American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think the point was just that under our Westminster system whoever gets the most votes doesn’t necessarily get to form government. It isn’t common for a party to get fewer votes and win more seats but it does happen sometimes. I don’t think it’s a good thing in general as it can reflect an imbalance in the democratic power of certain geographic voting blocs. In the US the issue arises from the over representation of rural areas as a result of the electoral college. The causes are different in Canada but it’s a similar principle.

With that said I think if Biden wins by 10 points he wins the electoral college in a landslide. If he is really up 10 points then even Georgia and Texas might be on the table. The problem arises where he is up by around 2%, which is what happened with Clinton in 2016.

I might be in the minority, but I don't think popular vote is all that important as long as the discrepancy isn't totally off the mark. We all talk about Hillary winning the popular vote, but it was close enough in a country with 350 million people, that it is pretty insignificant IMO.

In a country like Canada in particular where some ridings and districts are massive and sparsely populated, there comes a point that you need to draw the line and admit that some groups of people need their own representation in parliament even if their population is lower. Unless a country is small and homogeneous, majority rules is a bad idea.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In a country like Canada in particular where some ridings and districts are massive and sparsely populated, there comes a point that you need to draw the line and admit that some groups of people need their own representation in parliament even if their population is lower.

In theory, sure. In reality MPs don't provide local representation, they're just there to vote with their party.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by SebC

In theory, sure. In reality MPs don't provide local representation, they're just there to vote with their party.

I don't know if I agree with that. Sure they vote with the party, but that doesn't mean that MPs don't bring forward concerns, or work with constituents to better their communities.

Just this past week one of our local MPs toured fishing communities across the area with the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries.

MPs, and provincial MLAs also bring lots of funding on a micro-scale.

Some are more effective than others; some do bugger all and get by because they're a member of the right party; some focus solely on the community work and not the big picture stuff; some work toward being/as a cabinet minister and affecting change on a macro-scale.

Some are good, some are bad, but the job is more than simply voting 'yay' or 'nay' in the house.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I might be in the minority, but I don't think popular vote is all that important as long as the discrepancy isn't totally off the mark. We all talk about Hillary winning the popular vote, but it was close enough in a country with 350 million people, that it is pretty insignificant IMO.

In a country like Canada in particular where some ridings and districts are massive and sparsely populated, there comes a point that you need to draw the line and admit that some groups of people need their own representation in parliament even if their population is lower. Unless a country is small and homogeneous, majority rules is a bad idea.

Just make the riding big enough that it has roughly the same number of voters as the smaller urban ones, there are consequences for choosing to live in the middle of nowhere, some good, cheap housing, some bad, you have to drive hours to get an xray or see your MP.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Just make the riding big enough that it has roughly the same number of voters as the smaller urban ones, there are consequences for choosing to live in the middle of nowhere, some good, cheap housing, some bad, you have to drive hours to get an xray or see your MP.

It doesn't make sense to make ridings so big that they end up straddling geographical and economic areas where the people may have much different concerns. If my town is a logging town, but the majority of the riding is agricultural and MP is catering to that base, it is not meaningful representation.

There needs to be a comprise between population and what is practical enough to serve the needs of the people in the riding.

And it isn't always a choice for people to live in remote areas. Sometimes they were just born there and didn't have the financial or educational opportunities to move. There is industry in remote areas and we need people to live there. I mean really, most people don't love to live there, but it's all they know.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It doesn't make sense to make ridings so big that they end up straddling geographical and economic areas where the people may have much different concerns. If my town is a logging town, but the majority of the riding is agricultural and MP is catering to that base, it is not meaningful representation.

There needs to be a comprise between population and what is practical enough to serve the needs of the people in the riding.

And it isn't always a choice for people to live in remote areas. Sometimes they were just born there and didn't have the financial or educational opportunities to move. There is industry in remote areas and we need people to live there. I mean really, most people don't love to live there, but it's all they know.

I'm in East Vancouver, it also has vastly differnent political needs and groups within it, we all have to just suck it up, I dont have much of anything in common with South East Asian immigrants but if they make up the largest voting bloc in my riding thats my problem, while the poor schmoes on the downtown eastside have their own needs and are just as stuck there

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'm in East Vancouver, it also has vastly differnent political needs and groups within it, we all have to just suck it up, I dont have much of anything in common with South East Asian immigrants but if they make up the largest voting bloc in my riding thats my problem, while the poor schmoes on the downtown eastside have their own needs and are just as stuck there

What issues are going to be vastly different for Asian urbanites in East Van compared to people of different backgrounds? I would think the big one, like jobs, social services, infrastructure, transit, housing, healthcare, etc... would all be the same. At least the things being put in place will be accessible to everyone.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You should link the actual article. Nothing surprising, here, just what you'd expect of Trump.

Article was linked to in the first post .

That said, Kootenay you make an interesting point below. A reporter or two on twitter was wondering if this would even matter - a trump supporter is not going to believe it.

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Losers and suckers.

In normal times saying something so incredibly stupid would probably lose you the election on the spot. Today in the U.S. it probably won't even move the needle.

[SebC]

Honestly, FlamesAddiction is just making the case for multi-member ridings. A socialist in Alberta doesn't have great representation either.

[RedHot25]

Washington Post is just now also reporting similar content:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...outputType=amp

[Mr.Coffee]

So these people gave the ultimate sacrifice, their life, and they are “losers”?

Okay Donald. Nothing that guy has said has mattered since about month 2 of his presidency so I’m not sure why the media doesn’t just shut down any and all publication about him. If I ran the Washington Post for example I would make sure his name and all of his stupid family are never mentioned in my papers ever, pretty much. None of it matters anyway and it’s all lies so I’ve wondered what the point of reporting on this piece of #### is for about two years. The guy exclusively cares about himself, is a criminal, a walking disgusting disaster and horrendous leader- worst in American history and partially responsible for destroying America. Why are you giving him anymore attention? So dumb.

[ernie]

It won’t make his cult members turn against him...the number of times I’ve seen things like “dodging an immoral war is a good thing” and “McCain committed war crimes” from that crowd says all you need to know.

However, every time these types of things come out he bleeds a bit of soft support and certainly doesn’t gain any. Look at the military times poll this week where Trump trails Biden among service members....in 2016 he led Clinton by 33 points.

[PsYcNeT]

Yeah it's all "can't believe anonymous sources, fake news" from Trumpers about this one.

As someone said, literally won't move the needle.

[CroFlames]

His supporters will simply claim fake news and move on.

There is literally nothing he can do that will make them not vote for him.

They'll just recall the one time he hugged the flag.

[GirlySports]

It's not even a Trump thing. Republicans just vote Republican. They buy into the fear that liberals are out to destroy the world.

[La Flames Fan]

Does anyone else feel that the Biden/Harris strategy is just "Trump is Bad, Vote for Us"?

I haven't seen a lot of messaging about what a Biden/Harris ticket will do for the country. I have an uneasy feeling that this strategy might backfire.

[CaptainCrunch]

You'd think that this election would be a slam dunk for Biden/Harris, though I think that there is a lot of work to be done in the next two months, and I really don't think they've resonated as strongly as they could have.


The message of "Trump is bad m'kay" isn't going to work. To give the devil his due he's effectively split the voter base and is creating a us against them narrative that I think Biden is not judging properly.


At the end of the day with 2 months left, I don't expect any kind of real platform out of Trump, I expect that he's going to whip up his rhetoric with the evil left socialist communist nazi's are coming (sorry bad joke). And its going to be effective. Trump also gain if the riots and protests continue to the election. Its pure fear based politics.


It feels like bringing in Harris hasn't bumped approval like I thought it would.


I also don't trust polls in this case.

[photon]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

Does anyone else feel that the Biden/Harris strategy is just "Trump is Bad, Vote for Us"?

I haven't seen a lot of messaging about what a Biden/Harris ticket will do for the country. I have an uneasy feeling that this strategy might backfire.

Is it a strategy? Or is it just what gets the most attention in the media?

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Washington Post is just now also reporting similar content:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...outputType=amp

“I would be willing to swear on anything that I never said that about.... ,”

Who cares if he will swear on anything? That is a completely meaningless response from a guy who has been a proven liar over and over again. The fact that anyone puts weight into that type of response is the real disgrace here.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

Is it a strategy? Or is it just what gets the most attention in the media?

Fair enough, I was wondering about that too. It may get lost. To the disservice of the voters in actuality.

Hopefully the debates change this a little.