The Otherworldly Circus - The America Thread

[Next Waiting]

For us grifted musicians !

EFA

 

[glenashley]

Gonna be a long 4 years for some people here...

 

[Next Waiting]

There is so much contempt for honesty, integrity and the electorate in the post-truth era isn’t there?

I mean they don’t seem to make the slightest effort to pretend that their lies can’t be disproven with a minute’s research and their hypocrisy revealed just as easily.

It’s not restricted to one side of politics of course, but crikey it’s so brazen now that political discourse has been almost fatally damaged. Nothing uttered in public has substance any more. There is no longer any expectation of truth or integrity.

When that happens what’s left of democracy?

The electorate are going to get what they deserve. That they allow themselves (almost willfully) to be manipulated to such a degree and so uncritical is an indictment as much on them as the peddlars of the BS they are happy to swallow.

The unfortunate part from our perspective down under is that the consequences and effects of this are likely to be felt here also in any number of ways.

 

[LittleG]

Worth a watch.

 

[hujsh]

The electorate are going to get what they deserve. That they allow themselves (almost willfully) to be manipulated to such a degree and so uncritical is an indictment as much on them as the peddlars of the BS they are happy to swallow.

The unfortunate part from our perspective down under is that the consequences and effects of this are likely to be felt here also in any number of ways.

Yes and no. The choice for many people was change, which will almost certainly be bad, or stagnation in a system that isn't working for them. Not really informed on what the 'change' will be people took the gamble.

I blame Democrats for not offering a differing, positive view of how to change America. They'd rather lose as neoliberals than maybe win as progressives. Much like the Labor party in the UK where they admitted as much about Corbyn.

I also think they're comfortable losing and campaigning on other people's rights. Brings in lots of donations without antagonising the big money donors.

 

[Gold Coast Doggies]

I reckon this public servant will be looking for a new job come January

 

[yebach]

I reckon this public servant will be looking for a new job come January

Unlikely. It's only the 6th year in row that the Pentagon has failed it's annual audit.

 

[Next Waiting]

Yes and no. The choice for many people was change, which will almost certainly be bad, or stagnation in a system that isn't working for them. Not really informed on what the 'change' will be people took the gamble.

I blame Democrats for not offering a differing, positive view of how to change America. They'd rather lose as neoliberals than maybe win as progressives. Much like the Labor party in the UK where they admitted as much about Corbyn.

I also think they're comfortable losing and campaigning on other people's rights. Brings in lots of donations without antagonising the big money donors.

Fair points. Perhaps ultimately their electoral system is a system that can be worked and the Republicans worked it better this time (for themselves).

Changing the electoral system seems like no-brainer for a more representative and equitable election outcome but it's probably an early Christmas that the turkeys of either hue won't be voting for. Instead the country as a whole is doomed to be forever at the mercy of whichever party can persuade the good citizens of PA, MI, WI NC, GA and NV and their accompanying electoral votes to buy into their fairytale (as opposed to the alternative fairytale) for that particular election cycle.

 

[Pugz89]

Fair points. Perhaps ultimately their electoral system is a system that can be worked and the Republicans worked it better this time (for themselves).

Changing the electoral system seems like no-brainer for a more representative and equitable election outcome but it's probably an early Christmas that the turkeys of either hue won't be voting for. Instead the country as a whole is doomed to be forever at the mercy of whichever party can persuade the good citizens of PA, MI, WI NC, GA and NV and their accompanying electoral votes to buy into their fairytale (as opposed to the alternative fairytale) for that particular election cycle.

To be fair, that's how elections work though. In Aus, if Vic and NSW overwhelmingly voted one party, the rest of the country wouldn't be able to influence the result. In Canada its Quebec and Ontario.
Even our preferential system here is flawed, youve got aome candidates getting a HoR seat, despite getting lower primary votes than other candidates, but get in purely due to preference deals.
The only true and fair system is first past the post.

 

[Next Waiting]

To be fair, that's how elections work though. In Aus, if Vic and NSW overwhelmingly voted one party, the rest of the country wouldn't be able to influence the result. In Canada its Quebec and Ontario.
Even our preferential system here is flawed, youve got aome candidates getting a HoR seat, despite getting lower primary votes than other candidates, but get in purely due to preference deals.
The only true and fair system is first past the post.

In Aus though, Vic and NSW are overwhelmingly the population centres of the country.

The problem with the electoral college system is its disproportionalality. Smaller population centres with a disproportionately larger electoral college influence. That influence based on archaic conditions that no longer exist.

It's disproportional representation where more representative models have evolved and been adopted in other countries. Our system may have its flaws but it's hard to imagine a more flawed system in a democracy than that of the US. Add in the non elected political appointments in government administration and the judiciary and it's utterly compromised and open to corruptive influences.

 

[Pugz89]

In Aus though, Vic and NSW are overwhelmingly the population centres of the country.

The problem with the electoral college system is its disproportionalality. Smaller population centres with a disproportionately larger electoral college influence. That influence based on archaic conditions that no longer exist.

It's disproportional representation where more representative models have evolved and been adopted in other countries. Our system may have its flaws but it's hard to imagine a more flawed system in a democracy than that of the US. Add in the non elected political appointments in government administration and the judiciary and it's utterly compromised and open to corruptive influences.

It's all proportional though. The population of the state dictates how many EC votes it has.

The political appointments thing I definitely agree with. Been abused by both sides.

I'd also introduce term limits tbh. Some of the members have been congress have been members for nearly 50 years..

 

[hujsh]

To be fair, that's how elections work though. In Aus, if Vic and NSW overwhelmingly voted one party, the rest of the country wouldn't be able to influence the result. In Canada its Quebec and Ontario.
Even our preferential system here is flawed, youve got aome candidates getting a HoR seat, despite getting lower primary votes than other candidates, but get in purely due to preference deals.
The only true and fair system is first past the post.

Pretty easy to determine your own preferences now. Those deals don't seem that impactful anymore. Don't see those Ricky Muir types getting elected anymore (unless I've missed or forgotten a major story)

 

[dogwatch]

To be fair, that's how elections work though. In Aus, if Vic and NSW overwhelmingly voted one party, the rest of the country wouldn't be able to influence the result. In Canada its Quebec and Ontario.
Even our preferential system here is flawed, youve got aome candidates getting a HoR seat, despite getting lower primary votes than other candidates, but get in purely due to preference deals.
The only true and fair system is first past the post.

No way is first past the post a better system.
It heavily favours major parties.
It discourages minority participation at the electorate level and by extension at the national level.
Therefore it makes it very hard to establish constructive change and evolution in parties/ candidates (such as we have seen in Australian politics over at least the last 80 years).
It is conducive to exploitation by vote-splitting strategies.
It is possible for a candidate to be elected even though they are the most disliked by the majority of the electorate. By contrast a preferential system ensures that for a candidate to get elected he/she must be preferred by over 50% of the electorate to whoever else is left.

No system is perfect but preferential is far superior. And it has been enhanced in recent times with things like optional preferential and the Robson rotation.

I'm happy to be educated though if you want to try to convince me otherwise.

 

[glenashley]

Fair points. Perhaps ultimately their electoral system is a system that can be worked and the Republicans worked it better this time (for themselves).

Changing the electoral system seems like no-brainer for a more representative and equitable election outcome but it's probably an early Christmas that the turkeys of either hue won't be voting for. Instead the country as a whole is doomed to be forever at the mercy of whichever party can persuade the good citizens of PA, MI, WI NC, GA and NV and their accompanying electoral votes to buy into their fairytale (as opposed to the alternative fairytale) for that particular election cycle.

The system really isn't all the different from ours.

All states have the same number of senators (unrepresentative swill).

Congress seats based on population (including non citizens picked up in the census if you really want to talk about unfair representation).

And of course gerrymandering on both sides with the maps.

And EC votes closely linked to number of congressional seats.


It's not a democracy, it's a republic (if you can keep it).

 

[LittleG]

It's all proportional though. The population of the state dictates how many EC votes it has.

The political appointments thing I definitely agree with. Been abused by both sides.

I'd also introduce term limits tbh. Some of the members have been congress have been members for nearly 50 years..

It is not proportional. Never has been.

States get a minimum 3 college votes. No exceptions, no matter how few people they have. That minimum is the issue. IF all the states were proportional, then it would be more Democratic but ….

America is a Republic & Republics usually favour rural over city.

 

[glenashley]

I agree.

It's disgraceful that DC gets 3 EC votes!

 

[LittleG]

I agree.

It's disgraceful that DC gets 3 EC votes!

And no Senate seats….

 

[Pugz89]

No way is first past the post a better system.
It heavily favours major parties.
It discourages minority participation at the electorate level and by extension at the national level.
Therefore it makes it very hard to establish constructive change and evolution in parties/ candidates (such as we have seen in Australian politics over at least the last 80 years).
It is conducive to exploitation by vote-splitting strategies.
It is possible for a candidate to be elected even though they are the most disliked by the majority of the electorate. By contrast a preferential system ensures that for a candidate to get elected he/she must be preferred by over 50% of the electorate to whoever else is left.

No system is perfect but preferential is far superior. And it has been enhanced in recent times with things like optional preferential and the Robson rotation.

I'm happy to be educated though if you want to try to convince me otherwise.

It might favour the major parties, but first past the post is literally just 'majority rules'. To me that seems the fairest, but happy to hear/read other perspectives.
It might favour major parties at an operating government level, but there are many seats where minor parties get better vote tallies than the major parties.

 

[Pugz89]

It is not proportional. Never has been.

States get a minimum 3 college votes. No exceptions, no matter how few people they have. That minimum is the issue. IF all the states were proportional, then it would be more Democratic but ….

America is a Republic & Republics usually favour rural over city.

There are seven states that have the minimum 3 EC votes.
Alaska - Trump
Delaware - Harris
DC - Harris
North Dakota - Trump
South Dakota - Trump
Vermont - Harris
Wyoming - Trump

So the breakdown of those states is Trump won 4 and Harris won 3 in the most recent election. I'd hardly say it influenced the result.

Hot take, but I think the EC system forces candidates to campaign across the whole country. If it was literally just the popular vote, then there'd be states that wouldn't see any election campaigning or policy impacts.
Even though Trump knew he was very little chance of winning, he still held events in NY, California etc.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

If youse will excuse me.

Im getting astride my favourite hobby horse.

Once more unto the breech...

Feel free to scroll on.

I reckon this public servant will be looking for a new job come January

A blind auditor at the bottom of a coal mine wearing a black sack over his head could find waste, inefficiencies and corruption in a department that has a budget of US$890 billion and 2,7 million employees.

Like Lloyd Austin. Kathleen Hicks will be fired not because of her competence or otherwise or whether she's been unable or unwilling to do anything reigning in the DoD budget. She'll be fired because although a (gasp!) life long public servant within the department of defence. She'll be fired because the US lives in an age of hyper partisan neo-liberalism and once she'd risen to a position of deputy secretary of defence she is ultimately a political appointee and an easy target for the next administration that ludicrously framed the worlds dominant military force as being woke.

And who better to hang that moniker on than a black man and a woman.

Just as the solution to this nonsense is to appoint a guy who's qualifications for the job seem to be his whiteness, obedience and his writing of a few red meat books banging the Military is woke drum.

When the reality is that the entire woke angle is just pretext to purge the military of the voices of reason that tempered Trumps worst authoritarian instincts during his first term. Mission accomplished.

As an aside. Prior to the invasion of Ukraine. There were a lot of people on the right of US politics who would point to the non-woke Russian military as being the template that the US Military needed to follow. Funny 'bout that. Three years later these same people have gone as quiet as the Russian corpses that litter Ukraine on the matter.

Once there is a change of administration then everybody can get back to business of skimming off the cream from complex often runaway projects that tend to be victims of their own mission creep, unrealistic scope and are open to corruption. A budget as large as the one that the US military has tends to take on an uncontrollable life of its own. Especially within a military industrial complex who wisely spread their manufacturing across many, many congressional districts in both red and blue states as they have. And there aren't many politicians in the entire country interested in reigning in of that magic pudding.

Anybody who thinks that a coming Trump administration is going to be isolationist and use the dividend from doing so to reduce the defence budget. Thinks that it will bring a Corporate America counting on tax cuts and another round of deregulation and mergers to heal.

Or cannot see the problems, conflict of interest or outright corruption of having Elons DOGE run an unaccountable outside of government body that already has the GAO really lives in a phantasy land.

It's not the fault of the GAO that politicians for the most part unless it's politically expedient, disregard their findings of inefficiencies. It's the politicians and their pandering to the companies that benefit from them in return for financing of campaigns that are now in 4 years of constant motion who are to blame.

FFS. The Democrats were pestering their supporters for campaign financing in the hours after the election was called. I presume that the Republicans were doing the same. Trump selling knock of Gibson Les Paul's for many times more than a genuine article is par for the grifting course these days and not worth doing any more than shaking ones head and laughing at the cheap small potatoes grifts of a guy who is a supposed to be a billionaire.

TL;DR

Institutional Corruption and Grift. It's an American love story.

But its ok as long as its a charismatic clown running the kleptocracy.

 

[hujsh]

There are seven states that have the minimum 3 EC votes.
Alaska - Trump
Delaware - Harris
DC - Harris
North Dakota - Trump
South Dakota - Trump
Vermont - Harris
Wyoming - Trump

So the breakdown of those states is Trump won 4 and Harris won 3 in the most recent election. I'd hardly say it influenced the result.

Hot take, but I think the EC system forces candidates to campaign across the whole country. If it was literally just the popular vote, then there'd be states that wouldn't see any election campaigning or policy impacts.
Even though Trump knew he was very little chance of winning, he still held events in NY, California etc.

I think that's objectively false. Needing congressional seats probably does more to incentivize campaigns to go to safe states. Otherwise why would any candidate bother going to Cali or NY under the EC system?

 

[hujsh]

It might favour the major parties, but first past the post is literally just 'majority rules'. To me that seems the fairest, but happy to hear/read other perspectives.
It might favour major parties at an operating government level, but there are many seats where minor parties get better vote tallies than the major parties.

First past the post gives little to no incentive to vote minor party. The 'majority' in first past the post in a close election is usually still technically a minority, it's just the biggest minority. Preferences means the 'general will' of the majority is better represented. Like in an inner city seat if 30% go Green and 30% go Labor but the Liberals won with 40% that would be a minority winning when 60% of the electorate was 'center leftish'

 

[Pugz89]

I think that's objectively false. Needing congressional seats probably does more to incentivize campaigns to go to safe states. Otherwise why would any candidate bother going to Cali or NY under the EC system?

I'm talking about the presidential campaign. Congressional seats is different to the presidential race.

 

[Gold Coast Doggies]

Another win for DJT, other news, in the next month or so, Appellate Court of NY are expected the rule 4/1 or 5/0 in favour of Trump over Letitia James case, assuming Trump will then sue for damages

 

[hujsh]

I'm talking about the presidential campaign. Congressional seats is different to the presidential race.

Yes, my point is that is the only incentive for presidential candidates to bother campaigning in those safe states in the EC system. Because they want a majority in congress to enact their agenda.

Under a popular vote system while there will be more incentive to campaign in places with more people, each part of the country will still have a say and if it looks like being close you'll want to appeal to as many people as possible (so also the small states). There will always be a reason to vote.