Non - US views on last night’s election debate

[rode_kater]

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory,
it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319
square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT
speak for the rest of our country!

Thanks for giving figures how lop-sided the US population distribution is (and how lop-sided counties are divided). I agree with saying that 5 counties don't represent the nation, neither can you say that the rest of the country is so uniform that they accurately are represented by Trump. This is clearly an artefact of a two-party system.

Here we have students, the elderly, the religious, the environmentalists, the farmers, the labourers, the families, the wealthy, the business owners which all find different parties to vote for and all have different interests. The idea that a single person could represent a majority of those people simultaneously is actually almost preposterous. There is a reason why at EU level the word "president" means "mouthpiece"; their personal opinion is largely irrelevant. The president of the European Council doesn't even have a vote.

I think that until the US (and the UK) realise that their "strong and stable" majorities come at the expense of actually representing the people, we're in for a rough ride.

[denimini]

Governments are created for humans, not rocks, plants and animals so the numbers of population matter more that land area.There are important management implications about rocks, plants and animals but that is because of human activity. If there were no humans there would be no governments.
In Australia we have diverse densities of population and the electorate areas are created to allow close to equal voting populations for their representative candidate. Sydney has an area of 44 square kilometres compared with my electorate of 393,413 square kilometers for a similar voting population. This seems to work OK for fair representation.

I think that having just 2 major political parties is a problem (3 in Australia with 2 forming a coalition). One might win with 51% of the vote and govern pandering to the few major corporate campaign donors. I am quite happy with minority governments because there is a lot more dialogue considering important decisions, particularly when there are some good independents involved.

In many countries Presidents or Prime Ministers are just figure heads or party leaders, although we had one who made what he called "Captain's calls". Heads of governments who wield more power can be a problem although there are exceptions like Lee Kuan Yew.

The other problem is manipulative media, mainstream and social, clouding informed voting.

[moonshadow]

I'm sorry but that line about a small percentage of high population cities controlling the outcome of every "at large" election is just plan right wing nonsense.

If even half of the democratic voters in the rural areas of the country didn't vote, that measly three million votes wouldn't be enough to sway the office to the left.

The reason the GOP wants to retain the electoral college is obvious, they wouldn't win elections any other way.

The handbrake on runaway lefism takes place in the Senate, where each state has two votes.

The current system ignores those 3 million votes, and it also ignores RURAL LIBERAL[0] VOTERS like myself. It's just that plain and simple.

If the GOP wants to win those votes they need to do it the right way... change their attitude.

Separate church and state

Treat minority or non-Christian religions with the same equal protection and due process.. that includes Satanism, [peaceful] Islam, Paganism, etc.

Dignity and fair laws for LGBTQ people

Racial equality in policing (a.k.a. Black Lives Matter too)

Socialize Healthcare just like the feds have done with retirement and those 65 and older.

Do just those simple things and I bet they can even retain the pro-life position and scoop up those few million votes... I know they'd have mine. After all, you can't really call yourself "pro-life" if you don't agree with the last three particularly.

[0] Classical definition.

[Shilo]

I find it very difficult to stomach that a system that favours large land areas over large populations is considered fair. The logical extension of this is that large land owners have more votes than those who live in cramped conditions This sounds like a form of feudalism I thought only still evident in certain Middle Eastern states.

[Faldaguy]

Thanks guys for reiterating that it is people that count; not land areas, counties, cities or rocks. Right now, the right leaning parties probably can't win with the electoral college either -- thus they are engaged in wide-spread voter suppression disguised with multiple 'rationales' but clearly blatant manipulation, immoral, fraudulent and contrary to any so-called 'democratic' value the country was founded upon.

[rode_kater]

Thanks guys for reiterating that it is people that count; not land areas, counties, cities or rocks.

The flip-side to this is that the effect of a person's vote should somehow be correlated with distance. That is, is it correct that 5 million people in one corner of a country can fundamentally impact the lives of people living thousands of kilometres away? But this raises basic questions about how fair a federal structure the size of the US can actually be. Does a federal government actually need to do all the things it does, or can things be better organised at a more local level?

We have the fundamental principle of subsidiarity: things that don't need to be managed on a (inter)national level shouldn't be. As much as I like the effect of Roe vs Wade, the idea that such a thing would be decided by a 12 unelected judges 40+ years ago feels deeply weird to me. These sorts of things should be determined democratically on a local level.

There is a tension here, as we all have the same planet, and stuff like pandemics are not localised, so what is considered "the right level" is often unclear, but it's a debate we should be having, and it's not happening now in the US (AFAICT).

[crfriend]

The flip-side to this is that the effect of a person's vote should somehow be correlated with distance. That is, is it correct that 5 million people in one corner of a country can fundamentally impact the lives of people living thousands of kilometres away? But this raises basic questions about how fair a federal structure the size of the US can actually be.

Oh, about as fair as the Soviet Union or the Peoples Republic of China...

[Faldaguy]

by crfriend » Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:26 am

rode_kater wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:13 am
The flip-side to this is that the effect of a person's vote should somehow be correlated with distance. That is, is it correct that 5 million people in one corner of a country can fundamentally impact the lives of people living thousands of kilometres away? But this raises basic questions about how fair a federal structure the size of the US can actually be.
Oh, about as fair as the Soviet Union or the Peoples Republic of China...
Re: Non - US views on last night’s election debate
by rode_kater » Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:13 am

Faldaguy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:06 pm
Thanks guys for reiterating that it is people that count; not land areas, counties, cities or rocks.

OK, at the risk of overly exciting our prejudices -- I am posting a piece of "humor" (that tongue in cheek,) "borders" on jingoistic. This piece is a translation from Spanish so the English is a bit rough. It is not my writing, and was clearly written from a more left leaning than right leaning perspective -- but the supposed facts could easily be altered to make the piece read from the right's perspective. I have taken out a couple sentences that might have been a bit more inflammatory. The reason I'm posting it is because it can provoke some insights into the issue of land mass vs voter density; and issues raised in this thread about the electoral college and fair representational systems. Please do not take it as fact; opinion, erudite--just chuckle where you can and wonder about the ways we can work as a whole rather than in isolation. I also recognize this is an "International" site and many of the things we post here are not of universal interest or of much import--so let's keep it cool and "off topic" remembering that we as SC members have a great deal we do enjoy in common throughout this forum.

Ignore the grammar -- it is translation.

A joke is circulating that allegedly announces what would result in the division between the Blue States (Democratic Majority) and the Reds (Republicans) ′′ mood for the day

DEAR RED STATES; WE GO.
We've decided we're leaving. We plan to form our own country, and we take the other blue states with us.
In case you didn't know, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.
We believe that this division will be beneficial for the nation, and especially for the people of the new country that will include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and Washington, D.C.
We would also be touched by the vast majority of major ports. So good luck with importing goods inside or outside the country affordable.
Costco, Starbucks and Boeing is also up to us. You get Texas, Oklahoma and all slave states.
We have the most laboratories in stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get the Statue of Liberty. To you Branson, Missouri.
We have Intel, Apple and Microsoft. You guys will get WorldCom.
We have 85 percent of US venture capital and business owners. You Mississippi River.
We would get two-thirds of tax revenues; you guys would have to get the red states to pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower.... we have a lot of families happier and more intact.
Please note that California will be pro-choice of life and anti-war....
With the blue states unified, we'll have a firm control of 80 percent of the country's freshwater, more than 90 percent of pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, the 95 percent of US quality wines. (You could serve French wines at state protocol dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high-tech industry, most of the US. U.S. Low sulphur coal, all living sequoia, drought and condors, all Ivy League Universities and Seven Sisters -- Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton and Yale; and also Mount Holyoke, Vassar, Smith, Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, Barnard and Radcliffe; plus UCLA UCB, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT....
In the Red States, on the other hand, you'll have to deal with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected healthcare costs), 92 percent of all American mosquitoes... nearly 100 percent of all tornadoes, 90 percent of hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and Rand Paul...
We have Hollywood and Yosemite thank you so much.
Also, 62 percent of you believe life is sacred unless we are discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say evolution is just a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you think.... and you can have all the new cases of COVID-19 because you're you prefer not to wear masks.
Peace, change and out!

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Moonshadow, Faldaguy, well done!