US Presidential Election 2020

[Jattdogg]

Its going to be a long day, long week (or more depending on if Trump is losing) before we know the outcome..... but I hope we at least have an idea sometime tomorrow morning of where things appear to be heading.

 

 

 

[rachhere]

Almost four years since I was walking through Summer Palace in Beijing, battling limited internet access, only for an alert suddenly to have come through announcing Trump as the winner. Not sure I have ever sworn so loud. 

[Bert]

Excuse my ignorance as politics isn’t my thing. But Biden is favourite to win the election but trump fav to get re elected?

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Bert said:

Excuse my ignorance as politics isn’t my thing. But Biden is favourite to win the election but trump fav to get re elected?

That's quite alright.

 

No, Biden is the overwhelming favourite to win the popular vote and merely a decent favourite to win the electoral college and the presidency, too.

[AjcW]

30 minutes ago, Bert said:

Excuse my ignorance as politics isn’t my thing. But Biden is favourite to win the election but trump fav to get re elected?

It's not like the UK's first past the post system, whereby the person with the most votes (or party in our case) wins. Instead it's based also off the places where you win.

 

So Biden could win a load of states that only carry a couple of electoral college votes, whereas Trump could win two or three of the HUGE electoral college votes states plus some small ones and therefore be re-elected. 

 

This map is quite useful.... it goes some way to explaining why Florida is always so important. Pennsylvania is a key one this time round, holding 20 college votes.

 

Edited 3 November 2020 by AjcW

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, AjcW said:

It's not like the UK's first past the post system, whereby the person with the most votes (or party in our case) wins. Instead it's based also off the places where you win, so Biden could win a load of states that only carry a couple of electoral college votes, whereas Trump could win two or three of the HUGE electoral college points states plus some small ones and therefore be re-elected. 

 

This map is quite useful.... it goes some way to explaining why Florida/Texas are always so important. Pennsylvania is a key one this time round, holding 20 college votes.

 

To add to the above, this diagram shows the electoral college votes, how many there are, and who is likely to win them pretty well:

 

 

[RoboFox]

If Biden wins Florida it's over. 

 

He's clear favourite to win, leading in enough of the swing states and Trump needs the polls to be significantly more wrong than they were in 2016.

 

I saw one this morning stating that there are 279 electoral votes leaning towards Joe - just above the 270 he needs to win. Trump with 163 leaning his way still would need to win all of the toss-up states, and add in one Democrat-leaning state. 

[AjcW]

One of the most interesting things I've seen this morning is in regards to turnout.

 

Apparently it's already at 71% of 2016 turnout and half the country's polling stations don't open for another couple of hours!

 

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

If Biden wins Florida it's over. 

 

He's clear favourite to win, leading in enough of the swing states and Trump needs the polls to be significantly more wrong than they were in 2016.

 

I saw one this morning stating that there are 279 electoral votes leaning towards Joe - just above the 270 he needs to win. Trump with 163 leaning his way still would need to win all of the toss-up states, and add in one Democrat-leaning state. 

Yep, I'd only add that as per above he could win any one of Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia or Arizona and it would be enough to win.

 

2 minutes ago, AjcW said:

One of the most interesting things I've seen this morning is in regards to turnout.

 

Apparently it's already at 71% of 2016 turnout and half the country's polling stations don't open for another couple of hours!

 

 

That's been noticed too.

 

Judging by recent history higher turnout should favour the Dems more, but who knows?

Edited 3 November 2020 by leicsmac

[AjcW]

Apologies @leicsmac I'd stuck to this page rather than reading through as I was trying to help @Bert out a bit  

 

Good to see it's been picked up on already though, high turnout is a good things regardless of the result because if nothing else, it will lead to something more representative of the wider population. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, AjcW said:

Apologies @leicsmac I'd stuck to this page rather than reading through as I was trying to help @Bert out a bit  

 

Good to see it's been picked up on already though, high turnout is a good things regardless of the result because if nothing else, it will lead to something more representative of the wider population. 

No need to apologise mate, half of this thread has pretty much been me talking to myself because of how important I think this one is, based on environmental policy more than anything else.

 

Do certainly agree that a higher turnout is a good thing all round and it's why voter suppression tactics annoy me so much.

[AjcW]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No need to apologise mate, half of this thread has pretty much been me talking to myself because of how important I think this one is, based on environmental policy more than anything else.

 

Do certainly agree that a higher turnout is a good thing all round and it's why voter suppression tactics annoy me so much.

Are you living over there? Or just generally interested for the fate of the world as we know it?  

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, AjcW said:

Are you living over there? Or just generally interested for the fate of the world as we know it?  

I did live over there once upon a time, and still have many friends over there, some of whom have already been negatively affected by the policies of this administration simply because of their identity.

 

But personal isn't the same as important and it's the idea that the US would go backward on an issue that could well result in a billion people facing death, suffering and migration through lack of food and potable water within the next few decades that motivates me more - this administration could be the most socially liberal in the history of mankind (which of course they're nowhere close) and that would still result in a net negative for them.

 

So, little bit of both but one more than the other, really.

Edited 3 November 2020 by leicsmac

[Mark_w]

43 minutes ago, AjcW said:

It's not like the UK's first past the post system, whereby the person with the most votes (or party in our case) wins. Instead it's based also off the places where you win.

The person with the most votes doesn't 'win' in our system. The party with the most MPs is generally in the best position, but it's perfectly possible to have the most MPs without having the highest share of the votes. The difference is just that we attribute one MP to each constituency, whereas the US uses state borders and decides how much each state is worth based (presumably) on population. Your description makes it sound like we have proportional representation.

[Jattdogg]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No need to apologise mate, half of this thread has pretty much been me talking to myself because of how important I think this one is, based on environmental policy more than anything else.

 

Do certainly agree that a higher turnout is a good thing all round and it's why voter suppression tactics annoy me so much.

Lol this made me laugh.  At least 1/32 of this thread has been me saying trump will  win and that i have 0 confidence in Americans to do the right thing.

[Stevosevic]

58 minutes ago, AjcW said:

It's not like the UK's first past the post system, whereby the person with the most votes (or party in our case) wins. Instead it's based also off the places where you win.

 

So Biden could win a load of states that only carry a couple of electoral college votes, whereas Trump could win two or three of the HUGE electoral college votes states plus some small ones and therefore be re-elected. 

 

This map is quite useful.... it goes some way to explaining why Florida is always so important. Pennsylvania is a key one this time round, holding 20 college votes.

 

Is this not the same as the UK in the way we have seats (based on population) and first one to X number of seats? 

 

Just this is different as the states are weighted differently therefore it's the first one to X number of points?

[Nalis]

18 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

The person with the most votes doesn't 'win' in our system. The party with the most MPs is generally in the best position, but it's perfectly possible to have the most MPs without having the highest share of the votes. The difference is just that we attribute one MP to each constituency, whereas the US uses state borders and decides how much each state is worth based (presumably) on population. Your description makes it sound like we have proportional representation.

We should have moved to transferable voting but it was rejected in a coalition referendum, probably because most people didnt understand it

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

If, hypothetically, there is farce, violence on the streets and the US taking its eye off the ball internationally after a close win for Biden, that would be because Trump has refused to concede to a democratically-elected new leader. I am interested as to why that would be Biden's fault and how he is the one who is unfit in that scenario.

Yes absolutely, it would be completely Trumps fault.  Biden though looks worse over time I think, he is really bloody old.

[Alf Bentley]

25 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

The person with the most votes doesn't 'win' in our system. The party with the most MPs is generally in the best position, but it's perfectly possible to have the most MPs without having the highest share of the votes. 

 

This debate appeals to the nerd in me.

 

In modern times, we've twice had govts that lost the popular vote, but won most seats:

- In 1951, Churchill ousted Attlee as the Tories won more seats and formed a majority govt, despite Labour getting more votes (indeed, the highest vote share by any party in modern times, I think)

- In Feb 1974, the roles were reversed: Labour won most seats, ousted Heath's Tories & formed a minority govt despite the Tories getting more votes.

 

1983 was another oddity: Having won a majority of about 40 in 1979, Thatcher got a 144-seat landslide in 1983 despite getting a small vote share than in 1979 (due to the 1983 vote being split between Lab & Lib/SDP).

 

5 minutes ago, Nalis said:

We should have moved to transferable voting but it was rejected in a coalition referendum, probably because most people didnt understand it

 

To be fair, the biggest blame should be attached to Labour after 1997.

 

They had a manifesto commitment to call a referendum on PR at a time when it was popular in the polls. But once they won a majority in 1997, they short-sightedly kicked it into the long grass, as they enjoyed majority power too much.

 

When the coalition held that referendum on the alternative vote system, polls never suggested that there'd be a vote in favour - not least as the Tories (& many in Labour) were opposed.

It only happened as a sop to the Lib Dems to allow them to join the coalition - and a pretty pointless sop, it turned out.

[danny.]

FPTP is a grossly unfair system in terms of representation of votes compared to seats and representation in parliament.

For example in 2015 the SNP got ~1.4 million votes and 56 seats, UKIP got ~3.8m votes and 1 seat. So 56 times the representation in parliament, for way less than half the votes. The SNP was close to, in terms of votes, the Green Party, who got ~1.1 million votes, but also just 1 seat.

Edited 3 November 2020 by danny.

[Nalis]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

This debate appeals to the nerd in me.

 

In modern times, we've twice had govts that lost the popular vote, but won most seats:

- In 1951, Churchill ousted Attlee as the Tories won more seats and formed a majority govt, despite Labour getting more votes (indeed, the highest vote share by any party in modern times, I think)

- In Feb 1974, the roles were reversed: Labour won most seats, ousted Heath's Tories & formed a minority govt despite the Tories getting more votes.

 

1983 was another oddity: Having won a majority of about 40 in 1979, Thatcher got a 144-seat landslide in 1983 despite getting a small vote share than in 1979 (due to the 1983 vote being split between Lab & Lib/SDP).

 

 

To be fair, the biggest blame should be attached to Labour after 1997.

 

They had a manifesto commitment to call a referendum on PR at a time when it was popular in the polls. But once they won a majority in 1997, they short-sightedly kicked it into the long grass, as they enjoyed majority power too much.

 

When the coalition held that referendum on the alternative vote system, polls never suggested that there'd be a vote in favour - not least as the Tories (& many in Labour) were opposed.

It only happened as a sop to the Lib Dems to allow them to join the coalition - and a pretty pointless sop, it turned out.

Thanks, didnt know that about Labour in 1997, quite interesting.

[AjcW]

47 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

The person with the most votes doesn't 'win' in our system. The party with the most MPs is generally in the best position, but it's perfectly possible to have the most MPs without having the highest share of the votes. The difference is just that we attribute one MP to each constituency, whereas the US uses state borders and decides how much each state is worth based (presumably) on population. Your description makes it sound like we have proportional representation.

Have I not literally put that in brackets?

 

Admitedly I could have expanded upon this, but Bert said he had limited knowledge so I was interpreting it in the most basic way to enable a comparison to the US

[Stevosevic]

Seems the same as our system imo. I.e. it's not about the number of votes, it's about how many seats/states you win.

 

Difference being that we have seats that are based on population so that each seat holds similar weighting. 

 

In the US they have states worth different amounts of points based on the population. 

 

 

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, danny. said:

FPTP is a grossly unfair system in terms of representation of votes compared to seats and representation in parliament.

For example in 2015 the SNP got ~1.4 million votes and 56 seats, UKIP got ~3.8m votes and 1 seat. So 56 times the representation in parliament, for way less than half the votes. The SNP was close to, in terms of votes, the Green Party, who got ~1.1 million votes, but also just 1 seat.

 

Tbh, that seems like an argument in favour of FPTP...

[Mark_w]

1 minute ago, AjcW said:

Have I not literally put that in brackets?

 

Admitedly I could have expanded upon this, but Bert said he had limited knowledge so I was interpreting it in the most basic way to enable a comparison to the US

No you haven't literally put that in brackets. In brackets you've implied that the party with the most votes wins and, just as in the American system, that's not necessarily true here. I'm not saying don't draw comparisons, but if you dumb down our system when making that comparison, it's probably not going to help people get a solid understanding.