2019-2020 US Election Megathread III: Biden VS Biden

[Vassenor]

Looks like the GOP is already gearing up to start Voter Suppression again.

[Idzequitch]

Looks like the GOP is already gearing up to start Voter Suppression again.

Why break tradition for something so minorly inconvenient as decent morals?

[Page]

Reminder: There are more cases of bubonic plague in America every year then there are credible allegations of voter fraud.

https://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/index.html
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... fraud-myth

Researchers found that between 2000 - 2012, there were at most 56 credible allegations of voter fraud. Not even convictions, allegations. That comes to about 9 fraudulent votes per Presidential or midterm election. That isn't a conservative estimate, that's the ceiling.

Voter fraud basically doesn't exist. So when Republicans pass these voter suppression laws, it should be clear what their true motive is.

[San Lumen]

Looks like the GOP is already gearing up to start Voter Suppression again.

Republicans know they can’t win fairly and have to cheat in order to win.

[Aclion]

Remember, all electoral fraud is voter fraud, so we don't need secure elections. Also Trump colluded with Russia to get elected. :^)

[Vassenor]

Remember, all electoral fraud is voter fraud, so we don't need secure elections. Also Trump colluded with Russia to get elected. :^)

You're getting straw on the carpet.

[Byzconia]

nationwide proportional representation for the house, STV state reps for the senate. STV president.
Done and done.

Or we could just abandon preference voting altogether and replace it with approval voting. Unlikely? Definitely. Better? I think so.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

For multiple people like congress just do a percentage based vote per party.


For figuring who comes out each party and for individuals. Have a ranked voting system.

[Telconi]

Looks like the GOP is already gearing up to start Voter Suppression again.

Republicans know they can’t win fairly and have to cheat in order to win.

But they do win.

[Ifreann]

Republicans know they can’t win fairly and have to cheat in order to win.

But they do win.

After gerrymandering and suppressing voters that might support Democrats.

[Telconi]

But they do win.

After gerrymandering and suppressing voters that might support Democrats.

Yes, we established that.

[Ifreann]

After gerrymandering and suppressing voters that might support Democrats.

Yes, we established that.

And those things are, in the vernacular, cheating.

[Gormwood]

Yes, we established that.

And those things are, in the vernacular, cheating.

He's not finding a problem with that.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

But they do win.

After gerrymandering and suppressing voters that might support Democrats.

Gerrymandering isn't relevant to the Presidency you know.

[Telconi]

Yes, we established that.

And those things are, in the vernacular, cheating.

Thank you for that 2nd grade English lesson, luckily I hadn't forgotten what the word 'cheating' meant, but now you've ensured I know.

[San Lumen]

After gerrymandering and suppressing voters that might support Democrats.

Gerrymandering isn't relevant to the Presidency you know.

It is to Congress and state legislatures. Many state legislatures are up next year. Democrats won the popular vote by ten for the lower house in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania last year yet didn’t get a majority due to gerrymandering. That is neither fair nor democratic. The Democrats also won the popular vote overall for the state legislature in North Carolina, Michigan and Ohio by a smaller margin yet didn’t get a majority there either. It is very probable it happens again.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Gerrymandering isn't relevant to the Presidency you know.

It is to Congress and state legislatures. Many state legislatures are up next year. Democrats won the popular vote by ten for the lower house in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania last year yet didn’t get a majority due to gerrymandering. That is neither fair nor democratic. The Democrats also won the popular vote overall for the state legislature in North Carolina, Michigan and Ohio by a smaller margin yet didn’t get a majority there either. It is very probable it happens again.

I spent quite a while yesterday* going through every state looking for examples of what you say (Dems win the vote but get less seats) and I found just the one.
Now you've pointed out state legislatures, it looks like gerrymandering is actually worse there.

With inner-cities so strongly democratic, you should consider that there is no viable way of drawing boundaries to make representation match the vote. Democrats will always be disadvantaged by some districts (with inner-city in them) being too deep blue.

And anyway, the current House shows that Dems can still win on an unfair playing field.

[San Lumen]

It is to Congress and state legislatures. Many state legislatures are up next year. Democrats won the popular vote by ten for the lower house in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania last year yet didn’t get a majority due to gerrymandering. That is neither fair nor democratic. The Democrats also won the popular vote overall for the state legislature in North Carolina, Michigan and Ohio by a smaller margin yet didn’t get a majority there either. It is very probable it happens again.

I spent quite a while yesterday* going through every state looking for examples of what you say (Dems win the vote but get less seats) and I found just the one.
Now you've pointed out state legislatures, it looks like gerrymandering is actually worse there.

With inner-cities so strongly democratic, you should consider that there is no viable way of drawing boundaries to make representation match the vote. Democrats will always be disadvantaged by some districts (with inner-city in them) being too deep blue.

And anyway, the current House shows that Dems can still win on an unfair playing field.

Or you draw maps that reduce the chance of a party getting the most seats while losing the popular vote

[Telconi]

It is to Congress and state legislatures. Many state legislatures are up next year. Democrats won the popular vote by ten for the lower house in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania last year yet didn’t get a majority due to gerrymandering. That is neither fair nor democratic. The Democrats also won the popular vote overall for the state legislature in North Carolina, Michigan and Ohio by a smaller margin yet didn’t get a majority there either. It is very probable it happens again.

I spent quite a while yesterday* going through every state looking for examples of what you say (Dems win the vote but get less seats) and I found just the one.
Now you've pointed out state legislatures, it looks like gerrymandering is actually worse there.

With inner-cities so strongly democratic, you should consider that there is no viable way of drawing boundaries to make representation match the vote. Democrats will always be disadvantaged by some districts (with inner-city in them) being too deep blue.

And anyway, the current House shows that Dems can still win on an unfair playing field.

Is it really cheating of both sides are doing it though?

[San Lumen]

I spent quite a while yesterday* going through every state looking for examples of what you say (Dems win the vote but get less seats) and I found just the one.
Now you've pointed out state legislatures, it looks like gerrymandering is actually worse there.

With inner-cities so strongly democratic, you should consider that there is no viable way of drawing boundaries to make representation match the vote. Democrats will always be disadvantaged by some districts (with inner-city in them) being too deep blue.

And anyway, the current House shows that Dems can still win on an unfair playing field.

Is it really cheating of both sides are doing it though?

Republicans have drawn maps so they can win the most seats without getting the most votes. I call that cheating not to mention it’s under and undemocratic. That said I think gerrymandering should be outlawed

[Northern Davincia]

Reminder: There are more cases of bubonic plague in America every year then there are credible allegations of voter fraud.

https://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/index.html
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... fraud-myth

Researchers found that between 2000 - 2012, there were at most 56 credible allegations of voter fraud. Not even convictions, allegations. That comes to about 9 fraudulent votes per Presidential or midterm election. That isn't a conservative estimate, that's the ceiling.

Voter fraud basically doesn't exist. So when Republicans pass these voter suppression laws, it should be clear what their true motive is.

If voter fraud is as pervasive as it is alleged to be, it stands to reason that it would appear rare, depending on the culprit's ability to get away with it. How is voter fraud determined anyway?

Looks like the GOP is already gearing up to start Voter Suppression again.

Republicans know they can’t win fairly and have to cheat in order to win.

This is incentivized by the FPTP you endorse so heartily.

[Telconi]

Is it really cheating of both sides are doing it though?

Republicans have drawn maps so they can win the most seats without getting the most votes. I call that cheating not to mention it’s under and undemocratic. That said I think gerrymandering should be outlawed

Why is that such a fascination with you. Who's the bigger cheater, the one who gets 6/10 seats with 49% of the vote, or the one who gets 9/10 seats with 51% of the vote?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I spent quite a while yesterday* going through every state looking for examples of what you say (Dems win the vote but get less seats) and I found just the one.
Now you've pointed out state legislatures, it looks like gerrymandering is actually worse there.

With inner-cities so strongly democratic, you should consider that there is no viable way of drawing boundaries to make representation match the vote. Democrats will always be disadvantaged by some districts (with inner-city in them) being too deep blue.

And anyway, the current House shows that Dems can still win on an unfair playing field.

Is it really cheating of both sides are doing it though?

Yes.

The Democrats used to do it when they could, currently it's Republicans who control most state legislatures and have the opportunity ... so now it's mostly them doing it.

It would be fair if some non-partisan commission divided each state in half by population and gave each party half: "gerrymander your half all you like" but it's not like that. It's more like taking turns. The party controlling the state legislature early in each decade gets a chance and there's no guarantee that next decade it will be the other party getting a turn.

I know you prefer the Republicans, but bear in mind that it might not be them controlling most state legislatures a year from now.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It occurs to me that the gerrymander does affect Presidential voting after all. And Senate voting.

My reasoning is that the more votes a person can cast on one day, the more likely they are to vote. This is pretty well documented but the obvious example is lowered turnout when the Presidency is not being decided. OK now we have a gerrymandered district, heavily Republican (for the sake of argument) so voters there know there isn't much point in their House vote, even if they support the Republican they don't really need to vote. This will bias them towards not voting at all on that day. If it's a Presidential election that's one less R vote for President, also for their R senate candidate.

This applies even more when the R or D party don't even run a House candidate. Inexcusable imo, utter laziness.

[Telconi]

Is it really cheating of both sides are doing it though?

Yes.

The Democrats used to do it when they could, currently it's Republicans who control most state legislatures and have the opportunity ... so now it's mostly them doing it.

It would be fair if some non-partisan commission divided each state in half by population and gave each party half: "gerrymander your half all you like" but it's not like that. It's more like taking turns. The party controlling the state legislature early in each decade gets a chance and there's no guarantee that next decade it will be the other party getting a turn.

I know you prefer the Republicans, but bear in mind that it might not be them controlling most state legislatures a year from now.

I'm not seeing how this is an effective point.