United States Presidential election - 2020

[Borchester]

That's assuming the electoral colleges don't have any 'faithless electors' who vote the opposite way to which they're mandated by the election result of their state. That's happened in the past. Apparently it's illegal in some states and not in others. Highly unlikely this would happen but in the current situation who knows?

[HDQQ]

If Biden takes Arizona and Nevada he has his 270, so he should be the 46th POTA.

That's assuming the electoral colleges don't have any 'faithless electors' who vote the opposite way to which they're mandated by the election result of their state. That's happened in the past. Apparently it's illegal in some states and not in others. Highly unlikely this would happen but in the current situation who knows?

[Barry]

If Biden takes Arizona and Nevada he has his 270, so he should be the 46th POTA.

[Borchester]

[HDQQ]

Update - Trump is no longer ahead in the popular vote, but he was shortly before I made my post.

[Javert]

Right now, in the afternoon of the day after, it's all still up in the air. Biden is ahead with 224 electoral college votes, with Trump on 213. But Trump is ahead on the popular vote.

So there's at least a possibility that Biden could win but with Trump getting the most votes overall. I wonder how Trump would react if he finds himself in the same situation as Hillary Clinton did last time, given that he's already threatened to sabotage the vote and the count in various ways regardless of whether he's winning or losing.

I still think that the popular vote would be the most democratic system in the USA, even if that leads to people such as Trump being elected from time to time. But then I'm not American, but then nor are most of the rest of us on here.

Not sure where you are getting the info that Trump is ahead on the popular vote.

Even since the beginning of the campaign even the Repblicans have conceded that they have zero chance of winning the popular vote.

It's all down to the FPTP system.

That's the problem with these FPTP systems - you have a situation where one side knows they will "lose" from the beginning, but they can still win!

[Thomas]

If Biden wins, we all lose

A victory for Joe Biden would embolden the regressive woke elites across the Western world.

So what will happen today is not really a normal election. Rather, it is an attempted restoration. A restoration not of monarchy but of technocracy; not of a king but of the status quo ante and its conduct of politics in a removed, disconnected way. Not only in the US but across Europe and elsewhere in the world, the political and moral clerisy see the restoration of their preferred order in the US as an essential first step in their longed-for rollback of the populist rebellions of the past few years. This is why spiked thinks a victory for Joe Biden will be a disaster for the world – because it would further embolden the most regressive, anti-democratic, woke strains in Western political life. If Biden wins, we all lose.

A victory for Joe Biden would embolden the regressive woke elites across the Western world.

So what will happen today is not really a normal election. Rather, it is an attempted restoration. A restoration not of monarchy but of technocracy; not of a king but of the status quo ante and its conduct of politics in a removed, disconnected way. Not only in the US but across Europe and elsewhere in the world, the political and moral clerisy see the restoration of their preferred order in the US as an essential first step in their longed-for rollback of the populist rebellions of the past few years. This is why spiked thinks a victory for Joe Biden will be a disaster for the world – because it would further embolden the most regressive, anti-democratic, woke strains in Western political life. If Biden wins, we all lose.

One of the most revealing justifications for voting for Biden is that he would relieve people of the burden of thinking about politics. As one writer says, the main horror of the Trump era is that it made 'politics and government' into 'the omnipresent centre of gravity in our daily lives'. With a monster like Trump in the White House, many people, apparently, could think about little else other than politics and what a shitshow it had become courtesy of the 'deplorables' who elevated Trump to power. And the great thing about Biden's rule is that it 'promises to return the outsized stature of politics to its rightfully diminutive place' (my italics). Diminutive: extremely or unusually small. That is the presence politics should have in most people's lives, apparently: an infinitesimally small one. Don't think about politics – just let other people get on with it. And that is what Biden promises – 'a government you simply don't have to think about all that often'.

This has become a common cry in the vast pro-Biden lobby. It is a central component of the Make Politics Boring Again worldview. They want a world where most people – ordinary people – don't have to worry themselves about issues of governance. They can just leave that stuff, the business of the national destiny, to the competent classes ('competence', alongside 'boring', is another buzzword of the Biden lobby). As the Los Angeles Times says, this election is really a reckoning between 'experts' and the 'authentics'. The experts are the likes of Hillary Clinton and, latterly, Joe Biden (eight years in the Obama administration 'boosted his expert credentials', says the LA Times), and the 'authentics' are people like Trump. And what we need to restore is 'the expertise' and 'reliance on science' of that pre-Trump class, against 'the feral frankness' of the Trump era, the LA Times says.

So the wave of pro-Biden sentiment among vast swathes of the establishment is not merely about changing policy in the White House, as most elections are. (Indeed, it is striking how much of the pro-Biden commentary says Biden's policies don't actually matter. 'It's not the policies that count', as the Guardian says.) Rather, it is about negating the 'feral' populism of recent years and restoring the rightful rule of the smart set, of those who can be trusted to govern while the rest of us just get on with our lives and never think about politics. A Biden presidency is a 'protest against protest', in the words of the Guardian. That is, it would be a protest against the protest votes cast by vast numbers of ordinary people in 2016 for a different, more democratic way of doing politics. There's a word for 'protest against protest', of course: counter-protest, or counterrevolution. That is what the elite Biden wave represents: a counterrevolution against the populist cries and democratic demands of the 2016 era.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/11/03/if-biden-wins-we-all-lose/



good article here.

Trump , like brexit , isnt the problem. They are both symptoms of the problems america and the uk both have.

Similarly biden and the democrats , like starmer and labour , arent the cure , they are part of the problem.

[Nalaar]

Trump was expected to be ahead in many states before Mail-in ballots are counted - For example he was well ahead in Michigan with a 500K lead, that's now been cut to 60K as the Mail in ballots are being added.

Following up on this it's now being reported that Biden is ahead in Michigan.

He's currently leading in states that add to 270 votes, Trumps going to need a surge from somehwere unexpected as the computer models are showing Biden at 75%+ odds given the current voter data.

[Nalaar]

So there's at least a possibility that Biden could win but with Trump getting the most votes overall. I wonder how Trump would react if he finds himself in the same situation as Hillary Clinton did last time, given that he's already threatened to sabotage the vote and the count in various ways regardless of whether he's winning or losing.

I think that's unlikely, Biden is up about 2.5 million votes, and with many of the votes left being City Postal ballots that are expected to favour Biden its pretty odds on that he will carry the popular vote.

I still think that the popular vote would be the most democratic system in the USA, even if that leads to people such as Trump being elected from time to time. But then I'm not American, but then nor are most of the rest of us on here.

It'd be hard to know - The federal system as currently applied gives larger voices to smaller states, meaning a few big states don't completely dominate every election, while the smaller ones are ignored.

[HDQQ]

Right now, in the afternoon of the day after, it's all still up in the air. Biden is ahead with 224 electoral college votes, with Trump on 213. But Trump is ahead on the popular vote.

So there's at least a possibility that Biden could win but with Trump getting the most votes overall. I wonder how Trump would react if he finds himself in the same situation as Hillary Clinton did last time, given that he's already threatened to sabotage the vote and the count in various ways regardless of whether he's winning or losing.

I still think that the popular vote would be the most democratic system in the USA, even if that leads to people such as Trump being elected from time to time. But then I'm not American, but then nor are most of the rest of us on here.

[papasmurf]

It is what it is, and for almost 250 years neither side has changed it. One would think if they were so obsessed with it not being "democratic" enough they would have changed it by now ...

Why? The American people are as powerless as we are.

[Thomas]

The system works for the two largest parties so they have little incentive to change it, much like the First Past the Post voting system. While each party may occasionally be put out by the Electoral College, it helps ensure they remain the uncontested top 2.

I agree , which is why no matter who wins in america , the yanks problems wont go away , but merely grow.

Same here  , neither fptp , labour or tory will cure uk problems , but merely enhance them and grow them.

I havent really followed yank politics until recently , and i first heard about the yank system when i looked into why clinton lost the last time despite getting the popular vote.

Democrats were bleating about the unfairness of it all , while folk asked why they hadnt changed the system when in power.

Same as over here with labour.

The unfairness of the system only becomes a problem when the loser loses , not because its unfair on the voting public or bad for democracy.

[Nalaar]

It is what it is, and for almost 250 years neither side has changed it. One would think if they were so obsessed with it not being "democratic" enough they would have changed it by now ...

The system works for the two largest parties so they have little incentive to change it, much like the First Past the Post voting system. While each party may occasionally be put out by the Electoral College, it helps ensure they remain the uncontested top 2.

[T00ts]

However it is spun the electoral college system is not democratic.

How is it not democratic?

[johnofgwent]

However it is spun the electoral college system is not democratic.

It is what it is, and for almost 250 years neither side has changed it. One would think if they were so obsessed with it not being "democratic" enough they would have changed it by now ...