavros]

An advisor to GW Bush was on BBC-Radio 4's The World at One (ie 1pm) and argued that the election could be postponed, and thinks the President is going to (try and) make China the key issue that divides the candidates.

She also pointed out each state has its own election methods, and this prompts the question: why?

It seems to me that the US needs an independent and Federal Election Commission to radically overhaul the way elections are held in the US. Thus-
-Change election day from a Tuesday in November to a Saturday and Sunday.
-One system for all: every State to have the same methods of voting: in-person, mail-in.
-Ballot Papers for County, State, and Presidential candidates to be separate.
-Boundaries of electoral districts to be set by the Commission.

One curiosity is mail-in votes. In the UK we call them postal votes and they used to be limited to people who could not vote in any other way, because, say, they were out of the country on election day, or in hospital and so on. The Blair goverment lifted those limitations so that postal voting is now a matter of choice, though for some it is a gift to conspiracy theorists who claim multiple voters at one address can all vote the same way -and be filled in by one person. Whatever.

On the other hand, while I believe Colorado has had majority mail-in votes for years, some lose out, like this community of Navajo in Arizona-
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...icans-election

[filghy2]

She also pointed out each state has its own election methods, and this prompts the question: why?

It seems to me that the US needs an independent and Federal Election Commission to radically overhaul the way elections are held in the US. Thus-
-Change election day from a Tuesday in November to a Saturday and Sunday.
-One system for all: every State to have the same methods of voting: in-person, mail-in.
-Ballot Papers for County, State, and Presidential candidates to be separate.
-Boundaries of electoral districts to be set by the Commission.

One curiosity is mail-in votes. In the UK we call them postal votes and they used to be limited to people who could not vote in any other way, because, say, they were out of the country on election day, or in hospital and so on. The Blair goverment lifted those limitations so that postal voting is now a matter of choice, though for some it is a gift to conspiracy theorists who claim multiple voters at one address can all vote the same way -and be filled in by one person. Whatever.

Because the Constitution says the selection of Electors is a matter for the States. It doesn't even specify that they must be elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ntial_election Changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, which is a tall order - 2/3 of both houses and then 3/4 of state legislatures must agree.

About 10% of votes cast in the last Australian federal election were made by post, and I've never seen any suggestion that voter fraud is an issue.

[fred41]

Here’s an excellent article in The NY Times as to which party would benefit most by mail in votes. Let me ruin the ending for you - we still don’t know, but it gives reasons it may help or hinder either party. Don’t know how long it’ll stay up:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/u...ronavirus.html

My concern wouldn’t be fraud, but I do have some reservations about loss of votes, either due to negligence or perhaps mistakes by either the voter or the postal service. Another problem, as pointed out by the article - voter registry can be a problem, sometimes due to changing addresses by a voter...a problem that occurs less with in-person voting, because registration can be done right then and there.

It would be nice if we can have a digital voting system we can depend on, but then not every one has a cell phone or computer. I guess nothing’s perfect. Maybe one day.

I don’t mind in person voting, some countries risk far greater threats to life, than just a virus to vote - and they come out to do it anyway, but that being said if you want more voting by the populace, then we’ll have to find a better way.

[Stavros]

Because the Constitution says the selection of Electors is a matter for the States. It doesn't even specify that they must be elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ntial_election Changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, which is a tall order - 2/3 of both houses and then 3/4 of state legislatures must agree.

About 10% of votes cast in the last Australian federal election were made by post, and I've never seen any suggestion that voter fraud is an issue.

I understand the Constituional aspects but if the US is serious about reform, is it not time for them to at least debate the reforms that will improve the operations of democracy? The point is, and not just because of the threats being made to the 2020 election, if now is not the time for reforn, when will it be? And are some of my proposals so unacceptable to both parties in Congress?
On the Tuesday phenomenon complete with 'buggies' (not buggers!) I found this explanation-
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...=1590458960924