Biden running again.

[ProfessorDetective]

=

What does confuse me being British is the idea that someone can be elected president by getting less votes than their opponent. If the president of some Arab or African nation won with less votes than the other guy America would be calling that country undemocratic and calling for sanctions.

That electoral college system man... its not good.

Weirdly, as a super liberal anarchist, I'm not against it. It's supposed to give the less populace states more influence so that the urban areas don't dominate the rural ones like the Hunger Games. It was an anti-slavery measure too.

However, because urban areas tend to be more progressive, many progressive types think of it as Satanic.

Getting less votes than the elected official isn’t a feature of the system.

What you’re describing entails the function of the bicameral legislative branch along with the 3-seat minimum for the house and electoral college. Neither of those are primary contributors to such phenomena.

The popular vote discrepancy has more to do with each state voting in first past the post system. Anything above 50% leads to all of the seated votes for the whole state.

Which is why Ranked Choice is becoming a popular idea. https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

[phantom000]

The popular vote discrepancy has more to do with each state voting in first past the post system. Anything above 50% leads to all of the seated votes for the whole state.

Which means that it does not matterhow many vote as much as where they vote. With our current system it is possible to win a presidential election with a single voter out of the entire country if that one voter just happens to be in the right state and no one in that state votes for the other candidate.

Either they shout get rid of first-past-the-post and distribute their votes proportionally (I think Nebraska and Maine already do that) or make it where every state has exactly one electoral vote, effectively making every state a battleground state so that you, or your party, actually have to convince people to vote for you.

[Thebestoftherest]

The popular vote discrepancy has more to do with each state voting in first past the post system. Anything above 50% leads to all of the seated votes for the whole state.

Which means that it does not matterhow many vote as much as where they vote. With our current system it is possible to win a presidential election with a single voter out of the entire country if that one voter just happens to be in the right state and no one in that state votes for the other candidate.

Either they shout get rid of first-past-the-post and distribute their votes proportionally (I think Nebraska and Maine already do that) or make it where every state has exactly one electoral vote, effectively making every state a battleground state so that you, or your party, actually have to convince people to vote for you.

There a problem with that if say one state have a tenth of a population of the other does that mean each person vote in the bigger state is only a tenth of what it would be in the other state?

[hammerofglass]

The popular vote discrepancy has more to do with each state voting in first past the post system. Anything above 50% leads to all of the seated votes for the whole state.

Which means that it does not matterhow many vote as much as where they vote. With our current system it is possible to win a presidential election with a single voter out of the entire country if that one voter just happens to be in the right state and no one in that state votes for the other candidate.

Either they shout get rid of first-past-the-post and distribute their votes proportionally (I think Nebraska and Maine already do that) or make it where every state has exactly one electoral vote, effectively making every state a battleground state so that you, or your party, actually have to convince people to vote for you.

There a problem with that if say one state have a tenth of a population of the other does that mean each person vote in the bigger state is only a tenth of what it would be in the other state?

Electors is based on congressional seats. 2 senators per state plus 435 representatives divided by proportion of population minimum 1. So it's not quite THAT bad, but a vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 votes in California (to take the most extreme example).

Also because of the way the primaries are structured the more populous states de facto don't get a vote at all since all but one party candidate has usually conceded by the time it gets to us.

[Frustration]

I think the OP means to say: the puppet masters running Biden are running again.

[McAvoy]

Incumbents tend to win. Trump lost because there was a pandemic. Biden won't lose unless there's a disaster of equally grand magnitude.

Overly simplistic. Pandemic made it easier and acceptable for mail in voting. Liberals took advantage of that where as Conservatives made it out like you are selling your soul to the devil. I get the argument, verifying who is actually voting. If anything though the 2020 election showed that it can and is reliable.

Also Trump lost because a shit ton of people would rather vote basically a useless borderline corpse of a Democrat than have Trump go for another four years.

[TGLS]

Incumbents tend to win. Trump lost because there was a pandemic. Biden won't lose unless there's a disaster of equally grand magnitude.

Overly simplistic.

Well, yes, but also no. Look at the last four incumbent presidents to lose an election.

Hoover: The Great Depression.
Carter: Iranian Hostage Crisis and a prolonged period of economic stagnation.
Bush the Elder: Amongst other things, a huge perception of economic decline (the tax thing and the cold war ending didn't help either)
Trump: A pandemic perceived as mismanaged and a resulting economic catastrophe.

If the economy's doing OK, and there's no obvious failure on Biden's watch, I think it's a pretty safe bet he'll be returning to the White House in 2025. By corallary, I don't really see a parallel Donald Trump losing the election in a world without a pandemic.

[McAvoy]

Incumbents tend to win. Trump lost because there was a pandemic. Biden won't lose unless there's a disaster of equally grand magnitude.

Overly simplistic.

Well, yes, but also no. Look at the last four incumbent presidents to lose an election.

Hoover: The Great Depression.
Carter: Iranian Hostage Crisis and a prolonged period of economic stagnation.
Bush the Elder: Amongst other things, a huge perception of economic decline (the tax thing and the cold war ending didn't help either)
Trump: A pandemic perceived as mismanaged and a resulting economic catastrophe.

If the economy's doing OK, and there's no obvious failure on Biden's watch, I think it's a pretty safe bet he'll be returning to the White House in 2025. By corallary, I don't really see a parallel Donald Trump losing the election in a world without a pandemic.

Who knows. Trump could have still lost because alot of people specifically the moderates were tired of him. Moderates got him elected due to their hatred or dislike of Hilary.

Trump also got his base and the Democrat base to vote as well. All because of Trump.

Now it is possible that less people would have voted for Biden if they had to show up as opposed to mail in their vote.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I think the OP means to say: the puppet masters running Biden are running again.

To quote Q, oh please.

[Frustration]

To quote Q, oh please.

I believe you're young enough not to have been alive during the Reagan presidency. Also, you're fairly foolish and an ideologue. So you really aren't equipped to recognize how Biden's presidency gives similar vibes to Reagan's.