Larian Studios Forums General Chat Politics: The big election

Yes, tomorrow will see the Big Election. Thursday 5th November 2020 is the date of the Community Council By-Elections in Argyll and Bute, with the final count being on Monday the 9th.

Tense and exciting times.

Oi! You didn't post that in my politics topic! Imma ban you! :p

It sound like quite a nail-biter though. I would like to see a picture of the windswept queue.

Sadly, you had already locked your Politics thread...


(About that WIS score... )

Oh, that was deliberate! "My door is always locked", and all that.

Can I post such images here? I'm wondering what Joe Biden will do with the guy on horseback.

Do you have to? I'd rather be Rickrolled.

The mind boggles.

But at least my eyes don't need to.

If we have to mention the US election (and I think we'd all be better off not doing so in any hope of seriousness), it is worth recalling what has gone before:

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were running against each other. The campaign was full of even more personal smears and slurs than we see in recent times. Adams was described as: "a hideous hermaphrodital character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” In return, Jefferson was described as "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

Ah, the great nobility of campaigning to run your country.

Classy. The more things change, etc.

And while I'm writing that, some bugger's letting off squealy fireworks outside. :|

Yes, we're getting the 1 or 2-week firework night here as well. I assumed that the ones earlier in the week were all about having a party before the Lockdown, but the parties seem to be carrying on.

I do note that the NHS are asking people not to have back-garden fireworks shows because they usually end up in a mass of burns admissions. I'm guessing that the NHS really don't need an influx at A&E of careless drunks who were experimenting with sticking Catherine Wheels up their arses.*



* To which I have to append the old joke:
"I got into trouble for sticking fireworks up my cats' arse."
"Rectum."
"Yes, completely."

There are other talented singers

The interesting thing to me is that there are more than two parties yet in effect the two-party system stays in place. I guess the winner is the taller but slimmer chinese friend of the guy on the horse. His friends on television had plenty of things to show in support of "democracy doesn't work". I am sure that the friendly fireworks expert on horseback agrees.

Gary Johnson is unlikely to live up to this, but sooner or later the Libertarian Party will become a powerful third force, such are the world trends.
Weed legalization has allowed many to breathe the air of freedom, and people will want more freedom and less pressure on business

“Never discuss politics or religion in polite company; it will only cause ill-will and indigestion. Should an unpleasant discourse threaten the peace, smile serenely and quickly change the subject.”

Abigail Jenkins’ 1875 rule of etiquette.


This is a 'rule' of behaviour that has served me well over the decades. People tend to make too many assumptions about a person who supports (or fails to denounce) a particular political party, stance or personality. Regardless, I have yet to see a 'proper' discussions of politics (or religion) that hasn't descended into either becoming an echo chamber or a kindergarten playground.

Politics or religion in general and in the abstract I'm all in favour of discussing, but folk get too tied up in defending or promoting their position for me to enjoy seeing political discussion in the particular.

Interesting election results were seen in the UK previous to the 1832 Reform Act.

For example; Old Sarum in Wiltshire, Dunwich in Suffolk, and Gatton in Surrey each used to regularly return two MPs to sit in Parliament. Sadly, neither Old Sarum nor Gatton had a permanent population, and thus relied on voters imported for the occasion by the local land-owner who, needless to say, expected that they vote for him. Dunwich also struggled with its credibility in the numbers of MPs elected because, having previously been a prosperous town, most of it had fallen into the sea in the C13th and it was subsequently reduced to being only a small village.

Probably because they believe their position to be universally true. I think most political issues would disappear by simply abandoning the concept of universal moral and political truths.
Let a given group with shared views and values govern themselves in a small community according to their local truth. Such communites are naturally small for obvious reasons and cannot hold their own in conflict with larger ones.
Central government could be reduced to guarding the peace between the communities and dealing with foreign policy (Think of a refined and modernized version of the Holy Roman Empire with extreme local autonomy). The current system tries too hard to find concensus where there is none. Viking pillagers and Irish Monks had mutually exclusive interests. Having them vote for the course of action would have led to anything but an acceptable compromise.

A less transformative possibility:
A lot of the conflict resulting from elections could be avoided by awarding seats in a parliament to citizens by chance. This strategy would reproduce a better representation of the population in parliament than the election of career polticians. David van Raybrouck wrote an interesting book about this strategy "Against Elections". I think that most people confuse elections with democracy. Maybe a demoractic process that is not based on elections is the solution to the current crisis of democracies.

I can't even reach consensus with myself when it comes to politics. Seems a big problem is that 1) no matter how allegedly "moderate" or "centrist", every political discourse takes an extreme viewpoint about any given issue; 2) the extremes are usually opposite because "we can't be seen to agree with them", so the further the better; and 3) because the True Believers will take their entire political canon as one pure, indivisible gospel no matter how unpalatable some of its particular viewpoints.

At the moment I'm being a mixture of amused and dismayed that The Leader Of The Free World™, Bringer of Democracy and Liberty™ is still counting its votes days later, has an incumbent who looks set to refuse to leave office if he loses amidst a flurry of vexatious and frivolous lawsuits and all for two parties that are two cheeks of the same arse. Which isn't an especially anti-American point of view, btw, I mean I just need to look at my own country and grimace. It's light relief to watch someone else making a right arse of it instead.

I think one major problem is party politics.

If the Aardvark Party advocates wearing top hats, tickling toads and eating strawberry jelly for Sunday breakfast, then I might be drawn to them because I enjoy a good toad tickle and a weekend strawberry jelly. However, I might be ambivalent on the subject of top hats.

My jelly-eating neighbour happens to be a supporter of the Zebra party, whose manifesto decries all forms of amphibian interference and wants to ban top hats. We could either be glad that we have the jelly eating in common and sensibly discuss the pros and cons of top hats, or we could fight tooth and nail and decide that each other is a loathsome individual (possibly even "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father") because the particular party we support disagrees on the subject of toads and hats.

Party politics is divisive by its nature. It doesn't want you to feel sympathetic to the other person's viewpoint because it might consequently lose you as a 'customer'.

Well the BBC have finally made the decision that everyone else (well, almost everyone) had come to a day or so back. Thank the gods that that is all done with.

Apart from the probable litigation and demands for recounts, reruns and do-overs, of course. Do US politicians get Hero points that allow rerolls, do you think?

In all seriousness, I just hope that the folk over there accept the result with either satisfaction or resignation, and don't either get unbearably smug and vindictive or childishly petulant and obstructive. Emotions are already running high, and it is not a great idea to fan the flames when so many angry people have firearms and a lack of self-control.

There is a pretty common misconception here, and it’s due to many people not understanding the difference between a state being declared for a candidate and certified for a candidate.

News organizations declare a state for a candidate once they determine it is mathematically impossible for one of the parties to win. This is unofficial. Official certification does not happen until all of the votes are counted, and this always takes a while. Counting mail in ballots, provisional ballots, and overseas ballots from our military and foreign residing citizens always takes longer. Sometimes recounts happen, and even though these rarely change an outcome, the certification can’t happen until this process is complete.

It took longer for news organizations to declare the winner in several states this elections because we have so many more mail in ballots than normal. Furthermore, in a traditional election one party always conceded the race once it becomes clear that they will not win. Trump didn’t and likely will never do this, which has dragged out the process.

That we are still counting votes is not at all out of the ordinary. Only the related circumstances around this are aberrant.

That is probably true. Get rid of elections and parties. Let all those interested take a test to prove their knowledge of current national issues and select parliament members randomly from those who pass.
Doing so would also eliminate the giant waste of resources that is party ads and make it much harder for big sponsors to influence politics. It would also get rid of the problem of uniformed voters.

I do not live in the United States, but it seems to me that Americans need to reform the outdated electoral system. Why do we need Electoral College if you can just count the total number of votes like in other countries? I read that there were cases when more Americans voted for the losing candidate, but more Electoral College votes.


If there are US residents in this thread, please explain why Electoral College is better than direct voting

The Electoral College is a similar idea to the UK's own system of parliamentary seats, although with major differences.

Theoretically, in the UK you vote for a local MP. This MP may, or may not, represent a political party. The party with the most MPs voted in gets to run the country and it's own leader becomes PM. This leads to issues of 'popular' versus 'significant' votes in the same way as the USA, because an MP's voting constituency may be very small compared to another, yet his appointment is equal (i.e. a single House of Commons seat). It is entirely possible (indeed, probable) to win more seats yet have less overall votes nationally.

The major difference between the UK and USA during elections is that we vote for individual MPs and not for our PM.

The same problem exists with the EU parliament. Citizens of small nations like Luxembourg have far more influence than an equal number of germans.
The US is made up of individual states. It was not intended to be a strong centralized nation. The constitution was made with the intent to limit the power of the central government. The constitution and indivdual rights first, then the states, then Washington. Some european nations like France have a very strong central government, others like Germany are much more federal. The US is a more extreme case of a federal system.
Some people blame the US system for not being truly democratic but it never was intended to be primarily about demoracy. To quote the US Embassy "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic" I would also like to point to the book "A republic, if we can keep it" by supreme court judge Neal Gorsuch.
Election based democracy is crumbling. I hope that there will be some non-dictatorial alternative ready when it fails. So far most people are addicted to the tribal surrogate of parties, politicians and the illusion of choice provided by elections. They won't even dare to consider the alternatives.

+1
Haven't voted for years. Parties live here and now, politicians do not wonder what country they will leave behind.

I think the intention of "government" is usually to improve lives by making money/resources available for the things society needs. I really do believe its a force for good but not every politician is there for the good of the country etc. I'm a centarist libertairian at heart but I still see a role for government. I can afford my own health care, car, holidays etc but there are many many people who are not equipped with the skills and or are incapable of learning the skills needed for a "successful" life and for me, thats what government does. Or at least tries to. Help those that need support along the way. I have no problem helping to fund those goals. I think Joe is a decent guy and I totally support the election result. Just hope his "faith" doesnt get in the way. From what I've read though, he seems to have a decent attitude. I loved Obama but not having control of the senate probably made it a lot harder to fully realise his goals. I wish the US well (if thats possible) Will watch the developments with interest.

How do I remove my "stranger" status? It´s being 3 days alread.

I am negative about EUROPE main politics.. . I will not say much about USA politics, but Obama was worst president during my lifetime so far. Biden to early to judge by far yet.

No I am not left liberal at all.
I belong to True Finns and at polls right now we belong to top biggest political parties in Finland.

The politics now is like this.
In about roughly 20-50 years in future I really believe no joke when there is not enough food etc. we can have in most of the world
DYSTOPIA government. Population will grow and grow and the trend of leftis liberals are to take in more and more immigrants without regard on impact to the economy it does. Do not get me wrong I am all for those who come and work or study hard that kind of people that work are ok for me or tourists visiting.

Movies like The Hunger games movies and Divergent (2014) were indeed great for me.
Divergent young teenager 18 years old girl serious relationship
with about 30 years old man? I am ok with that fuck same age politics. Finland presidents first wife died... and Finland president have children of his own that also have children. My country Finland president at 71 years age got a new son with his new wife that was 40 years old when the child was born. They are happily married still and I think their baby is like 1 year+ old now maybe.

Movies like the new Joker (2019) was great for me indeed.
Perhaps at some point also people get enough of shit politics in Europe main politics with crap leftist views.

Well so perhaps a revolution or in future Dystopia government. Nice UTOPIA to all? I find it totally unrealistic and I really believe there can in future be a a Dystopia government.

Well so do I like Dystopia government? No, but in that direction we go when leftist can not rule and there is more debt and bad economy in the world. I actually find the main heroes inspiring in The Hunger Games and The Divergent they try to fight back more or less vs the Dystopia government system. Dystopia government or perhaps Anarchy as in Joker (2019 movie) or this musicvideo that is what we are heading for with left liberals who can not take care of economy:

Free food for everbody = People will eat insects, soy full of estrogen or whatever S H I T your master choose for you to eat (real shit included)


I am not a sardistic evil that enjoy people dying of hungry, it´s simple NATURE. If someone control what you eat, then this someone control you.

Food is one thing but how will the governments pay their growing debt? In addition that we eat insects at that point many have gone past if they consider revolution worth doing it. I would rather do revolution then eat insects as my food source. I get fear factory TV reality show to eat insects to show you are brave as rare exception ok to do it.

Norway in Europe is an industrial country with oil resources. Norway have no debt whatsoever. I am not against taking in immigrants if you can handle the economy. In fact Norway has lended money to other countries. Norway is huge exception towards USA and the huge majority of countries in Europe governments that take more and more debt.
Norway is like the white mans oil Sheiks in this music video:


Well and about green politics and fish as food source. China is number one enemy to fishing and seafoods. I predict many species will become extinct due to China. In addition China tries blame COVID 19 start on USA. Everybody that are not brainwashed by China propaganda knows that COVID 19 started in China mainland. There is one Chinese thing I respect: Taiwan that has their own government separate from main land China. Ok one other thing. Bruce Lee came from Hong Kong he was a legendary martial arts Kung Fu master during his time. China martial arts traditions Kung Fu and such things I do like.

Africa is a lost continent long ago and will become even worse in future climate change and global warming.

In addition I do not trust my government makes reduction already to pension payments at this stage. Can the USA people really trust their 401k pension system in about 20-50 years future? I do hope that, but I do not trust the governments.

Agree.
CCP will void the oceans of all life if nobody stop.

Before I start, I am not politics major, nor would I consider myself highly political, so these are my best recollections of what I was taught some 35+ years ago.

We would only need to reform the electoral system if we wanted to change from the democratic republic to a democracy. The way the US government is set up is to balance the rights of the people with the rights of the states. As the federal government was always supposed to be really small, and sticking to the enumerated "powers" it was granted (but got corrupted and grew over time), the states were supposed to be the ones with the majority of the power within their own borders. We didn't want a large populous state (like say California) or a small group of highly populous states being able to overpower the voice of the smaller rural states. That is why the house (or representatives) is appointed a number of representatives for each state based on it's population, but representation in the senate is only 2 per state. To pass a law, not only then must it be the popular choice by population, but it must also be the popular choice by number of accepting states.

The electoral college then, is made up of 1 vote per house representative and 1 vote per senate representative. That then makes it a shared/balanced vote between the will of the population and the will of the states. That is how our president is elected, and how we keep smaller more rural states from having their voices silenced by the larger more urban states. That arrangement is also why many of the smaller/rural states joined the union in the first place.