US Election 2020

[Brian Peacock]

I think the conceptual issue to get over here is that it doesn't really matter who gets elected into power if the administrative systems are transparent, responsive, politically independent, and scrutable - but this has to be built into the system from the ground up.

But I don't think that's true. Granted, a system, properly designed and maintained, should encourage in both the people that manage it, and the public, the kind of support for itself that is necessary to ensure its continued success. But it cannot by itself, by design, prevent its eventual corruption, or make the kind of people who run it irrelevant.

For example, a transparent system relies on people responding to what they see in a particular way. Corruption is rampant in our politics. It is not hidden. But the public does not respond in the way that people who advocate for transparency would hope. Many do, but not enough. They lack what is required by such a system to ensure it works. Furthermore, they are divided as to what constitutes corruption in the first place, and from those divisions you may eventually find support to undermine protections anyway.

--//--

I'm not arguing against making changes, or saying that nothing is better than what we have. My point has been that it's difficult to judge the system while lunatics are running it, and the people are more important than the system.

Ain't that the truth. We have a very similar landscape over here although we have different set of systems. The common feature for the general elections of both our noble countries though is the plurality voting system. It's my view that plurality systems encourage an 'Us vs Them' politics of identity, which inevitably tends towards the extremes, as well as an attitude of entitlement among the political class.

I totally agree that a system 'cannot by itself, by design, prevent its eventual corruption, or make the kind of people who run it irrelevant' but just as in our lives and communities a re-evaluation of circumstances and an element of self-reflection can be encourages and programmed in. As someone once said about the Soviet Union, everything was always forever until it wasn't. Things can change.

Of course, my understanding of the US is limited, but is there a general feeling that the electoral and representational system are in a mess, or maybe a feeling that the systems are fine but the people in charge of them are an utter shambles? Over here the main parties view the system as a kind of brute fact - it just is - and appeals to tradition and the political version of natural law theory are used to give people the impression not just that we have no real say in or control over the system but that it's fruitless to even try to effect change: we are but leaves in the wind, blown hither an yon by unfathomable forces beyond our ken. This attitude is rife and, unsurprisingly enough, ensures that political imperatives trump people's material needs on any and every issue: that's just how things are.

[Scot Dutchy]

We dont have any problems with gerrymandering as it is impossible due to the lack of any form of constituencies and no artificial voting systems. Every vote counts. We dont have voter thresholds; you can set up a party and if you achieve about 5% of vote at present you have a seat. Coalition talks may take time but there mechanisms in the constitution to protect the country while they are taking place. All parties are restricted by the amount they can spend during the elections. The monarch plays no role at all in the elections.
Not one party can win so everything done by negotiations for coalitions. In town council elections often there is no coalition just everything is decided by general vote. Adversarial politics does not work here or in most European politics. It is mainly an Anglo-Saxon approach which is also reflected in their societies as a whole. Compromise is a very important word in Dutch society something almost unheard of in Anglo-Saxon societies.

[Tero]

Giuliani had some lawyers type up claims, conspiracy theories and all, and has presented them in PA. A normal lawyer would be disbarred for these.
Giuliani formally asks federal judge to give Pennsylvania's electors to Trump
https://news.yahoo.com/giuliani-formall ... 00670.html

This PA phase will be over by Monday. Wisconsin and GA are in recounts.

[Tero]

trump will be extremely frustrated and retweeting stuff by the dozen each hour. Because GA is over today:

Just Vent
@JustVent6
Replying to
@itsJeffTiedrich
and @realDonaldTrump
At 4PM today, Georgia is expected to announce the results of its recount, which election officials say will affirm Biden's win in the state! Don’t like the Porn, Pawn and Landscaping show distract you!

[Tero]

Dozens, maybe hundreds of discrepancies. Republicans: we were just being good bureaucrats!

DFP
Detroit and Livonia recorded a number of precincts that were not balanced and did not come with an explanation. Of Detroit's 503 Election Day precincts, 85 recorded unexplained discrepancies in the vote totals as did 94 of the city's 134 absent voter counting boards. Most of them recorded discrepancies of three votes or fewer; 10 Election Day precincts and 43 counting boards had larger discrepancies. Palmer and Hartmann expressed their displeasure. Palmer said Detroit had failed to show improvement from the August primary, when the city’s precincts also recorded unexplained discrepancies.

https://amp.freep.com/amp/3770140001

[Sean Hayden]

I think the conceptual issue to get over here is that it doesn't really matter who gets elected into power if the administrative systems are transparent, responsive, politically independent, and scrutable - but this has to be built into the system from the ground up.

But I don't think that's true. Granted, a system, properly designed and maintained, should encourage in both the people that manage it, and the public, the kind of support for itself that is necessary to ensure its continued success. But it cannot by itself, by design, prevent its eventual corruption, or make the kind of people who run it irrelevant.

For example, a transparent system relies on people responding to what they see in a particular way. Corruption is rampant in our politics. It is not hidden. But the public does not respond in the way that people who advocate for transparency would hope. Many do, but not enough. They lack what is required by such a system to ensure it works. Furthermore, they are divided as to what constitutes corruption in the first place, and from those divisions you may eventually find support to undermine protections anyway.

--//--

I'm not arguing against making changes, or saying that nothing is better than what we have. My point has been that it's difficult to judge the system while lunatics are running it, and the people are more important than the system.

Ain't that the truth. We have a very similar landscape over here although we have different set of systems. The common feature for the general elections of both our noble countries though is the plurality voting system. It's my view that plurality systems encourage an 'Us vs Them' politics of identity, which inevitably tends towards the extremes, as well as an attitude of entitlement among the political class.

I totally agree that a system 'cannot by itself, by design, prevent its eventual corruption, or make the kind of people who run it irrelevant' but just as in our lives and communities a re-evaluation of circumstances and an element of self-reflection can be encourages and programmed in. As someone once said about the Soviet Union, everything was always forever until it wasn't. Things can change.

Of course, my understanding of the US is limited, but is there a general feeling that the electoral and representational system are in a mess, or maybe a feeling that the systems are fine but the people in charge of them are an utter shambles? Over here the main parties view the system as a kind of brute fact - it just is - and appeals to tradition and the political version of natural law theory are used to give people the impression not just that we have no real say in or control over the system but that it's fruitless to even try to effect change: we are but leaves in the wind, blown hither an yon by unfathomable forces beyond our ken. This attitude is rife and, unsurprisingly enough, ensures that political imperatives trump people's material needs on any and every issue: that's just how things are.

I agree that the system influences the people and can be designed to encourage better habits:

Granted, a system, properly designed and maintained, should encourage in both the people that manage it, and the public, the kind of support for itself that is necessary to ensure its continued success.

As for what Americans feel, and how much of an impact it has on maintaining the status quo, it's difficult to say really. Most of us just don't know anything about what is going on. So, when you read that more than 80% of us are opposed to gerrymandering for example, and you wonder why it keeps happening, I think you should question the polling. It may sound plausible that 80% of us oppose it, but when you consider what all US voters don't know --it's a lot-- it seems unlikely that most US voters even know what gerrymandering is, much less oppose it. So our ignorance may be a factor in keeping poorly performing systems in play.

Another problem may be the way that only a few issues dominate every election, and the issues always have a moral urgency about them which ensures they override all other concerns. You can't punish your representative for suppressing the vote because he's also pro-life, or for climate justice, or his party is, and those are just too important this time.

I do think a lot of us feel that nothing can be done. You hear that sentiment often enough.

[Tero]

Mr President...

...there were not enough fake votes in Wisconsin, even if we got them all thrown out. Speaking of thrown out, Pennsylvania...
Trump: you got nothing.
Rudy: No. Here's your bill.
Trump: You gotta be kidding. Your lawyer dues are not paid. False representation, I heard.

[Seabass]

As for what Americans feel, and how much of an impact it has on maintaining the status quo, it's difficult to say really. Most of us just don't know anything about what is going on. So, when you read that more than 80% of us are opposed to gerrymandering for example, and you wonder why it keeps happening, I think you should question the polling. It may sound plausible that 80% of us oppose it, but when you consider what all US voters don't know --it's a lot-- it seems unlikely that most US voters even know what gerrymandering is, much less oppose it. So our ignorance may be a factor in keeping poorly performing systems in play.

Our government is unresponsive because it is poorly designed.

First, plurality winner take all is inherently polarizing and divisive. It isn't normal for a society to be cleft into two opposing factions that hate each other the way ours is. Multi party democracies that have proportional representation don't have this problem to anywhere near the extent that we do. Then you have the apportionment of senators and the electoral college that both favor small states which tend to be more conservative, ie the people who are opposed to change. There is the fact that senate majority leader decides what gets voted on in the Senate, so no matter how many hundreds of bills the House passes, Mitch McConnell can do his evil little laugh and let it all sit on his desk bringing the whole legislative branch to a screeching halt. Add to that the veto and the filibuster, and a Constitution that requires moving heaven and earth to change, and you end up with a shitty government that favors the backwards assholes who hate change, and executive orders and judicial activism filling in the void left by a paralyzed legislature.

[Sean Hayden]

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm in favor of experimenting. I want things to get better. I would only caution that McConnell is able to do his evil laugh because people in Kentucky keep voting for him. They won't go anywhere just because the system is changed, and they are unlikely to be as compatible with the new system as people in other democracies are. This is especially relevant when you consider that the changes you're proposing are being done --by your admission-- to thwart their political ambitions, to make the country better by diminishing their influence.

We have a people problem.

[Seabass]

We have a people problem and a system problem. The two aren't mutually exclusive.


Anyway, here's video of Rudy Giuliani doing a press conference with a sweat/hair-dye mixture dripping down his face:


https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1 ... 7461903366

[JimC]

Sean Hayden wrote:

Another problem may be the way that only a few issues dominate every election, and the issues always have a moral urgency about them which ensures they override all other concerns. You can't punish your representative for suppressing the vote because he's also pro-life, or for climate justice, or his party is, and those are just too important this time.

I think that is a real and serious problem in most democratic systems where party politics plays a part. Well put, Sean...

[Tero]

Trump determined to steal Michigan election:

After three hours of discussion among community members attending the meeting virtually, some of whom accused Hartmann and Palmer of carrying out a brazen, racist assault on the right to vote, the pair certified the Wayne county vote. In the past the process has been treated as routine.
The next day both Hartmann and Palmer filed affidavits in court seeking to reverse their certification of the Wayne county result, claiming that they had been promised internally that the vote would be audited, only to discover it would not be.

Donald Trump has mounted an all-out assault on the election result in Michigan, reportedly planning to fly state lawmakers to meet with him in Washington and phoning county officials in an apparent attempt to derail the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 150,000-vote victory in the state.

On Tuesday night, Trump placed phone calls to two Republican members of a county-level vote certification board the night before the pair tried to reverse their previous endorsement of a large chunk of the vote in Michigan.

The news emerged as Republican lawmakers in Michigan prepared to fly to Washington on Friday to meet with Trump at his request, the Washington Post first reported.

While no explanation for the meeting has been given, Trump has been pressuring Republican state lawmakers to try to hijack the electoral college by advancing slates of electors that could compete with those selected by the states’ voters.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -challenge

[Joe]

I wonder if Michael Moore is busy documenting all of this. It would make a hell of a movie, say in 2024.

[Tero]

The actual discrepancy is 357 out of 250 000 votes
https://twitter.com/sf_ultra/status/1329464705891463173

[Seabass]